It's not Islam, is it?

[H4run]

And yes, there are many positions where you have to be the "right" religion to get into.

If Barrack Obama is a muslim and can he give a president oath with Quran not Bible, will it be right in US? even in US right now peoples paranoid to being lead by a muslim while he is not a muslim at all, but I don't mumble about that, as long as Muslim civilian can have Job, do their life, live their religion, save from discrimination, save from harsh act, its alright.

Now in Indonesia, there is governor election and one of the candidate have a chinese christian as his vice governor. Funnily many muslim support this candidate, and he openly state himself a chiristian.

Now are there any Al Quran in white house for a muslim president if one want to be a candidate so he can swear under the Quran? if there is no, no problem, we don't want it also, we also not criticize it. Even many peoples phobia and start to worry about Obama just because his background, also his middle name as "Hussein" peoples start to speculating that he is a terrorist agent and other funny fantasy things, just because he have something to do with muslim. Am I right?

 

[NovaKart]

Thing is, though, that this male advantage starts at the top and goes all the way to the bottom. I merely mentioned the top positions because this is the easiest to confirm from country to country.



Well, not really. In fact not at all.

Just a casual search turns up this sort of thing.

Or this.

Or this.

You know there's just so much of this stuff, I'm surprised you've managed to step round it all.

Anyway, I have to break off now. It is a fascinating subject. I'm sorry I can't answer you adequately.

Like I mentioned before, there are advantages and disadvantages that both genders have. I'm not denying that men have some advantages, but I fail to see how women are second class citizens in western countries and that men of all social classes are significantly more privileged than them. Many studies show that in the US young women are out-earning young men, but it is something that's difficult to measure because there are other factors involved. And these articles about housework rely on self-reporting, they're light articles that have little to support them, and regardless are choices that women choose to make.

 

[Borachio]

I'm astonished this is even an issue for you. There's just so much evidence of gender inequality, wherever I look. I literally trip over it all the time, I don't know where to begin.

How about here?


This is not about "Western" nations. But I can easily find plenty of stuff on it. Just that the case is less obviously stark.

 

[H4run]

Lyotard in Libidonomics, give a really good sight on how the women are degraded only as commodity or meta commodity in posmodern world. Their sexuality been put and expose in every transaction as commodity or as something to sell commodity.

There are trend like eating above the women naked body, or taking sip of the vodka salt from the breast of the women, sales promotion girl exposing their sexuality with mini skirt, tight clothes, to attract the customer. Our advertisement, in the street, in TV, everywhere, women body been exploit, put in the altar and scarifies for sexual libido of the customer.

For me these are worse than discrimination, this is degenerate the woman only as commodity, object of pleasure, but the best things is, they don't even realize it.

What is the worst insults? than the insults that we are not notice?

what is the worst enslavement? than the enslavement while injecting the illusion of freedom inside peoples mind.

I think, all women in most of the world need advocate, and agree with Borachio, there also nothing to brag about the condition of western woman.

 

[Berzerker]

even god's sons couldn't resist beautiful women

who is enslaving whom?

 

[H4run]

even god's sons couldn't resist beautiful women

who is enslaving whom?

God son can't resist beautiful woman? I don't understand what u referring about, did you mean Jesus (pbuh) with Maria Magdalena?

 

[Borachio]

@Berzerker
Well, exactly. It's a bit of mystery how we got here to a patriarchal society.

I think it likely that matriarchy dominated ~10,000BP but evidence is a bit mixed.

The theory is IIRC that it was only with the rise of agriculture, the accumulation of wealth and the passing of it down through generations that you get patriarchy. But someone will put me right.

The fact is, though, wealth aside, that women have a much higher evolutionary value than men.

The investment that they make and must make is much higher than that of males. For rather obvious reasons which I don't think necessary to go in to.

And the value of a woman is much higher to society than a man. Which is perhaps why men can be easily dispensed with in combat in large numbers, with little effect on overall population trends.

It's this sort of thing that determines human behaviour even today.

Patriarchy looks, to me, like a passing trend in the long term.

I think it makes much more sense for women to make the long term decisions, since they have a much higher investment in future generations. And they also tend to make more altruistic decisions, tend to be less criminal, and that sort of thing.

edit: I think Berzerker is referring to the Ancient Greek Gods Nephilim.

 

[H4run]

This topic give more color after the discussion about religion, lets talk about these things even its out of topic and this thread it also belong to out of topic section.

