Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

it's a very interesting thought...

We should be seeing what each side has to offer.

If women wrote religion it'd make a lot more sense. I would understand why God randomly goes on rage filled murder sprees. It's because she's on her period.

bitchez can't write..

Some witchs do and woman pasters.

Then who'd make the dinner?

Originally posted by Juk3n
Then who'd make the dinner?

I bet Lilith could have answered that question

Originally posted by alltoomany
it's a very interesting thought... Women, afaik, have not done as much as men in many fields, not just religion. And while male oppression is likely part of the reason, IMO it's an oversimplification to say that accounts for the whole picture. I think the Bell curve also has something to say about it. Ie, more males lie at both extremes of the curve than females, so then, naturally, you'd have more men than women that are geniuses, mystics, etc, just like you'd have more men than women that are morons, simpletons, etc.

Originally posted by Mindship
Women, afaik, have not done as much as men in many fields, not just religion. And while male oppression is likely part of the reason, IMO it's an oversimplification to say that accounts for the whole picture. I think the Bell curve also has something to say about it. Ie, more males lie at both extremes of the curve than females, so then, naturally, you'd have more men than women that are geniuses, mystics, etc, just like you'd have more men than women that are morons, simpletons, etc.

Mother nature could be a moron?

Originally posted by alltoomany
Mother nature could be a moron? She's just in cahoots with Father Time.

Originally posted by alltoomany
it's a very interesting thought...

What exactly do you mean? What would women in the same political situation that prevented them from writing generally have written about Religion or for Religion, had they been able to?

Originally posted by Mindship
Women, afaik, have not done as much as men in many fields, not just religion. And while male oppression is likely part of the reason, IMO it's an oversimplification to say that accounts for the whole picture. I think the Bell curve also has something to say about it. Ie, more males lie at both extremes of the curve than females, so then, naturally, you'd have more men than women that are geniuses, mystics, etc, just like you'd have more men than women that are morons, simpletons, etc.

those "tails" aren't nearly large enough to account for the sheer numbers you are talking about. The male distribution curve would need to dwarf the female one for that to be true, also, we'd see a much more disproportionate amount of men on the lower end. come to think of it, I suppose their might have been more males in the group homes for the mentally handicapped that I worked in, but not but a huge majority...

Anyways, most geniuses, mystics, etc, don't come from those tails anyways. They come from people working hard and being given opportunity. Every "name" we remember from history isn't some one in a billion super mega genius.

"IF" women wrote religion I think it would have been on a more emotional intelligent level..

lol

you mean if it were written by people who weren't in a position of authority?

because women in positions of authority don't act very different from males

Originally posted by inimalist
those "tails" aren't nearly large enough to account for the sheer numbers you are talking about. The male distribution curve would need to dwarf the female one for that to be true, also, we'd see a much more disproportionate amount of men on the lower end. come to think of it, I suppose their might have been more males in the group homes for the mentally handicapped that I worked in, but not but a huge majority... In the special ed classes I work with, in a class of 15, you'll have, typically, only 1 or 2 females. Also, I did mention male oppression as another factor.

Originally posted by inimalist
Anyways, most geniuses, mystics, etc, don't come from those tails anyways. They come from people working hard and being given opportunity. Every "name" we remember from history isn't some one in a billion super mega genius. "Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration."
-- Thomas A. Edison...

...so for the most part what you're saying may be true. However, there are some exceptional individuals by the time you get to the 3rd standard deviation; and if they work as hard as the lower deviations -- well, all else being equal, they are more likely to make breakthroughs, or whatever.

Off the top of my head: would not Einstein, Newton or Mozart be considered bona fide geniuses?

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

you mean if it were written by people who weren't in a position of authority?

because women in positions of authority don't act very different from males [/Q
don't ACT different from males, why do you think that is?

Originally posted by inimalist
those "tails" aren't nearly large enough to account for the sheer numbers you are talking about. The male distribution curve would need to dwarf the female one for that to be true, also, we'd see a much more disproportionate amount of men on the lower end. come to think of it, I suppose their might have been more males in the group homes for the mentally handicapped that I worked in, but not but a huge majority...

Anyways, most geniuses, mystics, etc, don't come from those tails anyways. They come from people working hard and being given opportunity. Every "name" we remember from history isn't some one in a billion super mega genius.

Some of them surely are though.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

you mean if it were written by people who weren't in a position of authority?

because women in positions of authority don't act very different from males

Because they have no other choice; they have to. Women bosses who don't act like men quickly find that their employees start to walk all over them. Less than 5% of all CEO's in the US are women, and even women in lower level mangement are still fish out of water.

I've had several women bosses in the past, and they've all told me things along those lines. They basically have to conform to the business world which was made by men, for men.

oops, double post

Originally posted by Mindship
Off the top of my head: would not Einstein, Newton or Mozart be considered bona fide geniuses?

Newton, ok, fine. Mozart, forgive my ignorance, but I can't say for sure... I just don't know...

Einstein... no. I'm not going to say he is in the class of "super amazing genius". This could even be said of Newton to some degree, but in both cases, they merely articulated what was "on the tip of everyone's tongue" at the time. I have a lot of problems with looking at individual scientists and saying "look at how smart they are", as if science can ever be an individual accomplishment.

Einstein is probably the best example of this too. As a young man, he revolutionized the ffield. As an old man, he argued to his grave against the next generation of people like him. There is a weird trend in science, you contribute your part before you are 35, then everything you say is counter-productive. Was Einstein smart? sure, of course.

Here, not to compare myself to Einstein, but it is somewhat similar in my field. I come from a philosophy/sociology background, and am learning in my textbooks the things it took the top people in my field their careers to figure out. Not only do I have (errrrr....) close to equivalent knowledge as them (not in the application or bredth, but you get my point), but compared to many of my peers who are bio and chem students, I can look at problems from perspectives they don't even think about. I look at Einstein more as that type of intellectual. Again, I'm not even close to as important or intelligent, but I think, as a culture, we like our heroes, and that isn't really congruent with the steady march of science, which is ultimately faceless. People graduating 1st/2nd year physics courses understand relativity better than Einstein did.

(Thats cool about the special ed courses though, well, not cool, but interesting. I've got a sort of pet theory about boys with problems being ignored by the system because of the push for "equal class time" . Are these kids potentially of that type, or are they really just the low end of the bell curve?)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Some of them surely are though.

the best example of this, I tend to think, are the top tier chess players in the world. strangely enough, pretty much 100% men. Importantly, chess is a major sport in Russia, where there aren't the same pressures against women in science and math. It actually does imply something biological, but let me stress, only in like the top percent of a percent. Basically, its not the "maleness" that makes them good at chess, but something else that only comes with male genetics.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Because they have no other choice; they have to. Women bosses who don't act like men quickly find that their employees start to walk all over them. Less than 5% of all CEO's in the US are women, and even women in lower level mangement are still fish out of water.

I've had several women bosses in the past, and they've all told me things along those lines. They basically have to conform to the business world which was made by men, for men.

can I present my mother as exhibit b?

obviously there are exceptions to every rule (she calls herself a feminist, and is a very well paid lobbyist for the food industry of Ontario), but I tend to think what they are calling "maleness" are expectations of power that everyone has to conform to. Our society does more to culture these qualities in men through gendered play at young ages, and through what type of media is targeted at the kids, or even stuff as simple as how we punish misbehaviour in boys and girls.

I don't disagree ultimately, except to say, I don't think it is anything "male" that makes a better boss. The same way there are women who would make much, much better soldiers than I, or cops, etc.

Originally posted by alltoomany
don't ACT different from males, why do you think that is?

as I was just saying, there are certain qualities that will make you an effective leader, and having power itself fosters certain qualities in people. Females are no less suceptable to these pressures, and if they want to succeed, they have to play the game.

Originally posted by inimalist
Newton, ok, fine. Mozart, forgive my ignorance, but I can't say for sure... I just don't know...

Einstein... no. I'm not going to say he is in the class of "super amazing genius". This could even be said of Newton to some degree, but in both cases, they merely articulated what was "on the tip of everyone's tongue" at the time. I have a lot of problems with looking at individual scientists and saying "look at how smart they are", as if science can ever be an individual accomplishment.

Einstein is probably the best example of this too. As a young man, he revolutionized the ffield. As an old man, he argued to his grave against the next generation of people like him. There is a weird trend in science, you contribute your part before you are 35, then everything you say is counter-productive. Was Einstein smart? sure, of course.

Here, not to compare myself to Einstein, but it is somewhat similar in my field. I come from a philosophy/sociology background, and am learning in my textbooks the things it took the top people in my field their careers to figure out. Not only do I have (errrrr....) close to equivalent knowledge as them (not in the application or bredth, but you get my point), but compared to many of my peers who are bio and chem students, I can look at problems from perspectives they don't even think about. I look at Einstein more as that type of intellectual. Again, I'm not even close to as important or intelligent, but I think, as a culture, we like our heroes, and that isn't really congruent with the steady march of science, which is ultimately faceless. People graduating 1st/2nd year physics courses understand relativity better than Einstein did.
Yeah but genius isn't really measured simply by amount of knowledge possessed... Actually Einstein was more of a genius than people with greater knowledge, it takes much more genius to create or discover an idea than to learn about an already existing one... which is why those are considered "the top people" in your field, and you are not.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah but genius isn't really measured simply by amount of knowledge possessed... Actually Einstein was more of a genius than people with greater knowledge, it takes much more genius to create or discover an idea than to learn about an already existing one... which is why those are considered "the top people" in your field, and you are not.

i can't argue with any of that

Originally posted by inimalist
Einstein is probably the best example of this too. As a young man, he revolutionized the ffield. As an old man, he argued to his grave against the next generation of people like him. There is a weird trend in science, you contribute your part before you are 35, then everything you say is counter-productive. Was Einstein smart? sure, of course.

Einstein invented a new kind of refrigerator when he was 47! While he didn't like quantum mechanics he did come up with what turned into an important proof of its truth in his fifties.

And SMBC raises a good point about that belief in general.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1833#comic

Originally posted by inimalist
Here, not to compare myself to Einstein, but it is somewhat similar in my field. I come from a philosophy/sociology background, and am learning in my textbooks the things it took the top people in my field their careers to figure out. Not only do I have (errrrr....) close to equivalent knowledge as them (not in the application or bredth, but you get my point), but compared to many of my peers who are bio and chem students, I can look at problems from perspectives they don't even think about. I look at Einstein more as that type of intellectual. Again, I'm not even close to as important or intelligent, but I think, as a culture, we like our heroes, and that isn't really congruent with the steady march of science, which is ultimately faceless. People graduating 1st/2nd year physics courses understand relativity better than Einstein did.

To his credit Newton was very upfront about where his work came from.

"What Descartes did was a good step. You have added much several ways, and especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

There is always, however, the question of what it means to be a genius. I'm fond of "intellectual creativity", if you follow my meaning, over sheer amazed knowledge (otherwise my computer is a genius).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Einstein invented a new kind of refrigerator when he was 47! While he didn't like quantum mechanics he did come up with what turned into an important proof of its truth in his fifties.

huh, didn't know either of those

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And SMBC raises a good point about that belief in general.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1833#comic

I said 35

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
To his credit Newton was very upfront about where his work came from.

"What Descartes did was a good step. You have added much several ways, and especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

most good scientists are. Maybe I was more expressing distaste with the way culture looks at these people, than with how they understand themselves. I can't imagine Einstein thought himself to be God's gift to physics.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There is always, however, the question of what it means to be a genius. I'm fond of "intellectual creativity", if you follow my meaning, over sheer amazed knowledge (otherwise my computer is a genius).

there is a point where the two have to meet though. I'm sure you know the creative types who have an opinion about absolutly everything, even though they have no knowledge of it. Like a friend of mine trying to argue that poetry is a science, not metaphorically, but it is the same thing.

Originally posted by inimalist
Newton, ok, fine. Mozart, forgive my ignorance, but I can't say for sure... I just don't know...

Einstein... no. I'm not going to say he is in the class of "super amazing genius". This could even be said of Newton to some degree, but in both cases, they merely articulated what was "on the tip of everyone's tongue" at the time. I have a lot of problems with looking at individual scientists and saying "look at how smart they are", as if science can ever be an individual accomplishment.

Einstein is probably the best example of this too. As a young man, he revolutionized the ffield. As an old man, he argued to his grave against the next generation of people like him. There is a weird trend in science, you contribute your part before you are 35, then everything you say is counter-productive. Was Einstein smart? sure, of course.

Here, not to compare myself to Einstein, but it is somewhat similar in my field. I come from a philosophy/sociology background, and am learning in my textbooks the things it took the top people in my field their careers to figure out. Not only do I have (errrrr....) close to equivalent knowledge as them (not in the application or bredth, but you get my point), but compared to many of my peers who are bio and chem students, I can look at problems from perspectives they don't even think about. I look at Einstein more as that type of intellectual. Again, I'm not even close to as important or intelligent, but I think, as a culture, we like our heroes, and that isn't really congruent with the steady march of science, which is ultimately faceless. People graduating 1st/2nd year physics courses understand relativity better than Einstein did.


Now I don't know exactly whether you are arguing this in relation to the women thing Mindship said, but I think you are severely underestimating the abilities of those considered the greatest by socety, I'd say pretty much all of them (at least in the natural sciences) were amazing geniuses, definitely at the far end of the bell curve. Einstein in particular was influential throughout his life, you are correct that he revolutionized the field by 35, but he did a lot of important work after as well. I'd say especially the famous Mathematicians were exceptional...but so were many of the artists and philosophers.

