the role of women

Heh! The role of women is society wasn't *always* this way though...

Before the Neolithic Revolution period in human history, women had the social authority over men...In nearly *every* aspect of life. Men took care of the hunting & fighting, but women wre the bosses for almost everything else. Heritage & family property was always passed down through the women...Women made the real decisions on any situation that concerned the tribe/community as a whole.
About the same time as the Neolithic period, somehow (it was bound to happen eventually...) men figured out that they also had *something* to do with reproduction & began to grow jealous that they couldn't possess any of the family heritage. A new cry rang forth from the hills, "MINE!" From that point, the men took charge & started passing down thier personal effects to their *sons* instead of their wife's daughters...The wife was made as a prisoner of her own home because the husband *had to be sure that his children were actually made by him*. Women also did most of the actual agricultural work before that time, but now a prisoner in her home, men began to have war for the gain of property (Before this time, war was to defend/acquire prime hunting/gathering grounds...To protect/insure the tribe's food supply)...Slaves were acquired from war to work the fields...Property (such as livestock herds) was taken from the vanquished.

...And human *social* advancement has been sliding downhill ever since...


If you want my sources for this story, just pick up history books for the times before & during the Neolithic period...And compare them to the current "social situation". Oh sure, technology has progressed rapidly since the Neolithic times, but I really don't see much *social* advancement since then...Most of what *social* advancement I've seen since then took place in the 1960's...

I get exactly where you are coming from and I agree with your general ideas, but I don't think it was quite a simple as that sadly

Many people (quite often feminists) have liked to paint a picture of a wonderful matriachal society that existed before the men got power hungry and took over, and also cite the changing of faith from 'mother earth worship' to a more patriachal and monotheistic outlook as both a cause and effect of women's changing situation. I can suggest a book called 'a history of God' written by an ex nun called Karen Armstrong which studies this in great detail. I found some of her views somewhat simplistic and idealistic, but her theories on how spiritual symbols were stolen and then converted to representations of evil by the invading faiths of the day made quite a lot of sense to me. For example the serpent in Eden may have originally been the serpent of wisdom, and that our modern image of Satan complete with horns did not exist until the middle ages and is infact a corruption of the pagan gods Pan and Baal. And that a sexual woman was somewhat 'demonised' to over ride the Goddess/earth mother cults

A conclusion of hers was that women's social and religious status has been linked to the amount of wars kicking off at that period in time. As men are usually the better soldiers, in periods of warfare men would usually take the upper hand for the protection of a society. A more 'feminine' society which focusses on social advancement and enlightenment is a luxury of peacetime.

These are quite generalised views however and do not reflect the situation during the world wars where women gained much in equality mainly due to the need to have someone doing men's jobs while they were away fighting for their country.

If her views on warfare changing the social structure hold any water I would be curious as to what sparked this sudden period of violence. She blamed ancient norse patriachal invaders, but I had a lot of difficulty in accepting this fact. I do wonder if there was maybe a sudden climate change which caused droughts and food shortages, leading to land and resource wars? If there was it was possibly only a contributing factor combined with a lot of other complex factors



[Edited on 24-2-2003 by arc]

Ok, before monotheist religons, almost all religons had a powerful female being. When monotheist come along, women evil, men powerful, for the supreme being is male. Why? Women are the true powerful ones, for never seen a guy give birth. Women don't need men(turkey baster!) but the sperm. A man can't get a cup of female eggs, ejactulate in it, and have a kid. So maybe men were afraid that if they didn't control women the women would use their power, or not use it, to have kids. If you were forced(usually back then((4-6 thousnd years) a husband was chosen for them and that's that) tomarry but didn't want to have a kid could do certain things. One that I have heard of is used a shaved stick and well, ouch, but effective back then.

But if a man had power, if he controlled a woman, he could make her have his kids. Also, a man has a point on their body that if hit, or even hear of being hit, they are paralyzed with fear, women don't. So if men dominate the women, even though one swift kick could end it for the guy, but if women fearful of fighting back because other men would help the one she kicked, then they would be put down.

Also, to Il67, pornagraphy isn't degrading to women. There are nude male magazines that are pornagraphy. And I have never heard of playboy drugging a woman and forcing her to pose for the pictures. In other words, they do it on their own, not forced, so how is it degrading to women? But yes, kids act older than what they are. I don't understand the whole pay more to cover less thing though. A two dollar shirt that covers everything makes sense, a fiftey dollar shirt that covers just enough to be legal to wear on the street doesn't. And with the middle east, it doesn't make sense for the women to wear ten tons of black clothe while living in the desert! Isn't that just a wee bit warm? If living in 90 degree weather, I would be wearing shorts(real ones, not shorts that go down to mid shin that these teenage punks call shorts, those are high waters) and a tank top(not "wife beater" or whatever these teenage punks call them). Not big heavy black clothes.

I used to have the same issue with the clothes worn by middle eastern women until I discovered that the fabric they are made out of is actually quite light weight. And odd as this will sound black is actually a better colour as although it absorbs heat quicker it also emits it again quicker.

Also bear in mind that a lot of the people in the middle east are quite light skinned, in comparison to africans and the issue of sun burn, skin cancer and sun stroke is another reason to cover up. Plus if you're in a sandy environment and the wind gets up - you got a nice stinging grainy wind to contend with too. I know what I'd rather be wearing in those somewhat hostile conditions

On the subject of ancient contraception yes it was done, often by the use of a slippery elm stick and certain herbs. Interestingly slippery elm was outlawed some time ago and can only be got hold of in it's inert form. Another effort to control women's bodies maybe?

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Also, to Il67, pornagraphy isn't degrading to women. There are nude male magazines that are pornagraphy. And I have never heard of playboy drugging a woman and forcing her to pose for the pictures.

Actually, they're quite often coerced into it ("Oh, come on! It won't hurt! And it's a start toward a career!" -- only to find out just how bad it is when (8 years down the road) the men in the department find out that the new manager was in Playboy and start passing the magazine around. The woman never regains credibility.

Think about comic books. Put the women's outfits on men and then ask yourself, "would it be insulting for a guy to wear this?"

Ask yourself, "Why is it okay to show nude women on tv (including full frontal nudity) but forbidden to show more than a man's backside?" Or "Why do ads feature young, scantily clad women? Why not young scantily clad men in equal numbers?"

"If that philosophy works for you then please continue to follow it by all means - however questioning the past is my right as an individual and I will continue to do it!"

There is nothing wrong with questioning, don't get me wrong, but how many people do you know that dwell on the past? i.e. past relationships or a painful experience.

Sometimes the same thing can happen within the context of basic questions. It is a falicy of over-analysis. Let's say you are in high school (I know you are not) and you like a boy. Now you think, "Hey, I should talk to him and maybe we'll start hanging out and get closer." Then, instead of walking right over you procrastinate and he walks away. You missed your chance. Then you go home and think about it all night long. You had a chance and missed it, then made yourself sad all night long thinking about it.

This may not seem like a great example, but overanalyzing a situation can mean the death of it. The same study that gave me the facts in my first post also claims that women greatly overanalyze. My comment had the sole purpose of saying, "Don't dwell on something that may upset you." So go ahead and question things all you want, but as soon as you start getting upset with any of the answers, take a step back. You'll feel better.

if I was going to get upset here (which I'm not) I would suggest that your last post is patronising, slightly chauvanistic and another attempt to prove your alleged superiority in matters pertaining to the seeking of knowledge

however instead I'm going to ask if you have any relevant comments regarding some of the stuff other people have posted, or are you just going to continue to try and disuade me from analysing the past

and yes it is analysis, not dwelling - if I want to dwell I have a personal life and past to dwell on. Which in fact I don't do because I have learnt my own lessons on that one

"if I was going to get upset here (which I'm not) I would suggest that your last post is patronising, slightly chauvanistic and another attempt to prove your alleged superiority in matters pertaining to the seeking of knowledge"

And you claim you are not upset? I have spent years studying the proper approaches to learning. My intent toward your personal explorations of knowledge is nothing but positive. The previous post was simply a caution statement towards the possible problem of overanalysis. The claim that I am "chauvanistic" is a bit overdoing it. You may find that some facts are bothersome, because they do not put women, or men, in a perfect light, but that is only the truth. I have no reason to lie to you, nor myself. I am terrible with multitasking.. part of it is merely the fact that I am a man. Men and women both have problems in their approaches to learning and task management.

I did not think that I needed to sugar coat any of my information. You seemed to be understanding it just fine. If you want me to throw in "pro-woman" statements, I can. For example, children inherit their brain from their mother. For some reason, the genes that have to do with the development of intelligence are directly related to the mother's intelligence. I wish I knew more specifics because I found the study fascinating, but I do not. Even if this fact was proven to be false, I would still hold women's intelligence with high regards.

I somewhat agree with the other posts, but I'm more intested in you gathering information, since you were the one to start the topic. I believe Byrd's last post was a slight exaggeration of the facts, but I agree the point that women are often marked by bad experiences with magazines like Playboy. For the sake of the forum, I attempted to steer clear of specific issues, especially those that don't involve religion.

Perhaps if you shared more of your views on the subject, we could all judge the best way to approach the topic, in terms of what information you might specifically be looking for. What do you think?

I have posted this before, but I have no clue why my thread was deleted. Perhaps some Christian administrators on this board do not want the truth to be known seeing how I haven't violated ONE rule on this board.

Equality in the Bible both on Slavery & Women->

"Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed." - Timothy 6:1

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." - Exodus 21:20-21

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." - Leviticus 25:44-46

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord." - Colossians 3:22

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." - Peter 2:18

Slaves are considered less than human.

Now let's look at women = to men.

"If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal." - Leviticus 20:15

A man has to be caught in the act to be killed. But...

"If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." - Leviticus 20:16

A woman can be killed by only looking suspicious.

In defence of the Christian Church, by a non christian, I think much of it has progressed beyond the social situation described at the time those passages were written. I don't know many christians who take the bible word-for-word and say that every single passage in it is Law.

I sometimes wonder if the whole thing needs updating! There is much in the Bible that is good and relevant and much that is 2000 years out of date. We deal with issues now not even conceivable by the authors of the gospels.

Islam teaches for women (who are not equal to men) to cover their faces, to be beaten, raped, tortured, and degraded in the worst possible way.

Christianity teaches that women are equal to men and have the same rights men do. There is no degradation whatsoever.

Did you read any of the posts? Read up, christianity degrades women to. Also, I have recently bought a Koran, nothing in it says women aren't equalt to men. It's just in the middle east they aren't. Of course, they crazy, so can't use them.

And the cloth is light weight? Ok, better. And good point with the sand thing, but still wouldn't want to wear all that in a desert.

I have no problem with worshiping a female...so long as she dont mind worshiping me back on accasion...

Actually, until the 1950's or so, your average Muslim woman had more freedom and power than the average American woman. Since you didn't live back then, let me remind you of a few of the facts:

Muslim women could hold property, could buy and sell property and goods and whatever they earned they could keep. Furthermore, THEY can and could divorce the man who wed them.

American women couldn't vote until the 1900's, couldn't drive cars, had to wear what they were ordered to wear (heavy, longsleeved clothing), could not own property, anything they owned before a marriage became the husband's property, anything they earned during the marriage became the husband's property. Until the 1960's it was awkward and difficult for a woman to buy a car or a house -- loans were often refused her. Women found it VERY hard to get credit cards OR bank accounts until the 1970's.

Girls as young as 10 were forced to become prostitutes (yes, in good old English speaking countries) and sold to the willing. And much as you might like to dismiss it, the "justifiable homicide" existed until the late 1950's... where if you caught a man with your wife, you could kill them both. Wife beating and abuse was common (listen for it -- they make jokes about it on the old "I Love Lucy" show... only it wasn't a joke, it was a part of Lucille Ball's life as it was for many wives back then.)

Divorced women were viewed as being little better than prostitutes as late as the early 1970's (I know this from first-hand experience.) When a woman divorced, she seldom (unless she was rich or famous) got anything more than the kids. No child support.

Women in some religious groups WERE beaten if they didn't conform to expected dress standards. There was no police protection (or very little) because she was under the command of her husband and the husband's word was law.

And that's the way it was, back in the US, when I was a kid.

"Why do ads feature young, scantily clad women? Why not young scantily clad men in equal numbers?"

Quite honestly, why would anyone want to see scantily clad men?? ewww!!! Men are disgusting. We have hair all over the place, nasty raisin-like balls, not to mention our horrible smells. yuck..

"nasty raisin-like balls"

hahaha, that was funny.

i would have to say that i am a christian and that i dont think taht us women are less holy or whatever. i know that in the bible the man was the ruler of the hom ebut they were to treat women as their equal because we are.

Originally posted by arc
right one of my earliest disagreements with most faiths was the subject of equality between the sexes. I've never quite understood why I as a woman am somehow considered less holy than a man.

I have found more sensible answers from the Muslims I know then most christians of whatever denomination!

Any answers on this one?

btw please don't quote scripture at me - if I want the 'cos God says... answer' I'll let myself go and be talked at by the saturday morning city centre evangelicals

The reason behind the idiocy that men are somewhat more holy than women with Christians I believe is Paul and the Catholic church, and the latter's focus on Paul's writings. Paul was the only one I know of the apostles that wasn't married. His views on women are to some extent extreme. Many of Jesus' closest disciples were women. The first person to recognice Jesus as the Messiah was a female prophet, and she did so by speeking loud and freely inside the very Temple in Jerusalem. God visited Mary first, then Joseph. There are several female heroes in the Bible. Like Miriam for instance. Why Paul looked uppon women the way he did I don't know, but he never married that's a sure thing. A jewish priest must be married to be called a priest, the same is the deal with rabbis. Jesus was even a master Rabbi, and was called Rabbi by many people, even Pharicees and scribes. Jesus also owned a house, and the wedding at Cana indicates that Jesus was indeed married, to whom we don't know, but it might have been Mary Magdalen, who followed him everywhere, something that would've been almost impossible if they weren't married or were concidered brothers (in law) and sisters (in law). In Palestine at the time of Jesus, they married twise. After the first marriage, the husbond should provide a house for the future family, but the couple lived seperately until after the second marriage when the marriage was fulfilled through the sexual act. It was common for the parents of the bride to display the sheets afterwards. If there was blood on them, the bride was concidered a virgin and there was a great party. The way we look uppon marriage and women is quite different from how the Jews have traditionally (including Jesus and the Apostles) looked uppon it. I think it's very strange that the Catholic Church doesn't allow their priests to marry. To me an unmarried priest is like a color blind painter. I don't see how it is possible to minister a congregation well without being married. As a priest you should be able to understand every aspects of life, and marriage is the way of life for the Christians. Also I think women are at least as good priests as men. Much of Jesus' wisdom and parables are connected to marriage and love. Jesus says on several occations through parables that God's communion with humankind is like a marriage. How can a priest teach this if he/she doesn't know what it's about?

Women and men are different, no doubt about that, but not less holy. Perhaps the man is more complex biologically than woman. From a male genome you can create both males and females, while from a female genome you will only be able to create new females. But this doesn't make women less holy than men. Flesh is nothing. Spirit is everything. Men are perhaps faster runners and stronger physically, but that doesn't proove that males are more holy. We are both children of God and should be treated with the same respect and love. Females are probably better suited biologically for flying and space traveling some experts say. When we are married we become one, that means equal or 100% depending.

The thing that worries me about feminism though, is the braking up of our family structures. More and more children grow up with single or divorced parents as a side effect to the "worshipping" of the indipendent moneymaking career woman. We forget to ask our children what is right. To me it's the same whether it's the man or the woman who stays home with the children when they're growing up, but one of them should. Stability and security is important for the little ones.

I've worked under a female boss, and it was great. She is one of the best execs I've worked under.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Now ,in Church, meaning men can only become a Priest.....but, a woman and a man is equal in Goodness......


"For God is not the author of confusion,
but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; ... And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Cor. 14, 33-35).

Have the God-inspired words of the chief Apostle become obsolete, or show disdain of women, as maintained by the vain champions for equal rights?! Did not the same Apostle say that : "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3, 28). With these amazingly simple words the Apostle refutes not only the wearisome squabbling regarding freedom, nationality and chosenness, but also explains the essence of true equality of men and women.

The Apostle's scrupulous attitude to women's conduct in church is caused not only by the well-known transgression of our original mother Eve who had plunged Adam, and subsequently the entire mankind, into the original sin, but also by specific observations of confusion caused, apparently, by women (1 Tim. 2, 14). The Apostle could not but take into account that by their nature women are more exposed to all kinds of influences, including deeply sinful and pernicious ones. This phenomenon forms the predominant topic of the entire world fiction; theatre and cinema productions also address this theme.

ecumenizm.tripod.com...

mikromarius on your post