Elevating Women: What is in it for men?

a reply to: dawnstar

Rome. Rome happened. Rome was a nation state that glorified masculinity to an irrational degree.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

rome had goddesses along with their gods till someone got the bright idea to merge christianity into the mix, so now we have a kind of paganized christianity. and one could say that they still have their goddess in the form of mary.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Where is your evidence krazy
What proof have you Christianity teaches a double standard between men and women

You really want to go there?
Feminine Oppression and Empowerment in Historical and Contemporary Judeo-Christianity

Misogyny, Not So Much Homophobia, Is the Church’s Root Issue Needing a Solution

Christian Misogyny: Female Sexuality in the Primary Historical Sources for Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe

Women And Religion: Sexism In The Christian Tradition

Holy Misogyny

The Legitimation of the Abuse of Women in Christianity

How is that? I can continue too, but I doubt you'll read those sources so I think that'll be enough.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Where is your evidence krazy
What proof have you Christianity teaches a double standard between men and women

You really want to go there?
Feminine Oppression and Empowerment in Historical and Contemporary Judeo-Christianity

Misogyny, Not So Much Homophobia, Is the Church’s Root Issue Needing a Solution

Christian Misogyny: Female Sexuality in the Primary Historical Sources for Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe

Women And Religion: Sexism In The Christian Tradition

Holy Misogyny

The Legitimation of the Abuse of Women in Christianity

How is that? I can continue too, but I doubt you'll read those sources so I think that'll be enough.

Fabulous wealth of historical data and as the Pope stated that he will need to conduct research to ascertain if nuns can be elevated in the ranks, I think I will e-mail him all your links.

What's in it for men to elevate women in religious hierarchy? Nothing, unless they want to save face and not appear hypocritical (not holding my breath) so throwing the nuns a thin bone may appease those of us looking on with consternation.

Barbara Simpson confidently expected that "As women's minds are freed by education, the church will disappear, and high time too. It is entirely a man-made institution, even if it is woman supported, and I think that in the future every thinking woman will congratulate herself that her sex had no finger in that pie."18

To their credit, a few of the more honest clergymen are beginning to admit their organizations' complicity in the cultural tragedy of sexism. Father Leo Booth wrote: "All women have been sexually abused by the Bible teachings, and institutions set on its fundamentalist interpretations. There would be no need for the women's movement if the church and Bible hadn't abused them."19

In short, imagine a world where every person may enjoy what every good mother wishes for her child: a useful, happy life that develops her or his capacities to their full extent, and fosters positive, rewarding relations with others. If there be a religion in this imaginary world, it would be one that projects the maternal guardian spirit onto Mother Nature, Mother Earth, symbolizing the feminine powers of our own uniquely life-giving, life-sustaining planet. No punitive, demanding god would have a place there, but rather a metaphoric embodiment of the milk of human kindness, idealized as a supreme Goddess, not transcendent but immanent in the human heart. Such is the world toward which women's spirituality points as its Utopian goal--the only heaven we can ever really know.

The way to achieve this heaven is surely not to keep sending prayers and praises into the void, in the fatuous belief that some god of this unthinkably vast universe has a male ego that requires our constant flattery. The way to achieve this heaven is to learn and respect the needs of our Mother Earth and all the life that she sustains.

Swami Vivekananda was devoted to the Great Mother under her Indian name of Kali Ma. Perceiving the rediscovery of her spirit by American women, he remarked that "Western women will be the salvation of the world."25 Let us work together to make this prophecy come true.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: awareness10

I raised three sons, during a portion of their childhood, I was doing my best to live according to what those ultra conservative christians taught...
they can tell you straight up, it's not that great when women don't have an equal footing!

I raised one son to respect all people, animal kind and planet Earth, and he does - so if that is ultra feminism, count me in.

originally posted by: Nyiah
a reply to: FalseMove

That...that wasn't even coherent. Cut back on the drunk posting.

I'm female. There has been nothing improved in the last 2 decades, at least, that makes any kind of notable marked difference whatsoever. There have been no issues presented pertaining to my girly genetics that aren't anything other than mediocre snowflake complaining. I'm speaking of the West. Anywhere else is up to the locals to alter. Not us. We're not the planet's police force, and we're not the world's moral compass, either.

That 'ad nauseum' argument that humanists (some of you use the term feminists) of the West have the responsibility to save oppressed women in poor countries is a lost cause without the men of those countries stepping up 'front and centre', especially their male religious leaders and banning religious police, as well as all male honour killing gangs and their abuses.

Traditional misinterpretations of religion have played a role in developing a patriarchal culture that places an emphasis on female chastity and male superiority. The power dynamics of patriarchy reduce women to their reproductive potential, and in the process deny them agency as human beings. Women are considered to have monetary value and to be the property of male family members. Therefore, men control much of the lives of women, including social relationships. The preservation of a woman's chastity and fidelity, through segregation and control, becomes the responsibility of the men to whom she "belongs." A female's illicit relationship goes against the socio-cultural framework in Pakistan, causing family honour to be tarnished.

A man's ability to protect his family's honour is judged by society. As a result, he must demonstrate his power to safeguard his family's honour by killing those who damaged it. The concept of women as property and honour remains deeply entrenched in the socio-cultural fabric of many countries. As a result, many individuals, including women, support this ritual. This may also be the reason why in some regions of countries where the concept of honour is predominant, legal authorities often ignore the daily occurrences of women being killed by their families.

www.justice.gc.ca...

a reply to: InTheLight

You got it. It is high time that the Abrahamic religions of the world acknowledged their complicity in keeping the female gender marginalized and oppressed. It's clear as day to anyone paying attention and the longer they hold out refusing to acknowledge this short coming, the more members they will lose with each subsequent generation of people. There's a reason that secularism is on the rise in the 1st world. The problem is that the religious are too short-sighted or blinded to the reality of their religion to acknowledge that their religion is part of the problem and not the solution they think it is.

a reply to: InTheLight

I raised one son to respect all people, animal kind and planet Earth, and he does - so if that is ultra feminism, count me in.

Then I guess I'm one too because that's the same way I raised my daughter.

She's caring, loving, compassionate, intelligent, self-sustaining, and accepts full personal responsibility for everything she does and everything she indirectly affects.

I'm pretty damn proud to call her my kid... and grateful as all hell that we live in modern times that allowed her to be nobody's chattel.

My mother's life story isn't as good.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: InTheLight

I raised one son to respect all people, animal kind and planet Earth, and he does - so if that is ultra feminism, count me in.

Then I guess I'm one too because that's the same way I raised my daughter.

She's caring, loving, compassionate, intelligent, self-sustaining, and accepts full personal responsibility for everything she does and everything she indirectly affects.

I'm pretty damn proud to call her my kid... and grateful as all hell that we live in modern times that allowed her to be nobody's chattel.

My mother's life story isn't as good.

Same here with my daughter and my mother was too busy raising four children (basically, single-handedly) and conditioned to not take a stand against the status quo, because it was not lady-like..."smile now" and "lie in that bed you've (who made the bed?) made" was the order of the day.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

rome had goddesses along with their gods till someone got the bright idea to merge christianity into the mix, so now we have a kind of paganized christianity. and one could say that they still have their goddess in the form of mary.

yeah, as Rome fell a new power structure was needed.

But even as Rome operated in its classical sense, women were subjugated. In fact, it seems as though masculinity was on the rise throughout the classical era.

On the whole, I don't see elevating women as a bad thing. I did have some personal experiences though that make me want to put some prerequisites in place.

I shared an office with a woman for about two years. I am not exaggerating when I say she spent between three and four hours on the phone every day in a conference call with a friend in HR and a lawyer discussing all the options she had for filing suit and which would be the most "beneficial". Literally half her work day was spent on the phone...and she complained that men who started at the same time she did had already been promoted. She had nothing but gender to rely on, unless she did eight hours worth of work in four hours every day. And I can tell you she didn't. She eventually filed suit and won. But she really shouldn't have.

The other was a woman who really played the game and it was obvious that was what she was doing. She would email porn around to people she liked, then scream harassment if someone she didn't like dared to say they liked her hair cut or something equally benign. She ended up filing suit and winning. It was ridiculous.

But in the end, I stand firm with the idea that women should be elevated...just high enough so you can see up their skirts...

I would say as a traditionalist men mostly feel a pride in protecting them, that is hard wired.
May I ask the OP: How about women in combat?
As a former soldier I doubt their ability to perform my mission without the upper body strength or emotional dettachment to events,FROM BOTH SIDES.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

The existence of women in combat roles throughout history disagrees with your idea. The common ploy soldiers against women in combat roles come up with is that they wouldn't trust a woman to be able to carry a wounded soldier to safety, but to that I say, I DEFINITELY served with male soldiers who I wouldn't trust to do the same thing. So in other words, for every task you think women aren't suited to perform while in combat, there are also men who can't do it either yet get assigned to those roles anyways.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I 'm afraid modern combat is FAR different from its predacessors as Israel's recent reports clearly show.
While they may do well as foot soldiers (if they can carry a full ruck) .they will suck in armor and artillery.
Not to mention we don"t need them.
The whole thing is either ONLY to empower women or get rank.
A pretty SH#TTY reason to condemn women to death, from a draft, in case of war ,when they would have to do or die.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

and you really think that the ones sending you to war actually care weather your buddies are physically fit to do much of anything, male or female? I kind of think that they sent many men into the combat zone during the nam war that wasn't fit! and I've seen the results of this when a few of these men came home.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
I would say as a traditionalist men mostly feel a pride in protecting them, that is hard wired.
May I ask the OP: How about women in combat?
As a former soldier I doubt their ability to perform my mission without the upper body strength or emotional dettachment to events,FROM BOTH SIDES.

What's in it for you to deny those women that are capable and willing?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
On the whole, I don't see elevating women as a bad thing. I did have some personal experiences though that make me want to put some prerequisites in place.

I shared an office with a woman for about two years. I am not exaggerating when I say she spent between three and four hours on the phone every day in a conference call with a friend in HR and a lawyer discussing all the options she had for filing suit and which would be the most "beneficial". Literally half her work day was spent on the phone...and she complained that men who started at the same time she did had already been promoted. She had nothing but gender to rely on, unless she did eight hours worth of work in four hours every day. And I can tell you she didn't. She eventually filed suit and won. But she really shouldn't have.

The other was a woman who really played the game and it was obvious that was what she was doing. She would email porn around to people she liked, then scream harassment if someone she didn't like dared to say they liked her hair cut or something equally benign. She ended up filing suit and winning. It was ridiculous.

But in the end, I stand firm with the idea that women should be elevated...just high enough so you can see up their skirts...

On the one hand, you see a woman not pulling her weight, whereas I see a woman fighting for her rights, which obviously takes time...and since it is a workplace inequality issue, what's wrong with it being on the company's time when they created the issue in the first place?

On the other hand, you see a woman using sexual humour to gain favour, whereas i see a woman playing a man's game and being negatively criticized for doing what some men consider acceptable in a work environment.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I 'm afraid modern combat is FAR different from its predacessors as Israel's recent reports clearly show.
While they may do well as foot soldiers (if they can carry a full ruck) .they will suck in armor and artillery.

Yet they seem to be doing just fine in the artillery units we've put them in so far. Plus I can speak from factual information that any idiot could be an MLRS Crewmember. You don't need tons of upper body strength to do that.

Not to mention we don"t need them.

Bodies are bodies when it comes to war. As long as bodies are necessary, then women should be needed just as much as men.

The whole thing is either ONLY to empower women or get rank.
A pretty SH#TTY reason to condemn women to death, from a draft, in case of war ,when they would have to do or die.

Drafts are #ty reasons to go to war period, regardless of the reason someone is drafted. That's why the US has moved towards a volunteer army and away from a conscripted army. If you are going to mention modern warfare when trying to discount female participation in combat arms, you do a disservice to your argument when you bring up a military policy that hasn't been in effect since the 70's.

a reply to: InTheLight

In short, imagine a world where every person may enjoy what every good mother wishes for her child: a useful, happy life that develops her or his capacities to their full extent, and fosters positive, rewarding relations with others. If there be a religion in this imaginary world, it would be one that projects the maternal guardian spirit onto Mother Nature, Mother Earth, symbolizing the feminine powers of our own uniquely life-giving, life-sustaining planet. No punitive, demanding god would have a place there, but rather a metaphoric embodiment of the milk of human kindness, idealized as a supreme Goddess, not transcendent but immanent in the human heart. Such is the world toward which women's spirituality points as its Utopian goal--the only heaven we can ever really know.

The way to achieve this heaven is surely not to keep sending prayers and praises into the void, in the fatuous belief that some god of this unthinkably vast universe has a male ego that requires our constant flattery. The way to achieve this heaven is to learn and respect the needs of our Mother Earth and all the life that she sustains.

Swami Vivekananda was devoted to the Great Mother under her Indian name of Kali Ma. Perceiving the rediscovery of her spirit by American women, he remarked that "Western women will be the salvation of the world."25 Let us work together to make this prophecy come true.

I actually laughed at this. It's so cheesy and sentimental, like a lot of the posts in this thread.

Where is the logic here? The solution to superstitious gibberish is a different flavor of superstitious gibberish? Instead of worshipping the Christian God, we should worship "earth mother spirits"? Just LOL.

Gotta love that part in the end about Western women being the future "saviors of the world." Reminds of those women who go to Africa on charity mission trips, and then plaster photos of themselves on Facebook with the little African kids, craving the praise from other people. Yeah, Western women aren't saving anyone, pseudo-moral complexes notwithstanding.