What I think...


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : What I think...

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 5 · Next
Author Message
Profile darkangelx
Send message
Joined: 15 Oct 03
Posts: 25
Credit: 437,437
RAC: 49
United States
Message 300745 - Posted: 9 May 2006, 8:09:53 UTC

This is of course my opinion so dont flip out...

I will gladly admit that what I am about to say was inspired by a book of fiction, the Di Vinci Code, some of the facts presented within cannot be ignored.

As I recall packs, groups of animals etc one thing remains. While yes there is a dominent male, most of the pride/community is run by a female.

This is something we have gone away from in terms of our way of life, our religion, our work place etc.

I believe that men are ruining the world. Before you freak out, please read everything first. The reason I say this is, the role of the woman has changed. They should be the leaders if not in whole, in equal part. That is the way of nature. Balance in all things. Yin and Yang.

Most religions show men as the dominant presence but that is simply not the case. I think we need to reject religions (Christianity , Islam) and anything thing else that demonizes women in anyway. This is historically false and unjust to our partners. Hell the bible starts out blaming women for sin. We must change the way we think one person at a time. Embrace the love of women as equals. Do not force them to cover thier faces. Women are to be desired because they are beautiful.

I think the Pagans were closer to enlightment than the Pope will ever be. I am not a Pagan myself in fact I think all organized religions are crazy. However I think the balance has tipped too far one direction and we must correct it or face the consequences of our actions(or lack thereof).

I am not trying to start a holy war, in fact, I want to prevent them for all times.
____________

Plantery Society Member

Profile darkangelx
Send message
Joined: 15 Oct 03
Posts: 25
Credit: 437,437
RAC: 49
United States
Message 300764 - Posted: 9 May 2006, 8:41:57 UTC - in response to Message 300745.

Wow views but no replies, please by all means discuss. I am open to debate/discussion.
____________

Plantery Society Member

Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7407
Credit: 76,869
RAC: 41
United States
Message 300789 - Posted: 9 May 2006, 9:27:43 UTC - in response to Message 300745.

This is of course my opinion so dont flip out...

I will gladly admit that what I am about to say was inspired by a book of fiction, the Di Vinci Code, some of the facts presented within cannot be ignored.

As I recall packs, groups of animals etc one thing remains. While yes there is a dominent male, most of the pride/community is run by a female.

This is something we have gone away from in terms of our way of life, our religion, our work place etc.

I believe that men are ruining the world. Before you freak out, please read everything first. The reason I say this is, the role of the woman has changed. They should be the leaders if not in whole, in equal part. That is the way of nature. Balance in all things. Yin and Yang.


This depends on what animal species in nature you choose to study. It varies wildly. In short I don't agree with your premise that nature behaves this way nor do I believe that applying behaviors found in lower animals to the complex human construct is valuable. We're not troglodites. We're Rational Animals using deeply complex abstract concepts to organize our thoughts of the world around us.

As far as the Da Vinci Code is concerned, I have not read this book, I have read at least two of the antecedant books that are purportedly 'nonfiction' (partially correct really) and don't quite know what it is you're asserting when you mention it.

As far as your comments on religion are concerned.....why oppose only 'organized' religion? Is it less harmful to the mind and life of man when it's disorganized and chaotic? But I do agree with you that in the whole it's harmful.

____________
Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Laurel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Oct 05
Posts: 9
Credit: 37,296
RAC: 0
Message 300871 - Posted: 9 May 2006, 11:39:45 UTC - in response to Message 300764.

Wow views but no replies, please by all means discuss. I am open to debate/discussion.


Don't be discouraged by a lack of immediate response. You have opened a subject that is very far-reaching in scope, and warrants more than quick responses that can only touch upon the surface or a very small aspect of it.

I have also read "The DaVinci Code," and the book is certainly an eye-opener in the philosophical sense. It's real value lies in the fact that it makes the reader think outside the lines with regard to the history of the church and its subjugation of women. Indeed, from any realistic point of view, it does seem that organized religion has done more to denigrate the importance of women than any other factor. Insofar as religion occupies such a prominent place in society, it has influenced all other aspects of civilization -- social, political, economical and familial.

If you mean that men are ruining the world in the sense that "males" are ruining the world, I disagree. It would be much fairer to say that religion is ruining the world. The fact that men are the predominant decision-makers now is only the consequence of the religious infiltration into our lives; and, as you noted, this can be changed. I completely agree with you that a balance of power among men and women would be the ideal solution to the socio-political problems we have faced throughout history and still face today.

Unfortunately, change is a difficult and tedious process. It is encouraging to note, however, that science and industrial technologies have freed us from slavish labors and are equalizing the playing field. No longer do men have to bear the grunt-work of hunting while women stay at home and raise children. Modern conveniences have made that division unnecessary. And yet, a tremendous pressure remains from the religionists and other conservatives to perpetuate the "men are in charge" attitude. Alas, we have a long, long way to go.

I want, mostly, to thank you for broaching the subject here. This is as good a forum as any other, and I find it particularly pleasing that we participants in S@H are more bent toward science than religion, for the most part, and can discuss this more rationally without resorting to dogmatic posturing. I too look forward to hearing what others think.
____________

Profile Jim McDonald
Send message
Joined: 21 Sep 99
Posts: 144
Credit: 603,850
RAC: 0
United States
Message 301045 - Posted: 9 May 2006, 15:07:56 UTC - in response to Message 300871.
Last modified: 9 May 2006, 15:21:54 UTC

The fact that men are the predominant decision-makers now is only the consequence of the religious infiltration into our lives


I think the roles of men and women are rooted in the emergence of the species, back in a time when women who were pregnant or caring for infants for most of their short lives were simply incapable of protecting themselves.

No argument that long after these once necessary roles became obsolete, they were mandated by religions.

The good news is that I've seen nothing but overall progress for both women and men in my lifetime. One of my early memories of big business dealings is Joan Crawford, the new chairman of Pepsi Cola and her intro to the board of directors: "Don't f*** with me, fellas!"

____________

Profile darkangelx
Send message
Joined: 15 Oct 03
Posts: 25
Credit: 437,437
RAC: 49
United States
Message 301695 - Posted: 10 May 2006, 8:51:28 UTC - in response to Message 301045.

The fact that men are the predominant decision-makers now is only the consequence of the religious infiltration into our lives


I think the roles of men and women are rooted in the emergence of the species, back in a time when women who were pregnant or caring for infants for most of their short lives were simply incapable of protecting themselves.

No argument that long after these once necessary roles became obsolete, they were mandated by religions.

The good news is that I've seen nothing but overall progress for both women and men in my lifetime. One of my early memories of big business dealings is Joan Crawford, the new chairman of Pepsi Cola and her intro to the board of directors: "Don't f*** with me, fellas!"

But until the rise of Christianity and the downfall of paganism, it was in fact quite popular to see woman as an equal. This is not something to do with the species, but social factors of the time that have sadly left things as they currently are, and I believe it is time for change.


As far as your comments on religion are concerned.....why oppose only 'organized' religion? Is it less harmful to the mind and life of man when it's disorganized and chaotic? But I do agree with you that in the whole it's harmful.


As for this, I believe in spirituality of one's self without a middle man to reach enlightenment or the need to accept money for it. Most 'organized' religions do this.

This depends on what animal species in nature you choose to study. It varies wildly. In short I don't agree with your premise that nature behaves this way nor do I believe that applying behaviors found in lower animals to the complex human construct is valuable. We're not troglodites. We're Rational Animals using deeply complex abstract concepts to organize our thoughts of the world around us.


Ill rephrase, what other species do you know that teachs that their counterparts (male OR female) are lesser or should have less rights etc? (lets again assume mammals as we can agree most are smarter) Dolphins , chimps etc. Lets not talk about canabilistic insects :P
____________

Plantery Society Member

Profile David Stites
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 22 Jul 99
Posts: 286
Credit: 7,239,369
RAC: 4,052
United States
Message 301704 - Posted: 10 May 2006, 9:05:39 UTC
Last modified: 10 May 2006, 9:06:42 UTC

The fact that men are the predominant decision-makers now is only the consequence of the religious infiltration into our lives


{tone:rational and calm}
In the west men are the decision makers in the same way that Madonna's driver is in charge of her car. The idea that men are in charge was invented by one faction of the feminist movement in the late sixties to discredit men and take even more control away from them. It has been very successful, in the same way and for the same reasons that the weak HIV virus is successful. It disables the defenses that might be used to fight off the attack.

The primary cause of war is overpopulation and the consequent fighting over resources.
____________
David Stites
Pullman, WA USA

Profile darkangelx
Send message
Joined: 15 Oct 03
Posts: 25
Credit: 437,437
RAC: 49
United States
Message 301767 - Posted: 10 May 2006, 11:51:13 UTC - in response to Message 301704.

The fact that men are the predominant decision-makers now is only the consequence of the religious infiltration into our lives


{tone:rational and calm}
In the west men are the decision makers in the same way that Madonna's driver is in charge of her car. The idea that men are in charge was invented by one faction of the feminist movement in the late sixties to discredit men and take even more control away from them. It has been very successful, in the same way and for the same reasons that the weak HIV virus is successful. It disables the defenses that might be used to fight off the attack.

The primary cause of war is overpopulation and the consequent fighting over resources.

I disagree. Hundreds of years of being told that women are the cause of blah blah blah (pick random religion here, christianity/islam) Women were demonized because of men, and that simply is not the case. Women are and always will be , the lifegivers and should be revered. This is no longer the case.
____________

Plantery Society Member

Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1770
Credit: 235,506
RAC: 0
United States
Message 301773 - Posted: 10 May 2006, 12:06:17 UTC
Last modified: 10 May 2006, 12:07:19 UTC

While I agree that some women can be good leaders....Margret Thatcher for instance. I have to disagree with your rational.

Primates, humans in particular, do not operate the same as other pack animals, and women being the "lifegivers" is irrelavent. They can't do it alone and generally, outside of a modern society, lack the skills to sustain that life. That's not a cut on women, merely an observation not based on a work of fiction. Any woman can go to the grocery store, how many women can hunt/farm/fish with enough consistency to provide for a family. Let's face it, one bad harvest and you don't survive the winter.
____________

Profile enzed
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Mar 05
Posts: 346
Credit: 1,253,980
RAC: 0
New Zealand
Message 302547 - Posted: 11 May 2006, 10:26:56 UTC - in response to Message 301767.

you go for it darkangelx... stir them along {your grinning now}.
There have been many changes over the centuries, some have proven to be beneficial, others not. Remember Cleopatra, she ascended the throne when 17 and unfortunately died when just 39, remember the Mayan's, the Celtic's,what about the Druids, there are many others... each with a small part in the scheme of things... these cultures and movements held special places for the "life giver".
Science has already proven the functional and chemical difference between female and male brain structures. females are known to multitask more efficiently than males, males can do it but not as naturally/intuitively as females. yes males have other attributes and between both there is a synchronised harmony of differences.

darkangel.. is not what your realy saying, a lament of the gestures and attitudes that have eroded from society... do your male work colleagues hold open the door for you? give up a seat on the train for you?

what think you...?

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9026
Credit: 256,123
RAC: 125
Canada
Message 303388 - Posted: 12 May 2006, 16:21:08 UTC
Last modified: 12 May 2006, 17:15:58 UTC

Wow, there are some scary opinions in this thread and some outright misinterpretations of reality – to put it nicely.

A long long time ago most societies were matriarchal. It was obvious then that women were extremely important and that they created human life. Women were seen as the keepers of wisdom. They were often the hunters in most tribes and according to archaeologists most likely the inventors of farming. You can still see this in some African tribes were the men do little all day and are basically treated like pampered children. The women in those tribes do all the hunting, the farming and are responsible for trade with other tribes.

As people moved from hunter gatherers to farmers land became important. The idea of land ownership was invented, men discovered the relationship between sex and children and began to want ownership of their offspring. So began the change over from matriarchy to patriarchy. Women’s sexuality was controlled in order to ensure that men were not providing for someone else’s children. Religion was used, as usual, to control and keep the status quo and eventually women were relegated to nothing but chattel. Somewhere less in the hierarchy than pigs or sheep.

Over the last few thousand years the list of abuses against women has been horrific.. those that deny that are clearly ignorant and need to study their history. If you want me to go into I will, but it would take a long time.

David Stites seems to have forgotten that women only recently got the vote. Just a few decades ago they were unable to hold a bank account in their sole name. Husbands were allowed to beat their wives and if a woman wanted to leave she would lose her children. It was not so long ago that women were not allowed to gain degrees at university. They were discouraged from studying the sciences, Rosalind Franklin had her work stolen, with our which Crick and Watson would never have discovered DNA.

It’s funny how well women managed in this country during the second world war. They were allowed out of the kitchen and took over the traditionally male jobs while the men were at war. They thrived on it. They farmed, they did building work, they worked in factories. Everything that men could do, they did and they kept this country going.

In the 50s women who fell pregnant out of wedlock were locked up in insane asylums and subjected to ECT. The church and the male dominated society have tried to control women’s fertility for thousands of years. The pain and suffering caused by has been uncountable.

Science has tried to imply that women are less intelligent than men, because of smaller brain size..and yet in this country alone the school entrance exam boards had to have different pass grades for girls and boys because the girls in general scored consistently higher grades and there would have been a gender imbalance between girls and boys entering grammar schools in favour of girls.

So no, I am pretty sure that the feminist movement did not need to ‘invent’ the idea that men are in charge. Every women growing up in society for the last few thousand years has been well aware of it. All those women who receive lower pay than their male counterparts are well aware of it. All those women who get passed over for promotion in favour of male colleagues are well aware of it. All those women who work in the undervalued lower paid caring professions are well aware of it. All those women who are put on trial along with their rapist are well aware of it. All those women who are beaten by abusive partners are well aware of it. All those women who are left with the burden of childcare are well aware of it. All those women who see women used to sell products on the TV and in magazines are well aware of it. All those women who know that if she old or is not good looking she has less value than a good looking women (something that does not hold true for men) are well aware of it.

Do I really need to go on? Because if you don’t understand I can explain it some more.



____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 303479 - Posted: 12 May 2006, 19:15:47 UTC - in response to Message 303388.

Wow, there are some scary opinions in this thread and some outright misinterpretations of reality – to put it nicely.

- to put it 'lightly'...

You can debate all you want about which sex is 'superior'... But one thing is for sure, IN ALL SPECIES, the female provides for the offspring while the male protects them and keeps them safe... PERIOD! ;)

Odysseus
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Jul 99
Posts: 1786
Credit: 3,831,400
RAC: 351
Canada
Message 303481 - Posted: 12 May 2006, 19:32:15 UTC - in response to Message 303479.
Last modified: 12 May 2006, 19:33:21 UTC

... But one thing is for sure, IN ALL SPECIES, the female provides for the offspring while the male protects them and keeps them safe... PERIOD! ;)

Not true. Male sticklebacks, for example, nurture their offspring from the egg stage onward, as well as defending them. Ten seconds of Googling turned up this article on sexual selection and role reversal in animals; no doubt many more examples could be found.
____________

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9026
Credit: 256,123
RAC: 125
Canada
Message 303483 - Posted: 12 May 2006, 19:37:58 UTC - in response to Message 303479.
Last modified: 12 May 2006, 20:07:23 UTC

Wow, there are some scary opinions in this thread and some outright misinterpretations of reality – to put it nicely.

