Adam's Rib: The weaker sex?

Black Swan

What's the old biblical notion that God created woman from one of Adam's ribs to be his "help mate?"

"Then God creates the animals, attempting to find a help-mate for the man; but none of the animals are satisfactory, and so God causes the man to sleep, and creates a woman from his rib. The man names her "Woman" (Heb. ishshah), "for this one was taken from a man" (Heb. ish)"...Genesis 2

Well, sometimes I really have a difficult time placing myself in the subordinate role that this statement implies, and it would seem that our Western culture has incorporated it into the role of being female (whether you believe in religion or not). Except for me, I was in an all male uni study group the other day at a coffee shop, and one of the lads (jokingly) asked if I would get the coffee for them.

This subordinate role has been cast in an old song too, with "Stand by your Man," that I heard the other day when drinking too much at a country western bar, where, when I got up to dance with a lad, as expected I let him take the "lead."

"Gosh darn!" to use a recent frustrated Sarah Palin* expression, sometimes I want to lead! Other times I want to be equal! Other times, I want to be helpful and let him take the lead. But I don't want it always to be expected that my role as female is subordinate just because he is a male and is accustomed to it, cause "Them thar are fight'in words!"

How do you feel about this? What role (or roles) is (or are) most comfortable for you when with a man?

Those men who visit this LL forum, you are welcome to comment, too, about the roles you expect from your girlfriends or wives.**

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve

*I'm not a Sarah Palin fan, just using the expression.
**May they never meet!

LolaDub

I wouldn't believe that the bible was written to place women in a subordinate role. The bible was written by men, not by God, and it was written in a time where women were subordinate. I think it is generally accepted when the bible states all men were created equal, that the term men was used to imply all people.

I think in this day and age, the definitions of womans roles and mens roles are very blurred and changing all the time. Its more a case of what do you want to do rather than what are you expected to do.

Nevyn

I am not a decendant of Issac or Ishmeal or a convert to those religions or those which sprung from them so I do not hold with those ideas as portrayed and postulated by those who would use the story of adam and eve to make less of women.

Did you know that there is a verison which says Adam had 3 wives ?

The first JVH created in front of Adam and he was so shocked and appaled he fainted and then killed her as he was so horrifed, she is the un named wife.

The second JVH put Adam asleep while she created her and she was named by JVH as Lilth. Lilth considered herself to be Adams equal as she had been made and named by JVH but Adam disputed this saying he had been given domainion over all the 'animals'.
Adam learned about sex from watching the animals and when Lilth wanted to be atop of him during sex he refused and he called on JVH to make her and she was told to submit or leave the garden of Eden. So Lilth leaves and goes out into the world, some stories have her seducing angels to beget children, other have her coupling with demons, other's have stealing children.

And then there was Eve, JVH put Adam asleep and made a woman for him out of himself so that he would never be compelte with out her, took a rib from close to his heart so that he may love her and hold her close under his arm to protect her and JVH let Adam name her so that Adam had dominion over her.

If pushed by those who believe such things I tell them I am a daughter of Lilth.

Sherifu

Burn your bras!

monkeyfudge

Sherifu wrote: »

Burn your bras!

Fig leaves!

g'em

Sherifu wrote: »

Burn your bras!

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Fig leaves!

There are plenty of light-hearted threads on the forum to act the eejit in. Confine these comments to them please.

asdasd

Seemingly the conversation went something like this:

Adam: I want a companion, beautiful, kind, caring, sexual and always in a good mood.
God: that will cost you an arm and a leg.
Adam: haha
God. No seriously. i need those body parts to make something that good.

Adam thinks.....

Adam: What could I get for a rib?

Mr. Incognito

Is this theology?

The bible is a book. A very poorly written piece of fiction.

Women have historically been cast in a certain role. One may argue that it is "weaker", but women were the core unit of any family for aeons, Along with womens movement into the workforce in the 60's came the rise of social problems created by kids who have both parents working and lack a stable home environment.

It's all how you look at it. Women are better carer's than men, they have emotional tools we do not instinctively have. Men are better and are genetically programmed to be protective and "the provider".

I'm all for womens rights but women should have the right to not join the rat race too you know.

