Feminism and the Reorganization of Society

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteSpectralMirror
 


I'm a feminist and I agree with EVERY one of your points (except one, possibly). When I say equal, I mean equal.

The one possible exception is that a woman has the final say about abortion. It's up to her because it's in HER body. I know it isn't fair, but just like the fact that men are physically stronger than women, men cannot carry and birth a child.

Your post is very refreshing!




posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I'm not saying a man should have the say in if a child is kept by the woman, just a male equivalent that allows for him to take back some control over the next 18 years of his life. While I personally would never abandon a child I have seen vindictive women keep a baby to try to screw the dad out of revenge or spite or to keep him around. This kind of situation is good for no one especially the child. There is no recourse for a man right now other than shut up and hand her the money.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 





Please back this up with said scientific and empirical evidence.


There's a recent thread that somewhat touches upon this question: why do men commit rape? Primarily, of course, because they're amoral; secondarily, out of sheer sexual frustration.

In any case, you're in a position in which you need to posit something without any evidence to support it: that a mans biological response to a woman's beauty - or toplessness, or even more, to the fact that nature has designed man as the sex which courts the other, could be 'wiped clean' - eliminated - by "desensitization".




They 'subscribe' to? That would be about right, it is a choice, or rather an aspect of nurture, it is not hardwired as you are trying to imply.


It is completely hardwired.



Imposing rules does not change thought processes, it merely penalises them.


Excuse me, but that makes no sense. If one put up guards, i.e. laws, or rules, then one can remove the intensity of the impediment in question. True, it does not "change" thought forms, but it limits their intensity and ability in dictating inimical behavior patterns.

If a woman for example covers her chest area, I will think less sexual thoughts than if she were completely exposed.

To ignore this is radical; it's to assume - which entails experimentation, of course - that there is no concrete connection between the impression of a naked female body and the emotional effect it produces in the other sex, who, mind you, is programmed by nature to be aroused upon such a visual.

Also, as a I mentioned before, there is a correlation between covering and sexual arousal; the 'tension' in keeping hidden and private those parts associated with personal function (a woman's breasts, which she uses to feed her child, is a personal and intimate thing) and the furtive desire to see a woman's (or mans) naked body, is part of what makes sex so thrilling; as said, the ancient discerned that a woman's sphere of power is the private, whereas the mans sphere of power is the public; the tension between these two states is what produces life's scintillating experiences.

To just do away with these archetypal differentiations, would severely dampen the intensity of rapprochement. It would make life intensely boring, and dull. Hence, Differentiation is wonderful.. Differences between the sexes, rules of garb, etc - all adds to the intensity of living.




There is nothing moral about denying women the freedom to feed their children in public because it may offend others, or arouse them.


Why would a woman even want to feed in public?? That's what I would like to know.

If she wants to sit under a tree in a private area to suckle her child, I find nothing wrong with that. If, on the hand, she desires to breast feed on a public bench, I can help but wonder "why"?? Is she trying to make a public statement? Is she politicizing her motherhood?




That's your problem, not the woman's. Deal with it.


How very mature of you. You would like me to acknowledge your 'rights' - your right to dress as you want - but you refuse to recognize my rights i.e. my PERSONAL i.e. intellectual and moral rights, i.e. my right to be from external compulsion. Were not talking about something equivocal; there is no uncertainty about the effect a woman's nakedness has on a mans mind; it's known, hence, we devise methods to free our thoughts from the external compulsion of sexual arousal.




Well if it is natural while feel the need to conceal it?


You don't read very much, do you? Read Hegel, for example. There are values, ethical values, values ennobled primarily in the Jewish tradition, which cannot be preserved unless the mind preserve it's freedom by choosing - not by external impetus - but by internal freedom, how it would like to live.

Nature may have made man this way, but it also gave man the power of reason - the ability to know the effect nature has on a mans freedom of will.




I see men walking around topless all the time, in the summer that is, and I can control my 'impulse',


That's because the female response to the sight of a mans exposed chest is not the same in its intensity - and frequency (i.e. not all females are as sexually sensitive as you may be) as it is in men. But I suppose you will argue this as well





ame goes for a matriarchy while we're at it. I prefer progress and equality.


The idea of patriarchy and matriarchy - what do you think is implied by that? It's a basic dualism; it's either one or the other - there is no 'in between'; there is only whats called a 'patriarchal' society, which is the standard traditional cultures of the west, and there are 'matriarchal' societies, which were popular in pre-christian times.

In any case, it's not an exact formula; it really refers to a METAPHYSICAL attitude of the culture in question, rather than a particular mode of government.




You can preserve that if that is what you want, your choice of spouse, the way you both raise your children...beyond that, you have to learn to live with the rights and freedoms that others have.


And you seem to not care that the values I would seek to imbue in my child could not exist in a society in which a bare breasted woman was a normal sight. It wouldn't happen; the unconscious effect of that sight would prime him towards a totally different philosophical attitude in life - i.e the one society inculcates by crystallizing that formality in law.

The natural state always has primacy - but it's not right, because nature is in itself immoral - or rather, morally neutral. Thus, we cannot derive moral advice from nature.

Man's unique device is his ability to IMPOSE law and order on the chaos of nature.
edit on 10-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



Why would a woman even want to feed in public?? That's what I would like to know.

If she wants to sit under a tree in a private area to suckle her child, I find nothing wrong with that. If, on the hand, she desires to breast feed on a public bench, I can help but wonder "why"?? Is she trying to make a public statement? Is she politicizing her motherhood?


It is more about the refusal to be confined to the home/non-public places based solely on infant feeding schedules. It's a convenience issue. Breast feeding isn't sexual.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by LeSigh
 





Breast feeding isn't sexual.


Never said it was. But there is also something improper about doing it an overtly public manner.

I went to the museum a few weeks ago and I saw a woman breast feeding her child on a bench in the corner. no one was around, she covered herself modestly, and I thought it was completely fine, actually, beautiful. I thought it beautiful mainly because she took precaution from not exposing herself in such a way as to allow people to watch. She sought to preserve the privacy of that connection between mother and child, which again, is beautiful.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Very good OP with lots to think about. Looks like it took an extended amount of time to perfect but definitely well worth your effort!

S&F



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





Then, politicians influenced by Judeo-Christian morality made the activity illegal. That is simply one example of how that moral philosophy is repugnant.


It's repugnant to make gambling illegal? That seems a bit of an exaggeration. Granted, you made money. But there is nothing 'repugnant' about prohibiting the action (which, btw, I don't entirely support). It's just unfortunate for you.




It is entirely about control and conformity.


Really?? Control, I agree, but conformity?? When I look around me nowadays, ALL I SEE IS CONFORMITY! Everyone listens to the same music, almost all the kids have tattoos, rings all over, they love the same things etc; conformity everywhere. It's just liberal conformism.

People cannot escape conformity.

As for control, the control in question is control of what's outside man's area of power i.e. the external, natural world. It is here where control is reasonably imposed, and this imposition finds expression in moral and ethical beliefs, which is concretized in law.




That paganism is one of many ways to achieve freedom.


I'll just refer you to "Outlines oft he Philosophy of Right". All the logic is there.




Regarding your comments about the Greco-Roman world accepting Judaism. They didn't


Well, scholars of the late roman period based on statements by certain historians postulate that as much as 10% of the Roman empire were either converts to Judaism, or adherents of a Jewish morality, called "God fearers"..




Christianity was forced upon the inhabitants


The earliest Christians were persecuted by Constantine. Early on the religion was embraced. When Constantine adopted it and Christianity became the state religion, they INCORPORATED aspects of pagan religion where ever they encountered difficulty. This was the case particularly in Asia minor and Germany/France/British Isles.

Christianity may carry the "Jewish spirit" - but within it is an implacable conflict which only today is coming to fruition, hence, the demonic rebuff of Jewishness by Martin Luther, and later on by the Nazis who saw in Christianity the shell of a culture they despised with their whole being (it is extremely telling that the nurembourg laws classified a Jew as someone with a grandparent or parent who followed the Jewish religion. And yet people have this false idea that the Nazis were racists, when in fact their racism was merely a corollary of their spiritual beliefs; a Jew CONTAINED within his physical being the residue of a particular spiritual disposition i.e. what you and everyone in this thread seems to despise).




That is the morality of Judeo-Christian thought


That is the morality of Christianity, unfortunately. The Jews - if you are such an expert of history - as you well know, were as much victims, or even more so, of the abuses of Christendom than the pagans were.

All the pagans needed to do was not completely abandon their old moral code, but to reject the outer garment of the old religion, and accept Christianity. This is what the majority of them did.




At least Romans would kill you relatively quickly.


There is an anecdote in the Jerusalem Talmud detailing the torture and execution of Rabbi Akiba. The Romans had a device - a whip with a metal teeth at the end - which they used in his torture. They whipped him over and over again until his flesh hung from his body.

I don't see how it can get any worse than that.

But, as for the Church, your right to point out how putrid their behavior was... but, after all, they are the inheritors of the ancient roman priesthood only pretending to be followers of the 'ethic' they expect from the masses of their followers. In truth, they are gnostics.




You seem to be implying that any religion, philosophy, or practice that is non-Abrahamic in origin is somehow detrimental to society.


Not at all. I find Hinduism's class distinction as practical; however, I disagree in it's rigid formalism, in it's refusal to allow someone of low birth to 'climb up' through merit.

I think society should always be a mixture - never only one thing. Aristocracy and Republicanism, etc




What about the people that do not want to live that way?


As said, nature has primacy. People who don't want to live that way should be permitted by law to live as they please, in private.

But, formal law should protect the interests of the highest morality. To be moral requires man to challenge nature. But if a man lives in a society which gives precedence to 'nature' how on earth can one be expected to raise ones children in the moral way?

Therefore, because nature is already at an advantage, man should take the added measure of instituting laws which promote the traditional moral order i.e marriage, monogamy, institutions which would be severely threatened if radical feminists got what they wanted.
edit on 10-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteSpectralMirror
 





How is a discussion about feminism revolving mostly around women being topless?


I was debating this somewhere else. I guess it touched on one of those peripheral demands of radical feminists.




What about the fact that a woman has the choice to abort a child which took BOTH parties to conceive yet a man has no choice to "abort" his obligation within the same time period? If one can choose to "not have their life ruined" or that it is "not the right time" why can't the other?


I COMPLETELY AGREE 100%. Men are at the disadvantage nowadays in public courts. What about giving custody of a child to a cheating spouse - the wife - who was a drug addict? It's amazing the over emphasis placed on what a woman provides to rearing a child, but the man, the father figure, is almost completely ignored.

I know many good men who lost their relationship with their children because the court gave custody to their cheating wives; and that the court ignores, or seeks to exculpate the severity of a particular woman's vices is especially unnerving.



What about reducing requirements for firefighters and police officers to allow women equal access to these jobs when it can actually put people in danger?


You are on a freaking roll with this post.

The other day I was with my sister and I passed by a woman cop that couldn't have been taller the 5'0. If I were in danger, what on earth could she do to help or protect me??

How can this be ignored? She isn't physically imposing enough - nay she's downright diminutive - to be serving in a position that requires her to sometimes come to other peoples physical protection.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
The other day I was with my sister and I passed by a woman cop that couldn't have been taller the 5'0. If I were in danger, what on earth could she do to help or protect me??

How can this be ignored? She isn't physically imposing enough - nay she's downright diminutive - to be serving in a position that requires her to sometimes come to other peoples physical protection.


Soon as a male cop can walk into the women's night club bathroom without causing a riot, let me know?

Besides, where I come from police fitness tests for basic officers are downright useless anyway. One requirement is five push ups and clearing a 1.6 metre obstacle. This means I complete the police fitness test getting out of bed in the morning by accident.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
Soon as a male cop can walk into the women's night club bathroom without causing a riot, let me know?

Besides, where I come from police fitness tests for basic officers are downright useless anyway. One requirement is five push ups and clearing a 1.6 metre obstacle. This means I complete the police fitness test getting out of bed in the morning by accident.


^Yep. Also, I've known some female cops that outperformed some of their male counterparts. There are always exceptions to these biological standards we seem to take for granted. Even countries like Iran have female cops. They wear chadors, but they have female cops. As long as there is a need for police and women live on this planet, there will be a need for female police officers.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Regarding desensitization and your appalled astonishment that it can happen and relatively quickly, I advise you to look no further than Victorian pornography, where simply showing ankles and having women dressing (fully covered) in male attire was considered salacious. Failing that, look at the evolution of bathing attire and the perceived necessity for bathing machines for modesty.

Here's an experiment: Go to a public beach. Today, you'll see a variety of swim wear. Lots of two piece suits abound. I've yet to see anyone freak out at the beach because of this. However, place those same people in two piece suits in the middle of a fancy restaurant and all those who would be unconcerned at the beach would be in fits over seeing skin at a restaurant. Perceptions of appropriate dress can and do change based on context, time, and culture.

I admit I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, as I don't want to start seeing naked folks walking around either. I'd rather see people learn how to dress better for their body types, and I'm a bit tired of seeing people wearing booty shorts with perpetual wedgies. But, everyone you know is scandalously attired compared to their counterparts of even fifty years ago, forget one hundred.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 





Soon as a male cop can walk into the women's night club bathroom without causing a riot, let me know?


Ahh. So that's the purpose of midget police women.


I thought that could be performed by a police woman of at least average height, 5'5-5'6, and moderate build. But no. Apparently only a woman the size of my niece can do that.




Besides, where I come from police fitness tests for basic officers are downright useless anyway. One requirement is five push ups and clearing a 1.6 metre obstacle. This means I complete the police fitness test getting out of bed in the morning by accident.


That's pretty pathetic indeed.

The Air force has a 70 pushups in one minute requirement - which I can do - and even that seems too little.
edit on 10-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by LeSigh
 





^Yep. Also, I've known some female cops that outperformed some of their male counterparts. There are always exceptions to these biological standards we seem to take for granted.


That is something that has always bothered me. Ahh, I recognize it's silliness, but I cannot resist.

I'm not particularly tall - just '57 - but I'm 170 solid muscle, played collegiate basketball. But whenever - not very often, actually, just once in a blue moon - I encountered a female athlete that could keep up with my athleticism, either in speed, quickness or jumping ability (skill is something woman can do just as well as men) I always got annoyed and tried a little harder.

In any case, as the recent olympics showed, some women are incredible athletes. However, the best of their best would not even be able to compete with the most mediocre of Male olympic athletes in the same sport or event.
edit on 10-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by LeSigh
 





Regarding desensitization and your appalled astonishment that it can happen and relatively quickly, I advise you to look no further than Victorian pornography, where simply showing ankles and having women dressing (fully covered) in male attire was considered salacious.


But here were moving into a different category. There is nothing particularly 'private' about a woman's ankles, knees, or arms. I agree, these too convey a sexual turn, but not to the same degree and certainly not producing the same effect as naked breasts would have.

In every era, at every time, civilized people have sought to it that a woman cover her bottom AND her top.

The only places where this rules doesn't abide, is in the most undeveloped and uncivilized - both morally, and externally - tribes places in the most inaccessible jungles.

I really despise with a passion people who try to convince others to look to them - these same people who sometimes engage in cannibalism - for moral advice.



Perceptions of appropriate dress can and do change based on context, time, and culture.


True, however, I disagree with the necessity of 'time' forcing change in this particular matter. At almost every period, in civilized cultures, at least, a woman was expected to cover her bottom and top areas. This might even allude further to the 'dualism' associated with womankind; femininity was seen to be an expression of the metaphysical quality of "manifestation" - as opposed to the principle it gives expression to. Multiplicity - the world of form - also called maya by the hindus, is a world of objective substance. It's externality predicated on an inherent dualism, hence, maya means 'illusory'. Anything dual, is contradictory, and thus, unreal, because all is either oneness or nothing at all.

Since this world is illusory - and so - misleading, it is right that her charm be covered up lest we be swallowed up by the sundry temptations she puts before us.

Anyways, not to get sidetracked into mythology and metaphysics, I think there's intrinsic validity in this tradition, that a woman be covered up, if not for the sake of preserving tradition itself, then entirely for the reasons I've stated throughout this thread: the effect it has on a mans inner freedom to choose without external compulsion. If I have a women's breasts before me, I no longer have the freedom to live as I desire to live. Not unless I choose to alienate myself from society could I go on living and believing as I do. Such is the effect of the emotions - sexuality in particular - on belief.

It took great moral strength for the ancient Hebrews to hand down to us what we have today. it's just a shame Christianity mutilated it in so many forms with it's discomfort with sexuality, living etc. It was much too pagan - i.e ascetic - at its core, to handle the questions of living.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Biliverdin
 



Conversely, to enact laws that permit something which comes naturally - such as allowing woman to walk around topless - leaves very little room for someone who seeks to preserve his inner will, which means, to abide by a moral code, infinitely more difficult.

As a woman you seem to have very little understanding of what it is to be a man. It is not easy to turn away when you see an attractive woman; take off her top, and the will to look becomes almost intolerably hard to resist.

Why do you talk as if it's something in our power to control?? It's nature. Nature made man this way. Biology makes man respond this way. Your argument is as silly as blaming the depressive or obsessive person of being 'too weak' to "rise above" his or her depression or obsession. The THOUGHT fills your mind, grasps your attention and leaves you very little freedom to think of anything else. Hence, we enact laws against letting women walk around topless or nude because of the effect it has on Males.



I'm wondering, if men are so weak and can not control themselves when a woman is topless (attractiveness is relative), then how come men in other cultures have no problem controlling themselves? What makes western men (or your) biology so much weaker than what you call primitive?

At nude and non-nude beaches around the world, men don't suddenly become beasts when they see a barely dressed women.
Male gynecologists also find ways to control their "nature" and they are being very invasive.



Additionally, you seem hung up on children seeing women topless and that will some how scar them for life.
Children see their mothers topless. It happens, often when a mother has several children of varying ages in the home and has to nurse her youngest. Children also encounter other women nursing their little ones sometimes at the doctors office, other times on the playground.
These children aren't harmed by seeing the purpose of the breast. They don't view them as sexual play things that are shameful.
Please explain how children seeing a woman topless will put immoral thoughts into their mind?

Personally I think it's a culture, not biology that makes something sexual.


Additionally I would like an example of a matriarchy in history that has not oppressed men the way patriarchy objectifies and oppresses women. In my study of history, I haven't encountered a matriarchy that feminizes or objectifies men.The ones I've came across have respected mans role in the universe.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Goodness! Where to start with you....friend?
I was going to respond yesterday and thank goodness I didn't (first thoughts are for digesting for sure), after your futher posts your story becomes a little more dense and interesting, purely from the point of view of your opinion, which in spots had my mouth hanging open, agape even.

You cover so many disparities it is difficult to pick just one in which to discuss, but let's start with biology for a minute, since you are not a woman nor teenager or young girl, nor possibly have memories of such.
Having sisters is one thing, but you have not lived the skin, and it is as complicated for us as it is as complicating for you, just ask my husband
You learn pretty quickly to have no shame in your body (nor need you), especially during birth for which all husbands should attend, but that's just my opinion. We are usually tougher on ourselves than any of the opinions of man.

There is also nothing wrong with strong moral convictions of which you live by, the issues always arise when you try to force that kind of moral code down throats at force, or carry yourself with a sense of higher moral living looking down over another whom is built just like you on the inside.
The arrogance is obvious and lack of gentle understanding is missing also. You are then carrying yourself as gracelessly as indeed you accuse women of.

Every story is different, it is not a one story fits all scinario on this planet, never has been and there's a good reason for that. It called growth, or call it evolution if you want to. I for one thank all that is lovely for the diversity.

Abuse of power comes in all forms as well, to label the woman and her inherent, inherited energy to blame for the masculine species getting out of control is the first step to trying to cage and conform that femanine aspect, again. That story is getting very boring indeed, and you're basically saying God got it wrong with women (?!) since I only assume your religion believes in one God. Pagans on the other hand like to thank a variety of dieties, is it not a personal choice discovered on the journey of living, this 'religion' thing?

You are wrong on a few points, at least from my prospective, woman can be 'played' just as easily as a man when in a suitably sensitive/heightened state, to say otherwise really only says something about yourself.

Perhaps she is more aware of the potency of her sexual charms, but that is certainly something that is discovered on long paths and by mistakes sometimes which can have terrible consequences, and some yet to be discovered still.
Can she be held accountable if she did not know? Is that not like convicting a child? As indeed since you profess men are so weak they also can not be held accountable?
I have an entirely different prospective of men than the one in which you portray, you would seem to me to be struggling with a few personal issues, which are not mine to list.
There is also much 'undirected' anger in your words.

When you underestimate a 5" Police woman, one wonders what else you have underestimated, and we are not all witches in the negative sense either.

Circumstances can make women bitter and spiteful, just as circumstances can make men.....well, you know.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Your response is to Benevolent Heretic however you are quoting what I posted. Obviously an error. If you still have time perhaps you should correct it?

Before I begin I just want to say the way you cherry pick what I typed, leading to out of context quotes which leads to the quoter making out of context remarks, is the primary reason I dislike post dissectors. I did the same thing myself during my 1st year or so as a member. I finally realized that it is counter-productive and detracts from a conversation. Anyhow, I am not attacking you in this context, just expressing my point of view on the matter.

I think you misunderstood me in my remark about poker. I do not think making gambling illegal is repugnant. What is repugnant is how a moral philosophy that I do not adhere to is negatively affecting my life. I had a good portion of my income(at that time) stolen from me for no practical reason. That law has not stopped online poker in the USA. It merely forced its user to become more creative in where they held their funds. However, the believers of Judeo-Christian morality pushed their representatives to make this activity illegal in the states. All for the sake of their personal beliefs. Funny, they seemed to have no care whatsoever for mine.

About control and conformity. You are right about conformity. I see it everyday as well and it sickens me. I am essentially a social pariah because I do not conform. I live the way I choose. For some reason that disturbs people. Don't misunderstand me here -- I am not some lunatic that does whatever I please because I have the urge. Example, many years ago I lost a crappy job because I would not conform with their demands. The company(Pizza Hut) decided to issue the funds it owed its workers in the form of debit cards. I would not accept that for a very simple reason. I do not use banks. As such, every time I would have wanted to take money out of the card I would have been charged a service fee for the mere privilege of withdrawing MY money from some ATM. I told the company I would accept only cash or check as payment. They refused to give in and I refused to receive the debit card payment. Finally, they cut me a check for the money they owed me at the same time they fired me. Please excuse my long-winded example but I wanted to illustrate that I refuse to conform to the combined will of others. I evaluate each situation and make my own decision on the merits of such. People can indeed escape conformity if that person is willing to accept the sacrifices that come with refusal to conform. You make a fair point in regards to control, law and moral/ethical beliefs. Still, this idea is not free of corruption, it is not free from perceived superiority. One merely has to look upon the practice of "Extraterritoriality". This was a practice of the European colonial powers. In short, this practice was used by the Europeans to ensure that they were governed by their home nations laws and courts. For example, China in the 19th century had Extraterritoriality forced upon her. My point with all of this is that law, morality and ethics are relative. Forcing others to conform to ones own perception of law, morality, and ethics is immoral and unethical at its core.

Thanks for the reference. I have not looked into at as yet but, tell me, is this work the sole authority on such things? I do not believe that a single concept is somehow greater or has more meaning than any other concept.

Regarding the Jews you mentioned. They indeed were persecuted by many. The East Romans and the initial advance of Islam killed off or converted most of the Samaritans whose religious beliefs were extremely similar to those of Judaism. The English, French and Spanish eventually expelled adherents of Judaism from their countries. Even so, the pagans were treated far worse in my opinion. Jewish culture has survived right down to the present day. Sadly, that is not the case with pagan cultures. Yes--a good amount of pagan beliefs has survived down to the present day but, a good amount of pagan culture and beliefs has been exterminated, never to return.

The anecdote you described does indeed sound like a very painful way to die. The implement is called a scourge in case you were unaware. I do agree with your statements about Christianity continuing and incorporating many pagan practices. Even so, that does not justify the behavior that adherents of paganism suffered through.

You say people that do not want to live the way you described should be permitted to live the way they choose in private. My retort would be this: Why must they be the ones to sacrifice the public sphere? In all fairness, if one group must suffer through laws that restrict their actions to privacy, than all groups should.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


"Why would a woman even want to feed in public?? That's what I would like to know.
If she wants to sit under a tree in a private area to suckle her child, I find nothing wrong with that. If, on the hand, she desires to breast feed on a public bench, I can help but wonder "why"?? Is she trying to make a public statement? Is she politicizing her motherhood? "




If you are a father, I take it your wife never breastfed your child. I can come up with lots of examples of a mother needing to nurse in public. Here's one to enlighten you:

A mother is at a park to let her 4 -year-old play. She has brought her infant because dad is at work and the baby needs fresh air and sunshine. Baby gets hungry. The park is surrounded by males, females, children, parents, grandparents, etc...
There are no trees nearby so she can nurse in shame.
Would you rather her nurse on the park bench where she can feed her little one and keep an eye on her 4-year -old, or have her take her 4 year old away from his new found friends to go nurse in a hot car for a half hour?

A mother, who cares about both her children, will say to hell with perverted people, and stay on the bench nursing her baby and watching her son play with new friends.
edit on 10-9-2012 by collietta because: Couldn't separate the quote box, so took the box out.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


A hundred years ago it was taboo for a woman to show her ankles because it would arouse men, today men have very little problem controlling themselves when bare ankles are present. In third world countries (whatever that means) women walk around bare breasted and aren't thrown down and raped because of it.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by collietta
 





I'm wondering, if men are so weak and can not control themselves when a woman is topless (attractiveness is relative), then how come men in other cultures have no problem controlling themselves? What makes western men (or your) biology so much weaker than what you call primitive?


That's not hard to answer.

Primitives have not even come to know what it means to be 'moral'. One could almost argue that they are the intermediary between animal and man. They are a vestige of mankind in his pre-moral, civilizational stage of development.

With civilization, and self understanding - which primitives have only a primitive consciousness of - comes morality: with consciousness of how one can best live.

Morality and civilization seem to be coeval with each other; the one produces the other. Since man has ascended the spiritual order of living, has reflected upon life and sought to live better, he has come to various codes of living. The first, most practical issue was the situation of man and his environment, which the ancients saw manifested internally as man - or reason - and his emotions, or wild passions. The latter had to be controlled in order for man to extricate himself from the inertia of matter, or natural existence.

The more removed man became from nature, the more freedom man procured for himself.

Since primitives are still somewhat identified with nature, not knowing anything more, their natural condition doesn't strike them as anything special.




At nude and non-nude beaches around the world, men don't suddenly become beasts when they see a barely dressed women. Male gynecologists also find ways to control their "nature" and they are being very invasive.


Geeze, people here still haven't quite caught on to what I'm bothered by. I get that hedonists don't find anything 'special' about the presence of a womans naked breasts; and if they did, they would look and not be too bothered by it. Why is it so easy? Because they do not RESIST the power of external influences. They are at-one with that way of living. They expect nothing more, and seek nothing more. Life is already completely sublimated by sexual feeling. Otherwise, why would they be at nude beaches??

As for the gynecologist. First, we don't know his inner thoughts or feelings. He may think at times, involuntarily of course, of sexual things. However, being a doctor and having immediate concerns distracts his mind from thinking something inappropriate. It specifically his task - his protocol, his method, what he has to look for when he's analyzing his patient, that thoroughly allows him to do his job without becoming distracted. I'm sure the thought in itself - the chance of thinking such a thing while he's working - is alarming for him.



Children see their mothers topless


My mother is not the same as someone else's mother. A different woman topless produces a different affect on a young boy who isn't acquainted with her. In itself, it is a very intimate and sexual sight.

I remember very clearly, at around 10 or 11, when I saw my moms friends breasts - and that provided me endless enjoyment for the next month or so.



These children aren't harmed by seeing the purpose of the breast.


Now you're discussing public breast feeding, which isn't the same as just walking around topless. The PURPOSE of a breast, is breast feeding. Walking topless, is no longer purposeful. So why would you expect a man, or a young boy, to look at it as if it were nothing but a 'breast'?




Please explain how children seeing a woman topless will put immoral thoughts into their mind?


Clearly, my idea and your idea of immoral differ. To me, looking upon women as sexual objects is immoral. An exposed breast heightens the likelihood of such thinking. If a teenager - a guy going through puberty - saw a young attractive woman walking around topless, what message would that send?? At least when we conceal our selves in places which produce excitement in the other sex, we subtract from the feeling the visual immediately has on us. But to leave it exposed, essentially says "this is good; gawk, look, enjoy yourself". It invites sexualization.




Personally I think it's a culture, not biology that makes something sexual.


Heres a question for you. Why are women so much more preoccupied with their looks then men? Is it because - nature has made them care more about it? Or is "environment" responsible for that concern?

The obverse of male attraction for females is a females preoccupation with her physical beauty. So if our reaction is simply 'determined by culture', then so is her preoccupation with physical beauty. And if that is just cultural, what do we make of the physical differences between men and women?? Women are small, sensitive (emotional i.e hormonally different) and thus predisposed to being taken care of by men. What do you think nature does to compensate for her physical weakness?? Perhaps, some enchanting effect upon men??? That her beauty - her appearance, grips us and bodes us towards attraction???

In other words, if you can't tell, biology is clearly responsible for a mans reaction towards women, and a women's preoccupation with her own physical beauty; her charm for man compensates for her physical vulnerability. Thus, nature has made man cling to woman, just as the Bible in fact says.
edit on 10-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join