Well, I agree with you that our system are lack the existences of woman in every social aspect, especially in education, we been force into father discipline and ambition and load with a masculine aspect like competition on class, rank, goal, accomplishment, reward and punishment. But we lack on communication, understanding, care, affection, which is something that mother have more than father. But we can go on and on until we reach also in government system. And I see there is no contradiction about this in Islam as early muslim also put a huge place for women.

Before I tell my opinion I must say I'm not an expert in this, I might be wrong, if I do correct me.

The relation between man and woman should not be the relation between who stronger than who which results who have more right to dominated who. I think its more into a relation of collaboration, dynamics, fulfilling one and another, so to put female far superior than male or male far superior than female also not quite fit in my opinion, in this terms I'm more agree with Novakart.

As both system need the entity of masculine and feminine to be able to flourish and productive, as family need both man and woman in collaboration to be able to be call as family. Children need both the discipline of father and the affection of mother, the punishment of father and forgiveness of mother. While the lack or unpresented of any of it can cause a family to be dysfunction.

So do the bigger organization of society as it come of accumulation of family, which make it a villages, a town, a city, even a country, it all a results of family that contacting each other, and organizing each other. As in the smaller scope which is house it do need the touch of feminine so also it do effect in larger scope.

But as we always get used on seeing things as opposite as something to be clash or versus, we always been trap on thinking who is the bigger, who is the stronger, but if we see this opposite and difference as something to be collaborate we don't even care which one is greater than another, because their work is united.

 

[Borachio]

T

The relation between man and woman should not be the relation between who stronger than who which results who have more right to dominated who. I think its more into a relation of collaboration, dynamics, fulfilling one and another, so to put female far superior than male or male far superior than female also not quite fit in my opinion, in this terms I'm more agree with Novakart.

Well, equality would be fine with me too.

But, in my experience and observation, the average man is quite content to sit around drinking, smoking and gambling. And occasionally getting up to go hunting, fishing or fighting and such. Such is the natural male condition.

While women habitually work very nearly all the time.

So, I say, we should let women take control of the world political and economic system. And let men do what comes naturally. Just keep them away from any weapons with triggers or warheads attached.

Children need both the discipline of father and the affection of mother, the punishment of father and forgiveness of mother.

As for punishing children, I don't see that as a good idea at all. Once you've let a child develop to the stage where corporal punishment (if that's what you mean) is necessary, you've already lost the struggle to bring them up in a civilized manner.

Then, all you're doing is demonstrating that violence is an effective way to solve conflict. Bad idea.

 

[Oruc]

Nope!

 

[Berzerker]

God son can't resist beautiful woman? I don't understand what u referring about, did you mean Jesus (pbuh) with Maria Magdalena?

dont wanna get off track here - we are all god's children - but in the OT the sons of god came down and saw women and took wives. Apparently god put up with this situation for quite a while but eventually became angered at the spread of humanity's noise or sinfulness (and the demigod children of these unions) and sent or allowed the Flood. I think this happened ~14 kya or later when the Persian Gulf flooded too, I figure thats our "Eden"...

@Berzerker
Well, exactly. It's a bit of mystery how we got here to a patriarchal society.

I think it likely that matriarchy dominated ~10,000BP but evidence is a bit mixed.

The theory is IIRC that it was only with the rise of agriculture, the accumulation of wealth and the passing of it down through generations that you get patriarchy. But someone will put me right.

The fact is, though, wealth aside, that women have a much higher evolutionary value than men.

The investment that they make and must make is much higher than that of males. For rather obvious reasons which I don't think necessary to go in to.

And the value of a woman is much higher to society than a man. Which is perhaps why men can be easily dispensed with in combat in large numbers, with little effect on overall population trends.

It's this sort of thing that determines human behaviour even today.

Patriarchy looks, to me, like a passing trend in the long term.

I think it makes much more sense for women to make the long term decisions, since they have a much higher investment in future generations. And they also tend to make more altruistic decisions, tend to be less criminal, and that sort of thing.

edit: I think Berzerker is referring to the Ancient Greek Gods Nephilim.

several good points, cant disagree - but I suspect "royal" patriarchy predates even settled ag and stems from religion/culture. The 1st born son wasn't always the 1st in line, a 2nd born son from a related wife stepped to the front of the line (Abraham and Sarai come to mind) and that practice appears directly connected to "the gods".

oh ya, biblical nephilim - supposedly the kids of women and sons of god - they were on the Earth before (and after) the Flood. So much for God's plan of wiping out the sinners

 

[H4run]

Well, equality would be fine with me too.

But, in my experience and observation, the average man is quite content to sit around drinking, smoking and gambling. And occasionally getting up to go hunting, fishing or fighting and such. Such is the natural male condition.

While women habitually work very nearly all the time.

That's happen many time, they do both work as professional and do all hardwork things at home even the male don't even bother to wash the dishes or to whip the floor. And that's not right things to do, I think the male also should move their hand do whipping floor, cleaning the dishes, cutting the onion, helping the woman maintenance the house also.

But there something that woman have that can't be substitute to male, they might can imitate it but they never can replaces it, like being a mother for a child, and so otherwise, here they have their own role.

As the biological difference is not an alienated variable that have no effects to other variable, it do effects other variable that make both of them have it meaning and function. The things is we must put it to the proper places to make it work.

As for punishing children, I don't see that as a good idea at all. Once you've let a child develop to the stage where corporal punishment (if that's what you mean) is necessary, you've already lost the struggle to bring them up in a civilized manner.

Then, all you're doing is demonstrating that violence is an effective way to solve conflict. Bad idea.

Punishment it doesn't have to be corporal punishment but punishment is needed in my opinion. As a person I do believe in moral and ethics, to develop the feeling of guilt in the child who later to be their inner control in life that construct them to have a strong principal and view of right or wrong punishment is something needed but not the central.

For example, one of my friends is a vice principal of one of modern elementary school which the school were regulated with total communication and there are no punishment and compulsion even in a very light form. Teacher are work as total facilitator not as a dominant and controller educator.

But there also lack from this system. As they also mostly the children are come from rich family, even in Intelligence they are superior because the school method able to increase their curiosity in learning, reading also boost their creativity. But in moral and ethical aspect most of them were very low. They can call their teacher "dog" if they angry, and hitting their baby sitter, act aggressively if something going out from their expectation. In short, they grow to be a spoil kid who have no border and this becoming an issue in that school.

Having a children mean leadership, you too harsh and press them, they are unproductive or rebelling, you are to soft they becoming spoil and you break their character.

The combination of it, it is the best. The best way always the middle way, not extreme left, not extreme right, but just, right into the center.

 

[NovaKart]

@Berzerker
Well, exactly. It's a bit of mystery how we got here to a patriarchal society.

I think it likely that matriarchy dominated ~10,000BP but evidence is a bit mixed.

The theory is IIRC that it was only with the rise of agriculture, the accumulation of wealth and the passing of it down through generations that you get patriarchy. But someone will put me right.

The fact is, though, wealth aside, that women have a much higher evolutionary value than men.

The investment that they make and must make is much higher than that of males. For rather obvious reasons which I don't think necessary to go in to.

And the value of a woman is much higher to society than a man. Which is perhaps why men can be easily dispensed with in combat in large numbers, with little effect on overall population trends.

It's this sort of thing that determines human behaviour even today.

Patriarchy looks, to me, like a passing trend in the long term.

I think it makes much more sense for women to make the long term decisions, since they have a much higher investment in future generations. And they also tend to make more altruistic decisions, tend to be less criminal, and that sort of thing.

edit: I think Berzerker is referring to the Ancient Greek Gods Nephilim.

I'm astonished this is even an issue for you. There's just so much evidence of gender inequality, wherever I look. I literally trip over it all the time, I don't know where to begin.

How about here?


This is not about "Western" nations. But I can easily find plenty of stuff on it. Just that the case is less obviously stark.

Obviously there's a big difference if we talk about western nations, I was speaking more specifically about western nations. But even if we talk about non-western countries there are still often ignored ways that men have disadvantages. Military service is often more open to abuse, like in Middle Eastern countries and in the former soviet union, I know men who have had horrible experiences and human rights groups normally ignore this. And men are held to much more rigid codes of masculinity that gives very little freedom. My point is not that women don't suffer from sexism, it's that men do as well and that's very often ignored.

And it's really strange to say that women are much better than men and much more valuable. A lot of women are awful people and a lot of them are good people, just like men. Women are not better than men. I know lots of women who just sit around drinking too. Many women are manipulative and violent and female leaders have been just as warlike.

 

[Disgustipated]

Lyotard in Libidonomics, give a really good sight on how the women are degraded only as commodity or meta commodity in posmodern world. Their sexuality been put and expose in every transaction as commodity or as something to sell commodity.

There are trend like eating above the women naked body, or taking sip of the vodka salt from the breast of the women, sales promotion girl exposing their sexuality with mini skirt, tight clothes, to attract the customer. Our advertisement, in the street, in TV, everywhere, women body been exploit, put in the altar and scarifies for sexual libido of the customer.

For me these are worse than discrimination, this is degenerate the woman only as commodity, object of pleasure, but the best things is, they don't even realize it.

What is the worst insults? than the insults that we are not notice?

what is the worst enslavement? than the enslavement while injecting the illusion of freedom inside peoples mind.

I think, all women in most of the world need advocate, and agree with Borachio, there also nothing to brag about the condition of western woman.

I think it degrades men and assumes we are all controlled and slaves to our hormones (which in my case is not true).

 

[Borachio]

it's that men do as well and that's very often ignored.

And it's really strange to say that women are much better than men and much more valuable. A lot of women are awful people and a lot of them are good people, just like men. Women are not better than men. I know lots of women who just sit around drinking too. Many women are manipulative and violent and female leaders have been just as warlike.

True, men may suffer from sexism, though 99% of the time they do not. But we are men. Are we not? We are made to suffer and to be expendable. Come now, be a man. Not a whimperer.

We, individually, really do not count as much as women in the bigger scheme of things.

For every female leader you can name I can name a hundred, or a thousand, men.

For every male victim of domestic violence (and they do exist) there must be a thousand or ten thousand women victims.

Sure women can be manipulative - what other tactic is open to them?

 

[Archbob]

If Barrack Obama is a muslim and can he give a president oath with Quran not Bible, will it be right in US? even in US right now peoples paranoid to being lead by a muslim while he is not a muslim at all, but I don't mumble about that, as long as Muslim civilian can have Job, do their life, live their religion, save from discrimination, save from harsh act, its alright.

Yes, you are allowed to run for office regardless of what religion you are. Whether you can get people to vote for you or not is another problem and has nothing to do with the government. If you win the election, you get the office. You keep pointing at Indonesia. What about the Middle Eastern countries like Iran?

You can hold government office regardless of what religion you are in just about every westernized country. You can't same the same thing about many Muslim countries.

The other part is that the US and other Western governments generally discourage extremism and denounce extremist actions, many of the Middle Eastern governments don't and even encourage it. Islam simply produces a lot more radicals than Christianity at this point and you can't blame all of that on the west.

 

[Borachio]

You can hold government office regardless of what religion you are in just about every westernized country. You can't same the same thing about many Muslim countries.

This says you are incorrect.

In the United States, six state constitutions officially include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office,

And if a person of any religion may run for President, yet the likelihood of getting elected is remote in the extreme, isn't it a bit irrelevant?

 

[NovaKart]

True, men may suffer from sexism, though 99% of the time they do not. But we are men. Are we not? We are made to suffer and to be expendable. Come now, be a man. Not a whimperer.

We, individually, really do not count as much as women in the bigger scheme of things.

For every female leader you can name I can name a hundred, or a thousand, men.

For every male victim of domestic violence (and they do exist) there must be a thousand or ten thousand women victims.

Sure women can be manipulative - what other tactic is open to them?

It sounds like you don't really believe in gender equality but instead that men are inferior to women and it's not a problem if men suffer. Because fewer men suffer from domestic violence it doesn't mean they don't suffer in other ways. It doesn't help women to not bring up our own grievances which are mostly at the hands of other men. It doesn't help women to have unrealistic views about how they're saintly creatures either. Men are not more expendable than women, women don't count more than men.

 

[Borachio]

[1.]It sounds like you don't really believe in gender equality but instead that men are inferior to women and it's not a problem if men suffer. Because fewer men suffer from domestic violence it doesn't mean they don't suffer in other ways. It doesn't help women to not bring up our own grievances which are mostly at the hands of other men. It doesn't help women to have unrealistic views about how they're saintly creatures either.[2.] Men are not more expendable than women, women don't count more than men.

[1.] You can't really point to much suffering on the part of men, now can you?

[2.] I don't mean to offend your sensibilities, but history says you're wrong. Consider the slaughter of WW1.

Oh, and I don't consider women to be saintly. They are just human beings.

But for goodness sake, let's keep some perspective. Just look at the women in your life around you. See how much work they do. See how much trouble they cause for society in general. And then compare the same things in the typical man.

Of course, you will be the exception to the general rule. You are no doubt hardworking and law abiding at all times. And it just so happens that the only women you have so far encountered have been fat slags who do nothing but whine and abuse you.

Maybe I overstate the case, a little. But it still looks sound to me.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think it degrades men and assumes we are all controlled and slaves to our hormones (which in my case is not true).

It can be both sexes