Wibbs

TBH in a lot of my relationships I've had to take the lead in most things. They've simply gone smoother when I have, way more than when I didnt. It depends on what you define as the lead too. I liken it to two people in a car. One person may hold the map and give directions, a discussion follows and the other person who has the wheel makes the turns. I have found that it's better if I have the wheel so to speak. It just works better. I also look around and see other couples over the years and a lot of women are unhappy in relationships and a lot of the time it's because they are doing the map reading and the driving. I would say regardless that women prefer a man who is control of himself and doesn't always say yes. They may say different, but in general that's the case in my humble anyway.

As far as abilities go; I personally feel women are on average ahead of men on emotional intelligence, capability and intellect. On average. I do think that there are more highly gifted men than women though. At the extremes of both ends of the scale, so there are more idiots men wise too.

Puddleduck

Thaedydal is that in the Bible or some other scripture? I had heard of lilith but didnt know their was supposed to be a first unnamed woman.

Tbh I think its total ridiculous that women be viewed as the weaker sex, countless times over history there has been women in history that were powerful and werent dominated by man.

The church does have a lot to answer for I think when it comes to womans 'place' in society. If the church hadnt spouted such drivel like women being whores or leading the faithful astray there wouldnt be this idea that women are weaker or evil.

Puddleduck

Wibbs wrote: »

a lot of women are unhappy in relationships and a lot of the time it's because they are doing the map reading and the driving. I would say regardless that women prefer a man who is control of himself and doesn't always say yes. They may say different, but in general that's the case in my humble anyway.

As far as abilities go; I personally feel women are on average ahead of men on emotional intelligence, capability and intellect. On average. I do think that there are more highly gifted men than women though. At the extremes of both ends of the scale, so there are more idiots men wise too.

I would agree with you their Wibbs, I wouldnt want a man to constantly say yes to me in a realationship, but I think thats more about being equal and both having a say in what goes on. I think each should be responsible for themselves in a realationship and not wait around for somebody to grab the reins, if it needs doing, do it.

But you could argue that there is less gifted women because its only recently that women have been given the chance to match men in careers or sports or whatever. It takes time.

asdasd

If the church hadnt spouted such drivel like women being whores or leading the faithful astray there wouldnt be this idea that women are weaker or evil.

So places without the Church must be Matriarchial, right?

Puddleduck

asdasd wrote: »

So places without the Church must be Matriarchial, right?

There is Matriarical religions too, and before the church, yes women did have a more equal role in society.

asdasd

There is Matriarical religions too, and before the church, yes women did have a more equal role in society.

So China, Japan etc? Hows that going for them?

The more equal role is mostly nonsense. Ancient Greece? Not even citizens. Rome was a bit better.

Puddleduck

asdasd wrote: »

So China, Japan etc? Hows that going for them?

The more equal role is mostly nonsense. Ancient Greece? Not even citizens. Rome was a bit better.

Well Im pretty sure there was women in powerful roles in japan and china. There was a woman general, female ninjas, Geishas etc yes women were still considered the weaker sex but I dont think it was half as bad as before the church came along. Didnt the greeks have female goddesses? Or am I thinking of something else?

Wibbs

Puddleduck wrote: »

I would agree with you their Wibbs, I wouldnt want a man to constantly say yes to me in a realationship, but I think thats more about being equal and both having a say in what goes on. I think each should be responsible for themselves in a realationship and not wait around for somebody to grab the reins, if it needs doing, do it.

TBH I worry far more that there is more and more the spread of wussified, emotionally and socially retarded quasi men these days. Women I don't worry about by comparison.

But you could argue that there is less gifted women because its only recently that women have been given the chance to match men in careers or sports or whatever. It takes time.

I'm not so sure. I suspect even with time, women may take over many areas that before they were excluded from, but I still reckon that those areas will have more men at the top. On merit too. IQ tests though vague enough seem to reflect that. Women on average score better than men and there are more men who are geniuses and sub normal.

There is Matriarical religions too, and before the church, yes women did have a more equal role in society.

They may have but they were very defined roles. In early societies women and men shared in most things, but they had very defined roles. I would contend, that while choice for all mostly appears to be a good thing, I personally feel that in general your average person is more content with set roles. Studies have often found that the sharper the gender roles in societies, the happier the majority of people are in those societies.

asdasd

PuddleDuck. you know too little to argue with.

The church had female leaders, head nuns were quite powerful, and Western Europe has had female leaders - i.e. Queens. Not so Japan, nor China etc. The church never "came along" to these places either - they had parallel systems for centuries.

The Greeks had female goddesses, but the church has Mary ( and female saints). The mariolatry of Catholicism os often criticised.

Anyway. Stupid debate.

Puddleduck

I think the set roles thing is just more of people being set in their ways and people in general dont like change. Its recently that women have said to themselves hang on a sec, why cant I do that? As long as women keep pushing for equal rights I think it will become more and more normal for man and woman to have equal roles and this notion of a weaker sex will die out.

We could just have emotionally retarded Irish men..could be down to The Irish Mammy.

Nevyn

Puddleduck wrote: »

Thaedydal is that in the Bible or some other scripture? I had heard of lilith but didnt know their was supposed to be a first unnamed woman.

It's one of the Judaic myths or stories.
'The bible' has be re edited and re translated in to what somewhere between 7 and 9 different languages and then the niceen counsel did away with over 2/3 of it.

I do think equal rights and equal opportunities based on ability rather then gender is a good thing but pure equality it a myth. Every one has different skills and aptitudes and there are thankfully significant differences between men and women.

I do think that if two people are in a relationship they should be working equal at it and share the tasks, burdens and joys. As Wibbs put it someone people are better at driving others are better at reading maps and giving directions as long as it's seen and held to be of equal value and the other person is respected for their role that is what matters imho.

I do think that children should have a parent who they come home to but there are those who are stay at home parents who invent a rat race all of their own that can be harder to opt out of.

Yes the story of Adam and Eve was used for years to 'keep' women in their place and it's one of the many things which we are breaking free of culturally. If a woman with her partner chooses to be the stay at home parent ( which is long hours, no penison, no office party, no bonus ) then that is different from being told that is her place and to having to give up her job.

Puddleduck

asdasd wrote: »

PuddleDuck. you know too little to argue with.

The church had female leaders, head nuns were quite powerful, and Western Europe has had female leaders - i.e. Queens. Not so Japan, nor China etc. The church never "came along" to these places either - they had parallel systems for centuries.

The Greeks had female goddesses, but the church has Mary ( and female saints). The mariolatry of Catholicism os often criticised.

Anyway. Stupid debate.

Im not 100 percent on everything, however that doesnt make my arguement stupid. The female figures in churches were often copied or throw backs to the religion of the region beforehand. It made conversion of the people a hell of a lot easier. Their was only ever Queens if their wasnt a King around first AFAIK

Wibbs

Puddleduck wrote: »

I think the set roles thing is just more of people being set in their ways and people in general dont like change. Its recently that women have said to themselves hang on a sec, why cant I do that? As long as women keep pushing for equal rights I think it will become more and more normal for man and woman to have equal roles and this notion of a weaker sex will die out.

I'm not so sure. Maybe you have more faith in humanity than I do:) I just think your average person likes to think they have more of a say than they do. Check out the feedback forum hereabouts:D

Occasionally they may rant and rave to get it off their chest, but in general they like to be told what to do by others. There are far more sheep than lions. Both men and women. As a social animal we like to fit in which also adds to it. You look at the "alternative" types that every generation throws up. "We're so different". Eh no. You're not. You look act and talk exactly the same as every other "different" person you identify with.

I think the gender thing will likely run along the same lines. There will be some move either way. Both sides will rant about what they want, but will do sod all about it(actually if they got what they wanted they would freak). You could even argue that feminism as it stands has given women as many headaches as advantages.

Same old same old with some drifting thrown in..

We could just have emotionally retarded Irish men..could be down to The Irish Mammy.

I agree. Men raised solely by women is a bad plan in general. Or if daddy is a weak man. Or being bombarded with images of weak men or overly macho idiots. Not good. In any case Italian men are much worse.

WindSock

It's so hard to think back to when Women were respected equals in societies. The subjugation of women has been going on for millenia, and it's only in the last century things started happening for us, yet there are so many of those that think we should get over it and that somehow it can only take one generation to right all the wrongs. Thats just in western society too. Don't even mention rest of the planet...

Elle Victorine

I'm not comfortable being "subordinate" as you put it...sounds like being a pushover. But I have no problem sharing a load. I don't like wearing the pants in the relationship as I have in the past. I like an equal thing subordinate to each.

I'm not "told" to do anything really. And if not comfortable with it one is told to head off...vice versa.


All western people weren't always like that towards women though.

Reku

I think the simple fact that god was trying to get Adam to go out and fornicate with the animals says enough about that story for us to realise not to place too much credance in it. As Thaedydal has said the bible has been severely editted/censored down through the ages and stories that didn't fit with the ethos of the catholic church dropped, so you've a book written in a time when men and women only really mingled at festivals or in the home and was written mostly by men, and so will suffer some degree of misogyny, which has then been re-editted over and over by a highly misogynistic organisation.

As for the Greek gods, keep in mind that while there were godesses, they were fewer and usually kept to things that were viewed as feminine, and more significantly the most powerful of the gods was Zeus, a male. Let's not even get into the behaviour they attributed to him and seemed to consider acceptable.:rolleyes:

As long as I didn't have drastically differing standards, regarding something, than a partner did I see no reason for roles, or rather no reason that we can't live separate lives so that we better appreciate the time we have together as a couple, rather than arguing over who should do what.

Star Lord

I treat every person as equals, unless they prove themselves to be unworthy of decent treatment, be that man or woman!

In a relationship, I like doing things 50/50, doesn't always work out that way, but when things just work, it usually ends up balancing out one way or the other

Good topic B!ue

Galvasean

If you actually read some of the crap that is in the Bible I doubt you'd care about what it says women should/shouldn't do.

WindSock

WindSock wrote: »

It's so hard to think back to when Women were respected equals in societies. The subjugation of women has been going on for millenia, and it's only in the last century things started happening for us.

yeah when all the hard work is done :rolleyes:

monkeyfudge

Mark Twain did an excellent take on the myth of Adam and Eve.

It's called Eve's Diary and it's well worth a read if you haven't done so already.

The full text of the book is available on Project Gutenberg

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8525

If you don't feel like reading there was an excellent claymation adaption of the story done in the 80s which you should be able to find on YouTube.

Dragan

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Those men who visit this LL forum, you are welcome to comment, too, about the roles you expect from your girlfriends or wives.**

Personally i don't really "expect" anything from my girlfriend. I know she cares for me and treats me right as i do her.

The only thing i want from her is to do what she enjoys doing and to be happy.

WindSock

Deleted User wrote: »

yeah when all the hard work is done :rolleyes:

Not sure what you mean there by that...

F.A.

Things in my relationship are very much even when it comes to rights and duties. I wouldn't have it any other way as I don't buy into submissive relationships. It's give and take. Yeah, I do the washing, but he cleans the toilets. I think I got the better part there! As for leading, we both have made compromises and will continue to do so. It's inevitable in our case anyway since we have different cultural backgrounds and need to have a common ground.

As for this whole discussion about weaker sex - what exactly is this based on? Physicality? Personality? Tradition? Makes no sense to me:

So what if women are physically weaker? I'd hazard a guess that your average scientist/politician/teacher/doctor is physically weaker than your average boxer/bodybuilder/miner/soldier, but I don't think the former are therefore obliged or expected to submit to the latter. Please note I am not implying that the average woman is a scientist/politician/teacher/doctor while men are part of the latter group. I am only trying to illustrate that physical weakness is utterly irrelevant in the discussion of equality, so this whole Adam's rib business is a lot of rubbish. We're not animals where the strongest has to rule and everyone else is submissive.

As for characteristics, well, I think the range of stereotypes for men and women is so wide that almost all of us are bound to fulfil one or the other cliche. My bf is so damn good with maps that he can draw a map of the world off the top of his head. My geographical aptitude sucks in comparison. I've always been very good with languages, he only speaks English and a tiny bit of Irish. On the other hand, I have a thing for maths and logic in a way that he simply doesn't, while he is much much better with children than I'm afraid I'll ever be. I can only presume that things are just as blurred for other people, so I again fail to see the relevance when it comes to equal rights.

I wonder what things would be like if humans had evolved differently and women, instead of having periods, laid an egg every month. Cue grossed out looks, I know! But seriously, if women were not pregnant but men and women would both look after the unborn and newly born like many birds do, I wonder what excuse employers would use to pay women less for the same work... (I say this because the usual excuse I hear for this unfair treatment is that women in general miss time at work because of pregnancy and children.) Also, it is a myth to claim that women have always stayed at home with the children while the men brought home the money. That only really became relevant with the rise of the middle class and the introduction of social welfare. Working class families of the past could not usually afford the woman staying at home. Hell, many of them couldn't even afford their children staying at home instead of working!

No, I think the root of it is somewhere else. One of you male moderators - sorry, can't quite remember who of you!! (Wibbs?) - recently posted his theory that many men don't actually like women. I was gobsmacked when I read it, because it really rings true. And if it's true, it would go a long way to explain why men like to think of themselves as superiour. Being generally physically stronger made it easy enough for them to act upon these feelings, building up their own little circles, which ultimately resulted in the exclusion of women from education and thus positions in society that depend on education. Since education is no longer the issue, the challenge now lies in overcoming the cliches born out of these historic conditions, i.e., realise and deal with the fact that there is no objective reason for men or women to have different rights to the other.

What a long rant! I'm obviously speculating here, mind. I have no sources to back my theories up, and I am not even sure they'll make sense to you! My two cent, anyway.

Dragan

F.A. wrote: »

As for this whole discussion about weaker sex - what exactly is this based on? Physicality? Personality? Tradition? Makes no sense to me:

Personally i prefer the term the "fairer sex", not sure why. Maybe because girls are hot and boys are icky.

Anways, interesting post!!

Wibbs

F.A. wrote: »

No, I think the root of it is somewhere else. One of you male moderators - sorry, can't quite remember who of you!! (Wibbs?) - recently posted his theory that many men don't actually like women. I was gobsmacked when I read it, because it really rings true. And if it's true, it would go a long way to explain why men like to think of themselves as superiour. Being generally physically stronger made it easy enough for them to act upon these feelings, building up their own little circles, which ultimately resulted in the exclusion of women from education and thus positions in society that depend on education. Since education is no longer the issue, the challenge now lies in overcoming the cliches born out of these historic conditions, i.e., realise and deal with the fact that there is no objective reason for men or women to have different rights to the other.

Good post and yep that was me. I would say that a hell of a lot of men dont actually like women. They're sexually attracted to them sure and out of that they may fall in love etc which lasts for a while, but actually like women as people? I can honestly(and sadly) say hand on heart I can think of maybe 4 men I know that do. It would be no coincidence that they're the ones who are most well balanced men I know too.

asdasd

'The bible' has be re edited and re translated in to what somewhere between 7 and 9 different languages and then the niceen counsel did away with over 2/3 of it.

The old testement has not been edited much, if at all. The Christian version and Hebrew bible are the same.

asdasd

Good post and yep that was me. I would say that a hell of a lot of men dont actually like women. They're sexually attracted to them sure and out of that they may fall in love etc which lasts for a while, but actually like women as people? I can honestly(and sadly) say hand on heart I can think of maybe 4 men I know that do. It would be no coincidence that they're the ones who are most well balanced men I know too.

Do women even like women?

Wibbs

Of course, yes, in the same way men like men who are friends.

I would add that a fair few men appear to like women, but it's because they put them on a pedestal. They're in awe of them more than anything because they think they have a part to play in their happiness. It's hard to like someone you're in awe of. All women know the simpering male type that "loves" women, but you know he's got ulterior motives.

Dragan

Wibbs wrote: »

Good post and yep that was me. I would say that a hell of a lot of men dont actually like women. They're sexually attracted to them sure and out of that they may fall in love etc which lasts for a while, but actually like women as people? I can honestly(and sadly) say hand on heart I can think of maybe 4 men I know that do. It would be no coincidence that they're the ones who are most well balanced men I know too.

I would agree in a sense. But i would say the same stands for women, many of them don't actually LIKE men, so much as be driven in the same way that men are, which is normally bottom line base instincts with a confused jumble of high thought processes and learnings.

I think often times people enter into relationships with preconceived sense of self. They feel they know who they are and often misinterpret the natural change that spending a large degree of time with someone you have a sexual/intellectual/emotional interest and connection with as being something bad, rather than stopping and analysising why it was happening and possibly seeing that it is for the good.