- to put it 'lightly'...

You can debate all you want about which sex is 'superior'... But one thing is for sure, IN ALL SPECIES, the female provides for the offspring while the male protects them and keeps them safe... PERIOD! ;)

Not true, in most cases in nature the male isn't even around...and the female often has to prevent the male from eating the young...or you have examples like penguin where males incubate the eggs, or sea horses where the males give birth..
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Zap de Ridder
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 9 Jan 00
Posts: 226
Credit: 830,497
RAC: 220
Netherlands
Message 303527 - Posted: 12 May 2006, 21:21:30 UTC
Last modified: 12 May 2006, 21:26:03 UTC

Chips, live could have been like heaven if only women would, in all there awareness during time, have been first to know that sex and children were releated. Bummer.
I do have a highly esteem of women wich is not strange having four elder sisters.:-)
And the sisters in Africa looks like to be behind, in the West they have the men working for them. Well I got more to say to it but my English is to bad and so it would take me about at least 30 times the time Es needed for her posting. Still love here postings to say the least.
Edit:
Her is you as well of course. It's not that I am talking if you are not to be adressed or around, au contraire.

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 303532 - Posted: 12 May 2006, 21:33:13 UTC - in response to Message 303481.
Last modified: 12 May 2006, 21:35:37 UTC

no doubt many more examples could be found.

I disagree...

If this were true, then why do we have to resort to such creatures as the stickleback, penguin, and sea horse for examples?

Stickleback - Female flat out abandons her offspring...
Penguin - Female cares for her chicks after the eggs hatch...
Sea Horse - One of the 'very few' exceptions to the rule. (male gives birth)...

With a few exceptions, these 'exceptions to the rule' are only found in fish and bird species, mainly due to their 'not so hostile' living environments...

All of which still prove my claim to be accurate anyway... ;)

Zap de Ridder
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 9 Jan 00
Posts: 226
Credit: 830,497
RAC: 220
Netherlands
Message 303544 - Posted: 12 May 2006, 21:55:22 UTC - in response to Message 303532.

fish and bird species, mainly due to their 'not so hostile' living environments...

Well I'm glad not to belong to either species.Did you ever look at there constant anxious behaviour?

Zap de Ridder
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 9 Jan 00
Posts: 226
Credit: 830,497
RAC: 220
Netherlands
Message 303549 - Posted: 12 May 2006, 22:02:27 UTC

Personaly I think women are the better gender. But I'm biased cos I love them. Have better laffes with them too.

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9026
Credit: 256,123
RAC: 125
Canada
Message 303552 - Posted: 12 May 2006, 22:09:57 UTC - in response to Message 303532.

I disagree...

If this were true, then why do we have to resort to such creatures as the stickleback, penguin, and sea horse for examples?

Stickleback - Female flat out abandons her offspring...
Penguin - Female cares for her chicks after the eggs hatch...
Sea Horse - One of the 'very few' exceptions to the rule. (male gives birth)...

With a few exceptions, these 'exceptions to the rule' are only found in fish and bird species, mainly due to their 'not so hostile' living environments...

All of which still prove my claim to be accurate anyway... ;)

Cats sometimes eat their kittens, rabbits sometimes eat their young too. What an example for us to follow.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Odysseus
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Jul 99
Posts: 1786
Credit: 3,831,400
RAC: 351
Canada
Message 303554 - Posted: 12 May 2006, 22:11:38 UTC - in response to Message 303532.

If this were true, then why do we have to resort to such creatures as the stickleback, penguin, and sea horse for examples

Well, even if we suppose these to be the only exceptions, they still disprove your categorical claim about "all species".
____________

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 5 · Next

Message boards : Politics : What I think...

Copyright © 2014 University of California