vision2020
Re: Erotic retardation III
> The Muslim view of women is radically Arian -- for them submission and
> authority necessarily entail ontological subordination. But
> Enlightenment egalitarianism is modalism -- equality must mean
> abolition of all distinctions.
The same view of women can be attributed to some Christians too. There
are plently of people who interpret the Bible and the Koran to fit their
prejudices. On the other side of the coin, many Muslims and Christians
also see a more positive view of women in their scriptures. There is
nothing inherent about Islam that makes it anti-woman or "radically
Arian." Egalitarianism does not abolish differences. We recognize
differences, but work to prevent those biological differences from being a
basis of social interaction. Yes, men and women are biologically
different. But there should be no social translation of that difference.
For example, women are pregnant and have babies, men don't. That does not
lead to men should go out and work and women should stay hold. An
employer should give both a man and a woman (if that is indeed the
partnership) equal consideration and accomodation at the expect arrival of
a child, but for any number of differing reasons. The woman would need
time to recover from a not-so-easy (or so I hear) experience. And a man
would need time to be able to aid his partner as she needed.
> Amen. So keep your shirts on -- so that men who want to be faithful in
> mind and heart to their own wives, and who want to treat other women they
> meet during the day with all dignity and respect, are not forced to duck
> down alleys or climb trees. This is not a difficult concept, people.
So its a woman's fault for having breasts that some men can't control
themselves? Why isn't it possible for a man to see breasts and not treat
her like shit, or the very least, objectify her? And it would work both
ways. A woman should then not be "subjected" or "forced to duck down
alleys or climb trees" when a man walked around shirtless. Why couldn't a
man walk by a shirtless woman and say "Hello" without some sexual
explotion. Breasts are not biologically sexual. Any erotic "nature" of
breast is social at its base, and therefore can be changed (and should
be). I'm not saying that finding the chest attractive is bad, but that
treating one sex differently than the other because of the extreme
finding-the-chest-attractive mindset found in objectification is bad.
And you are right, Doug. Its not a difficult concept. We aren't stupid.
We just disagree with you. And when you consistantly meet disagreement
with the assertation that we are somehow misunderstanding or too stupid to
understand your obviously abolutely correct way of seeing the issue, you
start to become increasingly offensive. None of us are on this list
because we are stupid people. In fact I would assert each one of us, for
the sheer virtue of participating in this discussion, makes each one of us
very wise.
> Still waiting on the sexual harassment language that will eliminate all
> legal language that assumes a difference in male and female bodies.
For starters you can eliminate the words "male and female" from any legal
documents and replace it with a neutered noun like "person." For example,
you can say "Any person who touches another person in anyway the second
person expressly finds inappropriate the first person is guilty of sexual
harrassment". Forgive my ineptitud in legal language. Just an example.
Love
Daniel
Back to TOC