A Dutch insurance for alternative version of the
Genesis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3yUr0ah370
--- On Sun, 2/13/11, Miguelinito <miguelinito(a)gmail.com> wrote:
From: Miguelinito <miguelinito(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] The Book of Genesis
To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects"
<gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Sunday, February 13, 2011, 7:42 AM
Re: [Gendergap] The Book of Genesis
(A correction in my former post: unless = although, that's
the problem of trying to think in English when you speak Spanish :)).
With all respect, I'm atheist, and my best friends are gay,
I suppose there's no problem with that. I didn't say that *all* the
people in Wikipedia are "gay atheist Jews", what I said is
that a lot of women who don't edit Wikipedia (and also don't
participate in men's roles) are bound to a classic cliché,
which is in turn highly related to the catholic beliefs
brought by the first European colonists. Anyway, I admit that the
problem is probably not only due to the catholic religion, since
the first indigenous women in North America were, as far as
I know, in the same situation.
So, maybe, it's just human nature: men liked power and were
more aggressive and physically stronger than women, so in the
beginning they just used to take women by their hair and drag
them into the cave (it's just a way to express the idea, I don't
even know if these stereotypical image is true), and nowadays
we have a refined version of the same thing: men created a
system which, at first glance, gives the same opportunities
for men and women, but, when scrutinized, reveals subtle
obstacles which, all together, compound a big obstacle for
women to succeed. The best solution, in that case, would
be to completely destroy the system and construct a new one
taking into account men's and women's needs, although that
seems to be -by now- an utopia. Women who get by themselves
an active role in today's society are just reinforcing a system with
the shape of men's mentality's. In other words, they're fighting
against men with men's weapons. Is that really what we want?
In my opinion, women should create their own roles, some of
them would probably be the same as men's, but some not.
Women can break men's rules, can't they? So, after all,
maybe it's not so crazy as I first thought the idea of improving
articles about friendship bracelets and "Sex and the City". And maybe
things would be better if, instead of trying to make things easier
for renowned users (with reputation systems and the like), we
tried to focus on the real problem: ego. Ego (low self-esteem)
is the main problem in today's society, and, in my opinion,
the origin of evil in the world.
And that leads me to this proposal: what do you think about
creating a forum in Wikipedia? I'll post this in my next thread.
Best regards,
Miguel Ángel
So you think the problem with the participation of women is that a lot of our readers are
bible-thumpers, and by getting lots of women (specifically Catholic women) involved,
we'll destroy the misogynistic parts of faith? Ignoring that as it happens, raw belief
is in our nature, and that the vast majority of Americans, bible-thumper or no
are not Catholic, you seem to be misunderstanding our community somewhat. You know
Conservapedia exists because apparently we're all gay atheist Jews, right? :p Trust
me, Misogyny from leftover religious teachings is not going to be a big problem for a
large chunk of us. Most of us are atheists, agnostics, or the harmless kind of religious
person.
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Miguelinito <miguelinito(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What I wanted point out is that one of the causes of the gender gap,
specifically in the United States, is that there is a lot of people
who read the Bible. The Bible is, obviously, sexist, and in fact makes
women in general be submissive. While ideas are separated, they
survive unless they are wrong (that's why Conservapedia was born).
What I propose is to promote catholic women participation, so they
can share their ideas too. Once all ideas are together (catholic and
scientific), the thruth goes without saying, as believing is not in
our human nature, but reasoning. That's my opinion.
P.S: I don't drop my jaw about the gender gap in the US when I see
that women automatically get their surname *replaced* by the married
name.
Sorry for not being expressive enough.
Miguel Ángel
Um, this thread seems rather off-topic of our specific
purpose here...
Thanks,
Pharos
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> I don't, as a rule, top post. But in this
case, since it is a response to
> both of these messages, it seemed appropriate,
>
> There was a time, many, many, many years ago;
before there was any defined
> structured social or political group; there was a
female, a male, and their
> offspring. And the female was, in fact, the center
of this grouping. She
> gave life, kept the "home" and nurtured
the offspring on a daily basis.
> While the male, on the other hand was gone most of
the time hunting and
> gathering. As these individual "family
groups" began gathering into tribes,
> then groups of tribes into villages etc., etc. to
today, these groups soon
> required some sort of "leadership". That
was when the man said to the woman,
> "You stay at home, honey, and tend to the
hearth, and I'll tend to the
> business outside, as I have always done".
That was when the most insidious
> transfer of importance and power in the history of
humankind took place.
> Pity. Men began making and enforcing the rules,
starting and fighting the
> wars, writing the books deciding, and defining,
what deities we must
> worship, and generally making a worldwide nuisance
of himself.
>
> Progress?
>
> Marc Riddell
>
>
> on 2/12/11 5:47 AM, Oliver Keyes
at scire.facias(a)gmail.com wrote:
>
> I'm going to go with "because it's a
translation of a translation of a
> translation of a translation of a [positively
recurse 50 times] of a
> translation of a book written by humans, who are
fallible, specifically male
> humans, in a period where gender equality was
occasionally allowing your
> wife to talk, oh, and there's absolutely no
evidence the subject of said
> book existed in the first place".
>
> Satan crops up twice in the bible. In the mean
time, Jezebel, Delilah, Eve
> and almost every other female character who
isn't meek and mild as milk is
> depicted as being single-handedly responsible for
the fall of humanity, the
> betrayal of Sampson, David's inability to keep
his man-parts in his
> underwear, and everything else that goes wrong
with the world. It's no
> surprise equality has taken so long to even appear
on the horizon when
> people are treating guff like this as an
infallible or immutable document.
>
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Miguelinito
<miguelinito(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Abraham and Sarah were already very old, and Sarah
was past the age of
> childbearing. So Sarah laughed to herself as she
thought, ³After I am worn
> out and my lord is old, will I now have this
pleasure?²
>
> Then the LORD said to Abraham, ³Why did Sarah
laugh and say, ŒWill I really
> have a child, now that I am old?¹ Is anything too
hard for the LORD? I will
> return to you at the appointed time next year, and
Sarah will have a son.²
>
> Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, ³I did not
laugh.²
>
> But he said, ³Yes, you did laugh.²
>
> There's a couple of questions here:
>
> 1) Why Almighty God chose to be a man?
>
> 2) Why did Almighty God get angry with the
laughter of a simple female
> mortal? Would he have gotten angry if she, just
for *ignorance*, wouldn't
> have even made herself that question?
>
> For all of you who read the Bible, this could be a
nice topic for
> reflection. :)
>
> Regards
>
> Miguel Ángel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
--
Saludos,
Miguelinito mailto:miguelinito@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Saludos,
Miguelinito mailto:miguelinito@gmail.com
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap