The Subjection of Women - John Stewart Mill

[_Notoriuswun]

And religion is run by.... men. Men like Paul, who told women to sit down and shut up.

Or are you blaming God, like so many of our TBM's?

I am blaming no one. The path to inequality is paved with the best of (religious) intentions.

Pre Judeo-Christianity, Paganism was the religion du-jour...a religion which offered fallible gods, ones that humans could relate to and learn from. The creation of the monotheistic God had the end effect of man striving for perfection. Man now had the notion that if God is perfect, then his society could be to...and what better way to usher in this new utopia than with these newly found religious ideals! Unfortunately, it wasn't utopia at all, and only resulted in the subjugation of women and minorities.

Interesting to note that the most common Pagan God was a fertility God - and would often take the form of a woman or female figure. Mankind worshiped life...in all its great possibilties. in my opinion, those who worship a monotheistic God are really worshipping death - since their view of perfection is bound to differ with another societies view of perfection. For clarification, see The Crusades, and current West-Arab relations.

[_guy sajer]

And religion is run by.... men. Men like Paul, who told women to sit down and shut up.

Or are you blaming God, like so many of our TBM's?

I am blaming no one. The path to inequality is paved with the best of (religious) intentions.

Well, someone was to blame, or perhaps better said, someone was responsible. It didn't just happen on its own. Whatever the source of the particular belief (religious, secular, extra-terrestrials, etc.), men were typically the instruments in implementing, upholding, perpetuating, and enforcing it.

But your larger point, if I understand it, seems reasonable. This was not a necessarily a conspiracy by evil men to subjugate women, but the extension of an underlying belief system, one that in some cases that women appear to have acquiesed to.

Although it's hard to determine the extent to which a disempowered group actually acquieses to a system that disempowers them, but it can happen. Case in point, my wife quite gladly acquieses to a religious belief system that relegates her, and all those of her gender, to secondary status. But one must be careful with such reasoning, as it can frequently be invoked to justify all sorts of malfeasance, for example, biggots trying to argue that slaves were actually happy or better off under slavery.

[_Notoriuswun]

And religion is run by.... men. Men like Paul, who told women to sit down and shut up.

Or are you blaming God, like so many of our TBM's?

I am blaming no one. The path to inequality is paved with the best of (religious) intentions.

Well, someone was to blame, or perhaps better said, someone was responsible. It didn't just happen on its own. Whatever the source of the particular belief (religious, secular, extra-terrestrials, etc.), men were typically the instruments in implementing, upholding, perpetuating, and enforcing it.

But your larger point, if I understand it, seems reasonable. This was not a necessarily a conspiracy by evil men to subjugate women, but the extension of an underlying belief system, one that in some cases that women appear to have acquiesed to.

Although it's hard to determine the extent to which a disempowered group actually acquieses to a system that disempowers them, but it can happen. Case in point, my wife quite gladly acquieses to a religious belief system that relegates her, and all those of her gender, to secondary status. But one must be careful with such reasoning, as it can frequently be invoked to justify all sorts of malfeasance, for example, biggots trying to argue that slaves were actually happy or better off under slavery.

No, there is no one person to blame. Rather it is the evolution of monotheism over several millenia that caused women to be revered and then reviled.

If I had to blame one "person", or entity, it would be the Catholic church, who deemed it neccesary to turn Mary Magdalene into a whore. This one piece of dogma gave local bishops the "right" to defile women as they saw fit to.

Curiously, however, alot of Spanish and Latin peoples still revere women...that is they place the Virgin Mary in very high regards, almost to the point that their culture is surprisingly maternalistic alot of the time. ie In alot of Spanish homes, the female is the center of the household. I have no idea how this occured, but I welcome it.

[_truth dancer]

Hey Fort...

I'm suggesting that the laws should give all humans, equal rights. Laws should not limit opportunity, education, or rights based on ones sex.

That is it.

Regardless of what YOU think is best for a child, or for a mother, or for a father after the birth of a child, the laws should not dictate which parent gets to stay home and which parent doesn't, or which parent should get to take off more time from work, or which parent should get custody of a child based on the sex of the parent, or which parent should work and which parent should stay at home. It should be what the couple feels is in the best interest of their children and their family.

Because YOU think it is more important that your wife bond with your child, does not mean everyone else feels that way. May fathers do indeed want to bond with their child in those early days. Because YOU do not feel it necessary to be a part of that experience doesn't mean other fathers don't want to. Why should the law dictate the choice? Some women want to go right back to work, some dads want to stay home.... so be it.

If both parents are great, a child should have equal access to both parents. I can't imagine why anyone would argue this point. Custody should have nothing to do with sex and everything to do with providing the child with the best possible situation. With emotionally healthy and involved parents, children do best when both parents are involved.

And, generally speaking in terms of a child benefitting with the involvement of a emotionally healthy and involved father... the research is overwhelmingly clear. Not sure who would argue this point.

~dancer~

[_truth dancer]

Hi Fort...

TD:
Creating laws giving all of humankind equal rights is certainly a step up.

Fort:
It would be if they actually worked, and didn't create other problems along the way.

So what... are you suggesting women should not have the rights they do? That various races should still not receive the same rights as Caucasians? That only certain people should get rights and priviledges (IE... white men)?

Life is not easy and society is complex... CERTAINLY the world is better off as we move toward bringing freedom and equality to humankind.

:-)

~dancer~

[Guest]

Because YOU think it is more important that your wife bond with your child, does not mean everyone else feels that way. May fathers do indeed want to bond with their child in those early days. Because YOU do not feel it necessary to be a part of that experience doesn't mean other fathers don't want to. Why should the law dictate the choice? Some women want to go right back to work, some dads want to stay home.... so be it.

If both parents are great, a child should have equal access to both parents. I can't imagine why anyone would argue this point. Custody should have nothing to do with sex and everything to do with providing the child with the best possible situation. With emotionally healthy and involved parents, children do best when both parents are involved.

And, generally speaking in terms of a child benefitting with the involvement of a emotionally healthy and involved father... the research is overwhelmingly clear. Not sure who would argue this point.

~dancer~

I'll go ahead and argue it...

I recently had this same discussion with my wife, and she had the same conclusions that you did at first. At one point however, it was mentioned that women are more empathetic than men (generally speaking); in that context, it then becomes obvious who would be better suited to raise a child.

But also, one must realize that every situation is different, and that not all women are more empathetic than their partners...but as a general rule, I think it applies. I agree that the law shouldn't dictate anything, and that each family should acess their own situation to best fit their own needs. Whether it be the man who stays at home or the woman.

[_asbestosman]

If both parents are great, a child should have equal access to both parents. I can't imagine why anyone would argue this point. Custody should have nothing to do with sex and everything to do with providing the child with the best possible situation. With emotionally healthy and involved parents, children do best when both parents are involved.

Wow, I think I'm complete agreement with truth dancer here. In fact the issue of child custody is one that bothers me sometimes. According to the law it's supposed to be equal, but I hear that often times the woman gets it while the man gets stuck with paying the bills. If we're going to make things equal, then I want to see both get custody and both equally pay the bills for children when the parents divorce--unless of course there is a good reason to keep the child away from one parent such as abuse.

[_guy sajer]

And religion is run by.... men. Men like Paul, who told women to sit down and shut up.

Or are you blaming God, like so many of our TBM's?

I am blaming no one. The path to inequality is paved with the best of (religious) intentions.

Well, someone was to blame, or perhaps better said, someone was responsible. It didn't just happen on its own. Whatever the source of the particular belief (religious, secular, extra-terrestrials, etc.), men were typically the instruments in implementing, upholding, perpetuating, and enforcing it.

But your larger point, if I understand it, seems reasonable. This was not a necessarily a conspiracy by evil men to subjugate women, but the extension of an underlying belief system, one that in some cases that women appear to have acquiesed to.

Although it's hard to determine the extent to which a disempowered group actually acquieses to a system that disempowers them, but it can happen. Case in point, my wife quite gladly acquieses to a religious belief system that relegates her, and all those of her gender, to secondary status. But one must be careful with such reasoning, as it can frequently be invoked to justify all sorts of malfeasance, for example, biggots trying to argue that slaves were actually happy or better off under slavery.

No, there is no one person to blame. Rather it is the evolution of monotheism over several millenia that caused women to be revered and then reviled.

If I had to blame one "person", or entity, it would be the Catholic church, who deemed it neccesary to turn Mary Magdalene into a whore. This one piece of dogma gave local bishops the "right" to defile women as they saw fit to.

Curiously, however, alot of Spanish and Latin peoples still revere women...that is they place the Virgin Mary in very high regards, almost to the point that their culture is surprisingly maternalistic alot of the time. ie In alot of Spanish homes, the female is the center of the household. I have no idea how this occured, but I welcome it.

I don't recall arguing that any one person is to blame. Rather, I am arguing that men carry most of the responsiblity, as they traditionally have designed, administered, and enforced social rules/laws that have disempowered, subjugated, and oppresed women.

Certainly, the Catholic Church (run by . . . wait for it . . . men) shares some blame, but this theory fails to account for the oppression of women in non-Christian cultures.

Having worked extensively in Latin America, I'll require more evidence that this to conclude that Latin Americans by and large hold enlighted views about the roles, rights, etc. of women in society.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Nort...

I wrote, "And, generally speaking in terms of a child benefitting with the involvement of a emotionally healthy and involved father... the research is overwhelmingly clear. Not sure who would argue this point."


Nort responds:

I'll go ahead and argue it...

I recently had this same discussion with my wife, and she had the same conclusions that you did at first. At one point however, it was mentioned that women are more empathetic than men (generally speaking); in that context, it then becomes obvious who would be better suited to raise a child.

But also, one must realize that every situation is different, and that not all women are more empathetic than their partners...but as a general rule, I think it applies. I agree that the law shouldn't dictate anything, and that each family should acess their own situation to best fit their own needs. Whether it be the man who stays at home or the woman.

I don't think you argued my point.

There are really two points here (smile)...

1. When both parents are emotionally healthy and involved parents, children do better when both parents are involved in their life.

2. Laws should not determine who stays home, who gets time off, who gets whatever based on the sex of the parent.

While it may or may not be true that women are generally more empathic, doesn't really matter. If woman are the ones better suited to remain at home then that decision will most likely be made by the parents as they decide what is in the best interest of the child. BUT, if the parents feel the father is indeed the one better suited to take care of a child and the wife feels the family is best served by HER going to work, shouldn't the parents be able to make that decision without the laws stepping in?

I know several instances where the father is the better parent. Should the children suffer because it is the mother who others think must do the caretaking?

I do not understand the logic that suggests laws should require one parent to have rights not afforded to the other because of sex.

Why not give all humans equal rights and let the parents decide what is best for their children?

~dancer~

[_ajax18]

Hi Ajax...

1. Men pay for dates. If a guy waits on women to ask him out, he'll never date nor marry anyone. You and I both know it.

Who is it that made this rule? Guys.

2. Men are expected to be the money earners. Women work if they choose, but aren't really expected too.

Hello? Who is it that have kept women from working and becoming educated over the last five thousand years? Who is it that told women God doesn't want them to work?

3. Affirmative action provides women special advantages to enter into fields where they are underrepresented.

Please elaborate...

4. Women have sole discretion to keep a child or to abort the child.

For the record, I think a father should have equal rights...

5. Women demand equal prize money at Wimbledon. Guess what, women playing tennis isn't what's selling the tickets. Can the Chip and Dales dancers demand equal money to Playboy playmates. Of course not, who would even ask. In this we let the market decide.

I say let the market decide as well...

6. Can men take off as much time as a woman when they have a child? No of course they can't.

Men absolutely should have as much time as a woman.

~dancer~

Fair enough for me. I just don't sense the same fairness advocated most feminists I've spoken too. Maybe it's a misunderstanding or maybe they're just being unreasonable. While I don't necessarily agree with the way you would run society, I have to admit that you're at least being fair.

I'm still irate about this Anna Nicole Smith case. If Larry Birkhead is that girls father that should be the end of the discussion. What gives this Stern guy the right to take another man's child, especially when he's done nothing wrong.