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.

 

Folks-dancing - proof for gender essentialism?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

Chanting explosion on Times Square in New York.
There's women playing some instruments, but otherwise it's pretty much a male affair.
I've seen it happen.
Does that mean men are closer to God?
Or is it cultural?
I mean these people navigate naturally to the same gender in the religious milieu - they are not forced.
www.youtube.com...




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 

For the Hijra dance they certainly can be (and often are) hermaphrodites or trans-sexuals.
However, the illusion of breasts is easy to create without ops.
Some do opt for modern surgery.
Many others do not.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


I would hope that if a benevolent ''God'' does exist, that they'd treat everyone the same, regardless of race, gender or sexuality.


You say they are not forced, maybe not literally, but cultural norms can be powerful, and most people don't want to ''stand out from the crowd'' and be a target for criticism or ridicule.

I'd say the attitudes towards gender in this sort of ritual or ceremony are largely cultural, and not ''spiritually'' derived.


[edit on 5-9-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
You speak the truth.
In many countries and cultures genders are segregated - I suppose by force - if anyone should transgress.
The more clips I've researched, from Rasta to Islam, the more it makes me think that my church and community was a minority and wierd.
In much, even most of the world, gender segregation is central to religious gathering.

That being said, I kinda enjoy that. The feeling that gender can make you special.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

A very nice Muslim song - a son learning of the male prophets.
My Table Mountain I see daily is in the background.
www.youtube.com...

I hope nothing that I've said is blasphemous or wrong.
However, who can deny that maleness supercedes feminity in religion?

Of course I'm not saying women don't have a place.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


I think religious attitudes just represent the attitudes of society as a whole.

For example, the patriarchal teachings of the Abrahamic religions, reflect the time that they were formed.

Whereas nowadays, in a slightly less patriarchal society, these same religions are displaying a softer side in regards to attitudes towards the roles of both men and women, such as the approval of women priests and bishops.


The fact of the matter is that men will tend to congregate towards groups of males, and women will tend to congregate towards groups of females.

It's nature. We share more things in common with members of our own gender, so we are more likely to seek out the platonic acquaintance of people of our own gender.


For example I can make a throwaway ''small-talk'' comment about shaving to a man I barely know, because I know it's an inoffensive subject that he's bound to be able to relate to.

If I were to make exactly the same comment to a woman, then she might think I was being extremely rude, and making some ''joke'' about her having some facial hair !

I know that might be a trivial example, but it still shows that when you are having a conversation with someone of your own gender, then you are much more likely to find common ground to discuss.

I don't believe it's societal pressure that accounts for the fact that most men's best friends are male, and most women's best friends are female.


LOL.

Sorry to go off on a bit of a ramble there, but my main point is that in my opinion religious gender segregation is just an extension of how we naturally flock towards the gender that we identify with, in a purely platonic sense.

As a rule, religions tend to be strict on sex, and sexual relations, so they readily encourage same-gender fraternisation, because it keeps us away from the ''immoral'', potential sexual interactions, with the opposite sex.


[edit on 5-9-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

Many Westerners may hear of the Crusades.
I wonder, what did it do in the Islamic world, when they heard "Christians" were eating people? Who knows.
At least at that stage gender was very set in both major religions.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 

Honestly, sounds great.
But as far as gender goes we've made very few advancements.
The Anglican reforms are openly rejected in most of Africa.

Perhaps we are misjudging gender and what most people want?

One of the oldest ladies in Shashamene - Rasta clip:
www.youtube.com...



[edit on 5-9-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 

Well, from the purely practical point of view - segregating the genders means less (to none) unwanted pregnancies.
What man wants his inheritentce or love to go to an imposter?

OK, DNA testing has softened that.
But it still can't rule it out.

Is our lineage, and who begat whom quite important?

The only way to rule out raising a "cuckoo's child" is to segregate the genders.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

I suppose in "tribal" societies where the lineage is very important, the social segregation of the genders is a kind of social contract between men and women.
Some may call it sexism, but some of the most powerful women come from those societies and groups.
This is perhaps the irony - how they allow men their illusions.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
Well, from the purely practical point of view - segregating the genders means less (to none) unwanted pregnancies.
What man wants his inheritentce or love to go to an imposter?


I think you're correct.

Imagine living in a society 2,000, 1,000, or even 500 years ago, that consisted of about 500-1000 people that each had to do their bit for group survival.

Now, human hormones being as they are, it would be quite likely for the young men and women to have sex out of ''lust'', and 9-months later, an apparently fatherless child comes into their community.

Obviously, as most decent humans have empathy and compassion, they couldn't cast this child out to die, so someone had to raise him/her, as if they were any other young member of the group.

This kind of scenario is bound to put pressure on the group as a whole, and is not really an ideal situation for them to have to be in.


In many ways, I think the religious dogma, about not having sex before marriage, has a largely logical basis to it; by committing to marriage, both parents have shown a lifetime commitment, that will benefit any child that they may have after they've made this commitment official.


Originally posted by halfoldman
OK, DNA testing has softened that.
But it still can't rule it out.

Is our lineage, and who begat whom quite important?

The only way to rule out raising a "cuckoo's child" is to segregate the genders.


Yeah, DNA certainly makes things easier nowadays, but it still doesn't alter the original notion that unwanted pregnancies will result out of sexual encounters between people that aren't suitable to raise a child.

The thing is, that nowadays, the ''state'' picks up the tab for any ''complications'' that may arise out of any non-permanent relationships, therefore, taking the responsibility of the protagonists, because they have no-one to answer to !


I think gender segregation, and roles, in society will get more and more blurred, until people realise that the ''state'' is not a pot at the end of the rainbow.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 

A great summing up of the potential "problem".
However it sounds a bit like it all started yesterday.
It's been with us for ages.

Premarital sex has led to younger marriages (I'd argue, not vice-versa).
And so what? I'm glad I'm here.
I'm glad they got knocked up - thanks Fats Domino and The Beatles.
Thank you pop music and your immoral effect on the youth.
I'm here because that generation got knocked up, and may there be many more!



[edit on 5-9-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


It's a ''problem'' that will stay with us, as long as we remain humans !

I think it's more a question of control, and damage limitations, in terms of unwanted, or unexpected, pregnancies.

The difference is that nowadays we don't have a ''judgement'' hanging over us, if we don't obey certain ''commands'' about sex.


This is one of the reasons why I think that religion is important from a social, evolutionary, point of view...

You just can't convince someone that something is wrong - even so it's beneficial for overall group survival - without the threat of something bad happening to them, if they don't comply !

People are mostly going to think: ''Yeah, yeah, whatever'', unless their actions have a direct consequence to something with immediate effect.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 

All true.
Just to add perhaps - it depends on what is appropriate for one's age.
For example, when I was a teenager, making a girl pregnant would have been terrible.
But now, it would be the best thing ever.
It's also not good to fill young people up with with all kinds of fears.
That too, can backfire.

Which reminds me, I just saw a two part youtube doccie on the Star-Spangled Banner.
What an amazing history of this flag.
And I take back any notion that it is sung gender-segregated.
Indeed:
www.youtube.com...



[edit on 6-9-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

Sadly, the anthem I was raised with - and it's flag I often swore to die for, are now relegated to one verse, and considered racist, even unspeakable.
No folks-dance allowed.
Die Stem/The Call of South Africa:
www.youtube.com...

Well, in with the new:
Nkosi Sikelele 'Africa (from verse to verse: isiXhosa, isiZulu, isiSotho, Afrikaans, English).
www.youtube.com...


[edit on 6-9-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Mate, I love the current version of Nkosi Sikelele...

I love the fusion between the ''God Bless Africa'' hymn, and ''Die Stem''...

It is actually in one of my top 5 National anthems of the world, and it always makes my hairs stand on end, when I listen to it before a rugby, or football, game involving South Africa, even though I'm not South African !












[edit on 6-9-2010 by Sherlock Holmes]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

I think that with all the diseases, or STDs, especially HIV, around nowadays we can't go back to "free love" or another past generation.
In a sense this generation has got to be more moral, more clued up, than anything that's gone before.
How much will things like culture and dance matter? Who knows?
All I know is people took a lot of trouble passing these things on...
Even if funny and dated sometimes, I hope they will be passed on again.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 

Thank you so much for saying that.
I thought we were already forgotten, and left to our NWO fate.
That really means a lot.
So strange, we have an atheistic Constitution, but a Gospel song as our anthem!
But maybe that's just us - a microcosm of the world, and many different forces.
May Morena (God) bless you.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 

The Black Lodge Singers:
What more can one say?
Time to listen:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
I thought we were already forgotten, and left to our NWO fate.
That really means a lot.


I have to confess, to my shame, that I had the ignorant opinion that the World Cup hosted in South Africa, would turn out to be a shambolic experience for the world, but I couldn't be more wrong, thankfully !

As I say, it's to my personal embarrassment that I thought the hosting of the World Cup in South Africa would be a bit chaotic, because of the doubts about the SA infrastructure.

But, your country did a great job of hosting the WC, and I only wish I'd been over there to see it ( although, preferably not to see the England humiliation, against Germany, in Bloemfontein ! ).


I think the national anthem of South Africa is one of the truly great anthems, because it blends the traditional ''Colonial'' anthem, with the '''natives''' hymn'', and incorporates a couple of great tunes, and it gets played throughout the world in rugby, football, and cricket.




Originally posted by halfoldman
May Morena (God) bless you.


And you, mate.

I hope you just do your thing, and be who you wanna be.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join