Women's rolls in socity

[elt1956]

Your quote:
"There’s no other kind, least not among humans. Save time and effort by just saying “society”.

Although I have no expertise in the following as some appear to have, what about:

Unique Matriarch Society Documented in New Book Anthropologist Pegge Reeves Sanday.
“Today, four million Minangkabau, one of the largest ethnic groups in Indonesia, live in the highlands of the province of West Sumatra. Their society, Dr. Sanday discovered, is founded on the coexistence of matrilineal custom and a nature-based philosophy called adat.”
“Neither male nor female rule is possible because of the Minangkabau belief that decision-making should be by consensus,”

The Nagovisi
The Nagovisi are one of three tribes of South Bougainville, a large tropical island west of New Guinea and north of Australia

The Khasi and the Garo Live of the Meghalaya state in North-Eastern India

The Machiguenga
Orna and Allen Johnson have studied the Machiguenga people of Peru, who live in the rainforest east of Cuzco, and speak an Arawakan language (11,000 speakers).

Navajo culture, which is matriarchal, gives women a sense of power and independence." “In Navajo religion and culture, there is an emphasis on how you relate to everything around you. Everything has to be measured, weighed and harmonious. We call it nizhoni - walking in beauty.” Dr Lori Cupp

The Pueblo, Hopi and Zuni
These societies are characterized by high status and economic independence of women, and matrilineal and matrilocal residence.

North America: The Iroquois and Huron.
The Iroquois consisted of five groups whose own collective name was Haudenosaunee (= the Longhouse). “In each clan, each individual and distinct matrilineage ohwachira has one person who acts as representative for it. The women choose them and are often in this position themselves.” The bestowal of an office was not irrevocable; the women retained the right to replace a leader who failed to meet their expectations. One of the matrons in each ohwachira presided over her kin group and with counterparts from other longhouses constituted the female leadership of a clan segment.

Canada: Innu (Montagnais)
The Innu of St. Lawrence Valley who were called Montagnais-Naskapi by the missionaries caused head-aches to the Jesuits. Let brother Fr. Paul Le Jeune report of his troubles: “the women have great power… A man may promise you something and if he does not keep his promise, he thinks he is sufficiently excused when he tells you that his wife did not wish him to do it.”

North America: Cherokee
The Cherokee were matrilineal with a complex society. Cherokee women had many rights and privileges other than domestic duties. Cherokee women had many rights and privileges other than domestic duties. Not only did married women own property, such as homes, horses, cattle and fields of growing crops and fruit trees, but they also participated in both the fighting of wars and the Council of War, and sat with the Civil Council of Peace. Lineage was traced through the women’s clan.

Mexico: Tehuantepec Zapotec
The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol 7 refers to “the notorious power of isthmus Zapotec women” who call themselves Tehuanas.

So should I not differentiate between the Patriarchal/Matriarchal societies.

It seems to me, illiterate that I am, that Matriarchal Societies emphasize balance, harmony and cooperation while Patriarchal Societies emphasize dominance and one up man ship In order for one person to feel good, the other person must be put down.:tsktsk:

 

[jman507]

It seems to me, illiterate that I am, that Matriarchal Societies emphasize balance, harmony and cooperation while Patriarchal Societies emphasize dominance and one up man ship In order for one person to feel good, the other person must be put down.:tsktsk:

It seems to me you make things out to be more simplistic than they are. Even if things are as simple as you present, you seem to make a biased highlight of one over the other. What good is balance and harmony if your the community is lacking food. If one person tries to do something different to one up the other, and everyone learns to do thing better in the process, then that sounds good to me.

I think you may misunderstand that one upmanship isn’t always about putting the other down so you can feel good; it can simply be about challenanging yourself to do things better than have been done before. It can be abused. So can balance and harmony. People can often put up with an abusive member out of the idea of balance and harmony.

It is best to aknowledge that there are always advantages and disadvantages with any approach. Nor can one forget to also ackowledge that some approaches will be far supior than others, and sometimes it may depend on the situation. Often times we can lament that “the grass is greener on the other side.” Often times we know the fine details of our situation to know all its faults, but the other situation we’ve only been able to inspect superficially. It may be “greener,” but one ought to realize the uncertianty of that position.

 

[elt1956]

It seems to me you make things out to be more simplistic than they are. Even if things are as simple as you present, you seem to make a biased highlight of one over the other. What good is balance and harmony if your the community is lacking food. If one person tries to do something different to one up the other, and everyone learns to do thing better in the process, then that sounds good to me.

I think you may misunderstand that one upmanship isn’t always about putting the other down so you can feel good; it can simply be about challenanging yourself to do things better than have been done before. It can be abused. So can balance and harmony. People can often put up with an abusive member out of the idea of balance and harmony.

It is best to aknowledge that there are always advantages and disadvantages with any approach. Nor can one forget to also ackowledge that some approaches will be far supior than others, and sometimes it may depend on the situation. Often times we can lament that “the grass is greener on the other side.” Often times we know the fine details of our situation to know all its faults, but the other situation we’ve only been able to inspect superficially. It may be “greener,” but one ought to realize the uncertianty of that position.

I DO admire your grasp of the overall picture. What I am saying is indeed a simplistic way of looking at events, times, societies etc. What you say is true, but my difficulty would be in choosing which method to choose, defense of one’s way of belief, or way of living, yes I can deal with that. But as far as really, really knowing God’s will when it comes to harming another being, I just don’t know. War creates War, aggression creates aggression. That approach is quite a burden to accept upon oneself. Human frailties always get in the way of decisions and that is what frightens me.

You say, “What good is balance and harmony if your community is lacking food. " This is not balance and harmony and should be addressed. If this is the result of oppression, yes, we are entitled to defend ourselves, but hopefully not at the expense of another who has no food, even if in another community.” Hard decision. Also “If one person tries to do something different to one up the other, and everyone learns to do thing better in the process, then that sounds good to me.” This depends upon one’s intentions. If one is driven to learn, or do somethng different to try to make circumstances better for others and not only one self, that is one thing, but I think competitiveness in many circumstances breeds distrust. The end doesn’t justify the means etc. The act of One Up Manship is ALWAYS putting another down so one can feel better.

If members of a society tolerate another who is abusive, we no longer have balance and harmony. It has to be a community effort.

Christ and Ghandi are both examples of passive resistance/aggression. Christ’s coming brought dissension and discord because of the way human’s interpreted His teachings. His teachings were simplistic, but the way they were understood by His followers and by the crowds were at variance with what He was trying to say. Ghandi led the way to India’s eventual Independence from Britain, but most of his followers didn’t understand his beliefs and thinking and bloodshed followed in several instances. Both Christ and Ghandi approached the masses and oppression with simplicity. Not many understood.

You have a great mind. A pleasure to read your postings. Where did you learn all this?

 

[Hastrman]

Your quote:
"There’s no other kind, least not among humans. Save time and effort by just saying “society”.

Navajo culture, which is matriarchal, gives women a sense of power and independence." “In Navajo religion and culture, there is an emphasis on how you relate to everything around you. Everything has to be measured, weighed and harmonious. We call it nizhoni - walking in beauty.” Dr Lori Cupp

The Pueblo, Hopi and Zuni
These societies are characterized by high status and economic independence of women, and matrilineal and matrilocal residence.

Forgive me, bilaghaana, but you just walked into a landmine. I live not fifty miles south of both these reservations, I speak a few words of both their languages, and I am thoroughly well acquainted with both cultures, and no, they are not matriarchal in the least.

Among the Navajo, women own the land and descent is through them. But men handle all ritual tasks, they are responsible for keeping Changing Woman’s law, and they are the ones who went out and fought, gaining prestige. Men lead, women follow, in Navajo life.

Incidentally nizhoni simply means “it is beautiful.” It is essentially the Navajo equivalent of Taoism–only rather than saying Yin and Yang, Navajo says simply Male and Female. Female is always submissive and subordinate to male. Born for Water, the younger of the Hero Brothers, is considered the “female” of the two because he is younger than, therefore subordinate to, Monster Killer.

Women are only considered to be good, to be fulfilling their role in the world, if they have children, by the way. And the Navajo also used to be polygamists, where all the daughters of a family would marry the same man, just to thoroughly destroy your little dream world. Their legends are full of gods and heroes carrying off women of other tribes to take as wives–the original definition of the English word “rape”.

So bloody matriarchal.

Oh by the way, they also consider all non-Navajos “enemies,” and used to make about 40% of their living raiding them. The Hopi word for “Navajo” means “They crush your head with a hammer.”

Dineh nilh ya’at’eeh, bilaghaana asdzaan?

Similarly, among the Hopi, yes, land is owned and inherited by women–but men lead the villages and make all the decisions. Women are forbidden from entering the kivas, the temples of the men’s religious initiation societies, because the powers of the katsinas are too dangerous.

Similar structures exist, by the way, in any Aztec/-teca groups, since they’re related to the Hopi.

Don’t talk of things you know nothing about. It is the consensus of all non-ideological-feminists (and many even of them) in the anthropological field, that there is no such thing as matriarchy.

And an ethical system based on balance is not something you could stomach, by the way–it involves, among other things, a total disregard for whether people intended to do harm. Medieval Iceland’s honor laws–“There is no such thing as an accident”–was a balance-based system; so is the code of the yakuza. So, also, was the War Way of the Apache (another of your so-called matriarchies )–which involved killing any member of an enemy group that one could get one’s hands on, usually by torture.

But then, maybe if you actually knew anyone but white people you’d know about that.

 

[strngrnrth]

I’ve seen video of matriarchy in a primitive setting. It looks like it does exist, and in more than one part of the world, too. But, is it ideal? That’s the issue. Not by my standards. When women are in power, they seem tot reat men almost as badly as men in power treat women. Also, matriarchy doesn’t outlast the first few attacks by organized enemies, because a dilemma charges in: A female or mixed-sex fighting force, or a male one? If female or mixed, will only non-mothers take part? Few women agree to be soldiers and never have children. I know some do, but not many. So we get either no soldiers (extinction) or a mostly male army. If a mostly male army, well, as the army becomes more needed and being a soldier becomes more deadly, supply and demand raise the rewards available to soldiers until the top fighters bacome leaders and voila patriarchy in a few generations. If a lot of mothers of small children fight, the value of the children (who are designed to want to be with their mothers) drops in the society’s eyes. Not many generations later, we have either a population too small to live on its own, so it’s assimilated into another culture and its ways are lost, or a fierce society of lawless people who grew up abandoned and devalued. That leads to a cruel, might-makes-right society, and soon the top fighters rule. Thats the way it works. Peaceful, cooperative people last while they are alone in a place of abundance, but when the precarious paradise is distubed, people reward warriors first. This world was cursed long ago to death and conflict and hard labor.

 

[elt1956]

Forgive me, bilaghaana, but you just walked into a landmine. I live not fifty miles south of both these reservations, I speak a few words of both their languages, and I am thoroughly well acquainted with both cultures, and no, they are not matriarchal in the least.

Among the Navajo, women own the land and descent is through them. But men handle all ritual tasks, they are responsible for keeping Changing Woman’s law, and they are the ones who went out and fought, gaining prestige. Men lead, women follow, in Navajo life.

Incidentally nizhoni simply means “it is beautiful.” It is essentially the Navajo equivalent of Taoism–only rather than saying Yin and Yang, Navajo says simply Male and Female. Female is always submissive and subordinate to male. Born for Water, the younger of the Hero Brothers, is considered the “female” of the two because he is younger than, therefore subordinate to, Monster Killer.

Women are only considered to be good, to be fulfilling their role in the world, if they have children, by the way. And the Navajo also used to be polygamists, where all the daughters of a family would marry the same man, just to thoroughly destroy your little dream world. Their legends are full of gods and heroes carrying off women of other tribes to take as wives–the original definition of the English word “rape”.

So bloody matriarchal.

Oh by the way, they also consider all non-Navajos “enemies,” and used to make about 40% of their living raiding them. The Hopi word for “Navajo” means “They crush your head with a hammer.”

Dineh nilh ya’at’eeh, bilaghaana asdzaan?

Similarly, among the Hopi, yes, land is owned and inherited by women–but men lead the villages and make all the decisions. Women are forbidden from entering the kivas, the temples of the men’s religious initiation societies, because the powers of the katsinas are too dangerous.

Similar structures exist, by the way, in any Aztec/-teca groups, since they’re related to the Hopi.

Don’t talk of things you know nothing about. It is the consensus of all non-ideological-feminists (and many even of them) in the anthropological field, that there is no such thing as matriarchy.

And an ethical system based on balance is not something you could stomach, by the way–it involves, among other things, a total disregard for whether people intended to do harm. Medieval Iceland’s honor laws–“There is no such thing as an accident”–was a balance-based system; so is the code of the yakuza. So, also, was the War Way of the Apache (another of your so-called matriarchies )–which involved killing any member of an enemy group that one could get one’s hands on, usually by torture.

But then, maybe if you actually knew anyone but white people you’d know about that.

From what I have read there are different definitions/explanations of what matriarchal societies consist of. Apparently I have been reading the wrong information. Which book have you written? Also don’t make assumptions about people"s lives you know nothing about. From your post I “could” assume you live among people of color. From mine, you can assume NOTHING!

 

[Hastrman]

From what I have read there are different definitions/explanations of what matriarchal societies consist of. Apparently I have been reading the wrong information. Which book have you written? Also don’t make assumptions about people"s lives you know nothing about. From your post I “could” assume you live among people of color. From mine, you can assume NOTHING!

“Which book have you written?” How is that relevant? The only thing that’s relevant is the utter worthlessness of your assertions.

If, however, you meant, “why haven’t you written a book to correct these misconceptions,” well, I didn’t really have to. Last I checked Keith Basso, Clyde Kluckhohn, and Grenville Goodwin’s books (to name just the big three of Navajo-Apache studies) were still in print.

And I made no assumptions. The ignorant, tendentious, and frankly racist statements you make about Native Americans (the words “noble savage” come irresistably to mind, albeit with a feminist twist) allow me to deduce (that is, on the basis of evidence–it’s not an assumption) that you have never met one in your life.

And yet you feel perfectly all right with making these asinine assertions about them. You wouldn’t go and say such things about Jews or the Chinese or the Dutch–why do you feel you can make the Navajo and Hopi into running-dogs of your ideology, without even checking the facts?

It might not really be your fault, but I found it offensive. Any book about the topic of matriarchy–indeed any book about an anthropological topic that’s written for the general public, but especially if it’s a feminist idea–is going to be trimming its data to meet the author’s and audience’s preconceptions, not presenting the data impartially.

 

[elt1956]

“Which book have you written?” How is that relevant? The only thing that’s relevant is the utter worthlessness of your assertions.

If, however, you meant, “why haven’t you written a book to correct these misconceptions,” well, I didn’t really have to. Last I checked Keith Basso, Clyde Kluckhohn, and Grenville Goodwin’s books (to name just the big three of Navajo-Apache studies) were still in print.

And I made no assumptions. The ignorant, tendentious, and frankly racist statements you make about Native Americans (the words “noble savage” come irresistably to mind, albeit with a feminist twist) allow me to deduce (that is, on the basis of evidence–it’s not an assumption) that you have never met one in your life.

And yet you feel perfectly all right with making these asinine assertions about them. You wouldn’t go and say such things about Jews or the Chinese or the Dutch–why do you feel you can make the Navajo and Hopi into running-dogs of your ideology, without even checking the facts?

It might not really be your fault, but I found it offensive. Any book about the topic of matriarchy–indeed any book about an anthropological topic that’s written for the general public, but especially if it’s a feminist idea–is going to be trimming its data to meet the author’s and audience’s preconceptions, not presenting the data impartially.

How are my statements racist? I only stated the truth as you said it. You live near the Navaho reservation, right? I don’t, but I have had a special affinity for Native Americans since I was a child. If you find my statements offensive and racist, you are wrongly interpreting them. Are you Native American? Just asking. And your statement, “but especially if it’s a feminist idea–is going to be trimming its data to meet the author’s and audience’s preconceptions, not presenting the data impartially” could be said about ANY idea. What rattled your War Bonnet? You’re putting the words “noble savage” in your mind, not me.

 

[Hastrman]

How are my statements racist? I only stated the truth as you said it. You live near the Navaho reservation, right? I don’t, but I have had a special affinity for Native Americans since I was a child. If you find my statements offensive and racist, you are wrongly interpreting them. Are you Native American? Just asking. And your statement, “but especially if it’s a feminist idea–is going to be trimming its data to meet the author’s and audience’s preconceptions, not presenting the data impartially” could be said about ANY idea. What rattled your War Bonnet? You’re putting the words “noble savage” in your mind, not me.

Your stereptyped, idealized version of the Navajo ideas of balance and beauty, and of a matriarchal society vs. a patriarchal one–they’re practically a textbook case of the idea of “noble savage.” I would have thought it was fairly obvious why I said that.

I am not Native American, but I know enough about them to know they’re exactly like everyone else–in other words, their history is one long string of wars, intrigues, and alliances. Or in yet other words, they’re human and therefore interesting, which your cookie-cutter stereotype Flower Child Native Americans wouldn’t be, if they existed. Which thank God they don’t.

You’ve “had a special affinity for Native Americans since you were a child”?

Reminds me of the NYT editor who hired Jayson Blair.

Liking a people you know nothing about is exactly like hating them: they’re both prejudices, and they’re both stupid. And you’ve established you know nothing about Native Americans. So what is it, exactly, that you have a special affinity with? My guess is, a fanciful construct in your own head.

 

[elt1956]

Your stereptyped, idealized version of the Navajo ideas of balance and beauty, and of a matriarchal society vs. a patriarchal one–they’re practically a textbook case of the idea of “noble savage.” I would have thought it was fairly obvious why I said that.

I am not Native American, but I know enough about them to know they’re exactly like everyone else–in other words, their history is one long string of wars, intrigues, and alliances. Or in yet other words, they’re human and therefore interesting, which your cookie-cutter stereotype Flower Child Native Americans wouldn’t be, if they existed. Which thank God they don’t.

You’ve “had a special affinity for Native Americans since you were a child”?

Reminds me of the NYT editor who hired Jayson Blair.

Liking a people you know nothing about is exactly like hating them: they’re both prejudices, and they’re both stupid. And you’ve established you know nothing about Native Americans. So what is it, exactly, that you have a special affinity with? My guess is, a fanciful construct in your own head.

Is that what this is all about? My misunderstanding of the Navaho Nation being Matrilineal? I think you are projecting your hatred of feminism onto my slip regarding Navaho society. I envy your first hand exposure to Native American culture. I truly wish I could have had the same experience, unfortunately I was raised and live in the mid-west. I DO NOT have stereotypical ideas of Native Americans. My only knowledge of Native American culture is through books. DO NOT accuse me of not understanding that the Navaho, Hopi, Apache, and all the rest of the members of Native American nations are human, just like the rest of us. I think you have read far too much in my very short statements and come up with your own very limited observations. You are projecting your hatred of I don’t know what onto someone you don’t even know. This is how wars start. So sorry you are unhappy. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

I’ve seen video of matriarchy in a primitive setting. It looks like it does exist, and in more than one part of the world, too. But, is it ideal? That’s the issue. Not by my standards. When women are in power, they seem tot reat men almost as badly as men in power treat women. Also, matriarchy doesn’t outlast the first few attacks by organized enemies, because a dilemma charges in: A female or mixed-sex fighting force, or a male one? If female or mixed, will only non-mothers take part? Few women agree to be soldiers and never have children. I know some do, but not many. So we get either no soldiers (extinction) or a mostly male army. If a mostly male army, well, as the army becomes more needed and being a soldier becomes more deadly, supply and demand raise the rewards available to soldiers until the top fighters bacome leaders and voila patriarchy in a few generations. If a lot of mothers of small children fight, the value of the children (who are designed to want to be with their mothers) drops in the society’s eyes. Not many generations later, we have either a population too small to live on its own, so it’s assimilated into another culture and its ways are lost, or a fierce society of lawless people who grew up abandoned and devalued. That leads to a cruel, might-makes-right society, and soon the top fighters rule. Thats the way it works. Peaceful, cooperative people last while they are alone in a place of abundance, but when the precarious paradise is distubed, people reward warriors first. This world was cursed long ago to death and conflict and hard labor.

What you say is true. I’m not promoting either a strictly matriarchal or patriarchal society. But it does seem a shame that the peaceful side of human nature is greatly overun by the warriors. Where does this get us, but in a vicious cycle of destruction? I know the idea of a cooperative and peaceful society is strictly an idealistic, impossible, viewpoint but don’t you think this is what Christ would want? What Christ taught was a total disruption of all society. He taught a social justice that was unknown in His time and remains unknown and misunderstood today. Humans just can’t deal with peace. What is it in our nature that makes us this way? Very discouraging. :crying:

 

[Hastrman]

What you say is true. I’m not promoting either a strictly matriarchal or patriarchal society. But it does seem a shame that the peaceful side of human nature is greatly overun by the warriors. Where does this get us, but in a vicious cycle of destruction? I know the idea of a cooperative and peaceful society is strictly an idealistic, impossible, viewpoint but don’t you think this is what Christ would want? What Christ taught was a total disruption of all society. He taught a social justice that was unknown in His time and remains unknown and misunderstood today. Humans just can’t deal with peace. What is it in our nature that makes us this way? Very discouraging. :crying:

If Christ wanted a total disruption of society (and mercifully he did not), then…such a God would be unworthy of my worship. Indeed, to Hell with such a God (though of course that god is there already, having been its first inmate). Mercifully, however, pacifism is no part of Christianity and never has been.

How can one reconcile a pacifistic vision with “I come not bearing peace, but the sword”? Seems to me that war and conflict are a part of life, are indeed necessary to the preservation of good in a fallen world.

This fact is only discouraging if you think war is always wrong–it isn’t–and that one ought always to seek peace…defining peace as “absence of conflict”. Only, see, peace ought to be defined (as it is, incidentally, in Hopi, where “Hopi” is the word for peace) as “right order”–in which case sometimes wars are necessary, to restore that right order.

Which oddly enough means, quite literally, that sometimes war is peace.

Before that strikes you as too odd, remember: this is the religion where God is a man, a virgin is a mother, wine is blood, and being crucified is victory. Is war being peace actually all that strange, compared to the rest of it?

 

[elt1956]

If Christ wanted a total disruption of society (and mercifully he did not), then…such a God would be unworthy of my worship. Indeed, to Hell with such a God (though of course that god is there already, having been its first inmate). Mercifully, however, pacifism is no part of Christianity and never has been.

How can one reconcile a pacifistic vision with “I come not bearing peace, but the sword”? Seems to me that war and conflict are a part of life, are indeed necessary to the preservation of good in a fallen world.

This fact is only discouraging if you think war is always wrong–it isn’t–and that one ought always to seek peace…defining peace as “absence of conflict”. Only, see, peace ought to be defined (as it is, incidentally, in Hopi, where “Hopi” is the word for peace) as “right order”–in which case sometimes wars are necessary, to restore that right order.

Which oddly enough means, quite literally, that sometimes war is peace.

Before that strikes you as too odd, remember: this is the religion where God is a man, a virgin is a mother, wine is blood, and being crucified is victory. Is war being peace actually all that strange, compared to the rest of it?

Who asked you?

 

[Hastrman]

Who asked you?

Who asked you, if it comes to that?

And what, pray, do you know about the philosophy or moral theology of war, too, for that matter? If you’re going to start this BS, I can challenge you to back up every word you utter with actual logic or facts or Bible or Catechism quotes–but I don’t want to do that. We (mostly I, I admit) got contentious enough about the Native American thing; on this one, I was actually trying to help.

I was trying to show you you don’t need to get depressed about violence, because violence isn’t always a bad thing. It’s not even considered one in Buddhism, and Christianity has no such pacifistic element.

But more importantly, if you say something in a forum, anyone gets to reply. That’s why it’s called a “forum”!

 

[elt1956]

Who asked you, if it comes to that?

And what, pray, do you know about the philosophy or moral theology of war, too, for that matter? If you’re going to start this BS, I can challenge you to back up every word you utter with actual logic or facts or Bible or Catechism quotes–but I don’t want to do that. We (mostly I, I admit) got contentious enough about the Native American thing; on this one, I was actually trying to help.

I was trying to show you you don’t need to get depressed about violence, because violence isn’t always a bad thing. It’s not even considered one in Buddhism, and Christianity has no such pacifistic element.

But more importantly, if you say something in a forum, anyone gets to reply. That’s why it’s called a “forum”!

Yes, you are right. I appreciate your trying to help on this forum, but please re-read your posts and the slurs you said to me on the Native Amercan Post. I really didn’t appreciate them. Why did you get so contentious anyway? You apparently are a person having great knowledge, but knowledge can be shared without getting nasty. I don’t mind being led in learning, but I’ll be darned if I listen to someone browbeating me.

 

[Ghoti]

Not to get on topic here or anything…

So, I was reading a website today, and alot of what they said made since, but alot of it seemed a little…weird. I t makes me a little worried that I was born with to big a mouth

Don’t get me wrong, men and women have different rules to play in society. The first role of a women should be being a mother, that’s all well and dandy Women can not be priests, or bishops, and i get it.

And, at first glance, the site that I was looking through seemed logical. But then it got into this thing about how women should not lead men under ,rro teach them. Women should not run for public office, and should not be in the military. They should not be judges, or lawyers, or police officers.

Now, I have no desire to join the military, be a cop, or run for public office. In fact i want to be a High School History teacher (I’m beginning Universality this fall). But these rules seemed a little…different. To be honest, I have never seen them, or heard them before.

Am I just crazy? lol

Unless the Church has a published list of jobs women can or cannot hold (and outside the priesthood, I don’t know of any; anyone else?), I don’t see any job as being closed to women.

Women can be criminals, so why can’t they be cops?

I was in the army for 20 years. One of the best officers I ever served under was a woman. One of the worst was, too, so there you go.

And tell Mississauga that women shouldn’t run for office. Hazel McCallion has been re-elected for mayor there by an easy margin since Confederation. She must be doing something right.

As for the whole pant/trousers thing…this website says that Roman soldiers in Jesus’ time wore trousers, and so did men in the early Church. I thought trousers didn’t come about until the 1600’s at least. I also thought that Roman soldiers wore a knee-length skirt- or kilt-like affair.

This web site sounds an awful lot like a group I read about once, who insisted that Jesus wore a shirt, pants, and shoes, had a crew-cut and was clean-shaven, and read from a KJV; basically trying to project 1940s/50s social custom onto every time period.

I wonder what this website thinks about Tongans in sarongs or Scotsmen in kilts.

 

[strngrnrth]

As for the whole pant/trousers thing…this website says that Roman soldiers in Jesus’ time wore trousers, and so did men in the early Church. I thought trousers didn’t come about until the 1600’s at least. I also thought that Roman soldiers wore a knee-length skirt- or kilt-like affair.

This web site sounds an awful lot like a group I read about once, who insisted that Jesus wore a shirt, pants, and shoes, had a crew-cut and was clean-shaven, and read from a KJV; basically trying to project 1940s/50s social custom onto every time period.

I wonder what this website thinks about Tongans in sarongs or Scotsmen in kilts.

Different clothes for men and women in most European cultures didn’t exist until the 15th century. Of course, the kilt is modern too. Until the start of the Industrial Revolution, Scots of all ages and both sexes wore a plaid (a large cloak that wrapped around the hip or waist to make a kind of large pocket), a leinne, or big loose shirt, and boots made by wrapping skins from the foot to the knee. Some wore sandals as well. Trousers originated separately in many different places, from China to the North American plains, but were for both men and women and had shapes ranging from puffy to flowing to gathered to skin-tight, depending on what was practical. Middle Eastern people and Romans had no trousers because they are hot. Roman soldiers wore skirts. Jews wore robes or long shirts with cloaks. High hels wer invented by King Louis XIV for himself. It took a long time for women to get interested in them. Comfortable footgear was considered more feminine then.

 

[Brendan]

As for the whole pant/trousers thing…this website says that Roman soldiers in Jesus’ time wore trousers, and so did men in the early Church. I thought trousers didn’t come about until the 1600’s at least. I also thought that Roman soldiers wore a knee-length skirt- or kilt-like affair…

Roman soliders wore a tunic that came to about mid thigh, underneath that was a pair of breeches (summer) or trousers (winter)

Also, all calvary wore trousers

Take a look at this re-enactor photo

ad43.org/photogallery/2005EventPics/Lafe_op_013.jpg

or this one

ad43.org/photogallery/2005EventPics/Prefect_Julius.jpg

 

[strngrnrth]

Roman soliders wore a tunic that came to about mid thigh, underneath that was a pair of breeches (summer) or trousers (winter)

Also, all calvary wore trousers

Take a look at this re-enactor photo

ad43.org/photogallery/2005EventPics/Lafe_op_013.jpg

or this one

ad43.org/photogallery/2005EventPics/Prefect_Julius.jpg

Excuse me! I was thinking of another ancient Mediterranean army. I haven’t slept.:doh2: