Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

White Patriarchy...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    Civilisation is at a stage now where it is moving away from fighting and towards cooperation on global scales. It must do this if it is to survive. This job is better done by women. Pray for Rachel.
    My liberal friend whom I quoted is, indeed, a woman. She's wising up to the leftist sham.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Black people were voting long before MLK.
      Correct, I got some information mixed up. Thank you for it. Still would be the same argument. Should black people thank white people for giving them the right to vote, even though they clearly should have had it from the beginning?

      There's a one to one correspondance between that, and it for women.

      But the fact is, no matter what suffragettes did it was men who gave women the vote. Period.
      And that was thanks to the suffragetes. Otherwise the men wouldn't have voted for it. I also think they should have had it, so its more a case of white men withholding the right to vote from women until that point. Not a matter of it being granted.

      Last time I said that unless you could make a case that women would have gotten the right to vote, regardless of the sufragettes, then its the sufragettes who are the cause. And that's the best interpretation. Without the suffragette movement, and the works of women to that effect, women would not have been granted the right to vote.

      Even if it directly lead to evils like abortion? Why?
      I don't think it leads directly to evils like abortions. You're moving the goal post. It is good for women to have a right to vote, because they are part of the political fabric. They're intelligent and capable. They can work and be responsible. There's no reason why they shouldn't participate as voters.

      OK, so you agree that it is at least partly genetic. So it is not merely a social construct, an invention.
      I never agreed to anything like that. I infact made the opposite case, that there's good reason to think that selection pressures have acted differently on humans, by pointing out our monogamous nature. I also pointed out that there are egalitarian societies out there. You typically find them in hunter-gatherer communities that haven't had contact with modern day civilisation. There's some speculation going on that humans didn't actually become a patriarchal society until we became agrarian.

      I've always found the topic interesting and I don't think we've found out at all what's the case.

      So no, to clarify, I think the case for a strong genetic component is very flimsy, and the case for it being mostly a social construct being very strong.

      And what do monogamous relationships have to do with male dominance?
      You talked about male dominance? I imagine you had in mind the apes where there's a single alpha male who has almost exclusive access to the females? An example would be the silverback gorillas. If you're not talking about that, then I don't know what your argument is.

      Sexual selection pressures work differently in a group like that. There's typically a strong sexual dimorphism, with the men becoming markedly different than the women. Its a pattern that plays itself out in the animal kingdom anywhere you have groups like that. And it makes perfect sense under the theory of blind mechanical evolution, where all that's acting are selection pressures. If you read Darwin's Origin of Species, even he anticipated sexual selection and how it could explain the strong sexual dimorphism we see in those situations, and how the opposite is the case with animals that just pair off.

      Humans are monogamous (well in modern day we're serial monogamous). There's no strong competition between males to conquor and attack a herd of females.

      God intended us to be monogamous as well, and we're created to be that. He made us similar. Eve was even taken from the middle of Adam, from his rib. Not from his feet, or head, she wasn't better or worse than him.

      She was his equal. Different from him. But neither lesser nor greater.

      And where were these historic egalitarian social structures you are speaking of. I can only think of a couple.
      Actually its harder to find an example of a hunter-gatherer society that wasn't egalitarian socially, than it is to find those that are. Most hunter-gatherers are egalitarians.

      I find it fascinating, and there's so much out there. I'll try to find you something not found in a peer review journal as they tend to be behind pay walls. Of course I'm also talking about hunter gatherers that currently exist. I think they're our only window into the hunter gatherer cultures we ourselves came from, though I admit its extrapolation. But its the best we can do.

      After a bit of googling, I was sorry to say that most of it is in books. Not everything is online after all.

      But I did find a good pdf that describes some of it.

      http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~carsonvs/papers/41.pdf

      None of the egalitarian cultures are perfectly egalitarian, but they're a lot more egalitarian than agrarian societies were. How patriarchy developed is a good question and I often wonder about it and sometimes wonder if it was an effect of the fall. God did say that because of the Fall, the relationship between men and women would be haunted by difficulties.

      Or perhaps it has to do with emotional make up? Just look at the churches that began ordaining women 50-60 years ago, they all ended up denying Scripture (to degrees), supporting abortion, gay marriage, no fault divorce, etc... And if God did not allow women in leadership positions why is it a good idea for us to do it?
      I haven't said women should be ordained. God has indeed said we shouldn't and that's that.

      Offending God I don't think is the best step when trying to grow a church. I am not at all surprised for the failings that are creeping into those churches.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
        Correct, I got some information mixed up. Thank you for it. Still would be the same argument. Should black people thank white people for giving them the right to vote, even though they clearly should have had it from the beginning?

        There's a one to one correspondance between that, and it for women.
        Well yes, they should thank us. Blacks were a little different though, they mostly did not come here of their own free will.



        And that was thanks to the suffragetes. Otherwise the men wouldn't have voted for it. I also think they should have had it, so its more a case of white men withholding the right to vote from women until that point. Not a matter of it being granted.

        Last time I said that unless you could make a case that women would have gotten the right to vote, regardless of the sufragettes, then its the sufragettes who are the cause. And that's the best interpretation. Without the suffragette movement, and the works of women to that effect, women would not have been granted the right to vote.
        Yes, I think men would have eventually given them the right to vote, in either case it was up to the men.


        I don't think it leads directly to evils like abortions. You're moving the goal post. It is good for women to have a right to vote, because they are part of the political fabric. They're intelligent and capable. They can work and be responsible. There's no reason why they shouldn't participate as voters.
        That is nonsense Leonhard, most of the social ills that I mentioned are directly linked to the feminist movement and their political power.

        I never agreed to anything like that. I infact made the opposite case, that there's good reason to think that selection pressures have acted differently on humans, by pointing out our monogamous nature. I also pointed out that there are egalitarian societies out there. You typically find them in hunter-gatherer communities that haven't had contact with modern day civilisation. There's some speculation going on that humans didn't actually become a patriarchal society until we became agrarian.

        I've always found the topic interesting and I don't think we've found out at all what's the case.

        So no, to clarify, I think the case for a strong genetic component is very flimsy, and the case for it being mostly a social construct being very strong.
        What makes you think that men were not dominate in hunter-gatherer societies? And again, it is obviously true with our closet primate cousins, and that certainly is genetic. Why wouldn't those genetic traits transfer to us?


        You talked about male dominance? I imagine you had in mind the apes where there's a single alpha male who has almost exclusive access to the females? An example would be the silverback gorillas. If you're not talking about that, then I don't know what your argument is.

        Sexual selection pressures work differently in a group like that. There's typically a strong sexual dimorphism, with the men becoming markedly different than the women. Its a pattern that plays itself out in the animal kingdom anywhere you have groups like that. And it makes perfect sense under the theory of blind mechanical evolution, where all that's acting are selection pressures. If you read Darwin's Origin of Species, even he anticipated sexual selection and how it could explain the strong sexual dimorphism we see in those situations, and how the opposite is the case with animals that just pair off.

        Humans are monogamous (well in modern day we're serial monogamous). There's no strong competition between males to conquor and attack a herd of females.
        I'm speaking of general dominance, there is a clear and general male hierarchy. So why wouldn't those traits be passed on to us?

        There is a distinct linear dominance hierarchy in male chimpanzees, and males are dominant over females (Goldberg & Wrangham 1997).

        http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factshee...impanzee/behav
        God intended us to be monogamous as well, and we're created to be that. He made us similar. Eve was even taken from the middle of Adam, from his rib. Not from his feet, or head, she wasn't better or worse than him.

        She was his equal. Different from him. But neither lesser nor greater.
        Yet Eve was created to be a helpmate for Adam


        I haven't said women should be ordained. God has indeed said we shouldn't and that's that.
        So obviously God did not think it was a good thing for women to be in leadership roles - but you do in other areas?

        Offending God I don't think is the best step when trying to grow a church. I am not at all surprised for the failings that are creeping into those churches.
        Yes the churches who put women in leadership roles.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Well yes, they [black people] should thank us.


          Yes, I think men would have eventually given them the right to vote,
          I don't see any indication of it. Do you have a good reason why you believe this?

          That is nonsense Leonhard, most of the social ills that I mentioned are directly linked to the feminist movement and their political power.
          No, its not nonsense. You can't make a moral decision based upon possible future moral decisions. Women chose these things, and things could have been otherwise. That bad things were chosen would not change that it was good that they got the right to vote.

          I'll always support women's right to vote seer.

          What makes you think that men were not dominate in hunter-gatherer societies?
          You seem to be confused seer. All of the hunter-gatherer societies documented in that book, are hunter-gatherer societies that exist currently in our world. The findings apply even to groups deep in the jungles that had no contact with modern civilisation.

          So its not a matter of me speculating wildly. This is a matter of empirical fact: Almost all hunter-gatherer socities that we have access to are largely egalitarian.

          This is for various reasons I often wonder about.

          I'm speaking of general dominance, there is a clear and general male hierarchy.
          Would you define it then, if you aren't talking about sexual patterns involving a single alpha male with near exclusive access to the females? Because its not at all clear to me what you're talking about then.

          Yet Eve was created to be a helpmate for Adam
          Yes, in that she was a partner. And they had a complementary, yet equal relationship.

          So obviously God did not think it was a good thing for women to be in leadership roles - but you do in other areas?
          Ordained to priesthood was what you were talking about. And now you're talking about leadership roles. Again you're moving the goal post seer.

          I don't believe women can be ordained to the priesthood. I do believe women can be leaders.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
            Testosterone also gives men a moderate physical advantage.


            It's far more than just "moderate".
            ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post


              It's far more than just "moderate".
              Its moderate. Any average male can be fully subdued by two females. Men do have a strength advantage, but we're not Hulk.

              I'm not sure its valuable in this discussion to hassle out how moderate something has to be before its moderate.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                Any average male can be fully subdued by two females.
                I think you're either severely either underestimating how strong the average male is, or overestimating the strength of the average female. An average male could easily overpower the average female without expending much energy. Simply adding one more female to the equation isn't going to change much. I'm not saying two females couldn't beat a male in a fight, but they'd have to rely on something other than their strength to do it.
                ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                  No Leonhard I was speaking of women, I made an exception for blacks because they did not ask to come here.


                  I don't see any indication of it. Do you have a good reason why you believe this?
                  Who knows, the point remains - men gave women the vote and they did not have to.


                  No, its not nonsense. You can't make a moral decision based upon possible future moral decisions. Women chose these things, and things could have been otherwise. That bad things were chosen would not change that it was good that they got the right to vote.

                  I'll always support women's right to vote seer.
                  You are correct, we are not prophets, but let me ask you Leonhard if you had the choice between abortion being legal or women losing the vote - which would you choose?


                  You seem to be confused seer. All of the hunter-gatherer societies documented in that book, are hunter-gatherer societies that exist currently in our world. The findings apply even to groups deep in the jungles that had no contact with modern civilisation.

                  So its not a matter of me speculating wildly. This is a matter of empirical fact: Almost all hunter-gatherer socities that we have access to are largely egalitarian.
                  I'm asking you to show that men are not dominate even in these societies


                  Would you define it then, if you aren't talking about sexual patterns involving a single alpha male with near exclusive access to the females? Because its not at all clear to me what you're talking about then.
                  I'm speaking of males generally dominating females, like my link talks about.


                  Yes, in that she was a partner. And they had a complementary, yet equal relationship.
                  But they are not exactly equal are they? Men have leadership roles, women don't.

                  Ordained to priesthood was what you were talking about. And now you're talking about leadership roles. Again you're moving the goal post seer.

                  I don't believe women can be ordained to the priesthood. I do believe women can be leaders.
                  Why do you believe that women can be leaders when God Himself won't allow it in His church?
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    No Leonhard I was speaking of women,
                    Alright. That wasn't clear to me.

                    Originally posted by seer
                    Originally posted by Leonhard
                    Originally posted by seer
                    Originally posted by Leonhard
                    Last time I said that unless you could make a case that women would have gotten the right to vote, regardless of the sufragettes, then its the sufragettes who are the cause. And that's the best interpretation. Without the suffragette movement, and the works of women to that effect, women would not have been granted the right to vote.
                    Yes, I think men would have eventually given them the right to vote, in either case it was up to the men.
                    I don't see any indication of it. Do you have a good reason why you believe this?
                    , the point remains - men gave women the vote and they did not have to.
                    So I open up by saying that the suffragetes are historically taken as being the cause of women getting the right to vote. They were the torch bearers of that movement, even if it is a complicated relationship, and companies weren't exactly against the idea of having more workers.

                    I offered you a route to make that argument, that men would have given women the voting right. All you had to do was make it, but instead you simply repeated "Men gave women the right to vote" and finally "Who knows"

                    That isn't exactly a strong argument seer. One is just you stomping your foot and asserting what you believe. The other is the opposite.

                    You are correct, we are not prophets, but let me ask you Leonhard if you had the choice between abortion being legal or women losing the vote - which would you choose?
                    That's a false choice seer. Only God would be able to timelessly know the course of history. I refuse to engage in a problem like that. That women voted for abortion then, is no reason for women to not have the right to vote.

                    I'm asking you to show that men are not dominate even in these societies
                    First of all I've asked you to clarify what you meant by 'domaninate' you're just throwing the term around. I offered you the sexual differences between apes, because you were referring to them. After you made it clear you were talking about their sexual patterns, I decided to ask for clarifications. Animals don't have culture, so you'd just have to point to some very specific behaviours that are suitable similar in humans.

                    You havne't done that, you've just repeated yourself. Are you even aware of any post in this discussion other than the one you're replying to?

                    I also offered you a link to a book, which itself has references you can follow. Already in the first few pages it details a lot of egalitarian features of those societies. Its backed up in a lot of other research.

                    I think I've been fairly charitable in this discussion. I'm just waiting for you to stop repeating yourself.

                    Why do you believe that women can be leaders when God Himself won't allow it in His church?
                    I don't think you're talking about the priesthood anymore. There's nothing wrong with women who are acting as teachers, who are theologians, scholars, who handle treasure funds, who lead parish events, who do all sorts of leadership roles in the Church. None of that is uncommon. I've only, and specifically talked about the priest himself.

                    The only passage in the Scripture I can find, is with St. Paul in his first letter the the Corinthians. And its very unclear that this applies universally to all leadership roles and for all time. St. Paul even allowed that women could prophesize, back when this still took place. And there have been women prophets, and its been part of tradition that the office of prophet was a higher status than priest.

                    In Acts 16 you even have a hint of a woman teaching a man, when Pricilla is mentioned before her husband Aquilla inviting Apollos home to teach him the true nature of Christ.

                    There's plenty of reasonable doubt as to the interpretation of St. Paul who is at times very hard to get right, even St. Peter complained as much.
                    Last edited by Leonhard; 10-16-2018, 04:22 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                      First of all I've asked you to clarify what you meant by 'domaninate' you're just throwing the term around. I offered you the sexual differences between apes, because you were referring to them. After you made it clear you were talking about their sexual patterns, I decided to ask for clarifications. Animals don't have culture, so you'd just have to point to some very specific behaviours that are suitable similar in humans.
                      There's two typos here so I'll just retype it for clarity.

                      I've bolded the changes.

                      "First of all I've asked you to clarify what you meant by 'dominate' you're just throwing the term around. I offered you the sexual differences between apes, because you were referring to them. After you made it clear you were not talking about their sexual patterns, I decided to ask for clarifications. Animals don't have culture, so you'd just have to point to some very specific behaviours that are suitable similar in humans."

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                        Alright. That wasn't clear to me.

                        So I open up by saying that the suffragettes are historically taken as being the cause of women getting the right to vote. They were the torch bearers of that movement, even if it is a complicated relationship, and companies weren't exactly against the idea of having more workers.

                        I offered you a route to make that argument, that men would have given women the voting right. All you had to do was make it, but instead you simply repeated "Men gave women the right to vote" and finally "Who knows"

                        That isn't exactly a strong argument seer. One is just you stomping your foot and asserting what you believe. The other is the opposite.
                        No Leonhard, I have been pretty clear, men gave women the vote, suffragettes and other things may have played a role but the fact was that men had the power to allow or not.

                        That's a false choice seer. Only God would be able to timelessly know the course of history. I refuse to engage in a problem like that. That women voted for abortion then, is no reason for women to not have the right to vote.
                        It is not false choice, we know what feminism has lead to.



                        First of all I've asked you to clarify what you meant by 'domaninate' you're just throwing the term around. I offered you the sexual differences between apes, because you were referring to them. After you made it clear you were talking about their sexual patterns, I decided to ask for clarifications. Animals don't have culture, so you'd just have to point to some very specific behaviours that are suitable similar in humans.

                        You havne't done that, you've just repeated yourself. Are you even aware of any post in this discussion other than the one you're replying to?

                        I also offered you a link to a book, which itself has references you can follow. Already in the first few pages it details a lot of egalitarian features of those societies. Its backed up in a lot of other research.
                        I am speaking of males or men being in charge of the group. For instance I know a good deal about American Indians and as far as I know Chiefs and tribal leaders were always male. I would like to see your hunter-gatherer groups where this isn't the case. Having egalitarian features does not prevent male dominance.

                        I don't think you're talking about the priesthood anymore. There's nothing wrong with women who are acting as teachers, who are theologians, scholars, who handle treasure funds, who lead parish events, who do all sorts of leadership roles in the Church. None of that is uncommon. I've only, and specifically talked about the priest himself.
                        The priest, or in our case the pastor, have the final say. The are the CEOs. This ultimate position of authority is not granted to women. So why should it be granted to women in the secular world? Should not the Church be a model for the world?
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          The reason societies developed as patriarchies is because the women had the children and the men protected them and provided for them in order to perpetuate their families. The world was a pretty dangerous place at one time.
                          All perfectly true. But this is not the situation now. We no longer live in 'hunter/gatherer' societies. The world has changed and the roles of men and women have changed along with it.

                          These same feminists who claim to be the physical equal to men and want to take over socieity
                          Feminists are not claiming to be the physical equal to men and they are not trying to take over society. They are, quite reasonably, claiming equal rights to men.

                          are the same ones who are boo-hooing about how men dominate and rape women and women can't go out by themselves at night because all men are rapists and are commiserating with Ford about how she was abused.
                          ANYONE, male or female, who is dominated and raped is entitled to a bit of "boo-hooing", to use you Trumpian-style victim-mockery. And your casual dismissal of Dr Ford is unconscionable, but we've come to expect nothing less from Evangelicals.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            All perfectly true. But this is not the situation now. We no longer live in 'hunter/gatherer' societies. The world has changed and the roles of men and women have changed along with it.
                            I was talking about why we have patriarchies in the first place, Tass. Why most societies are patriarchies now.


                            Feminists are not claiming to be the physical equal to men and they are not trying to take over society. They are, quite reasonably, claiming equal rights to men.
                            no, actually many are trying to claim equality physically too. That is why they want the same jobs, even the military, why they insist on being able to compete with men in sports, why they don't want men to help them out in any way. I freely admit that there are some women out there that actually ARE the physical equal to some men. But in general they are not. The average woman is not the physical equal to the average man. and I don't have any problem with women having equal rights to men. Just with the feminazis that hate men and call them all rapists and such.


                            ANYONE, male or female, who is dominated and raped is entitled to a bit of "boo-hooing", to use you Trumpian-style victim-mockery. And your casual dismissal of Dr Ford is unconscionable, but we've come to expect nothing less from Evangelicals.
                            Virtue signalling acknowledged.


                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Okay seer, I think its safe to say you've made your position clear. You believe what you believe, I disagree and have argued why. You haven't interacted with those arguments, and you're just repeating yourself now like a broken record.

                              I bow out of this conversation.

                              May God bless you seer.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Leonhard View Post

                                May God bless you seer.
                                And you too Brother!
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Diogenes, 10-10-2020, 08:38 PM
                                10 responses
                                85 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Andius, 10-07-2020, 07:38 PM
                                10 responses
                                65 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by mattbballman31, 08-26-2020, 11:42 AM
                                23 responses
                                474 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 07-27-2018, 08:47 AM
                                2,045 responses
                                105,580 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post thormas
                                by thormas
                                 
                                Working...
                                X