The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Domestic slaves and birthing machines

Domestic slaves and birthing machines

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
Is this all that women do? I know its not, but is this what patriarchy expects of them? It is a sad state of affairs when half the world's population is treated like slaves. A bit strong? NO!

As I see it, patriarchal values still rule. And it is not just men who perpetuate these myths. Nevertheless, it is men, perhaps the majority, who benefit from them. So what are you going to do about it my fellow man, and sisters?
Posted by Haralambos, Monday, 19 May 2008 3:46:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Haralambos,

We've been down this track before on previous threads.

For their part, Australian men, after some hesitancy, have generally reacted positively to the growing equality of women. Though admitedly
not all (see the "New Sexism" thread).

In fact, men's own roles, being complementary to those of women, are inevitably in some flux also.

Men are now permitted a more gentle and expressive personality than would have been considered appropriate a few decades ago; the 1950s "John Wayne" image of American manhood has less and less appeal to both sexes. Like the feminine role, the masculine role is now more ambiguous, more flexible, more subject to interpretation by the individual.

Resolving this kind of ambiguity is part of the challenge of social and cultural change. As I wrote in another thread, under the old system, everyone knew what their roles were, and most people unquestioningly behaved as they were supposed to. The system constrained people, but it freed them from the need to make choices.

There are fewer constraints today, but the individual now has the liberty - to choose his or her own path to self-fulfillment.

Our society today is individualistic and highly open to change and experimentation, and it is likely that men and women will explore a wide variety of possible roles. True liberation from the restrictions of gender would mean that all possible options would be open and equally acceptable for both sexes.

Then a person's individual human qualities, rather than his or her biological sex, would be the primary measure of that person's worth and achievement.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 19 May 2008 5:27:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haralambos

I know women who have taken great delight in raising children. On the other hand I have known women who have sadly committed suicide while pursuing careers. I hope you are not devaluing motherhood. While some religions treat women atrociously I think you will find that where the gospel has taken root in a country the women have benefited greatly. Secular humanism unfortunately leads to a lot of guilt and shame as many women are deceived in aborting babies and then suffering the consequences.
Posted by runner, Monday, 19 May 2008 5:46:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You got off to a great start
but berthing macines is the root of our problem

You see we [aust] live under maritime laws[constitutional law is a lie]
You see we are berthed and accorded a landing [berth] number ,that brands us as slaves to the good ship australia inc ,[a colenising power] that treats man or beast like a slave called a citisen of aust[incoperated [overlorded by policing and an in-justice system to those who identify to their birth certificate [enslavement ]number

Our courts are formed under the same maritime juristiction ,thus as the judge [like any captain in charge of their vessel] makes rulings over those serving under him[ever noticed in court the judge to ask you do you understand?, what the judge is asking are you a freeman [or do you submit[ stand [under] my authority to rule judgment over you

Any way its a complicated 'subject' and only the lawyers and the elites who know the truth get arround the UNCONSTITUTIONAL law ,thus by ignorance fall under maritime juris-restriction.

WE fall under the jurisrestriction when we 'apply'' for things using our birth[berthing] number like when we apply [it means legally to beg]for a licence [any licence ] from the state [states also are under maritime juris-restriction]

But i see your only taking figerative matriarchal enslavement to a patriarchal figure head , not the actual [true] legal [illegal ie not lawfull] enslavement of us all to the state, so i will let you get on with minour things, that demeans us all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTrhUwHaghA
Posted by one under god, Monday, 19 May 2008 7:02:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haralambos, there seems little point in yet another debate about this.

If you are genuinely interested get hold of a book called "The Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrel. You probably won't agree with much but at least you will have seen the alternative viewpoint.

Farrels detractors will point out that many years ago he said some stuff that looks like support for child sexual abuse. I'm undecided about that not having seen the published interview nor having access to the tapes of the interview but none of that breaks the logic of what he says in this book.

No need to believe him but read it and see if the idea that women have been kept as virtual slaves and men reaping the benefits still seems so compelling. The world really is more complex than that and the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 19 May 2008 7:36:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haralambos. Stop ya whinging and get back in the kitchen. What else do ya want?. You've got the uterus. That shuts down the 'birthing machine' argument. You want kids but you don't want to spit them out?. You'd be whinging if you did the full time work and ya hubby was at home, bludging. Harden up, or step off. Either way, shoosh, I'm watching the news.
Posted by StG, Monday, 19 May 2008 8:22:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well we cant change what is:)
God appointed Adam then Eve to help him (guys forget quite often this very important fact)...Genesis chapter 2.
Its SET now in history as the way God Wanted it and its SET in truth because it exists as such and can be seen as such... and cannot be changed
Posted by Gibo, Monday, 19 May 2008 8:48:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haralambos does this article about birthing machines have something to do with the $5000 baby bonus.

If you are sincere in your wish to support mothers the world over and free them from domestic slavery (being made to do the work of women for nothing) while men pay themselves a wage for work done outside the home. Thus only putting value on mens work and not womens work, You must be happy that after 1000s of years the men in power are finally giving mothers $5000 dollars.

Lets face it any woman could become pregnant even in the developed world because contraception does fail.

The male leaders in the United Nations could put a stop to the huge burden of producing multiple children on women in their countries to-morrow,if they asked for aid from the rich countries of the world to set up family planning or womens clinics all over the world, BUT THESE LEADERS DO NOT WANT THIS. George Bush due to his religious beliefs actually shut down one such rare clinic in a developing country (I forget which one) because he believes the pill might abort a fertilised egg.
Prepare for huge misery all over the world in the form of famines and wars until these men figure out that contraception and staffed women clinics where women can take their children for medical help to ensure their suvival and have easy access to contraception would do more to bring about peace on earth than anything they've every tried before.
Posted by sharkfin, Monday, 19 May 2008 10:11:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haralambos: “So what are you going to do about it my fellow man, and sisters?”

I’m going to lose my patriarchal views then watch equality whoosh in. Wish we could all try it for a year.
Posted by Seeker, Monday, 19 May 2008 10:21:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haralambos does your article have anything to with the $5000 baby bonus.

If you are sincere in your wish to help women all over the world who are domestic slaves (Slaves being those who are forced to work in service to other people for nothing) , then you would support the fact that finally after 1000s of years the men in power who pay themselves a wage for work done outside the home (men’s work) are finally paying women some of the wealth of the country for womens work.

The male leaders in the united nations could stop this misery of women being forced to bear too many children to-morrow, by asking the rich countries to help them set up family planning womens clinics all over the world. Where women could go to receive medical aid to ensure the survival of the children they do have and have easy access to free contraception. THESE LEADERS DON’T WANT TO DO THIS. George Bush closed down one such rare clinic that was set up in one of these countries I forget which one now because of his religious belief that the Pill may cause abortion.

Prepare for untold misery , famine and war raging across the planet in the future (it”s already started); until these leaders understand that this would do more to bring about world peace than any thing else that they’ve ever tried before.
Posted by sharkfin, Monday, 19 May 2008 11:17:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"birthing machines" ?

GOOOOD grief.. well.. never mind, glad you raised this thread.

HOW DO WE DEFINE OUR VALUE AS HUMANS?

In a recent radio discussion, the focus was on 'career' opportunities.
There was a point where they discussed the relative salaries of males and females and the following observations were offered:

1/ A the beginning of a work life, males and females are generally paid the same.
2/ Later, at upper managerial positions, women are often left behind.
3/ The 'left behind' was based on the lack of seniority due to their time giving birth to and nurturing children.

THEN...the classic moment.. the women speaking said this:

"yes.. so, women giving birth to children works AGAINST women"

Now..speaking of giving birth..that is a very PREGNANT statement.. so lets place it on the operating table and INDUCE a birth right now.

LOOK..what came out! it's a MONSTER!

The use of the word 'against' says it all (in the original quote)... this 'negative' term clearly indicates that the speaker (and perhaps a lot of women) 'define' their humanity in terms of... CAREER!

Does it occur to anyone that being the one (given by God) as the means of human reproduction, and equipped with organs of nurture and growth, that being a mother is actually a GOOD and positive thing?

Does it occur to anyone that men being built differently to women, stronger physically.. have a different role to play in life?

Why in the world does the fact that men only have to have intercourse once to produce a new life, and women then have a 9 month period of growth, and then lactate and produce milk...WHY is this seen as some kind of 'impediment to life' ?

It's about time we returned to defining our value as humans in terms of how we were made.

There is NO reason why a woman cannot have the best of both worlds.
She can work... have children..and then work again.. why make 'work' the reference point for life rather than 'have children' ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 6:24:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

You will need to speak to some radically different perspectives. You are considering it from a very defined perspective. We live in a very commercialised society and human value is now based on wealth. If one man is richer than another then he is more important. If one woman is richer than another then she is more important. Caring for children doesn’t make you rich so it isn’t valued. If it reduces the amount of wealth you can earn than it is seen as an impediment. In these premises for a woman to be lumped with pregnancy, childbirth, and possibly some child care is seen as demeaning and disadvantaging if men don't (can’t) do exactly the same.
Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 9:51:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah well, there's too many babies being born anyway.

However, I think Gibo's on the money with this subject: clearly, the purpose of women is to serve men by keeping our houses clean, our tummies full and our sexual desires serviced. It is clearly their privilege to sacrifice any professional aspirations they might foolishly harbour if they want to have children too.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 10:11:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“but is this what patriarchy expects of them?”

It is what a patriarchy would expect of them. However, we do not live in a patriarchy.

“As I see it, patriarchal values still rule.”

I think otherwise.

The patriarchal social system started to die out during WWI and was buried when universal suffrage was extended to women and the inheritance laws modified to allow women to own property in their own name.

Since that time women have continued to aspire into the roles which were previously an exclusive male domain.

Some say women cannot be properly represented until they have greater numbers in parliament etc.

My view, if they have the right to stand then it is up to them to promote themselves before the electorate and be elevated by the will of that electorate, rather than rely on some affirmative-action based manipulation which forces them upon the electorate.

On this matter I have always been heartened by Margaret Thatchers response to the role of women observed several years ago:

“The battle for women's rights has been largely won.”

Hardly the response of someone trodden underfoot by patriarchal oppression.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 10:34:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Foxy,

Offcourse there is change, it is inevitable. Nevertheless, the status quo remains.
Posted by Haralambos, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 11:32:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi runner,

I'm not devaluing motherhood at all. Women, if they want, should have children. The choice is theirs.
Posted by Haralambos, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 1:44:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi sharkfin,

What I said about birthing machines has nothing to do with the baby bonus. All I am saying is that most men reap the rewards of domestic slavery, but that some women are allowing this to happen to them.
Posted by Haralambos, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 1:53:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just in case many of you have missed the point
IT IS MOTHERS who raise the selfish and sexist males of this world
treating the little so and so's like little gods

i call it the messiah mothering complex

It is mothering [smothering] that has created huge expectations upon an innocent child ,that expects someone else to do EVErything

Then when no one loves you as much as the mother who adored and served your eve-ry need you tend to become just what the mothers raised you to be [spoiled rotten, and very self centered]

The question could have more or better been adressed by talking about mothering types [the servant mother crewates the dicta-tory-ial chavenist pigglet]

what is that ?
just look arround you
[i know its a Downer]
BUT
as your mother sewed so shall you reap
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 2:18:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hara.. as long as you regard the role of a women in the home as 'domestic slavery' you will be such a joy to be married to :)

And of course your children will learn such wonderful attitudes.

Specially when ur not around, out there fulfilling YOUR desires for YOU, and making as much MONEY as YOU can make, for YOU...

I guess if the kids are lucky, they might scrounge around for a tidbit like a new gameboy to occupy them.. but a mother who nurtures and cares, and gives unlimited love, fills them with self esteem, and gives them a sense of self importance and significance....a sense of worth as human beings.... aaah..nope.. PROFIT.. $$$ comes first does it not?
"MY" fulfillment doing "MY" career.. for "MY" sense of PERSONAL fulfilment.

God forbid that the offspring gain an inkling of their true worth (or lack thereof) in your home.. an inconvenience and impediment to YOUR career path...

It boggles the mind just how screwed up, selfish, and distorted our values have become regarding family.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 5:50:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD you can create a happy, confident and independent child without being a full-time parent. Or are you devaluing the role of fathers? We tend to look back to what is remembered as the "idyllic" 50's and 60's when we discuss the roles of parents, and its during that era that most mothers didnt work, modern appliances started to make domestic life easier (ie not full time work), and the size of families started to fall. Before that, large numbers of children and a hevy domestic workload meant that mothers spent little time with individual children anyway - modern childcare is far more likely to ensure that children get individual care and development than they would have got at home prior to the 50's. Anyway, I believe that you can give a child too much of your time, thereby creating a spoilt little so and so that thinks they are the centre of the universe. There is a fine line, and the position of that line will vary between individual families and individual children. There is no one-size-fits-all.
Posted by Country Gal, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 1:41:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks to the women who have fought and argued on our behalf, yes, we ARE more than domestic slaves and birthing machines.

Try being a woman in Yemen: http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2278332,00.html

Puts things into perspective.
Posted by Vanilla, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 2:47:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanilla,

I think a lot of men also helped along the status and rights of women in the west. Possibly the type of men, who unlike a lot of feminists, don't see the other gender as the enemy. But if you're talking about posters on this topic, I didn't argue on your behalf as I thought the whole topic ridiculous, and the phrase 'domestic slaves and birthing machines' inflamatory, and didn't know who Haralambos attributes this opinion to? I mean , is he arguing with himself, or who is the supporter/instigator of the proposition he is angrily opposing? I don't see any domestic slaves or birthing machines in our community.

It's nice to know feminism has come so far in the west that feminists are now left with whining by transference and appropriating the hardships of poor people, or constantly dragging up injustices from 'not so long ago' to keep alive the anger within. I agree with Col and Maggie. In this society, The battle for women's rights has been largely won. Pretty convicing coming from the mouth of a female prime minister.

I think it is terrible about those women in Yemen, but that's why it's even worse when people like Haralambos pretend women in the west suffer any remotely similar fate.

I also suggest, as always, that looking outside in at a culture from a different cultural perspective, we can never truley understand the powers within. I remember talking in Cairo with a guy who said that women really hold all the cards in marriage because he cannot afford another Bride Price for another wife, and would be left with no woman if his wife left him.

Hey I don't understand these other cultures, and yes they aren't my cup of tea, but you get all these people wanting to pick and choose the bits of other cultures to allow and deny based on our own cultures values. I wonder how we'd react to that scrutiny in reverse.
Posted by Usual Suspect, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 3:49:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Golly Vanilla...

I read that Yemen article.. and yet you criticize me for criticising the reasons behind that state of affairs?

The mind truly boggles.

This is 'our' version "Husbands..love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her"...

"Love your wives as your own bodies".....etc

I just don't see anything like that at all in Yemen or any other place with the same 'texture'.

Does it not astound you that women of that faith 'proudly proclaim how they are liberated' in such attire? I think they do that simply to be in our faces when we point out such things as that article.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 5:00:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Usual suspect: "...But if you're talking about posters on this topic, I didn't argue on your behalf as I thought the whole topic ridiculous..."

Um, okay. I disagreed with the OP and thought I'd post so. Much as I appreciate the sentiment, you've written this like I might expect you to argue on my behalf, which leaves me slightly confused, as I don't.

"whining by transference and appropriating the hardships of poor people"

Exsqueeze me? Are you suggesting *moi* was indulging in a spot of cultural appropriation by bringing up Yemen? (I'm assuming the "whining" part wasn't directed at me because I just can't see how you could have got that out of what I posted.) If so, can you explain yourself a bit more? The article itself isn't whiny, and the journalist is upfront about her western sensibilites — at least I read it that way.

My intent was to say:
1. I disagree with Haralambos's proposition.
2. I regard it as rather insulting to those who fought for our right to vote, study, work, love, etc, etc to suggest that we are still at square one. (At the same time, I freely admit it's not yet a perfect world.)
3. We should count ourselves lucky. In Yemen, life sucks — particularly for women.

I consider the last point neither trite nor some kind of Western apologia. I lived in a developing nation for several years and I understand how the cultural gaze works, and I'm cool with saying what I think about other cultures. (And when I was an expat I loved hearing what other cultures thought of us.) To me, the situation in Yemen is not even a feminist issue, it's a human rights issue.

The Thatch was never a great one for human rights, so if she's your role model, then perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree.

Boazy, I think we beat rampant religiousity with rationalism, empathy, tolerance and fairness. As far as I'm concerned, you're on their side.
Posted by Vanilla, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 7:21:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Harambolas you put forward a rather negative viewpoint. I thought we had come a long way from being birthing machines and domestic slaves.

You can spin anything to sound bad - when someone says you are nothing but a 'birthing machine' one tends to cringe and become defensive. Fact is women are the only ones capable of bearing children and giving birth is a wonderful experience (albeit somewhat painful). Watching your children grow and develop is also wonderful.

As for domestic slaves...well I thought we had got over that one a few years ago. While nothing is ever perfectly equal my experience is that while women might still do more work around the home, the husband usually (not always) holds the burden of being the prime breadwinner.

Maybe this is just my 40s something perspective, but women have a lot more choice and options available to them than they did in the 1950s and 60s. There might be room for improvement but I would argue that these improvements encompass better options and life/work choices for both men and women.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 7:59:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi pelican,

I'm sure giving birth is a wonderful experience, as would be raising children. But my point still stands, which is that most men don't do enough and many women let them get away with it.
Posted by Haralambos, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 9:12:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is kind of strange that in today's society, a supposedly more liberated one, gender roles still constrain. For if they didn't, as many think, then any role, any one at all, would be possible. In other words, women and men would be free to be whomever, or whatever. Now I'm not saying that society totally controls us, yet it doesn't let us be who we want. And if it did, then it wouldn't.
Posted by Haralambos, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 9:30:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haralambos, with your last post I entirely concur.
Posted by Vanilla, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 9:38:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haralambos, your last post could apply equally to women, as to men.
Posted by Seeker, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 9:56:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Vanilla.... if I was on 'their' side I'd be campaigning for the same injustices... practicing the same habits.. and lurking in wait for any uncovered female... and I'd not let them out of a school which was on fire unless they had 'correct religious dress on'....

My GOODness you know how to insult someone.. I mean REALLLY insult them..

You can call me all manner of thing, (and do :) but really, without even knowing me you have placed me in the camp of the Yemenis/Saudi's and other 'Islamists'?

You can be sure of one thing Vanilla.. even IF I was tending toward the idea of 'believing' (if not practicing) some kind of hair(not head) covering for women in Church, it would be a gentle persuasion approach and a choice by them..not a 'law'.

All you are doing when you speak thus, is demonstrating just how little you really know of the idea of 'grace'...

The biblical pattern for bringing about behavior change is:

"And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching."

1Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. 2Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

If you equate 'that' with the description of Yemen, mate..you do need therapy because you have a problem.
blessings.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 10:12:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazy: << ...even IF I was tending toward the idea of 'believing' (if not practicing) some kind of hair(not head) covering for women in Church, it would be a gentle persuasion approach and a choice by them..not a 'law'. >>

Uh, Boazy - from the perspective of those of us who would find absurd the very notion of women feeling pressure to cover their hair/heads because of some superstitious dictate, your views about the roles of women and men actually aren't all that far from Yemeni tribal customs. You are a member of a sect that 'encourages' women to wear scarves over their heads in public - which isn't very far from what I understand the hijab is all about.

<< ...you do need therapy because you have a problem >>

Do you possess a mirror, or are they proscribed by your sect?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 22 May 2008 12:29:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haralambos: You state "that women and men should be free to be whomever or whaever they want."

Only trouble with that is nature has given women breasts and the ability to bear children. When contraception fails as it does then women fall pregnant. When poverty comes around as it does in different eras then there will be no pill or daycare. What then?

If all the men are caring for the babies and a big army of men appear on the horizon hell bent on conquerng will the women by themsleves be able to defeat the male invaders. If you are under a tree giving birth to a baby will you be in any fit state to drive the invaders off.

A man can never have a brain that is wired to think like a woman 100% just as a woman cant have a brain that thinks like a man 100% otherwise there would be no difference between the sexes.

I'm not trying to let men off the hook,they could certainly have done a hell of a lot better in regard to treatment of women now and across history. What I am saying is dont always assume that men and women can have the freedom to be whomever and whatever they want. Nature will often dictate otherwise.

We are just fortunate that in rich countries in this era we do have the pill and daycare. Otherwise nature would very soon reassert her biological control over the lives of men and wowmen in particular.
Posted by sharkfin, Thursday, 22 May 2008 12:39:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear CJ... I sure hope you don't prepare lectures in the same way you spit out posts... now..lets see what a 'careful' scrutiny of my post would have educed from a fair and balanced critic?

"in church".. would have been included in your come-back. I said nothing about having hair covered in public.

My own thinking on this issue is that in a meeting, we should do our utmost to symbolize the creation mandate as linked by Paul to the issue itself. (Hair covering)

As for public? thats a different story, because as I understand it, there was a 'public morals' issue with being UNcovered in public in those days. Such is not the case now, so I don't see any need for Christian women to cover up in public. (aside from the normal need for modesty)

Now..I don't mind you calling me whacky,superstitious,religious nutter, bible basher, godbotherer... none of that worries me,... but I confess that being compared to the picture of Yemeni men as described in that article is a bit irksome, not to mention totally innaccurate.
(by any measure of objectivity)

I can read, and so can you.. and you (if you were honest) would fully realize that we are worlds apart.. so one can rightly conclude that you have a rather sad motive in playing on that issue as you did.
Shame. (you flamed)
3 days in solitary 4 u
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 22 May 2008 9:10:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazy: << My own thinking on this issue is that in a meeting, we should do our utmost to symbolize the creation mandate as linked by Paul to the issue itself. (Hair covering) >>

Boazy is either being obtuse or he's one incredibly thick godbotherer. What on earth is "the creation mandate as linked by Paul", and why does it mean that women (and presumably not men) should cover their hair at prayer meetings? To me that sounds like so much textually derived patriarchal mumbo jumbo designed to keep women in their place, which is of course defined by men.

I've seen photos of women from Boazy's Brethren sect taken at Melbourne airport en route to some sect 'conference' or other, and they looked for all the world like a mob of hijab-wearing Muslim women en route to Mecca. They all wore dowdy dresses headscarves.

Boazy's confected indignation at being compared with members of other patriarchal Abrahamic sects might be amusing if he didn't spend so much time vilifying them.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 22 May 2008 10:35:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haralambos,
'most men don't do enough and many women let them get away with it.'
Prove it! This is feminist propaganda. So is your title. You could just as easily call men 'Worker Bees and Sperm Donors.' The way men are cut out of families so easily by family law, and with the state as provider for any women without a man anyway, it could easily be argued all men are here to do is work and provide sperm. I don't agree with that, but that's just as radical as your position.

Hey you'll like this one:-)
If a black person gives up his seat for a white person it was once called subservience, if a man gives up his seat for a women it's called chivalry.

'any role, any one at all, would be possible. In other words, women and men would be free to be whomever, or whatever. '
Gender roles influence people, but men and women ARE FREE to to be whomever, or whatever. Men in our society can do anything except give birth or breast feed, enter Gyms that only allow women, or choose not to have children if their partner becomes pregnant. Women can do anything except have children without having to give birth.

Vanilla,
I really must start using 'To All' after I have finished addressing you. Actually I would be better to stop rambling on, but topics like this and the way it has been phrased bring out the worst in me. Sorry for the confusion.

Thatch is Definitely not my role model. But she is living proof feminism DOESN'T have 'a long way to go' in OUR society. Her saying that from the position of prime minister IS a pretty convincing argument.
Posted by Usual Suspect, Thursday, 22 May 2008 11:35:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"confected indignation" Ah, you have a way with words.

Boazy, what CJ said. I'm not suggesting you're a carbon copy of a Yemeni husband/owner, but you turn to your religious book for moral guidance rather than using your empathy, rationality and intelligence. You are constantly interpreting that text to justify your natural inclinations while insisting that your interpretation is the only correct interpretation. You argue with other sects, like Islam. You have stated many times that you believe women should be cooking scrumptious delights in the kitchen while the men chop wood.

You are nowhere near like those blokes. But you're in the ballpark.

You're always on about what a Christian-hater I am, but you need to take some credit for that. When I first posted on these boards I had far more sympathy for Christianity, and had recently gone to church with a friend to learn more. Then, I stumbled across quite a few things that really drove home to me what a immoral, arbitrary, aggressive and fundamentally untrue religion Christianity is. You were one of them.

If it's any comfort, I think exactly the same about Islam. I just sometimes forget if you hate Islam and love Christianity or if you hate Christianity and love Islam. Doesn't seem to make much difference.
Posted by Vanilla, Thursday, 22 May 2008 11:39:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanilla “The Thatch was never a great one for human rights, so if she's your role model, then perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree.”

Your response to US regarding dearest Margaret was mis-directed. She is one of my favourite quotation sources and inspirations.

I would consider her contribution to human rights includes standing squarely and resolutely
against the evils of communism
against the evils of South American Dictators who invade alien islands to deflect attention from a failing domestic economy.

She was a leading supporter to de-criminalise homosexuality at a time when it was illegal, an obvious “human rights” issue.

She similarly supported the de-criminalisation of abortion.

She defended the British electorate against the excesses of the European Union to the point, Gordon Browns government continue to be the beneficiaries of the negotiations which she initiated to correct the inequalities /inequities of EU funding.

She pushed forward the sale of council housing to the long-term sitting tenants, giving millions of people the opportunity to own their own homes, at a discount.

She broke the nationalised government monopolies across a range of industries, which improved the rights of ordinary people to choose, rather than have their right of choice denied them.

As an example of how far women can aspire, dearest Margaret is one of the few who has actually reached the absolute pinnacle of political public life.

She is a lady who has proven her worth far beyond being one of the “Domestic slaves and birthing machines”

Like US said “she is living proof feminism DOESN'T have 'a long way to go' in OUR society. Her saying that from the position of prime minister IS a pretty convincing argument”

Re “never a great one for human rights”

I am not sure what you base that assumption on. Maybe you would like to elaborate with some specific examples which can be challenged, rather use it as a throw-away ad hominine.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 22 May 2008 2:40:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What happens Col? If someone somewhere in cyberspace mentions Thatcher does a little alarm go off in your mind, guiding you to the spot where you can go in to bat for her? Your eerie ability to pick up some anti-Thatch rhetoric is very impressive.

Anyway, I base it on refusing to support sanctions against South Africa and referring to the ANC as terrorist. I base it on Section 28. I base it on the philosophy that the state is not responsible for those who fall by the wayside. I base it on the idea that workers should not be permitted to bargain collectively. I base it on her Enoch Powell-inherited attitude to immigration.

I know, I know, I'm wrong, you're right, she's great. You know, I really don't need a lecture about this Col. I do understand the idea that economic sanctions don't always work. (I'm no supporter of affirmative action, either.) I understand the trickle-down effect and I know what "there is no such thing as society" means. I appreciate the points you make in your post. But in a general sense I disagree with her, and with you, and that's why I said what I said.

I also don't believe that The Thatch "living proof feminism DOESN'T have 'a long way to go' in OUR society”. I think she's living proof that, in the 80s and even moreso now, feminism has come a long way. There's a difference.
Posted by Vanilla, Thursday, 22 May 2008 5:34:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The feminist movement have to maintain the 'victim' status in order to remain relevant. When someone tells Hillary to do his ironing she is offended. When someone tells a father that he is not allowed to access his kids because of some false allegation no one blinks an eyelid. Women don't like to be labeled domestic slaves and yet what women wants a man who does not provide for his family? Maybe a few like the idea in theory but not in practice. Many of us still take our hats off today to our mums who were mums, housekeepers and most of all there for us. Most of them seemed far more content than the stressed out career women of today.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 22 May 2008 6:20:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Vanilla

you said:

"You argue with other sects, like Islam. You have stated many times that you believe women should be cooking scrumptious delights in the kitchen while the men chop wood."

1/ You argue with other sects:.. err..and you don't argue with those on the other end of the political spectrum to yourself? :)

2/ "Women cooking.. men chop wood" err.. kind of. Men also empty the LOO.. (if needed).. it is the strength I gain from the work my wife does, in looking after our 'in house' needs, that gives me the strength to do the jolly hard tiring, exhausting outside work that also needs to be regularly done.

GINXy had it right 'You are a GRUBBY little man' :) damn..and I thought no one was looking at me when I was total filth from fighting my way through some logs with me trusty Stihl 035! But I'm not little.. a 6 footer.
I wonder if 'grubby little man' is the male equivalent to 'two dollar hooker'? hmmm I prefer not to go down that path, as it becomes a silly slanging match. Bless you Ginxy... God is very patient.

But (Vanilla) suggesting that all my rationality and reason etc went out the window with my conversion to Christ.. well thats something we can debate another time :) I'm ok with my faculties there.

CJ.. you are clearly a new convert to the "Kaysar spin zone" and presenting me as one of the E.B... when in fact you will see more spagetti strap tops than 'pseudo burkahs' in our fellowship.

We are 'open'... we don't enforce those ideas.. I would personally prefer that we were closer to the Biblical ideal, but that would be a choice matter.

But if some deluded brother stood up and started saying how "Homosexual behavior is not condemned in the Bible" you would probably only here one word "SecURRRRRity" as people looked sideways :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 23 May 2008 9:37:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazy, you are positively Neanderthal. Tell us, does 'her indoors' cover her hair at prayer meetings? Do you? If she does and you don't, why is that exactly?

And what does Keysar Trad have to do with this thread?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 23 May 2008 10:04:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now you are all being really really unfair to David. His group wear slate coloured clothes, not those positively sinful dark grey robes the other mob wear. It's perfectly obvious that they have nothing in common with each other.

Clearly if the circumstances of David's upbringing had been different he still would not have been waving a scimitar and calling "Death to infidels", more likely a sword and the call would have been "Death to pagans" - how can you all miss the blindingly obvious distinctions. :)

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 23 May 2008 10:26:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazy, as far as I can tell you have only disagreed with me on one count, which is that of arguing with other sects.

I mean sects in the sense of, well, sects. Dictionary.com says, "a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination." The ALP or the Liberal Party are not sects. The crucial ingredient is religion.

Just saying. Now I'll leave you to the ravaging jaws of CJ and R0bert.
Posted by Vanilla, Friday, 23 May 2008 10:42:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanilla “Your eerie ability to pick up some anti-Thatch rhetoric is very impressive.”

Put it down to a sense of smell… the rhetoric is usually found at the same source as foul odours.

“I know, I know, I'm wrong, you're right, she's great.”

Glad we are in agreement, although it was pretty obvious in the first place.

All those things you “base” your assessment on – well, easy to knock them over but since you have already agreed you are wrong, there is no point.

“I appreciate the points you make in your post.”

Of course, they are all reasonable and reasoned.

“But in a general sense I disagree with her, and with you, and that's why I said what I said.”

And you are entitled to your view.

I would add, however, it has been world leaders, like Margaret Thatcher, who worked to preserve your right to hold that personal view because

What she stood against was the dictatorial right of the (communist) state to decide what you and I would be allowed to believe and think.

But feel free to criticise a world leader who acomplished changes to a national culture and someone who preserved your right of dissent, without even knowing your name or that you exist.

To be honest, over the past few decades, feminism has been digging a hole for itself and has alienated not only men but many real women, who these days see it as a hollow charade of the hormonally destabilised females living a parody of real life.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 23 May 2008 1:11:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col: "But feel free to criticise a world leader who acomplished changes to a national culture and someone who preserved your right of dissent, without even knowing your name or that you exist."

Ta. I do.
Posted by Vanilla, Friday, 23 May 2008 1:26:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Golly Vanilla.. ur sounding positively human these days :) must have been that medication you threw away which was dragging you down into 'grouch' land before eh 0_^

The reasons we GB's argue, is the same reason political parties and adherents argue.. it's all about 'policy'....

It's also the reason for the saying "Talk about anything but religion and politics."

CJ Sheikh Kaysar has nothing 2 do with this thread.. it's just that he is giving 'spin' in the other thread, and u have followed suit in this one. Different topic, but 'spin' no less.

I had a long convo today with a women in the Sauna at Gym... we regularly exchange ideas but today really got going.. and it was like reading Vanilla, Robert, CJ and Pericles from here, but in convo form.
Same issues.. same mindset.. but friendly.
The wierd thing is.. we basically agree, as I am sure the abovementioned agree with me on most social issues.. even though we express them differently.
In the end... the argument became circular and she shot herself in the foot (as 'youz' all do...*grin*) so, I had to leave it at that. But it DID help me see what the barrier is between us.... more 2 come.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 23 May 2008 8:26:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's all very nice Boazy, but what about you and your missus and the covering-up of the hair thing?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 23 May 2008 10:32:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi CJ.. with us.. we don't.. she does not cover her hair and I don't ask her to.

It's more the domain of the older Bretho's.. but.. that does not mean I don't see it as an ideal to work towards.

Perhaps we might do something about that soon? Thanx for the encouragement.

You see.. the great thing about knowing the Lord is that he called us to FREEDOM..and Grace..not to Law and bondage.

If you had taken the time to read say Pauls letters to the Colossians and Galatians.. you would already know this :) so there.. thats ur "homework" for the weekend..

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=1&version=31

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=58&chapter=1&version=31

But wait.. then you might actually be INFORMED about the things you pick on us about :) shock horror.

While ur at it.. you may wish (if you like) to check out

http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=PUBERTY&book=&translator=1&search=1&search_word=&start=20&records_display=10
and scroll down to "22" (one click on 'page down' will show it)

Then you may wish to revisit the Kaysar thread with an 'informed' perspective :) and then.. (now..we are REALLLY living dangerously here) you might have..and, (heaven forbid) advance, an opinion based on...FACT 0_^

Enjoy ur weekend and a glass of nice red... and think of me doing 'outside' work, getting spiked NUMerous times by this horrific barbed wire I'm trying to re-tie to fix a fense.. aa..blokes work :)

But, I actually need the missus for this, don't have enough hands.
cheers.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 24 May 2008 10:27:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazy: "It's more the domain of the older Bretho's.. but.. that does not mean I don't see it as an ideal to work towards."

Boazy, you seem to be wriggling here - I'm asking you to explain why it is that it is "an ideal to work towards" for women to cover their hair while it is not one for men. Please just answer the question in your own words without fobbing us off to some bible website.

Also - I live on a farm, and am therefore very familiar with the joys of barbed wire and chainsaws... not to mention the odd glass of red :) However, in my case my partner and I work pretty well equally both indoors and outdoors, and in our business. Now that you mention a glass of red, I actually just stocked up with a mixed dozen from one of our local wineries, and we've just cracked a bottle of 2005 'Black Duck' Shiraz. Cheers!

Do answer the question Boazy - I'm genuinely interested in why it is that you think women should "ideally" cover their hair at prayer meetings, and how that is essentially different from the Muslim "ideal" of the hijab.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 24 May 2008 2:33:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I always find the division of work according to gender quite amusing, living alone as I do on a semi-rural property. All basic chores are done by myself; from repairing a leak in the roof, changing fuses, brush-cutting and more, as well as the indoor work, which I always procrastinate over as I would rather spend the day pruning and weeding than washing dishes.

And somewhere along the way, I forgot to have children. So I have to 'fess up that I failed at both domestic slavery and breeding. Interesting that no-one I know have any problems with this, however, I probably have broken a variety of religious laws; like not wearing head-covering on the rare occasion I have been in church, indulging in fornication before, outside of and after marriage, using god's name in vain .... so many sins, too little time. Must go clear out that guttering now that the last leaves have fallen...
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 24 May 2008 2:48:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle, wonderfully said. I've got a grin from ear to ear.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 24 May 2008 3:53:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oooo er, R0bert, I forgot to add how much pleasure I get from seeing a man with a big smile on his face...
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 24 May 2008 4:23:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't understand all this covering of the hair on your head in church. The covering of pubic hair I can understand.

Surely God having made Adam and Eve is not going to be shocked by the sight of either. After all he designed the hairy parts himself.
Posted by sharkfin, Sunday, 25 May 2008 1:24:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm...quite a bit to work with here...but all of it great.

CJ.. sorry, I'll try to be more focused this time. Didn't realize your question was expecting such a narrow response.

1/ Why not men cover their hair? This get's a bit 'doctrinal' so I'll give you the scripture.

1 Corinthians 11:1-16
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=11&version=31

I recommend you read all the relevant bits, its only 16 verses.
You might like also, to compare the way I've "cherry picked" partial verses below :) to give a "Hyper Paternatlistic/Man centered/Male domination" perspective of the Faith. But in fairness, you might also benefit from reading the 'rest' of each verse, and see how the 'balance' occurs.

But on the head covering, you can see from the text what it's based on, and it's self explanitory. In all honesty, this is an area which we should approach with humilty and sensitivity. For us, its about obeying God, not dominating women. This same logic is used by Muslim women at times, when they defend the Hijab or.. even the verse about husbands being able to 'beat' their wives. I find that abhorrent myself, and can only trust in peoples powers of reason and balance to see that such a thing (beating wives) has no place whatsoever in the Christian life. (oops..is that Pericles I see poking his head around the corner? "But what about daughters" ? :)

PAULisms...

The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband.(1Cor7:4)

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.(1Cor11:7)

neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. (1Cor11:9)

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man. (1Cor11:11)

Sounds a bit like Yemen eh Vanilla?

Before the blokes get too excited, each of those 'verses' should be read in their completeness (i.e...including the bits I left out) so.. you would need to access Bible gateway to check em.
Ch7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=7&version=31
Ch 11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=11&version=31
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 25 May 2008 7:35:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Boazy. Just so you know for future reference, those verses are exactly the kind of misogynist codswallop that attracts to your religion the label 'patriarchal'.

You're right though - it is better in context:

<< Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. >>

I think this one is the silliest. but there's quite a bit to choose from there:

<< A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. >>

I'm going to inform my partner that things around here are going to be different from now on - because I'm the image and glory of God and she is the glory of me.

Hallelujah and assume the position... afterwards do the dishes!
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 25 May 2008 7:55:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ.. part 2 "why is this different from the Muslim Hijab"

An interesting question.

The Islamic view is simple:

1/ Men are horny..
http://wasalaam.wordpress.com/2007/01/23/heba-kotb-on-sex-and-muslims/

”Many women know nothing about their bodies, not to mention sex, and they were raised to believe sex is for men and a dirty thing,”

2/ Women are ...well.. why not let Mohammad himself answer this question..... see below.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/006.sbt.html#001.006.301

<< "A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?">>

That's it in a nutshell, rather crudely put, but nevertheless, from what I gather from the words of Sheikh Hilali (that bastion of truth) and many Muslim women interviewed in the Media, it appears to be the case.:"Uncovered meat" "Their fault"

http://www.islamfortoday.com/syed01.htm

Surah 24 says:

They must draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husband's sons, or their women, or their slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their ornaments.

http://www.jannah.org/sisters/hijab_protect.html

<<Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59) states: "O Prophet [PBUH] Tell thy wives and daughters and the believing women that they should put on their outer garments; that is most convenient in order that THEY MAY BE RECOGNIZED (as Muslims) and not be molested.">>

(emphasis from the article..not me)

CONCLUSION.. "In Islam" the veil is about 'sex'... in Christianity, it is purely about 'Creation mandate'.

DIFFERENCE.. in the case of Christianity, the head covering has nothing to do with 'hiding sexy bits' but everything to do with reflecting the creation mandate.

No doubt FH will correct his own mob (quoted here:)..me? I just report their views.. you decide.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 25 May 2008 8:13:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well done Boaz.

You have illustrated perfectly how and why religion in general causes inequities and divisions between the sexes.

Unwittingly, yet again, you have presented arguments that a literal belief in either the NT or the Koran is to be avoided and anyone claiming that these ancient tomes are 'the truth' are to be viewed with both pity and suspicion.

:-)
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 25 May 2008 2:21:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle, not many of them take it very literally when the pain rests with them rather than with others. Did you notice how quiet the fundies went on Gobo's women's clothes thread after I linked to what Jesus had to say to those who were having problems with what they saw. Suddenly the issue seemed a whole lot less important.

It's all very well to be insistant on the literal truth of gods word when it's about others suffering, not so important to be literal when it's the fundy who needs to suffer.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 26 May 2008 8:39:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazy: << "In Islam" the veil is about 'sex'... in Christianity, it is purely about 'Creation mandate'. >>

Fascinating. I had a squizz at those biblical texts that Boazy pointed us to: lots of twaddle about heads and hair but no mention anywhere of a "Creation mandate".

What's the "Creation mandate" when it's at home, and what does it have to do with uncovered women's hair being offensive while men's apparently isn't?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 8:31:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ,

You silly-billy! Can't you see how different the two are? Women should "ideally" cover their heads as a visible reminder that when the god created humanity woman was a mere afterthought: women(plural) were made FOR men(plural) and that little bit of cloth is her badge of servitude and reminds everyone of her sexual function - which, because of Eve, she has abused and used to her own ends ever since.

But when women cover their whole bodies that is taking things too far: it means that the god created each woman for each man exclusively and so you can't sit in church fantasizing about spagetti straps or go around admiring a "long, lean leg" which is just plain unfair.

Remember, there is no question either from the Koran or the Bible that women are inferior to men, its unarguable through any scriptures. But Christians need them to be visible in the world so they can prove Eve's perfidy while those darn mozzies jolly well try to limit the damage. Nasty spoil sports.
Posted by Romany, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 1:21:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ,

You silly-billy! Can't you see how different the two are? Women should "ideally" cover their heads as a visible reminder that when the god created humanity woman was a mere afterthought: women(plural) were made FOR men(plural) and that little bit of cloth is her badge of servitude and reminds everyone of her sexual function - which, because of Eve, she has abused and used to her own ends ever since.

But when women cover their whole bodies that is taking things too far: it means that the god created each woman for each man exclusively and so you can't sit in church fantasizing about spagetti straps or go around admiring a "long, lean leg" which is just plain unfair.

Remember, there is no question either from the Koran or the Bible that women are inferior to men, its unarguable through any scriptures as BD has gone to tedious length to prove to us. But Christians need them to be visible in the world so they can prove Eve's perfidy while those darn mozzies jolly well try to limit the damage. Nasty spoil sports.
Posted by Romany, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 1:23:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's interesting to see the example of "make it up as you go bible following" on this thread.

"even IF I was tending toward the idea of 'believing' (if not practicing) some kind of hair(not head) covering for women in Church, it would be a gentle persuasion approach and a choice by them..not a 'law'." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1818#36127

"My own thinking on this issue is that in a meeting, we should do our utmost to symbolize the creation mandate as linked by Paul to the issue itself. (Hair covering)" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1818#36144

"We are 'open'... we don't enforce those ideas.. I would personally prefer that we were closer to the Biblical ideal, but that would be a choice matter." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1818#36237

"It's more the domain of the older Bretho's.. but.. that does not mean I don't see it as an ideal to work towards." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1818#36333

David has moved in a short space from even "IF I was tending toward the idea of 'believing' (if not practicing)" to "that does not mean I don't see it as an ideal to work towards."

Meanwhile his denominational group has had a new word from god telling them that the previous interpretion of the head covering thing as literal was not actually literal which some of the ones David considers older missed out on hearing (hearing aids had flat batteries maybe).

I recall many years ago visiting a weeknight meeting at a local bretho church with a female friend (head uncovered) to hear a visiting missionary speaker and being appauled by the speaker. The speaker went to great lengths in praising a christain they had met in a south american country who did not attend church because the women in the local churches did not cover their hair and this christain did not want to fellowship with disobediant christains.

Some sad priorities and it made my friend feel really good as the only woman present with hair uncovered.

It's not only those without a god who make it up as we go apparently.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 7:48:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazy, I know you're busy on other threads trying to whip up support for your crusade against Islam, but do you think you could clarify for us what this "Creation mandate" is, and how exactly it allows you to discriminate against women in your "ideals" for your church?

As you can tell from the above comments, you haven't convinced anybody that your "ideals" with respect to covering women's hair are significantly different from those of fundamentalist Muslims.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 12:10:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan, I think that there is a significant difference between the christain headcovering thing and the islamic covering up stuff. If I understand it the main thrust of the islamist cover up is that women are to sexy for men to cope with whereas the christain headcovering is to demonstrate that women are less than men (woman is to man as man is to god type of thing).

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 12:40:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"They seek him here
They seek him there..."
haven't you guys worked it out yet? Like the Scarlet Pimpernel our DB sneaks quietly off when things start getting a little hot.

These forums are littered with entreaties for him to come on back and finish what he started. The minute he gets called on an idea or hypothesis that just doesn't cut it, off he slithers so he can say exactly the same thing all over again somewhere else.

Which is why I don't take his "I'm trying to bring you all to the lord" stuff too seriously. I think he just likes reading his own words: its obvious he never does more than skim over anyone elses. Sitting down and trying to think of a riposte that varies from "God says" would take too much time away from his intense "research" on youtube.
Posted by Romany, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 9:10:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Romany, I suspect that it's largely about bragging rights for the wednesday night prayer group. David can humbly mention all his good works in trying to bring us heathen to the lord as he raises prayer points thereby scoring points for his tireless missionary work.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 10:29:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I did not realise that David was part of the Brethren. Now I understand.

Sometimes I cannot believe what I read – head coverings for women for goodness sake. David you are a mirror image of everything you accuse Islam but yet you cannot see. Same story; different book.

Can you not see the hypocrisy? Is it possible for you to step back from your strongly held belief to question for a while what it is you are espousing.

Do you really see women as created for man? That men are the image and glory of God while woman [merely] the glory of man”. I am gobsmacked. What exactly does that mean? The 'glory of man' implies a God-like status for men which I though in itself was blasphemy. Please explain.

You like quotes here's one: “There are none so blind as those who will not see”.

Or if I can turn a quote from the Bible around to illustrates my point (albeit from a Google search):

Jeremiah 5:21
“Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:”

Or

Matthew 13:13
“13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing: see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand”

It just goes to show people will see and hear exactly what they wish to suit their own agenda and specific point of view even if absurd.

As an atheist I hope that I would always use some level of rationality, logic, reasoning and humanity in what I put forward.

True companionship and love between a man and a woman can only exist if the two partners see and respect each other as equal partners in the relationship. And I am not talking about whose turn it is to wash up.

Anyway must go and take these shoes off and get back to the kitchen.

Sheesh...just when you think you have heard everything.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 29 May 2008 10:51:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm HERE :)

sorry team, I was not aware that many were seeking...me.

Pelican..let me dispel ONE thing immediately.. "Brethren' ooh..now I understand" utter rubbish :) I came to the Lord in a BAPTist context and it was THEY who recommended a particular open Bretho assembly in Melbourne. (so much for denominational competition eh) I've never felt entirely comfortable with the Bretho system.. too many older ones into Dispensationalism for me.. but now.. if you went to say Crossway Bap, ours, or a host of other evangelical Churches you would not know the diff.

ROBERT.. *grrrrr*.. 'women less than men'....aaarrgh....

No Rob..no no no.... not at all. More like 2 pieces of a jigsaw which complement each other and fill out the bigger picture.

YES.. The bible speaks of 'woman formed from man' etc.. God is the head of Christ who is the head of man, and man is the head of woman....I sure arn't going to revise scripture :)

(point to note.. Jesus the Son is equal to the Father and the Spirit according to Trinitarian doctrine :)

All I can say is that it does not suggest to me, that woman is 'less' than man. She is DIFFerently enabled..... (and in some ways better enabled)

CJ.. the Creation mandate..or.pattern.. is described in Genesis, and referred to in Pauls writings. (Ephesians and Corinthians)

At home? hmm 'they shall become one flesh'....in public...I guess Paul had his reasons for desiring (commanding) this hair covering, and he knew when he spoke with Gods authority and his own opinion, he says as much in a few places.

I don't know why people want to get so hung up on this, because it realllly is not much of a deal. We love and respect our bosses....they know how to play us like a fiddle :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 29 May 2008 1:24:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the reponse Boazy - but I'm still no closer to understanding this 'Creation mandate' or how it relates to women's hair being somehow offensive to your God.

What I do understand is that your ideas about women, and their inferior relationship to your God to that of men, derives from your interpretation of Paul's writings. If it was good enough for Paul to want women to cover their hair, then it's good enough for Boazy.

'Nuff said.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 29 May 2008 1:33:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear CJ.. 'annnnd another thing' *frown*

mate... I am not the one starting all these 'Islam' related threads.. I'm just a humble (at times) participant..

You keep on frothing about my 'hate' blah blah..but really.. if you took the trouble and made an effort to follow my last post through on the Keysar thread.. where I quote 'their' scholars till even "I" must look like I'm wearing a turban.. and see that they all concur with what I'm saying.. I'ts not 'ME'...it's....'them'... I'm simply saying "IF..'this' is what Islam really teaches" (when they are not ducking for cover in a country where they are minority)..then surely, such values are not healthy or wholesome or even in the slightest bit 'good'.....

The very thought of DIVORCING a pre-menstrual child an old man might have impregnated.. is repugnant in the extreme..

No one is saying "Because God ordered the elimination of the Canaanites we should do so for such and such a group in God's name" because if they did, it would be seen as invalid. But in the case referred to above.. it IS for the 'here and now' if the truth be known.

Stop picking on me ya bully:)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 29 May 2008 1:39:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is the part where you lose all credibility with me, Boaz.

>>The very thought of DIVORCING a pre-menstrual child an old man might have impregnated.. is repugnant in the extreme..

No one is saying "Because God ordered the elimination of the Canaanites we should do so for such and such a group in God's name" because if they did, it would be seen as invalid. But in the case referred to above.. it IS for the 'here and now' if the truth be known.<<

Please, explain to me again, very slowly, the difference that you perceive between smiting Canaanites and divorcing a pre-menstrual child.

I have heard of the former, but not the latter, but assume that they are both instructions contained in ancient scriptures.

What, exactly, causes them to differ?

Leave aside for a moment the fact that you clearly believe in one set of ancient writings but not in another set of ancient writings.

Leave aside, if you can, the content of both. For the purposes of my question, they may be regarded as nothing more than two recipes. Or two shopping lists. Or two train timetables.

What is it that allows you to determine that one version may be treated as metaphor or allegory - at your personal choosing - but that the other one is specific and immutably literal?

It is irrelevant that you can quote scholars to appear to agree with you, if you cannot accept that there are just as many scholars who believe that smiting Canaanites a) was a valid political manoeuvre and b) was entirely appropriate to the mores of those times.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 29 May 2008 6:01:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
harambolos>"is this what patriarchy expects of them?"

No, it's what feminist idiots like you keep telling themselves and other women to make them feel bad about their biological role.

Physical weakness doesn't lend itself to doing heavy labour or hunting. Being female lends itself to birthing children.

That you see particularly the latter as burdensome is extremely perverted and it's a shame that your characterisation appears to holds so much currency among people.

harambolus>"It is a sad state of affairs when half the world's population is treated like slaves."

Those are your own words. If you see being female as slavery then I have no sympathy for you.
Posted by Steel, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 4:56:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy