It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by undo
reply to post by RedCairo
i think it was the part about religion making sex "dirty." it isn't that at all. some people may translate it that way, but if solomon had a thousand wives (ever read the song of solomon?) and God told us to be fruitful and multiply (mwahaha)... the whole point of celibacy is the same as with ascetism -- you give it up to rechannel the energy normally used in that way, into something spiritual or physical exercise or marathon exams, or some goal you want to achieve that will make you a better person. it isn't religion that's the problem. it's the way people translate the wise men and their related texts.
Um, well, you could say that christianity teaches us to love so how did the Crusades and the Inquisition happen -- those were merely the way people translated the wise men and their related texts -
yet it is a stereotype to assume that people who believe in christianity think sex is dirty. they just have rules about how to go about having it. this is how it goes... sex is fine in marriage "(meaning that you've agreed to be with one person.. this has several benefits). sex is not fine with someone else's spouse. duh. sex is not fine outside marriage (unwanted pregnancies, increased chance of STDs, etc). sex, if at all possible, should just be avoided so that you can focus on your spiritual self, which is your eternal body.
it's not very complicated, and it doesn't mean it's dirty. it means it's got some social, mental, physical and spiritual implications and complications.
Well he goes far too fast too far but as can be seen from the earlier stats double household incomes have not made the majority of American households economically better off for it.
Again that depends on whether you define house work as work. As you say women often had to work the fields or in factories while raising children and keeping the house.
But learning wasn't always frowned upon as was almost always the case for women? I do not for a moment think that the history of the world were a kinder place to women than the modern world is. In fact until very recently ( and still only in some places) women were little other than property , in the community sense, that had to make the best arrangements they could with the male they were mostly saddled ( i accurate pun if ever) with by their parents or community?
Originally posted by orangetom1999
You know Undo...on this same line of thought.. I have a friend who god divorced shortly after marriage. One of the points his now ex made constantly..was one of the problems with him is that like me ..he does not watch sports. She had made the connection with male sports conditioning in worshiping the ability to run touchdowns ..with being able to come in an overtake/hijack this paradigm in making a man malleable to her performance conditioning..to try out for her approval even at great expense/risk to himself...and not her. In other words to run touchdowns for her and at her discretion. She actually thought this was normal..and the way things were supposed to be.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
I don't particularly believe in in men trying out for approval and acknowledgement by such sacrifice. I also don't believe in women using this male willingness to perform for approval at great risk to the male verses the women becoming more self sufficient in lieu of being heavily marketed.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
However..both groups ..politicians and women use this subtilty and the mans willingness to perform for approval to get and achieve power and control. All the feminists have done is institutionalized this technique and the politicians have overtaken/hijacked the feminists for votes.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
They are not finding satisfaction out in the world growing old alone or under many of the concepts they were told were valuable and to be sought after.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
I am waiting to see if and when the draft comes back that women will be required socially and politically to take first place risks as well in being drafted and making themselves expendable and disposable in like manner to the men. Somehow I don't think so.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
Imagine women being drafted and sent to some "adventure " for years and years across the world in some remote land. Rotated in and out by the thousands and thousands. They would not be home to direct and consume the goods in the economy. They would not be here to use credit in the manner expected or predicted. This would be economic chaos. A disaster in the making.
They use their heads to override nature much more than males do.
Originally posted by undo
not every woman is a marilyn monroe, nor is every man a rock hudson, in other words.
if you use stereotype and he uses stereotype, instead of equality, we end up with 2 potential extremes, neither of which solve the problem but rather create unfair conditions. personally, i don't want that thing swinging back to the other side. the middle is much better on this particular topic
the rest of your post assumes that religious people or christians still do view sex as dirty. that's just not the case. the focus has always been on the war between the temporal (Temporary) demands of the body and the eternal state of the spirit.
it's a matter of defining spirit and knowing how the temporary body interacts with it
chances are, though, the physical dimension is the least populated since it's temporary.
I think your overplaying the victim ideology when the capitalist system the world currently suffers under is doing it's absolute best to perpetuate the myth that there are no victims and that people fail or suffer due to their own actions, or for those who really suffer, their supposed inaction.
Perpetuating a victim ideology would be VERY bad for business as people would come to , somehow, not explained, 'rely' on government which would then have to be responsive to their needs thus failing to reroute ever more of their taxes to the rich minority who practically owns the government and its propaganda tools.
Strange that even with your perspective women ends up the longest suffering victims of our current system.
And in my mind they are and when women eventually figures this out and gains the power to do something about it 'we' might really be in trouble. There is a particularly good Anime series that comes to mind.
But historically women were even more expendable&disposable as the high death's from multiple births ( to say nothing of war&famine) should in my opinion indicate? Sure men protected their families but seemingly as their possessions.
I think that while , mostly western, women are facing new risks ( as well as plenty of the old ones ) these days their potential gains are astronomically higher hence the fact that you find them struggling for similar opportunities all over the world.
In closing i don't see that women have much, if anything, to lose even if society itself is changed in perhaps less obviously progressive ways.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
In this couintry there is no other group of people outside of women who watch more television and buy more products and direct more of the economics and who also have the greatest voting power in any election outside of any so called minority..ever.
All I have to do is read romance novels to see this pattern of female success perpetuated over and over in the minds of women.
And women buy alot of these books and magazines..thus demonstrating again that this is not an oppressed minorithy. What opprressed vicitmized group has the time and moneys to purchase and read so much of this stuff??
Are not many security/socially minded governments attempting to maintain thier power base..voting for more security minded social programs for votes...in spite of destroying their economic base, who is required to pay for these programs? What group or sex is the major beneficiary of such programs?? I can gaurantee you it is not the males.
Here among the states ..California is paying a heavy price for this security mindedness.
When one dissects it down to its common denominators...and particularly in economically developed nations....male power is for the purpose of directing it to the female and children.
Female power is for the purpose of directing it to the female needs and the childrens needs while screaming inequalty injustice.
In short ..the roles have become disfunctioinal...as is obvious by the posts on this thread. Any questioning of this status brings about the rebuke and scorn one gets as per on here.
Indeed...there is no women's socialization instruction to take care of the men in the manner men have traditionally taken care of the females.
To do something about it means that the women will be responsible for keeping and maintaining all the systems they currently take so for granted all around them. Most will not be wont to do this type of labor or commitment.
The sad truth about things is that women tend to go for "success objects" in objectifying men..and men tend to go for "sex objects" in objectifying women. This too has become disfunctional in todays social economic structure
Originally posted by orangetom1999
While this technological innovation has done much for childbirth and death of the woman and child in birth..what has it done for male risks across the borad and on the job??
I believe you are in Africa. What has technological innovation done to make diamond mining more safe for the males involved in it..or are there now droves of women going down into these deep mines??
It is my belief that if women were going down into these mines they would be made safer places to work rather quickly...or shutdown due to the costs of maintaining them.
Our technology has shielded us from much of the world and other conditions. It has made us better consumers and not better peoples.
Originally posted by undo
illusions
SOME some some. if you use the generic "men" and "women" concepts, you put the pendulum right back into the dramatic swing to the other side. i don't know if you could even call it a norm.
Apropos of this, a quite
witty remark is reported of the wife of Argentocoxus,
a Caledonian, to Julia Augusta, when the latter after
the treaty was joking her about the free intercourse of
her sex in Britain with men. Thereupon the foreigner
asserted: "We fulfill the necessities of nature in a
much better way than you Eoman women. We have
dealings openly with the best men, whereas you let
yourselves be debauched in secret by the vilest. " This
is what the British woman said.
The reporter, Ben Smith, told the AP that Spencer made the comments as Spencer, his wife and Smith sat together. He said he didn't tape-record the comments but did take notes.
"You ever see a picture of her back then? Whew. I don't know why Bill married her," The Daily News quoted Spencer as saying about Clinton.
Spencer said Clinton looks different now, chalking it up to "millions of dollars" of "work," according to the tabloid.
Which translates to, "There are slightly more women than men." And, "Women do more of the shopping." The latter is changing, as advertisers note.
If you ask me this is in part because most men really don't care as much as women do what color the curtains are or what kind of stove they get or the details of what might be for dinner next week. There are exceptions.
I beg your pardon? You are implying that entire history of women can be disregarded as irrelevant or inaccurate because women read romance novels?! What kind of logic is this--never mind, it is not logic.
First of all, you have no idea who is reading them or how much they're reading.
Second, you don't know anything about why some women might have time for that.
Third, you don't know anything about how much time it really takes to read a book for each individual. I can read an 800-1100 page book in a day if I wish, and this is somewhat above normal, but it means I could sit down and read several romance novels every day and it would take far less time than most people spend gazing at the television.
Fourth, if we compared 'romance novel quantity' to 'porn quantity' with the same logic, it's amazing any man ever gets anything done LOL.
Women are the ones who give birth to most of the kids those programs target. (The rest are gender-neutral.) Take it up with God.
"
Here among the states ..California is paying a heavy price for this security mindedness.
"
You can't possibly look at the illegal alien situation in california and tell me women are the problem. Good grief.
Biologically and historically, that is fairly accurate; the man's role was as provider and protector. In healthy humans this is not a bad thing, and the roles are often reversed in today's world, but usually one person takes that role.
Your stapling on "screaming inequality injustice" may in some cases be valid but (a) sometimes they are accurate frankly, and (b) it's not like this is an issue with every woman on earth. Really, you sound kind of hysterical.
Indeed...there is no women's socialization instruction to take care of the men in the manner men have traditionally taken care of the females.
For good reason. Men are generally stronger and do not usually have 9 months of pregnancy and then an infant and toddler to care for.
To do something about it means that the women will be responsible for keeping and maintaining all the systems they currently take so for granted all around them. Most will not be wont to do this type of labor or commitment.
You mean they won't dig ditches while the man breastfeeds? Be specific.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
What group or sex is the major beneficiary of such programs?? I can gaurantee you it is not the males.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
Knowledge and technological innovation is what has changed this for the better. Not victimization still going on. While this technological innovation has done much for childbirth and death of the woman and child in birth..what has it done for male risks across the borad and on the job??
Originally posted by orangetom1999
Not only are there slightly more women than men but they also have the discretionary spending of not only the moneys they earn but their mans as well.
What men do not do for the moneys they earn is have such discretionary control over the spending of the moneys they earn.
This is NEVER explained while touting the standard lines about wage inequality and glass ceilings.
Women are not going to turn over such a large amount of their earnings to a man for his discretionary spending.
I am saying that this is not a victimized group.