Why has the status of women become so important in our age?

[eik]

You have a very poor understanding of pre-Christian religious practices, and pre-Christian history as a whole for that matter.

I think I have a fairly good understanding. The bible also imparts understanding on this point with its depictions of all the votaries of ‘Ashtart being eventually conquered. Even Rome sealed its own doom when it allowed Cybele & Isis worship into its pantheons and then to become dominant. The emperor Caracalla 198-217AD eventually had coins minted with Cybele on the observe, and was assassinated at the temple of the moon goddess. Then finally there was the cult of mariolatry under the high Trinitarians, based loosely on Isis and Cybele. Byzantium, that other bastion of marioaltry, was conquered by Islam. The whole of the middle east was also given over to Islam. Islam, which itself idolized Mary and Fatima etc, was then conquered by the Mongols, whereupon they became "islamified" and were themselves driven out of most of their conquered territories. And so it goes on.

Infatuation with the goddess always connotes a license by God to be conquered. It's a pattern throughout history.

Like voting, you mean?

It's ironic that in WWII, all the "emancipated" women-voting Western democracies were immediately conquered, and would have been permanently conquered, by Nazism, but for the Soviet Union which did not have any democracy. And now they are being conquered by resurgent feminism, atheism and communism ... and Islam. In another 100 years, you won't recognize Western Europe, and you may not recognize the USA from Latin America, if the rate of change continues at its current pace.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There should be no question or doubt about the equality between the status of men and women.
That this thread exists shows that we are not there yet.
Only when it is no longer a matter to discuss will we have arrived at equality.

It is still a matter of to surprise to many that the boss of a major company or a chief scientist or engineer might turn out to be a woman. Or that a high ranking military commander or Sargent might be female. Stereotyping is still inherent in most mindsets.

 

[Left Coast]

It's why the world slipped up many centuries ago, at the time of the mongol conquests in the 12th century, by failing to eliminate Islam when it had the chance.

All the things I mentioned were features of Western/Christian society.

Why is that inherently bad? Being chauffeured is much more pleasant than having to drive oneself. I know that because a female director of a company I used to work for liked being driven around in her chauffeur driven mercedes.

If women want to be chauffeured, that's fine. If women want to drive themselves, why should they be forbidden?

 

[eik]

There should be no question or doubt about the equality between the status of men and women.
That this thread exists shows that we are not there yet.
Only when it is no longer a matter to discuss will we have arrived at equality.

It is still a matter of to surprise to many that the boss of a major company or a chief scientist or engineer might turn out to be a woman. Or that a high ranking military commander or Sargent might be female. Stereotyping is still inherent in most mindsets.

Anglicanism is very keen on the idea of equality in spiritual things. However in theological terms, it remains heretical (1 Corinthians 11:3). You may strive for equality but in your case, it is just a case of paganism supervening Christianity.

 

[eik]

All the things I mentioned were features of Western/Christian society.

I don't deny it, but as I said to Polymath, you can't expect 20th/21st century values in a 19th century economy. It's like those who complain the Geneva convention wasn't observed by Bronze Age Israelites entering Cannan 3500 years ago. You need to have some sense of historical perspective. My answer: so what? Many men didn't have such "rights" either.

You might reflect that in this age of ultra-feminism, the property owning dreams of many men have also evaporated, where wealth has been accumulated by rich families (men and women) who own multiple properties, at the expense of the poor, so much so that property disenfranchisement is today a product of feminism.

If women want to be chauffeured, that's fine. If women want to drive themselves, why should they be forbidden?

You'd better ask the Saudi Arabians. I know nothing of it.

 

[Tambourine]

I think I have a fairly good understanding.

No, you really don't. But you do have an astounding ability to distort or outright invent historical facts to justify your misogynistic beliefs.

For example, the Roman religion was, for the most part, a patriarchial one, with patriarchial divine figures (such as Iupiter Capitolinus or, later, Sol Invictus) at the center. Despite their importance as personifications of fertility (a major issue for any agricultural society) female deities in Rome remained marginal in political importance.

The Cult of Cybele was not an official state religion; it was tolerated for most of the Republican and Imperial era but nevertheless considered a 'foreign' or 'barbaric' influence on Roman society by many (male) politicians and intellectuals, to the point where men who served as priests were barred from any and all public office.

Caracalla's attitude here is largely an aberration, and comes from a dynasty that was infamous for its religious heterodoxy (see e.g. Caracalla's successor Elagabalus trying to introduce sun worship as a state religion).

