[Gendergap] The Book of Genesis

Sun Feb 13 15:58:55 UTC 2011

A Dutch insurance for alternative version of the Genesis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3yUr0ah370 

--- On Sun, 2/13/11, Miguelinito <miguelinito at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Miguelinito <miguelinito at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] The Book of Genesis
To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" <gendergap at 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 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 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
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/d62b750f/attachment.htm 