Of "God" on women

[Nice_One]

Read an interesting posting on Slate today, at http://www.slate.com/id/2162853/entry/2162854?nav=tap3, not too long after I read the story in the Style section of the Washington Post, about Lydia Cocho, a noted activist/writer who has been battling rampant pedophilia amongst Mexico's hyper-rich...

Coupling that with what I have been seeing an the media on human trafficking and my personal insight into the attitudes of the conservative Muslim community on the role of women. It seems to me that a major piece of reconstruction efforts  and how bad the oppression of 50% of the Muslim world's populace, I was wondering what others are thinking of the ramifications of the continued lag in evolution of treatment of women in the global community...

Cheers.

[Griffin NoName]

I have a simplistic view of the treatment of women in the economic community. Until equal wages, properly subsidised and good childcare are generally available, there will be no equality. Not enough women make it into the real power jobs. I'd go further personally. I consider I should have received payment from our economy on raising two people who are now contributing to it since I raised them to contribute to it. So until one has a straight choice to work in a job, or work at raising children, I see no real hope.

Except.

When men can effectively give birth we may see some real evolvement.

Until the economic community solves this problem, there's no hope for the global community, spiritual or otherwise.

Oh, and solving starvation would help too.

Unless... the global economy changes tack and values something other than wealth in money as an economy.

The role of women in many conservative religious communities is unlikely to change unless the role of women in other global community starts getting sorted.

Welcome to the forum, Nice-One, would you like to sign in at the Start Thread?

[Sibling Chatty]

OK, good article, but it's a stretch to tie it into the global treatment of women.

Off the top of my head, the problem with the treatment of 'women' in fundamentalist portions of society has less to do with gender and more to do with power.  Equal out the playing field financially, and all of a sudden, women aren't one step above the cattle and sheep (as they were so often in Biblical references--unless they weren't by virtue of money and property.)

And it's NOT just the religious that behave that way. Read the annals of the 60's revolutionaries. For the most part, the women were there and expected to cook, fetch and lay down, while the MEN ran the revolution. Some of the 'guys' took more than a little persuasion to get beyond that concept.

The beginnings of freedom/equality in ANY society come with the ability of a woman to control her own reproductive destiny. Thus, long-term advancement for females in modern society started with the birth control pill. The decriminalization of abortion (very possibly the second oldest profession) was also very important. That men decided to defend their daughters rather than surrender them, and to allow them to be Persons, not appendages or laughingstocks, was a good addition.

Sidebar: You're born female. For centuries, your choice was to be a wifeandmother, or to be a Old Maid. (The third choice, harlot, wasn't really supposed to be a choice, it was to be a Punishment for sin, that sin being NOT doing as you were told by Male Authority.) All three choices arrived at the same conclusion, if you lived long enough. The traditional schedule is Maiden, Mother, Crone. And whether you were Mother, Old Maid or Harlot, you ended up as Crone in the end. Crone is the ONLY female position that's allowed to have power, and that's only because by that point, men can't change it unless they cry "Witch!" The thing I like about NOW is that a woman can hear the cry of WITCH and say "Yes? And your point is???"

Now, assigning the entire female Muslim world to the same fate as those under the Fundamentalist rule is ludicrous. I have had several Muslim doctors that are female. My Muslim next-door neighbor, the one with the TWO PhD's in two totally different scientific areas? Nobody made her do DAMN thing she didn't want to do. She and her husband chose Houston' for instance, because SHE wanted to live there so that her daughters could get the education THEY wanted. The boys just had to suck it up and deal with traveling if they didn't want to do grad school in Houston. (She was also housing two nieces in college/grad school.)

The difference is education, and the kind of education that allows the male of the species to extend his thinking beyond the 'supremacist' function. (Any kind of supremacist is the opposite of sanity, whether it be cultural, racial, religious, whatever. The concept of no religion being superior to religion applies here as well.)

AND, all that stuff griffin mentioned, as well.

Also, welcome, and please sign in in the welcome thread!

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Somewhere or other, in one of the many science fictional universes I'd read about, the author noted that true equality for women did not come about until the invention of an artificial uterus.

Until then, if a woman wanted children AND a career, she had to allocate scarce years to one or the other (unless extremely wealthy, of course).  Unlike a male, who can make a reproductive contribution (which can take but minutes) and return to career.

But, with an artificial uterus, the woman may also make a reproductive contribution, and return to career (may take a few days, rather than minutes, but end-results are the same).

Thus, freed of the burden of requiring to set aside roughly a year for each child, a woman may then compete equally with all her available time-resources.

Who knows?  It IS a compelling observation, on the part of the author, I think.

[Swatopluk]

According to some fundies (including St.Augustine*) a method of womanless procreation would be just the precursor to get rid of women altogether because (according to them) a woman's sole value lies in her childbearing ability (for any other purpose a second man would have been better as a companion for Adam).
Unless there is a global Amazon Revolution I don't see a reversal of the less than ideal situation of now (and matriarchy might not be much better than patriarchy given the behaviour of some women in the position of power).

*He also prayed for a method of fertilization without intercourse (because the joy of sex transmits the original sin). The church has not followed him on this, the RCC disapproves of  in vitro fertilisation.

[Griffin NoName]

Artificial wombs are a minor sideline. Except where they may give men the power to have control of the artificial womb. They would merely make 9 months of a woman's life different and the rest would stay the same shit. Many women work through their pregnancies in developed countries. It's what happens once the chick emerges from the artificial womb that matters.

But it's not only child-rearing. It's housework. And prejudice in the workplace.

<rant>
I am always struck by the bemoaning of their circumstances by my married women friends. This is my peer group who were going to change the world in the sixties. Almost without exception, their marriages have divided into the traditional roles (occasional men do some of the cooking, a very occasional man does all the cooking). They complain about the amount of work they have to do in the home, yet their husbands deal with garden, car, often bills, machinery, handymen jobs, changing lightbulbs,....., drivel on,......

In a single parent family, or just a singles houseold, one person does everything. There is no division of labour. They live their life despite that. Time for all those couples to start wondering how this feat is possible. Then we might start to see some change.

</rant>

[Sibling Chatty]

Yep, the birthing isn't the burden, according to those that know. The nurturing is.

Care and feeding of small people isn't that damn easy, especially if you care about the outcome. At various times when I became primary caretaker for small persons belonging to my siblings, there wasn't enough time in the day to even pretend to cope with more than work, food and baths/bedtime. School was in, I found daycare, but...from zero to four overnight almost killed me.

Even in two parent homes, there's so much more to childcare than most fathers ever catch on to, and don't let me get started on infant care...

My SIL had a 'spell' (breakdown) and ended up in the hospital when the youngest was 2 months old. That left me with a 2 month old, a 13 month old, a three year old and a five year old. (Any wonder WHY the breakdown??) I wasn't working at that time, and took on the kids, with the help of Grandma and Grandpa. Six weeks of that cured me of considering trying to have my own.

It's not 9 months, or a year. It's a minimum of 18 years, and with some--even longer.

I know that now, were it not for Dan, I would be in deep problems. Where I used to do everything for myself, I can't anymore. Some people have children that step in to help. Some don't have children, some don't have helpful children. However, without being raised by a parent, there's no reason for a child to care about that parent.

Until we're ready to go to totally depersonalized 'factory farming' of children, women will be at a disadvantage, especially when fathers decide to be 'sperm donors' that send a check periodically. But, that's another rant.

[Griffin NoName]

It's not 9 months, or a year. It's a minimum of 18 years, and with some--even longer.

I know that now, were it not for Dan, I would be in deep problems. Where I used to do everything for myself, I can't anymore. Some people have children that step in to help. Some don't have children, some don't have helpful children. However, without being raised by a parent, there's no reason for a child to care about that parent.

Until we're ready to go to totally depersonalized 'factory farming' of children, women will be at a disadvantage, especially when fathers decide to be 'sperm donors' that send a check periodically. But, that's another rant.

It's forever. My body knows it, my body shows it. My mental state knows. My (lack of) income and pension shows it.

It would be more efficient if the fathers had to pay up front the full cost of raising a child (including the costs to the child-raiser of doing the raising) when they donate sperm, for every sperm donated, however donated

[Sibling Chatty]

Works for me.

I was never a principal in the enterprise. Nor was Dan. Before we ever knew each other, we both took a look around us, and decided that the gene pool could use a little less of our family's contributions. I figure if I'm the only sane one, or at least the closest one to sane, in my family...time to quit. And when you add in all the OTHER stuff (physical, as I have mentioned, I'm a genetic mutant)...nope. Toss in some bleach or some chlorine or something, because the gene pool needs cleanin' BIGtime.

[Nice_One]

All very interesting insights, and commentary... Did not mean to generalize about the whole of Muslim society oppressing the whole of the female populace of Mulsims...

And observation on the thread indicates very personal views, and general reflections on what incentivizes members of a social hierarchy... Looking for real hooks to changing attitudes in areas of limited development, and more limited tolerance of social evolution/upset/change, the only thing I have ever seen that has effected the value of women to society has been the micro-lending model of Muhammad Yunus... What's next?

Cheers

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Until we're ready to go to totally depersonalized 'factory farming' of children, women will be at a disadvantage, especially when fathers decide to be 'sperm donors' that send a check periodically. But, that's another rant.

You reminded me of a song lyric from the '80's.  The Who, on Who Are You album.  Song, 905.  Disturbing idea, presented in the song.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mother was an incubator
Father was the contents
of a test tube in the ice box
In the factory of birth

My name is 905,
And I've just become alive
I'm the newest populator
Of the planet we call Earth

In suspended animation
My childhood passed me by
If I speak without emotion
Then you know the reason why

Knowledge of the universe
Was fed into my mind
As my adolescent body
Left its puberty behind

And everything I know is what I need to know
And everything I do's been done before
Every sentence in my head
Someone else has said
At each end of my life is an open door

Automatically defrosted
When manhood came on time
I became a man
I left the "ice school" behind

Now I'm to begin
The life that I'm assigned
A life that's been used before
A thousand times

I have a feeling deep inside
That somethin' is missing
It's a feeling in my soul
And I can't help wishing

That one day I'll discover
That we're living a lie
And I'll tell the whole world
The reason why

Well, until then, everything I know is what I need to know
And everything I do's been done before
Every sentence in my head
Someone else has said
At each end of my life is an open door

[Opsa]

Yegawds, that's depressing!

I hope I don't get massacred for this, but it may have to do with the way that some historic men in power have done things. It seems that some of these conquestors do not feel as if they've won unless someone winds up being oppressed, be they women or some other group.

That is what we as human beings have to overcome if we are to progess in a positive direction.

This is another reason why tolerance and humbleness need to be worked on.

[Griffin NoName]

Looking for real hooks to changing attitudes in areas of limited development, and more limited tolerance of social evolution/upset/change, the only thing I have ever seen that has effected the value of women to society has been the micro-lending model of Muhammad Yunus... What's next?

There are working micro-lending models in a town I lived in (and, if I looked I expect I'd find them where I am now too). They don't seem to make any difference to the value of women. Presumably because they aren't the dominant model ? ?

I can't see everyone can be equally valued unless they have equal power to change the model. That power should be vested in tolerance and humbleness is a goal. But how to get there from here? Will tolerance and humbleness get the human race to equality for all ?

I like the idea of "historic men". (We had "new man" - I don't know where the dividing line on that is - they can't be "new" anymore.) From where I sit we need to consign a few women to "historic women" as well 

[beagle]

I like the idea of "historic men". (We had "new man" - I don't know where the dividing line on that is - they can't be "new" anymore.) From where I sit we need to consign a few women to "historic women" as well 

You've got to read/watch The History Boys:

History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. What is history? History is women following behind with the bucket.

Although personally I think Rudge's assessment is closer.

And stop being rude about Margaret Beckett. I think Goat is a fan. We all know the world would be better run by women, just look at Elizabeth I and Margaret Thatcher.

[Griffin NoName]

You've got to read/watch The History Boys:

Ok. Ok. I give in. I've ordered it on Amazon. Do you get a commission?

And stop being rude about Margaret Beckett. I think Goat is a fan. We all know the world would be better run by women, just look at Elizabeth I and Margaret Thatcher.

I looked at them. E I has a white face destroyed by arsenic and Lady M has a silly hairstyle.

As for MB,

In March 2007, the Times columnist Stephen Pollard stated: "There will not be many people who seriously challenge the claim that Mrs Beckett is the most hopeless Foreign Secretary of the modern political era. Not only is she incompetent, but she is almost entirely unprincipled. And it is that combination which makes her the ultimate, shameless symbol of politics today."

She is lucky to have even a Goat as a fan