If We Are Created In God's Image, Why Is He Nothing Like Us?

[Debora123]

Finally, I don’t think I missed Debora’s point. She said that since men hold most positions of leadership (which I pointed out as flawed, not good), God refers to himself as a male because we can relate to him in a leadership position better. I said that I could not relate to God better because of his “maleness,” and that as a female, I’m naturally more inclined to react to a female in a position of leadership with empathy and understanding. I do not respect female leaders and more than male ones, and vice versa, but our shared gender puts us on a sort of level playing field that I can well relate to. I feel I can relate to females better than men, and therefore relate to female leaders better than men.

Hmmm… ok, I hadn’t quite read this part. Good argument. I’m not sure how to answer that one.

 

[Debora123]

Here is what I said earlier, hopefully now in context, repeated:
What makes the sperm any more of a “source” or “principle” than an egg? Can a baby not exist without both? Even though the sperm most be “deposited,” mustn’t an egg also be “deposited” to create a baby? There is not always an egg, therefore a man is not the sole “source.” The presence of an egg is much rarer than the presence of sperm, so one might even argue that women are the true “source.” A man can often conjure sperm at will, or at least relatively easily, while a woman must wait for a few precious days a month. Seems like she is the more dependent factor, then.

I don’t think the church means to say that one is more “responsible” for creating the baby than the other. In fact I’m pretty sure that CAN’T be what they mean, because that’s untrue and just silly. Maybe it’s more about the fact that the sperm has to LEAVE a man’s body and enter into a woman’s. And like you said, a man can make it happen. He has power over release of the sperm, while us women have no control whatsoever over when the egg gets released.

 

[Debora123]

I’m not taking sides here one way or the other, but, if this were true, what is wrong with it?

Angels are more like God than humans, humans more like God than animals, animals more than plants, etc. on down the chain. There is so injustice done to one species, simply because it is not the other species. The fact that a species exists at all and gets to imitate the divine nature is pure grace. What, then, would be the problem if men were indeed more in the image of God? Will you complain too that the Seraphim are more like God?

YeeeaaaahhhhhI think the notion that Men are more like God is completely false. And I do have a problem with that. Being more like God also means being more superior, and in no way are men superior to women. Maybe men tend to be superior to women in SOME aspects, as women tend to be superior to men in OTHER aspects. But as creatures of God, one person’s soul is not superior to anothers’ based on gender. That’s just wrong, and that’s not the message JPII gave us at all in his book Theology of the Body.

 

[AntiTheist]

As others have mentioned, it should be obvious why a patriarchal society would use the metaphor of a “father” for its gods, just as it should be equally obvious that matriarchal societies were far more likely to have a “mother goddess” figure.

In all likelihood, such metaphors – which grow out of the society that originates them – serve to further solidify that society’s view of gender by projecting it onto the cosmos.

A thoughtful female in a patriarchal society that reveres a “father god” might very well have trouble relating to the symbols employed by the local mythology, just as a thoughtful male in a matriarchal society that reveres a “mother goddess” might very well have trouble relating to those symbols.

I’m fond of George Carlin’s expression, “I leave symbols to the symbol-minded.”

From where I sit, there’s simply no good reason to think that these supernatural beings are even real, so arguing over their gender is rather pointless, except as an exercise in examining the ways that societies enforce their perceptions of gender roles.

 

[Betterave]

Because we live in a secular society.

What is this a response to?

I suppose you could argue that it’s “God’s plan” that men hold these elite positions, and “God’s plan” that men and women are not paid equal wages for the same work, yet theological reasoning is often best applied to theological questions - not secular ones dealing with government and the workplace.

Actually I referred to anthropology, not theology. I guess you missed that?

You ask me how I know these things don’t have to do with the realm of the spiritual? How do you know they do? The sexism is bred in a secular environment, so one might assume that its origins are mostly secular.

I didn’t make any assumptions. We can both take an agnostic starting point and approach this open-mindedly, trying to actually understand reality, rather than simply imposing our prejudices upon it. That’s what I’d advocate. You aren’t entitled to an assumption just because you think someone else has made the opposite assumption. Understand?

Are these societal constructions arbitary? No, because we have lived in a traditionally patriarchal society that just in the past 100 years has begun to equate a woman’s place with a man’s. To me, this has nothing to with how God wants it to be. I believe that Jesus would have promoted fairness and equality between the sexes in the workplace.