I agree with your point to a certain degree, you have to be lucky, and you you always build on what people knew before you, but that's really not enough, you also have to be in that .1 or .01 (or less percent of people able to understand (and much, much harder contribute to)the heights of scientific pursuit in your time.

It may be true that a first year can now understand some of the theories Descartes or Gauss created, but that's a whole different thing from finding them out of nothing. Especially with people like Descartes, the field basically stagnated for a thousand years, so it wasn't some "it's time to find new things" thing, it was an enormous achievement from one single person.


Though in fact I believe that most of the Nobel Laureates achieved what they got the Nobel Prize after their 30s (I think I read an article about how they in fact got even older on average in the last decades)

Originally posted by inimalist
not to compare myself to Einstein I bet you're at least 1 standard deviation from the norm.

(Thats cool about the special ed courses though, well, not cool, but interesting. I've got a sort of pet theory about boys with problems being ignored by the system because of the push for "equal class time" . Are these kids potentially of that type, or are they really just the low end of the bell curve?) Combination. But overall, I'd say student motivation is the dominant factor in academic success. Kids who've been ignored can still shine, and even the not-so-smart can make respectable gains.

Einstein's first wife was brilliant, herself.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree with your point to a certain degree, you have to be lucky, and you you always build on what people knew before you, but that's really not enough, you also have to be in that .1 or .01 (or less percent of people able to understand (and much, much harder contribute to)the heights of scientific pursuit in your time.

I actually think it is this attitude that prevents a great number of people from achieving. We look at geniuses as if it is a quality that they possess, not as if they haven't had to work at it their whole life, or that they aren't a product of an enriching environment. I don't believe it is .1 of the population that can understand complex things, look at the popularity of crap like Lost or conspiracy theories that require huge logical connections to make understandable. If people want to understand something, they are certainly able to.

I tend to think people just aren't motivated for it. Not that they are lazy, its a cultural thing. I remember being a kid and not wanting to be a "brainer" because it would make me stand out in the class, and passing up any chances I had at enrichment classes for that reason.

People are far more intelligent than they give themselves credit for. Does everyone have the capacity to revolutionize physics? no, of course not, does everyone have the ability to think creatively and apply their intelligence? sure, we are just taught not to do that. God, immagine how terrible a 9th/10th grade class would be if kids were taught to apply their knowedge and challange things in creative ways. Yes, if there is one conspiracy I believe in, the education system is deliberately designed to stifle your child's intellectual maturation. Not out of malevolance, but out of necessity. Nobody would be a teacher if it meant dealing with 16 year olds who knew how to express themselves intelligently.

on topic though, ya, fair enough, Einstein might have been a bad choice, but like sym posted, shoulders of giants.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It may be true that a first year can now understand some of the theories Descartes or Gauss created, but that's a whole different thing from finding them out of nothing. Especially with people like Descartes, the field basically stagnated for a thousand years, so it wasn't some "it's time to find new things" thing, it was an enormous achievement from one single person.

stagnated for 1000 years before descartes? maybe in Europe... err, Christian Europe.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Though in fact I believe that most of the Nobel Laureates achieved what they got the Nobel Prize after their 30s (I think I read an article about how they in fact got even older on average in the last decades)

fascinating. also, encouraging. I only have 9 years before 35... and 3-4 of those I'm still a student doing other people's research, lol!

Originally posted by Mindship
I bet you're at least 1 standard deviation from the norm.

I'd assume that is true of anyone who posts here, but thanks! takes one to know one

Originally posted by Mindship
Combination. But overall, I'd say student motivation is the dominant factor in academic success. Kids who've been ignored can still shine, and even the not-so-smart can make respectable gains.

god, then back to the age old question... how do you motivate kids to learn stuff that they know they will never need (thereby missing the stuff they actually do need)?

Originally posted by inimalist
god, then back to the age old question... how do you motivate kids to learn stuff that they know they will never need (thereby missing the stuff they actually do need)? Once you get to middle school, I don't think the aim of teaching 'all that stuff' is necessarily 'one day you may need it'. It also exposes students to ideas, other perspectives, things they may never otherwise realize they like (as well as dislike); and by high school, students now have more opportunity than ever to go to speciality schools (eg, my main school focuses on automechanics and IT, as well as offering the usual academia). On the other hand, part of adultification is making yourself do what you don't wanna do. This is a lesson that is always valuable, and school is a good place to learn it.

Originally posted by Mindship
Once you get to middle school, I don't think the aim of teaching 'all that stuff' is necessarily 'one day you may need it'. It also exposes students to ideas, other perspectives, things they may never otherwise realize they like (as well as dislike); and by high school, students now have more opportunity than ever to go to speciality schools (eg, my main school focuses on automechanics and IT, as well as offering the usual academia). On the other hand, part of adultification is making yourself do what you don't wanna do. This is a lesson that is always valuable, and school is a good place to learn it.

Ask them what would be the least amount of time that you could travel around the Earth (360). the answer would shock most. bc its interesting

women with a high IQ can have EI just as well

Father time : )

Originally posted by inimalist
Newton, ok, fine. Mozart, forgive my ignorance, but I can't say for sure... I just don't know...

Yeah, Mozart would be a good example, probably a better example than most, of what a true genius would be...as far as music goes. At age 5, he wrote his first minuets. By age 9, he had written a complete symphony.

However, and this greatly supports your position, Mozart is a very fine example of a genius being nurtured. His father took great care to instruct him and nurture his gifts. How many "true" geniuses make nothing of themselves due to the circumstances of their environment?

Originally posted by inimalist
As a young man, he revolutionized the ffield.

I actually had to reread your paragraph because I thought you were talking about the i/f field used in quantum physics. And I was like, "This can't be! What does this mean?"

Originally posted by inimalist
People graduating 1st/2nd year physics courses understand relativity better than Einstein did.

As a former tutor (voluntary) to 1st and 2nd year physics students, I can tell you:

1. Relativity is not covered in any sort of a graduate level required manner in order to reach Einstein's understanding of relativity.

2. Most of them did not understand relativity, period, at that point.

However, I need to clarify that you are making a good point and I DO get it. I think you were giving first and second year physics students too much credit, though. Of the first or second years, I think it is probably 1% or less that actually understand relativity and closer to .001% that understand on the level that Einstein did because, as fact, it requires a graduate level of understanding to reach that point (I do not think it is until the 4th year that most degree programs start to cover those concepts in detail. Mostly, they mention them, in passing, in their course work and books.)

Originally posted by inimalist
Basically, its not the "maleness" that makes them good at chess, but something else that only comes with male genetics.

That....makes...no sense. It must be because you are equating "maleness" to a sociological construct rather than a genetic one and I am equating "maleness" to "male genetics."

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Because they have no other choice; they have to. Women bosses who don't act like men quickly find that their employees start to walk all over them. Less than 5% of all CEO's in the US are women, and even women in lower level mangement are still fish out of water.

I've had several women bosses in the past, and they've all told me things along those lines. They basically have to conform to the business world which was made by men, for men.

How would a female world be any different, though? If you were to take the premise of the thread, and apply it all the way through 3-4000 years of human progression, where would we be? The business world and how it is run can partially attribute it's state to religion. Religion has had a profound and deep influence over many of the things we consider our norms.

What does your female world look like? Throw out the notion of this "male" society and make it matriarchal. How do business and government practices differ?

Originally posted by alltoomany
Ask them what would be the least amount of time that you could travel around the Earth (360). the answer would shock most. bc its interesting Middle school kids? Yeah, I bet it would be. I work mostly on the high school level, and sometimes it's amazing what they don't know or think they know, especially (of all things) sex.

So, what do they say?

Originally posted by alltoomany
women with a high IQ can have EI just as well What I usually remind people when discussing the differences between the sexes, is that there is much more variation within each gender than between them. Men, eg, can also be very, very intuitive.

As for EI: I find the term a misnomer. I think it's more accurate to call one 'subject-object' intelligence (understanding the inanimate world, as is covered, eg, by physics), and the other 'subject-subject' intelligence (understanding the human world, eg, psychology).

Originally posted by alltoomany
Father time : ) Sooner or later, he moves most of us from one end of the Bell curve to the other.

Originally posted by Mindship
Sooner or later, he moves most of us from one end of the Bell curve to the other.
THAT BASTARD!

Originally posted by dadudemon
As a former tutor (voluntary) to 1st and 2nd year physics students, I can tell you:

1. Relativity is not covered in any sort of a graduate level required manner in order to reach Einstein's understanding of relativity.

2. Most of them did not understand relativity, period, at that point.

However, I need to clarify that you are making a good point and I DO get it. I think you were giving first and second year physics students too much credit, though. Of the first or second years, I think it is probably 1% or less that actually understand relativity and closer to .001% that understand on the level that Einstein did because, as fact, it requires a graduate level of understanding to reach that point (I do not think it is until the 4th year that most degree programs start to cover those concepts in detail. Mostly, they mention them, in passing, in their course work and books.)

see, I was only making arguements here that I had seen others make, so maybe the lesson is "stick to what you know inimalist, or be made a fool"

so, in that light, coming out of a 2nd year course on perception, I understand more about psychophysics than did Fechner or Wundt.

it just doesn't have the same ring though...

Originally posted by dadudemon
That....makes...no sense. It must be because you are equating "maleness" to a sociological construct rather than a genetic one and I am equating "maleness" to "male genetics."

no, we can even talk genetically, but I mean more in a behavioural sense. The differences between these men's spatial abilities and what not and women is the same as the difference beween their abilities and that of all other males who don't fall into that category. Them being male, sure, might be a prerequisite of this ability, but being male really has no part in that ability.

Its the all X are Y, not all Y are X thing.

Originally posted by Mindship
Once you get to middle school, I don't think the aim of teaching 'all that stuff' is necessarily 'one day you may need it'. It also exposes students to ideas, other perspectives, things they may never otherwise realize they like (as well as dislike); and by high school, students now have more opportunity than ever to go to speciality schools (eg, my main school focuses on automechanics and IT, as well as offering the usual academia). On the other hand, part of adultification is making yourself do what you don't wanna do. This is a lesson that is always valuable, and school is a good place to learn it.

thats true, but you need kids who are open to these things, who think new knowledge is relevant to their life.

The best example of what I'm talking about would be my friends from Ontario. Few graduated highschool the first time around (they have since, which is awesome). The most common reason was that it was more relevant for them to work and make money, given they didn't have the financial means to continue education anyways.

I think we are making the same point, ultimately, but I just don't see it as a child's responsibility to motivate themselves to learn. If a child isn't engaged by the educational establishment, it is a fault of the institution, not the child, imho.

Originally posted by inimalist

so, in that light, coming out of a 2nd year course on perception, I understand more about psychophysics than did Fechner or Wundt.

it just doesn't have the same ring though...

That's because we are talking about real subjects

Originally posted by inimalist
I think we are making the same point, ultimately, but I just don't see it as a child's responsibility to motivate themselves to learn. If a child isn't engaged by the educational establishment, it is a fault of the institution, not the child, imho. To an extent, yes, and certainly the younger the child, the more the onus falls on the school (and parents) to motivate that child. But by the time you get to high school, the student is now very much a participant in the shaping of their future. They can understand responsibility and consequence (both short- and long-term). If a student finds academia "boring," it is up to student, teacher and parent (yes, in that order, working closely together), to explore other options (eg, work).

Originally posted by Mindship
To an extent, yes, and certainly the younger the child, the more the onus falls on the school (and parents) to motivate that child. But by the time you get to high school, the student is now very much a participant in the shaping of their future. They can understand responsibility and consequence (both short- and long-term). If a student finds academia "boring," it is up to student, teacher and parent (yes, in that order, working closely together), to explore other options (eg, work).

well, if the system fails to engage them in grade 2, what likelihood is there that the student will be open to it in grade 9?

I do agree, the onus falls on them, but I don't think the solution lies in them "picking themselves up by the bootstraps", but rather refocusing early education on getting students motivated and interested in learning, and showing them how knowing things can be fundamentally practical and worthwhile in and of itself.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's because we are talking about real subjects

less real than quantum physics? gfah!

Originally posted by inimalist
well, if the system fails to engage them in grade 2, what likelihood is there that the student will be open to it in grade 9?Depends on the circumstances, including the personality of the child. I wasn't a great student: I was lazy, always looking for the easy way out. But then, I got older, I matured, I got my act together. On the other hand, I would say that to some extent, the system 'failed' my brother (not deliberately, just in not knowing how to properly handle his ilk), who ended up eventually dropping out, and, well...there's no happy ending here. He also made a lot of poor life choices.

I do agree, the onus falls on them, but I don't think the solution lies in them "picking themselves up by the bootstraps", but rather refocusing early education on getting students motivated and interested in learning, and showing them how knowing things can be fundamentally practical and worthwhile in and of itself. Ah, laddie. Education should indeed be about instilling a love of learning, how learning can be its own reward. But now more than ever, there is this inane, nigh exclusive focus on test scores, and consequently, more and more "teaching to the test." And especially in NYC, where the political leadership is openly hostile to teachers, looking for any excuse to fault them*...'tis a long way to go before education really begins to teach students how to fish.

*At least the public/parents are finally catching on to this. Today in one paper, on page 2, was a terrific article on how the NYC Dept of Ed has been setting schools up for failure (something teachers have known for years now). The public school system is literally under attack by a businessman-dictator in mayoral clothing and his bottom line, legacy-first priorities.

There's a lot going down, and I don't wanna go off on another rant. Here's part of what I posted in another thread a while back...
Originally posted by Mindship
The problem is that the Powers That Be are politicians / businessmen / lawyers who know nothing about what goes on in a classroom; they surround themselves with former educators who've become multi-six-figure-salary yesmen; and they pursue Ivory Tower objectives to compensate for a society high on lip-service about how important education is but low on actual value with regard to money, time, energy and occupational esteem (eg, what would you rather be: a baseball player or a teacher?).

Further, because the "business model" is being pushed (after all, educating a human being is like manufacturing bottles of soda: the product itself has, of course, no input regarding its own outcome), students quickly get the message that if they fail, it's always the teachers' fault, so why bother doing any real work. Consequently, more kids fail and more tests have to be watered down or grades fudged, otherwise the Powers That Be say, "Your school failed--we're shutting you down," so they can make room for charter schools which virtually pick and choose who they're going to educate (avoiding as best they can the special ed / low achiever / behavior problem crowd).

In effect, there is a war on against public education to hide society's shortsightedness and ass-backwards values when it comes to preparing for the future (the long-term consequences are already becoming apparent: witness the rise in remedial classes in colleges). It's a war--it's a con game!--and one of its greatest perpertrators is the Emperor, er, Mayor of NYC, to whom a judge finally said, If you're going to close schools, do it legally and for good reason, not after you've set the system up for failure.

a group of 17 year old boys said that if women wrote religion. the whole human race would be smarter and much more carring, because they said that they feel that thier mothers love them the most..

Oedipal sexists.

In reading many male writings you can see the testosterone flowing. Look at the Bible!

Maybe if a female wrote a religious book, it would have a bit more compassion in it like some of what Jesus taught.

you mean the same type of compassion we see in the writings of Thatcher or Rand?

Didn't read those.

I'm talking about a religious book though.

why would they be any different?

Certain points are made by certain authors concerning certain views on aspects of life and how it should be lived. Concerning a more spiritual view it would encompass points that are more spiritual in nature.

1) why do you think women are more spiritual than men?

2) religious texts are largely written (collected in most cases) by people in a position of authority, thus, if women were to write (collect) these volumes, they would be in a position of authority and would be doing so for largely the same reasons as the men who did. Why would we assume they would act any differently?

1. I'm not saying that women are more spiritual. I'm saying they have less testosterone.

2. Monks were not women.

I'm speaking strictly of the Bible and possibly the Koran.

Originally posted by Mindship
Oedipal sexists.

I agree.. Both my childern come to me for the questions and answers and the "why" in between.

Originally posted by inimalist
see, I was only making arguements here that I had seen others make, so maybe the lesson is "stick to what you know inimalist, or be made a fool"

so, in that light, coming out of a 2nd year course on perception, I understand more about psychophysics than did Fechner or Wundt.

it just doesn't have the same ring though...

Actually, I think your point would have been better made using the second version. That makes perfect sense and no one could functionally argue with that. That second version works, great, because our abilities to observe and measure perception have increased, greatly, since Gustov Fechner's and Wilhelm Wundt's works.

Like I said before, though, your point was not lost on me and it was a good point...I just took a tangential issue with you giving physics students too much credit.



Originally posted by inimalist
no, we can even talk genetically, but I mean more in a behavioural sense. The differences between these men's spatial abilities and what not and women is the same as the difference beween their abilities and that of all other males who don't fall into that category. Them being male, sure, might be a prerequisite of this ability, but being male really has no part in that ability.

Its the all X are Y, not all Y are X thing.

Okay, I see your point. I actually understand/knew that before you clarified, but I did not know that that was what you were trying to say.

Also, can you tell me why the top world chess players are male? Why is that? For me, coming from a medical approach, androgen receptors just don't cut it because this is the brain. It's not as simple as saying "well, he has more of a certain complex of receptors than she does." Contrary to the atrocious colloquial saying the brain is NOT a muscle but it would certainly be much easier if i could explain the chess phenom with specific-tissue receptor frequencies by a function of gender.

Does it really matter if the teller of the lie has female genitalia or male...?

It wouldn't make the falsehood anymore truthful.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, I think your point would have been better made using the second version. That makes perfect sense and no one could functionally argue with that. That second version works, great, because our abilities to observe and measure perception have increased, greatly, since Gustov Fechner's and Wilhelm Wundt's works.

Like I said before, though, your point was not lost on me and it was a good point...I just took a tangential issue with you giving physics students too much credit.





Okay, I see your point. I actually understand/knew that before you clarified, but I did not know that that was what you were trying to say.

Also, can you tell me why the top world chess players are male? Why is that? For me, coming from a medical approach, androgen receptors just don't cut it because this is the brain. It's not as simple as saying "well, he has more of a certain complex of receptors than she does." Contrary to the atrocious colloquial saying the brain is NOT a muscle but it would certainly be much easier if i could explain the chess phenom with specific-tissue receptor frequencies by a function of gender.

Men the selfish ones.

Gautama left his wife and kids to go sit on a hill top. Einstien left his first wife and kids so he could study..Even today MEN leave thier kids ....men are selfish!

Selfish... or selfishly selfless?

both genders are equally full of shite. look at what some women have done with feminism: they turned it from "equality for women" to "women are superior" (again, i said "some" and not all). not even going to get into the double standards that they've created in everything.

hell, if history and social studies mean anything, then women are just as vicious just from another angle. look at Thatcher. look where exactly colonizations started from (european matriarchy). look at Cleopatra.

btw, there've been plenty of religions that had women as leaders or monks (greece, india, persia, mesopotamia) and they didn't change shite. let's stop pretending that women are noble and more spiritually inclined than men are. they're both equally full of shite.

give a man a child on his lap and lets see how well he plays chess.

that's specious reasoning. you can't use biological design to claim inferiority of one gender compared to the other. that's like me saying women shouldn't run a country cuz the average woman can't even do 20 pushups.


wow...talk about grabbing the wrong end of a completely different stick

Originally posted by Deja~vu
1. I'm not saying that women are more spiritual. I'm saying they have less testosterone.

so?

Originally posted by Deja~vu
2. Monks were not women.


well, yes, but monks also had very little part in the writing or collection of religious texts

Originally posted by alltoomany
Men the selfish ones.

nonsense, though your lack of any evidence indicates this as well

Originally posted by alltoomany
give a man a child on his lap and lets see how well he plays chess.

are you implying that a man can't be a father and also be good at chess?

because that IS sexist and discriminatory. modestly offensive too. I work with many male scientists who are commited fathers, though that is of course anecdotal

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, I think your point would have been better made using the second version. That makes perfect sense and no one could functionally argue with that. That second version works, great, because our abilities to observe and measure perception have increased, greatly, since Gustov Fechner's and Wilhelm Wundt's works.

Like I said before, though, your point was not lost on me and it was a good point...I just took a tangential issue with you giving physics students too much credit.

Oh, it works, just "einstein" and "physics" are things even lay people have heard of. JND, detection thresholds and d', not so much.

for some reason the discovery of tri-chromatic vision ranks lower than theorizing about wave particle duality.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, I see your point. I actually understand/knew that before you clarified, but I did not know that that was what you were trying to say.

Also, can you tell me why the top world chess players are male? Why is that? For me, coming from a medical approach, androgen receptors just don't cut it because this is the brain. It's not as simple as saying "well, he has more of a certain complex of receptors than she does." Contrary to the atrocious colloquial saying the brain is NOT a muscle but it would certainly be much easier if i could explain the chess phenom with specific-tissue receptor frequencies by a function of gender.

it wont be a receptor thing at all, or, I guess that might be some type of mechanism or consequence, but just having more of one type of receptor or another isn't going to be the most significant cause. The brain is more about how systems are connected and distributed.

straight up, I don't know, at all. However, I do study attention and other things that are a function of the parietal cortex, so I could speculate. Spatial reasoning skills and things of the like are thought to be governed by the same systems that deal with maths. Chess for sure! It may be that men are better able to utilize this information through greater connectivity between the frontal and parietal lobes, or, somehow information from the spatial systems might be more "salient" to men's decision making processes, or, there just might be a greater amount of cortical area in men's parietal lobes. These aren't mutually exclusive, and actually might all be differnt ways of explaining the same thing, however, I don't think the last option is true (more cortical mass), and the second seems off, given how much variability there is within gender in terms of decision making... My guess is that it has to do with greater connectivity in some type of distributed spatial-frontal network.

Though, again, just to stress, we would probably find just as much difference between these chess playing men and women as we would between them and other men. Even if it is the distributed network thing, it is probably safe to assume that you brain or mine are not wired in such a way.

I'm also not 100% convinced that it is genetic, but I do lean that way.

Originally posted by inimalist
1) why do you think women are more spiritual than men?

2) religious texts are largely written (collected in most cases) by people in a position of authority, thus, if women were to write (collect) these volumes, they would be in a position of authority and would be doing so for largely the same reasons as the men who did. Why would we assume they would act any differently?

You don't think that many religious edicts regarding how women should conduct themselves would be different if women had a direct hand in it? Take Sharia for example: during a trial, a woman's word is worth only half that as a man's. Or during cases of rape, a woman must bring not one, not two, not three, but four witnesses to testify on her behalf, or else she won't have a case, and the rapist will walk.

I'm no scholar or any kind of expert on the matter, but I have a distinct feeling that if women had any hand in the matter, things would be a tad different. (Call it a hunch)

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You don't think that many religious edicts regarding how women should conduct themselves would be different if women had a direct hand in it? Take Sharia for example: during a trial, a woman's word is worth only half that as a man's. Or during cases of rape, a woman must bring not one, not two, not three, but four witnesses to testify on her behalf, or else she won't have a case, and the rapist will walk.

I'm no scholar or any kind of expert on the matter, but I have a distinct feeling that if women had any hand in the matter, things would be a tad different. (Call it a hunch)

maybe...

in the middle east and places like India, women are just as much a part of enforcing the system that oppresses them as men are, rather than passive victims. In fact, what is known as "Muslim feminism" tries to paint the role of women presented in the Quran as good and just, rather than oppressive.

I can't say I disagree, though I think this is different from what the OP was trying to get at (their "men are the selfish ones" statement sort of highlights their bias), women may very well have enshrined their own personal freedom within religion if they wrote the scriptures. However, the roles that women are given through religion, imho, reflect what were social norms at the time, rather than some imposition of new rules onto them, which makes me think we might see something similar to "muslim feminism", but you have a good point.

i think this discussion starts off on the wrong foot in ways because it's assuming that the current five religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism) are the original religions and nothing came before it. these are the five latest religions in the world, prior to which, religions were predominantly matriarchal (in fact, so were the original societies). pagan religions have almost always been matriarchal and mystic cults (even some modern ones) have also had strong matriarchal influences. the result...........same old shite.

Originally posted by BeyondTheGrave
i think this discussion starts off on the wrong foot in ways because it's assuming that the current five religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism) are the original religions and nothing came before it. these are the five latest religions in the world, prior to which, religions were predominantly matriarchal (in fact, so were the original societies). pagan religions have almost always been matriarchal and mystic cults (even some modern ones) have also had strong matriarchal influences. the result...........same old shite.

source? because I'm pretty sure thats not true.

Originally posted by BeyondTheGrave
i think this discussion starts off on the wrong foot in ways because it's assuming that the current five religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism) are the original religions and nothing came before it. these are the five latest religions in the world, prior to which, religions were predominantly matriarchal (in fact, so were the original societies). pagan religions have almost always been matriarchal and mystic cults (even some modern ones) have also had strong matriarchal influences. the result...........same old shite.

That's actually incorrect. Hinduism is the oldest extant religion, with a tradition going back over 7,000 years ago. Hinduism is to the Ancient Egyptian and Greek religions, what cockroaches are to the dinosaurs. It predated them, and unlike them, Hinduism/roaches are still around.

By the way; Sikhism and Shenism (Chinese folk religion) both have more adherents than Judaism.

I remember a statistic from History channel saying how there's less than 15 million Jews today. Almost half of them live in Israel.

all men would still be circumcised imo by religious order or covenant.
i think men in general might be oppressed but a lot of things would be the same as in they being in power would choice to maintain it just as equally as men.

Originally posted by King Castle
all men would still be circumcised imo by religious order or covenant.
i think men in general might be oppressed but a lot of things would be the same as in they being in power would choice to maintain it just as equally as men.

what does circumcision have to do with women in religion?

Originally posted by -Pr-
what does circumcision have to do with women in religion?

Pissed-off Feminazis would gladly perform them...with a rusty knife.

"Thou shalt not even occasionally and drunkenly look at thine bride's friends ass on pain of stoning to death and burning in hell."

"Thou shalt not criticise the reversing technique of your wife in car parks, or talk during her soap operas."

"What belongeth to her is hers, what belongs to you is hers"

"Murder doeth be wrong, except when god tells you its ok to killeth the woman in front of you in the queue, if she has just bought the last pair of shoes that you likethed."

Hehehehee





More seriously though, Abortion issues would probably be way more accepted.

I'll look for sources and post them here, sure, but here's something you guys are missing: hinduism is the oldest KNOWN religion, not the oldest religion. human beings are believed to be around 200,000 years old and almost all religious cave paintings and idols are of females (venus of willendorf etc)

still, yes, the burden of proof is on me so I'll come around and post it soon enough (it's early hours of morning here and haven't had me coffee yet :P )

oops, nvm

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
"Thou shalt not even occasionally and drunkenly look at thine bride's friends ass on pain of stoning to death and burning in hell."

"Thou shalt not criticise the reversing technique of your wife in car parks, or talk during her soap operas."

"What belongeth to her is hers, what belongs to you is hers"

"Murder doeth be wrong, except when god tells you its ok to killeth the woman in front of you in the queue, if she has just bought the last pair of shoes that you likethed."

Hehehehee





More seriously though, Abortion issues would probably be way more

accepted.


You are right! most of the old books written my men were in riddles or flat out fairy tales.

the religious might turn out to be long and boring only difference they add some tween romance, twilight style.

Samson and Delila had some steamy things going, heck they were doing drugs too. Heck a lot of them were doing drugs (Herbs)...Weeee...wild thing....Weeeee

you know the art work of samson would be fabio novel cover.

Yeah it would. LOL. Seemed to easily led by beautiful women though. Didn't help that she drugged him though. If charms fail, just drink this wonder cup..potion Mmmmm yummy!! ..Hehe.

Herbs/drugs were popular back in the OT. I believe even Solomon was on some old day form of ectasy (sp) You can read how it affected him in his earlier Psalms writings. Songs of Solomon.

the first woman and man were conjoined twins that split apart while one(the woman) was giving birth to seven children. There names were Sunday, Monday, tuesday, Wendsday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

We are talking about infinity and beyond, here, right?

Originally posted by alltoomany
the first woman and man were conjoined twins that split apart while one(the woman) was giving birth to seven children. There names were Sunday, Monday, tuesday, Wendsday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

We are talking about infinity and beyond, here, right?


In some parts of Afirca nudity is no big deal.

the bible would have had Lilith being coming a goddess and challenging god after she ate the apple and seduces the serpent and a true paradise would be formed in her image.

it would read like a Greek Myth Story and how women were liberated and conquered like Amazon Warrior Women...

imagine if earth is really Hell ran by men and space is really Heaven ran by women..

Originally posted by alltoomany
imagine if earth is really Hell ran by men and space is really Heaven ran by women..

No, why would I imagine that? It's stupid.

Originally posted by alltoomany
imagine if earth is really Hell ran by men and space is really Heaven ran by women..

Wow

Sounds right to me! That would explain everything. lol

Originally posted by alltoomany
imagine if earth is really Hell ran by men and space is really Heaven ran by women..
http://www.cinemacom.com/50s-sci-fi/queen-of-outer-space.jpg

Originally posted by Mindship
http://www.cinemacom.com/50s-sci-fi/queen-of-outer-space.jpg


There you go Mars is said to be the Gd of WAR

Originally posted by alltoomany
imagine if earth is really Hell ran by men and space is really Heaven ran by women..

do you know who Indira Ghandi was? Maggie Thatcher?

Originally posted by inimalist
do you know who Indira Ghandi was? Maggie Thatcher?

Margaret didnt have not one woman in her council

she wasn't woman enough, herself?

No she wasnt

lol, and you don't see that as clear proof against your gender essentializations?

not yet

so, women are a certain way, unless they are a certain way, and women not being that certain way is not evidence against women being a certain way?

it's seem to me that you feel that way

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Because they have no other choice; they have to. Women bosses who don't act like men quickly find that their employees start to walk all over them. Less than 5% of all CEO's in the US are women, and even women in lower level mangement are still fish out of water.

I've had several women bosses in the past, and they've all told me things along those lines. They basically have to conform to the business world which was made by men, for men. Mr American from the greatest country in the world, go to Sweden, Japan...

In fact, **** it, go anywhere outside US influenced culture and see how business women act there.

I think it's weird how people think women have to act like men to have authority, how many people do what their mother tells them?

Originally posted by alltoomany
it's seem to me that you feel that way

how could I feel that way? I don't believe there are any qualities that women have by default.

I'm saying your point is non-falsifiable. you believe women are a certain way, yet women not being that way isn't evidence against your theory. why is there any reason to debate with you? things that the opposite of what your theory would predict don't even make you consider that you may be wrong.

I'm looking at it from all sides...

no you aren't. You are looking at it from one side.

You accused Thatcher of being too manish ffs. You literally hand waved a perfect example that goes against your point.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Mr American from the greatest country in the world, go to Sweden, Japan...

In fact, **** it, go anywhere outside US influenced culture and see how business women act there.

I think it's weird how people think women have to act like men to have authority, how many people do what their mother tells them?

Before becoming "Mr. American", I was actually born in Mexico, and I've worked in both Mexico and Guatemala. Furthermore, I observed women bosses in both nations; and I can tell you that female authority figures conforming to 'typical male' behaviors isn't only an American phenomenon. Latino countries are notoriously chauvinistic, so they really had to buck it up.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Before becoming "Mr. American", I was actually born in Mexico, and I've worked in both Mexico and Guatemala. Furthermore, I observed women bosses in both nations; and I can tell you that female authority figures conforming to 'typical male' behaviors isn't only an American phenomenon. Latino countries are notoriously chauvinistic, so they really had to buck it up. XYZ likes to exaggerate to make his points. What he really meant to say was, "Go anywhere outside of America, except to the places that don't prove my point". 313

I know, right. Rich white countries like England, Canada or Australia.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I know, right. Rich white countries like England, Canada or Australia.


i
ts the ego of men.

from the lips of a wise woman (not me) what a man fears the most is a wise woman

Darwin could be all wrong ..A new study shows Human beings DNA are more like Dolphins than apes.... the soft spot on top of a new born baby's head that takes a few years to close???

Originally posted by alltoomany
A new study shows Human beings DNA are more like Dolphins than apes....

nope

Originally posted by alltoomany
the soft spot on top of a new born baby's head that takes a few years to close???

the female vagina would otherwise be too small to birth a child, were its head not a little squishy

Most do give birth to large headed new borns thats why a lot of women died doing so. plus the fact that its very painful and both dolphins and humans need a help next to them while giving birth...ape females do it all themselves at night. Dolphins give birth tale first..ANd thier intelligence level is far higher than you could imagine

pelvic floor pain and other Urgo/Gyn problems are very likely to happen to a woman after giving birth to a child thats why nowdays doctors say a c-sec is the way to go. But some of the problems still remain bc more smaller framed and thinner women are found to develop some kind of urgo.gyn problem than a larger heavier woman would...although giving irth under water seems to be not as painfull and I myself have found that any time that I or my son has a tummy ache I run a bath..it just takes away most of the pain, I found....Welcome to the sea of love?

Originally posted by alltoomany
it's a very interesting thought...

There wouldn't be threads like this, spawned from the delusion that it'd be automatically different. How do you know many male dominated religions ain't written by women, or for that matter, that God ain't female?

Categorizing aspects of religion into genders is stupid.

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
or for that matter, that God ain't female? That's woman's talk, my God ain't no chick.

Yes, I am.

Bullshit, you're packin' a python Lord, I just know it.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

you mean if it were written by people who weren't in a position of authority?

because women in positions of authority don't act very different from males

I feel if women had written the laws of faiths..WE as a human race would have died out long ago.

Motherhood sucks

Originally posted by Super Marie 64
There wouldn't be threads like this, spawned from the delusion that it'd be automatically different. How do you know many male dominated religions ain't written by women, or for that matter, that God ain't female?

Categorizing aspects of religion into genders is stupid.

I don't think God has a gender at all.

Though I agree with most of the rest of it there.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think God has a gender at all.

Though I agree with most of the rest of it there.

One of the rules under the 613 is not to sell a beautiful girl

Originally posted by alltoomany
One of the rules under the 613 is not to sell a beautiful girl

...What?

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

Originally posted by alltoomany
http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

Alright. What connecting does that have with my post though?

read it

Originally posted by alltoomany
read it

I did. It's a list of rules for Jewish people or something. What does that have to do with my comment of

"I don't think God has a gender at all.

Though I agree with most of the rest of it there."

I don't see the connection.

Originally posted by alltoomany
from the lips of a wise woman (not me) what a man fears the most is a wise woman

Nah. That quote is just more sexist bullshit.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Nah. That quote is just more sexist bullshit.

Yeah, I agree.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yeah, I agree.


Hey bullshit it is! The more women that go to work full time have less kids

Originally posted by alltoomany
Hey bullshit it is! The more women that go to work full time have less kids

And you think men see women as "kid factories"? And what does that have to do with the quote presented earlier. Men don't fear smart women.

This entire thread is sexist.

Only a non confident man would fear a wise women, but then again he would fear a wise man too.

to other womensave urself heartache dont have children

Originally posted by TacDavey
And you think men see women as "kid factories"? And what does that have to do with the quote presented earlier. Men don't fear smart women.

This entire thread is sexist.
The holly Bible is the BIGGEST is one sided sexist book

Originally posted by alltoomany
The holly Bible is the BIGGEST is one sided sexist book

And that fact somehow makes this thread not sexist?

Things were done differently back then. That doesn't excuse any form of sexism TODAY.

Originally posted by alltoomany
it's a very interesting thought...

Mangina

Originally posted by TacDavey
And that fact somehow makes this thread not sexist?

Things were done differently back then. That doesn't excuse any form of sexism TODAY.

Then why do people still believe in it?

Originally posted by alltoomany
Then why do people still believe in it?

Because whether the Bible is sexist or not has absolutely no bearing on whether it's true or false.

Originally posted by alltoomany
Then why do people still believe in it?

Aren't most of the people here agnostic? You're talking to the wrong people hun.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Aren't most of the people here agnostic? You're talking to the wrong people hun.


Like the Slaves of Thee old USA, women were.

Originally posted by alltoomany
Like the Slaves of Thee old USA, women were.

Let's not compare women lifestyle to a slaves lifestyle. It degrades what ACTUAL slaves went through.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Let's not compare women lifestyle to a slaves lifestyle. It degrades what ACTUAL slaves went through.

get it right! Black men got the rght to vote before women did in the usa. I know t's a touchy subject but the fact is that women were the first slaves of people on the earth

Originally posted by alltoomany
get it right! Black men got the rght to vote before women did in the usa. I know t's a touchy subject but the fact is that women were the first slaves of people on the earth And you've been getting us back for it ever since.

Originally posted by alltoomany
get it right! Black men got the rght to vote before women did in the usa. I know t's a touchy subject but the fact is that women were the first slaves of people on the earth

That does not make women slaves. I don't remember women being forced to work fields. Torn from their families. Beaten and abused if they disobeyed. Given table scraps to eat. Auctioned off like someones pet.

The only women you are allowed to compare to slaves are the African American women that actually were. It's more than a touchy subject. It's selfish, and despicable that you consider woman's problems on the same level as that of slaves.

I might also point out, that while sexism does still exist today, to some degree, the majority of men agree that it is wrong. You can't fight sexism with sexism. You want to rid the country of sexists? Stop being one yourself.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That does not make women slaves. I don't remember women being forced to work fields. Torn from their families. Beaten and abused if they disobeyed. Given table scraps to eat. Auctioned off like someones pet.

The only women you are allowed to compare to slaves are the African American women that actually were. It's more than a touchy subject. It's selfish, and despicable that you consider woman's problems on the same level as that of slaves.

I might also point out, that while sexism does still exist today, to some degree, the majority of men agree that it is wrong. You can't fight sexism with sexism. You want to rid the country of sexists? Stop being one yourself.

what do you think the VINKINGS did?

Originally posted by alltoomany
what do you think the VINKINGS did?

What makes you think that's relevant?

Eve was put to sleep and Goddess took one of Eve's ribs and made Adam.


The savior our Lordess Jessable Christ the daughter of our all mighty Goddess.



Our mother in heaven hollowed be thy name thy Kingdom come.

Originally posted by TacDavey
What makes you think that's relevant?
They DID take GIRLS (FROM THE NORTH) from their families. Beaten and abused if they disobeyed. Given table scraps to eat. Auctioned off like someones pet.

Originally posted by StarCraft2
Eve was put to sleep and Goddess took one of Eve's ribs and made Adam.


The savior our Lordess Jessable Christ the daughter of our all mighty Goddess.



Our mother in heaven hollowed be thy name thy Kingdom come.

EVE WAS THE 2ND WOMAN...MAYBE ADAM WAS BOTH DOWN BELOW?

Originally posted by alltoomany
They DID take GIRLS (FROM THE NORTH) from their families. Beaten and abused if they disobeyed. Given table scraps to eat. Auctioned off like someones pet.

Yeah... Vikings did that, sure. So what connection does that have with early American women? That's who we're talking about here.

Originally posted by alltoomany
EVE WAS THE 2ND WOMAN...MAYBE ADAM WAS BOTH DOWN BELOW? That's a new take on it.

Lilith thee first female considered herself equal to Adam, maybe in every way too. She left him and returned to the Sea without her kids. she left them with Adam.. She was the smart one!

Maybe both Adam and Lilith could have given birth but Adam looked manly and Lilith womanly...

The Monsters...Lilith and Herman

Originally posted by StarCraft2
Eve was put to sleep and Goddess took one of Eve's ribs and made Adam.


The savior our Lordess Jessable Christ the daughter of our all mighty Goddess.



Our mother in heaven hollowed be thy name thy Kingdom come.

Eve could have been One of Adam's child

What religion are you talking about?

Originally posted by TacDavey
What religion are you talking about?

It's a philosophy thought...about the rib

Well incest is common in the Bible.