|
Veritas


Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
*sigh* I suppose I should have known better than to get into this on this thread. My apologies, Markos, as this topic once again veers away from your original post.
Freud did not theorize that we were motivated by sex and anger, he theorized that we were motivated by pleasure. If you think that this is not true, you have not done much observing of actual human beings. We find our pleasure in many different activities, including religion for someone like you. In Freudian terms "Eros" is the life-impulse and "Thanatos" is the death-impulse, or you might call them creation and destruction. He theorized that our pleasure motivation was directed into these two divergent streams. Again, if you do not think that this plays out every day in humanity, you have not been watching.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
How simple minded.
I can't believe that someone with posts and rationalisms such as yours would use a personalism such as this.  
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder


Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
|
|
I am assuming here that Paul was indeed a historical person. I am also cognizant that the scriptures are FULL of insertions, scribal modifications that were made to force certain points. Paul was using a literary device as far as I am concerned, and writers on mysticism in the last hundred years see the same literary device. The technique of these omnipresent voices of God occur in other places like the dove lighting on Iesus at His baptism and the whole "This is my Son in whom I am well-pleased" insertions. If you wish to take this midrashic literary device as literal/historical, that is your own problem. A concept of God who is an Old-Bearded-Guy-in-the-Sky is essentially, a Christianized mythic/anthropomorphic version of YHWH/Zeus/Jupiter.
Modern thinkers have a mind set which has greater capability of determining the workings of the psyche of ancients. If you have a psychotic child who throws himself in camp fires, and you choose to adopt the mind-set that he is a demoniac and insist on casting his demons out by way of exorcism without addressing his physiological/medical and psychosocial needs according to additional models of the phenomenon, then you are as mad as your child. Voices no longer occur omnisciently, pillars of fire and smoke no longer appear along with other theophanies. Why? Because these magnificent literary descriptions were midrashic illustrations intended to highlight a point, NOT supernatural intrusions into history as you so sadly believe.
Paul was not necessarily lying, but those who wrote letters and named them after Paul certainly were. Scribes modified writings time and again, but if you maintain the big lie of some Biblical infallibility then you are no more rational than the fundamentalist I know who maintains that the Sun is no larger than a basketball - as are distant stars - because Revelations says that the stars will fall to Earth at the end of time! Science therefore is lying. This is delusional thinking at its worst because much of it has translated down into his child-rearing and stories of lakes of fire in Hell with which he can pass on his own fears and threats of damnation.
So here, I'll take leave of further dialogue. So long as your position is wed to mythic imaginary images, you will only force data into the Procrustean bed of that pre-medieval world view that you fantasize of dwelling in. You probably do not believe that the prophet Muhammed was 1) a prophet, and 2) that he rode on the back of a human-headed horse to Heaven where he witnessed High and Holy mysteries. Conversely, Muslims regard Iesus as a prophet and a prophet of God would never die the shameful death of 'hanging on a tree,' so Muslims do not believe that Iesus was crucified, and the veil of the Holy-of-Holies rent top-to-bottom, or that darkness fell for three hours or that graves were thrown open and the dead resurrected, or any of the other descriptions which comprise the Christian MYTHOS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth .
Typically, everyone else's religious 'history' is mere myth, while Christian myth is history. If you cannot see the base falseness of this position, it's childishly egocentric predudice, and its overtly delusional nature, then you, my man, are contributing to the problem of human hatred, strife and warfare, not to its resolution. You are willing to fight for your version of a myth - a culturally collective fairytale, an archetypal image from the collective unconscious. This is as mad as it gets.
-------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
Edited by MarkostheGnostic (10/25/07 09:25 PM)
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
|
jonathan_206, you know personalisms are against the rules. Please don't do it again.
Besides, calling someone "simple minded" does nothing to support your position.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Icelander]
#7560351 - 10/25/07 07:04 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: How simple minded.
I can't believe that someone with posts and rationalisms such as yours would use a personalism such as this.  
I can't believe that someone capable of distinguishing personalisms such as that would engage in personalisms such as this.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: fireworks_god]
#7560361 - 10/25/07 07:07 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
That was the best I could do under the circumcision, I mean circumstances.
Sorry.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Icelander]
#7560631 - 10/25/07 08:29 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I did back it up.
Quote:
How simple minded. Everything is motivated by sexual desires or anger. I know that's not true. WHen you say "basic psychic energy" that requires sentience. But "libido" itself is not sentience in itself, it is a function of a sentience.
|
Veritas


Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
Are you familiar with the concepts of "prana" or "chi"? These are comparable to Freud's Libido. As for sentience being required for basic psychic energy, I'm not certain why you see the two as intrinsically linked. 
Quote:
Sentient 1. Having sense perception; conscious 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.
If we have a body and a mind, then we are both sentient AND alive. The Libido is what makes us alive, not sentient.
BTW, saying "I know that's not true" is not a rebuttal. Generally such statements would be followed by an actual argument, supported by factual evidence, or at least some sort of expanded version of your reasons for holding this opinion.
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Veritas]
#7563609 - 10/26/07 02:40 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Are you familiar with the concepts of "prana" or "chi"? These are comparable to Freud's Libido. As for sentience being required for basic psychic energy, I'm not certain why you see the two as intrinsically linked. 
No, I admit I'm not very familiar with prana or chi, but it's not necessary.
The word "psychic" refers to "Psychic is a term relating to or denoting mental abilities or phenomena that are apparently inexplicable by known natural laws, since they seem to transcend the confines of the brain. ...". At it's most basic level it's referring to the mental aspect of our being. Our thinking. But this requires a sentience at it's most fundamental level.
Quote:
If we have a body and a mind, then we are both sentient AND alive. The Libido is what makes us alive, not sentient.
No, the libido is simply one function, out of many that humans have. Sentience is what makes us alive, libido does not make us alive. It's necessary for us to have a sentience to have a sexual driving force on the other hand, as this is necessary for sensation perception.
Quote:
BTW, saying "I know that's not true" is not a rebuttal. Generally such statements would be followed by an actual argument, supported by factual evidence, or at least some sort of expanded version of your reasons for holding this opinion.
I didn't feel the need to go in much depth. It's absolutely stupid. I figured once I pointed out how absurd it was, people would recognize it. It's really outrageous. It makes no sense. I'm not the only one who has rejected these ideas. Freud thought of some valid ideas, it seems, a portion of which it seems he has really hijacked and called them by different name, but generally speaking, a lot of his ideas have been recognized as invalid. The idea though that he came up with the idea of the subconcious, must surely be absolutely false .
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-05-03-freud_x.htm
|
Veritas


Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
The article you linked to does not support your assertions. One psychologist disputes the same misunderstood version of Freud's theory of the libido--so what? Again, the libido is NOT our sexual urges, though it is commonly used in this manner, it is our life force. Without life, no sentience.
Quote:
It's absolutely stupid
Another terrific rebuttal. 
All right, I'm done highjacking Markos' thread for this pointless non-debate.
|
Acinaxuz
In SomnisVeritas.


Registered: 06/20/06
Posts: 231
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
|
Christianity, as my own personal belief, has stripped women of their "power" in society. Prior to Christianity's overthrow of naturistic, and "pagan" (in context of that which is not Christian, is naturistic, and polythiestic) religions women held equality in the "church". Women were held alongside priests as priestesses. Women were seen as healers, nurturers, channelers and powerful in their own rights as a member of the human race.
With the rise of Christianity you see women being stripped of this placement, categorized not as equals, but rather as servants to men and thus to god. Women were seen as unclean upon the loss of virginity and were shunned whereas previous to, the act of sex was a power within itself and in simplifying this idea, the act of stripping away sexuality equates to stripping away a piece of woman's "power" or place in society. IMO It's the first step in the servitude of women to men.
Women who practiced medicine, religious sex rights, or refused the true belief in a god or a religion that held no real place for them were shunned. As a later example of this, I'll cite the Salem witch trials. Women who practiced healing with plants and herbs were considered witches, as were those who maintained any spiritual connection with religion other than Christianity. These women were tortured into confessing sins, if they were not vanquished by the process of torture, they were put to death upon forced confession.
To me, the stripping of "power" comes with the limit to which women are allowed to connect to "god", among other things. In a religion that holds no role for women, save for servitude to man and thus god and procreation, how then can this be balanced? I sincerely believe that Christianity has caused more harm to humans as a society than just about anything else because it does throw the balance of life out of proportion.
Quote:
Woman was created in the image of Christ's church. This was based upon the foreknowledge of God. This is why woman can have only one husband. This is why Man is to honor his wife, as the weaker vessel. This is why woman is to submit to her husband. This is why Paul tells husbands to love their wifes like Christ loves the church.
This statement translates to me as "Women should serve their husbands as Christians should serve their god. God will love it's servants (the church) as men should love theirs." Meaning our power is to be seen rather than heard or active in a spiritual society. We are there now merely as supporters to the one true christian or servant to god, man. This is obscenely perverse in itself. And as a female I will not embrace that which does not embrace me.
Quote:
The fact is that women and men are different. It is a fact that women are the weaker of the two. They are not built like a man is. They are more sensitive and their femininity is something to be honored, not looked down upon. Women in todays society have degraded themselves from the beauty they once held.
The respect and honor they deserve is best illustrated by chivalry.
What then is femininity? The belief that women should not play a role? That we are merely a womb to shoulder the burden of giving life? The beauty of female, again insenuating that we are to be seen, not heard, have degraded ourselves by not being bound to servitude? It is the sin of man that exploits the female entity, and thus stole our beauty from us.
I disagree with the assumption that women today have degraded themselves (by the only subject I can consider your reference) via sexuality. And I resent that males have not played a role in this by objectifying females. I resent that women should remain chast while men are free to sow their oats with no reprocussion. That we are there to be chosen based on our appearance and thus sexual ability. I resent that everytime I turn on the television I see scantly clad women for the purpose of marketing. Exploitation (which is the reason I no longer have a use for cable TV). Men exploit sexuality in women with no desire to marry them or commit to them, thus are men not in sin for not revering honor of women?
I tend to disagree with that statement whole heartedly for I feel that it is natural for women to allow themselves sexual freedom. I resent the fact that even now, women are put in a place of sexual servitude.
It is now the norm for women to dress provocatively to gain the attraction of men because there is no such thing as chivalry anymore in the first place. And in the second I'm pretty fed up with exploitation.
While women initially found the courage to express sexuality, men then took that as something women are required to provide, and thus it has become the female identity. Women have been forced into this role and are there because they can not conceive of a world without these denotations. Women on the whole are generically viewed, most of the time, as a second class and there only for pleasure, servitude and entertainment.
I find it saddening that women fall into this pattern because it's what society teaches them, and what men expect of them. I feel that most of our daughters are lost because their power has been stripped in society and religious beliefs and thus many have lost their real identity.
I will say that I'm a feminist. Though, when you ask most women or girls if they are feminists the answer is no. There is an incorrect notion that to be a feminist you have to hate men, detest sexuality, your place in life as a mother or significant other, know every feminist author and first woman in everything. How can you be female and not feminist? Feminism is merely the recognition that women deserve rights.
It's because our daughters have lose their role, their power in life. We have become merely "vessels and servants" and I attribute this in large part to Christianity and other organized religions that have taken the place of more natural religions that do intertwine male and female power.
Quote:
would you feel more comfortable if it was you or your wife out walking alone at night?
As a female, I tend to not walk late at night unless I carry something with me for protection and even then I'm usually on my cell phone the whole way. Not because I feel weak, but because there are preditors out there that get off on control, male or female. Though, statistically most preditors are male, specifically sexual preditors, and I also attribute this to the teaching that women are inferior to men. Many religious teachings conflict with our laws, and while some here have claimed that it has caused confusion in our women, it has also led to confusion in our men. It has granted them the right to do as they please because they are men, and it's accepted through belief.
Quote:
We live in an emasculated society and women are rebelling out of confusion. Without true masculinity, there can be no femininity.
Masculinity is not overbearing or domineering. It is supportive and protective.
I disagree. Maybe that's what you interpret it as or rather what it SHOULD be, however I see something completely different on the norm.
As a female I'm more accustomed to seeing men who abuse women, cheat on women, use women for sex, talk about women as if they were nothing more than sexual gratification, someone there to make sure you have kids and dinner on the table.
In these cases the idea of protection and support then becomes a means of control. Instead of support and protection, limits are placed in the idea that it will keep us safe, as opposed to allowing us to make our own choices and being supportive in them. In the face of disagreement, how many of these men become abusive? Most. Why do you suppose that is? They must feel entitled to that right by SOMETHING, be it religion or society. I resent it all whole heartedly.
I have a ponderance at times what true masculinity and femininity really mean and how it's provided refuge for same-sex relationships. The idea that women have been stripped of "power", intelect, and free-choice roles makes me wonder how many men, now looking for these qualities, find them in other men, and how women, seeking refuge for equal ideas and to be understood find these qualities in other women.
I'm not saying religion caused homosexuality, I'm saying that the thoughts, ideals, and daily intake of society's gender limitations allow some of us to find more in common with those of the same sex than those that are not of the same sex. Bi-sexuality to me is a dual issue. Most bi-sexuals I encounter are females, and many of them seem to use bi-sexuality as a hook to get a guy.
Bi-sexuality seems to give them one up over the other half naked females striving to gain a meaningful relationship through the art of half naked attraction. That in itself bothers me. There are of course true bi-sexuals that find comfort in men and in women, but on the whole I find this to be grossly over-exagerated for the purpose of male sexual pleasure as opposed to females own sexual gratification.
I'm a lover, not a fighter. I wouldn't say that I find myself in any category really, straight, gay or bisexual. I feel that love should be shared with someone, no matter their gender, and it's beautiful because love is beautiful. To me, sexuality is not the act of sex or foreplay, but rather love.
That's a bit offtopic I suppose, but, wanted to throw that out there.
-Zuxa
[Edited to try and re-run spell check. It's not working! Excuse any typos! ]
Edited by Acinaxuz (10/26/07 05:14 PM)
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
jonathan_206 said: Sentience is what makes us alive, libido does not make us alive.
Incorrect. Sentience is the fact that we have an experience of reality. Life itself is not a result of sentience, and any definition of the word "life" will demonstrate that. For example, here is a very apt one:
Quote:
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
No mention of sentience. We cannot, from an external vantage, speculate as to whether simpler forms of life have sentience. We can reasonably conclude that other human beings do, but without actually experiencing reality as them, nothing is certain.
Quote:
I didn't feel the need to go in much depth. It's absolutely stupid. I figured once I pointed out how absurd it was, people would recognize it. It's really outrageous. It makes no sense.
Well, you were wrong. In this forum, people substantiate their claims and perspectives, instead of ranting on and on about how absurd and stupid something is, without proposing any ideas to back it up.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder


Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
|
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Veritas]
#7564142 - 10/26/07 05:48 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"All right, I'm done highjacking Markos' thread for this pointless non-debate."
No problem, I'm totally enjoying your responses!
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Acinaxuz]
#7564179 - 10/26/07 05:59 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Acinaxuz said: Christianity, as my own personal belief, has stripped women of their "power" in society. Prior to Christianity's overthrow of naturistic, and "pagan" (in context of that which is not Christian, is naturistic, and polythiestic) religions women held equality in the "church". Women were held alongside priests as priestesses. Women were seen as healers, nurturers, channelers and powerful in their own rights as a member of the human race.
With the rise of Christianity you see women being stripped of this placement, categorized not as equals, but rather as servants to men and thus to god. Women were seen as unclean upon the loss of virginity and were shunned whereas previous to, the act of sex was a power within itself and in simplifying this idea, the act of stripping away sexuality equates to stripping away a piece of woman's "power" or place in society. IMO It's the first step in the servitude of women to men.
Women who practiced medicine, religious sex rights, or refused the true belief in a god or a religion that held no real place for them were shunned. As a later example of this, I'll cite the Salem witch trials. Women who practiced healing with plants and herbs were considered witches, as were those who maintained any spiritual connection with religion other than Christianity. These women were tortured into confessing sins, if they were not vanquished by the process of torture, they were put to death upon forced confession.
To me, the stripping of "power" comes with the limit to which women are allowed to connect to "god", among other things. In a religion that holds no role for women, save for servitude to man and thus god and procreation, how then can this be balanced? I sincerely believe that Christianity has caused more harm to humans as a society than just about anything else because it does throw the balance of life out of proportion.
Have you actually studied Roman society? Part of what made Jesus so revolutionary to both Jewish and Roman society was his treatment of women. Women had very few rights in either society. It was the Romanization of Christianity that led to it being such a patriarchal religion.
--------------------
|
Veritas


Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
I'm glad you don't mind your thread veering off into vaguely related topics. 
What is your POV on the Libido?
|
Acinaxuz
In SomnisVeritas.


Registered: 06/20/06
Posts: 231
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Silversoul]
#7564252 - 10/26/07 06:20 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
Acinaxuz said: Christianity, as my own personal belief, has stripped women of their "power" in society. Prior to Christianity's overthrow of naturistic, and "pagan" (in context of that which is not Christian, is naturistic, and polythiestic) religions women held equality in the "church". Women were held alongside priests as priestesses. Women were seen as healers, nurturers, channelers and powerful in their own rights as a member of the human race.
With the rise of Christianity you see women being stripped of this placement, categorized not as equals, but rather as servants to men and thus to god. Women were seen as unclean upon the loss of virginity and were shunned whereas previous to, the act of sex was a power within itself and in simplifying this idea, the act of stripping away sexuality equates to stripping away a piece of woman's "power" or place in society. IMO It's the first step in the servitude of women to men.
Women who practiced medicine, religious sex rights, or refused the true belief in a god or a religion that held no real place for them were shunned. As a later example of this, I'll cite the Salem witch trials. Women who practiced healing with plants and herbs were considered witches, as were those who maintained any spiritual connection with religion other than Christianity. These women were tortured into confessing sins, if they were not vanquished by the process of torture, they were put to death upon forced confession.
To me, the stripping of "power" comes with the limit to which women are allowed to connect to "god", among other things. In a religion that holds no role for women, save for servitude to man and thus god and procreation, how then can this be balanced? I sincerely believe that Christianity has caused more harm to humans as a society than just about anything else because it does throw the balance of life out of proportion.
Have you actually studied Roman society? Part of what made Jesus so revolutionary to both Jewish and Roman society was his treatment of women. Women had very few rights in either society. It was the Romanization of Christianity that led to it being such a patriarchal religion.
I disagree. You can not possibly clump a mass of religions into the ideal that all religions limit/limited the female role.
I have indeed studied Roman society, but to me this is a moot point.
It's the study of previous religions, and the study of Christianity through time, as well as my own Native traditions, that lead me to my conclusions. I'm not saying that Christianity is the root of all evil and killed all the happy frolicing tree huggers, I'm saying that the rise of Christianity, including the prequels with the same general idea <Jesus was Jewish!> caused an imbalance.
In short, one not need know Roman society to know that as a civilization they conquered their surrounding civilizations and thus did so by force.
Could you really be so naive to believe that all of these societies/civilizations were lacking equality or lived within the realm of female injustice? Granted at the time, many had converted to "mainstream" religions -- I stand by that they were forced by precursor Christian societies.
Do you really believe that alternate religious belief, other than the mainstream religion at the point of conquer, had absolutely no role or result in this?
[Edit to clarify a point]
-------------------- :~:~:~:~{ * }~:~:~:~:{ * }:~:~:~:~{ * }~:~:~:~: All posts are made with only the intent to entertain myself and should ONLY be read with the understanding that they are FICTICIOUS. I do not warrant information I provide for use in illegal activity of any kind nor do I condone it for any reason. Furthermore, I am not, I have never, nor will I in the future, take ANY part in illegal activites.
Edited by Acinaxuz (10/26/07 06:36 PM)
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Acinaxuz]
#7564271 - 10/26/07 06:25 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Patriarchy has existed to different degrees in different societies. I have yet to encounter or hear about a completely gender-egalitarian society, though some have come close. There were indeed societies in which women held prominent roles, as they did in the early Christian church. But to my knowledge, almost every society has had some separation of gender roles.
--------------------
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Icelander]
#7564272 - 10/26/07 06:25 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
jonathan_206 said: How simple minded.
icelander:
I can't believe that someone with posts and rationalisms such as yours would use a personalism such as this.   
My comment wasn't a personalism at all. It was a general statement.
I'm worried that next my spelling will be attacked.
veritas:
Quote:
. He theorized that our pleasure motivation was directed into these two divergent streams
Yes, I understood that to begin with.
Quote:
Again, if you do not think that this plays out every day in humanity, you have not been watching. 
tout au contraire
|
Acinaxuz
In SomnisVeritas.


Registered: 06/20/06
Posts: 231
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Silversoul]
#7564403 - 10/26/07 07:12 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: Patriarchy has existed to different degrees in different societies. I have yet to encounter or hear about a completely gender-egalitarian society, though some have come close. There were indeed societies in which women held prominent roles, as they did in the early Christian church. But to my knowledge, almost every society has had some separation of gender roles.
Sure, of course they did. It's the role that changed with the rise of new beliefs. This is where the imbalance hath been struck!
(As an Example) Women were persecuted as Witches for practicing medicine. In the time of plague, only men were allowed to practice medicine or healing. Why was this role then "stolen" from women? Why was this role restricted? In tribal religions women are able to fill the role of healer, as in many other pagan religions. As Christianity, and precursors, became the norm and people were forced into conversion, willingly converted, family ideals changed. What was expected of either gender changed. (Granted, we have female doctors these days, and we've made leaps and bounds ahead in many aspects.)
Its here that women were stripped of their abilities and became servants to God and Man as directed by God. Thus as society has progressed women have fought to reclaim a role in our society. As males, men are reluctant to give up their power. Its human nature to not want to give up a good thing!
As and example, In the process women have reclaimed sexuality from the taboo.
Our right to sexuality is our own to express how we choose. You now see women exploited for their sexuality, and many times willingly. As a majority-Christian society, women are still taught that they are to marry, have children, serve their husbands. As a society, we teach these general values to our families.
Its a ticking time-bomb. Women are now fighting for attention from men. We no longer have to be seen and not heard, so we can express ourselves in terms of sexuality because instinctively, men are attracted to sexuality, and scantly clad bodies. I could go into all the reasons this is a bad thing, but really the bottom line is that it makes it an endless competition, causing society changes superficially. i.e. Breast implants. There are a lot of issues caused by our economy too, but that's completely off topic.
What our mothers and grandmothers fought for initially has been perversely misconstrued, and thus because of the resulting exploitation, women are still viewed as possessions and subservient. This causes a power struggle and thus the male to instinctively "conquer" an unsuspecting female walking late at night. D/s fetishes and the role-play of the power struggle. I'm not saying these are bad things, fetishes are fun.
Until our society changes and women regain our roles things seem pretty bleak.
In a completely over generalized conclusion, its the lack of a role not the separation of roles that seems (to me) to cause issue. Either Christianity finds a role for women or christianity will give way to new beliefs. Our culture will eventually change as women come into new roles in society.
Religion is a cycle of what the general population believes and deems to be right and correct. In an age of science mythilogical evidence is scarce! (I hope Mary comes out of hiding cause I certainly am NOT going with scientology!)
-Zuxa
-------------------- :~:~:~:~{ * }~:~:~:~:{ * }:~:~:~:~{ * }~:~:~:~: All posts are made with only the intent to entertain myself and should ONLY be read with the understanding that they are FICTICIOUS. I do not warrant information I provide for use in illegal activity of any kind nor do I condone it for any reason. Furthermore, I am not, I have never, nor will I in the future, take ANY part in illegal activites.
Edited by Acinaxuz (10/26/07 07:21 PM)
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder


Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
|
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Veritas]
#7564613 - 10/26/07 08:23 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
A lot like yours, taken essentially from Jung who saw a wider context than his mentor's essentially sexual content. It is the psychic energy like Chi or Prana as you say.
-------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
|
|