Nobody likes anything that challenges who they feel they are.

asdasd

Of course, yes, in the same way men like men who are friends.

Women tend to have friendships which are a mile wide and an inch deep. And they tend to be not very long lasting. one of the differences between the sexes is that much social involvement outside the family and home is male dominated, from work, to sports fans, to poltical parties, to many social type activites. Some of these are becoming more mixed but the social system of fraternalization was male first, and when it is female first ( if you can think of any), no male would want to join.

In short men get on better with men, then women with women. There are very few men of my acquaintance who worry about their women going out with the ladies too often, or goin away for weekends with the girls ( and when women do do that, it seems a reponse to the original male stag etc.) . In fact we would wish more of it.

If female friendship and triba herding was a strong as male friendships then we all go about our seperate ways every second weekend without caterwalling about the shagging relationship, and other topics of no interest to us when united are playing.

Dragan

asdasd wrote: »

In short men get on better with men, then women with women. There are very few men of my acquaintance who worry about their women going out with the ladies too often, or goin away for weekends with the girls ( and when women do do that, it seems a reponse to the original male stag etc.) . In fact we would wish more of it.

If female friendship and triba herding was a strong as male friendships then we all go about our seperate ways every second weekend without caterwalling about the shagging relationship, and other topics of no interest to us when united are playing.

I would think that this section of the post goes somewhat in line with Wibbs saying how men don't actually like women.

Wibbs

Dragan wrote: »

I would agree in a sense. But i would say the same stands for women, many of them don't actually LIKE men, so much as be driven in the same way that men are, which is normally bottom line base instincts with a confused jumble of high thought processes and learnings.

Very good point. Indeed I would go so far as to say that women cover up their baser instincts even more than men and tend to over romanticise them. You don't hear men use terms as "spark" "the one" or any of that. Loosely translated as "I wanna bone him" of course.

I would also agree that many women don't like men, but IMHO there are less of them and for different reasons. I think many don't like men, because they don't actually know many men, especially men who dont harbour lustful thoughts. So they're on guard more. Maybe with some men it's a control thing. They like being in control and because they want something from women but have no control over it they get twitchy. I dunno tbh.

I will say I really value my women mates and they're the reason I like women in general(some are batshít though, like blokes). It's always good to get a different take on things. They're damn good for that and I'm handy for them too. They're also much better at letting you rant and rave and actually listen. they don't jump in halfway trying to fix things either(as many women will recognise with blokes:D).

Wibbs

asdasd wrote: »

In short men get on better with men, then women with women. There are very few men of my acquaintance who worry about their women going out with the ladies too often, or goin away for weekends with the girls ( and when women do do that, it seems a reponse to the original male stag etc.) . In fact we would wish more of it.

TBH I've had as much if not more fun on a night with a bunch o lassies(no nookie involved either). Great craic, especially if they know there's no other motive and you become another person who happens to have no boobs. It's great fun I must say. Getting ratted on vino while having a good oul rant session at the world and his wife(and husband). I find the conversation subjects more varied in general than average "bloke" nights. Luckily my male mates aren't that blokey although some blokey stuff crops up. My idea of hell would be a session where footy was the only subject.

asdasd

would think that this section of the post goes somewhat in line with Wibbs saying how men don't actually like women.

I am not disagreeing. I expected that men were expected to throw themselves on the flames in shame at our dislike of women. Not me.

We dont in general like women ( as I said, I dont think women do either). that is part of the reason for supporting united, going fishing, going away with the lads. the secret is we want to get away from women, and hang with men. For a while. Some of these groups may have the odd token woman, but I dont think I have ever gone away with a group that was majority female ( equally mixed yes, but only when all are couples).

So, in general yes. We will marry one. Get on well with mother and sister. but we dont want to be surrounded by you all, or to join your groups etc. We need our space with our buddies. We clearly, in general, prefer men as friends.

asdasd

My idea of hell would be a session where footy was the only subject.

I always have better conversations in small mixed groups ( less women than men where the men preen a bit) , or all male groups. Not "footy" ( which was just an example). often political.or humourous. And men are funnier. The only times I remember being surrounded by women is relatives when I was younger prior to an older sibling getting married, and the sheeeer utter banality and boredom. Utterly utterly banal. And bitchy.

Nevyn

The Adam and Eve parable was used as the spring board for a whole heap of other unfounded ideas about women which lead to them being seen as weak, evil, temptresses,
and that they were varying from stupid to clever and evil and how men had to be responsible for them and women were consider chattle owned first by thier father and then by thier spouse.

Women were considered to be the baser sex.

It's not that long a go a women did not have the same right as men due to such thinking
and by not that long ago I mean the last 35 years.

As for not liking women, in general I don't.
The majority of what is seen as the female herd either bore or disgust me, then again I could say that of people but that does not mean I will willfully and knowing discriminate but will given the vacuous person
a chance to be real to me, if they fail they do so on their own merits.

If you don't then you are sexist or worse wandering into Misandry, Misogyny and Misanthropy.

Dragan

Thaedydal wrote: »

The Adam and Eve parable was used as the spring board for a whole heap of other unfounded ideas about women which lead to them being seen as weak, evil, temptresses,
and that they were varying from stupid to clever and evil and how men had to be responsible for them and women were consider chattle owned first by thier father and then by thier spouse.

In fairness the Parable does very little for the man involved either. To any proper thinking person he comes across as weak willed, easily led, unable to stick to a command given by an obvious superior for the sake of a small scale reward. It might tell us that women are evil temptresses but it gives you that warning because you are supposed to be too stupid and lust filled to be able to say no.

brianthebard

I was wondering about this for some reason the other day, I think I was considering narratives. Primitive cultures were sometimes dominated by the moon's cycles for hunting, etc. The moon's cyclical nature relates to the female nature. Later with agriculture societies followed the changing of the seasons, again cyclical. Death and rebirth and death and rebirth, with no start or finish of note. Therefore a society that follows these cycles is feminine. The creation of a bible is the creation of a linear narrative. There is a clear beginning (see page one) and there is a not so clear, implied but still real end. The cycles have become subjugated by a linear concept of timespace, and it is engendered as masculine. Therefore the biblical narrative is masculine, and attempts to place women in the subordinate role.

Nevyn

Dragan wrote: »

I would think that this section of the post goes somewhat in line with Wibbs saying how men don't actually like women.

The thing is, is that cultural conditioning going back to the ideals of western culture steming from the judaic christian influence which then also translates into fear of being seen as feminine and less masculine or is it genuinely cause by a persons personal interaction with people of that gender who rubbed them the wrong way ?

Nevyn

Dragan wrote: »

In fairness the Parable does very little for the man involved either. To any proper thinking person he comes across as weak willed, easily led, unable to stick to a command given by an obvious superior for the sake of a small scale reward. It might tell us that women are evil temptresses but it gives you that warning because you are supposed to be too stupid and lust filled to be able to say no.

I have NEVER looked at it that way nor have anyone EVER put that spin on it.

Yes it was said to me that Adam was a fool in love and any love that is that all consuming is one to be avoided but that's about the extent of it.

asdasd

The thing is, is that cultural conditioning going back to the ideals of western culture steming from the judaic christian influence which then also translates into fear of being seen as feminine

Japan. China. The Aztecs. Native american tribes. Find a matriarchy. Clearly the bug bear about jeudo-christianity is not going away, but has nothing to do with it.

Dragan

Thaedydal wrote: »

The thing is, is that cultural conditioning going back to the ideals of western culture steming from the judaic christian influence which then also translates into fear of being seen as feminine and less masculine or is it genuinely cause by a persons personal interaction with people of that gender who rubbed them the wrong way ?

It could be argued that the former led to the later. Actually living human experience is a blink of an eye compared to actual human history.

The cases of personal interaction that had an ill affect on the person outlook of their own or the opposite sex may have resulted in a long and strange and round about way from things like religious ideals and how they affect other aspects of culture, morals, law etc etc.

As a direct effect, i would give more weight to the later but i will also say that those situations were driven and inspired by a million possible factors from both the history of the person in question.

F.A.

asdasd wrote: »

Japan. China. The Aztecs. Native american tribes. Find a matriarchy. Clearly the bug bear about jeudo-christianity is not going away, but has nothing to do with it.

Erm, are you seriously suggesting that there has never been any matriarchic society? You are very mistaken if that is the case. They exist even today.