Protests: Fifty Shades as Glamorizing Domestic Violence

[ChrisL]

A. interpreting Adam and Eve
as God's authority starting off as an authoritarian relationship of parental over children
and moving toward equal responsibility of people becoming self governing
B. as representing matriarchal vs patriarchal systems
and moving back toward egalitarian between equal partners but playing different roles
C. as representing class differences between men
and management viewed as having greater value and authority
than women and field workers who are valued less and considered subordinate to the other

Oh wait -- I did see this post.

I can't follow this post --- it's too "Emily". Meaning about 4% of the way in my eyes glaze over. It's like trying to read the Terms of Service on a new computer. Only ten times longer.

Cliff's Notes?

How about just the summary at the top of the three ways
A. first way is the spiritual interpretation that these divine laws and authority
already exist, and the language follows from that. The language does not create the laws.
Man's language may be flawed and biased, but it is an attempt to explain the existing laws.
and to show this relationship CHANGES from authoritarian to egalitarian as humanity matures.

B. second way is focusing on matriarchal vs. patriarchal roles in relationships.
both locally as male/female balance and equality in individual relations
and collectively how we look at church or state authority as mother and father figures.

C. last way is the most secular and linear in terms of cause and effect.
the idea of class division and disparity based on valuing the management
class and control over the working class, and how the male/female roles tied in with that.
the idea was that males were socially elevated and valued more for hunting meat,
over females and workers as crop gatherers where that stock and labor is valued less in society.

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

Females have done a LOT more than that throughout history. In fact, since we are the bearers of children, it only makes sense that WE should be the most valued members of any society.

 

[Pogo]

A. interpreting Adam and Eve
as God's authority starting off as an authoritarian relationship of parental over children
and moving toward equal responsibility of people becoming self governing
B. as representing matriarchal vs patriarchal systems
and moving back toward egalitarian between equal partners but playing different roles
C. as representing class differences between men
and management viewed as having greater value and authority
than women and field workers who are valued less and considered subordinate to the other

Oh wait -- I did see this post.

I can't follow this post --- it's too "Emily". Meaning about 4% of the way in my eyes glaze over. It's like trying to read the Terms of Service on a new computer. Only ten times longer.

Cliff's Notes?

How about just the summary at the top of the three ways
A. first way is the spiritual interpretation that these divine laws and authority
already exist, and the language follows from that. The language does not create the laws.
Man's language may be flawed and biased, but it is an attempt to explain the existing laws.
and to show this relationship CHANGES from authoritarian to egalitarian as humanity matures.

B. second way is focusing on matriarchal vs. patriarchal roles in relationships.
both locally as male/female balance and equality in individual relations
and collectively how we look at church or state authority as mother and father figures.

C. last way is the most secular and linear in terms of cause and effect.
the idea of class division and disparity based on valuing the management
class and control over the working class, and how the male/female roles tied in with that.
the idea was that males were socially elevated and valued more for hunting meat,
over females and workers as crop gatherers where that stock and labor is valued less in society.

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

OK I'm still lost. These are "three different interpretations" ----- of what?

The other thread had a pretty clear focus question: that being why we call "God" male. That's a direct objective I can get my rhetorical teeth into. Here, I don't know what the question is.

Just to pick out one aspect which is maybe as close to where we were in the other thread, you have an assumption up there that "males were valued and worshiped as the meat gatherers while females were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable". That's a giant leap. Gathering and planting sustained civilizations relatively reliably for millennia. Hunting is more iffy. You may make a kill, you may not. And if you do you've got to use it up before it spoils. Agriculture -- and herbology -- was arguably far more valuable to the community. So with "weren't as valuable" I think you miss a lot. For another thing there's a lot more variety in the realm of plants that can nourish, harm, or heal, than there is in an animal you can kill.

And "worshiped" is way too strong. I think men wangled themselves into a position of power and dominance, but "worship"?

As I said in the other thread, since "God" is a man-made invention, man was going to make this invention in such a way as to deliver what his objective was, and that is Power. The way to do that is invent a supernatural Creator-thingy, give him the same characteristics as the inventor, then stand back and go, "oh look, God has a penis. I too have a penis. Therefore I must be an authority figure -- 'God' says so". And from this is derived the myth of male authority --- not the other way around.

And again, logically a male "God" is impossible, since males by definition do not procreate; only females do that -- therefore if you go with monotheism your "god" must necessarily be either a neuter being (no gender at all) or a female with the power of parthenogenesis. Otherwise you need both a male and a female, or you aren't going to create anything.

Don't know if that relates here at all -- or if so where it connects exactly -- but that's what I posted in the other thread and you invited me to bring it here so...... adrift at sea ...

 

[emilynghiem]

A. interpreting Adam and Eve
as God's authority starting off as an authoritarian relationship of parental over children
and moving toward equal responsibility of people becoming self governing
B. as representing matriarchal vs patriarchal systems
and moving back toward egalitarian between equal partners but playing different roles
C. as representing class differences between men
and management viewed as having greater value and authority
than women and field workers who are valued less and considered subordinate to the other

Oh wait -- I did see this post.

I can't follow this post --- it's too "Emily". Meaning about 4% of the way in my eyes glaze over. It's like trying to read the Terms of Service on a new computer. Only ten times longer.

Cliff's Notes?

How about just the summary at the top of the three ways
A. first way is the spiritual interpretation that these divine laws and authority
already exist, and the language follows from that. The language does not create the laws.
Man's language may be flawed and biased, but it is an attempt to explain the existing laws.
and to show this relationship CHANGES from authoritarian to egalitarian as humanity matures.

B. second way is focusing on matriarchal vs. patriarchal roles in relationships.
both locally as male/female balance and equality in individual relations
and collectively how we look at church or state authority as mother and father figures.

C. last way is the most secular and linear in terms of cause and effect.
the idea of class division and disparity based on valuing the management
class and control over the working class, and how the male/female roles tied in with that.
the idea was that males were socially elevated and valued more for hunting meat,
over females and workers as crop gatherers where that stock and labor is valued less in society.

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

Females have done a LOT more than that throughout history. In fact, since we are the bearers of children, it only makes sense that WE should be the most valued members of any society.

Some cultures do! The American Muslims teach that the Bible lists honor your mother before saying father,
and that is for a reason. Bahai teach to invest in education of girls because these become mothers.
The Tibetan Buddhists teach to respect ALL beings as your Mother in the continual process of creation.

But beware: whenever one group is singled out above or below another
it creates an imbalance and the equal opposite reaction. Someone will react by putting that group DOWN.

the best way to synergize in a sustainable way is to
appreciate the unique contributions of each group where these are superior in that gift or talent.
Because for each strength there is a weakness, and for each weakness this can be a strength.

If you are going to value women for what women do that men cannot,
then it is only fair to EQUALLY respect unique ability and roles of men to do
what women cannot do as well either. It turns out to be an EQUAL give and take.

[I cannot filter and stop seeing things as "relative and holistic" like my bf can who is very linear.
So I help him to see things in context with where other people are coming from, interconnected.
And he is better at setting bounds and limits and enforcing those consistently, without mixing it all together.

Both approaches are needed.]

If people were not equal relatively, we would keep elevating one group above others.
So the system is designed where we all have pluses and minuses that "check and balance" each other.

No one person is better or lesser than anyone else.
All people have advantages and disadvantages, and thus so do all groups of people.

 

[ChrisL]

A. interpreting Adam and Eve
as God's authority starting off as an authoritarian relationship of parental over children
and moving toward equal responsibility of people becoming self governing
B. as representing matriarchal vs patriarchal systems
and moving back toward egalitarian between equal partners but playing different roles
C. as representing class differences between men
and management viewed as having greater value and authority
than women and field workers who are valued less and considered subordinate to the other

Oh wait -- I did see this post.

I can't follow this post --- it's too "Emily". Meaning about 4% of the way in my eyes glaze over. It's like trying to read the Terms of Service on a new computer. Only ten times longer.

Cliff's Notes?

How about just the summary at the top of the three ways
A. first way is the spiritual interpretation that these divine laws and authority
already exist, and the language follows from that. The language does not create the laws.
Man's language may be flawed and biased, but it is an attempt to explain the existing laws.
and to show this relationship CHANGES from authoritarian to egalitarian as humanity matures.

B. second way is focusing on matriarchal vs. patriarchal roles in relationships.
both locally as male/female balance and equality in individual relations
and collectively how we look at church or state authority as mother and father figures.

C. last way is the most secular and linear in terms of cause and effect.
the idea of class division and disparity based on valuing the management
class and control over the working class, and how the male/female roles tied in with that.
the idea was that males were socially elevated and valued more for hunting meat,
over females and workers as crop gatherers where that stock and labor is valued less in society.

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

Females have done a LOT more than that throughout history. In fact, since we are the bearers of children, it only makes sense that WE should be the most valued members of any society.

Some cultures do! The American Muslims teach that the Bible lists honor your mother before saying father,
and that is for a reason. Bahai teach to invest in education of girls because these become mothers.
The Tibetan Buddhists teach to respect ALL beings as your Mother in the continual process of creation.

But beware: whenever one group is singled out above or below another
it creates an imbalance and the equal opposite reaction. Someone will react by putting that group DOWN.

the best way to synergize in a sustainable way is to
appreciate the unique contributions of each group where these are superior in that gift or talent.
Because for each strength there is a weakness, and for each weakness this can be a strength.

If you are going to value women for what women do that men cannot,
then it is only fair to EQUALLY respect unique ability and roles of men to do
what women cannot do as well either. It turns out to be an EQUAL give and take.

[I cannot filter and stop seeing things as "relative and holistic" like my bf can who is very linear.
So I help him to see things in context with where other people are coming from, interconnected.
And he is better at setting bounds and limits and enforcing those consistently, without mixing it all together.

Both approaches are needed.]

If people were not equal relatively, we would keep elevating one group above others.
So the system is designed where we all have pluses and minuses that "check and balance" each other.

No one person is better or lesser than anyone else.
All people have advantages and disadvantages, and thus so do all groups of people.

That's a load of crap, Emily. All the major religions have a history of oppressing women. That is a fact. No women do not have to play a particular role if they choose not to do so. Women should be allowed to be priests, etc.

In the OT, who do they blame for all the troubles in the world and for the disappearance of Eden? Women. Because we are the weaker sex, we have been horribly treated throughout history by so-called "religious" groups.

 

[emilynghiem]

A. interpreting Adam and Eve
as God's authority starting off as an authoritarian relationship of parental over children
and moving toward equal responsibility of people becoming self governing
B. as representing matriarchal vs patriarchal systems
and moving back toward egalitarian between equal partners but playing different roles
C. as representing class differences between men
and management viewed as having greater value and authority
than women and field workers who are valued less and considered subordinate to the other

Oh wait -- I did see this post.

I can't follow this post --- it's too "Emily". Meaning about 4% of the way in my eyes glaze over. It's like trying to read the Terms of Service on a new computer. Only ten times longer.

Cliff's Notes?

How about just the summary at the top of the three ways
A. first way is the spiritual interpretation that these divine laws and authority
already exist, and the language follows from that. The language does not create the laws.
Man's language may be flawed and biased, but it is an attempt to explain the existing laws.
and to show this relationship CHANGES from authoritarian to egalitarian as humanity matures.

B. second way is focusing on matriarchal vs. patriarchal roles in relationships.
both locally as male/female balance and equality in individual relations
and collectively how we look at church or state authority as mother and father figures.

C. last way is the most secular and linear in terms of cause and effect.
the idea of class division and disparity based on valuing the management
class and control over the working class, and how the male/female roles tied in with that.
the idea was that males were socially elevated and valued more for hunting meat,
over females and workers as crop gatherers where that stock and labor is valued less in society.

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

OK I'm still lost. These are "three different interpretations" ----- of what?

The other thread had a pretty clear focus question: that being why we call "God" male. That's a direct objective I can get my rhetorical teeth into. Here, I don't know what the question is.

Just to pick out one aspect which is maybe as close to where we were in the other thread, you have an assumption up there that "males were valued and worshiped as the meat gatherers while females were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable". That's a giant leap. Gathering and planting sustained civilizations relatively reliably for millennia. Hunting is more iffy. You may make a kill, you may not. And if you do you've got to use it up before it spoils. Agriculture -- and herbology -- was arguably far more valuable to the community. So with "weren't as valuable" I think you miss a lot. For another thing there's a lot more variety in the realm of plants that can nourish, harm, or heal, than there is in an animal you can kill.

And "worshiped" is way too strong. I think men wangled themselves into a position of power and dominance, but "worship"?

