Im not gonna set a side here, but some of the passages of the Bible owwing to possable miss traslation show woman to be inferior and should be told what to do by men.
and the world untill recently gave woman hardly any rights for anything...
today "freedom" is spost to regin" (woteva)........
If i took a side here it would be STAY SINGLE lol. 
I'll have my bat ready for anyone who dares come to me and say I am worth less than any man because a hand-me-down book dictates that a woman doesn't have the same rights as men.
You have to keep in mind that the bible is written by men, and in the time they wrote the bible men worked outside the house and had more social contact, in that time you had to be strong to survive. But women are sequel of the men.
The man represents black the woman white, they're both 50%
the fact you ask such a question shows you're not totally sure. everybody should be sure, men and women are both even important.
| We r the SYC wrote: |
| Im not gonna set a side here |
Yes you do , by the title: Are men by right higher than woman? But I forgive you for this, it's difficult to formulate that. The bible is correct. It is just misinterpreted by people looking to see who is superior. Men and women are not superior or inferior to echother; they are however, different. What the bible says is that men and women are diferent and should fufil diferent roles in the household.
Dare I mention that when the role of men and women in the household began to change, divorce rates began to skyrocket?
Feminists need to realize that they can be equal without being the same.
(mathematicly; a+b=b+a different, but equal)
| We r the SYC wrote: |
Im not gonna set a side here, but some of the passages of the Bible owwing to possable miss traslation show woman to be inferior and should be told what to do by men.
|
That's right, some verses of the Bible seems to have been written by the worst chauvinist on the Earth. [I personally used to be extremely appalled with the Corinthians 14:34 - "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says" ] But we should remember that Bible didn't fly from heaven to us, but has been written by people and for people in a particular society and period of time. Those lines were written in the culture of the ancient Arabian Penisula, where the society was extremely pathriarchal. [And still is in some Arabian countries.] The first Christians, who were living on these lands, didn't rebel against this patriarchal structure, as their only law was the Law of Love. And these times the best evidence of a woman's love was to be obedient to her husband, jut as men showed their love by earning the living for the whole family that's why these kind of adviced are placed in the Bible. It's sad when some people try to take advantage of women interpreting those passages literally, forgetting that what Christ teaches us, is that we should love the others.Women Hold The Most Hardest Job In Life ... Being A Mother ...
Guys Only Know How To F*** And It's The Lady That Gave Birth ...
I am lucky to be a guy ...
I Respect Girls ...
I don't know where it says.. all males have to be superior.. or all women should be equal to be men either.. so I think you should choose which ever one is more suitable for your family life.. for example.. If in a family there is a male who say he is superior and at the same time.. he is doing everything he can to make his wife happy and loves her.. then why the heck you need equality there.. and who told you all women that when she agrees to a decision a man takes.. that he have superiority.. you know what.. do what ever it is suitable to make ia happy and peacefull life.. thats all I have to say.. we have an old saying "A loud woman or a Greedy man will never live happliy, there is not a history like that" so to all men... don't be greedy and to all woman.. don't be loud (in the charrector).. thanks..
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Dare I mention that when the role of men and women in the household began to change, divorce rates began to skyrocket? |
Yes, the same can be said if you compare the number of pirates vs. the average temperature. But I doubt there is any real correlation between the two of them.
The growing number of divorces is caused due to a change in morality. Back in the days people didn't marry each other because of love, so there was no reason to divorce when they stopped loving each other.
Nowadays most people get married because they love each other. However, biologically, people are not made to love each other longer than a few years. After that, it requires a lot of effort to stay a couple. And because people tend to get much older now and stay healthy longer, there is much more chance for a divorce.There are Bible translations that have been misinterpreted and twisted to (in some way or another) "prove male superiority", which is not the case. I'm a pretty devout Christian, and firmly believe that females are equal to males.
| Bondings wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Dare I mention that when the role of men and women in the household began to change, divorce rates began to skyrocket? |
Yes, the same can be said if you compare the number of pirates vs. the average temperature. But I doubt there is any real correlation between the two of them.
|
I suppose its absalutely impossible for the way a man and a woman interact in a household to effect the longevity of the marrage...
When the one who designed marrage (or for that matter mankind) gives you instructions on how to go about it, its just possible He knows what He's talking about.
Anyway, my main point was that men and women are different, but equal.Men and woman are equal. If any side is superior its woman, woman give birth. Thats allot of pain.
ocalhoun: The diverse rate did not increase because of feminism, it increased cause of grater exceptince of divorce. Humans are not piguins, we did not evolve to stay with one person our whole life's. I have respect for those who can stay together till death, but people must remember, love is impermanent, it dose not last.
I personally agree with the statement of men and women being merely different, not unequal. I have recently been dealing with having female friends who don't understand my willingness to finish high school (next year), go to college (because I've seen my mom struggle with divorcing my father and having to go back to school), get a job afterwards (to support myself), get married (I would assume to someone I love who will support me and our children and who shares my views of family life), and then be finished with my career as anything but a mom. My (these would be the mainly liberal) friends don't understand why I am willing to "waste" a degree and career on being a homemaker.
And it will be a man I marry. Because marrage is between a man and a woman, regardlesss of what laws people try to get passed.
| We r the SYC wrote: |
| owwing to possable miss traslation |
You have no idea what you're talking about... 
I don't believe that a man has more right than a woman, nor do I believe that a woman has more right than a man. I believe that we are equal, sure men have more brawn to do the harder work, but we woman have the skill to make a home work out. I believe that we all should have the same opportunities. I was brought up to believe that I am equal to any man. My father always told me that Men are nothing without a woman, yet a woman is nothing without her man. We are all connected through a greater force, so treat your man right, treat him fair. You deserve the same, have your man treat you right, treat you fairly. Because you both are equally connected to the greater force. (or something like that lol). So basically you're equal in this world, by other forces flowing through you. Etc.
We are all equal under God. Let him judge.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| There are Bible translations that have been misinterpreted and twisted to (in some way or another) "prove male superiority", which is not the case. I'm a pretty devout Christian, and firmly believe that females are equal to males. |
Nonsense. The bible is very, very clear - from Genesis to 1 Peter (the last book that has a reference to gender equality that I know of) - that women are inferior to men and should be subservient to them. There is not one verse in the entire bible that says otherwise. Not one. None. Zero.
There are a smattering of verses in the New Testament that say that everyone - men and women both - are entitled to receive the same gifts of salvation from God/Jesus. But not a single one of them comes close to contradicting the dozens of verses that refer directly or indirectly to the inferiority of women. Not one. None. Zero.
This is not a matter of interpretation or translation bias. This is as clear as it can get: | Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV) wrote: |
| Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. |
I can give you the literal translation of this from the Greek... but it doesn't really change much. | Indi wrote: |
| Nonsense. The bible is very, very clear - from Genesis to 1 Peter (the last book that has a reference to gender equality that I know of) - that women are inferior to men and should be subservient to them. There is not one verse in the entire bible that says otherwise. Not one. None. Zero. |
You have to know that all those books are written by men. The bible is not sent by fax right from heaven.reality is people accept that women are equal to men... when it comes to job sometimes other company hired girls to boys
| budazz wrote: |
| reality is people accept that women are equal to men... when it comes to job sometimes other company hired girls to boys |
Yeah, you're right, but keep in mind that women normally have to look for the household and for the children, and if you're going to change this, it will take a lot of time. | Marston wrote: |
| We r the SYC wrote: | | owwing to possable miss traslation |
You have no idea what you're talking about... |
care to alaberat on that, or are you just trying for FRIH$ with stupid unfactual posts? | Indi wrote: |
This is not a matter of interpretation or translation bias. This is as clear as it can get: | Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV) wrote: | | Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. |
I can give you the literal translation of this from the Greek... but it doesn't really change much. |
That is one of the worst things people do to the bible; they take things out of context. Here's the rest of the chapter: (note the highlighted verses)
| Ephesians 5:20-33(KJV) wrote: |
20Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
|
Personaly, I don't think the bible should have ever been broken up into sections smaller than the chapter.hmmm very ture......
howver that only relates to the Men and Woman who are married.........
God created man in His own image. Woman was created from a rib of a man and so is made in the image of man and for the man. Women are not inferior, but have different jobs than men and shouldn't have the same as men.
Man is to be in the family as the Pilot, Provider and Protector! Woman is to take care of the kids and of her husband and the house. Man should love his wife as Christ loved the Church and the woman is to respect and honour the man as the head of the family as Christ is the Head of the Church!
Amen !
but this is STILL is the context of marrage....... | Whong wrote: |
| Man is to be in the family as the Pilot, Provider and Protector! Woman is to take care of the kids and of her husband and the house. Man should love his wife as Christ loved the Church and the woman is to respect and honour the man as the head of the family as Christ is the Head of the Church! |
That is far from equal but different, that is large inequality. | Whong wrote: |
God created man in His own image. Woman was created from a rib of a man and so is made in the image of man and for the man. Women are not inferior, but have different jobs than men and shouldn't have the same as men.
Man is to be in the family as the Pilot, Provider and Protector! Woman is to take care of the kids and of her husband and the house. Man should love his wife as Christ loved the Church and the woman is to respect and honour the man as the head of the family as Christ is the Head of the Church! |
Oh, man quoting a book written by another man, i feel pity for any girl that even just talk to kinds of you.
Believe me there are girls superior to you in almost any aspect, reading your post i think its the majority of the girl population there is 
Last edited by Sappho on Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:41 am; edited 1 time in total | ocalhoun wrote: |
| That is one of the worst things people do to the bible; they take things out of context. Here's the rest of the chapter: (note the highlighted verses) |
True, but then again, that's what you're doing too, now isn't it? You're taking just one part of one chapter of the bible - which is only one part of one letter in one section of the bible, and highlighting a couple verses that seem to contradict the idea that women are described as inferior.
Ther first problem with that is that those verses do not contradict that notion. Men are told to love their wives, but women are told to submit to and worship their husbands. The last verse you highlighted is a summary verse of the entire section that pretty much states that explicitly.
Secondly, I don't need to quote the whole chapter, or the whole book, or the whole bible as context to a verse when none of the larger context changes the meaning of that verse. That verse stands on its own as well as it does in context. Regardless of whether you read it alone or within the context of the epistle, it says wives must submit to their husbands and worship them. The only thing you've added by quoting the surrounding context is God (or Paul, or whoever actually wrote the thing on God's authority) telling the husband-owners to love their obedient, worshipping wives. Good advice for sure, but hardly a rousing endorsement of the argument for biblical sexual equality.
And finally, as I mentioned, you have also ignored the larger context. As I pointed out in my first post, the bible never once ranks men and women as equal. Not once. Not at one point in the whole tome. The closest it ever comes is when it states that both men and women are equally worthy of salvation... and usually when it does that, it doesn't just list women as equally worthy, it also lists slaves, thieves, murderers and all the worst sinners and dregs of humankind. So... about the only times the bible gives equal treatment to women are when it's going out of its way to give equal treatment to all of the scum of the Earth. Again, hardly a rousing endorsement of biblical sexual equality.
The idea that women are considered inferior and subordinate to men is not exactly a subtle point made throughout the bible. In fact, it's rather explicit. When the bible gives monetary value to human life, it values women less than men.
And of course there are truckloads of implicit evidence - ranging from Eve's secondhand creation as a sex toy for Adam (and the fact that the original sin originate from her) all the way through Delilah, Lot's daughters etc. etc.
Anyone who claims the bible preaches gender equality is reading a different bible.
Hey, I support gender equality in Abrahamic religions, don't get me wrong. I'm all for disregarding the bible on this matter. But I'm not going to sit quietly back while people spread lies about what the bible actually says about this kind of thing. And while I think a public discussion about the justifications for and morality of selective acceptance of the bible would be fascinating, I respect that people have every right to personally select whatever parts of their religion they want to follow without having to publicly justify it. Just don't publicly misrepresent the facts - don't lie.Hmmm. I got here just a bit late it seems. As to the original question, does anyone here actually think women are inferior? Not just different, but not as capable, less intellegent, less worthy of basic rights?
I"m really hoping nobody answers yes to this 
Evrybody here is talking about marriage and the bible. But is there written something in the bible about women before mariage?
FINALLY someone else thinks of this......UNMARRIED!!!!! COME ON, were not talking about husbands and wifes!!!!!!!
| HoboPelican wrote: |
Hmmm. I got here just a bit late it seems. As to the original question, does anyone here actually think women are inferior? Not just different, but not as capable, less intellegent, less worthy of basic rights?
I"m really hoping nobody answers yes to this |
Don't worry that you r late, I mean these kind of topics are not goin to end, soon there will be another different yet about the same thing Its just that some of us gets really bored to argue and defend, so soon the so called superior men will win the pointless flame war. I just read the whole thread and Indy: I do not agree with you. I'm a christian and a theologian and I studied the Bible at this particular subject for two years (don't be afraid, I'm not going to give a lecture away ) but just one thing: the Bible is about God and how He acts with humans and about how He wants humans to act in order to show other humans His love for them. A lot of what Paul writes about women was really shocking in his age, not because he taught women were less then man, but because he teached people not to revolt to other people. Slaves: don't revolt to your master (Paul didn't like slavery, but he wanted people to make other people wander: what's so special about those slaves? The don't revolt! Why not?? Because they know God put them in that position to show His love to their masters)
I believe God created man and woman. First He created a man. That man wasn't happy on his own: he was lonely. So when God created a woman, He didn't create her to fullfill the sexual lusts of the man, but because man and woman together were a perfect image of God. And because man knew what he had missed he loved his wife very much and she loved him very much.
So are men and women equal? No, not in the sense that they are the same. Because if they were the same, the world would be one boring place. Men and women differ in a lot of ways. Besides: some men are more like what people generally think of as womanly and some women are more like what people generally consider manly.
But men and women are equal in the sense that a man or a woman can never say: "I'm a better person because I'm a male and you're just a simple woman" or: "I'm a better person because I'm a female and you're just a chauvinist male". There is no better or worse in male or female.
Besides: I believe all men and women just want what's best for themselves , but that's off topic.
So please, people, don't consider the Bible a 'male chauvinist book written by a bunch of guys'. It simply isn't. If you think it is, read it and look what's it's general message and study the time it was written in.
To you guys: our society thinks of women as 'just for tits and asses'. That's BAD. Women are human beings at the same level as men. We wouldn't like it either if women were talking about the size of our * or about the nice shirt were wearing.
To you girls: some women think of men as 'just for drinking, fighting, football and *ing'. We man are sometimes educated people too, you know, who love art or reading poetry or dressing well.
Humans, consider each other to be created by the greatest Artist and Father and Lover in the universe, namely God.
Yours,
JohanFH | johanfh wrote: |
....
I believe God created man and woman. First He created a man. That man wasn't happy on his own: he was lonely. So when God created a woman, He didn't create her to fullfill the sexual lusts of the man, but because man and woman together were a perfect image of God. .. |
Picky, I know, but what do you mean by "perfect image"? That would seem to imply God is subject to being tempted by evil. But I suppose that is off topic.
So it sounds like what your saying is that we should ignore the letter of the Bible and look at it's over all message in light of the conditions that existed when each book was written? So how do you interperate the Ephesian's quote Indi mentioned?
| Quote: |
| Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. |
| johanfh wrote: |
| I just read the whole thread and Indy: I do not agree with you. I'm a christian and a theologian and I studied the Bible at this particular subject for two years (don't be afraid, I'm not going to give a lecture away ) but just one thing: the Bible is about God and how He acts with humans and about how He wants humans to act in order to show other humans His love for them. A lot of what Paul writes about women was really shocking in his age, not because he taught women were less then man, but because he teached people not to revolt to other people. Slaves: don't revolt to your master (Paul didn't like slavery, but he wanted people to make other people wander: what's so special about those slaves? The don't revolt! Why not?? Because they know God put them in that position to show His love to their masters) |
Er... riiiiiight.
Ok, where to even begin? >_<
Ok, so the bible is telling us how God wants people to act in order to show other people how much they love God. (Most people would say that the bible is telling people how to act to show God how much we love him, but, whatever. Changes nothing, really.) So when the bible tells women to shut the hell up in church - but not men - that's not really sexist? How does this show how much they love god? When the bible values women at 40% less than men, how can you not read this message as God saying that women are worth less than men?
No offence, but your opinion as a Christian and theologian means just about squat unless you back it up with some evidence. My opinion as an engineer and fan of the TV show Firefly means more... because I have evidence. You can't stand there and tell us "what the bible says" when we can all read the bible and see that it doesn't agree with you. The bible is clear and consistent on the point that women are inferior to men. The only times they are mentioned on equal terms are when talking about salvation, and - as I mentioned - in those cases everyone, including the scum of the Earth is put on equal terms. If you don't want to agree, fine. Suit yourself. But if you want to be taken seriously, show your evidence.
If you want to believe that women are not inferior to men, you're going to have to think for yourself. The bible's not going to help you on this one.
(And one more thing: who is the source of the bible, the writers or God? Why should I or anyone give a good god damn what Paul thought about anything? Shouldn't we be concerned about what GOD thinks? If God didn't like slavery, why didn't he say so? And if he didn't like slavery, why does his revealed word to the world include explicit instructions on how to take slaves, how to treat them, the proper way to go about raping female slaves, etc. etc. etc.? If you want to say slavery's wrong, you're not going to find any help in the bible on that count either, dude.)
| Roald wrote: |
| Evrybody here is talking about marriage and the bible. But is there written something in the bible about women before mariage? |
Quite a bit, actually, as our theologian friend could certainly tell you. Where to begin? You want the short version? Unmarried women were the property of their fathers until marriage (at which point they would become the property of their husbands). They could be bought and sold like cattle. If an unmarried woman was raped, she would either be forced to marry the rapist, or the rapist would pay $50 to the father and go on his way. If an unmarried woman had sex, she was stoned to death.
There are more gems, too, if you're interested. But, generally, you're not going to find much support for the idea of gender equality.
So how about we just forget about the bible. Face it, Christians, Jews, Muslims, it just ain't gonna help you on this one. You're going to have to think for yourselves.This is an attempt to take the thread in a slightly different direction. I'm prepared to be viciously flamed. The title of the thread is "Are men by right higher than woman?", and though from the beginning it has revolved primarily around the Bible, I have nothing to add to that discussion--Indi has handled it delightfully well, and those who are upset about Indi's statements never actually contradict them.
Setting the Bible aside, then, do men have any right to the social superiority they have enjoyed for millenia? (Here's where I get flamed.) I argue, yes.
Now, though it won't make a difference, let me try to clear up misconceptions about what I mean before they start. I don't mean that men are "better" than women in a holistic sense. I don't mean that they have any divine mandate to dominate. And I don't mean that men "deserve" the incredibly lopsided distribution of opportunity, power, and freedom that they enjoy, in the sense that it is a reward. I simply mean that there was good reason that the human species developed this way, and that to paint the picture that women are the innocent victims of male bigotry, and otherwise would be on completely equal footing is grossly incomplete.
There are obvious biological reasons for one gender (usually the male) to dominate, which are apparent in many other species besides humans. This works out pretty well for animals, and there's no way it was going to suddenly disappear when humans evolved the intelligence required for language, technology, and a complex social system. It remained quite useful for a long time, since men are indeed larger and stronger and therefore more capable both of performing the physical labor to provide food and of enforcing his authority, while women are obviously better suited to take care of children, a task which greatly hinders her productivity in all other regards.
It's only in the "modern age", when we have the technology available that men and women can pretty well fulfill each other's traditional roles, that we have the luxury of entertaining the philosophical ideals of "equality", which should really be replaced in most contexts by "equivalence". Now that people can earn a living as lawyers, store owners, or web designers, and we have baby formula, diapers, and daycare, there's little practical value in enforcing the traditional "man provides, woman cares for the home" model. This is not to say that there's no practical value in following the model--many men and women still prefer it.
Indeed, in addition to the physically practical aspects of it, men are instinctually dominant and agressive, while women tend to be more conciliatory and submissive. While it may not be best for world peace, this means that men are going to hold positions of power, even in the modern age. This is unfortunate for those women who are not particularly submissive, of course, but who says life is fair?
In summary, humans evolved in such a way that it is more natural for men to hold power over women. Humans also have drastically changed their environment over the past 10,000 years or so, so that this relationship is no longer best--but evolution doesn't work that quickly, so we have to deal with this disjunction in design and application (not that it's actually a "design", but you get my meaning). Incidentally, I think that this phenomenon--evolution not keeping up with human development--is a major cause of most of humankind's woes, but that's a larger discussion for a different thread.
Let the flames begin...
The Bible states that God gave Adam control over all the animals God created. In that sense, humans are animals. So man would in theory have control over all of man and woman. I don't think that men are higher than woman in the sense of rights, but there is a reason we are meant to protect them.
the discrimination of women in society is very much existing today. the discrimination itself is somewhat caused by an action-reaction interaction between a male and female, with the past as huge influence.
"Take it easy, she's just a girl".
This one cliche of a statement pretty much opens up a closet full of similar statements. The sad fact of this is that most women TAKE ADVANTAGE of this. Let's face it- women want to be treated like princesses- much of this is result from the long-running influence of the "male respects, takes care of the female" fever.
I am Jewish and in my religion, we believe that women are actually more greater than men!!! This is beacuse women are supposedly more mature earlier and look after the children, and pass down their learning. So actually men do a lot more in Judaism than women to try to make themselves better!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| Indi wrote: |
| Ok, so the bible is telling us how God wants people to act in order to show other people how much they love God. (Most people would say that the bible is telling people how to act to show God how much we love him, but, whatever. Changes nothing, really.) So when the bible tells women to shut the hell up in church - but not men - that's not really sexist? How does this show how much they love god? When the bible values women at 40% less than men, how can you not read this message as God saying that women are worth less than men? |
Well, I think that not exactly... IMHO the Bible does not tell us how God wants people to act in order to show anyone that they love God. The Bible tells us about the love itself and why should we love God and other people.
The love is the only message of Bible that really matters. Jesus didn't come to Earth to liberate Jews from Roman occupation [though many Jews supposed the Mesiah to do it], He didn't come to cure all the diseases [that's why He didn't want any fuss around His wonders], He didn't come to end the poverty on the world [as He knew that "man does not live on bread alone"], or to destroy the social structure of His society and liberate women. He came here to teach us about His love, and to proved His words by giving Himself away for the innocent death.On the topic of women before marraige...
I can't think of anywhere in the Bible where unmarried women with there own agenda are seen in a positive light.
They are either virgins, wives, or ******.
Women in the Bible who are acting outside of a marraige are seen in a very negative light. i.e. Jezebel, Salome, Magdalene etc.
It seems clear that the only female roles acceptable to the authors of the Bible were that of obediant daughter or faithful wife. Anything outside of this was not seen as beneficial to society.
Males and females are both part of mankind. They're just different, nobody is better, we all need each other to survive.
| We r the SYC wrote: |
Im not gonna set a side here, but some of the passages of the Bible owwing to possable miss traslation show woman to be inferior and should be told what to do by men.
and the world untill recently gave woman hardly any rights for anything...
today "freedom" is spost to regin" (woteva)........
If i took a side here it would be STAY SINGLE lol. |
Tell you what... In ancient times women were portrayed in a bad light (some civilizations even identified them with demons, "Lilith" of the Jews, for example) precisely because men knew their power. And men knew that before feminine power, he can only hope to be spared the pain. | IvyA wrote: |
On the topic of women before marraige...
I can't think of anywhere in the Bible where unmarried women with there own agenda are seen in a positive light.
They are either virgins, wives, or *****.
Women in the Bible who are acting outside of a marraige are seen in a very negative light. i.e. Jezebel, Salome, Magdalene etc.
It seems clear that the only female roles acceptable to the authors of the Bible were that of obediant daughter or faithful wife. Anything outside of this was not seen as beneficial to society. |
In the Bible, women had a very significant role. Without them, the human race cannot continue. That is an awfully powerful role, don't you think? | thingakol wrote: |
"Take it easy, she's just a girl".
This one cliche of a statement pretty much opens up a closet full of similar statements. The sad fact of this is that most women TAKE ADVANTAGE of this. Let's face it- women want to be treated like princesses- much of this is result from the long-running influence of the "male respects, takes care of the female" fever. |
Not necessarily. It may also mean that she's valued. | Quote: |
| This one cliche of a statement pretty much opens up a closet full of similar statements. The sad fact of this is that most women TAKE ADVANTAGE of this. Let's face it- women want to be treated like princesses- much of this is result from the long-running influence of the "male respects, takes care of the female" fever. |
Hah, I know what you mean, but I don't see anything bad in it.
I can see that you feel it's bad that women want to be dependable on men. For me, if in a rational degree it's a very convenient situation, especially if the girl would like to have kids. I can see my mum working much more than dad while having 5 of us, and hope that some day I would have the opportunity to safely leave job for a few years when I decide to have children. Is it something bad?
Well, there are some women, claiming to be 'feminists', that do actually everything to pretend they are men. They can't notice the beauty of really femine features: charm, emapthy, tenderness, etc., but they do anything to be exactly like men: strong, rough, sometimes even aggresive. That kind of 'feminists' don't feel good and proud that they are women, and because of the minority complex they behave like men. 
I know this too well, for a few years I was kind of rebel. 6 inch mohawk, studdled collar, heavy boots, and always against everything. I would never let anyone see me sad, so I reacted with anger to all of the difficult situations. I felt quite safe [well, people were afraid of me only because of my appearance ], but I didn't feel that happy. And I didn't start feeling happy until I accepted myself just as I am and stopped pretending to be so aggresive and rough. Thanks very much to my boyfriend, he helped me a lot discovering that delicate, wonderful woman inside of me. And I am really proud of myself that I found this finally. | We r the SYC wrote: |
Im not gonna set a side here, but some of the passages of the Bible owwing to possable miss traslation show woman to be inferior and should be told what to do by men.
and the world untill recently gave woman hardly any rights for anything...
today "freedom" is spost to regin" (woteva)........
If i took a side here it would be STAY SINGLE lol. |
Wrong, the bible dictates a different form of society. The bible does not make women inferior. It puts them in a different place from what they are today. The wife took care of the husband, feeding him and clothing him, and nurturing his children. In return he earned money to cloth her in beautiful clothes, protected her, and more or less worshiped and addored her. He was to treat her like a treasure in his life, she was to thank him for it. Does this make the woman inferior? It depends on your perspective I supose. I personaly do not believe so, both women and men had their places defined in the bible, it never dictated that women are inferior. You mistranslate my friend.
The world not giving rights to women is another perfect example of religion being exploited to controll people. The bible never said kings where chosen by god, yet they claimed to be in the middle ages, and people believed them. Likewise they were told by MEN of the church that women were inferior. When the bible didn't actualy say that. | Aredon wrote: |
| Wrong, the bible dictates a different form of society. The bible does not make women inferior. It puts them in a different place from what they are today. The wife took care of the husband, feeding him and clothing him, and nurturing his children. In return he earned money to cloth her in beautiful clothes, protected her, and more or less worshiped and addored her. He was to treat her like a treasure in his life, she was to thank him for it. |
Absolutely not. -_- The bible says absolutely nothing even close to what you describe. Are you sure you're reading the same bible as the rest of us? Why don't you show use the verses where it says these things?
Only the new testament mentions anything even mentionable about husbands really loving their wives (the tanakh spends most of its time describing women as property - one can assume the Greek influences made the new testament a little less mysogynistic), and the words used have absolutely no relationship at all to "adore" or "worship". None at all. Not even close.
You want to know what it really says? It tells husbands to love their wives like how they love their own bodies. Just that. Do you worship and adore your body? You think the bible would encourage that kind of... self love? Of course not.
You want to know what else it says? It says that a wife is "sanctified" or cleansed by her husband's love. It goes on to say that a woman is flawed and unholy, but can be made holy by a husband's love. Does that sound like the bible is putting women on the same level as men? It says nothing similar for the husband, of course.
And finally, it says that a wife should put her husband first, and that he is her "head" or leader. It says that a woman need to nothing more than submit to her husband's cleansing love.
So... where are these verses that say a husband has to adore and worship his wife now?
| Aredon wrote: |
| Does this make the woman inferior? It depends on your perspective I supose. I personaly do not believe so, both women and men had their places defined in the bible, it never dictated that women are inferior. You mistranslate my friend. |
Then show us the verses that declare women are equal to men, along with the correct translation. The only ones that put women on the same level as men are the ones that say they are all going to get the same salvation. Every other mention of gender differences in the entire bible explicitly or implicitly declares that women are inferior. But prove me wrong! Show me where I have mistranslated.
| Aredon wrote: |
| The world not giving rights to women is another perfect example of religion being exploited to controll people. The bible never said kings where chosen by god, yet they claimed to be in the middle ages, and people believed them. |
(Ah... actually... kings were chosen by God in the bible. The kings of Isreal, at least, were specifically mentioned as such. Furthermore, if there is a god, and if he does make everything in the world happen - as the bible says he does - then he most certainly did choose those people to be kings.)
| Aredon wrote: |
| Likewise they were told by MEN of the church that women were inferior. When the bible didn't actualy say that. |
(Ah... actually... yes it does. Further, it explicity says that the MEN of the church were supposed to be men, and not women. See Leviticus.)
It's amazing how often I have people tell me "what the bible says", as if I weren't fully capable of reading it myself. I would like to suggest to the next person that wishes to tell us "what the bible says" not bother, and instead just point out the verses. We're all literate enough here, I assume (given the fact that we're populating a text-based forum), to see what the bible says ourselves.Men over women ay, I'm wouldn't touch that one with an e-mail.
| the_mariska wrote: |
| Quote: | | This one cliche of a statement pretty much opens up a closet full of similar statements. The sad fact of this is that most women TAKE ADVANTAGE of this. Let's face it- women want to be treated like princesses- much of this is result from the long-running influence of the "male respects, takes care of the female" fever. |
Hah, I know what you mean, but I don't see anything bad in it.
I can see that you feel it's bad that women want to be dependable on men. For me, if in a rational degree it's a very convenient situation, especially if the girl would like to have kids. I can see my mum working much more than dad while having 5 of us, and hope that some day I would have the opportunity to safely leave job for a few years when I decide to have children. Is it something bad? |
I'm not saying it's bad. There will always be debates over sexual equality. Men, in turn, have long-running issues, you know? Men discriminate women, women discriminate men. It's just how it works. What most people don't understand is that you can't treat men and women equal--- it's like two different worlds of culture that complement each other, but never alike.Well let me put it this way: Men have different jobs than women, but women are by no means inferior to a men. What I'm saying here is that now a days people make such a big fuss about men and women being equal to each other in every aspect, but lets face it men can do some thing better than women and vice versa. Let me take this just as an example! Men often have more muscle power than women, but women have often more flexible muscles than men. That isn't the case always but just an example.
Now let me ask you a question! Don't you think that a man should protect a woman, no matter if he is married to her or not! If someone comes and mugs a lady on the street, shoulden't you as a man go there and defend her. I think you should.
And let me tell something else! Let's go back to the good old days! Men went for hunting the food, women stayed home kept the house in order and took care of the children, men provided the food and they protected the wife and kids from wild beasts. But the wife kept the house in order which I see as an extremely important job!
Many children now a days are suffering of various mental sicknesses, just because they haven't had a mother in the house to spend time with them. For a child even as a teenager it is vital to have a mother in the house to whom you can talk to and share all the thing that have happened. This is a very important thing, and just look, before WW2 there were very less mentally sick kids and now in the 21st centuary there are a whole bunch of kids with bad problems!
People think for a moment is this fuss really important for you! Life is short, why waste it by arguing about the ultimate equality of man and woman, because it will never come to pass! 
| Whong wrote: |
Now let me ask you a question! Don't you think that a man should protect a woman, no matter if he is married to her or not! If someone comes and mugs a lady on the street, shoulden't you as a man go there and defend her. I think you should.
|
Sexist, whong. Why restrict the question to women. Shouldn't you help ANY one getting mugged? The question implies that you wouldn't help a man. But if you agree that we should help a man OR a woman, then what was the point of the example?
I won't even address the rest of your drivel. | HoboPelican wrote: |
| Whong wrote: |
Now let me ask you a question! Don't you think that a man should protect a woman, no matter if he is married to her or not! If someone comes and mugs a lady on the street, shoulden't you as a man go there and defend her. I think you should.
|
Sexist, whong. Why restrict the question to women. Shouldn't you help ANY one getting mugged? The question implies that you wouldn't help a man. But if you agree that we should help a man OR a woman, then what was the point of the example?
I won't even address the rest of your drivel. |
Of course, I'd help a man too, but it is women that are often weaker physically. Say what you will, I may sound like what ever a jerk, but that is the way I see things and I've seen it as a humongous blessing to have my mom home! Everyday I come back from school or where ever I've been it is really nice to know that you don't need to be alone home, and it is also good that you can talk to your mom the things that are on your mind!
A mother is very important to a child and should take care of him/her all the days of his/hers childhood and until we are adults! You can call me what ever you like, it doesn't bother me, for I'm just doing what God wants me to do!
Blessing HoboPelican, hope I made sence to you this time! | We r the SYC wrote: |
Im not gonna set a side here, but some of the passages of the Bible owwing to possable miss traslation show woman to be inferior and should be told what to do by men.
and the world untill recently gave woman hardly any rights for anything...
today "freedom" is spost to regin" (woteva)........
If i took a side here it would be STAY SINGLE lol. |
Man and women are equal but they are different so have different rights
even in some things women are more than man and in others man are more than women ..it is what islam says . | haak_heu wrote: |
Man and women are equal but they are different so have different rights
even in some things women are more than man and in others man are more than women ..it is what islam says . |
Am I the only one that, that statement reminds of the arguments for segregation in the 50's and 60's? | Quote: |
| Are men by right higher than woman? |
No.
Next question please.I think women are more equal than men. By far... I am a man myself, I know what I'm talking about.
Right, now, women between 20 and 28 years old, my phone number is: ah ah ah! I should stop, I displaced a muscle somewhere above my stomach while laughing. (not sure about 'displaced' but hey...)
Seriously, I can't be serious with that one, sorry. What's this 'by right' thing anyway?
| Subsonic Sound wrote: |
| Quote: | | Are men by right higher than woman? |
No.
Next question please. |
A nice clear answer for once 
The Bible is a text written by men influenced by a certain society and way of life. I'm not surprised many passages in the Bible put down women, because in those times, women were thought to be inferior. But the thing with the Bible is we cannot read it superficially like a story book. We need to explore the many layers the words and sentences represent. We need to use a "new" pair of eyes to interprete it in modern terms.
By nature, men and women were created differently. They are supposed to complement each other. Just look at how our reproductive organs look like. They complement each other to become one. That is how we are supposed to be. We are equal, just biologically different. Hence men and women were supposed to do different things to complement for example a family. And traditional roles still haven't changed much since a long time ago.
Sometimes I feel male vs female debates are pointless. It's like talking about how fish and mammals are different and trying to explain why. We're just created differently. And that's just it.
Lemme ask you folks something.. each religion says that there is only 1 god. We agree on that, however if there is only 1 god but so many religions each with their own variation of ways of life.. which is true. Are you telling me the big boss up there got so bored he told everyone a different story , so that he could watch the fun for generations??
my perception of religion = man - made, basically what society is all about. We govern and destroy ourselves. We ask for salvation and pray for forgivness when we ourselves had the power to control our fate.
| tyrant wrote: |
| Lemme ask you folks something.. each religion says that there is only 1 god. We agree on that, however if there is only 1 god ... |
Hmmm, I think the pagans amongst us would dispute your first assumption.
More importantly, since this particular thread is supposed to be related to women and equality, do you have any thoughts on that? | tyrant wrote: |
| We ask for salvation and pray for forgivness when we ourselves had the power to control our fate. |
We have no power to control our own fate, because we can't even control our bodies. You can't control your heart beat, or how long does it take for your stomach to digest the food etc.
God has all power! | We r the SYC wrote: |
| Subsonic Sound wrote: | | Quote: | | Are men by right higher than woman? |
No.
Next question please. |
A nice clear answer for once |
I lived and loved my woman (and I don't mean in the possesive) for almost 10 years before we married. We share our live as equals and niether one of us would have it any other way. If you are looking for hidden complications, and I think you are We r the SYC, I hold a masters degree from MIT in Applied Computer Sciences, my loving wife holds a full Doctorate in the same field, same University, in your (well hidden opinion) does that not make her greater than myself?
Answer please?Well first of all, you're looking at it on an individual level. It's not a popular philosophy, but frankly you're right, individuals are not always equal. Some are more intelligent than others, for instance. In theory at least, everyone has the same right to life, of course.
Although that theory does fall down at points - after all, who would you save, if they were both in mortal peril - a man with no family, a string of rape convictions, and a history of child abuse, or a man with a large and dependant family, who works as, say, a senior doctor in a large hospital...?
Getting a little sidetracked there, but the overall point is that in practise, not all individuals are equal.
But the question this thread asks is much more basic than that. Is gender something that can set one person above another?
Absolutely not.
In your own example there, you're citing a higher qualification. Does she have that BECAUSE she's a woman? Or does gender really play no part in your example at all? @Subsonic Sound
You made some very valid points there that I had not considered, and yes, I was talking on a one to one basis with regards to my wife. Much to her credit she earned her degrees on merit, not as a result of gender.
In your example of who would I save....it's obvious which I would chose (and it wouldn't be the rapist), but in that circumstance it was his own actions that set him apart from others. We all start out life equal, it's ourselves that make the differences that set us apart.
| Whong wrote: |
| We have no power to control our own fate, because we can't even control our bodies. You can't control your heart beat, or how long does it take for your stomach to digest the food etc. |
*cough* (... actually... you can...)
(^_^)
| Subsonic Sound wrote: |
But the question this thread asks is much more basic than that. Is gender something that can set one person above another?
Absolutely not. |
Why not? (Not that I disagree, but you sound so convinced in your assertion that I assume that there must be something concrete that makes you believe that.)
And do you mean gender or sex? The two are not identical - not by a longshot. In fact, are we talking about psychological gender, social gender, physiological gender, biological gender, etc. etc.?
I'm going to try laying down a different track to follow here. Two, actually, closely related, but one at a time.
Let's begin with the starting assumptions:- Our species has two biological genders - genders determined by genetic patterns at the time of conception. Male and female, XY and XX. Forget about other chromosome combinations like XXY and so on, and forget about artifical sex changes by chemical or surgical means.
- Those two sexes have fundamentally different natures. This is a scientific fact - human males have more in common with male chimpanzees than they do with human females (and, yes, human females have more in common with female chimpanzees than human males).
- Two things which are different cannot be equal. This is a logical conclusion - if two things were completely equal, they would be identical. Two different things can be partially equal, but never completely equal - for example, a kilo of gold has the same mass as a kilo of lead, so the two would be considered equal in terms of mass... but not dollar value.
From those starting assumptions, we get our first conclusion: that men and women cannot be equal. They can be partially equal, which means they can be considered equal if you consider only certain attributes. If you're considering only intellectual capacity (as Vrythamax did), then perhaps you can consider men and women equal. But you cannot be considering the whole picture, because if you are then it's trivially easy to show that men and women aren't equal. Therefore, despite Vrythamax's assertion, no, we do not start out life equal. We are simply biologically different beasts.
So we're not perfectly equal. But perhaps by picking and choosing only those values that can be considered relevant to determining the value of a human life and averaging them in some manner we can come up with a way to estimate a person's general worth.
You guys have already started this: for reasons unexplained, you determined that the family man doctor was worth more than the child-beating, rapist loner. The question is... why? Why is the one worth mor than the other?
Is the presence of a penis relevant to the value of a human being? Probably not. So we can rule that out. All we have to do is figure out what other biological differences we can rule out and which ones we can't. If you can figure that out, then we can compare a theoretical average male with a theoretical average female.
In essence the question is: is there a fair way to value human life, and, if so, do males and females have the same value? Do their biological differences create a difference in value, using whatever metric you used to judge who to save between the criminal and the doctor?
That was the first road to try taking a mental walk down. Here's the second. Now consider everything exactly as before, except instead of biological gender differences, think about social and/or psychological gender. The same rules apply. First, determine a way to measure a person's worth. Then compare a theoretical perfectly average male with a theoretical perfectly average female and see if there is a difference in value.
Both paths start the same way. How do you determine the value of a person? How did you determine that the one was worth saving in the example over the other? What metrics did you use? So let's start with those questions. | Roald wrote: |
You have to keep in mind that the bible is written by men, and in the time they wrote the bible men worked outside the house and had more social contact, in that time you had to be strong to survive. But women are sequel of the men.
The man represents black the woman white, they're both 50%
the fact you ask such a question shows you're not totally sure. everybody should be sure, men and women are both even important.
| We r the SYC wrote: | | Im not gonna set a side here |
Yes you do , by the title: Are men by right higher than woman? But I forgive you for this, it's difficult to formulate that. |
Just a note: Yin(Black): Feminine & Yang(White): Male.
A common mistake.err...it was always my understanding that...Yin (black) represents evil, and Yang (white) represents good. The two encompass the whole of a person and is called "The Circle of Life". The white and balck spots in each other (respectivly) mean that there is always some good in evil, and some evil in good as well.
The symbol represents the duality common everywhere and in everything. A duality that makes it possible for things to exist, by contrast. For example, you could not have darkness if there was no such thing as light. I was merely correcting which colour represented which sex. The symbol could be used to represent good/evil (and yes, the bit of the other existing in its opposite) but good an evil are relative terms and not universal constants. Western 'interpretation' has done a lot to interfere with the meaning of the symbol that Taoists call their own.
| claymoreteddy wrote: |
| The symbol represents the duality common everywhere and in everything. A duality that makes it possible for things to exist, by contrast. For example, you could not have darkness if there was no such thing as light. I was merely correcting which colour represented which sex. The symbol could be used to represent good/evil (and yes, the bit of the other existing in its opposite) but good an evil are relative terms and not universal constants. Western 'interpretation' has done a lot to interfere with the meaning of the symbol that Taoists call their own. |
With all due respect, Western "Interpretations" as you so wisely (for lack of a better term) put it allowed the Oriental cultures to see beyond thier own borders, and ushered in the industrial age as we know it, and the duality of the symbol has been made.
May we get back to the topic at hand? | ocalhoun wrote: |
The bible is correct. It is just misinterpreted by people looking to see who is superior. Men and women are not superior or inferior to echother; they are however, different. What the bible says is that men and women are diferent and should fufil diferent roles in the household.
Dare I mention that when the role of men and women in the household began to change, divorce rates began to skyrocket?
Feminists need to realize that they can be equal without being the same.
(mathematicly; a+b=b+a different, but equal) |
Interesting. Therefore (the Bible being correct), what do we make of
To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”Genesis I-II :
You say this makes the sexes equal but different ? Hmm...
Let's move on...
Corinthians : Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
Timothy 12 : And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
I could, as you probably know, go on and on quoting examples which seem to me to contradict your assertion that the Bible is :-
a) True and
b) Asserting equal status but different role
Chris. | Indi wrote: |
I'm going to try laying down a different track to follow here. Two, actually, closely related, but one at a time.
Let's begin with the starting assumptions:- Our species has two biological genders - genders determined by genetic patterns at the time of conception. Male and female, XY and XX. Forget about other chromosome combinations like XXY and so on, and forget about artifical sex changes by chemical or surgical means.
- Those two sexes have fundamentally different natures. This is a scientific fact - human males have more in common with male chimpanzees than they do with human females (and, yes, human females have more in common with female chimpanzees than human males).
- Two things which are different cannot be equal. This is a logical conclusion - if two things were completely equal, they would be identical. Two different things can be partially equal, but never completely equal - for example, a kilo of gold has the same mass as a kilo of lead, so the two would be considered equal in terms of mass... but not dollar value.
From those starting assumptions, we get our first conclusion: that men and women cannot be equal. They can be partially equal, which means they can be considered equal if you consider only certain attributes. If you're considering only intellectual capacity (as Vrythamax did), then perhaps you can consider men and women equal. But you cannot be considering the whole picture, because if you are then it's trivially easy to show that men and women aren't equal. Therefore, despite Vrythamax's assertion, no, we do not start out life equal. We are simply biologically different beasts.
|
OK - a couple of points.
1st conclusion is logically invalid because it is based on a faulty premis. 'Two things which are different cannot be equal' is not a valid statement in logic. Depending on how you interpret the statement it is either:
tautology or
fallicy (because there is no scope for the comparison and therefore this leads to the fallicy of infinite variety - ie in truth no entities are congruent to the limits of distinction/theory and thereore it is logically pointless to make the statement at all, let alone use it as a central posit.)
Next, Biology.
Your assertion about gender/species similarity is scientifically indefensible as far as I can see. It is certainly not 'scientific fact' whatever that is (a scientist who started talking about facts and certainty would be one I did not recognise). You can narrow the comparison and speak in terms of chromosonal/genetic similarity, or perhaps observed behaviourism (but then we are not in the realms of science). The statement as it stands is opinion, conjecture and/or belief. It would be very trivial (and pointless) to draw the reverse argument about man and chimp. It is, perhaps, worth pointing out, though, that this statement is the sort of pseudo-science which fills many of the 'social-science' literature (and is a good reason why Sociology, introspective psychology and the like) should never be considered science. All in all I would argue that you have laid a foundation on sand - it is no way to lay down a starting point for a philosophical debate. The statement that we are biologically different beasts is also tautolgical since, by definition, all beasts are biologically different, even within gender and species groupings.
Finally your conclusion is logically invalid because of the same reasons I started with. It is a tautology since, as you define equal, no two entities can be equal, let alone major gender groupings. What, therefore, is the point of the argument here ? You have 'proved' that the notion of equality is itself invalid in this context rather than the apparent point that gender equality is impossible.
I think you can do much better, which is why I'm taking the apparently niggardly approach to your points...
Regards
Chris | ocalhoun wrote: |
Dare I mention that when the role of men and women in the household began to change, divorce rates began to skyrocket?
Feminists need to realize that they can be equal without being the same.
(mathematicly; a+b=b+a different, but equal) |
I forgot to mention this bit...
OK, now your assertion about gender roles and divorce is fallacious to the point of outrage. Roles in the household have been changing continuously throughout history. I will grant that this has accelerated in the last few decades in some regards and in some specifics, but a little reflection will show that the similarities between a current household and one from (say) the 1950s far outweight those between a household of the 1950s and one (say) of the 1800s (let alone going back to historical time like early Rome). Mathematically a+b is identical to b+a, by the way, not just equal. A poor example.
Chris | Bikerman wrote: |
OK - a couple of points.
1st conclusion is logically invalid because it is based on a faulty premis. 'Two things which are different cannot be equal' is not a valid statement in logic. Depending on how you interpret the statement it is either:
tautology or
fallicy (because there is no scope for the comparison and therefore this leads to the fallicy of infinite variety - ie in truth no entities are congruent to the limits of distinction/theory and thereore it is logically pointless to make the statement at all, let alone use it as a central posit.) |
It is neither a tautology or a fallcy. I didn't think it was necessary to draw it out because it seems so obvious to me.
Is it possible for two things to be perfectly equal when they are not perfectly identical? No. Do you dispute?
Even a+b and b+a, while mathematically equal due to the commutative properties of addition, are not truly equal. If I were to say "multiply the first element by 2", then the difference becomes obvious. The only way a+b and b+a are equal is when you limit the definition of equality - in this case, to only cover mathematical equality. a+b and a+b are equal, 2 and 2 are equal, but a+b and b+a are only equal in a limited way - mathematically.
If you limit the definition of gender equality to only cover - say - politically equal, or legally equal, then yes, you can easily define men and women to be "equal". But men and women cannot ever truly be completely equal because they are different. There are some things that you just cannot substitute the other gender for. Therefore, they cannot be completely equal. From there you can follow to the rest of my post above.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Next, Biology.
Your assertion about gender/species similarity is scientifically indefensible as far as I can see. It is certainly not 'scientific fact' whatever that is (a scientist who started talking about facts and certainty would be one I did not recognise). You can narrow the comparison and speak in terms of chromosonal/genetic similarity, or perhaps observed behaviourism (but then we are not in the realms of science). The statement as it stands is opinion, conjecture and/or belief. It would be very trivial (and pointless) to draw the reverse argument about man and chimp. It is, perhaps, worth pointing out, though, that this statement is the sort of pseudo-science which fills many of the 'social-science' literature (and is a good reason why Sociology, introspective psychology and the like) should never be considered science. All in all I would argue that you have laid a foundation on sand - it is no way to lay down a starting point for a philosophical debate. The statement that we are biologically different beasts is also tautolgical since, by definition, all beasts are biologically different, even within gender and species groupings. |
For starters, you are misrepresenting what I said. I did not say that it was a scientific fact that male humans share more in common with male chimpanzees than with human females. What I said was: "Those two sexes have fundamentally different natures. This is a scientific fact - human males have more in common with male chimpanzees than they do with human females". The "this" in "this is a scientific fact" refers to the point actually being made, which is that the "two sexes have fundamentally different natures", not to the ancilliary demonstration example used to articulate the point.
Given that my point, which you miscomprehended, was actually that the two sexes have fundamentally different natures, do you still assert that is not a scientific fact? Even despite the fact that we are biologically, physically, genetically, socially and psychologically different? Or can I chalk your dissention to the point up to poor comprehension?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Finally your conclusion is logically invalid because of the same reasons I started with. It is a tautology since, as you define equal, no two entities can be equal, let alone major gender groupings. What, therefore, is the point of the argument here ? You have 'proved' that the notion of equality is itself invalid in this context rather than the apparent point that gender equality is impossible. |
I'm not sure about what your complaint is, and I think that stems from the fact that you have either not read or not comprehended my post in full. As you say: "It is a tautology since, as you define equal, no two entities can be equal" Um, I didn't define equal. Quite the opposite, I showed that it was undefined and needed to be defined. I showed that the absolute meaning of the word (perfect equality) is... meaningless... so we have to figure out a way to define equality that is functional. Because without an actual definition of what "equal" means in context, statements like the one Vrythamax made - indeed, the entire discussion - is meaningless. All that stuff is in the part of my post that you didn't bother to quote, and I suspect, given your complaints, didn't bother to read.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I think you can do much better, which is why I'm taking the apparently niggardly approach to your points... |
*shrug* Then I hope you didn't expect anything but a niggardly response to your approach.Wow, looking over the last page of replies here, I thought I'd go back and look at what started this all....
| Quote: |
Im not gonna set a side here, but some of the passages of the Bible owwing to possable miss traslation show woman to be inferior and should be told what to do by men.
and the world untill recently gave woman hardly any rights for anything...
today "freedom" is spost to regin" (woteva)........
If i took a side here it would be STAY SINGLE lol. Very Happy
_________________ |
LOL. I can just barely read that, but I think the basic concept here is should women and men have the same legal rights and social opportunities. Maybe instead of arguing over the fine points of what equality really means in a mathematical (or any other) sense, we should step back and consider what the topic seems to be discussing. Should women be considered equal in the eyes of the law? Should they be, in effect, slaves to men?
Of course, that's just my three cents. | Indi wrote: |
It is neither a tautology or a fallcy. I didn't think it was necessary to draw it out because it seems so obvious to me.
Is it possible for two things to be perfectly equal when they are not perfectly identical? No. Do you dispute?
|
Err, that was my whole point was it not ? As I wrote - 'in truth no entities are congruent to the limits of distinction/theory'. The point being that two men are not identical, brother and brother are not identical, twin brother and twin brother are not identical; so the argument that woman and men cannot be equal because they are not identical is not useful because it contains no new information. Admittedly this is not, strictly, a tautology but it is skating on the edge.
| Quote: |
Even a+b and b+a, while mathematically equal due to the commutative properties of addition, are not truly equal. |
Yes they are - the commutative nature of addition defines them as equal.
| Quote: |
If I were to say "multiply the first element by 2", then the difference becomes obvious. The only way a+b and b+a are equal is when you limit the definition of equality - in this case, to only cover mathematical equality. a+b and a+b are equal, 2 and 2 are equal, but a+b and b+a are only equal in a limited way - mathematically.
|
Er, yes, I do know what commutative means. That is one aspect of the system of assumptions we accept when we write the term in the first place. Normally one assumes that an algebraic term such as this is an expression following the normal rules of arithmetic, in which case, as you agree, the terms are equal. I thought it unlikely that we would be using a system of representation other than either boolean logic or algebra so I ommitted to state that I was assuming this, but I don't think it was an unwarranted assumption. In the case of multiplying by two there would be no problem because, being bound by the rules of heirarchy one would, of course, insert the necessary brackets - 2(a+b) = 2(b+a)
| Quote: |
If you limit the definition of gender equality to only cover - say - politically equal, or legally equal, then yes, you can easily define men and women to be "equal". But men and women cannot ever truly be completely equal because they are different. There are some things that you just cannot substitute the other gender for. Therefore, they cannot be completely equal. From there you can follow to the rest of my post above.
|
Not really because the objection still stands. Since it is plain that no two biological organisms are identical and are, as a result, incapable of being perfectly equal, then all this line of argument does is demonstrate that no groupings within a population can be 'equated' regardless of gender.
On biology :
| Quote: |
| For starters, you are misrepresenting what I said. I did not say that it was a scientific fact that male humans share more in common with male chimpanzees than with human females. What I said was: "Those two sexes have fundamentally different natures. This is a scientific fact - human males have more in common with male chimpanzees than they do with human females". The "this" in "this is a scientific fact" refers to the point actually being made, which is that the "two sexes have fundamentally different natures", not to the ancilliary demonstration example used to articulate the point. |
I hardly think I was misrepresenting you by assuming that what you typed was what you meant. To read as you say you intended it to would require a full stop after 'fact' (even then it would have been ambiguous). As it is written the sentence clearly indicates that the second clause is linked to the 'scientific fact'. In fact it reads as if the second clause is a qualifier for the statement if anything.
| Quote: |
I'm not sure about what your complaint is, and I think that stems from the fact that you have either not read or not comprehended my post in full. As you say: "It is a tautology since, as you define equal, no two entities can be equal" Um, I didn't define equal. Quite the opposite, I showed that it was undefined and needed to be defined. I showed that the absolute meaning of the word (perfect equality) is... meaningless... so we have to figure out a way to define equality that is functional. Because without an actual definition of what "equal" means in context, statements like the one Vrythamax made - indeed, the entire discussion - is meaningless. All that stuff is in the part of my post that you didn't bother to quote, and I suspect, given your complaints, didn't bother to read. |
Why would you assume that I didn't read it or, even more patronisingly, didn't understand it ? I did read it and I agree with it in the main. In the interests of debate I chose to comment on the parts of your argument that I considered (and still consider) flawed. My objection was as stated - the argument rests on the central point that non-identical means non-equal and this is not useful because it does not apply specifically to gender differences. Exactly the same argument can be used to show that any chosen sub-set of a population is not 'equal' to any other. The corollary of this is that every individual is different and, therefore, has different expectations and roles in society. Not exactly suprising or, indeed, particularly relevant to the point.
I understand perfectly well that you then take this on to show that the term equality is not useful without qualification, and I agree completely with that, I was merely seeking to challenge the initial posit. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | It is neither a tautology or a fallcy. I didn't think it was necessary to draw it out because it seems so obvious to me.
Is it possible for two things to be perfectly equal when they are not perfectly identical? No. Do you dispute?
|
Err, that was my whole point was it not ? As I wrote - 'in truth no entities are congruent to the limits of distinction/theory'. The point being that two men are not identical, brother and brother are not identical, twin brother and twin brother are not identical; so the argument that woman and men cannot be equal because they are not identical is not useful because it contains no new information. Admittedly this is not, strictly, a tautology but it is skating on the edge. |
The line that it skates on was the point of the entire post - that equality is meaningless without proper definition.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: |
Even a+b and b+a, while mathematically equal due to the commutative properties of addition, are not truly equal. |
Yes they are - the commutative nature of addition defines them as equal. |
Mathematically equal. Mathematically equal.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | If I were to say "multiply the first element by 2", then the difference becomes obvious. The only way a+b and b+a are equal is when you limit the definition of equality - in this case, to only cover mathematical equality. a+b and a+b are equal, 2 and 2 are equal, but a+b and b+a are only equal in a limited way - mathematically.
|
Er, yes, I do know what commutative means. That is one aspect of the system of assumptions we accept when we write the term in the first place. Normally one assumes that an algebraic term such as this is an expression following the normal rules of arithmetic, in which case, as you agree, the terms are equal. I thought it unlikely that we would be using a system of representation other than either boolean logic or algebra so I ommitted to state that I was assuming this, but I don't think it was an unwarranted assumption. In the case of multiplying by two there would be no problem because, being bound by the rules of heirarchy one would, of course, insert the necessary brackets - 2(a+b) = 2(b+a) |
I have highlighted the part you seem to have missed. 2a+b ≢ 2b+a. Since you can apply the same transformation (multiply the first element by 2) to a+b and b+a and get two different results, a+b and b+a cannot be absolutely equal. They are only mathematically equal.