Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: God and Gender [..isms], huh?

Expand Messages
  • Albert
    Jim, Men are for now the stronger ones, and yes, usually the aggressor. They are programmed to be so. However, the world is changing, and for the worse. On a
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      Men are for now the stronger ones, and yes, usually the aggressor. They are programmed to be so.
      However, the world is changing, and for the worse. On a bio-chemical level, men are literally becoming women and this will result in women becoming the aggressor.

      No justifiable purpose can be felt in feeling sorry for the so-called "victims" in the context of sex alone, because all the ladies and gentlemen have left the stage in this our present generation of "people". I will refrain from describing exactly what we have been left with for 'fear' of offending the children and politically correct.

      - I am inclined to side with Frank somewhat here...

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: jimstuart51
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 11:50 PM
      Subject: [existlist] Re: God and Gender [..isms], huh?


      You write:

      "Oh, males will have hard, fast and furious opinions about everything
      else. Politics, The futures market; the weather, but they know which
      side their toast is buttered on when it comes to gender
      intergender/intragender confrontation and discussion. Lets be honest,
      females will confront/discuss anything/everything, because they have
      spent the past 50 years clearing a path for themselves. Their
      speakers and writers made sure of it. Males keep to the safe-side of
      issues; females recognize no such safe-side of issues. Just as if
      while vigorously defending myself against being hit by my girlfriend
      (even in an obvious public setting) -- and I were to accidentally
      bump her, causing a
      bruise, I am indicted for abuse. note: The exact same circumstances
      in reverse--nothing happens to the female. If you have a boy he will
      have a lot of explaining to do--even when he is absolutely innocent;
      if you have a girl, you will defend her situation--legitimate or not.
      Because you'd better."

      I have some sympathy with what you write, but if we are strictly
      objective then we have to admit that men/boys are physically stronger
      (statistically) than women/girls.

      Also approximately 90% of murders are committed by men, over 90% of
      sex offenders are men and around 90% of child sex abuse is carried
      out by men.

      Most murder victims are men, but most victims of sexual offences are

      So perhaps in the sort of case you mention, men have it hard and
      women have it easy, but overall it is men who are usually
      dysfunctional, and women who are usually the ones to suffer.



      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008 11:29

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Aija Veldre Beldavs
      ... in modern times Mary Baker Eddy initiated Christian Science.:) the religion does have a secular slant.:) but your response might be used to illustrate
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 4, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        eduard at home:

        > However, I think that in at least earlier societies, there were
        > defined roles for men and women that applied to the average and
        > non-emergency condition.
        > Women were more grounded than men and thus took on tasks that were
        > home related or in hunter-gatherer societies, that of the gatherer. And I
        > think that in large part because women are more grounded, they have had a
        > greater role than men in spiritual side of society ... at least until men
        > took it over as a specialization. Of course, that is shear opinion and
        > although books have been written about the possibility of women initiating
        > religion, the idea may be unfounded. The only thing that I point to is what
        > I see as a greater commitment by women to family.

        in modern times Mary Baker Eddy "initiated" Christian Science.:)
        the religion does have a secular slant.:)

        but your response might be used to illustrate the limits to normalizing
        and standardizing to universal voices from the normative classics of
        western cultures without hearing those voices that lack resources,
        motivation or surplus energy to jump through the hoops to make it to the
        top academic big language publication lists.:)

        i deal with this a lot, being interested in minor underrepresented
        languages and cultures. much written on them in the major languages is
        pretty crudely off target and misinformed. usually, though, the
        information these areas provide when it does not fit predominant
        thinking is just ignored, rather than investigated, even if it contains
        information that is very relevant to issues of current concern. the
        language barrier is quite strong. gender issues are one example.

        some remarks (sorry this relates to posts a few days ago rather than
        now) and obviously i can't respond here with a scholarly book - these
        are generalizations based on much more study:

        all long-term societies recognize gender, but what gender roles are
        played differ quite a bit and the simpler, less differentiated
        subsistence societies exhibit more variation as each adapts to different
        conditions to maximize critical resources.

        strong patriarchy laid its groundwork to increasingly become the
        dominant form of social organization, but almost surely not strongly
        developed with hunting-gatherering cultures, which as subsistence
        cultures have some of the most egalitarian or meritocratic examples.
        northern hunting peoples venerate the female bear, seal, and egg-laying
        water bird as cosmic mothers and strong female models. fishing was not
        exclusively a male job in many such societies; it becomes such with
        deep sea fishing and, as with many other types of work, with
        specialization. in southern climates, female cats, such as lionesses
        and panthers, provide a similar strong female models. but there is also
        the model of herd animals with a male protecting his harem or a shepherd
        his flock. nevertheless, early pastoralists also have their "warrior
        women" (i'd guess initially not so much permanent virgins as young women
        corresponding to young male initiation groups who would eventually
        settle down to have children) and warrior queens, a tradition perhaps
        surviving in African societies with mother queens who hold their own
        independent courts. a mother queen is an independent ruler, not such
        because she is the king's wife. she may be a sister, however.

        there are female burials in the steppes with weapons, and the bones of
        the Sarmatian females show their roles were not just ceremonial, and
        such burials of females with weapons are also found in northern Eurasia.
        in these societies unmarried women without brothers might assume what
        are now seen as male-typical roles if needed. but to say that they
        "assumed male roles" is not itself without patriarchal bias, typical in
        a society where such roles for women are seen as highly unusual or myth
        as fantasy. too much scholarship on this subject normalizes, instead of
        acknowledging diversity.

        it seems to me more likely the tendency in human culture has been for
        some time to evolve rather from tolerance of more complex diversity
        necessary to exploit different habitats surviving in harsh subsistence
        conditions to near-universal more prescribed mono-culture with
        superficial differences and classified deviants. orally transmitted
        native religions tend to be loose and not that resistant to better
        organized or aggressive belief systems. for instance, third sex, the
        male-female or female-male, was known among native Americans as well as
        among early Eurasians whose magic users often came from the ranks of
        those in some ways atypical, but was seen as demonic abomination by
        Europeans at least from the Middle Ages on, a view challenged by fairly
        recent movements, such as secular humanism. the values of dominant
        better organized belief systems tend to spread and replace indigenous ones.

        true, myth doesn't necessarily straightforwardly reflect society. often
        it may be fantasy with a deeper truth, or exhibit role-reversal or
        carnival very different from the real lives of ordinary women. true,
        there are deities who shift between being male or female or are
        androgynes or hermaphrodites. nevertheless, sometimes myth does give
        insight to society, especially how it is organized in that known social
        or natural models are used for cosmic ones. loosely organized oral
        societies are likely to have gods shifting around, instead of tightly
        organized in rigid hierarchies with well-defined roles and scripts
        tightly connected to only certain deities.

        also, notably in mythology across the world sex shifts linearly and
        irreversibly very much more often from earlier female to male, rather
        than the other way around. thus, among the earlier ndo-Europeans
        (perhaps from a time the Indo-Europeans became as strongly patriarchal
        as they did) early on there is a female sun among the Hittites. to this
        day among the Balts there is a sun - dawn/ mother - daughter dyad (the
        deities remain nature forces rather than evolve into strongly
        anthropomorphical gods - "Saule" means "sun," not "goddess of the sun
        named X; "Saules meita" means Sun Daughter or Sun as Daughter). the
        point is that early myth is less rigidly patriarchal and not just
        because of fantasy within a full-blown patriarchy.

        of course, one could argue the Baltic Saule illustrates male-typical and
        female-typical stereotypes.:) in contrast to the male sun god of the
        heroic and imperial age Greeks and Romans whose sun god eventually
        acquired strong imperial properties, Saule of the Baltic daina-songs is
        mostly a female-typical, gentle, healing and warming deity concerned
        with orphans and other disadvantaged members of society, rather than a
        state (as the Japanese sun goddess) or war goddess (the mythology
        doesn't really reflect permanent specialized warriors maintained by a
        court, but farmers as needed assuming such roles temporarily). among the
        Celts there also was a fire and water hot spring deity Sulis, Sol among
        the Germanic peoples, and Solntse among the Slavs, but they have receded
        from history before a dominant male archetypes and are minor deities.
        female suns have survived also among non-Indo-Europeans, among northern
        Eurasians, some native Americans, and aboriginal Australians.

        the point is as one becomes immersed in what is a vernacular, largely
        pre-Christian daina-world, one becomes impressed with the richness of
        the nuances. the female-typical emerges as simultaneously caring and
        strong, self-reliant and adaptive, finding humor and joy even in a harsh
        world because she must, not the least because she is or will likely be a
        mother, but also, significantly, even if Laima/ Fortune has not set out
        this as her path.

        this is the truth one gains by immersing oneself into ANY vernacular
        tradition, perhaps all the more interesting when it is not well known
        and therefore has more surprises, sometimes peaking to the point of awe
        as one fully grasps the alternative implications to common assumptions.
        such an immersion can be a rich experience, a different level than
        scholarly abstractions in major languages - i'd say closer to the ground
        of lived experience.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.