Religion and women.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Jan 12, 2021.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,437
    From your own words - "It is better if the man provides for his family"

    That is a judgment that a man should provide for his family (and a woman should stay at home to raise the child) because in your mind it is better. Simple English.
    See above.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    Don't bother, unless he gets back to you with an explanation of why he is promoting that junk.

    Jan always wants everybody else to do all the work, while never doing any himself. He's a dishonest hack.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,578
    Yea, it's interesting isn't it that you, an atheist, and I, a believer...have issues with Jan? lol I think this shows that not all believers think identically on life stuff, and even though he and I may agree on Scriptural interpretations, we part ways in that he seems a bit too dogmatically legalistic, imo.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,437
    Jan is more interested in preaching, attacking and antagonizing than discussing. But I will give you my perspective on this.

    Society in general, and Christianity in particular, has oppressed women for centuries. There is plenty of evidence of this that I won't list in detail. Some quick examples codified into law are women being denied the vote, denied the right to own land and denied the right to resist sex when demanded by their husband. In society we see examples of this in women's vows in marriage, the portrayal of women and men in popular media, women being denied the ability to become clergy and how we treat women vs men for different transgressions.

    This was certainly not caused by Christianity or by any specific example in the Bible. No one sane takes the Bible literally. (Or more accurately, if they do, we lock them up or execute them for their crimes.) Christianity was more informed by the society in which it developed than vice versa, and thus all those passages about how rape was OK if you paid her father, and how to treat female slaves, and how Moses ordered his soldiers to rape the virgins they conquered are more reflections of the experiences of the authors of the various books in the Bible than any sort of divine inspiration.

    Still, even though we do not take the Bible seriously in that way any more, a lot of people use it to justify some pretty bad behavior. The slaveowners in the South who used the Bible to justify slavery is one example. Jan's use of the Bible to justify making the man the head of the family and the woman the stay-at-home care provider is a more local example. These attitudes are part of the reason we still have serious inequalities when it comes to men's vs women's rights here in the US. It's important to identify those attitudes and expose them IMO.

    Going forward there are a lot of good indicators. The MeToo movement has resulted in a lot of women coming forward to name their rapists and assaulters, and even powerful men have been taken down as a result of their assaults and rapes. That's a powerful message to other men considering doing such things. The examples we see of women CEO's, women athletes and even women clergy are starting to break down the artificial barriers our male-oriented society has put in place to keep men in power.

    But still we see example like Trump and Jan - which means we have a ways to go.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    Moderator note: Jan Ardena has been warned for deliberately and knowingly telling lies, which is a breach of our posting guidelines.
    ----


    Clearly, when you say you think it is "better" that circumstances A pertain, rather than circumstances B, you're recommending that people should take steps to promote circumstances A, to the best of their ability.

    Therefore, it is a deliberate and knowing lie to say "I didn’t give an opinion on how man or woman should live", and this is why you have received a warning, Jan.

    As an addendum, I am willing to cut you some slack on this if you have received this warning due to your lack of care in expressing yourself clearly. If that is the case, then this matter will be very easily cleared up.

    You claim in your quoted post that the view that "the man should provide and the woman should stay home and be a full time mother", as billvon put it, is not one that you think is an ideal or appropriate situation in family life - i.e. specifically not the situation that you think should happen in an ideal world. Is that correct?

    If so, then all you need to do is to post that you do not think "It is better if f the man provides for his family, so that his wife can be a full time mother, for the sake of the child, and the structure in which the child is to develop", but rather that you believe some other family structure is preferable. You should make sure that you specify what family structure or structures you are recommending, and say which ones should be promoted above the one you have said is "better" previously. You can rank them, if you like.

    In other words, you will need to be clear that you are not recommending the situation you previously said was "better", and you need to explain clearly what breakdown in your language made you write something that reads just like you were recommending it.

    You might also like to explain how you could think that situation A would be "better" than situation B, yet not recommend that people should do their best to bring about situation A rather than B, if it is within their power.

    If you can explain yourself, I will consider removing this warning from your points total. Then, you will have learned a useful lesson about expressing yourself more clearly, and everyone wins. Agreed?
     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,728
    Heh..

    I have heard you make this claim numerous times in this thread..

    The "nuclear family" was never natural. It was essentially forced on the world by Europeans and the English when they colonised the world.

    Outside of Europe, particularly outside of England and other countries touched by Catholicism and Christianity of the wealthy elite and gendered property ownership, the manner in which children were raised was in forms of community or tribes which comprised of extended family. There was no 'mum, dad and 2 kids'.. That is a European construct.

    African Americans come from a long line of community driven child rearing and most importantly, the value of the woman within those communities.

    The peculiarity of the Black family, which has always been of deep interest to the state and colonizing forces of white supremacy, is this: the strength and pride in Black femininity, motherhood and yes, matriarchal tradition.

    I want to make something very clear: the most brutal social structure that Western civilization has managed to force on the present-day Black family—the African family—is the alienating nuclear family structure. This structure not only eroded the modes that Africans had long thrived on and carried out in their tradition, it drove the production of social and environmental ruin.

    [...]

    In addition to the dispersal of families, the nuclear family model discourages African-rooted practices such as community fostering, fictive kinship, social fathering and other means by which Black people have counteracted the shearing forces of white supremacy.

    The theories of historic race essentialism (such as that of French historian Jules Michelet) deemed these values to mark Africa as “woman,” and “her races” as “feminine.” Hundreds of years later, the theory proffered by the U.S. government’s Nixon administration on the Black family (commonly known as the Moynihan Report) concludes that “the Negro community has been forced into a matriarchal structure which, because it is [too] out of line with the rest of the American society, seriously retards the group as a whole, and imposes a crushing burden on the Negro male, and, in consequence, on a great many Negro women as well.”

    This, of course, is hogwash. The nuclear family, and its individualized units led exclusively by patriarchs, are not of Black traditions
    .​

    And it was not just African Americans who were forced to adhere to a Western, predominately white and English policy. Native Americans and other cultures also suffered as a result.

    It spread, throughout the world, leaving cultures and communities in disarray, trying to adhere and live up to a standard that was and continues to be completely unnatural in most parts of the world. The role of women, the maternal line, if you will, was paramount. Now it is not and their communities are paying for it. The reason can be placed directly at the feet of colonialist, who invaded other countries with their religious ideology and the persistence that it is the norm since then.

    The nuclear family is not natural. It never was.
     
    James R and parmalee like this.
  10. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,578
    Where did I post that?
    Where did I post that?
    You should reread some of the previous posts, therein lies the answer.

    You are projecting - you are reluctant to read and really take in what I'm trying to say, throughout this thread. I'm not looking to change you, but you should be aware that your opinions are demeaning to women. You have dismissed women, broad brushed us all, as ''emotional'' and I'd surmise by that you mean, ''not worth respecting.''

    ''The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.'' - Einstein

    I can't keep repeating myself, silly.

    Now, you're getting it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    I think Jan is trying to use your own religion against you. He's trying to play a power game by "catching you out" by selectively quoting scriptures that he himself doesn't necessarily believe in or follow, all the while implying that if you were a righteous Christian, then you'd be following them, or something like that.

    Meanwhile, Jan himself isn't even brave enough to own up to which religion he follows. He is afraid to put his own religion up for scrunity in the same way he's looking at yours. He always has been afraid to do that. I'm fairly sure his background is ISKCON (Hare Krishna), but he hasn't got the guts to stand up for his religion.

    The other lie that Jan is trying to push on you is that you can't be a "real" Christian unless you slavishly follow every literal word in the bible. Jan himself isn't a Christian, but he likes to pretend that he follows "scripture". In reality, his own religious beliefs are a mish-mash selection from various different religions, cherry picked to suit himself, and always discardible whenever they get in the way of some argument he wants to make in the moment.

    As an atheist, my moral foundations are humanist. In deciding what is right and wrong, I look at things like wellbeing and harm, and ask what kinds of actions best promote wellbeing and minimise harm. Since my morality isn't based in any dogma, I can look at various "scriptures" in an unbiased way. Some scriptures are good, morally; others are harmful. There is no need, in my opinion, for anybody to have to accept the whole package of a book such as the bible, say, without questioning it.

    Realise that Jan's approach is always more "legalistic" when he's backed into a corner. His modus operandi in such situations is to start asking ridiculous questions like "You say 'it', but what does 'it' actually mean?" or to say things like "When I said A was better than B, I didn't mean anybody should try to make A happen, rather than B". Wriggle room and plausible deniability has always been Jan's dishonest, cowardly refuge.
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    16,216
    Break , I think is needed here , half an hour , week ...
     
  13. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,578
    Ah ha, this make perfect sense. I didn't realize that he doesn't follow the same faith as me, but is merely ''using'' it against me, as you say. Interesting.

    Regarding humanism - I think that there is always something positive to glean from nearly any ideology, it's the dogma perhaps that gets in the way, yea? Even some atheists at times, can be a bit dogmatic. (Richard Dawkins comes to mind) Curious, have you ever read the Bible, in an objective text-book kind of way? When you don't apply preconceived notions, or view it as trying to sell ya something, it can serve as a different reading experience.

    Your ''analysis'' of Jan...I could use your skills when it comes to difficult people in my offline life. ^_^
     
  14. river

    Messages:
    16,216
    Highlighted

    Wegs ; yes Dogma gets in the way .
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    Off you go, then.
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    16,216
    Why the hurry ?
     
  17. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,141


    The state has never been able to cope with or comprehend decentralization--a bit too much of that liberty, sorority and equality, I suppose. With some few exceptions, anthropologists could not even get a semi-coherent read on such traditions until well late into the twentieth century.
     
  18. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,919
    So if the husband loves his wife, the order is acceptable?
    If you do, then please state why you think the response you made to P82 was justified?
     
  19. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,141
    How did you arrive at this conclusion? I mean, I confess I'm not exactly a regular reader of Jan's unsettling missives, but I--and I know several others have expressed the same--have never been able to get a clear sense of what tradition he follows. Moreover, it kinda seems to have shifted about quite a bit over the years.
     
  20. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,919
    You want me to respond to you hissy-fits, or you’re going to ban me. Is that where you’re going with this crap? It looks like you’re going to ban mr gestapo policeman
     
  21. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,578
    If you're speaking about the Bible passage - ''loves his wife as Christ so loved the Church.'' The paradigm falls apart if men expect their wives to respect them, but they're say abusive...or drug addicts...or not following the faith, themselves. It's a tough passage, because it is an instruction on sacrifice. I think that's more of the point with it than God wanting marriage to be a power play - men over women.

    I've journeyed back to post 82, and there is a lot to it. What quote were you referring to?
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    16,216
    Easy people ....
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    16,216
    The equality of both sexes matters . Respect . The growth of Humanity , the Advancement of Humanity , is about both sexes .
     

Share This Page