Reverence of the Virgin Mary was both theologically and culturally unimportant to early Christianity, it only became resurgent in the High and Late Middle Ages of Europe, after a time of great crisis and recession.



What I also find remarkable, is that your misogyny drives you so far as to outright reject the Nicene Creed along with every other Christian sect that existed since before the Reformation.

 

[Left Coast]

I don't deny it, but as I said to Polymath, you can't expect 20th/21st century values in a 19th century economy. It's like those who complain the Geneva convention wasn't observed by Bronze Age Israelites entering Cannan 3500 years ago. You need to have some sense of historical perspective. My answer: so what? Many men didn't have such "rights" either.

Yet the people who had such rights were almost invariably men. And these injustices persisted well into the 20th century, and even into the 21st.

What you're doing is moving the goalpost: first question the idea that there have been any misogynist injustices at all, then claim they're all a function of Islam, then claim that they are just a feature of the times and all men weren't treated equally either.

The bottom line is that women have been systemically discriminated against for a long time, in a multitude of ways. Making excuses for that doesn't make it go away.

You might reflect that in this age of ultra-feminism, the property owning dreams of many men have also evaporated, where wealth has been accumulated by rich families (men and women) who own multiple properties, at the expense of the poor, so much so that property disenfranchisement is today a product of feminism.

This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The fact that economic inequality has occurred after feminism has gained popularity doesn't mean it's a function of that feminism. Look to the neoliberal economic policies enacted by the Right if you want an explanation for economic inequality, not feminism.

You'd better ask the Saudi Arabians. I know nothing of it.

If you know nothing of it, you shouldn't make excuses to rationalize it.

 

[crossfire]

In your opinion.

On the other hand, it may simply be that we recognized a long standing injustice and have sought to overcome it.

Injustices towards women range from a denial of the right to property, the denial of the right to engage politically, the denial of the right of safety in the home, the denial of the right to be paid equally for equal work, he denial of respect for their work, the limitation of options to marriage or starvation, etc.

"In your opinion." I do not recognize such humanistic injustices. In fact they involve idolatry of women. Whoever appointed a woman to have unlimited options as to marriage?

So saying a woman shouldn't be forced into having to choose between starving due to being forbidden to work except maybe as a prostitute on one hand, or going into a marriage where she can lawfully be abused is "idolizing women?" Unbelievable. What would you say about a man being forced to work as a prostitute, starve, or get married to an abusive man?

 

[eik]

No, you really don't. But you do have an astounding ability to distort or outright invent historical facts to justify your misogynistic beliefs.

For example, the Roman religion was, for the most part, a patriarchial one, with patriarchial divine figures (such as Iupiter Capitolinus or, later, Sol Invictus) at the center. Despite their importance as personifications of fertility (a major issue for any agricultural society) female deities in Rome remained marginal in political importance.

They did to begin with, but the adoption of foreign cults increased with time as I have indicated. Moreover Roman Gods didn't always extended outside the Latin sphere of influence, although some cults did. The gods of the conquered countries usually remained intact, and were imported into Rome, not vice versa.

In any event I would not call the temple of Cybele sited on the high western slope of the Palatine, overlooking the valley of the Circus Maximus and facing the temple of Ceres on the slopes of the Aventine, an inconspicuous thing. It is clear that Cybele became an important Roman goddess in the Christian era.

The Cult of Cybele was not an official state religion; it was tolerated for most of the Republican and Imperial era but nevertheless considered a 'foreign' or 'barbaric' influence on Roman society by many (male) politicians and intellectuals, to the point where men who served as priests were barred from any and all public office.

Caracalla's attitude here is largely an aberration, and comes from a dynasty that was infamous for its religious heterodoxy (see e.g. Caracalla's successor Elagabalus trying to introduce sun worship as a state religion).

And there was Septimus Severus. It seems fair to assume that the cults of Cybele and other female deities were quite widespread, IMO, in the later Roman Empire.

Reverence of the Virgin Mary was both theologically and culturally unimportant to early Christianity, it only became resurgent in the High and Late Middle Ages of Europe, after a time of great crisis and recession.

Important enough for Jerome et al. to brand any Christian a Manichean heretic who didn't agree with her perpetual virginity cf. Jovinian and Helveticus, proving the issue was deemed very important, even then.

What I also find remarkable, is that your misogyny drives you so far as to outright reject the Nicene Creed along with every other Christian sect that existed since before the Reformation.

What I find remarkable is how you engage in the very things you criticize me for. I am not a misogynist in the slightest. My wife has never called me such in 34 years. The only one who implied it was a female priest whom I criticized for being at variance with scriptural teaching, to which she could give no answer but to slander me.

As for the Nicene creed, it was largely a political decree by the command of the Emperor, and introduced the gnostic/neo platonist term homoousios at the direction of Constantine, who was steeped in pagan philosophy. Its introduction was tolerated, and disputed by some, such as Marcellus of Ancyra, who were not even Arians. Unlike so many, I do not idolize the creeds where they are seen to attempt alarming syntheses of Greek pagan religion with Christianity.

 

[crossfire]

Wouldn't that logically apply to obligations as well, but military training, as a rule is an obligation to men and not to women.

I don't think anyone should be obligated to serve in the military. It should be voluntary, imo.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well the apostle would chose to differ:

2 Tim 3:1 "But understand this: In the last days terrible times will come. 2For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3unloving, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, without love of good, 4traitorous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Turn away from such as these!"​

Of course I don't claim to be a paragon or anything. However on this issue I must refer you to the teachings of Christianity. As Christ said, you either spend your life accumulating treasure in heaven, or you accumulate it elsewhere. It's an either / or alternative.

Why on earth would you spout Christianity at me, when you know full well that I am not Christian? Frankly, I've always thought that putting my money in a non-existant bank would be a very foolish thing to do.

 

[wellwisher]

Why, after thousands of years of oppression of women, has suddenly, man himself, began to champion her rights of equality? Even in the Bible there are passages forbidding women to openly speak, yet today, women’s rights are at the forefront of human rights battles.

Why this sudden change of heart towards women?

Male and female brain's differ in terms of how they process reality. Males are more visual animals and females are more verbal. Men use the brain more front to back and women side to side. This difference is reflected in how men and women try to appeal to each other.

Women will create visual illusions to attract men such as using makeup, dyeing their hair and other types of visual augmentation. Men use verbal illusions, such as a line of bull, to attract women. Men do not have to look fancy or pretty if they have a good line of bull.

If you look at the internet and fake news, it is no longer about facts and proof, which are both connected to visual verification. That would be a male world. Now it is about emotions, opinions and other verbal illusion; verbal games. This panders to the female brain. This is part of the reason the husband was supposed to lead; reality check needs to come before opinions and politics.

The answer as to why there is so much attention to the women is connected to the manipulation by the left, for power. Women are a large voting block. Their approach is more based on lying and other forms of verbal illusions; fake news and Hollywood. Visual reality check is not important to the Used Car Salesmen as is the lie. Women are more likely to fall for this approach; means to an end.

Consider abortion; what did it take to get women to behave in such an unnatural manner? This behavior is not found in nature yet it is sold as natural. The break up of the family was important to the leftist scam since with the husbands and fathers gone and/or their role diminished, others males would act as surrogates misleading the ladies, They would be conditioned to teach their sons snd daughters to go along with the verbal scammers.

Trump has all type of tangible visual evidence of his competence, ability and accomplishments. Yet the push by the left is an appeal to emotions using verbal games; collusion delusion.The female brain and her teaching this to her children make them ripe for this appeal to nonsense. Conservative women tend to be old fashion and depend on the men to see through these scams. Leftist women do not trust men unless they are fun of crap and pander to their insecurities.

 

[wellwisher]

Male and female brain's differ in terms of how they process reality. Males are more visual animals and females are more verbal. Men use the brain more front to back and women side to side. This difference is reflected in how men and women try to appeal to each other.

Women will create visual illusions to attract men such as using makeup, dyeing their hair and other types of visual augmentation. Men use verbal illusions, such as a line of bull, to attract women. Men do not have to look fancy or pretty if they have a good line of bull.

If you look at the internet and fake news, it is no longer about facts and proof, which are both connected to visual verification. That would be a male world. Now it is about emotions, opinions and other verbal illusion; verbal games. This panders to the female brain. This is part of the reason the husband was supposed to lead; reality check needs to come before opinions and politics.

The answer as to why there is so much attention to the women is connected to the manipulation by the left, for power. Women are a large voting block. Their approach is more based on lying and other forms of verbal illusions; fake news and Hollywood. Visual reality check is not important to the Used Car Salesmen as is the lie. Women are more likely to fall for this approach; means to an end.

Consider abortion; what did it take to get women to behave in such an unnatural manner? This behavior is not found in nature yet it is sold as natural. The break up of the family was important to the leftist scam since with the husbands and fathers gone and/or their role diminished, others males would act as surrogates misleading the ladies, They would be conditioned to teach their sons snd daughters to go along with the verbal scammers.

Trump has all type of tangible visual evidence of his competence, ability and accomplishments. Yet the push by the left is an appeal to emotions using verbal games; collusion delusion.The female brain and her teaching this to her children make them ripe for this appeal to nonsense. Conservative women tend to be old fashion and depend on the men to see through these scams. Leftist women do not trust men unless they are fun of crap and pander to their insecurities.

 

[wellwisher]

As a followup, consider this scenario. Say we had a large lecture hall full of people, who each speak different languages. There are about 6500 different languages spoken by humans, on the earth, so the lecture hall will have 6500 people in the audience.

What I will do is place a few objects on a table, center stage, and have each person tell me what these objects are. Since we have 6500 different languages there may be thousands of different noises/sound for each object. Verbal language and words are subjective and arbitrary. There is no universal sound for each thing. This is all learned and conditioned.

On the other hand, each person in the audience will see the same things on center stage. This is how they all express there objects in their native tongue. Visual is not learned but is part of a natural universal language, common to all humans. You can place any object in the field of vision and you will know it. This is true of all of us.

This universal nature is why visual is connected to logic and proof. This is independent of verbal language and opinions. Spoken language is more subjective and the various noises and sounds are arbitrary. This makes illusions possible, based on how you define things.

Spoken and written language is important in that it allows one to transfer what they see or saw to others. We cannot easily transfer a visual image but use spoken language as a bridge. But there is a dark side to verbal language; lying, connected to its subjective and arbitrary nature. This is why the bible has the men leading; universal visual before subjective verbal.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I’m interested in what’s caused such a change by so many Christians when, on face value, the Bible says the opposite in this passage. . This verse seems to have set the tone for centuries and then suddenly it seemingly became outwardly abandoned and churches are themselves now professing equality between men and women or aren’t they? Profess I said, but not necessarily practisIng it, but still isn’t that a major shift from this verse’s position? Why?

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:34–35)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Why is that inherently bad? Being chauffeured is much more pleasant than having to drive oneself. I know that because a female director of a company I used to work for liked being driven around in her chauffeur driven mercedes.

You don't see that the issue has nothing to do with whether or not you like being driven, but is about freedom, choice and self-determination?
Really??

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Maybe men have finally realized that He can not live without a woman
There is always a great woman behind every man......

Nietzsche would disagree...

 

[Spirit of Light]

Nietzsche would disagree...

That could happen

 

[columbus]

in the long run it didn't work out, as all the goddess worshippers got conquered, by the will of God.

Have you any idea how ugly that assertion makes your God look to me?

An ugly god created by morally primitive people.
Yuck
Tom

 

[crossfire]

Male and female brain's differ in terms of how they process reality. Males are more visual animals and females are more verbal. Men use the brain more front to back and women side to side. This difference is reflected in how men and women try to appeal to each other.

Women will create visual illusions to attract men such as using makeup, dyeing their hair and other types of visual augmentation. Men use verbal illusions, such as a line of bull, to attract women. Men do not have to look fancy or pretty if they have a good line of bull.

If you look at the internet and fake news, it is no longer about facts and proof, which are both connected to visual verification. That would be a male world. Now it is about emotions, opinions and other verbal illusion; verbal games. This panders to the female brain. This is part of the reason the husband was supposed to lead; reality check needs to come before opinions and politics.

The answer as to why there is so much attention to the women is connected to the manipulation by the left, for power. Women are a large voting block. Their approach is more based on lying and other forms of verbal illusions; fake news and Hollywood. Visual reality check is not important to the Used Car Salesmen as is the lie. Women are more likely to fall for this approach; means to an end.

lol

Consider abortion; what did it take to get women to behave in such an unnatural manner? This behavior is not found in nature yet it is sold as natural.

Fact check: before there was abortion there was infanticide, often directed by the father. Oftentimes, women were ordered to drown the baby if it was a girl, but keep it if it was a boy.

The break up of the family was important to the leftist scam since with the husbands and fathers gone and/or their role diminished, others males would act as surrogates misleading the ladies, They would be conditioned to teach their sons snd daughters to go along with the verbal scammers.

Trump has all type of tangible visual evidence of his competence, ability and accomplishments. Yet the push by the left is an appeal to emotions using verbal games; collusion delusion.The female brain and her teaching this to her children make them ripe for this appeal to nonsense. Conservative women tend to be old fashion and depend on the men to see through these scams. Leftist women do not trust men unless they are fun of crap and pander to their insecurities.

I would say that this post is a fine example of disregarding facts and reality checks in favor of pushing one's agenda. Are you a woman?