May Helen sing http://youtu.be/QCrJ9Gs2JTo .

'Saint Timothy famously said ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent.’ '

Oh dear Andee at least get your facts right. It was actually Paul who wrote that.

Correct, runner.

>>Oh dear Andee at least get your facts right. It was actually Paul who wrote that.<<

Paul was writing to Timothy, was he not.

But the question is, do you consider "do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man" to be i) an instruction from God that every Christian should adhere to, lest they sin, or ii) a typical piece of paternalistic blather from an irrelevant old book.

Or perhaps somewhere in between? What say you?

That sounds like a sound practice to me Pericles.

Haven't you noticed that the world has only gone to pot, since we let the girls vote, & out of the kitchen?

Keep 'em barefoot & pregnant was the old royal navy way, & shiver me timbers, it did seem to work.

"In 1950s Australia, for example, I grew up accepting that women were inferior to men"

What utter crap! Girls back then were treated like little princesses and selfish, gossiping, whining little madams many were too. They did sweet bugger all, while their mothers did everything for them. Wouldn't even play sport, a girl was above all that.

Sugar and spice and all things nice, definitely no boy germs.

Girls were always what women made and raised. Never any challenge that the girls were the jealous possessions of highly territorial mothers - who were often jealous of the daughters, how about that? Heaven help any man who commented then or now. The Little Aussie Battle-Axe was always ferocious and territorial, but nowhere more than where HER girl was concerned. A Blue Heeler has nothing on her.

So how about women finally admit the obvious, incontrovertible fact? That neither men nor women, speaking about the very large majority of the population were ever 'privileged' and that as is so readily demonstrated by those past (WW1 and WW2 in particular) and later wars, remember Vietnam, boys and men were always the disadvantaged gender, to be the disposable sacrifice for women, with the added rationalisation that women were the producers and nurturers of children.

It was always men who did the lion's share of dirty, disgusting and dangerous work, and that still applies to this day. Think how hard and long was the struggle to win any slight concessions for work safety. Men were always 'privileged'? Phooey!

Thankfully in the country and sometimes in the cities (although Aus is over 98% urban), there were and are girls and women who were always independent and bucked the trend.

Many a country boy and girl was shocked by the slack-arsed girls in the city 'burbs. Princesses, and the Boomer Grrls still whine and demand their entitlements, and their dues from young women too!

Any wonder young women run screaming from the feminists. Where is that women against feminism site? Oh here,

https://www.facebook.com/WomenAgainstFeminism

Women Against Feminism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59mfkHQTydM#t=11

It always makes me smile when Feminists sneeringly allude to male "insecurity", if we're feeling insecure then by Feminist logic that means that the prospects for women must be extremely grim.

Runner and Pericles

You are right that 1 Timothy is addressed to Timothy, not written by him, but the authorship is disputed. Many scholars argue that this was not written by Paul but by a later author writing under his name (a common practice at the time). The language, message, theology and focus are all very different from the undisputed works of Paul.

It certainly cuts across what we know of Paul’s practice. His letters are often addressed to or make reference to female church leaders, and some of his writing is among the most egalitarian in the bible – e.g. Galatians 3:28: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”

There is a growing body of scholarship arguing that the early Jesus movement was unusually egalitarian in the context of the culture of its time, but was quickly pulled back into line by the cultural conservatives like Pseudo Paul.

Rhian, we have no 'proof' of who or what wrote anything in the old book, that has no doubt been rewritten and rewritten to all the new author's satisfaction again over the years.

One thing is for certain, no god wrote the bible.
Mere men wrote what they imagined their mythical gods might say if they were real.
Because mere men wrote the bible, then it goes without saying that they would have written the rules to suit them!

In any case, it sounds to me like most of the likely lads that 'contribute' to this forum would be much happier living in Turkey, don't you think Hasbeen and Runner?
lol, ha ha...

'In any case, it sounds to me like most of the likely lads that 'contribute' to this forum would be much happier living in Turkey, don't you think Hasbeen and Runner? '

seems strange Susie that it is the 'progressives' that has encouraged illegal immigration. fyi I am very happy living in Australia especially with a wife who accepts the natural order of things.

I was wondering if she was going to make an appearance at some point in this discussion, runner.

>>I am very happy living in Australia especially with a wife who accepts the natural order of things.<<

I'd love to hear her version of "the natural order of things" in the runner household at some point.

But I guess she wouldn't be allowed to, under the rules. So we'll never know.

Suseonline
We have no proof of the bible’s authors, but we have lots of evidence, much of it within the books themselves. There are ways of evaluating texts to see whether they have common authorship – use of language, recurring words, consistent ideologies, etc. Many of “Paul’s” letters are probably by the same author. Others probably aren’t. The pastoral epistles are widely held to be amongst the latest books in the bible, written well after Paul died. Some of the Pauline letters have been heavily edited and may contain both original and later material.

Marcus Borg recently produced a version of the bible with the books arranged in the order they were written, according to mainstream scholarship. 1 Timothy is one of the last.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=zcJTRapE3kQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=borg+bible+written&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ABnfU86tA4zq8AXIvIDYDg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=borg%20bible%20written&f=false

It is true than on the first 100 or so years after Jesus, the bible was still being written, edited and reconfigured. A lot of “gospels” written in the second century never made it into the canonical bible. But there is limited evidence of tampering with the Gospels or Acts after they attained written form (the endings of Mark and maybe parts of John are exceptions).

Christians don’t maintain that God wrote the Bible. It is as you say the work of men, and reflects their worldviews. But they were writing about their experiences of the divine, and they tried to describe these in language that reflects their culture and understanding

Onthebeach,

You know best.

Which I think might be Andee's point.

@Suseonline, Monday, 4 August 2014 2:59:15 PM

LOL, nice little drive-by and you get your pay-off. You should try walking for the same effect, but positive.

I can get a bit cynical about organised religion too. I often wonder if it is the Roman Catholic Church that should be credited with the development of feminism since so many ardent feminists, particularly of the radical lesbian ilk profess to be ex-Catholics.

Still, having many women friends who managed to survive Roman Catholicism and are normal happy people even if a bit scarred by the experience, I can see why the feminists might screw it all up into sexual hate. It was probably the convent school education and the nuns who cruelly dealt with them and twisted their sexual development, but they are right to blame the holy fathers who directed.

However those priests were just as cruel to boys and sometimes more brutal. I know that from some of my male friends.

It is strange isn't it, that women were always the strength, the promoters, enablers and the bulwarks of the Church of Rome. Islam is the same. Strange isn't it? In both it is the women, the mothers particularly who teach and confirm the religion, and the way of life, in the home. The women are up-front making the children and the father as well, attend church. Is that because women value order before most things? Is it the predictability and conservatism and the dose of superstition that many women like?

Complex stuff isn't it and no wonder feminists are always so angry. However 'men', as in the large majority of men out there did not do it to you and very likely they were victims themselves.

Hey, you can still do your angry, scolding humiliating gigs for attention and to get that shot of hormone. Your choice. Not sure that keeping that bag of past hurts it is any good for your ticker though.

'But I guess she wouldn't be allowed to, under the rules. So we'll never know. '

Oh Pericles I can tell you after 30 years happily married your narrow dogma is exposed exactly for what it is. Anyone with any delusion about feminism only needs to look back to the previous Government.

To add, I was never a Roman Catholic, but those convent schools weren't all bad. Many should be credited with delivering education to a high standard and particularly in music.

In a country area I received excellent music tuition from the Presentation Sisters. That I wasn't a Catholic was not a consideration, the Sisters delighted in anyone who had ability, the will and discipline to practice. My girlfriend who was also not a Catholic and with whom I performed duets in Eisteddfods went on to perform in Europe where she still resides.

I am not sure if the particular college was always run by the Presentation Sisters, but I can vouch for the usually very caring if always strict boarding and day schooling for the girls I knew there.

