The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Ramona's picture

    One good reason the Feminist Movement had to Get Moving

    By Ramona on Fri, 08/03/2012 - 8:33pm | Politics, Social Justice
     

    In 1973 Marabel Morgan wrote a book called "The Total Woman".  It was a follow-up to her successful "Total Woman" programs, in which Marabel taught women how to be seductive and outwardly submissive so as to get whatever  they wanted from their stern or indifferent husbands, most of whom had chronic roving eyes and/or wallets covered in cobwebs.

    The secret, as Eve could have told any one of those wannabe Stepford Wives, was sex.  No, not withholding it, a la the women in Lysistrata, but reveling in it, wallowing in it--in a Godly way, of course--as the very best way to keep your man happy.  (Second best is staying sweet by keeping your mind clear and your mouth shut.)

    Marabel had assignments for the women, who paid $15 for four two-hour sessions.  Most of them involved sex as the pivotal tool to keep hubby happy.  If wifey wasn't happy doing it, she'd better get happy, toot sweet, because the bible tells her so.

    The little woman was expected to be an "atmosphere adjuster" in the morning by being pleasant to look at, be with, and talk to.  She was to walk her husband to the car each morning and wave until he was out of sight.

    She was to call him at work an hour before quitting time (just before she took her bubble bath and cleaned carefully between her toes) to tell him she craves his body.

    She was to "thrill him at the front door" by dressing in sexy costumes. "A frilly new nighty and heels will probably do the trick as a starter," Marabel writes. (One of the women in her class won First Prize in Marabel's mind by stripping naked, wrapping herself in Saran Wrap, and topping herself off with a strategically placed red bow.)

    And if he came home growling, Marabel cautioned:


    "Don't deprive your husband of intercourse when he acts like a bear.  He may be tired when he comes home tonight.  He needs to be pampered, loved, and restored.  Fill up his tummy with food; soothe away his frustrations with sex.  Lovemaking comforts a man.  It can comfort you, too."

    From there the book gets deeper and darker, as Marabel tries to convince the "Total Woman" that in order to be totally Total she will have to come in second in everything.  In Chapter 6, Adapt to Him, she finally gets to the meat of it:  "The biblical remedy for marital conflict is stated, 'You wives must submit to your husbands' leadership in the same way you submit to the Lord.'  God planned for woman to be under the husband's rule."

    In the Oh, King, Live Forever section of that same chapter, she writes, "I have been asked if this process of adapting places a woman on a slave-master basis with her husband.  A Total Woman is not a slave.  She graciously chooses to adapt to her husband's way, even though at times she desperately may not want to.  He in turn will gratefully respond by trying to make it up to her and grant her desires.  He may even want to spoil her with goodies."

    Well, gag me with a maggot, even thirty years later.  But it goes on:

    "What if the king [Ed. note: King Hubby] makes the wrong decision?  Oh, that's a hard one, especially when you know you're right, and there are times when that is the case.  The queen is still to follow him, forthwith.  A queen shall not nag or buck her king's decision after it has been decreed.  Remember those speedy trials, gals!"  

    The Execution of Anne Boleyn

    Oh, Holy Mother of all that's Totally Total, sometimes I think Marabel was really a guy:

    "It is only when a woman surrenders her life to her husband, reveres and worships him, and is willing to serve him, that she becomes really beautiful to him.  She becomes a priceless jewel, the glory of femininity, his queen!"  (P. 80, still on Chapter 6.)

    As much fun as Marabel Morgan's book seemed to be to the tittilatees of the world (She was a perky regular on The Phil Donahue Show and made the cover of the top mags of the day),  the real message was one of female submission--of biblical proportions. Marabel herself admitted as much in 1992, when she told a reporter, "Subservience is involuntary, but submission is my choice."  She said submission--not the sexual come-ons--was the real point of her book.

    I knew it!  I just knew it! (No, I didn't.  Not until I re-read it again yesterday. I picked up the book for 50 cents at a thrift store last week, just as a curiosity, and the whole religious submission thing caught me by Total surprise.  I'm beginning to wonder if I ever read anything but Chapter 10--"Super Sex".)

    Since its publication in 1974 the book has sold over 10 million copies. (Out of print now, but available on Amazon and in thrift stores everywhere.)  It lost favor for a few decades but the King Hubby ideas that seemed so ridiculous in "The Total Woman"  are starting to look pretty good to a whole lot of Christian women who find themselves re-living the age of Old Testament Normal.

    I think I've finally found the answer to the question I asked last February, when, incredibly, millions of GOP women were seen cheering the men who were fighting against free contraceptives: What do you see in those men?  Apparently, they see nothing, hear nothing, think nothing.  Maybe that's why Marabel's very last paragraph might make more sense to them than it does to me:

    Please, don't be satisfied with a new paint job and some redecoration.  Plug yourself into the One, the only One, who can give you life.  Pascal said, "There is a god-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man, which cannot be satisfied by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator. . ."  God is waiting and wanting to fill your vacuum, to make you complete.  Total.  Right now you can become a Total Woman.

    Oh, did I mention that Marabel dedicated this book to her good friend, Anita Bryant?  Or that she learned her parenting skills from Dr. James Dobson, author of Dare to Discipline?  She quotes him in Chapter 12, Blueprint for Blessings:  "When he flops his hairy little toe across the line you've drawn, that's the time to give it to him."

    Lovingly, of course, with big hugs afterward, because as Marabel says, "I'm completely out of touch with reality and you can be, too. Totally."  (They may not be her exact words, but they're close enough.)

    (Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices)

    Topics: 
    Politics
    Social Justice

    Comments

    I totally missed out on the Total Woman book. Heard of it. Didn't read it. In 1974 I was more focused on trying to be a decent human bean than a total woman. I think if I was to read it now and follow it's advice, Mr. Flower would have a heart attack and die right in front of me.


    by wabby on Fri, 08/03/2012 - 10:57pm

    Ha!  In 1974 I was already a grandmother.  A child-grandmother, but a Nana nonetheless, and a feminist besides.  I do remember Marabel's book very well.  It was even more hilarious then.


    by Ramona on Fri, 08/03/2012 - 11:15pm

    I remember a woman wrapped herself only in Saran wrap but her hubby came home withbusiness customers. He was a bit of a grumpy bear that eve when he could have used the occasion to make a sale. But I wonder why her book was new when we already had Bewitched, Jeannie and The Jetsons? Oh, the religious angle, not the witchy sister-in-law.

    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 12:06am

    I think it was more likely the sex angle.  You just didn't have good little housewives talking about sex in a fun way.  That's what was new.  The submission part probably was lost on most of the women who read it.  At least I hope so.  Sure was on me.


    by Ramona on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 7:03am

    Don't just blame her. Blame Christianity.(The Islam-inspired books for women may go even farther)


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 2:38am

    I'm hardly just blaming her.  There was and is plenty of blame to go around.  And I don't blame Christianity.  (Or Islam)  These people use and corrupt religion to create scenarios that are pure fiction.  Using religion as a foil for everything  makes it pretty useless as a tool for good.  That's too bad.


    by Ramona on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 6:56am

    We should blame Christianity, because Paul says three times that wives have to submit to their husbands. The Koran is worse still(it sanctions wife beating). Male supremacy isn't a corruption of either religion; it's an authentic part of both.


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 9:04am

    Another book burning moment?

    For the Christian, its all about order; as opposed to chaos.

    We allow humans to act as judges; a final arbitrator. 

    Christians have a hierarchy;  God / Christ  first, husband second, then wife.

    Thats how Christian families teach their children, to respect authority.

    That's not to say, some men don't abuse their authority. A wife then refers to #1

    "Be in submission to the higher authority",  unless it violates Gods rules or laws  

    Just as the military recognizes chain of command, or there would be chaos. 

    Do you have a beef, with the overall wisdom of chain of command?


    by Resistance on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 10:50am

    Do I have a beef with it?  You bet I do.  Even a phony chain of command.  That biblical chain of command edict was written by. . .guess who?  Mere mortal men.  It was dumb then and it's even dumber now.


    by Ramona on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 11:09am

    Even a phony chain of command. 

    You promote anarchy then?

    Imagine privates or lower ranked officers in the military suggesting, why should we listen to you, YOU NOBODY

    Imagine each member deciding for themselves, the right to make the final decisions.

    Ignore the chain; "who needs rules, that you decide, you want to disregard.

    Imagine a wife telling her husband, in front of the children, "you have no authority, to tell me, what I should do, to keep the family strong"  

    In a Christian life, the HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD IS held responsible in the eyes of God. The buck stops there. as in any business or any organization , insubordination is fatal

    HEAD of the household, considers all factors. a rebellion against the HEAD weakens the structure/organization, put in place, to promote order and harmony.

    If it is your position that rules to establish authority are to be ignored; then your a part of the problem, which ails society;  complete and utter rebellion against authority.

    Disobedience to parents, eventually leads to acts of rebellion against the civil authorities.

    Children pitting one parent against another. instead of the mother saying, "you heard your father" (head of household).  Lets have a fight and see who wins?  

    command edict was written by. . .guess who? 

    Do you even respect male judges or male police officers, or do you take the position "who are they;  so that I should listen to them?  Men made these laws, so woman should disregard them?   

    Authority placed upon men and woman, to keep order, amongst civil society.

    Dumb; is ignoring authority that is in harmony with gods will.


    by Resistance on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 4:29pm

    The alternative to having either parent of any sex be the absolute monarch in a relationship is the formation and nurturing of a working partnership. One of the strongest indicators that a good working partnership is underway is that the children are not used as counters or pieces in the differences of opinion that every partnership will have to negotiate.

    One common result of life within authoritarian family regimes is an explosion of passive aggressive behavior that develops profoundly unhappy people. They are probably more of a symptom of an "ailing society" than children raised by equal partners.

    In my experience, authoritarian households are awful psychic prisons. When I come into contact with them, I writhe in disgust while joyfully thinking of my household where we are all equals and love each other without obligation or fear.


    by moat on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 6:02pm

    Couldn't agree more, moat.  Thanks for joining in.


    by Ramona on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 6:19pm

    Oh, please, Resistance.  I know you don't believe that stuff.  Nobody decreed that men should be first and women should follow behind--not even a being of the supreme kind.  What would be the point? 

    Do you really think women are inferior to men? 

    Well, do ya?


    by Ramona on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 7:04pm

    Love watching you argue, Ramona.

    Poetry in motion.


    by Michael Maiello on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 7:14pm

    Woman are not inferior to men.

    There comes a time, in the decision making process, that someone takes the responsibility TO MAKE A Decision.

    Whether it be, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, there has to be a final arbitrator and their decision is final. Someone ends the discussion and makes the final decision.

    The scriptures spells out, who in the family arrangement has the final say just as the SCOTUS ends debate.

    Having considered all the facts, a final conclusion has to be made

    Ever think about why so many marriages end in divorce and children live in broken homes?

    Where would civil society be, if those who don't think, harmony is maintained by respecting positions; the need to have it spelled out, who is in charge and has the final say? 

    I suppose now, you'll tell me the Constitution, (delegating power) and the Bill of Rights should be ignored, because men wrote them.?

    Don't even think to receive the blessings, from the marriage arrangement, if you decide to ignore the arrangement.

    Love for the arrangement, promotes peace.

    Arrogance or lack of humility causes dissent, disorder and broken homes.

    Despite all of the so called "wise men or women " anecdotes. who would rely upon mortal Huxley, for superior guidance  

    The nuclear family, thought they had a better plan and divorce is higher than at any other time.

    If a woman doesn't want to adhere to the marriage arrangement and doesn't respect the delegation of authority or respect the position,

    DON'T MARRY.

    Harlots get the sex, (some having children outside the marriage arrangement) the harlot thinking "who needs marriage" or a loving relationship.

    A loving relationship, built upon the foundation; respect for the arrangement.  

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g--Vlij1X1Y


    by Resistance on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 10:18pm

    There comes a time, in the decision making process, that someone takes the responsibility TO MAKE A Decision.

    But seriously, Resistance, that someone could just as well be a woman as a man.  It's just that the "scriptures" were written by men for men, and when they saw how beautifully that whole "scripture" thing was working for them, they weren't going to give it up without a fight.

    Remember in the last century when women got the right to vote and later, the right to be equal?  It wasn't rescinded in the 21st Century.  Yes, we're still having to deal with that whole 55 cents to the dollar thing.  And the contraception thing.  And, okay, a few other things.  But we're way past Marabel Morgan and "The Total Woman", and that's a good thing.

    Be happy for us.  And just stay the hell out of our way.


    by Ramona on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 10:59pm

    Harlot?!?  How do you define harlot?  And is this solely a 'for women only' term?  


    by Aunt Sam on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 11:16pm

    Oh, I thought he meant Charlotte.  I knew a Charlotte once.  Nice girl, but a little on the wild side, if you know what I mean.


    by Ramona on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 11:26pm

    Was Charlotte a role model of yours? wink

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac8Lc_vF6G0


    by Resistance on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 11:59pm

    Still waiting for your reply and definition of harlot, et al.


    by Aunt Sam on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 12:36am

    In this social environment, heres an equal opportunity exercise for you

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/DFFT


    by Resistance on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 5:59am

    chau·vin·ism (shv-nzm)

    n.

     Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one's own gender, group, or kind.

    Definition: A male chauvinist was a term used in the 1960sfor men,  who believed that men were superior and expressed that opinion freely in word and action.

    "Chauvinist" means someone who assertively maintains that his or her kind -- usually people of the same nationality/gender/ethnicity -- are superior; "chauvinism" refers to an extreme and bigoted form of bias. Thus, "male chauvinism" was used to refer to an attitude of male superiority or male entitlement to power over women.

    Q. How do male chauvinists define a "50/50" relationship?
    A. We cook-they eat; we clean-they dirty; we iron-they wrinkle.


    by Aunt Sam on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 3:21pm

    Penis envy  

    1.

    penis envy

    		  
     

    Penis envy is the reason feminists hate men. They are jealous of men's penises, and this jealousy gets taken out on men in the form of rage.

     


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 08/07/2012 - 7:19pm

    Whoa, why didn't we think of that?  Of course!  That's it!

    By the way, you've been around here long enough to know that this violates our ToS.  I know you know it, because you wouldn't have used that handy name, Anonymous, otherwise.

    I'm leaving it up here because it's too dumb to even be offensive, but you won't get away with it again.


    by Ramona on Tue, 08/07/2012 - 9:51pm

    How long have you been here and you used the term vagina?

    Were you admonished when you wrote your Vagina blog? Were you censored?

    Since when are anatomical terms, employed even by the recognized, Great Freud, now censored?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_envy

    Apparently You and Doc Cleveland can claim the purity of your thoughts, as the only acceptable comments allowed, anyone that disagrees, will have their comments cast into the similar intended (German like) book burning/ comment bonfire.

    If you were admonished and threatened with censorship  I have forgotten or maybe you weren't and I am to be held to a higher standard?

    Are atheists allowed to trample Christians and if Christians fight back, look for TOS violations? 

    As to the poster who mentioned Rush and his " Feminazi" statement; what does it matter who coined the term, if  the term is now part of the modern lexicon and accurately describes, a subset of individuals?  


    by Resistance on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 3:26pm

    C'mon, Resistance/Anonymous, there's a difference between the word "penis" and that dumb link and this:

    Penis envy is the reason feminists hate men. They are jealous of men's penises, and this jealousy gets taken out on men in the form of rage.


    by Ramona on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 8:39pm

    Isn't this what Wikipedia says the Father of  modern psychology;  Freud believed?

    I believe I should have used the # 6 definition from the Urban Dictionary site 

    You never answered my question.

    Did you get censored for your vagina blog or am I to be held to a higher standard?

    or is it always going to be with you and the other atheists  "Find a TOS violation with this Christian, charge him with blasphemy"


    by Resistance on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 9:37pm

    Ouch!  That's harsh!


    by Ramona on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 8:49am

    Not everyone has a marriage like that, one that uses the bible as their excuse to say they are the final arbiter of family matters. Some of us have marriages of equality, we make decisions together, we raise our families together, we work together to make our lives. You can run yours anyway you want, but lots of marriages work just fine without all that nonsense from that one book of fables you call the bible.  And harlots get sex, what? What does that even mean? 

    And your muddling up your issue yet again, now you've veered off to make the claim that SCOTUS ends the debate after they make decisions, and that isn't true, while they do settle the law, they do not end the debate, or we wouldn't still be talking about Roe v Wade, people would have accepted it and moved on, but they haven't.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 8:40am

    The Bible doesn't condemn marriage equality;  in fact it spells out how each partner shall show love and respect one another.

    The Bible telling how a wife is worth more than expensive coral and how a capable wife runs the household and is a complement to man. A team for good.

    Only in recent years has there been such an assault on the Bible; and I suspects, it's ignor ance is one of the reasons, why some marriages end, affecting civil society and placing a heavy burden on the rest of us.     

    So stop with your spreading falsehoods.

     while they do settle the law, they do not end the debate,

    Sounds like a nagging mate, breathing down your back, endlessly saying , "You're wrong,  You're wrong, You're wrong"  

    A mate who never accepts the decision. Looking for every opportunity to attack the decision, saying  "See I told you so", hoping to see the mate fail, so as to be vindicated.

    It's clear, you're like a mate always looking for a silly argument. "You're wrong,  You're wrong, You're wrong"

    Go read

    I thinl Resistance is by Peracles

     


    by Resistance on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 10:31am

    You have a poor understanding of gender equality if you think it can happen even while the man makes the rules.  Show me a passage in the bible where the man defers to the woman and he has to do what she says.

    I'll be waiting.


    by Ramona on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 3:03pm

    No where have I said that the husbands, shouldn't consider their wives opinions, on all matters When dealing with family issues.

    Queen Esters intervention when she spoke to the King to save Mordici

    Day of Purim

    Or when a wife saved her husbands life when she pleaded with the the future king David to spare his life, after the husband insulted David's men, after David's armies, protected the mans flock from thieves and all they had asked for; was food to eat .

    That is just a few examples of wise woman, who exercised influence over a mans decision. 


    by Resistance on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 2:47pm

    Well Ester's all right, but King Ahasuerus is da man. Has this really hot babe as queen. (and a lot of concubines) One fine day he decided to parade her at a party for his male buddies so they could all see how hot his top babe was.

    She refused to come!!!!!

    Well Ahasuerus was pissed but his wise men saw a deeper issue. Problem is see, if the word got out, well, all the wives in the kingdom might not drop everything and run as soon as hubby called. The wise men told Ahasuerus, "You've got to depose her."

    What to do, what to do? How to pick a new queen?

    Ahasuerus sent word out that lots of young virgins, from every province in the kingdom, be sent to hang out with his concubines and be beautified in his harem. After 12 months they'd be all beautified to the peak of perfection and she would go to the king for an evening and back to the harem in the morning. After that she would only come again to the king if he called her by name. (I'm sure that the young virgin and king spent the evening in conversation, just getting to know each other to see if they are like, you know, compatible)

    Ester didn't want to go but hey that's life. Its not like girls get to choose who they'll marry, that's the father's decision.

    Its a beautiful love story, heart just like a Disney fairy tale, with a wonderful happy ending.  Ester, of course, gets to be the new queen, smiley It doesn't say, but I'm sure they just left out the part where Ahasuerus gives up all his concubines and lives  monogamously happily ever after.

    Thanks resistance, conservative christians are always talking about preserving biblical marriage and this tells us a lot about exactly what they mean.  Nice of you to bring this up so we can understand just what type of household you want to rule.

     


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 5:01pm

    Ahasuerus wasn't a Jew or a Christian, so you telling me about heathen mens ways, doesn't diminish the fact;

    Esters humble attitude and well placed words, in the ears of her king and husband; saved lives.

    Submissive woman don't necessarily give up the right to speak wisdom tactfully into their mates ears.

    The good husband, considering / weighing his wifes opinion, her fine judgment; he husband considers the matter fully and arrives at a conclusion.

    The Bible doesn't condemn a multitude of counselors, in fact it encourages it.

    No where in the Bible, does it condemn a wife that HELPS her husband.


    by Resistance on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 7:02pm

    Ahasuerus wasn't a Jew or a Christian, so you telling me about heathen mens ways

    Whoops, my bad. Let's see what GOD has to say about marriage.

    Deuteronomy 22:28-29

    New International Version (NIV)

    28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

    Never divorce, that's soooo cool cause we all know that divorce is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    And it makes such a sweet story for the kids.

    Mommy, suzy down the street, well, her parents just got divorced. Are you and daddy always going to be together?

    Well honey, daddy and I have a different kind of marriage than suzy's parents. You see, I was walking along the road and daddy spotted me. His heart was inflamed with love and he grabbed me and dragged me into the bushes and well, he laid with me. I fought and screamed and cried for help but my brothers and father didn't hear me. That's why you should never cross the street alone, only when daddy and I are with you. Not even if your ball or toy car rolls across it.

    Then daddy paid my father 50 shekles of silver and we got married. But because he laid with me when I was a virgin before I was pledged to anyone he can never ever divorce me. So, my precious darling, you don't ever have to worry that daddy and I will get divorced.

    Kinda warms the heart to see God's sacred union manifested on earth, doesn't it? Now I understand why christian conservatives want to protect biblical marriage. Thanks for setting me straight resistance.


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 8:12pm

    I suppose you think the Moabittes or the Egyptians or any of the other tribes treated the rape victim better?

    God made provisions, that the raped woman, would not be branded "violated"" Non virgin", so that no other male, would ever consider maryring the raped the woman.

    Under the Mosaic law, the raped woman's children, would be entitled to an inheritance.

    Whereas; the other nations, with their lack of moral integrity, would have kicked the victim to the curb and the only livelihood left to the victim; to be made a prostitute.

    Maybe the surrounding nations, would have branded her, with a big red R on her forehead, to warn other prospective suitors; "This woman is violated" The community now knows, shes no virgin.

    You are really twisted, to not see, the raped woman would be abandoned, by no fault of her own.  

    There would have been a fate worse than divorce, for this rape victim.


    by Resistance on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 9:28pm

    Yeah, its hard when there's just those 2 options, brand the rape victim with a big red R or marry her off the her rapist. I can't think of anything else to do, can you? That's why we do the same thing today. God made the tough call, laid quite a heavy burden on rapists, that's why we say he's omnibenevolent.

    Pity though that there's not a third option, like say if your daughter was raped. Like maybe god could have said its not her fault and she should be treated as an innocent victim. Maybe instruct his chosen people to ignore the assault and treat her the same as any other women. Maybe help through the trauma and let her get married to a man who she loves and loves her or stay single if she wants.

    What am I saying, this is silly, you can't question god. Best thing to do is marry rape victims off to their rapist.

    Anyway the important thing is her children inherit. Clearly god wants a total repeal of the death tax. Amen


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 10:36pm

    GO to bottom of page


    by Resistance on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 1:00am

    That's not what I asked:

    Show me a passage in the bible where the man defers to the woman and he has to do what she says.

    I'll be waiting.


    by Ramona on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 8:31pm

    So I am like the mate who tells you, you are wrong, you are wrong.. umm guess what buddy, if he is wrong I do tell him so. But you and I aren't mates either, you are just some persona on the internet, all I told you is we don't all live the way you do. Big deal, why does it offend you so that I think the bible is just a book of lessons. Not everyone believes as you do, why is that so hard for you to accept? I am not really interested in Peracles explanation of what you've written, I can read, very well actually, and can interpret what you've said all by myself without some man doing it for me. But yeah, I am just a nagging woman. Stereotypes are awesome things.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 3:47pm

    Have you ever heard the song "Youre So Vain"? "You probably think this song is about you?"   

    You commented about the lack of definitive conclusion, as it relates to abortion. Those who continually look to overturn the law are likened to a nagging wife.

    Who continually disagrees with the decision.

    Ps I have to ask; does you husband have a boat or does he go fishing a lot? 

     I am not really interested in Peracles explanation of what you've writte

    Thats obvious; you attacked him, for no other reason than; he didn't attack me.

    Its been clear for along time, many are afflicted by the ideology  " An enemy of my enemy, is a friend of mine.  

     Big deal, why does it offend you so that I think the bible is just a book of lessons. Not everyone believes as you do, why is that so hard for you to accept?

    It does seem to be a big deal with you though, despite your denials or hidden motives.

    I've come to expect your lurking ( as I was once reminded by you, that you would do such a thing).

    Anytime I give my opinion with a Religious perspective, you're one of the first to leap/pounce  upon the comment.

    I can expect from many atheists,  that my words are like bones to be chewed upon. Tear my words to pieces. 

    In reply to another of your attacks upon me  I asked you a question and you never replied, (maybe you're to embarrassed and I can understand why)  

    You never did answer the question  " Do you think the Weather channel promotes hurricanes or do they just give a warning? I'd like to set the record straight about inappropriate Schticks and personal attacks


    by Resistance on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 4:12pm

    You should definitely keep commenting on what you believe my personal is like, and how my husband probably doesn't love or respect me, because I challenge you.  


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 4:45pm

    Another opportunity for you to answer the questions I  originally posed and you avoided answering that one.

    Then I ask you, if he fishes and you again refuse to answer, so I have to assume that he being a male,  if I was in his place and I had a wife that was insistent on being the dominant one and always questioning my headship; I would  be fishing or golfing everyday, in order to stay away, so as to avoid confrontation.

    Thats just my opinion and preference. 

    As I suspect, many men do try to escape intolerable conditions, so as to prevent arguing and ending in a divorcing and the children becoming, wards of the State, because moms income alone, isn't enough for her and the kids, so taxpayers have to support the broken home. because SOME moms, lack the humility to humble themselves.   

    What kind of lures, does he use?


    by Resistance on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 6:46pm

    Dude, gotta be more subtle - "does he store-buy or tie his own buck-tail jigs?"

    Nothing else, work the humor.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 6:55pm

    I read a classified ad, it said  "Looking for a good mate; must have boat."


    by Resistance on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 7:23pm

    ;>)


    by Resistance on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 7:26pm

    That was really creepy.  Please stop.


    by moat on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 7:02pm

    Whats creepy? The thought of using live bait?


    by Resistance on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 7:07pm

    Of course Resistance, your so right, if you don't like me how could any man like or horror of horrors love me.  Because all men, in order to be a man, should be able to control his woman.  If he can't, he somehow abandons me at home to fish or something.  You are ridiculous. 


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 7:59pm

    If you say your man loves, you great.

    I thought I made it clear, I was only stating my preference. 

    You write argumentatively

    Because all men, in order to be a man

    It is you looking for arguments sake, that say's I am trying to speak for ALL.

    A feminist doesn't appeal to me, I don't want a relationship built upon a competitive/combative spirit .   

    My mate lacks nothing, and has learned the art, of making me believe, I'm in charge.

    Remember the book the Peter Principle ,the chapter dealing with " Pull is better than Push" A good wife knows how to use her skills.  

    My mate pulls me in the direction she wants to go, she doesn't push me.


    by Resistance on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 9:06pm

    You are unbelievably ridiculous. But anyone who has followed this can see exactly what you wrote. One more thing, you'll not bully me, by continuing to focus your misogynistic attacks on me personally, every time you do it, I will be here to defend myself. 


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 9:18pm

    Maybe you should amend your comment and end it with a frothing  Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr?


    by Resistance on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 9:40pm

    You ask only rhetorical questions. You don't need any answers.


    by moat on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 8:18pm

    "The arrangement."

    Really?

    This is so wildly illiberal, I'm surprised to see it written so plainly here.

    Human relationships are like novels.  They are written by us and they mean what we say they mean, and what their readers interpret. 

    There are no rules.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 2:50pm

    I live in a society whose government is run by the state-mandated religion (although it's only mandated for one ethnic group--the other groups are free to worship whomever they choose and to sin with impunity). Here, men from all of the ethnic groups, and women too, think all unmarried Western women are whores. I guess, all things considered, I prefer harlot. Maybe I'll get a t-shirt, just so people can keep it straight.


    by Orlando on Mon, 08/06/2012 - 4:59am

    Orlando, it could be that by the time you get back to the states you'll be needing that tee shirt here, too.  The idea of a state-mandated religion never goes away, and there are whole monied factions working hard to make it so.  The religious test for candidates is a given now, and I'm sure you're not so far away that you can't see what's happening with women's reproductive rights once again in this country.

    The Dark Ages have been recycled, rejuvenated, reconstructed.  This looks like the century that'll go down in history as the second wave.  I never thought it could happen here but now I'm not so sure.


    by Ramona on Mon, 08/06/2012 - 10:10am

    On the one hand you often promote anarchy and how the US is going to collapse in a violent revolution and upend the political system, that's your cut and paste shtick Resistance.

    Now you are all offended that Ramona has said that the Bible was written by 9 Men.. guess what, it was, human, mortal men Resistance, they weren't Aldous Huxley, they were just some dudes. We've evolved significantly since that book was written, and things have changed. But then you go and muddle up whatever you are trying to get at by asking Ramona if she is a good citizen and follows laws because she thinks the bible is a bit outdated and extremely misogynistic.  News flash, it is outdated and rife with misogyny, big time! The world will not descend into chaos because some folks believe that.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 8:13pm

    Nice use of Huxley. :)


    by Michael Maiello on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 8:28pm

    Do you foolishly believe, the Weather Channel promotes storms?

    I don't promote anarchy, just as I don't promote hurricane. 

    I only view the warnings, seeing a coming storm and knowing that the signs point to a future event.

    Maybe you've never hear the expression "let them eat cake" and the events that followed?  

    TMC ....people being ignorant of historical events doesn't keep them safe.  

     

    On the one hand you often promote anarchy and how the US is going to collapse in a violent revolution and upend the political system, that's your cut and paste shtick

    You purposely confuse knowledge with promotion

    Knowledge is not promotion.  

    Your constant mischaracterizations (your shtick about me) remind me of some in a hurricanes path, who complain about the alarm, and attack those pointing out a repetition of a common event. Hurricanes are dangerous you cannot stop them

    You've seen the effects of a hurricane before

    Have you not seen ,what the people do, when governments abuse their authority?

    Does the name Louis of France or Antoinette ring a bell?

     Or do you believe, that to remind others of past events is a promotion or a warning?


    by Resistance on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 10:54pm

    Disobedience is the original sin; submission the perfect virtue.

    Eve and Adam disobeyed God's will and mankind was cursed, womankind, doubly so; Jesus submitted to it and mankind was saved, at least those who are willing to believe.

    That is the beginning and end of the Bible's storyline with lots of interesting filler in between.

    Notice that in those two episodes that God communicated his will directly to them.  It was not relayed through a chain of command nor was it texted.  

    ----

    PS - I think you would like Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy but I don't think tmc would but I may be wrong about that.  You should read it.

     


    by EmmaZahn on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 9:28pm

    Very weird Emma, in a work that explores the question: Does knowledge go beyond existence, there is no simple like or dislike.  It is one of those works to be considered, mulled through and discussed on a deeper level.

    But the bible, still an outdated misogynistic book of fables. The bible itself isn't a book I like or dislike, I just don't think it is particularly relevant for modern life, other than the basic lessons it teaches which is to try to be good, try not to be evil.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 10:07pm

    I did say I could be wrong but I do think like or dislike can apply.  Those more metaphysically inclined are more likely to enjoy The Perennial Philosophy than those not.  Resistance does come across here at dagblog as more metaphysically inclined than you do but it is only one forum and a political one at that.

     


    by EmmaZahn on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 10:20pm

    Politics today is a false sense of security.

    Pointing out the failures and proving the lies, promotes a condition, to help citizens make decisions, with eyes open and not veiled by propaganda, intended to make you a victim.


    by Resistance on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 10:39pm

    Okay, does this have anything to do with sex and the little lady?  I'm confused.


    by Ramona on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 11:02pm

    I'm confused.

    Am I now to be censored again; my comments again to be thrown upon the bonfire, for responding.....this time to a supporter/promoter of feminazism? 

    We should blame Christianity, because Paul says three times that wives have to submit to their husbands. The Koran is worse still(it sanctions wife beating). Male supremacy isn't a corruption of either religion; it's an authentic part of both. by Aaron Carine

    Male supremacy? Blame Christians for your lot in life, ladies? Attack Christians?  

    From my perspective; the extreme or militant feminists, were instrumental, in destroying the family marriage arrangement.

    "Look girls we don't need men"

    Some of your remarks, make me wary, you too, may be easily swayed or infected by the extreme and militant ideology.

    Chanting

    What do we want and when do we want it

    Yea!!!! Woman unite …Down with male superiority?


    by Resistance on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 11:43pm

    Okay, I'll bite. 

    "Down with male superiority" works for me.

    By the way, Resistance, I've been happily married to the love of my life for 56 years.  I married him when I was 18 years old, right in the middle of the 1950s.  He thinks the whole idea of "male superiority" is as hilariously off base as I do.  Our two daughters, both feminists, adore him, and the feeling is mutual.  Our son is a feminist, too.

    You wouldn't like us at all.

     


    by Ramona on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 8:57am

    Again, what? Extreme militant feminists have destroyed the family? Well who knew you listened to and believed Rush Limbaugh, that is his shtick, blame, blame, blame everyone else, never take responsibility for your own actions. It's why he's been married 4 times, he couldn't make a marriage work if Jesus himself stepped in to help him out.

    I am an extreme militant feminist, have been all my adult life, and yet I managed to stay married to a really awesome guy, who loves me like I love him for 27 years. We managed to raise 3 children, all feminists, two of them are young men, one a young woman. We believe in equality. The bible isn't about equality especially for women, it's been used against women to hold us back and hold us down. I don't accept that, nor should any woman.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 9:28am

    Hey, Teri, it's pretty hard to keep that whole Feminist/man hater meme going when so many of us have loved the men in our lives so much and so long.  Even harder when men are calling themselves Feminists now.

    What, oh, what is a misogynist to do??


    by Ramona on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 10:57am

    You can add me to the list of feminists in a long term love and respect relationship. 32 years --all in a row-- to the same guy. 40 if you count the pre-marriage years. My son is a feminist, his girlfriend is a feminist, and my daughter is bad ass.

    Feminism did not destroy this family unit. It strengthened it.


    by wabby on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 5:56pm

    Flower, you have such a way with words.  Love it!  (Wonder who your daughter got her bad-assery from?)


    by Ramona on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 6:23pm

    From my perspective; the extreme or militant feminists, were instrumental, in destroying the family marriage arrangement.

    Yeah and I'm so happy they did. I like having an equal partnership with women in my life. I like discussing issues with my partner. I don't want to put my foot down and rule the home. If consensus can't be reached I'm willing to defer to my partner as often as she defers to me. If we're truly compatible those times will be rare. If intractable disagreements aren't rare we're really not compatible. If we're honest during the courtship phase we'll know it before we marry or live together.

    I absolutely would not accept a partnership were the women ruled and I had to submit to her rule. Why would I expect a women to accept a man's rule? Why would I want that?

    You want to rule the house, go for it if you can find a women willing to be ruled. I don't want that. Be aware though that women who are willing to submit to a man's rule are getting fewer every year. And I think that's a good thing.

    Yea!!!! Woman (and men) unite …Down with male superiority. The simple reality is that actual male superiority just doesn't exist anyway. That's why you need rules and religion and laws restricting a women's freedom to attempt to enforce it.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 3:55pm

    Oh but superiority does exist--in their own little minds.  It's hard to be the ruler.  Nobody really likes a ruler.  Except the ruler.  Who usually ends up alone and hugless.

    So perplexing.  Who would really want that?


    by Ramona on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 7:15pm

    As I remember, there were many 'rebuttals' penned including, Men are just Desserts, by Sonya Friedman.  The basic premise was that a woman's goal should be to have a healthy sense of self - the main course as it were - and only after accomplishing  this goal, could/should women enjoy and savor the dessert.  


    by Aunt Sam on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 12:52pm

    Exactly, Aunt Sam.  The 60s and 70s were amazing, volatile times for women.  Lots of confused men back then--Wha hoppened!!


    by Ramona on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 6:58pm

    Like flowerchild, I totally missed that one.  I think I was probably still distracted by the instruction manuals that came out a couple of years before:  

    Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask);

    The Sensuous Woman; but especially by

    The Joy of Sex

    ...

    Yes, definitely, the sexual revolution needed manuals to succeed.  But didn't they in their own way convey the same message as The Total Woman -- on steroids?  Remember this?

     

     

     


    by EmmaZahn on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 4:50pm

    Oh, yeah!  I remember.  If I hadn't just seen it I could have sung all the words.  Fun!


    by Ramona on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 6:37pm

    Okay, that is weird, wow! The 70's were kind of a weird time, I am glad we've moved beyond that nonsense.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 5:49pm

    Yes, they were weird.  But I can't say it's behind us.  From the looks of things misogyny is alive and kicking and running right alongside us. 

    Here we go again. . .

     


    by Ramona on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 7:09pm

    You could be right Ramona, you could be right.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 08/04/2012 - 8:14pm

    Now you've gone too far. Because that was so damn much fun working out all of those confusion issues in nude encounter groups and group therapy sessions. Ah, in the pool at night, candles all along the edge, Pacific ocean just off the horizon, fresh eucalyptus branches brushing your shoulders, being passed from one to the next like a baby fresh from the womb--you are weightless, sex doesn't matter, it's about feelings, and what you were thinking as you exited the womb---now you know the reason for this or that, and you can fix it. The meditation room, oh, where's that? No kidding? Just like that? Ah yes, please let's not move on from the 70's.


    by Oxy Mora on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 8:20am

    Ahh... hahahahaha... okay I am speechless now.


    by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 8:44am

    Ah, so romantic.  Those were the days.

     

     

     

     


    by Ramona on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 12:59pm

    I thinl Resistance is pointing to something deeper. We set up social agreements. We hold to those agreements or society falls down. The transition to new agreements is often messy, and practically there's often not a big advantage one over the other but sometimes there is. There are big arguments over whether marriage is man-woman or just 2 people, but we've also raised age of consent - we think for the better, but no absolute guarantee. And the laws still favor hetero marriage almost everywhere- we haven't switched yet. Someone here laughed at the man as breadwinner model, but it's extremely common and useful- can someone really multitask well business proposals due in the morning, business trip, what are snacks throughout the day, how to keep the kids creatively engaged after school? In the 70's kids self-entertained and self-medicated. Prferable to a Biblical model? Most successful businesses have a strong CEO even while supporting teamwork, open ideas and opportunity. Even 'modern' model marriages often default to spheres of control while sharing a few tasks. With a fight where both truly disagree. Okay, fights can be good, submission can be bad. But perhaps not always? As for our legal and social agreements - most written by men, not all like Scrooge, we do have to remove much sexism from legal precedent, though many places irrelevant. Even as we have many conservatives fighting those changes - including women - the backlash against contraception is appalling, but makes you appreciate that it's not just politicians lording it over people. I'm disappointed that 60's freedoms seemto have led more to Britney Spears midriffs and less to women wanting to share power and cultural creativity, even though that's not an absolutist conclusion. I'm still wondering whether the Christian submission is intrinsically worse than the 'exploring your inner slut ' paradigm. I'm more inclined to believe they're both caricatures that sell a few books or albums, and at the end of the day we just wing it in our relationships the way mankind always has with a few common strictures or taboos to provide fair but not absolute guidance.

    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 3:18am

    PP, I guess you had to be there--in female form--to be able to understand the destructive consequences of a bible-based, male dominated society. 

    You said:

    Someone here laughed at the man as breadwinner model, but it's extremely common and useful- can someone really multitask well business proposals due in the morning, business trip, what are snacks throughout the day, how to keep the kids creatively engaged after school? In the 70's kids self-entertained and self-medicated.

    In an equal household those tasks are shared.  Your idea of kids in the 70s being neglected, even benignly, doesn't square with reality.  Not in my Midwestern culture, anyway.  We could argue all day about kids these days compared to kids those days, but we would be talking in generalities and getting nowhere.   Some got to adulthood fairly unscathed by whatever societal mores happened to be in vogue, and some didn't.

    Women are not second-class citizens and men are not allowed to dominate any part of their being, physically or psychically. 

    The idea that we should be living in the 21st Century according to bible-based "common strictures or taboos" because it's always been so, is so old fashioned it deserves the howls of laughter it gets in most enlightened conversations.


    by Ramona on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 11:48am

    Child rearing can be shared, but can be messy and low quality when both parents work. Day care kids can be a bit detached. I was one of those 70's kids - quite familiar with 70's neglect and associated crime, drug abuse, broken homes. Friends from around country during time share similar stories. No cure all - raising kids is full of tradeoffs, including diminished careers, decisions over duties, weighing opportunities. Sure religion had its issues - other milieus had probs too

    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 2:26pm

    bad links

    by jollyroger on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 4:55pm

    Sorry bout your luck. That said, you seem not to recognize that the pre lib model of both the family and public education worked only by imposing grinding exploitation on women, still widespread. Shitty daycare is not a given (cf France)- It results from a societal disconcern for children

    by jollyroger on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 4:54pm

    My luck was everyone's, except I'm still alive and didn't see jail. Sure I understand grinding exploitation and the void in women's lives in the 50's. Even in the 60's they were often the prize and fashion accessories, not co-equals. I'm not even sure what model we've gotten now - seems one without much philosophy, but does have its own strictures. But we didn't replace ourinstitutions with French ones. We underfunded and scrimped by and ignore and just insulted our way through problems, the continual standoff between left and right. Our major leap in child rearing is "don't let them play in the yard, it's too dangerous", and of course more math & science and testing. What a wonderufl world.

    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 08/06/2012 - 12:26am

    Parenting while both parents work is stressful. I agree there are always tradeoffs. What those exchanges involve vary sharply according to different income scales people work within. If both parents need to work to provide for the basic equipment and resources for living, that is a different set of problems from parents who both earn something in the six figures. All the places between those extremes have their own set of problems.

    Having a dedicated breadwinner, regardless of gender, does provide the opportunity for the other parent to spend more time parenting. It is not the case that the traditional form of having the man "wear the pants in the family" provides this opportunity by default. 

    However one might view the matter of gender equality in the workplace, that issue is not the same as Resistance insisting that the parent who brings home the money should be male and the one who is the Decider of what happens to the family as a group. That particular cultural war is its own thing.

     

     


    by moat on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 7:18pm

    The thing is, you're being accepting of different models and the imperfections in eac stage. Resistance is just saying, if you're going to break or tweak the old model, replace it with something that works, tweak out the flaws. But it's un-PC to say something obvious like 'most single parenting sucks'. In a corporate world, easy for a CEO to be either gender - and lots of manuals on how to inspire employees rather than exploit them. At home, much harder for a dad to be a good mom, sorry. Share household chores? Great.but not the whole job description. Can be done of course. But may not be societal optimum. And of course we decide what kind of marriages and families we'll have - a number of models that can work with various drawbacks. YMMV.

    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 08/06/2012 - 12:10am

    "Resistance is just saying, if you're going to break or tweak the old model, replace it with something that works, tweak out the flaws." I don't know how you glean that from the screed. R is an operational cautionary exemplar of the evils of monotheism.

    by jollyroger on Mon, 08/06/2012 - 12:43am

    The good news is that not one person's skewed view/definition of Christianity (or any religion's dogma) should be considered as factually representative of the core.


    by Aunt Sam on Mon, 08/06/2012 - 12:53am

    You wrote:

    Resistance is just saying, if you're going to break or tweak the old model, replace it with something that works, tweak out the flaws.

    I will just quote Destor:

    Human relationships are like novels.  They are written by us and they mean what we say they mean, and what their readers interpret.

    Not in my entire married life did I ever think that model you and Resistance are so attached to was applicable to my life. What works for my husband and myself probably wouldn't work for you, but what does that matter. We don't believe that there are gender roles in our family life, he can do and has done everything I do and the same goes for me. Your model is fine for you, we made our own model and it works for us.  I don't care to upend your model, you can have it, but it isn't for us.


    by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 08/06/2012 - 1:12am

    What the fuck are you talking about "you and Resistance are so attached to"? I'm a fucking atheist, I don't give a shit - I never said this was "my" model. I just think Christians should occasionally be able to give their opinions too, and that there's more than 1 way to skin a cat.

    Read my postings more careful (like 2 eyes please) or just quit commenting.


    by PeraclesPlease redux (not verified) on Mon, 08/06/2012 - 3:05am

    It's possible you come from a generation where everything went swimmingly with the kids, give them a tv or rubberband to play with, all was good. My parents certainly thought the kids had it all, no need for self-scrutiny. It was a time for parental self-actualization.

    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 08/05/2012 - 11:57pm

    There are no generations where everything goes swimmingly.  I made plenty of mistakes and so did everyone else.  Over those volatile years my views changed radically, up down and sideways and were all over the place.  They still change, though maybe not so radically, but I'm definitely not the person I was a half a century ago.

    I was a mom at 19.  What did I know?  It turns out, nothing, even with the aid of Dr. Spock, but kids are resilient, thank God, and my particular husband, five years older and an ex-Marine, was a good and patient man. I was lucky and I know it.

    Life is complicated always, and we can't get through it without making grievous mistakes, some of which will haunt us for the rest of our lives.  We can learn and grow and move on, hoping we'll have enough sense to do better.  Or we can stop growing and turn, instead, to wallowing in self-pity or self-hatred.  As far as I know, that never helped anybody.

    Don't be too hard on your parents, PP.  Being a parent in the 60s, 70s, and 80s was the pits.  Nobody could have prepared for that kind of sea-change.  And nobody handled it well.

     


    by Ramona on Mon, 08/06/2012 - 8:41am

    Well I kinda agree - so why beat up on the religious when they were trying to weather the storm too - in different ways, all with middlin' results? Even now, we're backtracking on lessons we thought we learned in the 60's, and what's most disappointing, people just don't seem to evolve in attitudes that quickly, whatever part of the political/social spectrum. Someone else is always doing wrong, but I'm on the righteous path, whatever the results - can't criticize me!!!

    Tammy Wynette might be considered a backwards religious nut with her "stand by your man", yet you did this for decades and seem proud of it - perhaps we actually converge somewhere? That doesn't mean celebrating a wife-beater, but maybe enduring the bad times and celebrating the good times isn't just partisan sport?

    (Wynette's other big hits were "D-I-V-O-R-C-E" and "Until I can make it on my own", and with 5 marriages - George Jones being hubby #3 - she shows the paradox of all these instant flag-bearers for ephemeral causes -

    "Wynette in later years defended the song as not a call for women to place themselves second to men, but rather a suggestion that women attempt to overlook their husbands' shortcomings and faults if they truly love them (and in fact, the last line in the final verse says "after all, he's just a man")


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 08/06/2012 - 1:28pm

    No, no, a thousand times no.  I didn't "stand by my man", I entered into a partnership with someone I cared about.  If the partnership had failed one or both of us would have bailed.  Divorce is not an evil invention, it's often a necessary liberator.

    We've lived through many periods where women were held down, including that long period when she couldn't get a divorce unless she made up some phony reason, like physical abuse, and then spent a month or two in Nevada, the only state where divorces could be obtained.  If she did get a divorce, she was branded a "divorcee" which was another word for "harlot", to use that odd word.  Or she could have stayed in a lousy marriage.

    I don't know where you get that I'm "beating up on religion", when they're just trying to weather a storm, or whatever.  This is about a culture that requires women to submit to their husbands--a culture that tried their damndest to make women believe they were failures if they couldn't do that.  It has nothing to do with normal marriages with normal ups and downs.


    by Ramona on Mon, 08/06/2012 - 3:38pm

    Yes, but it wasn't just the difficulty in obtaining a divorce or the cultural condemnation. Discrimination made it extremely difficult for women to obtain a job or decent paying employment. Especially older divorced women. Economic necessity forced women to submit to their husband. A choice of submit or starve.

    The feminist movement didn't force women to work outside the home. It just worked to remove the barriers, both legal and cultural, giving women a choice. To the chagrin of religious conservatives most women made the choice they disapprove of.


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 08/06/2012 - 4:40pm

    Exactly.  Spot on, ocean-kat.


    by Ramona on Tue, 08/07/2012 - 10:06pm

    Isn't "stand by your man" a partnership with someone she cared about? Getting into semantics. If her partnership had failed, she would have launched into hit song #2.

    I don't recall divorced men having a good reputation or being desirable in those earlier days.

    Anyway, many of those "normal marriages" are coincidentally "religious". Surprisingly, New York was the last state to implement no-fault divorce in 2010.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 08/06/2012 - 4:43pm

    I don't recall divorced men having a good reputation or being desirable in those earlier days.

    When men divorced their livelihoods weren't threatened any more than were their reputations.  When women divorced they were shunned and ostracized and required to find a job that would never pay as well as a man while trying to raise the children.  (Because in those days it was unheard of for a man to gain custody of the children.)

    Surely you're not making a comparison between the two?  Are you really saying that, in the days before no-fault divorce, the men were as affected by divorce as the women?  I'd like to see some evidence to back that up.


    by Ramona on Tue, 08/07/2012 - 10:18pm

    My father paid for 2 houses for 2 ex-wives plus alimony and child support. Sure, he could get better paying jobs that would just cover 2 mortgages. I don't say things were worse for men, but more balanced than you imply. Remember divorced women bouncing back pretty quickly in the 70's as well - earlier decades not so easy.

    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 12:29am

    I guess I'm thinking more of the women who were in marriages where there was no money for alimony, and child support was barely worth talking about.  I know many, many, many women who stayed in bad marriages because they couldn't afford to get out of them.  (I think there were many men who felt the same way, too.)

    I think a lot of those women in bad marriages resented and mistrusted the divorcees.  Women who divorced usually saw an end to any close relationships with married friends.  I saw it happen more than once. 

    It took a lot of courage for women in our economic group to bite the bullet and file for divorce.  My own grandmother divorced my grandfather in 1947. (Absolutely unheard of in the backwater area she lived in.) She left him and moved in with one of her daughters and took nothing from him.  Years later, when he was sick and dying (from alcoholism) she moved back to her home town and cleaned his house and brought him meals. 

    So they weren't all money-grubbing females just trying to pay back the men by screwing them out of everything they had.  (Though, granted, some of them were.  No denying that.)


    by Ramona on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 8:59am

    As noted, changed thru decades, and suburban 70's middle class divorce scene different from say desperate post-war poor, etc

    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 1:50pm

    To be clear, women have always been much more in danger of these life collapsing moments. Yeah, a few got houses with few obligations, for most it was tied to keeping 3-4 kids functional with few resources. So not trying to be a prick, women were always on the razor edge of survival, and men had the jobs, resumes, etc. to pick up the pieces, while women got to put "domestic engineer" on their CVs. That and 25 cents + tax buys you a glazed donut at the local diner.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 7:21pm

    I would certainly agree with Ramona that in the bad old days a lot of women didn't get divorced because they depended on their husbands for support. Now many women have an independent income, so kudos to progress!


    by Aaron Carine on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 6:49pm

    Ahoy, Resistance, taking this convo down here because we ran out of room above. You said:

    Isn't this what Wikipedia says the Father of  modern psychology;  Freud believed?

    I believe I should have used the # 6 definition from the Urban Dictionary site 

    You never answered my question.

    Did you get censored for your vagina blog or am I to be held to a higher standard?

    or is it always going to be with you and the other atheists  "Find a TOS violation with this Christian, charge him with blasphemy"

    No, I didn't get censored because I wasn't using personal insults to make my point.

     


    by Ramona on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 9:50pm

    It amaze me the prejudice and bias displayed by some.

    I didnt see you admonish the person that implied chauvinism?

    A derogatory term, used by some, in Feminists circles, ie Chauvinists PIG.


    by Resistance on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 1:11am

    Ah, but the term pig was never referenced.  The stand alone term only refers to a person of seeming bias (definition, again without the oink, was delivered).   You are comparing two issues that are not similar.  Suggest, that for this instance, you stay on point.


    by Aunt Sam on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 2:08am

    Resistance, curious that you refer to 'your mate' repeatedly, is this another 'nautical' reference as she is the first mate of your boat?  Why do you not refer to her as your wife? 


    by Aunt Sam on Wed, 08/08/2012 - 11:27pm

    Why? Is it not politically correct to say mate?


    by Resistance on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 1:15am

    It's just not the manner in which most refer to their wives, usually only their 'unmarried partners'.  But perhaps that's just my experience.


    by Aunt Sam on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 2:11am

    Reply to ocean kat

    I believe, the truth is not what you seek;

    I believe, you only want to question Godly wisdom, to find fault and replace it with finding support, for selfish immoral conduct, that puts the burden on society.

    Out of love for the two lovers, so as to not pass judgment too harshly, he allowed the two to marry, satisfying the prescribed judgment, intended to protect society from the effects of immoral behavior.

    Death is the Bible punishment for Forced Rape.

    To have sex outside the marriage arrangement, even in the heat of passion, is also rape, if not, the girl is also to be considered immoral.

    God’s purpose was not to allow humans, having multiple sex partners, having sex without considering, the consequences, ie fatherless children, because the parents were without morals.

    It is not society’s role, to support immoral decisions and the consequences of failure to act responsibly.

    Immoral people, shift their irresponsible acts, onto the rest of us

    If a man raped his girlfriend with or without her consent, the two lovers have no choice left, when the two lovers decided to become as one.

    Their actions sealed the decision. Marriage, or charge the offender with forced rape. A certain death sentence

    I suppose, you see nothing wrong with humans having sex outside the marriage arrangement? Should the mother not be able to identify the father; you don't mind carrying the burden, of her children borne out of wedlock?

    My tax dollars shouldn't go, to finance someone else immoral decisions.

    Sex outside the marriage arrangement is forbidden, for the benefit of all

    The total disregard for this truth, has stabbed society with many pains.


    by Resistance on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 1:02am

    I believe, the truth is not what you seek;

    You're wrong. The truth is all I seek. Its been the focus and highest priority of my life. I've lived like a monk for decades, working as little as possible to have just barely enough to live so I'd have time to seek the truth. Intellectual, psychological, and yes, spiritual truth has always been what I've sought. I'm still seeking and will till the day I die. I've read your bible, cover to cover, as well as many other bibles. As a teen I thought of becoming a Lutheran minister. Unfortunately I have this nasty habit of thinking about the things I read. That tends to get in the way of faith.

    I don't seek or condone selfish immoral behavior, though I'm sure we'd disagree what is selfish or immoral. I'm not trying to find support for it.

    I do question godly wisdom, not just your god, but all culture's gods. I question everything. What I'm trying to point out is how useless your bible is as a code of ethics.

    Your old testament is a litany of the most horrendous immoral acts, all ordered and sanctioned by your god. I give you a land of milk and honey. Whoops, seems there's already people living there. No worries, kill them all to the last man, women and child. Hey you didn't kill all the women in that last city, gonna punish you for that. And yes, I can easily find the passage in your bible where it says exactly that if you need me to. As well as hundreds more atrocities commanded and done by your god.

    Your bible has many more immoral acts sanctioned by god than moral prescriptions in its pages. It only seems to work as a code of ethics because most christians don't read your bible, they just pick and choose this or that and ignore the rest. Or like you rationalize and justify the horror.

    I don't pick and chose. I read it all and I question it all. But if I were to pick I wouldn't pick Leviticus and use it to hate.

    20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

    This is what I'd pick.

    Matthew 25:31-46

    New International Version (NIV)

    The Sheep and the Goats

    31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

    34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

    37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

    40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

    41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

    44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

    45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

    46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. ”

     


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 2:05am

    The sheep listen to his voice, they don't rebel.

    They don't have sex, outside of the marriage arrangement.

    (I am using a friends laptop and am having a difficult time using it. I  presently dont have the tools my other system had )

    There is a scripture in the NEW Testament that says "Do you not know; that adulterers and fornicators............. will not inherit Gods kingdom" 

    You picked a scripture, about sheep and goats, yet you align yourself with the goats that rebelled, against the healthful teachings, in opposition to the shepherd.

    Society is better served, when morals ethics are observed.

    I look forward to eternal life, in a world, without AIDS or the other multitude of sexually transmitted diseases, passed onto innocent children, because there parents lived immoral lives. Or parents that did not observe the commandment and have since died from their error, and left the children with AIDS, and someone else has to fend for them. IMMORAL SEX BURDENS SOCIETY

    Parents who acted as selfish goats, who did not listen or observe, and follow the shepherd.


    by Resistance on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 5:29am

    Said by Paul/Saul, not by Jesus. Paul was into rule making and organization building, Jesus was into compassion, forgiveness, coming awake. Did he tell the harlot there was no place in heaven for her? So what huge punishment would you expect for pre-marital sex? Really, move past Sunday School. Jesus had some great ideas - lots of people dump their own baggage on his words.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 6:45am

    When you say "someone else has to fend for them" and equate that to a "burden", is that a bad thing, looked at from the point of view of a Christian? Seems that's what Christianity is all about.

    In any case, after reading all of this I expect I will get my ass kicked all the way to Pluto, or wherever the hell Hell is.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 8:58am

    You may not have to go anywhere; maybe one them, far reaching solar flares or lightening bolt, has your name on it?  

    Neighbors: "One minute she was here, the next thing you know, she was vaporized in a flash, into a pillar of salt "


    by Resistance on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 1:50pm

    I think sex outside of marriage has been proven quite moral and fun and part of normal society. Pregnancy can be avoided with a bit of responsibility, but then again, mankind has been propagated as much by fortuitous mistakes as good planning.

    Rape is the taking of someone without their permission, or as we decide in society, below the age of reasonable consent.

    Lots of people have ideas on what's "immoral", and if we pampered every belief, government would do absolutely nothing. Sometimes you just have to take lumps for your beliefs - they're not mine, and while you think sex outside of marriage has harmed society, I just think the neglect of children has been the major detriment, and a few decades after birth control expanded greatly, we can get the details down adequately. (if conservatives don't manage to ban it)


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 2:08am

    Sex is good and fun, no doubt about it. Multiple partners is immoral; leading to all sorts of undesirable results.  

    Sex outside the marriage arrangement has affected our children. Children having children, just one example.


    by Resistance on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 5:21am

    Huh? Multiple partners mostly leads to marriage and settling down with children. People are mostly monogamous, so "multiple partners" means typically teen to 25, maybe 30 years old period - and for most people, one partner at a time, eventually tying the knot. (Even with LGBT relationships, unsurprisingly)

    The hygienic problems from sex is less than t's ever been - Columbus' syphilis epidemic was quite the scourge of Europe - and if you're worried, typically prophylactics work every bit as well as invoking scripture.

    "Children having children" was much more common in biblical days when marrying a 10-year-old cousin was typical. And where sex education and contraception are covered, children now have a better chance of avoiding pregnancy and life-long commitment just from early playing around. That way they can save themselves - their whole selves, not just the hymen - for the love of their life later on, rather than bitter shackled to an unwanted child.

    That said, sleeping around with a lot of partners might cause or be a sign of some emotional problems - not always of course - and it may be some practical guidance is useful. But a general ban on using our sexual organs just because we didn't sign some paper?


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 8:38am

    Sex outside of marriage is no more immoral than sex inside of marriage.  What is marriage, anyway?  In a modern marriage, it's a contract between two people who love each other so much they vow to live together forever.  There is a ceremony to celebrate their decision,  and it can be officiated in a church by a priest, rabbi or minister, or it can be officiated in somebody's living room by almost anybody.  Two people can recite vows to each other and it'll be as binding as any of the above if they want it to be.

    As much as we celebrate the idea of marriage, the loving bond is what counts, and that can be accomplished just as successfully outside of what is basically an artificial construct.  

    Your ideas of morality need a facelift, Resistance.  We're not living in biblical times anymore, and we should all be grateful for that. 


    by Ramona on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 8:47am

    Proof man followed woman:


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 9:27am

    The Primordial Goddess 20,000 years ago:

     

    Gee, what happened?


    by EmmaZahn on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 9:36am

    Push-up bras, Flinstones era.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 11:34am

    And Pilates.


    by Ramona on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 11:39am

    ;) Idolatry?


    by Resistance on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 10:37am

    Idolatry

    is the universal human tendency to value something or someone in a way that hinders the love and trust we owe to God. It is an act of theft from God whereby we use some part of creation in a way that steals from honor due to God. Idolatry conflicts with our putting God alone first in our lives, in what we love and trust (see Exodus 20:3-5; Deut. 5:7-9; Romans 1:21-23). In idolatry we put something or someone, usually a gift from God, in a place of value that detracts from the first place owed to God alone, the gift Giver. That thing or person is an idol. The way out of idolatry is always to love and to trust the gift Giver without interference from any gift or any thing other than God. We will then be able to love and to appreciate gifts appropriately, neither giving them too much power nor failing to be thankful for them. We will then be free indeed, and not in bondage or addiction to anything that cannot fulfill us or give us peace (shalom)

    Maybe like idolizing the Bible and what it says or what someone else says it says instead being still and listening and observing through the Spirit of God within?


    by EmmaZahn on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 6:31pm

     instead being still and listening and observing

    Being still and listening is no safeguard.

    Jeremiah said "The heart is treacherous, who can trust it"

    Listening to a serpent, ......lead to DEATH 

    Eves heart betrayed her;

    The law was given  "Of every tree you can eat; EXCEPT, from the tree in the middle of the Garden" Eve finding the forbidden fruit desirable, did she not hear or wasn't listening? .....What was her excuse? I didn't understand?  

    Eve knew she was to avoid THAT tree, she told the serpent so. Her  heart overruled. Did she say to her conscience "be still, I know what I'm doing"  

    Proving that LISTENING isn't as important as observing and doing.

    Jesus himself said about his father, "your words........... are a lamp, to my footsteps"

    The spirit within, doesn't protect you from others, exercising their rights to respond to their  spirit within ...........some folks are violent, haughty, without lack of self control, disobedient  2nd  Timothy 3  

    The spirit within, must be trained for good,  it is mankind's inclination, to be bad.

    It says "Those that do the Will of God, remains forever.

    What poor poor excuse, can be given to explain to God, why you did displeasing things,that God disapproves of and then you request of him "give me everlasting life" 

     "Ummm.. I didn't care to read your words"?  "I did my own thing" 


    by Resistance on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 8:18pm

    The inner light, the spirit within is not the heart nor the gut, not reason and not conscience.  It is a kind of knowing or more accurately an understanding -- gnosis.  

    In contemporary terms it is the God particle within you that is connected to all the other God particles in the universe.  

    It is basically one of those things that you have to experience to understand although it probably can be experienced but not recognized.  We moderns have been taught to dismiss far too many surreal experiences too easily.

    I cannot tell how much of what you write is sincere and how much is too just get a rise out of secularists so I tend to avoid engaging.  Other times, I feel compelled to offer a different perspective somewhere between the two.  Once I have done that, I disengage.  Like now.

    Good luck in your spiritual journey.

    Romans 8:38-39


    by EmmaZahn on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 9:35pm

    Romans 8:38-39

    Also too Matthew 22:30 wink

    Another possibly related is the story where duties Jews have assigned according to sexual organs are basically ruled irrelevant by Jesus: where a female is praised for taking on the role of a Torah scholar, and another female doing the sexually-assigned chores is chastised for not doing the same.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 11:52pm

    Also too Matthew 22:30 wink

    Very good.  Totally relevant to the discussion. angel


    by EmmaZahn on Fri, 08/10/2012 - 1:07am

    So once again--where was the man caught in adultery?  But that's always been one of my favorite parables.

    I've always thought the New Testament was the antidote for the Old Testament, and find it odd that so many "modern" churches still use the OT as their guide.  In fact, the fundamentalists seem to grow stronger, even in politics, by dragging out those hoary old admonitions from Leviticus and Deuteronomy and pretending they're still relevant.

    That kind of nonsense should have been dismissed as old time nuttiness long ago.  


    by Ramona on Fri, 08/10/2012 - 8:09am

    I agree Ramona, the fundamentalists lack the understanding.

    They are blind guides.

    They are like the ones Jesus said "they look to remove the splinter from your eyes , but don't see, they need to remove the rafter from their own, so as to see more clearly 

    "All Scripture is beneficial for teaching and reproving"

    The old law gives us insight into our Gods thinking on matters.

    When he say's you must be "Holy, because I am holy"

    That is why No one goes before the Most high except through the Great High Priest, Jesus  

    So once again--where was the man caught in adultery? But that's always been one of my favorite parables

    I don't know if the man was an adulterer, but Phineas ran a spear through two fornicators.

    Numbers 25:8

    		  

    8 and went after the man of Israel into the chamber and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman through her belly. Thus the plague on the people of Israel was stopped.

    English Standard Version (ESV)

    As for the parable

    Also keep in mind, Jesus is not the Judge. He only pleads our case before the Most High.

     


    by Resistance on Fri, 08/10/2012 - 9:41am

    So you're saying Jesus' words have no real power when it comes to that particular parable--the one where he intervenes in the stoning of a mere woman?  Do you water down other words or actions by Jesus?  Or is it just this one?


    by Ramona on Fri, 08/10/2012 - 10:19am

    I don't water down anything, I consider all the Scriptures in context with other scriptures.

    This is how Christians, are to avoid the seeds/weeds, planted by the enemy.

    Early manuscripts don't even include this parable; but that is beside the point

    The very point of the parable is that Jesus asked, "those without sin, to throw the first stone"

    They couldn't......... and either would he.

    Jesus to this point, hadn't fulfilled his assignment to offer up his sinless body

    Until he passed that last and final test, he could not be the High Priest.

    Jesus neither condemned, nor judged the woman, that is his fathers job

    God; is the one that reads hearts, God judges all

    Gods son (Jesus) sits at his right hand.

    Maybe???  you don't understand the role of the High Priest, who himself, goes before the Most High, to offer up the sacrifice? 

    You should read Hebrews; it would help you get a better understanding of Jesus role, in the Divine plan.

    Interesting that you mention water

    I drink the lifes water, Jesus gives, 

    Some drink the water that is murky and full of undesirable things, it appears as water, but it's full of poison, intended to cloud the minds, of the unsuspecting.


    by Resistance on Fri, 08/10/2012 - 3:38pm

    I liked the story of Lot, who when the mob wanted to rape his guests offered up his daughters instead. Which seemed not to have bothered them, since as soon as the last Holy Man left Gomorrah, losing mom as a pillar of salt along the way, the inventive girls got their father drunk on successive nights and created 2 lines of offspring. Girls gone wild.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/10/2012 - 11:54am

    Yikes.  I am buttoning my lip.  Nope.  I will not respond.  Uh uh. 

    ******Soft porn******


    by Ramona on Fri, 08/10/2012 - 12:02pm

    duplicate comment deleted


    by artappraiser on Fri, 08/10/2012 - 3:34pm

    oops I put the wrong link with my second reference; I meant to link to Luke 10:39-42, the story of the sisters Mary and Martha.

    I happened to be looking at the "he who is without sin, cast the first stone" adulteress story at the same time (as the discussion here brought it to mind,) that's why I made the mistake. But I didn't mean to bring it up, because I thought it would just engender more thorny social morality discussions that I don't think should apply.

    I'm basically with Emma (and Matthew 22:30) on this. To me, the lesson of the Bible, taken as a whole and giving the necessary grains of salt for historical context, NT with OT, if you're a believer or quasi-believer, is: this is not a rule book for daily life, it is a guide for the soul/spirit.

    It's just so clear to me that Jesus was a relativist, and  I don't see how anyone with intelligence can honestly take away any other interpretation, as he adjusted to to the culture and historical period he lived in, so too would have done with any other. Mho, this is where fundamentalists always err with any text considered holy: no consideration of context, and no big picture, just myopically picking nits.

    How that pertains to the discussion on this thread:  the NT is not a rule book on sexual roles and relations, you have to take anything on that contextually and look at the big theme Christ was actually trying to get across in each instance. Pretty clear to me he doesn't care about that stuff, he cares about the individual souls, not about their roles as regards earthly society, then, now or anytime inbetween or before. Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. I would think he doesn't give a damn who is the head of an earthly household and that to suggest otherwise is more than misunderstanding him, it's contrary to his wishes. Any daily life "rules" one might find while myopically nitpicking, in every instance. I have always found it just seems to be one of the writers trying to explain to their own contemporary society, and that if you take it back exclusively to what they say Jesus said to them or what Jesus did in front of them, you find their contemporary applications/intrepretations stripped away.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 08/10/2012 - 3:41pm

     I don't see how anyone with intelligence can honestly take away any other interpretation

    Why should anyone with intelligence, put faith in YOUR GUESS?

    Miriam was wrong when she questioned Gods appointment of Moses.

    You are so mistaken to believe, that the Creator who put the heavens in place, with order that we humans depend upon, and you question his authority to put in place order on Earth

    It almost cost Miriam her life, to entertain thoughts, in opposition to the creators plans

    Like Eve, she thought God was depriving her.


    by Resistance on Fri, 08/10/2012 - 4:05pm

    It's not a guess about anything. It's seeing your kind of reasoning, based on nitpicking over and uber parsing of every word in a holy text, is the exactly the same thing as deciding that Allah demands that all women wear head scarves now, then, and forever until end times, based on interpretation of the Koran. Yes, I admit it, I'm pretty damn sure, from a read of the whole Koran, that Allah doesn't give a damn about head scarves nor veils.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 08/10/2012 - 5:12pm

    What you call nitpicking, is what I call; Keeping them honest.

    Meticulously examined /accurate knowledge.

    "For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.

    For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own,

    they did not submit to God's righteousness.    

    (Romans 10:2-4

    Because the people don't question the truthfulness of the fundamentalists authority. the word of God is corrupted.

    I don't base my lifes course, on guesses; but on meticulously examined /accurate knowledge.

    John 8:32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

    Set us free from the Fundamentalists?


    by Resistance on Fri, 08/10/2012 - 9:03pm

    http://bible.cc/john/18-36.htm

    oh, and regarding your comment about "harlots":

    http://bible.cc/matthew/21-31.htm


    by artappraiser on Sat, 08/11/2012 - 12:53am

    Thanks AA.  Great comment.  The big themes of the Christian bible seem to have been lost these days, as well as ignoring the beauty of the most poetic passages.  The hatred and intolerance of the early books of the Old Testament was never the Christian story.  It's been interpreted that way many times throughout history with terrible results.  And here we are again.

    Strange.


    by Ramona on Fri, 08/10/2012 - 10:16pm

    It's been interpreted that way many times throughout history with terrible results

    That's basically my point about fundamentalist reading of most holy texts, not just the bible: historically, it's shown to lead to mostly disastrous consequences for believer and non-believer alike.

    Christ himself used parables to convey nuance that couldn't be expressed adequately in the vernacular of the uneducated at the time. And he continually worked on the theme of this world and its operation being of little import, with good works towards others being of most benefit to the soul of the doer, not the recipient.  I think in his teachings, good works are a method of getting away from base self-centered-ness, similar to the effects of prayer meditation mantras, in order to welcome the Holy Spirit the god particles of the universe. (Certain Protestant theories regarding good works not being the main path to salvation got this big picture but went wacko overboard on the details on how to get there. Out of that grew our current worse distortions, prosperity theology and Jesus helping you win that football game. Far away from the idea of honing your spiritual being to accept the Holy Spirit.)

    Questions about who is the head of an earthly household or who is the authority that makes final decisions in this world seem to me to be soooo far away from what Christ was all about; instead he was saying every individual soul (and no one else) is made responsible for their own faith and spirituality, rich or poor, man or woman, single or married, powerful or slave, sinner-according-to-current-morals or not, and not Moses or your whole tribe any longer.

    How clear does it have to be: my kingdom is not of this world and its petty concerns?

    Christian social liberals don't like to admit this because they like to emphasize improving this world with good works, but I think if they too are honest about reading the New Testament, they would admit it is not mainly about that, but about ways to prepare for the something other than this world.


    by artappraiser on Sat, 08/11/2012 - 1:57am

    Reply at bottom of page


    by Resistance on Sun, 08/12/2012 - 12:32am

    AA

    How clear does it have to be: my kingdom is not of this world and its petty concerns?

    Confused?

    , but about ways to prepare for the something other than this world.

    What is the” something” you think we should be prepared for?

    Jesus kingdom is based in the heavens.

    Its why Christians  say the Lords prayer;   "Your kingdom come ,your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."

    (Matthew 6:10 ESV),

    “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

    (Matthew 5:5 ESV)

    Is the something that you prepare for;

    You being declared righteous so as to be spared alive,  when the king comes back to establish his will upon the Earth,  and he gets rid of the wicked, so the meek will live forever, upon the Earth, without fear of the wicked?

    Be prepared for some serious but kicking?

    Or is that promoting anarchy, to describe what occurs, when the wicked, realizing they’re about to be destroyed, to make room for the meek; The wicked go on a rampage, to seek  revenge,  against the meek?

    The wicked’ attitude  “if we are to be destroyed, we’re taking you with us”

    Anarchy or fratricide.... or both ?

    Do you think singing Kumbyjah will help .... Remember Rwanda; only Earth wide.No UN to intervene. Every one for themselves.   

    Excerpts

    "They are preserved forever, but the children of the wicked shall be cut off.

    The righteous shall inherit the land  and dwell upon it forever.

    Wait for the LORD and keep his way, and he will exalt you to inherit the land;

    you will look on when the wicked are cut off.

    But he passed away, and behold, he was no more; though I sought him, he could not be found.

    Mark the blameless and behold the upright, for there is a future for the man of peace.

    But transgressors shall be altogether destroyed; the future of the wicked shall be cut off."           

    (Psalm 37:23-40 ESV)


    by Resistance on Sun, 08/12/2012 - 12:48am

    Res, I have stayed out of this particular mud wrestling match so far, but I do think it right to apprise you of a few things: 1. My cousin (on our mothers' sides), Josh(ua Ben Yussuf)-"Jesus"to you-and I are very close. We chat daily. He remarked to me the other day on your predilection for citing as authority one Saul of Tarsus. Suffice it to say that "horse's ass " was his most printable characterization of Saul. 2. And, Res, I hate to say this, but when it came to you personally, "smug, self-satisfied, Philistine", were a few of his descriptors.( I believe he still has a hard on for the Philistines. ). 3. His old lady, Mary, (not his mother, the Virgin, but the other one, The Magdalene ) is especially annoyed by what she called your "sex negative use of 'harlot' as a term of opprobrium ". That's what they said...Let him with ears, etc, etc.

    by jollyroger on Sun, 08/12/2012 - 2:13am

    Like I give a .... about what your rock throwing cousin says.

    What have I got,  to be smug or self satisfied about?

    What do they have to say; about your  idolization of genitalia?

    Go ahead; you and your family have the choice to bury your heads in the sand.

    Surround yourselves with only those, who have happy talk, to salve your fears.

    Reminding me of the scripture, where Jesus is telling Peter about the things about to occur and the death Jesus will suffer.

     Peter telling Jesus" these things are not going to occur with you Jesus, be kind to yourself "

    Jesus replied "get behind me Satan, for these things ARE going to happen"

    Look around, Jolly remove your head from where it is buried. Open your eyes.

    A storm is coming.


    by Resistance on Sun, 08/12/2012 - 10:54am

    There are many uses for that word "wicked".  Almost all of them rest in jokes or fairy tales.  The human condition is much more nuanced, and most of us have a hard time taking seriously any conversations that are wrapped around "wicked" or "righteous" or "transgressors."  Like that.

    In other words, we're not into sermons here, especially the fire and brimstone kind.  You're in the wrong place if you're expecting converts.


    by Ramona on Sun, 08/12/2012 - 8:02am

    I for one would hope for a lower threshold on the word "wicked", though not in a religious context. Ripping off trillions of dollars, huge wars with continued atrocities, actions that undermine the health of millions with no concern for consequences...

    Instead it's out of line to even label someone a liar in the press, no matter how much damage they've done. Too forgiving.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 08/12/2012 - 8:29am

    Indeed, PP.  I was thinking of it purely in a religious context.  I actually like the word in its secular form.  Same with "liar."  They have their uses, fer shur.


    by Ramona on Sun, 08/12/2012 - 9:30am

    Converts? 

    Heck no, I like reminding those, who are part of the class, that are about to receive judgment.

    THEIR ACTIONS will be judged.  

    Such as rulers/ shepherds and their dupes, who have ignored their responsibilities to care for the flock, who have hurt the weak and the meek.

    Reminding them they will not escape judgment, despite all of the ignorant, who keep giving us happy talk;..... that only emboldens the wicked, to ignore the warnings. 

    Stealing trillions, killing billions and not caring.

    WHY should they fear; especially because you and others,  keep telling them, there is nothing to fear. as you say  "Go away you messengers of doom" we only want Happy talk"

    ie. "Tell us more about the green shoots Obama?" " The economy is poised" for what Bernnake ? 

    Give us more Happy Talk.

     Is it the suckers saying "We don't like the truth? Or those who are fleecing us, depriving us of the truth?    


    by Resistance on Sun, 08/12/2012 - 11:23am

    Heck no, I like reminding those, who are part of the class, that are about to receive judgment.

    THEIR ACTIONS will be judged.

    I see you're not getting it.  Let me be clearer, then.  Your sermonizing is not welcome on my threads.  You are not going to be the judge of anybody who comments on my posts. 

    You are not the victim, you are the bully.  You won't be doing it here again.  If you want to comment on the topic at hand, you're welcome to do that, but I will delete anything that goes beyond that and gets into attacking anyone's opinions by preaching biblical hokum.

    That's my own bias, and if you don't like it you can write your own posts and start your own threads.

     


    by Ramona on Sun, 08/12/2012 - 12:51pm

    Ramona, you are to be congratulated for eschewing cheap shots involving street corner preachers. I, of course, being less restrained... will only say "I told you so."

    by jollyroger on Sun, 08/12/2012 - 6:26pm

    Yeah, well, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.  And this I gotta do.

    (Nice trip in the Way Back machine.  Aaaack.)


    by Ramona on Sun, 08/12/2012 - 8:10pm

    I see, YOU didn't like to choose, which definition is acceptable to YOU? 

    Honestly; Hows anyone suppose to know what words YOU"LL accept,....until you attack them for words you don't like? 


    by Resistance on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 3:07am

    I think we're a bit in the weeds here.

    How about a deep breath, focus on something more August-feeling, like weeds growing and sprinklers over browning grass....


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 3:21am

    Clearer still:  You won't be attacking anyone on my threads by going after their morality. 

    Even clearer:  You won't be attacking anybody on my threads.

    Personal attacks will be deleted.

    And so will preaching.

    Got it?


    by Ramona on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 8:25am

    And so will preaching?

    Is it okay to go after bankers or any woman who writes a book about how to treat their man?   


    by Resistance on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 9:23am

    I don't think I have to explain to you what I mean by "preaching".  I would suggest you start posting your own pieces and let the threads fall where they may.


    by Ramona on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 9:43am

    Why would you give me the advice "let the threads fall where they may"?

    Really?


    by Resistance on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 9:52am

    just get off her lawn, it's over.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 10:02am

    And done.

    Deletions: 1


    by Ramona on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 10:20am

    .


    by Resistance on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 4:18am

    “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.

    In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism,

    who should labor to subvert

    these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.

    The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.

    A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

    It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.

    The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”

    Washington's Farewell Address 1796  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp


    by Resistance on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 2:27am

    Might I suggest we're spending a lot of time with Founding Fathers and biblical texts, and for a ragtag group of hackers, gabbers and pseudo-anarchist activists, it's wearing down the fun?

    How about texts that don't feel comfortable with the use of "Thee" for a while? Consider it a grammar time-out?


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 2:55am

    .


    by Resistance on Mon, 08/13/2012 - 4:47am

    Forgotten in our conversation and now gone, Marabel Morgan's true opposite Helen Gurley Brown, author of Sex and the Single Girl and publisher of Cosmopolitan magazine,  died yesterday.

    Amazing how much influence what she called her 'pippy poo little book' has had on our culture.  A truly interesting and remarkable woman.

     


    by EmmaZahn on Tue, 08/14/2012 - 11:31am

    Bob Somerby did a few days of tribute to Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique" a while back - I found one of them here, but there were several that gave a nice intro to "the problem that has no name". As something that ties into the struggle for women to be real people away from definitions of home duty.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 08/14/2012 - 12:19pm

    Anomie.  There, the problem has a name.  Thank Durkheim.

    It is a common problem for the children whose parents have aspired to or reached a higher (maybe just different) social status as well as for those who were caught up in their wake.

    Lots of anomie in the 50s and after and not just for women.   WW2 and after was a major societal transition.  It even reached my own little rural community that had been more or less static for over 100 years.  

    Still I think there is a major difference between Friedan's feminism and Gurley Brown's that was a result of their different life experiences.  In fact it was in response to the criticism of Friedan and other second wavers that Gurley Brown said of her book:

    This is how it was for me. This is how I played it. It’s just a pippy-poo little book and people come back with this diatribe about its great social significance. Well it’s just because nobody ever got off his high horse long enough to write to single women in any form they could associate with. If they had, somebody else would be the arbiter for single women at this point instead of me

    One of my favorite quotes is from Susan B. Anthony:

    "I never felt I could give up my life of freedom to become a man's housekeeper.  When I was young, if a girl married poor she became a housekeeper and a drudge.  If she married wealthy, she became a pet and a doll."

    Check out their bios.  Friedan and others like her were second-wave dolls.  Gurley Brown was more like Anthony.   She chose or maybe just embraced a different path by declining to be someone else's doll or drudge.

    As I said, an interesting and remarkable woman.  

     


    by EmmaZahn on Tue, 08/14/2012 - 3:02pm

    I guess Anomie works, but a bit too general, not quite right The home setting was a specific case of even while doing everything right it felt horribly lacking and wrong. Certainly no "lack of social norms" - lots of 'em, without much worrying about women's opinion on them, and of course the homekeeper/breeder-raiser being the main forced norm.

    Nothing wrong with having both Friedan and Gurley-Brown. Women are complex enough to have 8 or 10 or 30 cliques or stereotypes or environments or what-all, generalized, specialize, etc. Important that there was a breakthrough to something past norms into individualized behavior and support.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 08/14/2012 - 4:18pm

    Nothing wrong with having both Friedan and Gurley-Brown.

    Still, it's a bit rude inserting the chief critic of the recently deceased just after a eulogy, don't you think? 


    by EmmaZahn on Tue, 08/14/2012 - 4:42pm

    Didn't know she was chief critic - just thought they were working their own turf - don't single girls and stay-at-home moms need different muses? Anyway, nope, didn't know.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 08/14/2012 - 5:38pm

    That's why I told you.  

    As for different turfs, I am reminded me of when my cousin who did the stay-at-home mom thing until her children were in college when she went back to work commuting in her BMW to a $5 per hour job when minimum wage was $6.55.  People who worked for minimum wage really did not need that kind of competition.  My cousin was blissfully unaware of it although she did note that it was difficult to bargain shop when working 9-5.


    by EmmaZahn on Tue, 08/14/2012 - 6:47pm

    I never saw Friedan and Gurley-Brown as rivals, but I didn't follow them that closely.  Friedan was first with the liberation message, and thus more important to women my age, but I got a real kick out of Helen Gurley-Brown.  I loved watching her with her husband.  Together they were a hoot.

    Maybe I connected with Friedan most because I, too, did the stay-at-home mom thing until my kids were older.  Nothing I'll ever regret, by any stretch.  It was just "the way we were."  And since I was married at 18, I had a hard time relating to "Sex and the Single Girl."  In fact, I never read it.

    Friedan's "Feminine Mystique" was an eye-opener for many of us, but Friedan herself got a little too cranky as time went on.  But by that time I was a huge Steinem fan and I was one of those who left Betty by the side of the road.  I guess I still feel bad about that, considering how important she was to the original movement.


    by Ramona on Tue, 08/14/2012 - 8:11pm

    Dylan left Baez by the side of the road - sad, but was he going to sing "Amazing Grace" for the next 40 years, or electric "Like a Rolling Stone" and Isis and Traveling Wilberies?

    Often are heroes and gurus are to get us out of tight spaces, not to ride coattails forever more. No disrespect to them.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 08/15/2012 - 12:33am

    I was just a little too young for both books but just about right for Gurley Brown's Cosmopolitan magazine.  

    The books I remember reading were Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex​ and Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch, ​both assigned reading as was Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women.  ​I also remember reading Erica Jong's Fear of Flying but not why.  Probably just the zeitgeist.  

    I never really joined 'the movement' but was rather carried along with it like others my age.  It really seemed then as though the major points had been made and would just need some time to work through the details.  Still pretty much think that.  


    by EmmaZahn on Wed, 08/15/2012 - 3:32am

    A bit late out of the gate, but I just came across this from NPR:

    How To Be A Woman by Caitlin Moran

    Listen to the interview here.

     


    by wabby on Wed, 08/15/2012 - 6:32pm

    Thanks, Flower.  Marking it for later, when I have some quiet time.


    by Ramona on Thu, 08/16/2012 - 7:37am