If Matriarchy & Feminism Are Sinful, Why Isn't There More Of It?

[Nimzovik]

I can not remember the scientist that put forth the idea -however his theory was that men would naturally, through the evolutionary process, via one mechanism or another, become extinct. In an Atheistic world I can actually see how that might happen… What with genetic manipulation and the current concept of male genetic ‘donor banks.’ Once male DNA seed is cloned or synthetically produced we are all doomed methinks. After all is not the Male role attacked daily in the courts? Are we not being reduced to ‘Bio daddy’ (read donor) as opposed to Father? From ‘Father Knows Best’ to Homer Simpson? Ahhhh… Angry scientifically oriented feminist atheists. Where would we be without them?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

So…

1. Catholics say that this is the natural order of things
2. You say, if that is so, why does it occur in nature?

???

Aside from this curious logic, your characterisation of Catholic beliefs on ‘patriarchy’ falls *way *outside what Catholicism actually believes or teaches: Catholicism does not teach that women are to be submissive and men are dominant; it teaches that men and women have different and complementary roles to play. No one is to dominate anyone, in point of fact: all are to submit to fulfilling the roles they were created to fulfill. If there is any hierarchy of which roles are superior to others, it is to be found in the beatitudes.

It is a tremendous exaggeration of the Catholic position to characterise women as little more than slaves to men: Catholic moral teaching places obligations on both men and women to treat each other in an ethical and respectful manner. To say that men and women are different, and have different roles, does not contradict this. Men do not have, and never did have, “all the power”.

Catholics posters in this very thread argue with you about the whole dominance and submission thing (and they are far from alone).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

This schtick isn’t working too well for you.

Feminism HAS ALREADY thrived, as did the civil rights movement. The reason most aren’t making enough noise for you nowadays is because most of their goals have been achieved. There are those who want to be life long feminists but they aren’t taken seriously BECAUSE there isn’t as much to make noise about anymore.

And if you REALLY wanted to talk to someone who thought women should be treated unequally, you’d have never come here in the first place because Catholics have not presented themselves that way. Instead of being here, you’d be having your squabble with Arabs who believe kind of stuff.

Maybe you should go yap at someone else’s heels.

Feminism has thrived in the West, in the rest of the world it has had much less (or even no) influence. Moreover it has only flourished recently (in historical terms), up until the
20th century the Feminist movement had few successes or victories to speak of (even in the West) and before the 19th century there was no real Feminist movement.

As for the Arabs, in order to have a meaningful conversation about human rights/women’s rights the person or people your talking to have to meet certain minimum standards. If someone believes a man has the right to beat, mutilate, or murder his female relatives, and treat them as a piece of property, as Arabs more or less do (generally speaking) a meaningful discussion with them about women’s rights is not possible.

Besides I don’t speak Arabic:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

A believer reads scripture with faith. That may be impossible for an atheist, by definition.

But, is Christianity rational? It is certainly rational and consistent within its own context.

the patriarchal model is taught explicitly and implicitly, for sure. A woman is supposed to submit to her husband, but that is supposed to be a man who is, himself, submissive to God. For a woman to submit to a man who is submissive to God is rationally the best of all worlds for Christians.

A woman is supposed to be a helper, the word used in Genesis to describe Eve.
Being faithful to that vocation is something that would give a woman a lot of wiggle room to be a leader to her husband and family and to help him carry out his responsibilities.

I can’t see a man living fully who does not give his wife the opportunity to exercise all her God-given faculties and intelligence.

Any implimenation of the marital covenant which is destructive to a woman must-needs be an incorrect implementation. any breakdown would have to be evil and an overturning of the marriage covenant, where the two become one, want the same thing, etc.

I was not speaking about marriage or even authority in the Church, I was talking about women having positions of authority and power in secular society.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

O.K. I personally will bait the tiger (which is apparantly what the OP is looking for) with these statements. I deplore much of feminism. From what I have seen feminism has brought much more than it’s shares of **evil **along with the good it has done. One such very BLATANT example is abortion. My dear OP feminist, I ask you - do you think a woman has the right to murder a child in the womb? As an “Angry Atheist” do you think it is “fair” that a woman should have to carry a baby if she does not want too?? Note: I am not being rhetorical here.

Another such evil that is often propagated by extreme feminists is women priests. Is this what you mean by ‘being in charge?’ This particular example has been ruled upon by the Catholic Hierarchy. See there for the reasoning.

Another example is the notion that Christianity is repsponsible for repression of women. Hah.!!! Comparatively speaking in regard to other religions (and secular thought) Catholicism has indeed elevated women. Witness the archetypal model of Christianity - Mary. Witness also how St. Joeseph was so very attentive to her needs.

Then there is this very obvious fact. The very nature of feminism itself as defined by it’s very name. Femism. Females only. Note it is not called “WEism” which IMHO is what it should be called. It (Feminism) is **exclusionary **by it’s very nature as evidenced by it’s very name.

For all practical considerations I must assert --If this OP is such an advocate for feminism what on earth is this person doing posting here?? Why not go to the Islamic sites or countries where there are real challenges as suggested earlier?

Please do not get me started on the atrocities committed by atheists either.

This post appears to be generalized criticism, without actually addressing anything I actually said in this thread.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

How about you stick with one topic and then move from there. It seems that you have added a lot to overwhelm the otherside since yours lacks a solid foundation.

The first problem you have is with patriarchy and as one can see it is a problem because you essentially do not understand it. The roles of the husband and the wife are meant to be complementary thus creating ONE entity. The family was created by God and as being such was created in His image (a Trinity). In the Trinity we have the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit and while all three persons are different they are also all equally God. Likewise in the family you have the father, the mother, and the children who are all equally important because they make up ONE family. The order of highest to lowest is not to denote ones self-worlth or importance within the family but to show ones role within the family. Christ in the Trinity is the savior and His Humanity is lesser than and subordinate to The Father even though His Divinity is equal. ** At the same time the mothers role is lesser than the role of the father, however the mother is of equal importance within the family as the father.**
In Christianity men and woman are both seen as equally important and their different roles are seen as indespencible to the means in which we will reach Gods perfect end.

A puzzle has many pieces, all of them different shapes and sizes but none of them are looked at as more important than the others since everyone knows that even if the tiniest piece of the puzzle is missing then it would not be complete. And so in the family the roles of men and women are different but there value is the same.

Unlike the rest of the world, we Christians choose not to force pieces of the puzzle into places where they do not belong.

The sentence I highlighted contradicts itself.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Feminism has thrived in the West, in the rest of the world it has had much less (or even no) influence. Moreover it has only flourished recently (in historical terms), up until the
20th century the Feminist movement had few successes or victories to speak of (even in the West) and before the 19th century there was no real Feminist movement.

As for the Arabs, in order to have a meaningful conversation about human rights/women’s rights the person or people your talking to have to meet certain minimum standards. If someone believes a man has the right to beat, mutilate, or murder his female relatives, and treat them as a piece of property, as Arabs more or less do (generally speaking) a meaningful discussion with them about women’s rights is not possible.

Besides I don’t speak Arabic:shrug:

This site is much more a “western” site than non western.

If you were trying to accomplish anything more than a public hissy fit, you’d be on those sites that are predominately non western and who treat women unequally…and no…language is no excuse because those sites exist with english speaking non western folk.
Or, you’d be in that “epic” “Franco was right” thread that you were going on about. It’s kind of obvious here that you don’t really want to argue/debate people who would argue or debate back. The question remains why.

 

[TrueLight]

Matriarchy and Feminism are sinful?

That’s news to me.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Matriarchy and Feminism are sinful?

That’s news to me.

No I haven’t said that…

 

[TrueLight]

No I haven’t said that…

No, I’m referring to the topic of the thread.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Boy, am I glad I’m not an atheist anymore. Your questions are so ridiculous that they remind me of my worst days in that camp. I must say that I don’t think you clearly understand the nature of priesthood, society, humanity, and Western culture. True patriarchy has nothing to do with oppressing or abusing anyone.

Let’s first be clear about one thing: God does not work in mysterious ways. That is a bothersome old saying which makes Christians look like idiots. Our holy religion is based entirely on the fact that God took humanity expressly to teach us and reveal truth. We can hardly say there’s any mystery about it at all, in fact. It is the Lord who is mysterious as an entity, as a being, but His ways and works are pretty plain and clear.

Now, why must a sin be rampant today in order for it to be damnable? Remember that practically every single religion around the Jews in the Old Testament employed priestesses. These cults ranged up and down the Nile, through the Levant, east in Babylon along the Tigris and Euphrates, and far north to Hattusa of the Hittites. Everywhere you looked there were bloodthirsty women-sages and creepy female oracles who writhed around predicting the future. I’d say something like 90% of all religion in the entire pre-Socratic eastern Mediterranean had priestesses. It was very much rampant.

A thing may be objectively right or wrong regardless of its practice at one given age or another. Why are you making this a criteria for ridicule and mockery? This does not shine any light on whether the Church is right or not. You appear to be assuming that the Church simply condemns whatever the greatest number of people are having the most fun doing. This is the common childish perception of the Christian religion. It’s very transparent and annoying.

I am perfectly aware of that fact that priestess used to be quite common, but this topic isn’t about priests and priestesses at all. You should also keep in mind that in virtually all the societies where female priests were common (probably the best known today is the pagan Roman Empire) men remained firmly in charge.

In virtually all societies up until the moden era women had a legal and social status somewhere between lesser versions of men and beasts of burden.

Defenders and champions of patriarchy are usually the first to remind everyone that the vast majority of societies throughout history have been firmly patriarchal, and that most of the major civilizations we know of had men firmly on top and women firmly on the bottom (except for slaves) of the social and legal hierarchy.

Christians advocates of patriarchy (such as yourself) often claim that this is the case because male leadership/headship is divinely ordained.

So I ask, what’s so special about patriarchy?

Nothing else the God of Abraham is said to support has enjoyed such amazing and consistent success. It appears that other factors are at work (at least to this outsider).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

C’mon, Women usher in every generation. Women shape man at the outset. Can’t men keep the little sumpthin’ sumpthin’ God let us do?

In patriarchal societies like that of the pagan Greeks or the modern day Saudis a little sumpthin’ sumpthin’ translates as everything (including the women’s dignity and control of their bodies).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I think we’re surrounded by a matriarchal culture. women can end the life of the children of men. Men don’t have that right.

I would say that the power of fertility is driving western culture in it’s recent and predominant transformations.

Women today are saying that the child forming in their womb is theirs only. " no body can tell me what I can do with my own body". Like Eve said when Cain was born " I have got me a man with the help of God." She made a man and God’s her helper. That’s matriarchal.

God has granted another offspring" That’s patriarchal. She said that when Seth was born. Seth , the first born in his father’s image.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Lol oh Angry I always get a kick out of your post. Glad you are on here to add some spice to this forum.

Thank you.
I do enjoy asking the hard questions and calling people on their BS

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Surely you’ve heard of the American feminist movement Actually America is the perfect example of this. Study hard

Simple. Women rule through the men. They are far too smart to take the full load of the world on themselves, so they let us think we’re doing the leading as they pull the puppet strings. Ask any husband From the king to the peasant, every decent husband wants to keep his wife happy. Ask yourself, why the need? Women often rule the world by proxy. They’re geniuses!

Besides this, there have been a few times where women rule outright. Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Mary of Scots, Queen Hatshepsut of Egypt, etc. Women have had the power plenty of times in history.

The concept of servant-leadership only works if the leader is more compassionate and giving than everyone else. If the leader is not willing to put everyone else’s wants and needs first, then he will dominate for his own benefit (or what he thinks is his own benefit).

There are plenty of indecent men, and many of them are in societies that encourage men to see their wives and daughters as possessions rather than people.

As for your examples, they are all instances of a woman ruling in her own name, **women **as a group all remained second class (or worse) citizens during the reign of these female leaders. Moreover, powerful female leaders were always the exception in history, which is part of the reason why women like Elizabeth I and Catherine the Great are so well remembered now (women like them were very rare).

 

[Benadam]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.

I was pointing out how the modern feminine mindset is the mindset that a matriarchal culture would produce. I was pointing out the most ancient biblical examples of patriarchal and matriarchal societies.

We don’t live in a patriarchy. As for other parts of the world, they appear patriarchal but it’s obviously in it’s death throws. That’s why we got to suffer these terrorist groups. They know their ways are going out the window as the nations don their global identities,

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I can not remember the scientist that put forth the idea -however his theory was that men would naturally, through the evolutionary process, via one mechanism or another, become extinct. In an Atheistic world I can actually see how that might happen… What with genetic manipulation and the current concept of male genetic ‘donor banks.’ Once male DNA seed is cloned or synthetically produced we are all doomed methinks. After all is not the Male role attacked daily in the courts? Are we not being reduced to ‘Bio daddy’ (read donor) as opposed to Father? From ‘Father Knows Best’ to Homer Simpson? Ahhhh… Angry scientifically oriented feminist atheists. Where would we be without them?

Remember, the population of the Western world makes up only a small part of the overall population of Earth. Were much more likely to run out of girls than boys at this point.

Here is a news article about how India and China are in the process of aborting away all their future women:
douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/patriarchy-liberty-and-the-160-million/

And here is a news article about Indian parents so desperate for sons that they are forcing their baby girls to undergo sex-change operations:
dailymail.co.uk/news/arti…#ixzz1Qg8LxTF9

It might not seem like it to certain men in the West, but patriarchy, and indeed naked misogyny are still alive and well

 

[AngryAtheist8]

This site is much more a “western” site than non western.

If you were trying to accomplish anything more than a public hissy fit, you’d be on those sites that are predominately non western and who treat women unequally…and no…language is no excuse because those sites exist with english speaking non western folk.
Or, you’d be in that “epic” “Franco was right” thread that you were going on about. It’s kind of obvious here that you don’t really want to argue/debate people who would argue or debate back. The question remains why.

The Franco Was Right thread (which refers to the dictator General Franco) ended because it reached the post limit. And if you are really curious about me you should try looking up my posting history on this forum, because frankly the claim that I don’t want to debate people is without substance or merit.

To be blunt, I am part of the minority here, not just because I am an athiest, but because I actually list reasons and evidence for what I argue on a regular basis.

But if you just want to engage in a flame war with me, that’s fine too:shrug:

 

[Heliotropium]

The sentence I highlighted contradicts itself.

Yes that one sentence does contradict itself but thats only because it was poorly phrased. Not a very strong argument AA.

Plus I’m curious if you can explain why Mary is seen in the Catholic Church as being above all angels and saints and second only to God? Wouln’t this be contradictory behavior for a bunch of male pigs to give a woman the status of being the greatest of all created beings? I mean why not Saint Joseph since He was the step father in the Holy Family right? Maybe your idea of how the Church views women is flawed…yes I think so.

 

[Nimzovik]

In patriarchal societies like that of the pagan Greeks or the modern day Saudis a little sumpthin’ sumpthin’ translates as everything (including the women’s dignity and control of their bodies).

Ok let’s get to it. Am I correct in stating that, in your perspective, Angry Atheist, the right to have an abortion is strictly a woman’s right and a purely feminist issue? Please declare yourself.