The only criticism I could make in hindsight of the nuns who taught music was that they had restricted life experience through recruitment at an early age. Although they appeared wise in other ways.

Some balance is always required in life.

Suse, I have no idea what Turkey is really like to live in. Most places are much different behind closed doors, to what the sign out front indicates.

Fact is, the only thing my lady used to do that annoyed me, was to refuse to take part in decision making. It was not even to be able to avoid the blame if results weren't great, she just preferred to have someone else make her decisions for her.

It took 20 years, but now she wants to run everything. I have no idea what I am doing most weekends, until she tells me. When there is something I actually want to do on a weekend, I have to make a booking well in advance, or I'm likely to find I'm booked for something else.

Worth Viewing (one minute in) Q&A Germaine Greer "You've Got A Big Arse, Julia..." http://youtu.be/8lFtww1D3ss

After praising Julia's political skill No.1 Feminist's most memorable point is female fashion advice.

I'm not sure of the grammar here, runner.

>>Oh Pericles I can tell you after 30 years happily married your narrow dogma is exposed exactly for what it is.<<

My narrow dogma was never married, let alone happily.

But I would have been more impressed if it had been Mrs runner who responded. But I guess she couldn't leave what she was doing. After all, those front steps don't wash themselves, do they.

A woman should not laugh in public? What absolute rubbish. This controlling, ridiculous, gob-smacking dogma is ratified by a man in the name of a religion and should be relgated to the bin where it belongs. A woman should laugh long and often and anywhere she wants.

Andee, it is all very well to point out the way beliefs are false, but if you yourself don't make sure that yours are true, you'll be in no better position than those you criticize, and will end up similarly talking nonsense, and in this case, gender nonsense that is sexist and unust. injustice.
The female genetic contribution is not half. The male's biomass contribution is truly insignicant: only the atoms of the original sperm. The male contributes only half of the DNA in the nucleus of the gamete, but nothing of the extra-nuclear DNA in the cytoplasm, namely the mitochondria and the telemeres. (The latter are the bits of 'string' which pull the choromosomes into shape at mitosis, and which we see in chicken eggs as the little white stringy bits next to the yolk. And the mitochondria of course supply the power for the cell's operations.)
It is only the male *information content* that is significant, and that only for the DNA in the nucleus. (There is a separate female genome passed on in the mitochondria and telemeres, to which the male makes no contribution, and inheriting only his mother's.)
This means, if we are to start our understanding of gender relations with the facts, the fact is that the woman, in the nature of things, contributes:
a) the original ovum
b) its nucleus and nuclear DNA
c) its cytoplasm and extra-nuclear DNA
d) all the biomass from conception to birth
e) any suckling.

The male by contrast contributes only the genetic material in the nucleus of the original sperm. Any other contributions he may make is entirely a social construct.

If we take as given the injustice of patriarchy (and that is not given, so far as any social relations may be based on consent), then what needs to be explained, is why the male contribution to offspring should be equal, rather than one-trillionth that of the female's; anything more requiring the male's consent as a matter of social justice and gender equality.

Your pretended concern for gender justice would have seemed more plausible if you had
a) a theory based in fact rather than shooting fish in the biblical barrel – easy sport indeed, and
b) taken account of the sexism and double standards in the feminist orthodoxy you spout.

Where women are not attempting to throw off the costs of their reproductive choices onto other people, and using the state to force others to obey and pay under a double standard, it is common for all human societies to have different standards of modesty for men and women - for obvious reasons - women have babies and men don't! The sexes are not factually equal, there's no reason why they should be, and this invalidates the feminist line of reasoning.

If we had real gender equality and social justice, a man's contribution to any child he gets, should not be half but a much smaller fraction.

Everything else is, to use the feminists' own polemics against them, just a "social construct" and "ideology" - no justification for policy.

Feminism has never been for gender equality, but always female privilege and sexist double standards, in which women have the benefits of feminism and patriarchy, and men have the costs and responsibilities of both.

Feminist gender ideology is every bit as factually untrue, illogical, sexist, hypocritical as the that of the traditional Jewish, Christian or Muslim patriarchs.

IF you were advocating real gender equality and social justice – based on *consent* - you might have a point, but alas, you're not.
That will be the day the feminists devote as much indignation and recrimination to arguing against all the sexist privileges and double standards they now enjoy under the feminist state.

I'd like to see that!

Something I just composed - with a little help* which I'm sure all feminists will identify with http://youtu.be/rZ7WT02wFOk .

WIVES AND LOVERS

Hey, little girl, comb your hair, fix your makeup
Soon he will open the door
Don't think because there's a ring on your finger
You needn't try anymore

For wives should always be lovers too
Run to his arms the moment he comes home to you
I'm warning you

Day after day there are girls at the office
And men will always be men
Don't send him off with your hair still in curlers
You may not see him again

For wives should always be lovers too
Run to his arms the moment he comes home to you
He's almost here

Hey, little girl, better wear something pretty
Something you'd wear to go to the city and
Dim all the lights, pour the wine, start the music
Time to get ready for love

Dim all the lights, pour the wine, start the music
Time to get ready for love, time to get ready
Time to get ready for love
Time to get ready, time to get ready for love.

* with a smidgen of help and apologies from Burt Bacharach and Hal David (1963 song).

Pete

Suse,

Suggest that you do Rels 101 or at the least read the course content.

Rhian

'[Paul's] letters are often addressed to or make reference to female church leaders'

I wasn't fully aware of that, but it does make sense in the context of what I already know about the nature of the pagan European societies that later converted to (i.e. were forced by their rulers to adopt) Christianity.

For example, it was routine for the Celtic Church (or Church of John) of early Ireland, Scotland and England to have women in high positions. They ran abbeys, said mass and (gasp!) blessed the Eucharist.

There were no priests or nuns until the Celtic Church was absorbed by the aggressively patriarchal Roman Catholic Church by the ninth century. Men and women in the church married and raised children in the service of god. Celibacy was not introduced across the Christian world until the eleventh century (or thereabouts).

In fact, I've always felt the pantheistic religions of the early egalitarian tribal societies of the temperate forests of northern Europe were completely unsuited to the Abrahamic religions of the desert-dwelling, intensely hierarchical desert societies of the Middle East. However, the Abrahamic religions and their obsession with blind obedience to brutal power certainly suited the leaders of the Roman empire.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Runner, I am not surprised Mrs. Runner does as she is told .

Hasbeen , so you are only anti-female on this forum then?

Rhian, I am sorry to have a go at your beliefs. I am glad you obviously find comfort in the words of the bible, but not all believers are as non-judgemental as you seem.

Is Mise, I haven't believed in fairy tales since my teens, after the nuns finally realized they couldn't force that rubbish into my brain any more.
I just started asking too many questions and thinking for myself...

on the beach

I'm guessing you are woman. If not, then the post doesn't directly apply to you, but to all those women who love to revel in their anti-feminist pride.

What has always fascinated me about anti-feminist women is that they are even more hostile - in their ever so superior way - to feminism than a lot of men are. Yet I also notice that feminists rarely ever return the hostility - perhaps out of misguided loyalty to all women (a loyalty, by the way, that I do not share).

Anti-feminist women routinely assume a Miss Jean Brodie-esque contemptuous dismissal of feminists as misguided children who hopelessly misunderstand the real (benevolently male-guided) world and need the firm guidance and wisdom that only traditional, submissive femininity can provide.

They are so wrapped up in the rapturous peace and joy of women knowing their place, they make Uncle Tom look like Spartacus.

The anti-feminist woman loves to go in savagely fighting, guns blazing, for the embattled integrity of the poor put-upon male who has been emasculated and forced into permanent moral confusion by the forces of feminist harpiedom. To the anti-feminist woman, men are such fragile creatures, so needing to be wrapped up in a woman's loving skirts.

To the anti-feminist woman, there is no such thing as gender power - just male and female planets beatifically orbiting one another.

Good luck to you dear. However, if you are not a woman, then dismiss this post. I'm sure you will anyway.

Jardine (and in the interests of informed opinion more generally):

“A child receives half of his or her genes from each parent.” Michael Cummings, ‘Human Heredity: Principles and Issues’ (Cengage Learning, 2014), 103.

In sexual reproduction, “all offspring contain one half of the genetic material from each parent.” A. Jamie Cuticchia, ‘Genetics: A Handbook for Lawyers’ (American Bar Association, 2009), 3.

“Sexual reproduction” is defined as “reproduction involving a male and a female, with each contributing half of the genetic makeup of the offspring.” Lynn Van Gorp, ‘Genetics’ (Compass Print Books, 2009), 35.

“The union of the sperm and the egg, each carrying one half of the genetic makeup, unites the genetic information to code for an offspring.” Cynthia Silkworth et al., eds. ‘Individualised Healthcare Plans’ (Sunrise River Press, 2005), 159.

“Half of the genetic makeup of a fertilized egg comes from each parent.” James Monroe and Reed Wikander, ‘The Changing Earth’ (Cengage Learning, 2012), 454.

Dear willies,

Jardine K. Jardine is right. All those quotes you cite ignore the fact that the cytoplasm contains genetic material and is entirely the contribution of the mother. The father only contributes half of the genetic material composing the nucleus. However, the cytoplasm also contains genetic material.

Many thanks, davidf, for a post that is comprehensible to the lay reader.

Would you be kind enough to post one or two recent scientific sources, including page numbers, that state your point?

And would you please explain why, in your opinion, the bulk of current scientific sources make misleading statements about the matter?

Dear willies,

I am traveling so my books are at home. However, Gray's Anatomy which medical students study describes the contents of the cell. The cytoplasm contains the mitochondria which contain genetic material. It is a common error to neglect the genetic contribution of the cytoplasm. All the genetic material that the sperm carries is transferred to the nucleus. The genetic material in the nucleus comes in equal parts from mother and father. Genetic studies of heredity from the male line concentrate on the Y chromosome which all males have. Genetic studies of the female line concentrate on the mitochondria found in the cytoplasm. Whether we are male or female our cytoplasm comes from our mothers. The sperm contributes nothing to the cytoplasm. The statements you cite are simply wrong. You did not cite scientific descriptions or papers. You cited books which made a common error. The genetic material in the mitochondria is small compared to that in the nucleus. Nevertheless, it exists.

Jardine, David f,

Let me help you out here: the human mitochondrial genome accounts for 0.0005 percent of the total human genetic information. I think it helps to state the actual figures; then readers can make up their own minds about how much weight an argument carries.

Doubtless this wasn't the 'roaring' Helen Reddy applauded in her, "I am woman, hear me roar",

<Rise of the female 'relationship terrorists': Study finds women are more controlling and aggressive towards their partners than men

Quote: Study leader Dr Elizabeth Bates said: ‘The stereotypical popular view is still one of dominant control by men. That does occur but research over the last ten to 15 years has highlighted the fact that women are controlling and aggressive in relationships too.’ She said scientists may have to think again about the reasons for male violence against women, which previous studies said arose from ‘patriarchal values’ in which men are motivated to seek to control women’s behaviour, using violence if necessary. She said other research also looked at men in prisons and women in refuges, rather than typical members of the public.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2669408/Rise-female-relationship-terrorists-Study-finds-women-controlling-aggressive-partners-men.html

"Daily Mail
26 June 2014

Rise of the female 'relationship terrorists': Study finds women are more controlling and aggressive towards their partners than men
By Emine Sinmaz and Sarah Griffiths

- Psychologists found more women are verbally or physically abusive to partner

- Within partner relationships, women are just as controlling as men

- It suggests 'intimate partner violence' may not be motivated by patriarchal values, as previously thought

Convention has it that women are the gentler sex.

But when it comes to relationships they are more likely than men to be controlling and aggressive, a study claims.

Increasing numbers of women can now be classed as ‘intimate terrorists’, meaning that they are verbally and physically violent towards a partner.

...

The analysis showed that, while women tended to be more physically aggressive towards their partners, men were more likely to show violence towards members of the same sex, including friends.>

Fascinating, the number of really anti-women posters. All these violent women. Yet, a woman a week still dies at the hand of her male partner. If this many persons, of whatever gender, died because of some flu or whatnot there would be a panic and an outcry for the government to do something.

The anti-feminists make me laugh. They actually have a public voice BECAUSE of feminism. Perhaps they should just keep quiet and let the men do the talking, instead of sticking it to other women.

Plantagenet, is it only a woman's role to woo and please? What about a man's? Just because he's put a ring on her finger, he shouldn't think that he's 'got her'. She also can look around and appreciate a man who notices her and gives her attention.... while he's at the office with the 'girls', who knows what she's up to!

Dear willies,

Thank you for that. The small contribution of the mitochondria is enough to show that the statement that each parent contributes half the genetic material is wrong.

On the average we men are simply bigger, physically stronger and, in my opinion, more aggressive than women. To the best of my knowledge there are no battered men shelters, and I don't think there will be any need for them. Let's not kid ourselves.

yvonne, "Yet, a woman a week still dies at the hand of her male partner"

Did you read the interesting interchange in the reader replies? Referring to the UK, but has relevance to your comment,

<kerry69, cramlington,
2 women are killed by their husband or partner every week. How many men are killed each week by their loved one? I rest my case.

Steve 909, Sheffield, United Kingdom,
"2 women are killed by their husband or partner every week. How many men are killed each week by their loved one? I rest my case". You haven't made a case, you simply alluded to an invalid premise, "that women don't kill their partners." For every three women killed by there partners, two men are. That's 3:2, to put it in numeric terms for you. Every Western Government has carried out research into I.P.V. and the Absolute Truth is that women perpetrate half of all I.P.V and in some cases even more, and what is more, is that that research is there for EVERYONE to read, so educate ourselves. The alternative is ignorance, and ignorance is safe harbour for abuse to flourish, thus creating more abuse and miserable lives FOR PEOPLE!>

Killarney
I suspect the rapid transition of early Christianity from egalitarianism to a pattern of subjugating women owed as much to Greco-Roman culture as to Judaism. The sexist, conservative morality of the Pseudo-Pauline letters seem closely patterned on “household codes” common in that culture.

http://www.jcu.edu/Bible/408/Readings/HouseholdCodes.htm

I agree that the church in its early expression had much more diversity including significant roles for women in some places and times. That diversity is returning, both as churches such as the Anglicans accept female leadership, and through geographical spread – more than half of the world’s Christians now live in South America, Asia or Africa, and their numbers are growing while Christianity is shrinking in its traditional centres.

Feminist theologians are exploring the contributions of women to the church over the centuries, and the way these have been suppressed. It’s a story even many non-believers find interesting.

Suseonline
Thanks for your comments. Anyone entering the fray on a forum like this must expect to have their beliefs challenged, and I enjoy your contributions, even when we disagree!

Willies
Your last statement
“ the human mitochondrial genome accounts for 0.0005 percent of the total human genetic information.”
is inconsistent with EVERY ONE of the statements you quoted.

This means
a) you, and
b) they, despite their high authority
are all wrong, and I knew better, and now you've admitted it, so please don’t bore me with your supercilious tripe about ‘more informed opinion’.

“ then readers can make up their own minds about how much weight an argument carries.”
Until you have accepted and admitted that you and all the sources you cited were wrong, and that it’s you with the less informed opinion, you are not in any position to talk down to me about how much weight my argument carries.

‘The truth will set you free’. If you’re openly defending untruth after it’s been pointed out to you, what makes you think you’re not embracing still more fallacies that you’re not even aware of? Next you need to understand and admit that the energy supply of the cell has its origin in the mitochondrial genome.

You have done nothing to diminish my remarkably fine argument, but given a good example of defence of untruth and illogical by appeal to absent authority that just happens to be wrong.