As I said in the other thread, since "God" is a man-made invention, man was going to make this invention in such a way as to deliver what his objective was, and that is Power. The way to do that is invent a supernatural Creator-thingy, give him the same characteristics as the inventor, then stand back and go, "oh look, God has a penis. I too have a penis. Therefore I must be an authority figure -- 'God' says so". And from this is derived the myth of male authority --- not the other way around.

And again, logically a male "God" is impossible, since males by definition do not procreate; only females do that -- therefore if you go with monotheism your "god" must necessarily be either a neuter being (no gender at all) or a female with the power of parthenogenesis. Otherwise you need both a male and a female, or you aren't going to create anything.

Don't know if that relates here at all -- or if so where it connects exactly -- but that's what I posted in the other thread and you invited me to bring it here so...... adrift at sea ...

Hi Pogo sorry the interpretation was focused on what Adam and Eve symbolize,
WHEN or WHAT caused the imbalance with humanity falling into conflict with natural laws of peace
and harmony in life.

and YES early tribes did WORSHIP the men as hunters. there were religious rituals created around the hunt.

so this interpretation came from a discussion group.
the idea that the patriarchal tradition of valuing men over women came from social development in valuing meat and management of commodities over the working class, where women were the crop gatherers.

the interpretation I go with is the societal shift from
matriarchal societies to patriarchal structures and traditions
to Equality, and Equal Justice which society is trying to establish now.

I see it as spiritually driven, where the religious language and cultures follow.
Other people see it as conditioned and projected by religion or cultural tradition.

 

[Pogo]

A. interpreting Adam and Eve
as God's authority starting off as an authoritarian relationship of parental over children
and moving toward equal responsibility of people becoming self governing
B. as representing matriarchal vs patriarchal systems
and moving back toward egalitarian between equal partners but playing different roles
C. as representing class differences between men
and management viewed as having greater value and authority
than women and field workers who are valued less and considered subordinate to the other

Oh wait -- I did see this post.

I can't follow this post --- it's too "Emily". Meaning about 4% of the way in my eyes glaze over. It's like trying to read the Terms of Service on a new computer. Only ten times longer.

Cliff's Notes?

How about just the summary at the top of the three ways
A. first way is the spiritual interpretation that these divine laws and authority
already exist, and the language follows from that. The language does not create the laws.
Man's language may be flawed and biased, but it is an attempt to explain the existing laws.
and to show this relationship CHANGES from authoritarian to egalitarian as humanity matures.

B. second way is focusing on matriarchal vs. patriarchal roles in relationships.
both locally as male/female balance and equality in individual relations
and collectively how we look at church or state authority as mother and father figures.

C. last way is the most secular and linear in terms of cause and effect.
the idea of class division and disparity based on valuing the management
class and control over the working class, and how the male/female roles tied in with that.
the idea was that males were socially elevated and valued more for hunting meat,
over females and workers as crop gatherers where that stock and labor is valued less in society.

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

Females have done a LOT more than that throughout history. In fact, since we are the bearers of children, it only makes sense that WE should be the most valued members of any society.

We're very much on the same page here.

Females being tenders of the plants, ultimately invented agriculture and pharmacology -- you have to know that this plant will cool your fever and that one will kill you. It's theorized that females also invented language -- for communicating with babies -- and the concept of reckoning time, since the most regular thing that happens to human beings is menstruation.

That's kinda valuable.

I'd say the whole political turn setting up males as dominant is mostly based on jealousy of the female mystery and her power to procreate.

 

[emilynghiem]

A. interpreting Adam and Eve
as God's authority starting off as an authoritarian relationship of parental over children
and moving toward equal responsibility of people becoming self governing
B. as representing matriarchal vs patriarchal systems
and moving back toward egalitarian between equal partners but playing different roles
C. as representing class differences between men
and management viewed as having greater value and authority
than women and field workers who are valued less and considered subordinate to the other

How about just the summary at the top of the three ways
A. first way is the spiritual interpretation that these divine laws and authority
already exist, and the language follows from that. The language does not create the laws.
Man's language may be flawed and biased, but it is an attempt to explain the existing laws.
and to show this relationship CHANGES from authoritarian to egalitarian as humanity matures.

B. second way is focusing on matriarchal vs. patriarchal roles in relationships.
both locally as male/female balance and equality in individual relations
and collectively how we look at church or state authority as mother and father figures.

C. last way is the most secular and linear in terms of cause and effect.
the idea of class division and disparity based on valuing the management
class and control over the working class, and how the male/female roles tied in with that.
the idea was that males were socially elevated and valued more for hunting meat,
over females and workers as crop gatherers where that stock and labor is valued less in society.

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

Females have done a LOT more than that throughout history. In fact, since we are the bearers of children, it only makes sense that WE should be the most valued members of any society.

Some cultures do! The American Muslims teach that the Bible lists honor your mother before saying father,
and that is for a reason. Bahai teach to invest in education of girls because these become mothers.
The Tibetan Buddhists teach to respect ALL beings as your Mother in the continual process of creation.

But beware: whenever one group is singled out above or below another
it creates an imbalance and the equal opposite reaction. Someone will react by putting that group DOWN.

the best way to synergize in a sustainable way is to
appreciate the unique contributions of each group where these are superior in that gift or talent.
Because for each strength there is a weakness, and for each weakness this can be a strength.

If you are going to value women for what women do that men cannot,
then it is only fair to EQUALLY respect unique ability and roles of men to do
what women cannot do as well either. It turns out to be an EQUAL give and take.

[I cannot filter and stop seeing things as "relative and holistic" like my bf can who is very linear.
So I help him to see things in context with where other people are coming from, interconnected.
And he is better at setting bounds and limits and enforcing those consistently, without mixing it all together.

Both approaches are needed.]

If people were not equal relatively, we would keep elevating one group above others.
So the system is designed where we all have pluses and minuses that "check and balance" each other.

No one person is better or lesser than anyone else.
All people have advantages and disadvantages, and thus so do all groups of people.

That's a load of crap, Emily. All the major religions have a history of oppressing women. That is a fact. No women do not have to play a particular role if they choose not to do so. Women should be allowed to be priests, etc.

In the OT, who do they blame for all the troubles in the world and for the disappearance of Eden? Women. Because we are the weaker sex, we have been horribly treated throughout history by so-called "religious" groups.

I didn't deny any of that ChrisL I am just showing the patterns and how they are in a progression.

You are talking about the patriarchal phase.
Yes, first there was the matriarchal phase, and then this flipped to patriarchal,
and the real goal is to reach a balance between male/female where there is no oppression of anyone.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

A. interpreting Adam and Eve
as God's authority starting off as an authoritarian relationship of parental over children
and moving toward equal responsibility of people becoming self governing
B. as representing matriarchal vs patriarchal systems
and moving back toward egalitarian between equal partners but playing different roles
C. as representing class differences between men
and management viewed as having greater value and authority
than women and field workers who are valued less and considered subordinate to the other

How about just the summary at the top of the three ways
A. first way is the spiritual interpretation that these divine laws and authority
already exist, and the language follows from that. The language does not create the laws.
Man's language may be flawed and biased, but it is an attempt to explain the existing laws.
and to show this relationship CHANGES from authoritarian to egalitarian as humanity matures.

B. second way is focusing on matriarchal vs. patriarchal roles in relationships.
both locally as male/female balance and equality in individual relations
and collectively how we look at church or state authority as mother and father figures.

C. last way is the most secular and linear in terms of cause and effect.
the idea of class division and disparity based on valuing the management
class and control over the working class, and how the male/female roles tied in with that.
the idea was that males were socially elevated and valued more for hunting meat,
over females and workers as crop gatherers where that stock and labor is valued less in society.

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

Females have done a LOT more than that throughout history. In fact, since we are the bearers of children, it only makes sense that WE should be the most valued members of any society.

Some cultures do! The American Muslims teach that the Bible lists honor your mother before saying father,
and that is for a reason. Bahai teach to invest in education of girls because these become mothers.
The Tibetan Buddhists teach to respect ALL beings as your Mother in the continual process of creation.

But beware: whenever one group is singled out above or below another
it creates an imbalance and the equal opposite reaction. Someone will react by putting that group DOWN.

the best way to synergize in a sustainable way is to
appreciate the unique contributions of each group where these are superior in that gift or talent.
Because for each strength there is a weakness, and for each weakness this can be a strength.

If you are going to value women for what women do that men cannot,
then it is only fair to EQUALLY respect unique ability and roles of men to do
what women cannot do as well either. It turns out to be an EQUAL give and take.

[I cannot filter and stop seeing things as "relative and holistic" like my bf can who is very linear.
So I help him to see things in context with where other people are coming from, interconnected.
And he is better at setting bounds and limits and enforcing those consistently, without mixing it all together.

Both approaches are needed.]

If people were not equal relatively, we would keep elevating one group above others.
So the system is designed where we all have pluses and minuses that "check and balance" each other.

No one person is better or lesser than anyone else.
All people have advantages and disadvantages, and thus so do all groups of people.

That's a load of crap, Emily. All the major religions have a history of oppressing women. That is a fact. No women do not have to play a particular role if they choose not to do so. Women should be allowed to be priests, etc.

In the OT, who do they blame for all the troubles in the world and for the disappearance of Eden? Women. Because we are the weaker sex, we have been horribly treated throughout history by so-called "religious" groups.

wah catholic women can't be priests. Hey guess what dipshit, catholic men can't be nuns.

 

[emilynghiem]

A. interpreting Adam and Eve
as God's authority starting off as an authoritarian relationship of parental over children
and moving toward equal responsibility of people becoming self governing
B. as representing matriarchal vs patriarchal systems
and moving back toward egalitarian between equal partners but playing different roles
C. as representing class differences between men
and management viewed as having greater value and authority
than women and field workers who are valued less and considered subordinate to the other

Oh wait -- I did see this post.

I can't follow this post --- it's too "Emily". Meaning about 4% of the way in my eyes glaze over. It's like trying to read the Terms of Service on a new computer. Only ten times longer.

Cliff's Notes?

How about just the summary at the top of the three ways
A. first way is the spiritual interpretation that these divine laws and authority
already exist, and the language follows from that. The language does not create the laws.
Man's language may be flawed and biased, but it is an attempt to explain the existing laws.
and to show this relationship CHANGES from authoritarian to egalitarian as humanity matures.

B. second way is focusing on matriarchal vs. patriarchal roles in relationships.
both locally as male/female balance and equality in individual relations
and collectively how we look at church or state authority as mother and father figures.

C. last way is the most secular and linear in terms of cause and effect.
the idea of class division and disparity based on valuing the management
class and control over the working class, and how the male/female roles tied in with that.
the idea was that males were socially elevated and valued more for hunting meat,
over females and workers as crop gatherers where that stock and labor is valued less in society.

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

Females have done a LOT more than that throughout history. In fact, since we are the bearers of children, it only makes sense that WE should be the most valued members of any society.

We're very much on the same page here.

Females being tenders of the plants, ultimately invented agriculture and pharmacology -- you have to know that this plant will cool your fever and that one will kill you. It's theorized that females also invented language -- for communicating with babies -- and the concept of reckoning time, since the most regular thing that happens to human beings is menstruation.

That's kinda valuable.

I'd say the whole political turn setting up males as dominant is mostly based on jealousy of the female mystery and her power to procreate.

Yes, the "equal and opposite" reaction to the matriarchal stage
was to flip to the patriarchal stage. And the real point of Jesus is to establish Equal Justice
to Restore truth, justice and peace in relations and not have any more false control issues projected
to abuse and oppress people. Not women, not poor, not minorities, but to treat and respect all
people equally. That is the point and purpose of humanity's progress toward spiritual and social/political maturity.

 

[Pogo]

A. interpreting Adam and Eve
as God's authority starting off as an authoritarian relationship of parental over children
and moving toward equal responsibility of people becoming self governing
B. as representing matriarchal vs patriarchal systems
and moving back toward egalitarian between equal partners but playing different roles
C. as representing class differences between men
and management viewed as having greater value and authority
than women and field workers who are valued less and considered subordinate to the other

Oh wait -- I did see this post.

I can't follow this post --- it's too "Emily". Meaning about 4% of the way in my eyes glaze over. It's like trying to read the Terms of Service on a new computer. Only ten times longer.

Cliff's Notes?

How about just the summary at the top of the three ways
A. first way is the spiritual interpretation that these divine laws and authority
already exist, and the language follows from that. The language does not create the laws.
Man's language may be flawed and biased, but it is an attempt to explain the existing laws.
and to show this relationship CHANGES from authoritarian to egalitarian as humanity matures.

B. second way is focusing on matriarchal vs. patriarchal roles in relationships.
both locally as male/female balance and equality in individual relations
and collectively how we look at church or state authority as mother and father figures.

C. last way is the most secular and linear in terms of cause and effect.
the idea of class division and disparity based on valuing the management
class and control over the working class, and how the male/female roles tied in with that.
the idea was that males were socially elevated and valued more for hunting meat,
over females and workers as crop gatherers where that stock and labor is valued less in society.

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

OK I'm still lost. These are "three different interpretations" ----- of what?

The other thread had a pretty clear focus question: that being why we call "God" male. That's a direct objective I can get my rhetorical teeth into. Here, I don't know what the question is.

Just to pick out one aspect which is maybe as close to where we were in the other thread, you have an assumption up there that "males were valued and worshiped as the meat gatherers while females were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable". That's a giant leap. Gathering and planting sustained civilizations relatively reliably for millennia. Hunting is more iffy. You may make a kill, you may not. And if you do you've got to use it up before it spoils. Agriculture -- and herbology -- was arguably far more valuable to the community. So with "weren't as valuable" I think you miss a lot. For another thing there's a lot more variety in the realm of plants that can nourish, harm, or heal, than there is in an animal you can kill.

And "worshiped" is way too strong. I think men wangled themselves into a position of power and dominance, but "worship"?

As I said in the other thread, since "God" is a man-made invention, man was going to make this invention in such a way as to deliver what his objective was, and that is Power. The way to do that is invent a supernatural Creator-thingy, give him the same characteristics as the inventor, then stand back and go, "oh look, God has a penis. I too have a penis. Therefore I must be an authority figure -- 'God' says so". And from this is derived the myth of male authority --- not the other way around.

And again, logically a male "God" is impossible, since males by definition do not procreate; only females do that -- therefore if you go with monotheism your "god" must necessarily be either a neuter being (no gender at all) or a female with the power of parthenogenesis. Otherwise you need both a male and a female, or you aren't going to create anything.

Don't know if that relates here at all -- or if so where it connects exactly -- but that's what I posted in the other thread and you invited me to bring it here so...... adrift at sea ...

Hi Pogo sorry the interpretation was focused on what Adam and Eve symbolize,
WHEN or WHAT caused the imbalance with humanity falling into conflict with natural laws of peace
and harmony in life.

and YES early tribes did WORSHIP the men as hunters. there were religious rituals created around the hunt.

so this interpretation came from a discussion group.
the idea that the patriarchal tradition of valuing men over women came from social development in valuing meat and management of commodities over the working class, where women were the crop gatherers.

the interpretation I go with is the societal shift from
matriarchal societies to patriarchal structures and traditions
to Equality, and Equal Justice which society is trying to establish now.

I see it as spiritually driven, where the religious language and cultures follow.
Other people see it as conditioned and projected by religion or cultural tradition.

Emily I really don't see where you're getting this idea that men were ever "worshiped" for hunting. Sure they went with the village's good wishes, no doubt there were spiritual incantations for luck -- but the hunter's simply doing his gig.

And again, if the hunt did not bring food back, the village would survive -- but if the crops failed there would be famine. So it's a real stretch to imagine the hunt was "more valuable".

 

[ChrisL]

A. interpreting Adam and Eve
as God's authority starting off as an authoritarian relationship of parental over children
and moving toward equal responsibility of people becoming self governing
B. as representing matriarchal vs patriarchal systems
and moving back toward egalitarian between equal partners but playing different roles
C. as representing class differences between men
and management viewed as having greater value and authority
than women and field workers who are valued less and considered subordinate to the other

How about just the summary at the top of the three ways
A. first way is the spiritual interpretation that these divine laws and authority
already exist, and the language follows from that. The language does not create the laws.
Man's language may be flawed and biased, but it is an attempt to explain the existing laws.
and to show this relationship CHANGES from authoritarian to egalitarian as humanity matures.

B. second way is focusing on matriarchal vs. patriarchal roles in relationships.
both locally as male/female balance and equality in individual relations
and collectively how we look at church or state authority as mother and father figures.

C. last way is the most secular and linear in terms of cause and effect.
the idea of class division and disparity based on valuing the management
class and control over the working class, and how the male/female roles tied in with that.
the idea was that males were socially elevated and valued more for hunting meat,
over females and workers as crop gatherers where that stock and labor is valued less in society.

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

Females have done a LOT more than that throughout history. In fact, since we are the bearers of children, it only makes sense that WE should be the most valued members of any society.

We're very much on the same page here.

Females being tenders of the plants, ultimately invented agriculture and pharmacology -- you have to know that this plant will cool your fever and that one will kill you. It's theorized that females also invented language -- for communicating with babies -- and the concept of reckoning time, since the most regular thing that happens to human beings is menstruation.

That's kinda valuable.

I'd say the whole political turn setting up males as dominant is mostly based on jealousy of the female mystery and her power to procreate.

Yes, the "equal and opposite" reaction to the matriarchal stage
was to flip to the patriarchal stage. And the real point of Jesus is to establish Equal Justice
to Restore truth, justice and peace in relations and not have any more false control issues projected
to abuse and oppress people. Not women, not poor, not minorities, but to treat and respect all
people equally. That is the point and purpose of humanity's progress toward spiritual and social/political maturity.

Sure, thanks be to the New Testament and Jesus Christ who was wise beyond his time.

 

[Pogo]

A. interpreting Adam and Eve
as God's authority starting off as an authoritarian relationship of parental over children
and moving toward equal responsibility of people becoming self governing
B. as representing matriarchal vs patriarchal systems
and moving back toward egalitarian between equal partners but playing different roles
C. as representing class differences between men
and management viewed as having greater value and authority
than women and field workers who are valued less and considered subordinate to the other

How about just the summary at the top of the three ways
A. first way is the spiritual interpretation that these divine laws and authority
already exist, and the language follows from that. The language does not create the laws.
Man's language may be flawed and biased, but it is an attempt to explain the existing laws.
and to show this relationship CHANGES from authoritarian to egalitarian as humanity matures.

B. second way is focusing on matriarchal vs. patriarchal roles in relationships.
both locally as male/female balance and equality in individual relations
and collectively how we look at church or state authority as mother and father figures.