That’s nice, but it’s all pure assertion. Can you see that? It also begs the question as to what fairness means. Equality in the strict sense simply does not obtain between the sexes, and there is no reason to think that inequality automatically (in all cases) should be taken to imply unfairness. So you need to learn to make some distinctions between these kinds of concepts.

Finally, I don’t think I missed Debora’s point. She said that since men hold most positions of leadership (which I pointed out as flawed, not good), God refers to himself as a male because we can relate to him in a leadership position better. I said that I could not relate to God better because of his “maleness,” and that as a female, I’m naturally more inclined to react to a female in a position of leadership with empathy and understanding. I do not respect female leaders and more than male ones, and vice versa, but our shared gender puts us on a sort of level playing field that I can well relate to. I feel I can relate to females better than men, and therefore relate to female leaders better than men.

But you’re assuming here that the point of the Father-image of God is to elicit a reaction of “empathy and understanding” from someone like you. That seems like a groundless assumption, to say the least, and invites the kind of largely silly rejoinder we got from Antitheist here.

[Anti: all human beings are symbol-minded. This is basic to the kind of intelligence that human beings possess.]

 

[bhall0689]

Betterrave:

I’m sorry to make “assumptions.” Perhaps I poorly worded my posts in the past. Let me see if I can explain more clearly, since you seem to have totally missed my point in your response.

I do agree that we live in naturally patriarchal society - in some senses. During primitive times, men whom were the physically stronger sex served as hunters, and women as natural nurturers served as mothers. Today we no longer have to hunt for our food, construct our own shelters, or ward off rival tribes. Many of the “leadership” positions that men dominate today are positions of intellect, not physical superiority. One (generally) must possess intelligence to succeed in a leadership role. Female government officials, doctors, police officers, professors, and judges etc. are just as efficient, if not more efficient in some cases, as men at their jobs. I challenge you to provide me with evidence that proves otherwise.

The fact that more men occupy these positions than women has nothing to do with God’s will, or the fact that they’re more capable, but that society has TRADITIONALLY TAUGHT that these are rolls that men are more inclined towards. There is no evidence, no maxim that suggests men are better at these jobs than women.

Much of this notion is perpetuated by religious ideology used to justify men’s superiority over women in leadership positions, just as you are doing. Understand?

 

[Betterave]

Betterrave:

I’m sorry to make “assumptions.” Perhaps I poorly worded my posts in the past. Let me see if I can explain more clearly, since you seem to have totally missed my point in your response.

When you say something that is unclear and I ask for clarification, I would appreciate it if you would reply. It’s hard not to miss your point when you refuse to do this. (It’s also rude.)

I do agree that we live in naturally patriarchal society - in some senses. During primitive times, men whom were the physically stronger sex served as hunters, and women as natural nurturers served as mothers. Today we no longer have to hunt for our food, construct our own shelters, or ward off rival tribes. Many of the “leadership” positions that men dominate today are positions of intellect, not physical superiority.

“Men were hunters because hunting required physical strength, therefore societies were patriarchal.” “In a society where people had to hunt for food, construct their own shelters, or ward of rival tribes, ‘leadership’ positions naturally went to those who were physically strong, intelligence was not so important then.” These are strange claims. Why do you think they make sense? They look like non sequiturs.

One (generally) must possess intelligence to succeed in a leadership role. Female government officials, doctors, police officers, professors, and judges etc. are just as efficient, if not more efficient in some cases, as men at their jobs. I challenge you to provide me with evidence that proves otherwise.

You seem to be assuming (again) that I want to prove otherwise. Why?

The fact that more men occupy these positions than women has nothing to do with God’s will, or the fact that they’re more capable, but that society has TRADITIONALLY TAUGHT that these are rolls that men are more inclined towards. There is no evidence, no maxim that suggests men are better at these jobs than women.

This has been a very simplistic narrative you’ve offered here, and I’m sure you believe it, but can we at least agree, for starters, that it’s very simplistic?

Much of this notion is perpetuated by religious ideology used to justify men’s superiority over women in leadership positions, just as you are doing. Understand?

What are you referring to here? (This is again pure assertion - I hope you can recognize that.)

 

[AngryAtheist8]

That’s nice, but it’s all pure assertion. Can you see that? It also begs the question as to what fairness means. Equality in the strict sense simply does not obtain between the sexes, and there is no reason to think that inequality automatically (in all cases) should be taken to imply unfairness. So you need to learn to make some distinctions between these kinds of concepts.

Your right, fairness and equality are not necessarily the same thing.

If we assume that men are intellectually and spiritually superior to women (which was a common assumption in the West for a long time) then its perfectly fair for men to get most of the leadership positions (and most of the glory). After all, they deserve it.

But if we assume that men and women are of equal worth (which even the Catholic Church claims to do now), then it is much harder to justify giving men all the perks, and saying that women are wrong to even ask for them.

 

[Betterave]

That’s nice, but it’s all pure assertion. Can you see that? It also begs the question as to what fairness means. Equality in the strict sense simply does not obtain between the sexes, and there is no reason to think that inequality

If we assume that men are intellectually and spiritually equal (in worth) to women then its perfectly fair for men to get most of the leadership positions (and most of the glory), provided that leadership and “glory” (whatever is meant by that) are especially suitable for men. After all, men and women may be equal in one sense, but real differences between them remain, and so men and women will still naturally tend to be better suited for different roles, neither of which is ‘better’ than the other.

If we assume that men and women are of equal worth (which the Catholic Church has done since its inception), then it is hard to justify giving men all the perks, and saying that women are wrong to even ask for them. But no one wants to justify any such absurdly vague thing, so this is rather irrelevant.

 

[bhall0689]

Sorry Betterrave -
That’s what I believe, even you think it’s assertion. All we can do is observe society, then make observations about it. There are very few maxims about humanity’s behavior that aren’t an assertion on some level.

I think that everything you labeled up there as an “assertion” and refused to respond to could be better labeled as an “observation.” You, yourself might observe something different in society, but in my humble 21 years that is what I’ve observed, and that is the information I have to lay claims on. Frankly, I don’t care if you think it’s an assertion.

Non-sequiters? Do you understand the difference between physical and mental strength? I do agree that men are physically stronger than women, but I do NOT think that they excel in intelligence any more than women do. Women leaders often do just as good of a job, if not better, than most men in these positions. Success in leadership positions often depends on intelligence. Someone said that men are more suited to leadership positions, but I think this is absolutely untrue, maybe because I like to (partially) consider myself a leader. The fact that women who DO choose to go into positions of leadership (doctor, judge, police officer, government) often do JUST AS GOOD AS MEN. Even one case of this discounts that men make better leaders, and we must begin to wonder if more women don’t take these roles for other reasons, such as the fact these have traditionally been reserved as “men’s roles.” Once again, I challenge you to provide me with statistics that prove women make worse leaders than men.

Finally, calling my argument simplistic and refusing to respond to it is your folly, and seems like a concession. When individuals can no longer respond to an argument because they’ve been cornered, the name calling starts.

I was raised Catholic my entire life, and attended a Catholic school from Pre-K-12th grade. I know a LOT about Catholic teaching, and I have chosen to stray from the Church for a number or reasons, but one of the biggest is their outmoded stance on what it means to be a woman. You can argue that the church preaches equal worth, but as Betterrave said, just because they are worth the same doesn’t mean they are EQUAL.

Anyways, I feel like we might argue till the cows come home, without any direct response to my argument. So don’t be surprised if this is my last post in this thread. I feel I’ve made my argument as clear as possible, and will not stick around to be told further that my arguments are “assertions” and “simplistic.”

I’m going to go out in the world and try to be the best leader I can be. Watch out, Catholics!

 

[AngryAtheist8]

If we assume that men are intellectually and spiritually equal (in worth) to women then its perfectly fair for men to get most of the leadership positions (and most of the glory), provided that leadership and “glory” (whatever is meant by that) are especially suitable for men. After all, men and women may be equal in one sense, but real differences between them remain, and so men and women will still naturally tend to be better suited for different roles, neither of which is ‘better’ than the other.

If we assume that men and women are of equal worth (which the Catholic Church has done since its inception), then it is hard to justify giving men all the perks, and saying that women are wrong to even ask for them. But no one wants to justify any such absurdly vague thing, so this is rather irrelevant.

So much of what you have just said is simply untrue.

For one thing many Catholics (including some theologians and a few Popes) have argued that women are intellectually and spiritually inferior, and have used that assertion to justify barring women from leadership positions in the Church and society.

For another, there are people today who want to take away virtually all perks and privileges from women. I direct your attention to the advocates of Sharia law and the Biblical Patriarchy Movement.

As for the idea that women are equal when we men are entitled to all the best things in life (that they are not) that’s just nonsensical.

The doctrine of Separate But Equal didn’t work for Blacks in the U.S. and it doesn’t work (in any meaningful sense) for women.

-AngryAthiest8

P.S. If you believe that you are superior because you are a man just be intellectually honest and say so.

 

[bhall0689]

The doctrine of Separate But Equal didn’t work for Blacks in the U.S. and it doesn’t work (in any meaningful sense) for women.

I can assure you that it wasn’t working for me, so now I’m working on my own thing.

 

[Betterave]

Sorry Betterrave -
That’s what I believe, even you think it’s assertion. All we can do is observe society, then make observations about it. There are very few maxims about humanity’s behavior that aren’t an assertion on some level.

I think that everything you labeled up there as an “assertion” and refused to respond to could be better labeled as an “observation.” You, yourself might observe something different in society, but in my humble 21 years that is what I’ve observed, and that is the information I have to lay claims on. Frankly, I don’t care if you think it’s an assertion.

Could you explain, with reference to the actual meanings of the words “assertion” and “observation,” the grounds for your claims here? (I expect not, I expect you won’t even try, I expect you won’t try to really answer any of my questions, but I’d love to see you belie my expectations.)

Non-sequiters?

Do you know what a non sequitur is?

Do you understand the difference between physical and mental strength?

I think so. Have I said anything that would suggest I don’t? If you think I have, please be courteous enough to tell me what it was that made you think that.

I do agree that men are physically stronger than women, but I do NOT think that they excel in intelligence any more than women do. Women leaders often do just as good of a job, if not better, than most men in these positions. Success in leadership positions often depends on intelligence.

I’m not interested in disputing this point. I merely question why you apparently think that this was not true for most of human history (i.e., when hunting and shelter building, etc., featured as more prominent human activities).

Someone said that men are more suited to leadership positions, but I think this is absolutely untrue, maybe because I like to (partially) consider myself a leader. The fact that women who DO choose to go into positions of leadership (doctor, judge, police officer, government) often do JUST AS GOOD AS MEN. Even one case of this discounts that men make better leaders, and we must begin to wonder if more women don’t take these roles for other reasons, such as the fact these have traditionally been reserved as “men’s roles.” Once again, I challenge you to provide me with statistics that prove women make worse leaders than men.

But I never said that women make worse leaders than men! You may be ‘college-educated’ but that doesn’t mean you have good reasoning or reading skills. I’ve spent more than enough time marking college students’ papers and exams to know that, without you having to demonstrate it to me again.

Finally, calling my argument simplistic and refusing to respond to it is your folly, and seems like a concession. When individuals can no longer respond to an argument because they’ve been cornered, the name calling starts.

So you don’t agree that it is simplistic. Nonetheless it clearly is. But you seem disinclined to discuss it. (If you’d like to discuss it, drop the defensiveness and let’s discuss it.) Noting that your view is simplistic is not name calling and does not indicate that I’ve been cornered - to claim otherwise is just stupid.

I was raised Catholic my entire life, and attended a Catholic school from Pre-K-12th grade. I know a LOT about Catholic teaching, and I have chosen to stray from the Church for a number or reasons, but one of the biggest is their outmoded stance on what it means to be a woman. You can argue that the church preaches equal worth, but as Betterrave said, just because they are worth the same doesn’t mean they are EQUAL.

No, actually to say they are worth the same obviously DOES mean they are equal (in respect of their worth).

Anyways, I feel like we might argue till the cows come home, without any direct response to my argument. So don’t be surprised if this is my last post in this thread. I feel I’ve made my argument as clear as possible, and will not stick around to be told further that my arguments are “assertions” and “simplistic.”

You are apparently a very dogmatic, closed-minded person. Do you think this is a good quality in a leader? It might be… but probably not.

I’m going to go out in the world and try to be the best leader I can be. Watch out, Catholics!

Dare to question your own dogmas. A truly good leader should not be happily ignorant and either too afraid or too impatient to question her own presuppositions. You can still be a leader though, the world is obviously full of bigoted, ignorant leaders. You choose who you want to be. Good luck to you!

 

[Betterave]

So much of what you have just said is simply untrue.

Please name one (one which I have actually said, please).

 

[davidv]

So much of what you have just said is simply untrue.

For one thing many Catholics (including some theologians and a few Popes) have argued that women are intellectually and spiritually inferior, and have used that assertion to justify barring women from leadership positions in the Church and society.

Source please.

For another, there are people today who want to take away virtually all perks and privileges from women. I direct your attention to the advocates of Sharia law and the Biblical Patriarchy Movement.

Neither of which is Catholic, nor endorsed by the Church.

As for the idea that women are equal when we men are entitled to all the best things in life (that they are not) that’s just nonsensical.

I’d say this is a pure strawman with no basis fact and is completely contrary to Church teaching.

The doctrine of Separate But Equal didn’t work for Blacks in the U.S. and it doesn’t work (in any meaningful sense) for women

-AngryAthiest8

P.S. If you believe that you are superior because you are a man just be intellectually honest and say so.

Why would one admit to an untruth? I happen to be married to a women who is superior to me in several ways, as I am superior to her in other ways.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Why would one admit to an untruth? I happen to be married to a women who is superior to me in several ways, as I am superior to her in other ways.

I was talking to Betterave, and most of my comments were in regards to things that he specifically said.

As for sources, let’s start with the Church Father Tertullian:

Woman, thou shouldst ever be clothed in rags and in mourning, appearing only as a penitent, drowned in tears, and expiating thus the sin of having caused the fall of the human race. Woman thou art the gate of the devil. It is thou who hast corrupted those whom Satan dare not attack face to face.

Then some words of ‘wisdom’ from Saint Thomas Aquinas:
As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power.

Here is a much more recent quote showing the Church’s respect for women by
Pope Pius X:
“In public meetings, never allow women to take the word, however respectable or pious they may seem. If on a specific occasion bishops consider it opportune to permit a meeting for women by themselves, these may not speak except under the presidency and supervision of high ecclesiastical personalities.”

Unfortunately I wouldn’t have trouble finding more if you feel it necessary.

 

[bhall0689]

You did not, but you said that “leadership” roles are especially suited to men. I disputed that, and wanted to know why you think so. Men either excel as leaders because they are physically or intellectually superior. Since most MODERN (HUGE emphasis on this word - it’s very different than PRIMITIVE) positions of leadership do not require vast physical superiority, but rather mental superiority, I would argue that men are no LONGER better suited to these positions than women. I wonder how many times I’ve restated this argument in this thread? Probably because you never have a direct response to the actual argument, but to the parts of it you perceive as “holes.”

You ask why men have been leaders for most of human history, and women have not. Once again, in primitive times, leadership activities required PHYSICAL strength, very different than MENTAL strength. Men are superior to women in physical strength, but equally matched in intellectual strength. Survival in primitive times was based mostly physical superiority and fitness, so men assumed the roles of leaders since they are physically stronger. Now, survival is based much less on these things and much more on intellectual superiority. Women are intellectual equals, so they can be just as good MODERN leaders as men. Am I sounding like a broken record?

The reason I think you don’t understand the difference between mental and physical strength, is because the argument you make to justify men as natural leader is that it’s “always been like that.” I say it started that way because men, being naturally stronger, were the ones to assume leadership positions when the tribe’s survival depended on strength. Now the “tribe” or “family’s” survival depends less on strength, and more on intellectual wits, in which women are just as well matched as men. I am REALLY trying to make the distinction between the different kinds of “strengths” clear, and also trying to point out the evolution of what it means to be a “leader” in society. I think I might have just restated my argument again . . .

Thank you for calling me “college-educated” in quotation marks, and saying that I have poor reading and reasoning skills. The reason I am here is because I am curious about theology, I love to read, I love to learn, I love to debate. I think that these interests hopefully point to at least SOMEWHAT developed reasoning skills. I KNOW I have good reading skills - I’m an English major at a very good Catholic University. I’ve been reading and writing my entire life. I am very, very offended that you would suggest otherwise. You don’t see me making similar claims about you, even though I’ve restated the same argument over and over and over and you just don’t get it. Even if calling my arguments “simplistic” isn’t name-calling, telling me that I am a poor reader and poor at critical thinking certainly is. It’s the equivalent of calling me stupid, which I hope you can at least see from my responses that I am not.

You say to say they are worth the same does mean they are equal. I would like to point to the phrase used to justify segregation - “Separate but equal.” It is very, very similar to the reasoning you are employing.

And NOW I get to the section of your post where you call me dogmatic, bigoted, ignorant, close-minded, and then suggest you are/once were a college professor. Would you say something like that to a student of yours with an interest in theology who wanted to debate? That’s so rude and childish, I hope you’re ashamed of yourself. I’m probably half of your age and have just relied on the tools of logic and reason, not name-calling, to make my case. I hope others see this and realize that it discounts your opinion quite a bit. I’m done with you. I really hope you aren’t teaching college anymore.

Assertation: An opinion.
Observation: An act or instance of attentively watching, perceiving, noting and recording something.

 

[Betterave]

So lets see how bhall did in responding to my last post:

Could you explain, with reference to the actual meanings of the words “assertion” and “observation,” the grounds for your claims here? (I expect not, I expect you won’t even try, I expect you won’t try to really answer any of my questions, but I’d love to see you belie my expectations.)

No response.

Do you know what a non sequitur is?

No response. (Evidence suggests that the answer is no.)

I think so. Have I said anything that would suggest I don’t? If you think I have, please be courteous enough to tell me what it was that made you think that.

Response: an obvious straw man.

I’m not interested in disputing this point. I merely question why you apparently think that this was not true for most of human history (i.e., when hunting and shelter building, etc., featured as more prominent human activities).

No response.

But I never said that women make worse leaders than men! You may be ‘college-educated’ but that doesn’t mean you have good reasoning or reading skills. I’ve spent more than enough time marking college students’ papers and exams to know that, without you having to demonstrate it to me again.

Lots of reaction, no rational response (I’ll explain in my next post).

So you don’t agree that it is simplistic. Nonetheless it clearly is. But you seem disinclined to discuss it. (If you’d like to discuss it, drop the defensiveness and let’s discuss it.) Noting that your view is simplistic is not name calling and does not indicate that I’ve been cornered - to claim otherwise is just stupid.

Response by deepening the defensiveness, continuing to show disinclination to actual discussion.

No, actually to say they are worth the same obviously DOES mean they are equal (in respect of their worth).

No response to this specific point, just a generic claim about “my reasoning” without any indication of what point in my reasoning is being referred to.

You are apparently a very dogmatic, closed-minded person. Do you think this is a good quality in a leader? It might be… but probably not.

Response: Another unreasonable emotional reaction.

Dare to question your own dogmas. A truly good leader should not be happily ignorant and either too afraid or too impatient to question her own presuppositions. You can still be a leader though, the world is obviously full of bigoted, ignorant leaders. You choose who you want to be. Good luck to you!

Response: continued and reinforced dogmatism.

 

[bhall0689]

I like how you just didn’t respond to ANY of my argument, when ALL OF THAT WAS A RESPONSE TO YOU.

Did you see how much I just typed? That took me about 25 minutes.

Your inability to respond to the meat of my argument, which is that women are just as intellectual as men, and are therefore just as suited to positions of leadership (considering that physical superiority is no longer the mark of a leader).

That’s it. That’s all I’m saying. I was not and am not going to take the time to respond to your ridiculous questions point by point, but try to answer them as a whole by clarifying my argument. I’ve clarified it many times, probably getting close to 10 or so restatements by this point.

You disgust me. I’m glad I’m not longer Catholic. People like you make me so angry at the Church and remind me why I left in the first place. Really, people like you are EXACTLY WHY I LEFT.

I can’t help but have an emotional response when a man twice my age who calls me dogmatic, bigoted, close-minded, a poor reader, a poor thinker, while suggesting that women are not naturally suited to leadership positions. I have worked my entire life to get to where I am, all of my life I have revered education, the liberal arts, reading, writing, intellectual expansion as the most noble crafts. I can’t help but be emotional when I am insulted, called stupid, and told I am not naturally suited to be a leader. I can’t respect anything you say at all, now, because you’ve said these things. Doesn’t that kind of seem like shooting yourself in the foot?

Guess what, Betterrave. I AM your intellectual equal, and one day I WILL hold a position of prestige and leadership. I’m young, and I still have a lot to learn, but that does not undermine my intelligence or will.

 

[Betterave]

You did not, but you said that “leadership” roles are especially suited to men.

I did not say that. Please read more carefully.

Also, do you think that all leadership is the same (it’s either “physical” or “intellectual” and descriptively exhausted by those categories)? I sure don’t. You seem to have a rather poorly nuanced view of the matter.

I disputed that, and wanted to know why you think so. Men either excel as leaders because they are physically or intellectually superior. Since most MODERN (HUGE emphasis on this word - it’s very different than PRIMITIVE) positions of leadership do not require vast physical superiority, but rather mental superiority, I would argue that men are no LONGER better suited to these positions than women. I wonder how many times I’ve restated this argument in this thread? Probably because you never have a direct response to the actual argument, but to the parts of it you perceive as “holes.”

I don’t know why you keep restating it. I guess it’s because you don’t know what a non sequitur is. Please look this term up, then try to actually understand the criticism I have addressed to this point.

You ask why men have been leaders for most of human history, and women have not. Once again, in primitive times, leadership activities required PHYSICAL strength, very different than MENTAL strength. Men are superior to women in physical strength, but equally matched in intellectual strength. Survival in primitive times was based mostly physical superiority and fitness, so men assumed the roles of leaders since they are physically stronger. Now, survival is based much less on these things and much more on intellectual superiority. Women are intellectual equals, so they can be just as good MODERN leaders as men. Am I sounding like a broken record?

You’re an English major, not a history major. That’s obvious. If you had studied any history you would know that your historical categories - “primitive times” vs. “modern” times - are indeed very simplistic. If you insist on interpreting this observation as an insult, that’s your problem, not mine.

The reason I think you don’t understand the difference between mental and physical strength, is because the argument you make to justify men as natural leader is that it’s “always been like that.”

Can you please point out to me where I made that argument?

I say it started that way because men, being naturally stronger, were the ones to assume leadership positions when the tribe’s survival depended on strength. Now the “tribe” or “family’s” survival depends less on strength, and more on intellectual wits, in which women are just as well matched as men. I am REALLY trying to make the distinction between the different kinds of “strengths” clear, and also trying to point out the evolution of what it means to be a “leader” in society. I think I might have just restated my argument again . . .

Again, this simplistic narrative is based on your extremely simplistic and inaccurate ‘observations’ about the history of human societies.

Thank you for calling me “college-educated” in quotation marks, and saying that I have poor reading and reasoning skills. The reason I am here is because I am curious about theology, I love to read, I love to learn, I love to debate. I think that these interests hopefully point to at least SOMEWHAT developed reasoning skills. I KNOW I have good reading skills - I’m an English major at a very good Catholic University. I’ve been reading and writing my entire life. I am very, very offended that you would suggest otherwise. You don’t see me making similar claims about you, even though I’ve restated the same argument over and over and over and you just don’t get it. Even if calling my arguments “simplistic” isn’t name-calling, telling me that I am a poor reader and poor at critical thinking certainly is. It’s the equivalent of calling me stupid, which I hope you can at least see from my responses that I am not.

Curiosity is great, I applaud that. Curiosity and closed-mindedness make strange (nay, incompatible?) bed-fellows though. I object to the latter in your posts, not the former.

You say to say they are worth the same does mean they are equal. I would like to point to the phrase used to justify segregation - “Separate but equal.” It is very, very similar to the reasoning you are employing.

Which reasoning I am employing? (The reasoning that you have repeatedly miscontrued and clearly failed to understand?)

And NOW I get to the section of your post where you call me dogmatic, bigoted, ignorant, close-minded, and then suggest you are/once were a college professor. Would you say something like that to a student of yours with an interest in theology who wanted to debate? That’s so rude and childish, I hope you’re ashamed of yourself. I’m probably half of your age and have just relied on the tools of logic and reason, not name-calling, to make my case. I hope others see this and realize that it discounts your opinion quite a bit. I’m done with you. I really hope you aren’t teaching college anymore.

I’m just a humble TA, no professor. But I would say that to a student who was pretending to want to debate, but who wasn’t listening to what anyone else was saying and was repeatedly distorting the position she was arguing against. Why wouldn’t I?