[Gendergap] The Book of Genesis

Sun Feb 13 15:46:09 UTC 2011

What sort of "forum" exactly?

On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Miguelinito <miguelinito at gmail.com> wrote:

>  (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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Gendergap mailing list
> >> Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Gendergap mailing list
> >> Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >>
> >>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gendergap mailing list
> > Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
>
> --
> Saludos,
>  Miguelinito                            mailto:miguelinito at gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
>
> *--
> Saludos,
>  Miguelinito                            mailto:miguelinito at gmail.com<miguelinito at gmail.com>
> *
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110213/a9d9e226/attachment-0001.htm 