C. last way is the most secular and linear in terms of cause and effect.
the idea of class division and disparity based on valuing the management
class and control over the working class, and how the male/female roles tied in with that.
the idea was that males were socially elevated and valued more for hunting meat,
over females and workers as crop gatherers where that stock and labor is valued less in society.

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

Females have done a LOT more than that throughout history. In fact, since we are the bearers of children, it only makes sense that WE should be the most valued members of any society.

Some cultures do! The American Muslims teach that the Bible lists honor your mother before saying father,
and that is for a reason. Bahai teach to invest in education of girls because these become mothers.
The Tibetan Buddhists teach to respect ALL beings as your Mother in the continual process of creation.

But beware: whenever one group is singled out above or below another
it creates an imbalance and the equal opposite reaction. Someone will react by putting that group DOWN.

the best way to synergize in a sustainable way is to
appreciate the unique contributions of each group where these are superior in that gift or talent.
Because for each strength there is a weakness, and for each weakness this can be a strength.

If you are going to value women for what women do that men cannot,
then it is only fair to EQUALLY respect unique ability and roles of men to do
what women cannot do as well either. It turns out to be an EQUAL give and take.

[I cannot filter and stop seeing things as "relative and holistic" like my bf can who is very linear.
So I help him to see things in context with where other people are coming from, interconnected.
And he is better at setting bounds and limits and enforcing those consistently, without mixing it all together.

Both approaches are needed.]

If people were not equal relatively, we would keep elevating one group above others.
So the system is designed where we all have pluses and minuses that "check and balance" each other.

No one person is better or lesser than anyone else.
All people have advantages and disadvantages, and thus so do all groups of people.

That's a load of crap, Emily. All the major religions have a history of oppressing women. That is a fact. No women do not have to play a particular role if they choose not to do so. Women should be allowed to be priests, etc.

In the OT, who do they blame for all the troubles in the world and for the disappearance of Eden? Women. Because we are the weaker sex, we have been horribly treated throughout history by so-called "religious" groups.

That's why Adam and Eve is a political story. Therein lieth the revolution.
It isn't a story about the origin of the human race. It's a story about putting women "in their place".

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

A. interpreting Adam and Eve
as God's authority starting off as an authoritarian relationship of parental over children
and moving toward equal responsibility of people becoming self governing
B. as representing matriarchal vs patriarchal systems
and moving back toward egalitarian between equal partners but playing different roles
C. as representing class differences between men
and management viewed as having greater value and authority
than women and field workers who are valued less and considered subordinate to the other

How about just the summary at the top of the three ways
A. first way is the spiritual interpretation that these divine laws and authority
already exist, and the language follows from that. The language does not create the laws.
Man's language may be flawed and biased, but it is an attempt to explain the existing laws.
and to show this relationship CHANGES from authoritarian to egalitarian as humanity matures.

B. second way is focusing on matriarchal vs. patriarchal roles in relationships.
both locally as male/female balance and equality in individual relations
and collectively how we look at church or state authority as mother and father figures.

C. last way is the most secular and linear in terms of cause and effect.
the idea of class division and disparity based on valuing the management
class and control over the working class, and how the male/female roles tied in with that.
the idea was that males were socially elevated and valued more for hunting meat,
over females and workers as crop gatherers where that stock and labor is valued less in society.

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

OK I'm still lost. These are "three different interpretations" ----- of what?

The other thread had a pretty clear focus question: that being why we call "God" male. That's a direct objective I can get my rhetorical teeth into. Here, I don't know what the question is.

Just to pick out one aspect which is maybe as close to where we were in the other thread, you have an assumption up there that "males were valued and worshiped as the meat gatherers while females were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable". That's a giant leap. Gathering and planting sustained civilizations relatively reliably for millennia. Hunting is more iffy. You may make a kill, you may not. And if you do you've got to use it up before it spoils. Agriculture -- and herbology -- was arguably far more valuable to the community. So with "weren't as valuable" I think you miss a lot. For another thing there's a lot more variety in the realm of plants that can nourish, harm, or heal, than there is in an animal you can kill.

And "worshiped" is way too strong. I think men wangled themselves into a position of power and dominance, but "worship"?

As I said in the other thread, since "God" is a man-made invention, man was going to make this invention in such a way as to deliver what his objective was, and that is Power. The way to do that is invent a supernatural Creator-thingy, give him the same characteristics as the inventor, then stand back and go, "oh look, God has a penis. I too have a penis. Therefore I must be an authority figure -- 'God' says so". And from this is derived the myth of male authority --- not the other way around.

And again, logically a male "God" is impossible, since males by definition do not procreate; only females do that -- therefore if you go with monotheism your "god" must necessarily be either a neuter being (no gender at all) or a female with the power of parthenogenesis. Otherwise you need both a male and a female, or you aren't going to create anything.

Don't know if that relates here at all -- or if so where it connects exactly -- but that's what I posted in the other thread and you invited me to bring it here so...... adrift at sea ...

Hi Pogo sorry the interpretation was focused on what Adam and Eve symbolize,
WHEN or WHAT caused the imbalance with humanity falling into conflict with natural laws of peace
and harmony in life.

and YES early tribes did WORSHIP the men as hunters. there were religious rituals created around the hunt.

so this interpretation came from a discussion group.
the idea that the patriarchal tradition of valuing men over women came from social development in valuing meat and management of commodities over the working class, where women were the crop gatherers.

the interpretation I go with is the societal shift from
matriarchal societies to patriarchal structures and traditions
to Equality, and Equal Justice which society is trying to establish now.

I see it as spiritually driven, where the religious language and cultures follow.
Other people see it as conditioned and projected by religion or cultural tradition.

Emily I really don't see where you're getting this idea that men were ever "worshiped" for hunting. Sure they went with the village's good wishes, no doubt there were spiritual incantations for luck -- but the hunter's simply doing his gig.

And again, if the hunt did not bring food back, the village would survive -- but if the crops failed there would be famine. So it's a real stretch to imagine the hunt was "more valuable".

Um what? Most historians believe humans started as hunters/gatherers and evolved into agrarian cultures.

 

[Pogo]

A. interpreting Adam and Eve
as God's authority starting off as an authoritarian relationship of parental over children
and moving toward equal responsibility of people becoming self governing
B. as representing matriarchal vs patriarchal systems
and moving back toward egalitarian between equal partners but playing different roles
C. as representing class differences between men
and management viewed as having greater value and authority
than women and field workers who are valued less and considered subordinate to the other

How about just the summary at the top of the three ways
A. first way is the spiritual interpretation that these divine laws and authority
already exist, and the language follows from that. The language does not create the laws.
Man's language may be flawed and biased, but it is an attempt to explain the existing laws.
and to show this relationship CHANGES from authoritarian to egalitarian as humanity matures.

B. second way is focusing on matriarchal vs. patriarchal roles in relationships.
both locally as male/female balance and equality in individual relations
and collectively how we look at church or state authority as mother and father figures.

C. last way is the most secular and linear in terms of cause and effect.
the idea of class division and disparity based on valuing the management
class and control over the working class, and how the male/female roles tied in with that.
the idea was that males were socially elevated and valued more for hunting meat,
over females and workers as crop gatherers where that stock and labor is valued less in society.

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

Females have done a LOT more than that throughout history. In fact, since we are the bearers of children, it only makes sense that WE should be the most valued members of any society.

We're very much on the same page here.

Females being tenders of the plants, ultimately invented agriculture and pharmacology -- you have to know that this plant will cool your fever and that one will kill you. It's theorized that females also invented language -- for communicating with babies -- and the concept of reckoning time, since the most regular thing that happens to human beings is menstruation.

That's kinda valuable.

I'd say the whole political turn setting up males as dominant is mostly based on jealousy of the female mystery and her power to procreate.

Yes, the "equal and opposite" reaction to the matriarchal stage
was to flip to the patriarchal stage. And the real point of Jesus is to establish Equal Justice
to Restore truth, justice and peace in relations and not have any more false control issues projected
to abuse and oppress people. Not women, not poor, not minorities, but to treat and respect all
people equally. That is the point and purpose of humanity's progress toward spiritual and social/political maturity.

Whoa -- Jesus? Really? We're talking waaaay before Jesus here.

I think it's time for STTAB to administer that spankin'....

 

[ChrisL]

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

Females have done a LOT more than that throughout history. In fact, since we are the bearers of children, it only makes sense that WE should be the most valued members of any society.

Some cultures do! The American Muslims teach that the Bible lists honor your mother before saying father,
and that is for a reason. Bahai teach to invest in education of girls because these become mothers.
The Tibetan Buddhists teach to respect ALL beings as your Mother in the continual process of creation.

But beware: whenever one group is singled out above or below another
it creates an imbalance and the equal opposite reaction. Someone will react by putting that group DOWN.

the best way to synergize in a sustainable way is to
appreciate the unique contributions of each group where these are superior in that gift or talent.
Because for each strength there is a weakness, and for each weakness this can be a strength.

If you are going to value women for what women do that men cannot,
then it is only fair to EQUALLY respect unique ability and roles of men to do
what women cannot do as well either. It turns out to be an EQUAL give and take.

[I cannot filter and stop seeing things as "relative and holistic" like my bf can who is very linear.
So I help him to see things in context with where other people are coming from, interconnected.
And he is better at setting bounds and limits and enforcing those consistently, without mixing it all together.

Both approaches are needed.]

If people were not equal relatively, we would keep elevating one group above others.
So the system is designed where we all have pluses and minuses that "check and balance" each other.

No one person is better or lesser than anyone else.
All people have advantages and disadvantages, and thus so do all groups of people.

That's a load of crap, Emily. All the major religions have a history of oppressing women. That is a fact. No women do not have to play a particular role if they choose not to do so. Women should be allowed to be priests, etc.

In the OT, who do they blame for all the troubles in the world and for the disappearance of Eden? Women. Because we are the weaker sex, we have been horribly treated throughout history by so-called "religious" groups.

That's why Adam and Eve is a political story. Therein lieth the revolution.
It isn't a story about the origin of the human race. It's a story about putting women "in their place".

Yes, like a guilt trip kind of. It was the stupid woman who bit the damned apple. And the man, he was just a victim of her feminine wiles.

 

[emilynghiem]

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

Females have done a LOT more than that throughout history. In fact, since we are the bearers of children, it only makes sense that WE should be the most valued members of any society.

We're very much on the same page here.

Females being tenders of the plants, ultimately invented agriculture and pharmacology -- you have to know that this plant will cool your fever and that one will kill you. It's theorized that females also invented language -- for communicating with babies -- and the concept of reckoning time, since the most regular thing that happens to human beings is menstruation.

That's kinda valuable.

I'd say the whole political turn setting up males as dominant is mostly based on jealousy of the female mystery and her power to procreate.

Yes, the "equal and opposite" reaction to the matriarchal stage
was to flip to the patriarchal stage. And the real point of Jesus is to establish Equal Justice
to Restore truth, justice and peace in relations and not have any more false control issues projected
to abuse and oppress people. Not women, not poor, not minorities, but to treat and respect all
people equally. That is the point and purpose of humanity's progress toward spiritual and social/political maturity.

Whoa -- Jesus? Really? We're talking waaaay before Jesus here.

I think it's time for STTAB to administer that spankin'....

The spirit of Justice, which Jesus represents, is eternal, always existent,
and has influenced the entire path and process of humanity,
all stages of ups and downs, to reach full maturity.

 

[ChrisL]

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

Females have done a LOT more than that throughout history. In fact, since we are the bearers of children, it only makes sense that WE should be the most valued members of any society.

We're very much on the same page here.

Females being tenders of the plants, ultimately invented agriculture and pharmacology -- you have to know that this plant will cool your fever and that one will kill you. It's theorized that females also invented language -- for communicating with babies -- and the concept of reckoning time, since the most regular thing that happens to human beings is menstruation.

That's kinda valuable.

I'd say the whole political turn setting up males as dominant is mostly based on jealousy of the female mystery and her power to procreate.

Yes, the "equal and opposite" reaction to the matriarchal stage
was to flip to the patriarchal stage. And the real point of Jesus is to establish Equal Justice
to Restore truth, justice and peace in relations and not have any more false control issues projected
to abuse and oppress people. Not women, not poor, not minorities, but to treat and respect all
people equally. That is the point and purpose of humanity's progress toward spiritual and social/political maturity.

Whoa -- Jesus? Really? We're talking waaaay before Jesus here.

I think it's time for STTAB to administer that spankin'....

I'm still wondering when there was ever a "matriarchal" society which needed to be "flipped" to a patriarchal one???

 

[Pogo]

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

OK I'm still lost. These are "three different interpretations" ----- of what?

The other thread had a pretty clear focus question: that being why we call "God" male. That's a direct objective I can get my rhetorical teeth into. Here, I don't know what the question is.

Just to pick out one aspect which is maybe as close to where we were in the other thread, you have an assumption up there that "males were valued and worshiped as the meat gatherers while females were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable". That's a giant leap. Gathering and planting sustained civilizations relatively reliably for millennia. Hunting is more iffy. You may make a kill, you may not. And if you do you've got to use it up before it spoils. Agriculture -- and herbology -- was arguably far more valuable to the community. So with "weren't as valuable" I think you miss a lot. For another thing there's a lot more variety in the realm of plants that can nourish, harm, or heal, than there is in an animal you can kill.

And "worshiped" is way too strong. I think men wangled themselves into a position of power and dominance, but "worship"?

As I said in the other thread, since "God" is a man-made invention, man was going to make this invention in such a way as to deliver what his objective was, and that is Power. The way to do that is invent a supernatural Creator-thingy, give him the same characteristics as the inventor, then stand back and go, "oh look, God has a penis. I too have a penis. Therefore I must be an authority figure -- 'God' says so". And from this is derived the myth of male authority --- not the other way around.

And again, logically a male "God" is impossible, since males by definition do not procreate; only females do that -- therefore if you go with monotheism your "god" must necessarily be either a neuter being (no gender at all) or a female with the power of parthenogenesis. Otherwise you need both a male and a female, or you aren't going to create anything.

Don't know if that relates here at all -- or if so where it connects exactly -- but that's what I posted in the other thread and you invited me to bring it here so...... adrift at sea ...

Hi Pogo sorry the interpretation was focused on what Adam and Eve symbolize,
WHEN or WHAT caused the imbalance with humanity falling into conflict with natural laws of peace
and harmony in life.

and YES early tribes did WORSHIP the men as hunters. there were religious rituals created around the hunt.

so this interpretation came from a discussion group.
the idea that the patriarchal tradition of valuing men over women came from social development in valuing meat and management of commodities over the working class, where women were the crop gatherers.

the interpretation I go with is the societal shift from
matriarchal societies to patriarchal structures and traditions
to Equality, and Equal Justice which society is trying to establish now.

I see it as spiritually driven, where the religious language and cultures follow.
Other people see it as conditioned and projected by religion or cultural tradition.

Emily I really don't see where you're getting this idea that men were ever "worshiped" for hunting. Sure they went with the village's good wishes, no doubt there were spiritual incantations for luck -- but the hunter's simply doing his gig.

And again, if the hunt did not bring food back, the village would survive -- but if the crops failed there would be famine. So it's a real stretch to imagine the hunt was "more valuable".

Um what? Most historians believe humans started as hunters/gatherers and evolved into agrarian cultures.

That's correct --- I'm using "crops" loosely. Poorly phrased but IOW, if the hunt came back empty, there would still be roots and fruits and plants and berries that could be found. Hence the "gathering" part is more valuable than the 'hunting' part. Let alone the herbs.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

OK I know you're trying, but I kinda need sentences that go somewhere, with a subject, verb and object.

What are we saying about these A, B and C? That they exist? That they're three different views of something? That they're three different ways to do something? That they're progressions, each from the last?

I think before you start writing you need to compose a flight plan. Your posts tend to circle endlessly and never quite land.

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

Females have done a LOT more than that throughout history. In fact, since we are the bearers of children, it only makes sense that WE should be the most valued members of any society.

We're very much on the same page here.

Females being tenders of the plants, ultimately invented agriculture and pharmacology -- you have to know that this plant will cool your fever and that one will kill you. It's theorized that females also invented language -- for communicating with babies -- and the concept of reckoning time, since the most regular thing that happens to human beings is menstruation.

That's kinda valuable.

I'd say the whole political turn setting up males as dominant is mostly based on jealousy of the female mystery and her power to procreate.

Yes, the "equal and opposite" reaction to the matriarchal stage
was to flip to the patriarchal stage. And the real point of Jesus is to establish Equal Justice
to Restore truth, justice and peace in relations and not have any more false control issues projected
to abuse and oppress people. Not women, not poor, not minorities, but to treat and respect all
people equally. That is the point and purpose of humanity's progress toward spiritual and social/political maturity.

Whoa -- Jesus? Really? We're talking waaaay before Jesus here.

I think it's time for STTAB to administer that spankin'....

 

[ChrisL]

they are three different interpretations.

1. one is focusing on the RELATIONSHIP with God
moving from PARENTAL/AUTHORITARIAN to Equalitarian where people accept equal responsibility
for enforcing and upholding laws

2. one is focusing on the MALE/FEMALE dynamic in personal relations
and how this affects greater society when these dynamics or biases are projected

3. one is focusing on CLASS politics of the ownership/management
class dominating over the working class.
The reason this ties in with male/female roles or views in society
is the MALES were valued more and worshipped as the meat gatherers
while the FEMALES were valued less as gathering crops which weren't as valuable.

Females have done a LOT more than that throughout history. In fact, since we are the bearers of children, it only makes sense that WE should be the most valued members of any society.

We're very much on the same page here.

Females being tenders of the plants, ultimately invented agriculture and pharmacology -- you have to know that this plant will cool your fever and that one will kill you. It's theorized that females also invented language -- for communicating with babies -- and the concept of reckoning time, since the most regular thing that happens to human beings is menstruation.

That's kinda valuable.

I'd say the whole political turn setting up males as dominant is mostly based on jealousy of the female mystery and her power to procreate.

Yes, the "equal and opposite" reaction to the matriarchal stage
was to flip to the patriarchal stage. And the real point of Jesus is to establish Equal Justice
to Restore truth, justice and peace in relations and not have any more false control issues projected
to abuse and oppress people. Not women, not poor, not minorities, but to treat and respect all
people equally. That is the point and purpose of humanity's progress toward spiritual and social/political maturity.

Whoa -- Jesus? Really? We're talking waaaay before Jesus here.

I think it's time for STTAB to administer that spankin'....

The spirit of Justice, which Jesus represents, is eternal, always existent,
and has influenced the entire path and process of humanity,
all stages of ups and downs, to reach full maturity.

Perhaps, but there has been also a lot of evil committed in the name of religion and still is today.