Where do I make any such reference? You're aware that Paganism wasn't regionally exclusive, right? And that the Church had designs on foreign influence? I mean, is Europe in the ME? Is the Vatican located in Israel?
Stop deflecting, Eco. Where's the proof that Paul was protecting anything?
I've heard/seen various persons argue that it already has. Not sure myself. And I sure as hell don't recall the arguments in any detail.Let me know when that happens.
I've heard/seen various persons argue that it already has. Not sure myself. And I sure as hell don't recall the arguments in any detail.
I consider a concern founded if it's even vaguely possible, however unlikely. Granted not very well founded.Unless you can give me an example, I think your concern is unfounded.
I consider a concern founded if it's even vaguely possible, however unlikely. Granted not very well founded.
I agree.As I cannot prove a negative, it is upon the claim to garner credibility. Thus far, there is none - not even one example.
I consider a concern founded if it's even vaguely possible, however unlikely. Granted not very well founded.
In other words, you're unaware both that Christianity spread beyond Israel and that Paganism was a threat to theocratic hegemony. Problem is, these things are facts.In other words, you have no basis whatsoever to claim that the women of the early church were behaving differently than every other woman of the time. That is, shutting the **** up.
So we're back to speculation. Other than the age-old misogyny attributed to him, we're left with your interpretation of Paul as protector of the Church. This conclusion doesn't fit where we've already refuted your earlier premises. Still waiting for the proof that has somehow eluded two millennia of religious scholars. But hey, maybe you know something they don't, eh?Thus, we have evidence that there must have been another purpose to Paul's advice.
That he was writing to a church in the most persecuted region of the time gives indication of his purpose - the survival of the church.
So we're back to speculation.
I've already explained precisely why you're employing a term you don't understand.We're back to logic and reason. And the only counter you've presented is a noble savage myth for which you cannot provide even a single citation.
I've already explained precisely why you're employing a term you don't understand.
There's all the proof in the world for the gynocentric component of Paganism, as illustrated by the plethora of feminine deities, figures and principles it encapsulates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GynocentrismGynocentrism (Greek, gyno-, "woman", or "female") is the ideological practice, conscious or otherwise, of asserting the female point of view in public debate on a wide range of social issues.[1][2][3]
Once more, explained earlier. Paganism runs the entire gamut of such religions from a central goddess figure right through to consorts and fringe figures. It allows for a gynocentric interpretation. I realise that cherry picking from posts for the purpose of evasive obfuscation is your signature, but for anyone following the discussion, it's all there, so why bother?I think you need to check the term:
Gynocentrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I await (not really) your citation (which doesn't exist).
Some of the things you say on this forum with regards to women's rights issues causes me to get this visual image of you as some fat old dude, almost bald with crazy grey hair , sitting around in his boxers and wife beater smoking a cigar and playing cards wit da boys.
IOW, bitching because the world is changing and those dames are fagetin' der place.
It makes it sound as if there was some kind of envy for the life you imagine they imagine their men were leading.
I would argue that. I believe a child raised in a happy home with a single parent is better off then in a home with two where each are miserable.
You sound as if you bought in to that 1950s Ozzie and Harriet storyline. We both know that wasn't real. Fantasy
Men aren't "necessary" to female affairs. You couple with someone because you love them and want to share your life with them, not because they are "necessary".
I, personally, have never met a woman that has this point of view.
Vain reasons? Such as?
I do now and always have found intellectual men very sexy. Men who are balanced and have a little higher emotional IQ then the frat boy or construction worker archetype you referenced. My guess is that you would provide this guy as YOUR example of weak or effeminate. So maybe your definition is a little broad.
At this juncture, you're still guessing where I have historical proof.
Covered previously.You have proof of nothing. There was no "asserting the female point of view in public debate on a wide range of social issues" in ancient Israel or the surrounding areas. Not in Greece, not in Rome, not anywhere.
You are clinging to a noble savage myth in order to deny obvious logic and reason.
Covered previously.
Is this it? Repeat and rephrase for the duration? I mean that's cool, but if you could find your way to providing that proof I asked for from the beginning of this shameless rip cord, that'd be great. Cheers in advance.
Those women were goddesses?You made the claim. You provided no evidence whatsoever. Just BS about "oooh, the goddesses!"
And you already admitted that women didn't have a voice for 2000 years. Now you want to claim that there were societies in which the female point of view was predominant in public discourse. What a load of crap.
Feel free to link your comment, but the reason I and another poster were questioning you was your claim that women are being discriminated against in how they are paid. I noted that I was surprised that you referenced the single women earnings data because that's not really that well known but there is no data to support your claim that women are being discriminated against in terms of wages. There is a wage differential but not due to employers being evil bastards and stomping on women.
The buzz in some quarters these days is that what women really want is a strong masculine male who is unafraid to lead them. Go figure. It is human nature to want what you're not getting, I guess.
That, and probably generalizations like that only lead so far, I guess. In the end, every male and female is an individual with different preferences.
Yeah, "leading" us alright. :roll: Leading us right into being a maid and caretaker. Why do men think it makes them manly to NEED a mommy anyway? :lol:
To be fair, I think many women do have an expectation that a man be confident enough to "take charge" of at least some aspects of a relationship, and they do often tend to prefer men who possess that quality over those who don't. This might not necessarily be true of all women, but I do think it is true of most (it's certainly more true of women than the reverse is true of men, in any case).
However, it should also be noted that "taking the lead" doesn't necessarily imply that a man need be domineering either. It's perfectly possible to be "the man" in a relationship without going into full-on "Tigger" mode. :lol:
Such as?
Well, what does "taking the lead" mean to you? Why does one or other have to lead? How about making decisions TOGETHER as a family unit instead of nominating yourself as the "leader?"
:shrug: It just kind of happens in my experience. Do what you're going to do, and be confident about how you do it, and a lot of women will just kind of go along with you. They even seem to like it.
Beyond that, bossy, domineering women who are liable to second guess or excessively interfere in what I'm trying to do tend to get on my nerves. While the occasional bit of constructive criticism is certainly called for, and I can handle even overtly bitchy women in small doses, much more than that is eventually going to lead me to push back, which simply leads to problems all the way around.
Frankly, given how often they complain about partners that they can "push around" , it wouldn't appear that most women appreciate the more submissive types of men any way. It is pretty damn rare to see a man complain about about the reverse situation.
This isn't to say that both partners can't exert influence over the relationship. To the contrary, I'd argue that women hold more influence than most men realize. They simply exert it in more subtle ways under many circumstances.
A "real man" shouldn't have to bully his woman to gain her respect, and a "real woman" shouldn't have to be a shrew to make her voice heard in a relationship.
The man may be the "head" of the houshold under many circumstances, but the woman is the neck and the heart. The neck turns the head and the heart keeps things running.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?