I am puzzled by the fact that jews muslims christians and other fundamental wierdos seem to fear women forcing them to wear approved clothing not allowing them out without a male keeper denying entry to the priesthood keeping women separated from men in the act of worship some jewish sects apparently stone women for praying in public or even for wearing the colour red the list of oppressive actions goes on and on.
Why this fear of women?
Why do you fear commas?
You seem to have written off more than half of the world’s population as “wierdos”, as well as “fearing women”. I don’t think this debate is going to end as well as you seem to hope :rolleyes:
you left out buddhists hindus and punctuation
Its an irrational fear of punctuation
Secular society places restrictions on women’s sexuality as well (for example, frowning upon cheating and excess promiscuity). Anyone ignorant of evolutionary psychology may well be “puzzled” by such social norms.
If you want your thread to stay open, please repress your fear.
It seems that women themselves aren’t getting the memo, since they’re nearly twice as likely as men to attend church in some places. In fact, seeing as organized religion is one of the few institutions where women do play an above-average role, perhaps the question should be turned around and we should ask why some atheists fear women.
So what is it about evolutionary psychology that makes us want to protect women? It’s my understanding that one of the best strategies is for a man to sleep with another man’s wife. That way I get to pass along my DNA but someone else has to use his resources to raise the child. Of course, I don’t want to spend my resources raising someone else’s DNA, so I have plenty of reason to keep my wife on a short leash. If I don’t, I can never be 100% certain that I fathered my wife’s children.
Wow. Which atheistic organizations do you think you’re referring to, that “fear women”? Let me guess: football teams. Sure, they have nothing at all to do with atheism, and are as populated with theists as the population in general, but since they’re not an actual church you can blame their lack of female attendance on the evil atheists!
Wow. Just, wow.
As to the OP, I think that what you’re seeing is the result of the fact that societies in general used to be a lot more explicitly male-centric, and religion has merely codified and carried forward these inclinations into places where the rest of the culture has largely abandoned them. If you wish to criticize something about the religions, you would probably be more correct to criticize their general rigidity and reluctance to adapt to modern cultural norms, than to focus on the specific instance of their lack of gender equality.
What the fuck are you fucking talking about? Support your premise.
The answer to the OP, is that these religions are all descended from archaic, tribal cultures where control of women – particularly control of women’s sexuality – was seen as important because men needed a way to assure themselves of the paternity of their children. Women were property. A lot of the core, sexist, patriarchal assumptions still survive in the ancient religious texts and traditions, amd the fundamentalist mindset – by definition – places the authority of scripture above anything else. The fear in religious fundamentalists, then, is of violating holy writ, not so much fear of women, though plenty of men are more than happy to exploit holy writ for non-religious, prurient and/or power tripping reasons.
Anyway, the sexism is there because the religions are so old and they reflect an archaic perception of gender.
Apparently you’ve never met a Jewish grandmother. They are to guilt trips as Tiger Woods is to nailing cocktail waitre…er…golf.
While atheists may well be afraid of women we tend not to discriminate against them as a matter of course. I will put in a comma next time promise.
I’d imagine worshipers of Dionysus would fear women. There are some scary women in those stories.
It is part of the method of control that is employed to keep people in bondage to the religious authorities. It is to separate men and woman, which stops life.
Any person who organization that preaches mindless fear of religion is most likely based, at least in part, on fear of women. I’ve already posted a cite showing that women in one country are nearly twice as likely to attend church as men, and there’s no reason why the same shouldn’t be true in every part of western civilization at least. Therefore, as any institution inevitably is shaped by its participants, organized religion must be a feminized organization. By contrast, it’s easy to see that the secular organizations that are commonly held up in opposition to organized religion are dominated by men. Just look at the gender ratio in Congress, or university science departments, or the American Skeptic Society. So thus, whenever anyone says that religious believers are inferior and should not be listened to, they’re basically saying that women are inferior and should not be listened to. Whenever anyone tells us to place government or academic or other hyper-masculine authorities in place of organized religion, that’s basically saying that only men should be in authority. For example, in ch. 9 of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins says that the government should forcibly prevent religious parents from raising their own children, which would obviously greatly reduce the role that women play in child-rearing and greatly increase the role that men play. (I’m not saying that he’s entirely motivated by dislike for women, when there could be other factors at play. For example, blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be religious while secular authorities are disproportionately white, so he might also be motivated by racism.)
I don’t believe that all past societies were male-centric or that religion codified and carried forward those inclinations. For example, the central figure of Christianity, Jesus Christ, is famous for throwing out social barriers between the genders and knocking down laws that were used to prosecute women. However, that’s all somewhat beside the point, since before we try discussing the reasons for albi’s observations, we should first check whether those observations are correct. He claims (as best I can tell, since I’m having to add punctuation to the OP as I read it) that Christians force women to wear certain clothes and won’t allow them outside the home without being accompanied by a “male keeper”. Now if this were actually true, I think I 'd see a lot fewer women walking around outside and wearing a wide variety of clothing styles. Likewise if Jews were truly stoning women to death for wearing the color red, then surely the Razorback cheerleaders would be long gone by now. So, to summarize, I’m asking for cites to back up the OP’s claims.
If you started, like, a weekly sermon thread, I would definitely read it regularly.
Not much of a track record in that regard, so far. Except for the Shakers.
And by identical logic, because there are more flies than humans in your house, we know that the flies are in control, bringing home the bacon and paying the bills.
I’ve seen bad arguments before but this is ludicrous - have you never heard of leadership before? Heirarchies of power? Hey, wow, 50% of the people in fundametal islamic countries are women, therefore the taliban is a feminized organization!
You’ve already departed from reality too far to be debated with on an even level. From here on out I’ll just point out the high points of the hallucination.
Congress. Congress! You appear to be unfamiliar with the fact that in america congress doesn’t determine its own gender composition. If women get voted in, there’ll be women there!
This gets even more fun when we realize that congress/the american public is comparable with clergy/members. OOPS - clergies aren’t overloaded with females either, are they? What does it take to be “feminized” again? There are lots of women voters…
Any “thus” that follows from the previous self-contradictory fantasyland is sure to be tripe, and you don’t disappoint here. Putting aside that quoting Dawkins is a little like quoting Rush Limbaugh, look at your “logic” here: taking kids away from both religious parents is supposed to greatly increase the role men play. Hmm, what? Both parents would lose control over the child in this impossible scenario. It’s like you aren’t even trying to connect your supposed causes and your imagined effects.
Your ignorance/selective denial of history matches your ignorance/selective denial of the rest of reality, I see. Trust me when I tell you that woman’s suffrage is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Wow, that’s a pretty pathetic effort there, ITR.