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
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Saludos,
Miguelinito mailto:miguelinito@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap