Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45

Thread: White Patriarchy...

  1. #11
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,797
    Amen (Given)
    1673
    Amen (Received)
    5011
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    Its not white patriarchy which gives them the things they enjoy today. Its industry, hard work, ingenuity, etc... none of which is essentially patriarchal. Women entered the work force in droves during WWII, and they never left it. They were just as capable as men to be in that work force and help provide the things of society.
    Well actually they did leave when the men came home, and the ones who stayed drove down wages since there was more competition for jobs.

    So that argument is a bit wonky. Just because something has been historically true, doesn't mean it can't be criticized.
    Criticized for what?

    They can, and should thank the suffragetes. You should too, unless of course you don't want women to have the right to vote. To say that men just on their own, suddenly and spontaniously in an act of charity decided to give the women the right to vote, is ridiculous.

    It was the suffragettes who fought to convince men to hand them what they deserved, and to make them proper citizens. In the US that happened through a constitutional ammendment.

    Your argument is really bad here seer. Yes it had to happen through a democratic process. But you might as well claim that the blacks in the US should thank white men for their right to vote too. As if they shouldn't have had it to begin with.
    It is not a bad argument Leonhard, it is a fact. It was voting men that gave women the vote, no matter what role the suffragettes played, they could not vote. As far as whether it was good or not - the argument could be made that without the woman's vote we would not have the leftist politicians and judges that lead to abortion on demand, or gay marriage, convenient divorce. Or radical feminists polluting the moral atmosphere. You tell me Leonhard - is that good?



    In the simplest form you're stating it here I disagree with it.
    Why? Don't we find male dominance in our closest primate cousins? How is it not genetic?

    I am a complementarianist, but I also have strong doubts that the way men have treated women through the millenia reflects God's designs. And I think even with ordained roles, we are, and should be considered almost the same in terms of intellectual capabilities.
    They why did God not allow women in leadership roles in both Testaments? I can think of only one exception.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  2. #12
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,811
    Amen (Given)
    4977
    Amen (Received)
    22080
    The reason societies developed as patriarchies is because the women had the children and the men protected them and provided for them in order to perpetuate their families. The world was a pretty dangerous place at one time.

    These same feminists who claim to be the physical equal to men and want to take over socieity are the same ones who are boo-hooing about how men dominate and rape women and women can't go out by themselves at night because all men are rapists and are commiserating with Ford about how she was abused.

  3. #13
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,454
    Amen (Given)
    958
    Amen (Received)
    2903
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Criticized for what?
    That can be dealt with in another thread. Right now I'm just focusing on the argument you did make.

    It is not a bad argument Leonhard, it is a fact. It was voting men that gave women the vote, no matter what role the suffragettes played, they could not vote.
    Unless you can make a convincing case that women would have been given the right to vote, without the advocacy of the suffragettes. You might as well then argue that Martin Luther King had nothing to do with black people being given the vote.

    As far as whether it was good or not - the argument could be made that without the woman's vote we would not have the leftist politicians and judges that lead to abortion on demand, or gay marriage, convenient divorce. Or radical feminists polluting the moral atmosphere. You tell me Leonhard - is that good?
    None of those things are good. And yet women ought still be able to vote.

    Why? Don't we find male dominance in our closest primate cousins? How is it not genetic?
    The argument isn't all that strong, because humans live in monogamous relationships. We, mostly, pick one mate and stay with that mate. There's also, like other animals with monogamous relationships, not that much of a difference between a male and a female. Gorilla's are the opposite, here there's one alpha male who has almost exclusive right to reproduce with the females. Here the males compete directly with each other, and therefore sexual selection starts to occur. In some such species there can be as many as three different types of males, each using different techniques to get the females.

    It doesn't apply to humans. And there are plenty of egalitarian social structures out there. We have a patriarchal structure, mostly because it was what we inherited. Not because it is innate to our biology. At least not entirely.

    They why did God not allow women in leadership roles in both Testaments? I can think of only one exception.
    Because that is His Will. Women are just as intelligent as men. There are many women smarter and more learned than many of the priests I've seen. Even people who are trying to make the argument that women don't reach the same intellectual heights as men, are mostly saying that there's less diversity between women, and so a smaller percentage of women is found at the very tips of human ability. That's a bit of a stretch to apply to the priesthood.

    Few priests are the smartest people.

    It is a mystery why God chose only men to be priests. The Virgin Mary would be the one most worthy if it came to a matter of virtue or ability, if you as me, as I'm a Catholic. Its a mystery why God chose a married unlearned fisherman by the name of Simon and made him the Rock (Peter) of the Church.

    If you'd ask me why, and told me to take a guess, I'd wager it is because Christ was a man. And therefore since all priests represent the persona of Christ during a mass, this is most fitting. Beyond that I have no answers for you. Testosterone also gives men a moderate physical advantage.

    I am a very egalitarian complementarianist. I believe God gave us duties, but I think we have very similar capabilities in everything except our reproductive functions.
    Last edited by Leonhard; 10-16-2018 at 09:07 AM.

  4. #14
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,797
    Amen (Given)
    1673
    Amen (Received)
    5011
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    Unless you can make a convincing case that women would have been given the right to vote, without the advocacy of the suffragettes. You might as well then argue that Martin Luther King had nothing to do with black people being given the vote.
    Black people were voting long before MLK. But the fact is, no matter what suffragettes did it was men who gave women the vote. Period.


    None of those things are good. And yet women ought still be able to vote.
    Even if it directly lead to evils like abortion? Why?



    The argument isn't all that strong, because humans live in monogamous relationships. We, mostly, pick one mate and stay with that mate. There's also, like other animals with monogamous relationships, not that much of a difference between a male and a female. Gorilla's are the opposite, here there's one alpha male who has almost exclusive right to reproduce with the females. Here the males compete directly with each other, and therefore sexual selection starts to occur. In some such species there can be as many as three different types of males, each using different techniques to get the females.

    It doesn't apply to humans. And there are plenty of egalitarian social structures out there. We have a patriarchal structure, mostly because it was what we inherited. Not because it is innate to our biology. At least not entirely.
    OK, so you agree that it is at least partly genetic. So it is not merely a social construct, an invention. And what do monogamous relationships have to do with male dominance? And where were these historic egalitarian social structures you are speaking of. I can only think of a couple.



    Because that is His Will. Women are just as intelligent as men. There are many women smarter and more learned than many of the priests I've seen. Even people who are trying to make the argument that women don't reach the same intellectual heights as men, are mostly saying that there's less diversity between women, and so a smaller percentage of women is found at the very tips of human ability. That's a bit of a stretch to apply to the priesthood.

    Few priests are the smartest people.

    It is a mystery why God chose only men to be priests. The Virgin Mary would be the one most worthy if it came to a matter of virtue or ability, if you as me, as I'm a Catholic. Its a mystery why God chose a married unlearned fisherman by the name of Simon and made him the Rock (Peter) of the Church.

    If you'd ask me why, and told me to take a guess, I'd wager it is because Christ was a man. And therefore since all priests represent the persona of Christ during a mass, this is most fitting. Beyond that I have no answers for you. Testosterone also gives men a moderate physical advantage.
    Or perhaps it has to do with emotional make up? Just look at the churches that began ordaining women 50-60 years ago, they all ended up denying Scripture (to degrees), supporting abortion, gay marriage, no fault divorce, etc... And if God did not allow women in leadership positions why is it a good idea for us to do it?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  5. #15
    tWebber firstfloor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    invalid value
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,033
    Amen (Given)
    19
    Amen (Received)
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Even my liberal friends are having a hard time grasping all this. One of my classic liberal friends who works at the homeless shelter in town told me Saturday morning at breakfast, "I think I'm about ready to turn in my pinko commie liberal credentials".
    Civilisation is at a stage now where it is moving away from fighting and towards cooperation on global scales. It must do this if it is to survive. This job is better done by women. Please pray for Rachel.
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” ― Anne Lamott
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell

  6. #16
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,455
    Amen (Given)
    11861
    Amen (Received)
    25265
    Quote Originally Posted by firstfloor View Post
    Civilisation is at a stage now where it is moving away from fighting and towards cooperation on global scales. It must do this if it is to survive. This job is better done by women. Pray for Rachel.
    My liberal friend whom I quoted is, indeed, a woman. She's wising up to the leftist sham.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  7. #17
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,454
    Amen (Given)
    958
    Amen (Received)
    2903
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Black people were voting long before MLK.
    Correct, I got some information mixed up. Thank you for it. Still would be the same argument. Should black people thank white people for giving them the right to vote, even though they clearly should have had it from the beginning?

    There's a one to one correspondance between that, and it for women.

    But the fact is, no matter what suffragettes did it was men who gave women the vote. Period.
    And that was thanks to the suffragetes. Otherwise the men wouldn't have voted for it. I also think they should have had it, so its more a case of white men withholding the right to vote from women until that point. Not a matter of it being granted.

    Last time I said that unless you could make a case that women would have gotten the right to vote, regardless of the sufragettes, then its the sufragettes who are the cause. And that's the best interpretation. Without the suffragette movement, and the works of women to that effect, women would not have been granted the right to vote.

    Even if it directly lead to evils like abortion? Why?
    I don't think it leads directly to evils like abortions. You're moving the goal post. It is good for women to have a right to vote, because they are part of the political fabric. They're intelligent and capable. They can work and be responsible. There's no reason why they shouldn't participate as voters.

    OK, so you agree that it is at least partly genetic. So it is not merely a social construct, an invention.
    I never agreed to anything like that. I infact made the opposite case, that there's good reason to think that selection pressures have acted differently on humans, by pointing out our monogamous nature. I also pointed out that there are egalitarian societies out there. You typically find them in hunter-gatherer communities that haven't had contact with modern day civilisation. There's some speculation going on that humans didn't actually become a patriarchal society until we became agrarian.

    I've always found the topic interesting and I don't think we've found out at all what's the case.

    So no, to clarify, I think the case for a strong genetic component is very flimsy, and the case for it being mostly a social construct being very strong.

    And what do monogamous relationships have to do with male dominance?
    You talked about male dominance? I imagine you had in mind the apes where there's a single alpha male who has almost exclusive access to the females? An example would be the silverback gorillas. If you're not talking about that, then I don't know what your argument is.

    Sexual selection pressures work differently in a group like that. There's typically a strong sexual dimorphism, with the men becoming markedly different than the women. Its a pattern that plays itself out in the animal kingdom anywhere you have groups like that. And it makes perfect sense under the theory of blind mechanical evolution, where all that's acting are selection pressures. If you read Darwin's Origin of Species, even he anticipated sexual selection and how it could explain the strong sexual dimorphism we see in those situations, and how the opposite is the case with animals that just pair off.

    Humans are monogamous (well in modern day we're serial monogamous). There's no strong competition between males to conquor and attack a herd of females.

    God intended us to be monogamous as well, and we're created to be that. He made us similar. Eve was even taken from the middle of Adam, from his rib. Not from his feet, or head, she wasn't better or worse than him.

    She was his equal. Different from him. But neither lesser nor greater.

    And where were these historic egalitarian social structures you are speaking of. I can only think of a couple.
    Actually its harder to find an example of a hunter-gatherer society that wasn't egalitarian socially, than it is to find those that are. Most hunter-gatherers are egalitarians.

    I find it fascinating, and there's so much out there. I'll try to find you something not found in a peer review journal as they tend to be behind pay walls. Of course I'm also talking about hunter gatherers that currently exist. I think they're our only window into the hunter gatherer cultures we ourselves came from, though I admit its extrapolation. But its the best we can do.

    After a bit of googling, I was sorry to say that most of it is in books. Not everything is online after all.

    But I did find a good pdf that describes some of it.

    http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~carsonvs/papers/41.pdf

    None of the egalitarian cultures are perfectly egalitarian, but they're a lot more egalitarian than agrarian societies were. How patriarchy developed is a good question and I often wonder about it and sometimes wonder if it was an effect of the fall. God did say that because of the Fall, the relationship between men and women would be haunted by difficulties.

    Or perhaps it has to do with emotional make up? Just look at the churches that began ordaining women 50-60 years ago, they all ended up denying Scripture (to degrees), supporting abortion, gay marriage, no fault divorce, etc... And if God did not allow women in leadership positions why is it a good idea for us to do it?
    I haven't said women should be ordained. God has indeed said we shouldn't and that's that.

    Offending God I don't think is the best step when trying to grow a church. I am not at all surprised for the failings that are creeping into those churches.

  8. #18
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,797
    Amen (Given)
    1673
    Amen (Received)
    5011
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    Correct, I got some information mixed up. Thank you for it. Still would be the same argument. Should black people thank white people for giving them the right to vote, even though they clearly should have had it from the beginning?

    There's a one to one correspondance between that, and it for women.
    Well yes, they should thank us. Blacks were a little different though, they mostly did not come here of their own free will.



    And that was thanks to the suffragetes. Otherwise the men wouldn't have voted for it. I also think they should have had it, so its more a case of white men withholding the right to vote from women until that point. Not a matter of it being granted.

    Last time I said that unless you could make a case that women would have gotten the right to vote, regardless of the sufragettes, then its the sufragettes who are the cause. And that's the best interpretation. Without the suffragette movement, and the works of women to that effect, women would not have been granted the right to vote.
    Yes, I think men would have eventually given them the right to vote, in either case it was up to the men.


    I don't think it leads directly to evils like abortions. You're moving the goal post. It is good for women to have a right to vote, because they are part of the political fabric. They're intelligent and capable. They can work and be responsible. There's no reason why they shouldn't participate as voters.
    That is nonsense Leonhard, most of the social ills that I mentioned are directly linked to the feminist movement and their political power.

    I never agreed to anything like that. I infact made the opposite case, that there's good reason to think that selection pressures have acted differently on humans, by pointing out our monogamous nature. I also pointed out that there are egalitarian societies out there. You typically find them in hunter-gatherer communities that haven't had contact with modern day civilisation. There's some speculation going on that humans didn't actually become a patriarchal society until we became agrarian.

    I've always found the topic interesting and I don't think we've found out at all what's the case.

    So no, to clarify, I think the case for a strong genetic component is very flimsy, and the case for it being mostly a social construct being very strong.
    What makes you think that men were not dominate in hunter-gatherer societies? And again, it is obviously true with our closet primate cousins, and that certainly is genetic. Why wouldn't those genetic traits transfer to us?


    You talked about male dominance? I imagine you had in mind the apes where there's a single alpha male who has almost exclusive access to the females? An example would be the silverback gorillas. If you're not talking about that, then I don't know what your argument is.

    Sexual selection pressures work differently in a group like that. There's typically a strong sexual dimorphism, with the men becoming markedly different than the women. Its a pattern that plays itself out in the animal kingdom anywhere you have groups like that. And it makes perfect sense under the theory of blind mechanical evolution, where all that's acting are selection pressures. If you read Darwin's Origin of Species, even he anticipated sexual selection and how it could explain the strong sexual dimorphism we see in those situations, and how the opposite is the case with animals that just pair off.

    Humans are monogamous (well in modern day we're serial monogamous). There's no strong competition between males to conquor and attack a herd of females.
    I'm speaking of general dominance, there is a clear and general male hierarchy. So why wouldn't those traits be passed on to us?

    There is a distinct linear dominance hierarchy in male chimpanzees, and males are dominant over females (Goldberg & Wrangham 1997).

    http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factshee...impanzee/behav
    God intended us to be monogamous as well, and we're created to be that. He made us similar. Eve was even taken from the middle of Adam, from his rib. Not from his feet, or head, she wasn't better or worse than him.

    She was his equal. Different from him. But neither lesser nor greater.
    Yet Eve was created to be a helpmate for Adam


    I haven't said women should be ordained. God has indeed said we shouldn't and that's that.
    So obviously God did not think it was a good thing for women to be in leadership roles - but you do in other areas?

    Offending God I don't think is the best step when trying to grow a church. I am not at all surprised for the failings that are creeping into those churches.
    Yes the churches who put women in leadership roles.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  9. #19
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,454
    Amen (Given)
    958
    Amen (Received)
    2903
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Well yes, they [black people] should thank us.


    Yes, I think men would have eventually given them the right to vote,
    I don't see any indication of it. Do you have a good reason why you believe this?

    That is nonsense Leonhard, most of the social ills that I mentioned are directly linked to the feminist movement and their political power.
    No, its not nonsense. You can't make a moral decision based upon possible future moral decisions. Women chose these things, and things could have been otherwise. That bad things were chosen would not change that it was good that they got the right to vote.

    I'll always support women's right to vote seer.

    What makes you think that men were not dominate in hunter-gatherer societies?
    You seem to be confused seer. All of the hunter-gatherer societies documented in that book, are hunter-gatherer societies that exist currently in our world. The findings apply even to groups deep in the jungles that had no contact with modern civilisation.

    So its not a matter of me speculating wildly. This is a matter of empirical fact: Almost all hunter-gatherer socities that we have access to are largely egalitarian.

    This is for various reasons I often wonder about.

    I'm speaking of general dominance, there is a clear and general male hierarchy.
    Would you define it then, if you aren't talking about sexual patterns involving a single alpha male with near exclusive access to the females? Because its not at all clear to me what you're talking about then.

    Yet Eve was created to be a helpmate for Adam
    Yes, in that she was a partner. And they had a complementary, yet equal relationship.

    So obviously God did not think it was a good thing for women to be in leadership roles - but you do in other areas?
    Ordained to priesthood was what you were talking about. And now you're talking about leadership roles. Again you're moving the goal post seer.

    I don't believe women can be ordained to the priesthood. I do believe women can be leaders.

  10. #20
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,938
    Amen (Given)
    5239
    Amen (Received)
    3537
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    Testosterone also gives men a moderate physical advantage.


    It's far more than just "moderate".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •