Conference turris::womannotes-v1

                   Biblical Dehumanization of Women

    Nowhere is the dehumanization of woman so clear as from a careful
    reading of the mass of biblical prescriptions and proscriptions that we
    have all been taught that are intended to protect women's virtue.  For
    example, in Deut.  22:28-29 we read: 

	"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is
	not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her 
	and they be found; then the man that lay with her 
	shall give unto the damsel's father FIFTY SHEKELS of 
	silver, and she shall be his wife." 

    The impression we have been given is that this law is a kind of moral
    and humane step forward in the civilization of immoral and sinful
    heathen.  But if we look at this law objectively, in the social and
    economic context in which it was enacted, it is evident that it didn't
    stem from any moral or humane considerations.  Rather, it was designed
    to protect to protect men's property rights in "their" wives and
    daughters. 

    What this law states is that since an unmarried girl who is not a
    virgin is no longer an economically valuable asset, her father must be
    compensated.  As for the legal requirement that the man who caused this
    economic marry the girl, in a society where husbands had practically
    unlimited power over their wives, such a forced marriage can hardly be
    said to stem from any concern for the well being of the girl. This
    punishment too is concerned with male economics: since the girl is now
    a worthless commodity with no further market value , it would not be
    considered fair to saddle her father with her. She has to be acquired
    by the man who caused he to loose her value. 

    So here we have to ask ourselves what and who's property was spoiled
    and what and who's property was exchanged for the said spoiled
    property. 

    The real purpose of this system of "moral" sexual customs and laws is
    even more brutally demonstrated in Deut 22:13-21.  These verses deal
    with the case of a man who alleges that since he has discovered his
    bride is not a virgin he "hateth her" and wishes to get rid of her.
    The legal remedies provided in the Bible this kind of situation are as
    follows: If the wife's parents can produce "the tokens of the damsel's
    virginity" and "spread the cloth before the elders of the city" the
    husband has to pay 100 SHEKELS OF SILVER to the brides father.  And he
    may not send her back to her parents for as long as she lives.  But if
    the brides virginity is not satisfactorily established, the husband can
    indeed get rid of her.  For the law required that "they shall bring out
    the damsel to the door of her fathers house, and the men of the city
    shall stone her with stones that she die". 

    We are informed in the Bible that there is good reason for the killing
    of a woman who is not a virgin when she marries.  This is that "she has
    wrought folly in Israel to play the whore in her father's house".
    Translated into contemporary language, she is to be killed as a
    punishment for bringing dishonor, not only to her father, but to her
    larger family, the twelve tribes of Israel.  Only what does this
    dishonor consist of? What injury or damage did the loss of the girls
    virginity actually cause her people or her father????? What is insidous
    here is that the father is protected also. Once the errant property is
    destroyed the father no longer has to support the woman. 

    The answer is that a woman who behaves as a sexually and economically
    free person IS threat to the entire social and economic fabric of a
    rigidly male dominated society.  Such behaviour cannot be countenanced
    lest the entire social and economic system fall apart. Hence the
    "necessity" of the strongest social and religious condemnation and the
    most extreme punishment.

             Biblical Dehumanization of Women, Part II

    So effective has been the imposition of Biblical morality that even
    today men and women who think themselves good, moral people are able to
    read passages such as the previously mentioned and those that follow
    without questioning how a just and righteous God could order or allow
    such horrible and inhuman acts.  Nor is Judeo-Christanity alone.  No
    one seems to question the morality of some of the Muslim men who, even
    today, for any real or imagined sexual infraction, consider it their
    duty to "protect women's virtue" by threatening to kill--even
    killing--their own daughters, sisters, wives, and granddaughters.
    Neither do they question why precepts that, in their own eyes as well
    as in the eyes of men generally, strip the female half humanity of any
    value unless they are sexually "pure", should still be respectfully
    termed "morality". 

    For once we ask these questions, ours is no longer the kind of mind
    needed for a male dominated (or dominator) society, in which our moral
    development can only go so far and no further.  [A Dominator society is
    one where one sex dominates another through religious, social and/or
    economic means.] And so, through the processes of systems replication
    now being uncovered by scientists like Valmos Csanyi, millions of
    people still today seem incapable of perceiving what our sacred
    literature really says, and how it functions to maintain the boundaries
    that keep us imprisoned in a dominator system. 

    Perhaps the most striking example of this systems-induced blindness
    concerns the Biblical treatment of rape.  In the Book of Judges,
    chapter 19, the priests who wrote the Old Testament tell us of a father
    who offers his virgin daughter to a drunken mob.  He has a male guest
    (with concubine), a man of the high-caste tribe of Levi.  A bunch of
    rowdies from the tribe of Benjamin demand to see the Levite outside,
    apparently with the intentions of beating him up.  "Behold" the father
    says to them, "here is my maiden daughter, and his (the Levites)
    concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble them as you will,
    doing what seems right to you, but to this man (the Levite) do no such
    vile thing." 

    We are told this causally, as a matter of little importance.  Then, as
    the story unfolds before us, we are further told how "the (Levite) man
    took his concubine, and brought her forth before them, and they knew
    her and abused her all night until morning."; how she crawled back to
    the doorstep of the house where "her lord" was sleeping; how when he
    was done sleeping "and opened the door to the house, and went out to go
    his way" he stumbled over her prostrate body and commanded "Up, and let
    us be going." Finding her dead he loaded her body upon a donkey, took
    her home and cut her body up for delivery to the twelve tribes.  (Was
    all this a punishment for leaving the Levite and going home to her
    father?) 

    NOWHERE in the telling of this brutal story of the betrayal of a
    daughter's and mistress's trust and the gang rape and killing of a
    helpless woman is there even the slightest hint of compassion, much
    less moral indignation or outrage.  But more significantly-and mind
    boggling--is that the father's OFFER to sacrifice, what in that day,
    was his own daughters most precious attribute, her virginity, and
    possibly her life, VIOLATED NO LAW.  Even more mind-boggling is that
    the actions that predictably led to the gang rape, torture, and
    ultimately murder of the woman who was essentially the Levites wife
    likewise VIOLATED NO LAW--and this in a book of seemingly endless
    prescriptions and proscriptions about what is morally and legally right
    and wrong. 

    In short, so stunted is the morality of this sacred text ostensibly
    setting forth divine law that here we may read that one half of
    humanity could legally be handed over by their own husbands and fathers
    to be raped, beaten, tortured, or killed without any FEAR of
    punishment--or even moral disapproval. 

    Even more brutal is the MESSAGE of a story that to this day is
    regularly read as a moral parable to the congregations and Sunday
    School classes all over the western world: the famous story of Lot, who
    alone was spared by God when the sinful and immoral cities of Sodom and
    Gamorrah were destroyed.  Here once again we read in Genesis 19:8 that,
    with the same matter-of-fact callousness, in what was probably a
    widespread and socially accepted custom, Lot offers his two virgin
    daughters (probably still children, since girls were married off so
    early) to a mob that was threatening his guests.  Once again there is
    no hint that any law is being violated or any expression of indignation
    that a father should so unnaturally treat his own daughters.  Quite the
    contrary, Lot is rewarded by being allowed to escape, while the
    inhabitants of the two cities, both young and old, adult and child,
    woman and man are destroyed for their perversions. 

    What may we learn from these examples of Biblical morality and of the
    system it was designed to maintain? Clearly the morality enforcing
    women's sexual slavery to men was imposed to meet the economic
    requirements of a rigidly male-dominated system that guarrenteed
    property be transmitted from father to son and that the benefits from
    women's and children's labor accrue to the male. 

    Even today we hear echoes of this dehumanization in the New Testament;
    "women obey your husbands for the husband is the head even as Christ is
    the head". Like Father, like Son. Even today women still cover their
    heads to show their submission to the commandments of the New and Old
    Testaments and further the purposes of a Dominator society hundreds of
    years after they should have acknowledged their sexual, economic and
    religious freedom.

    
    
    One of the reasons I find the "Cakes for the Queen of Heaven" seminars
    so powerful is the exploration of the past and suggestions as to
    why things are the way they are.
    
    At the time that the stories of the Old Testiment begin there was
    already a very stong religion.  GODDESS worship.  It as was a 
    society that traced anchestors through the mother.  Where women
    and men worked together in the name of the GODDESS (she had many
    names: Ishtar, Astarte, Isis, Diana,Kore, Ceridwen, Mari, Quan Yin,
    Queen of Heaven, Great Mother, Gaia, and many more).  It was to
    allow males to take control of the Gods and property, to be the
    ones in charge that women needed to be controlled in their sexual
    activity.  If a woman was free to live on her own to sleep with
    whomever she wished **HOW WAS THE MAN TO KNOW WHOSE child she bore?
    
    I have read recently ( will look it up and quote the source) that
    TAO was originally FEMALE.  I think it was from a booK I bought
    at the China exhibit that was at the MFA in Boston this Spring.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |	Ah yes, the new year is here.
    
    

Discussions about the meaning of biblical laws and customs might
be better addressed in the religious notesfiles, such as BAGELS
(for Jewish issues), CHRISTIAN, and BIBLE (ecumenical).

I am very uncomfortable reading "the law means" when the interpretation
of Jewish law, both oral and written, can be a lifetime study.
Simply saying that such-and-such a law means this-and-that may not
be truthful then, and is not necessarily relevant -- to any of the
Old Testement based religions -- today.

The Law is both subtle and mallable, and it is very easy to extract
from it justification for one's own beliefs.  Before doing so,
I would strongly suggest first studying the commentaries.

Martin.

    Martin -
    
    This topic is very important to women. Especially now.
    
    In order to make real changes one has to know where the
    problem lies.  The second class citizenship of women
    started around 4000 years ago.  This time period is the
    same in the Near East, India and parts of China.
    
    Prior to this change the main deity was Female in these
    areas.  The reason (maybe no the only one, but real
    good contender for top) for this change was an invasion
    from Northern people (may have been mostly males) who
    took control and instituted their form of religion.
    
    Note the following is my ideas alone.
    
    The civilized people in the "cities", the Goddess worshipers
    may have just recently (a couple hundred years) discovered
    the part males play in conception but since their civilization
    had been working for thousands of years so no reason to alter
    the main concept of their religion and social structure.  There
    was marriage but women and men had the same degree of sexual
    freedom.  The idea of ownership of property had not fully
    developed.  
    
    Then along comes the invaders from the North who are hunters
    rather than farmers.  Who own what they bring with them,
    who are not "civilized", who have made the great discovery,
    who have no home for one reason or another, who worship a
    male deity and who sacrifice animals to their god (they 
    are hunters not farmers).
    
    In order to rule the invaders have to be the ones in power -
    right - simple they married the Priestesses of the Goddess.
    They ran into a problem their idea of marriage meant sons
    by them only - the Priestess did not bear children by their
    husbands.  And what was worse they (the woman) were the
    ones who descent was traced through, who knew or cared who
    the father might have been.
    
    Now for the invaders to really have power they needed to get
    rid of the Goddess.  Destroy the powerbase corrupt the religion
    and then control the women so that the Goddess could never
    come back and take over again.
    
    It is not how the law is used that is important to woman in
    this century (and the next) it is understanding how it has
    been used against women for 4000 years.
    
    Back to reality.
    
    It is very empowering for women to know that IT IS NOT THEIR
    DESTINY TO BE SECOND CLASS.  To know that as far as history
    goes it has only been for the past 4000 years that this has
    been so.  For almost 20,000 years prior to that time (yes
    24,000 years ago) the chief deity was FEMALE.
    
    _peggy
    		(-|-)
    		  |
    		  |	In the beginning was God
    			and she was the Queen of Heaven
    

    Reply to .4; Minow,
    
    I've put these articles in Religion and Bible. In those files I
    had some additional purposes for starting a topic. Those reasons
    don't apply to Womennotes.
    
    Our worldviews determine how we'll act in our lifetimes. Understanding
    those worldviews can help us liberate ourselves from much suffering.
                    
    We are long past the time of needing one gender to be dominant over
    the other. We are presently striving toward a place where man and
    woman can resolve their differences, rejecting those things that
    make us dominant, creating new worldviews that serve both genders
    well. 
    
    Unfortunately we can not do this unless we understand what made
    the difference in the first place. An unbalanced worldview or religion
    could be responsible for much of our problems in this area.
                                                        
    Studying the commentaries are useful. We must remember that men
    wrote most of the history we read. Personal I think it's time we
    listened to women philosophers, women anthropologists, women
    archaeologists and women theologians. 
    
    Yes, the Goddess lives and lives in every woman and man. If we listen
    just a little, we'll hear Her.

    BTW, what do you think these passages infer?

re: .6

I know enough of the Old Testement Law to know that I don't understand
the law, and consequently would not attempt to interpret its subtleties.
If I need advice on what is right in some circumstance, I can turn to
any of a variety of commentaries, or ask a question of a scholar.
(This is, of course, true of my knowledge of secular law as well.)

Coming from a culture that has had a long history of having biblical
interpretations twisted against them, I have a strong suspicion --
hopefully groundless in this instance -- of anyone attempting to explain
today's culture as resulting from one or two passages in the bible.

The Old Testement Laws regulating family relationships are both extensive
and subtle, including laws granting women the right to a divorce.
Also, and more specifically, the laws (both written and unwritten)
governing capital punishment make it most unlikely that a gang of people
could stone a woman to death without further ado.

Martin.

    Reply to .7; Minow,
    
    I think you have some valid objections there.
    
    On your first point about asking a scholar, who would that scholar
    be? Would they be male. Would they know about androcratic (male
    dominated) cultures? Would they know about gylanic (woman/man resolved)
    cultures?                   
                                                                           
    I am NOT saying that women are oppressed because of a few verses in the
    Bible. I listed those as examples we could READILY use. Please remember
    that the Greeks did this also. Dehumanization of women became a
    planatery mode of life millennia ago. IT OCCURED VIA THE DEVICE OF
    RELIGION AND FORCE. 
    
    Did you read the passages in the O.T.? I read them and I don't need a
    scholar to tell me what they mean. A biased scholar could bury us all
    in meaningless trivia. We have to make a determination of our own
    concerning what and how we'll treat women. Scholars don't make those
    decisions for us. We do. Anything other than a decision of our own is a
    cop out. I am proposing that we face our religious dogmas, even the
    deeply held ones and toss out the dogmas that oppress and dehumanize
    the famale half of the race. 
    
    Perhaps you are one of those people, who think themselves perfectly
    good and normal, that cannot see the atrocities when they read of them
    in _a_ or _any_ sacred document? Propagandized? 
                   
    I think that in my next article I'll review a Greek psycho drama that
    taught Greeks for hundreds of years that the murder of ones own mother
    was not a crime worthy of the Furies attention. Why?  Because children
    belong to the father, not to the mother. This was a propaganda carried
    out in the theaters, much akin to our present propaganda, brought
    to you by the letter P on the tube. 
                                  
    Now I'll readily agree that the history writers don't view their
    material as propaganda, but at some point andocraticly biased
    historical documents become propaganda for all practical purposes.
    
    Think for yourself, question authority.
                                                             

                                                        
>    Personal I think it's time we listen to women philosophers,
>    women anthropologists, women archaeologists and women theologians. 

    And women Rabbi's.

Mike, the problem I have with your posting your interpretation of
Old Testament Law is that I don't really know whether your're flaming,
preaching to the choir, or making a not-too-subtle anti-semitic point.

You ask "what sort of scholar" I would ask: it would be a scholar
of the Law.  I would no more inquire whether that scholar was male
or female than I would ask whether my dentist was male or female.
                                                                           
You seem to be asking the age-old question of whether religious
thought forms society or reflects it.  I cannot answer that, nor
do I expect an answer suddenly to appear in this notesfile.

If you believe that you can understand Jewish Law without extensive
study, you are either far more learned than any person I have met,
or perhaps overly na�ve.  You -- and I and everyone else -- certainly
must "make a determination of our own concerning what and how we'll
treat women."  How your religious upbringing guides you in that
determination is a question you must answer for yourself.  If you
truly believe that your religion requires you to disparage and demean
women, then you must -- yourself -- choose whether to obey your
religion and be untrue to yourself, or to be true to yourself and
defy your religion.  I cannot offer your counsel in this dilemna.

However, I would, again, remind you that there are people who are
very sensitive to interpretations of Jewish Law that (even unintentionally)
can be construed as anti-semitic.  I am not suggesting that you are
doing so, but hope you understand my concerns.

Martin.

    Being an agnostic I cannot comment on Jewish Law, and I may be taking
    a simplistic view of all this, but if you are basing your behaviour
    towards women on something that was written n years ago, I think
    it is time you reviewed your attitudes.
    
    Jenni

    At the request of an individual who felt that notes 478.1 and 478.2
    were antisemetic I have set them hidden.
    Bonnie J
    moderator

    
    
    How did this get into an antisemetic rathole.
    
    
    The issue is one of culture and we live in a Judo-Christian culture
    with many of "our" leaders using quotes from the Bible as
    substantiation for their points of view and what is worse for their
    actions.
    
    This is a woman's issue not an attack against any of the male-dominated
    religions.  If a number of noters in this conference 
    feel that they do not see the connection between what was recognized
    as the "word of God" by our culture up until about 75 years ago and
    the systematic oppression of women by that culture maybe they need
    to be educated to this connection extensively.
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	And then again there is always the Goddess
    

    I think it's so common for those who would argue for the "traditional"
    female role to quote the Bible, that those of use who would refute
    that "stuff" do the same thing, but with different quotes. I believe
    that one can find backing for almost any argument in the "Christian"
    version of the Bible.
    
    Said version, of course, (the most commonly used) having been
    "translated" by His Majesty King James, who apparently figured that
    people used "thee", "thou", etc. as forms of addres circa 1, C.E.
    And did God-knows-what-else to the text as well.
    
    So far as I can see, unless I'm willing to read the original Hebrew
    or Greek, and study those languages (especially Greek - I think
    perhaps Hebrew may not have changed quite as much (?)) *as they
    were spoken in ancient times*, I need to be very careful as to how
    I interperet the "Bible" (in quotes, cuz there are many Bibles).
    
    Personally, tho' I am *NO* expert, I like the strong female images
    found in the O.T. of the "Christian-King-James" Bible - Deborah,
    for one. One finds no warrioresses in the N.T. (same Bible)
    
    Dawn
    

RE: anti-Semitism

	Oh, that's a relief.  I thought it was anti-christian.  Now as a
	christian I can continue to feel superior to all other religions.
	(large sarcastic :-)  ).

	It's too bad that we can't discuss religious beliefs while
	discussing women's role in society.  Isn't religion a *major*
	influence on how our society acts?  I don't doubt that the
	quoted passages were in the bible, and I don't doubt that they
	imply a lower status (at the least) for women.  This is not
	anti-Semitism.  No one implied that as a result of those passages
	Jewish people treat women badly.  There was a more general
	suggestion that our whole society treats women badly perhaps 
	because of being influenced by these and other religious documents
	(I was under the impression that .0 was going to expand to other
	religions and societies).

	Anyways, if I'm all wet, please explain it to me.  Why are they
	anti-Semetic and not anti-Christian if either?  Am I insulting the
	entire Jewish race whenever I disagree with any passage from the
	(what I call) old testament?

	...Karen

re: .15

It is possible to read the biblical quotes, and the context in which
they were presented, as an attack on Jewish beliefs and customs.
If an individual finds this to be so, I would hope their concerns
would be respected by the readers.

I would not regard the passages as directly attacking Christian
belief for two reasons:  according to Christian theology, the
coming of the Messiah fulfilled the law, and hence some of Old
Testament law is no longer binding on Christians.  According to
Jewish theology, as non-Jews, Christians are only required to
obey the seven Noachic laws.

You are free to disagree with the Old Testament laws.  As I said
in previous replies, I would appreciate it if you did it with
a full understanding of those laws.

In .15, Karen says "No one implied that as a result of those passages
Jewish people treat women badly."  I'm sorry, but I didn't read the
original postings in that light.  Perhaps we can agree to disagree
on our interpretation of those passages.

Martin.

Ps: it's "Jewish religion," not "Jewish race."

    RE: .16
    
    AHA! SO *that's* why Christians can ignore stuff in the O.T.! I
    must've missed that Sunday :-)
    
    Still, I always find it interesting to see what perople choose to
    ignore, and what they choose to follow.
    
    Thanks again for the explanation.
    
    Dawn
    

    After further examination of .0-.2, Bonnie and I have decided to
    un-hide .1 and .2.
    
    The author makes it clear in several places that he considers Judaism,
    Christianity and Islam to be equally "at fault" in their doctrinal
    treatment of women, and that they are not alone among religions in
    treating women badly.  He also specifically states that he is quoting
    passages from those doctrinal writings that he himself knows best, not
    because he considers them to represent particular culpability.
    
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie 
    
      

    re: .16, 17..
    
    This should not digress into a theological disputation; however,
    for Catholics, the Bible is the composite of the Hebrew scriptures
    and the Christian scriptures [ referred as old testament and new
    testament .....  yet, old and new prefixes imply some bit of
    exclusiveness ... ].  The Bible then is the Word of God to be
    read, understood, and assimilated by tradition and teaching.  There
    is always difficulty in extracting snippets of an area of the Bible
    and making generalizations or dogmatic assertions.  Catholic
    theology that is concerned with reconstructing the experience of
    women in a more balanced way view scripture critically and not
    fundamentally, without being critical of a culture or religion
    per se.  I refer people to Phyllis Trible, Letty Russell, Elizabeth
    Schussler Fiorenza [ among others ] for scholarly work here.
    
    
    
    
              Christians should not ignore nor trivialize the Hebrew
    scriptures; but, rather, strive to understand more deeply the
    context and essence out of which pain and sorrow arose.  But,
    I really didn't intend to wander into another conference . Sorry.
    
               

    Reply to .16; Minow,
    
    I also find it possible to "consider" anything that disagrees with
    "my personal sacred text" an attack. Those are the facts of life
    I guess. B^)
    
    We seem to have totally missed the boat here. The Law is one thing.
    Customs surrounding the Law are another. Any sacred law, from any
    sacred document, that dehumanizes women today is still another thing
    and is bogus at best. Perhaps what I am pointing out is that the Law was
    built on _top_ of the customs and worldviews of the time. 
    
    We are free to disagree with any sacred document. That's one of the
    wonderful things about our culture. As we move toward a more gylanic
    culture more will be discovered concerning how man oppresses, dominates
    and dehumanizes the female half of the race. 
    
    The prior posting were not Anit-Semitic, they are anti-androcratic
    and pro gylanic.
                   
    I'll see if I can get in the Greek article tonight. I still have
    to type it in. B^)                                          
    

    Before I get around to the Greek article I'd like to put forward
    some questions?
    
    How are we affected psychologically and emotionally when we view
    God as a Father?
    
    How are we affected psychologically and emotionally when we view
    God as male?
    

From _The_Chalice_and_the_Blade_, page 78-79...

    "The _ORESTEIA_ is one of our most famous plays and frequently
    performed Greek dramas.  In this classic, at the trial of Orestes for
    the murder of his mother, the god Apollo explains that children are not
    related to their mothers.  'The mother is no parent of that which is
    called her child,' he asserts. She is 'only nurse to the new planted
    seed that grows.' 

    'I will show you proof of what I have explained,' Apollo goes on.
    There can be a father without any mother.  There she stands, the living
    witness, daughter of Olympian Zeus, she who was never fostered in the
    dark of the womb, yet such a child as no goddess could bring forth." 

    "At this point the goddess Athene (Athena), who according to another
    Greek religion sprang forth full-grown from the head of her father,
    Zeus, enters and confirms Apollo's statement.  Only fathers are related
    to their children.  'There is no mother anywhere who gave me birth,
    'and but for marriage, I am always for the male with all my heart, and
    strongly on my fathers side.' 

    "And so, as the chorus--the Eumenides, or Furies, representing the old
    order (a Goddess based order) exclaim in horror, 'Gods of the younger
    generation, you have ridden down the laws of the elder time, torn them
    out of my hands.  Athene casts the deciding vote.  Orestes is absolved
    of any guilt for the murder of his mother." 

Here, in this ancient psychodrama, we find a younger generation of deity, a new
order of gods superseding an older order.  In the older order a goddess was the
prime figure and women were venerated because of childbirth.  In the new order
goddesses are subject to gods and the miracle of childbirth is diminished.
Parental authority is given to the man.  Even Athena, who represents justice and
law, is _subordinate_ to the male gods via marriage and family relations. 

We are seeing a new religion supersede an older one.  The new religion is an
androcratic religion and the older one is matristic.  One must also remember
that many, if not most, of the ancient plays took place in religious theaters.
Consequently the battle between the Goddess and the Gods occurred before the
people in a controlled environment, designed to achieve a particular purpose. It
succeeded. (Does this qualify as porpaganda?) 

A playwright named Aeschylus wrote a dramatic trilogy, _ORESTEIA_, around this
theme.  _ORESTEIA_ is composed of _Agamemnon_, _The_Libation_Bearers_ and
_Eumenides_.  The first two plays tell the story of why Orestes murdered his
mother in revenge for killing his father, who sacrificed Orestes' sister to gain
fair winds for the battle of Troy.  (Nice family!) Clytemnestra, Orestes'
mother, makes it plain during the execution of Agamemnon that she is not only
seeking revenge for the sacrificial murder of her daughter, but that she is also
defending and supporting her social role as head of her clan, responsible for
avenging the shedding of kindred blood.  In short, Clytemnestra is acting within
the norms of a matrilineal society, in which as queen it is her duty to see that
justice is done. 

In the first two plays we see a conflict between matriliny and patriliny. The
family battle is fought and in the third play Orestes is acquitted of the crime
of killing his mother, a matrilinal example, and MAN RULED culture (andocratic)
is given a free hand over matrilinal culture. 

Also can be seen the evidence that Goddess worship was still vibrant.  The
androcrats of the time took away from Athene a natural birth to support the rule
of law by men seeing that mothers had no children anyway.  Therefore law was a
field of endeavor for men only.  Did the Greek Areopagus have female judges? I
don't know, perhaps someone else could answer that question. 

Does this indicate that through religion and propaganda men oppress and
dehumanize women? No, why?

    
    I did'nt perceive the base note to be anti-semitic . If the individuals
    concerned perceived it as such , instead of making generalisations
    about the wrong context and misunderstandings and reference to scholars
    , they should supply the clarifications and their understanding
    of the laws , in the *CORRECT* context .
    
    This note had nearly disappeared down a rat-hole .
    Let's get back to the actual topic .
    
    Were the societies in the INDUS valley civilation , that populated
    the cities of MOHENJODRO and HARAPA ( in west pakistan ) MATRIARCHAL?
    The ARYAN invasion of these lands took place around 3000-5000 B.C. .
    One persumes that the the invaders had a PATRIARCHAL set up !
    
    

    re .22:
    
    (Just some random thoughts, in no way intended to really argue against
    your thesis.)
     
    I have read somewhere that primitive cultures often do not make
    the connection between sexual intercourse and childbirth. Thus,
    the birth of a child seems to be a "miraculous" production of the
    woman alone.
    
    It seems possible, however, that once the connection is made, that
    the apparent cause may shift entirely over to the father. "She is 
    'only nurse to the new planted seed that grows.'"              
                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re: .21
    
    Just an interesting note;  one of my nephews, when he was between
    two and three, decided that GOD was female, and consistently refers
    to God as SHE.  I questioned his parents, and they claim to have
    not really given him any indication as to whether God was male or
    female; he just decided God was female.  He is now five, and still
    does this.

    re. 24
    
    Excuse me.  "Only nurse to the newly planted seed"  Primitive
    cultures know that seeds are "planted in a fertile environment" and that
    one does not "nurse" a seed one "nurses" the young plant once
    it has sproutted.
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	
    

    
    So what's your point?  Or are you just making for
    more controversy.

    

     re: .26
    
    I kind of took ". . .nurse to the newly planted seed that grows"
    (vs. ". . .newly planted seed") to mean a sprouted plant, but
    perhaps I read in too much.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Reply to .23; Vashisht,
    
    I haven't read about those two cities yet. I'll give them a look
    when I can.

    Why do women need organized religions anyway?  Anyone who *wants*
    to be involved in them is certainly free to do so but most of us
    don't *need* them.  They seem to have outgrown and outlasted their
    usefulness.
    
    Men today are free to go and "plant their newly sprouted seed" in test 
    tubes or surrogates.. then they can *hire* "nurses" to care for them
    as they grow.  This stuff is unnecessary and irrelevant to modern
    women, who needs it?  .... we support ourselves, we feed ourselves,
    we defend ourselves, we pay our own taxes... why not just walk away
    from it all?  If relationships are not based on mutual love and
    respect then who needs them?  If institutions (religious or otherwise)
    don't value us as people, then who needs them?

    >>So what's your point?  Or are you just making for
    >>more controvery.
    
    So whats YOUR point?  Or are you just making for more
    intimidation of women.

re: .23 (and perhaps others)

Several notes (and some off-line correspondance) asked why I persist
in my unwillingness to discuss the law (as originally quoted).  Perhaps
the following parable (that was distributed over the Usenet Jewish issues
discussion group) might explain my reluctance better than I myself can.
It was posted in response to discussion there; not to the discussion here.
     
    In the time of the Torah sage known as the MALBIM, the sage was
    approached by a man who swaggered up to him and said "Do you know
    who I am?  I'm the apikores (heretic) of this town, and I've come
    to debate with you."

    The Malbim replied, "I gather you're familiar with the Gemara."
    [Talmudic commentary] The man said "No, I didn't learn it."

    The Malbim then said "but Mishnah [the Oral Law that is the basis
    of the Talmud] you have studied, haven't you?" The man again said "No."

    The Malbim next asked, "Chumash [the written Torah] you DO know?"
    The man again answered "No."

    The Malbim next asked, "Halacha [Torah Law], at least, you DO know,
    right?"  The man said,  "What Halacha! What do I need Halacha for? I
    can think for myself, can't I?"

    The Malbim then turned to the man and said "An Apikores (heretic)?
    You're not an Apikores! You're an 'Am HaAretz (ignoramus), and I won't
    waste my time with you!!"

I have not studied Halacha, not to mention the Mishnah and Gemara.  Thus
any insights I would have on how Halacha requires women to be treated
would be the insights of an ignoramus.  I participate here primarily
to learn, not to teach.

Martin.

    Thanks for the story, Martin!
    
    A lot of non-Jewish people are going to find it a strange viewpoint,
    though (as I'm sure you already know), because a lot of Christian
    sects believe that a person can understand the intent of the stories,
    laws, etc. in the Torah by simply reading them (in translation,
    too), without studying all the rabbinic thought that came later
    -- of course they feel the same way about their own sacred writings,
    as well.  I even tend to agree with this perspective most of the
    time - I haven't studied Talmud, either.
    
    Probably this is just another example of why it is usually not
    worthwhile to get into an argument about religion. 
    
    /Charlotte

    What is the famous story about (Hillel?) in which, when asked for
    a summary of the Law, he thought for a moment and then said "Do
    not do to others what you would not wish done to you.  That is the
    whole of the Law; all else is commentary".
    
    						=maggie

    And I agree with Ms. Pare, (I'm sorry, I've forgotten your first
    name), that if organized religion has such a lousy view of women,
    who needs it?  Do you think men would bow and do obeisance to a
    female institution that thought men were just nifty as tire-changers,
    wage-earners and mouse-catchers?  Do you think they would spend time
    appealing to the head honcha to puleeeze give them more equal status?
    They would have thumbed their noses at us long ago and rightly so.
    
    "Do unto others..." is all anybody really needs - ever.

    I was raised as a Roman Catholic, and like so many other American
    Catholics, think of myself as a "good" Catholic despite some deep
    and fundamental disagreements with official church policy.  
    
    I suspect that there will be a lot of us "good" Catholics who have
    been very disillusioned by the Pope's response to American Catholic
    concerns; particularly (for this forum) his lack of welcome for
    women to have a deeper role in the life of the church.  How tough
    it must be for a female Catholic with a real vocation to be told
    "there's no place for you in the priesthood, or the leadership of
    the church."
    
    G

    
    
    The fact that Organized religions still "strongly" affect our
    society and its view of women is the main reason for discussion
    on what is in the sacred writings.  I forget who said this,
    
    "Know your oppressors"
    
    That is part of what feminist are doing by looking at religions
    and their teachings another part is to learn about a time when
    the Goddess was the chief diety.
    
    _peggy
    

    re: the last bit of .5
    
    	If your figures are correct, then our turn still has 16,000
    years to go to be fair?  :-}
    
    	More seriously, I would not believe any version of what might
    have been the mythology, religion, or attitude of society 4000 years
    ago. I have seen translations from medieval French that even I can
    recognise as poor, so I would not trust nuances of a translation
    of something 4000 years old.
    
    	Also, we do not really know what that sort of thing may have
    represented to the people of that time. 4000 years from now, an
    archeologist may discover that "Winnie the Pooh" was translated
    and published in 64 languages (fact) and that there were many
    commentaries on it (I bought "The Tao of Pooh" during my last visit
    to the U.S.). He might also find the same of Tolkien.
    
    	It is worthy of note that Kanga, the dominant mother godess,
    is the only female figure in Winnie the Pooh, but I would not care
    to speculate how the Sumerians regarded the ballad of Gilgamesh.
    
    	In sisterhood
    		Dave

    In answer to those who have asked why a woman today would still
    follow Judiasm or Christianity....because there are those of
    us how have made adult decisions to continue to believe becuase
    we find truth there. 

    Reply to .39; Bonnie,
    
    It seems appropriate that one would choose a religion, or as some
    call it a relinking, based upon truth.
    
    Is it possible that the truth could so dazzle us that we refuse
    to see the dirt?

re .40  Mike, I don't intend to debate my religious choices here.
        my only point is that rational educated adult women (and men)
        do choose to be Christians (or.....) inspite of the things
        that turned you and others from the church.
    
    Bonnie

    
    I think we ought to avoid attacking anyone for her or his religious
    beliefs.  It seems to me that if you are part of one of the mainstream
    religions, and if you consider the writings of your religion to
    be "sacred", it is difficult to participate in discussions that
    take those writings in a socio-historical context.  Let's be very
    careful here.  I think we can talk about religious teachings about 
    the role of women and their subsequent affect on modern law, for
    example, without putting down those of us who define our sprituality 
    in terms of a mainstream church.
                             
    In sisterhood,
    
    Justine

    Reply to -.2,
    
    My appologizes if I have given the wrong impression. 
    
    My intent was to show that humans can be *dazzled* by remarkable
    salesmanship and advertizing. Dazzled so much that we will ignore the
    defects in the product or service. 
    
    It is vitally important that women, in their struggle for equality, to
    be aware that they have been dazzled so. And by so many different
    products and services. Buy this hat, look pretty/macho. Purchace this
    housecleaning service, you really need a wo/mans hand around the house.
    Follow religion XYZ, you'll be ferried across the Void of Death, let
    men, who become representatives of XYZ, do all the thinking for you. 
    
    This holds true for men also. Men have to realize that their favored
    product or service is an enticement to act in a particular way. 
    
    Well enough with all the negatives, let's have some postives.
    
    What can men do to help women regain their religious, emotional and
    mental equality? And, what can women do to achieve this goal? 
    
    As a personal aside let me state that I will challenge wo/men to think
    new thoughts, do things in better, more humane ways, to regain or
    reclaim our humanity which seems to be going down electronic, religious
    and big money tubes. Reclaiming ones divinity is vitally important. Do
    to others as to yourself. We wouldn't treat God as we would treat a
    lower animal. Why should we treat wo/man any different than we would
    treat the deity within ourselves? 

    I've often wondered if God believes in Organized Religions.

    I hope so Mary, :-)

    re .44 I wonder if members of organized religions truly believe
    in god ?  :-)

    re .46 That is a question only the individual can answer for themself.

    
    Can we please have one ground rule here?
    
    No one can question the spirituality of anyone else.  Argue
    about ideas.  Discuss the politics of religion.  But lets
    not criticize anyone for her or his beliefs.
    
    Justine  

    re .48:
    
    I have often said that religion and spirituality are two *entirely*
    different things.  People *constantly* confuse the two!  It's a
    source of unending confusion and misunderstanding that I find amazing.
    You can have one without the other.  You can have both.  You have
    have neither.  It's your choice.
    
    	-Ellen

    RE 478.34
    
    VERY IMPORTANT!   Yes, indeed =maggie, it is said that Hillel was
    involved in such an episode.   But the ending of the story (which you
    didn't include) was the whole point of the story!!!    It emphasizes
    what Martin was saying...
    
    >"Hillel...asked for a summary of the Law, ...thought for a moment
    >and then said "Do not do to others what you would not wish done
    >to you.   That is the whole of the Law; all else is commentary
    >[GO AND STUDY IT]."
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                             
    Tamar

    Fair enough, Tamar.  I'm not sure I heard that version (though it
    certainly sounded familiar when you said it), but I apologise for
    any misquotation; please believe that it was unintended.
    
    Have you studied it?  Can you shed light on the contentions at issue?
    It would be nice if someone could and would.  Don't we have at least
    one Talmudic scholar in our community?
    						=maggie 

re: .1

Anyone who is interested in the questions raised by Mike might find
answers at a lecture to be given in Cambridge (MA) next month:

   Tuesday, November 3, 7:30 pm
   A Socio-Legal History of Woman in the Talmud
   Judith Hauptman, Assistant Professor of Talmud, Jewish
   Theological Seminary.

At: Reisman Center
    Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel
    74 Mt. Auburn St. (near Harvard Square)
    Cambridge MA 02138
    (617) 495-4696

"All are Welcome"

Martin.

    Mike,

    You can consider this to be another reply from an Am Aretz.  I really
    do not have the background to debate the points that you have made.
    I will say that what I have learned on those passages is very much
    in contradiction to your interpretation.  What I would like to say
    is that you should not go around making strong criticism of beliefs
    about which you know little.  If you choose to not hold some belief
    because of a small amount of information fine.  But, if you wish to
    assail some belief, know it like you know yourself (or better  8^{)  ).

    Dick "Gavriel ben Avraham" Schoeller

    PS. The theory that Kurgan migrations had any great effect on
        civilization has been pretty well discredited.  The Danubians
	had a much wider effect.

    Reply to .54; Schoeller,
    
    Perhaps you have also missed the point. Dehumanization of women
    came through local custom as effected by the religious belief systems
    of the time.  I still think that the male of the species used various
    psychological and religious tricks on women to hold them. 
               
    I'd be interested in hearing why you think the effect of the Kurgan
    migrations are discredited. And perhaps you could give us a very
    _brief_ statement of how the Danubians effected our society. I can
    change my opinion, but I need proof and documentation. I don't expect
    you to have all the proof, but I do expect you to present resources
    if you consider this a form of debate. Otherwise, it's just my opinion
    against yours. (BTW, I love debate too. It makes me think.) We could
    do this by mail if you like. I'm interested.
                                                              
    Reply to the last few and to women in general;
    
    This is a way for partriarchal minds to divert attention away from the
    topic. First claim personal affront, depending upon the female emotions
    that instinctively want to hurt none. That not working the partriarchal
    mind will make claims, sometimes unsubstantiated, that portions of the
    theory are already discredited, depending upon the lesser educated
    female to admit to the superior education of the male. 
    
    Women, I'm not going to present your side of this debate any longer.
    You'll have to support yourselves. I've done my part to help make
    better my little corner of this file. 
    
    Dick, Please don't consider this an attack upon yourself. I hope to
    show that (American) men are programmed to react to women in
    patriarchal ways. And I hope to show that men don't even realize they
    are completing the program assigned to them by their partiarchal
    culture. 
                                            
    If any are wondering if I'm a feminist, I'm not. I'm for the liberation
    of men from their previously assigned cultural programs. The methods
    presented by the womens liberation movement are methods men can adopt
    and modify for their own liberation. 

re: .55
    ... depending upon the female emotions that instinctively want to hurt none.

I'm gonna remember that one, so I'll have it handy for the next time I get
into a shouting match with some of the women who write in this file.

But, I'll be sure I'm wearing my racing shoes and have a clear path to
the exit.

Martin.

    Well...
    
    Instead of talking about the Real, True Meaning of various scraps
    of religious writings, could we talk about the meaning that
    ordinary, muddleheaded folk have gotten out of them when they
    were not operating under Expert Religious Direction?
    
    After all, statements like "[Your husband] shall rule over you."
    (from Genesis 3:16) and "...the head of a woman is her husband...
    (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.  Neither was
    man created for woman, but woman for man.)" (from 1 Corinthians 3, 8-9)
    do give an obvious implication to the average reader -- which need
    have no bearing on the actual Meaning.
    
    							Ann B.

    Ann,

>    Instead of talking about the Real, True Meaning of various scraps
>    of religious writings, could we talk about the meaning that
>    ordinary, muddleheaded folk have gotten out of them when they
>    were not operating under Expert Religious Direction?

    Judaism has for time more than 3000 years universally turned to the
    experts for judgements on the real meaning of the text.  Just as I
    do not try to understand the intricacies of tax law,  I do not, and
    Jews then did not, take it upon myself to understand the intricacies
    of Mosaic law.  If anything the understanding comes from reading the
    commentaries on the Oral and Written Law not from reading the either
    of them directly.

    Dick Schoeller

    .58 Yes, but lots of nonJewish people have been reading and
    interpreting the old testament (and also the new) for a long
    time....with out the commentaries. Does that mean our feelings
    and reactions and interpretations can not be discussed? 
    
    Bonnie

	I agree with Bonnie.  There are a lot of non-Jewish people
	who read the bible, and it influences their lives.  Maybe some
	of our Jewish siblings could enlighten us on the true meanings
	if they have consulted with experts, but that shouldn't hinder
	this discussion.

	I remember the problems I went through trying to pick scripture 
	readings for my wedding ceremony.  It was very difficult to find 
	something that didn't sound sexist in the list of "recommended" 
	passages for weddings. 

	...Karen

>    .58 Yes, but lots of nonJewish people have been reading and
>    interpreting the old testament (and also the new) for a long
>    time....with out the commentaries. Does that mean our feelings
>    and reactions and interpretations can not be discussed? 
    
    Bonnie,

    Everbody's feelings and reactions to a text are worth hearing.  I am
    the first to agree that on first reading the wording and the actions
    described leave much to be desired.  Especially when taken according
    to todays standards of behavior.

    If you wish to discuss how western culture has interpreted these
    passages and your feelings and reactions to this, that's fine too.
    The Bible has been used and twisted for 2000 years and by many different
    groups to justify aggression against anybody who disagreed.  It is very
    important to understand how and why that was done, so that we can honestly
    say, "Never again!"

    Making your own interpretations or trying to determine the orginal meaning
    of the text or the intentions of the author(s) without extensive study is
    the problem.  When you read the Bible what you usually get is a
    translation of a translation (Hebrew->Ancient Greek->Archaic English) of a
    concise text of history and law.

    I would not want to base my understanding of American constitutional law
    only on reading the text of The Constitution.  I would add to that the
    history of The Constitution and its amendments.  I would also want at
    least some information about some of the hallmark judicial decisions which
    interpret it.  I would then feel that I was on safe ground when forming an
    opinion about what the authors' intent was or how the text was interpreted
    and maybe even how I feel about those interpretations.  I would hope that
    the same care and respect could be given to the Bible that you would
    expect for the Constitution.

    Dick "Gavriel ben Avraham" Schoeller

    Dick,
    
    I am definitely aware of the translation problems that arise especially
    when dealing with the old testament. One of the things that I try
    to do is to consult several different translations so that I can
    get a variety of interpretations as to what the words should be.
    
    You must also remember tho that one of the tenets of the whole
    Protestant Reformation was the desire for the newly literate with
    access to printed scriptures not to let anyone stand between them
    and the "Word" when it comes to studying it. I think that modern
    day Protestants still have problems with experts who dictate that
    there is one and only one proper interpretation of a scripture....
    
    at least most Bible study groups I ever belonged to did an awful
    lot of argueing with each other and any "expert" texts we happened
    to have :-).
    
    In fellowship
    
    Bonnie

	To me the the issue here is not what the bible or other religious
	documents mean but rather that I (who don't believe in them) must
	live in a society still ruled by them. I don't care how long the
	pundits argue over this issue, I live in America and religion is
	supposed to be apart from the state. My greatest fears of the TV
	preachers (and other religious zealots) is that they will not allow
	me to live my life. You are with a religion or you are the enemy
	and should not be allowed to live unless you live their way.

	So many of the worlds religions contradict each other what does
	it matter what they say? Lets break the bonds of these myths.

	OPINION: organized religion is the cause of much of the hatred
	and war-mongering that has been going on for centuries. lets not
	argue over what they said, lets ignore it.

	liesl 

>	OPINION: organized religion is the cause of much of the hatred
>	and war-mongering that has been going on for centuries. lets not
>	argue over what they said, lets ignore it.

	liesl,

	If what you mean is, that religions which have extensive organizations
	are responsible for much of the hatred and war-mongering, then I
	strongly agree.  If you mean literaly what you have said above then
	I must strongly disagree.

	There have always been (and maybe even always will be  8^{(  ) people
	who hate those who are different or would dominate others.  Many
	religions (including but not exclusive to Roman Catholicism and Shia
	Islam) are especially prone to being manipulated by people like this.
	These are religions which are CENTRALLY organized.  They command the
	followers of the belief to follow a central leader or group of leaders.
	However, strong central governments can be manipulated in the same
	way (ie: the USSR and the Weimar Republic).  Please, do not confuse
	the tool with its user.

	You should also notice that religions which are organized but not
	centrally (ie: Judaism and many Protestant denominations) are less
	amenable to this manipulation.  The hammer isn't heavy enough to
	do severe damage  8^{)  .  And they don't demand such strict
	adherence to the dictates of their leaders.

	We may want to encourage defusing the central control of such massive
	organizations.  However, I believe that we can more easily address the
	xenophobic and dominating though patterns.  Teach our children
	how to act.  Don't just show them explain it.  Teach them to act
	when they are outraged.  Teach them to tell others why they are
	outraged.  In the long run this will bring about the change we need.
	WE who want such changes can use organized religion as a tool for our
	ends also.  Use the infrastructure as the media for spreading the
	message.  Be involved.

	Dick

    How about if we teach our children to have dignity, self-respect,
    consideration, and love for all of humanity and forget about the
    dictates and politics of organized religions.  I agree with Liesl. 
    ...lets ignore it.  

    re.66
    
    But all religions are divisive in the sense that, if you belong to
    one, you are more likely to identify with those in your group and
    to consider those not in your group as Others. Even if you wish
    the Others no harm, I still doubt they are ever quite as fully human
    to you as those in your group. And it is possible to teach your
    children to be good people, to believe in a higher power, without
     going near organized religion.    

    Sigh.  This covers several previous replies.
    
    I don't think we can ignore "organized religions", because their
    contributions are so pervasive -- until we study what they have
    done and said, we cannot know what they did NOT do or say.  Remember
    that warning about ignoring the lessons of history.  And if I can
    drag myself to a copy of _Larousse_ and other reference works this
    weekend, I'll start entering stuff on this topic.

    	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
    
    Tamar reiterated Dick's point, that Jewish law is deep and subtle.
    I knew that; I gave up on trying to understand it even before I
    found that ~Thou shalt not seethe a calf in its mother's milk~
    meant that one could not have feta cheese at the same meal as
    a steak, but did not mean that one could not eat a chicken with
    eggs.  (Even so, I do not think that even one commentary on Jewish
    Law covers St. Paul's writings, either in toto or on the subject of
    women.)

    However, I did not propose that we go for the deep meaning, but for
    the shallow meaning.  After all, if 99% of people today are not
    sufficiently educated to be well-versed in this subject, why should
    we not expect that 2500 years ago, most people were no better off?
    Especially since that was before the rabbinical era?  I do not
    propose that we try to read the True Meaning of these verses, but
    to show them in an historical context with the writings of
    contemporaneous cultures, perhaps showing some of the known social
    differences of these cultures.

    Now, various people have warned of errors in translations [and
    transcriptions].  One I am acutely aware of is in "Thou shalt not
    suffer a witch to live."  `Witch' is a very poor translation for
    `poisoner'.  However, when the Inquisition began its persecutions...
    well, I don't think anyone in this file has many kind words for
    the Inquisition.  I would not blame the translation, or the text,
    for that or for many other crimes committed by people waving a
    Bible around.

    Still, to help keep people from saying, "Christianity did <x>."
    I would recommend the use of a phrase such as "certain church-like
    organizations claiming to be Christian" or ccorccs [or corcs or
    orcs :-)] be used instead.  A similar phrase should be possible for
    Judaism, and I further think that discussions of its influence
    *in this matter* should be limited to the pre-Diaspora period.

    	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*

    There is a Roman equivalent to the story of the rabbi and the raped
    woman:

    In the provinces, a local woman came to the centurion and said
    that one of his men had raped her.  The centurion said that if she
    had struggled, the man would have been unable to succeed.  The
    woman insisted.  The centurion then gave her his sword, held out
    its sheath in his hand, and said, "If you can sheathe my sword,
    I will believe your claim."  He started to wave his hand back and
    forth.

    The woman chopped off his hand with the sword, and had no difficulty
    in sheathing it thereafter.

    To me, the stories are very similar.  A woman who has been raped
    comes to a man in authority for redress of this grievance.  The
    man attempts to deny the reality of her experience.  The woman
    overcomes him by exceeding him in his own field of expertise.
    She is able to do so because he is *wrong*.  A rabbi should know
    that the Law is paramount.  A soldier in the provinces should
    know that soldiers rape.

    These two stories form a fruitful basis for discussion in this very
    note.  Here are two very different men, a rabbi and a soldier, yet
    they both have this same impulse: to deny that anything bad happened
    to the woman.  Why?  To say only that ~Well, they're men.  Men
    always side with men.~ is to be facile, and to over-generalize.
    *Why* should it be men-siding-with-men instead of keepers-of-the-
    law-siding-AGAINST-the-lawbreakers?

    THAT is [part of] what this note should be about.

    							Ann B.

I think mythology is one of the most interesting topics of study in the
world.  Mythology is the story that any given culture wants to tell
about itself: religion, history, and popular culture are all equally
mythology.  One gets side-tracked if one assumes that the purpose of 
religion is to discover what sacred texts "really mean", or the purpose 
of history is to find out what really happened, or that television soap 
operas and nursery rhymes are just entertainment.  What matters is what 
we believe about these things, the picture of our world that they
create, and the background context they give us for our society and selves. 

History is an interesting kind of mythology.  It is not possible to ever
know in an objective way all of the human story.  We have artifacts to
examine, and the picture we derive from these is colored extensively by
what we expect or want to see.  A typical example is a excavation of a
Neolithic woman's grave, full of reindeer antlers and such.  An
archeologist commenting on this states that these must have been gifts
to the wife of a mighty hunter -- she of course, could not have been the
mighty hunter herself. 

We think we know what history has been:  the American revolution was a
noble action against tyranny carried out by altruistic and high-minded
men in wigs, Abraham Lincoln was the conscientious liberator of enslaved
black people and the American Civil War was another alruistic exercise
in freedom. The power of these stories is not in whatever kind of fact 
or non-fact they represent -- it is in the kind of self-image they 
create for the social group they tell about.  

Women have been largely invisible in "history" -- this does not mean
they did not exist, or that they did not achieve anything.  It does mean
that our culture tells a story without them, or that shows them as
always having been powerless and dominated by men.  The power of this 
story, especially since it is believed to be based on "facts", is that 
every woman of potential achievement is forced to believe herself 
alone, making up a new way of being on her own, with the sneaking 
suspicion that if women weren't somehow "naturally" disadvantaged, maybe 
things wouldn't have been like this for so long...

Religion is even more interesting than history, and I consider it the root 
of all our cultural background.  Human beings have created religion for 
themselves since the very beginning of being human.  We have a deep
craving to make sense of the world and to imbue it with meaning beyond
the daily facts of our survival and existence.  It creates the model
into which human beings fit their lives. 

For those of you who feel that religion isn't relevant to our 20th 
century lives, I must strongly disagree.  It is the traditional 
religions that have created the basic "givens" of our current 
civilization.  Most of you who don't believe in "God" have a pretty 
precise picture of the "God" you don't believe in.  Religion has shaped 
the possibilities that you can imagine, even if you choose to reject
them. 

Most of what we still accept as "natural" (see my heterosexism note), 
has really been defined by religion.  The power of what is considered 
"god-given" is not to be underestimated.  Even when the god has been 
jettisoned, a sense that the things our religion has taught us are basic 
to the nature of creation still hang around.

I would like to suggest that the gender concepts of "men" and "women"
are in fact entities mostly created by the social/religious myths of our
culture.  A lot of space has been given in sacred texts and tradition to
elaborating the "natural" and "god-given" roles of the two sexes, and
religion concerns itself so much with the nature of the relationship
between the two that the very word "morality" is usually assumed to have
something to do with sexual relationships.  The business of having sex,
mating, and reproducing is regulated by religion to a greater degree
than any other kind of human activity.  It is when we talk of matters of
"sex" and "family" that most people feel they draw the line about what
is "natural" and "immoral", even if they aren't the least bit religious
in any other way.  The possiblities that they and the rest of society
can even imagine in that department have been shaped in the West by 3000
years of Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious tradition, whether they
personally ascribe to any one of those religions or not. 

I don't believe that religions are imposed on cultures from some 
external source; they are created by the cultures to suit their needs, 
and turn serve to solidify and perpetuate the culture.  Thus, analyzing 
a culture's myths gives you the very root of what that culture needs to/
wants to believe about itself and the world.  The social developments and 
conflicts in that culture are expressed in myths of one kind or another.
For this reason, the myths of Genesis are very significant -- they are 
at the root of our civilization.  

One of the primary biblical messages is the "natural", divine order of 
patriarchy.  You don't need to be a biblical scholar to figure this out. 
Few of the billions of people on earth since these stories were spun out 
have been, but their lives have been shaped by the biblical mythos all
the same. YHWH's words to Eve, "in sorrow I will multiply your
conception... your desire will be to your husband and he will rule over
you" don't need sophisticated exegesis to figure out what they have
meant to generations of women who learned to believe this was their
"natural" fate, or the men who cheerfully kept women in their place
because their god willed it. The fine points of translation have not 
prevented our society from being built on a framework of what these 
scriptures are commonly perceived to mean.

If you study pre-biblical mythology, you come away with a different set 
of messages about women and life.  Divinity is female -- the power of
generation and nurturing is fundamental to it.  Reason, invention, and
power are all female attributes.  The Godess is there at birth, through
life, and into death.  She is connected to agriculture and civilization
around the world -- China, India, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Egypt.  This
mythos has to have had a profound effect on how these cultures viewed
women, and what women's lives were like. 

There is a period of transition, coinciding with invasions of nomadic,
patriarchical peoples from the north.  The goddess is raped and/or
murdered and overthrown by a male god in myth after myth.  The Hebrew
mythos is part of this tradition; it replaces the earlier goddess
worship and its cultural equality between the sexes with male god
worship that serves to justify and consolidate the power of men over
women. I believe it is necessary to examine this fundamental legacy of
western civilization and determine what purpose it has served in shaping
the world we live in today.  

I think one of the most valuable things about such excavations as Catal 
Huyuk is that they let us know that there are other myths, other human 
possibilities.  We have alternatives, and the world we know is not 
necessarily divinely ordered to be the way it is.  We can change it.

    RE .70:
    
    Pardon me, but I fail to see how a culture that exclusivly worships
    the Goddess is any closer to sexual equality than one that exclusively
    worships the God.  In any truely equal culture, the divinity needs
    to be viewed as being of both sexes (God and Goddess), or of neither
    sex (pure spirit).
    
    Elizabeth

    re: .70  
    Bravo!  
    
    re: .71
    Thats true... and a truly equal culture should be our aim.

    re .70 Thanks Catherine!
    
    re .71:  It seems to me that we do not need one God or Goddess to meet
    everybody's needs.  Me, I prefer a female Goddess, one with which I can
    identify.  If the men out there prefer their God(s), that's fine with
    me. 
    
    I've had more than enough of a male God shoved down my throat, and
    much prefer a female one.  Perhaps chauvenistic, but my Goddess
    doesn't require hours of kneeling, etc, etc, of me like the God of the
    Russian Orthodox Church once did.
    
    Lee

	[re-entered for better readability]
    
    	Let me first state that I am NO Talmudic scholar and that I look
	with great suspicion on people who make DEFINITIVE statements about
	the Bible unless they have spent years studying it.    I mean no
	offense, nor do I suggest (or even imply) that people should stop 
	discussing the Bible that I know or other religious texts.   However,
	the Jewish year is 5748...  That is many THOUSANDs of years of
	history...  For someone (and I do not mean to suggest, necessarily,
	anyone here in WOMANNOTES, I only wish people to understand), who
	has read two or three books or even half a dozen on the subject or
	perhaps studied as often as time would allow (for those of us 
	in the middle of the modern day world, with all of our energies
	devoted to earning a living NOT involved with studying relgious
	texts)... the texts do not reveal (nor may they ever) their full
	meanings.    That being said, let me add that I *certainly* fall in
	to the above category of reading half a dozen books and studying when
	time allows.    And, I do have a story to add to the base note that may
	contribute some light to the discussion.

	The gist of the story is...
	
	A woman came to a rabbi and said, "I have been raped."
	And the rabbi replied, "Yes, but didn't you enjoy it in the end?"
	And the woman responded, "If on Yom Kippor {the Day of Atonement 
		when one is not to eat or drink} someone stuck their finger 
		in a honey jar and forced it into my mouth, would it not 
		still be a sin?"

	It seems to me that the woman's last statement may be taken to mean 
	that the rabbi's question was irrelevant... Rape is wrong, thus how the
	woman felt about it (or the rapist for that matter) has no bearing on
	any ruling the rabbi might make.  One also sees the patriarchal bias, 
	of course ("...enjoy it..."), but it is worth noting that the story
	does have the woman getting the last word (implicit in that fact is
	that she is correct in stating that the action was a sin, ie, wrong).
	
	Also quite important from the story, one can see that arguing with
	a rabbi (be you man *or woman*)  isn't grounds for punishment or 
	even harsh words :).

	Also, I think, one can look at rape as the evil, depraved, sick thing 
	that it is or one could just call it *wrong*.    Now, you or I, today
	may call it wrong...
	and our belief about what to do about it may differ... 
	from the folks who believe virginity is *the* most important thing 
	for an unmarried woman to have to those of us who hold dearest the
	belief that our bodies are our own--and every other action falls into 
	place around *that* belief...  
	Now, in Biblical times (a minimum of 4000 years ago--the date of the
	writing of the Dead Sea scrolls--a Bible that is substantially the SAME
	as the texts Jews use today (the first five books
	 (including Deutoronomy (the book originally quoted in the basenote))
	are in the Dead Sea scrolls)...  As I was saying, in Biblical times 
	(over 4000 years ago), what should be done with someone who did that
	sort of wrong may be quite different than what we might decide would 
	be the proper thing to do today.

	Understand also, that what was written formed only a part of the 
	Law--the ORAL Law was also important and valid.    Somewhere in the 
	Bible it says that a man may have four wives... but the rabbis decided
	that a man might have only one wife.     So, a man might marry four... 
	but he would be excommunicated--thrown out of the Jewish Community--if
	he did so.   
	
	So, though Deuteronomy says something about marrying a woman off to 
	her rapist--the Oral Law may not have permitted it.   
	

	Tamar...no Biblical scholar, and if someone knowledgeable can refute 
		me--PLEASE do !  :)

� Perhaps chauvenistic, but my Goddess doesn't require hours of kneeling
� etc, etc, of me like the God of the Russian Orthodox Church once did.
  
    	Is this G-ddess, perhaps, made of porcelain?
    
      

    re -1
    The lack of respect displayed in this response reflects exactly
    what women find offensive in male dominated organized religions.
    The bible greatly contributes to the dehumanization of women.  The
    bible justifies chauvinistic male attitudes.  
    
    If by saying "Is this G-ddess, perhaps, made of porcelain?", you are 
    equating the Goddess with a toilet bowl, I want to thank you.  Your
    statement has done more to justify the original premise of this
    note than anything any woman could say.

    Dunno about anybody else's Goddess, but mine doesn't break no matter
    how hard she is beaten by her detractors.  She might spit at 'em
    though...
    
    Lee

    	RE: 478.76
    
    	About your statement that the Bible has added to the
    	dehuminization of women, I'd like some evidence, please.
    	Something other than generalizations would do.
    
    	Scott

    re: .78
    
    Please refer back to note 478.19 ...........
    
    

    Re .78
    And Scott,... if .19 isn't enough evidence for you, I suggest you
    trot yourself down to the public library and research it yourself.
    As far as I know,... you have not been appointed judge of this issue
    and I have no compelling desire to justify my opinions to you...
    you are not that important to me.

    re: .70
    	I suppose you just have to accept this lack of the right sort
    of history as one of the unfortunate results of your pernicious
    revolution   :-)
    
    	Any English school kid could tell you that Queen Elizabeth I
    (of Spanish armada fame) was probably the best English prince ever!

    And some English schoolkids will tell you that it used to be taught
    that Queen Elizabeth was really a man in disguise, since the "real"
    Elizabeth had died in infancy.
    							Ann B.

    
    
    This note is digressing.
    
    Each view presented is valid for that individual, no one has
    to prove that their view is real - it is for them.
    
    If someone asks for facts point them to reference material and
    let them do their own research to find their own answer.
    
    _peggy
    		The Goddess is a powerful and as gentle
    		as the wind.
    

RE: .69

I don't know whether I'm picking at nits, but...

"The woman overcomes him by exceeding him in his own field of expertise. She is
able to do so because he is *wrong*.  A rabbi should know that the Law is
paramount."

The woman doesn't "overcomes him by exceeding him in his own field of
expertise", she overcomes him because he's *stupid*. 

"A soldier in the provinces should know that soldiers rape."

A blanket statement which I believe needs more explict qualifiers.

To the question:

"*Why* should it be men-siding-with-men instead of keepers-of-the-law-siding-
AGAINST-the-lawbreakers?" 

I *don't* think it's a case of "men siding with men".  It is a *human* failing
of not wanting to take the responsibility.  This centurion is (or should be or
feels he is) responsible for his men.  If he admits that one os *his* soldiers
committed a rape, he will feel guilty.  He doesn't want that guilt, so he is
trying to avoid it.  He is still ***wrong***, but is it really a case of
discrimination???

RE: .70

"that shows them as always having been powerless and dominated by men."

Again, let's be a bit more circumspect in our wording; this is at least as
dangerous as the subtly sexist wording that can be found in many places.

"I would like to suggest that the gender concepts of "men" and "women"
are in fact entities mostly created by the social/religious myths of our
culture."

The fact that men and women exist, and are different are physical facts. That
they have rigid roles that they must adhere to is not a fact.

"One of the primary biblical messages is the "natural", divine order of
patriarchy. ... YHWH's words to Eve, "in sorrow I will multiply your
conception... your desire will be to your husband and he will rule over you"
don't need sophisticated exegesis to figure out what they have meant to
generations of women who learned to believe this was their "natural" fate, or
the men who cheerfully kept women in their place because their god willed it."

A point I wish to bring up, is that God did ***not*** wish it that way,
according to the '''myth'''.  The world is that way because of humans. 

"If you study pre-biblical mythology, you come away with a different set of
messages about women and life.  Divinity is female -- the power of generation
and nurturing is fundamental to it.  Reason, invention, and power are all female
attributes. ... ... ..."

As sexist as anything...

"The goddess is raped and/or murdered and overthrown by a male god in myth after
myth.  The Hebrew mythos is part of this tradition; "

Which part of the tradition is that??

"it replaces ... its cultural equality between the sexes"

When was this??

RE: .72

Interesting... a Bravo, and a that's true to an opposing point of view in
the same note...

RE: God

It seems to me that there is something sexist coloring our thoughts, unless we
can accept dieties of both sexes in our thoughts.  Saying, "that's fine with
me", doesn't help much.  Picture that being said in a deeper voice...

I imagine that God is above and beyond the scope of both sexes, but the knothole
of our minds that we look at God though colors our thoughts.

RE: .74

"from the folks who believe virginity is *the* most important thing for an
unmarried woman to have to those of us who hold dearest the belief that our
bodies are our own--and every other action falls into place around *that*
belief... "

I have heard it said that prior to a certain point in Jewish history, virginity
was *not* a big deal...

Not that I know much about Jewish history...

RE: .76

please don't sink to .75's level...

RE: .80

So that's where that quote is from...

I don't believe that the *Bible* dehumanizes women.  Certainly parts of the OT
seem quite grim from our perspective, but there a quite a few positive examples
of womanhood in the Bible.

Jim.

    Jim,

    No, I'll stick with my interpretation of the two stories, and I'll
    tell you why...

    Now, everyone has that momentary Impulse of Denial, which makes you
    reluctant to move when you are at rest, reluctant to stop when you
    are in motion, liable to say "Oh, no!" when you spill or break
    something.  This is human; this is fine.  It is what a person does
    *after* that that is important.

    The rabbi says something stupid because he has given into his Impulse
    of Denial, which is wrong, and which in turn makes it impossible
    for him to say what is right.  (To use ~The rabbi is *stupid*~ as
    a complete explanation is to leave yourself open to charges of
    anti-Semitism; don't do that.)

    Did my statement, "A soldier in the provinces should know that soldiers
    rape." really evoke from you the response, "A blanket statement which
    I believe needs more explict qualifiers."?

    Oh, come now!  We are not talking about 20th-century-American-G.I.s-
    in-Europe; we are talking about the era of the Roman Empire.  Even
    if all the history you got on this was of the Colorful Events variety,
    you know of the rape of the daughters of Queen Boadicea by legionnaires
    in the year 60.  (Britain was one of the "provinces" I allude to.)

    Some of your other points may be covered in Note 518, or in the
    source material mentioned in its base note.  Actually, I might
    suggest that you begin with the unabridged version of Frazer's
    work: _The_Golden_Bough_.  Frazer has lots of examples for each
    point he makes, which you may find illuminating, and it is less
    than half the length of a really good encyclopedia.  (When you get
    discouraged, shift over to _The_New_Golden_Bough_.)

    							Ann B.

    the point about soldiers and raping and all brought to mind a very
    good book I once read (I'm sure someone in this file can supply
    the author) - it's called "Against Our Will", and it's all about
    rape and some of the motivations involved.
    
    -Jody
    

    And again apropos of the "soldiers rape" dictum:  my HS Social Studies
    teacher had been a bomber pilot in WWII in the Pacific, and in response
    to someone's assertion that "American soldiers never committed
    atrocities!" he recounted how he and his crew had been the first to
    land on an island that had been recently recaptured.  Their first duty
    turned out to be the courtmartial and execution of a marine who had
    taken some "battle trophies":  several pair of human female breasts
    from local women he had raped and murdered in the course of the
    mopping-up operation!
    						=maggie 
    

    Jody,
    
    The full title of that book is _Against_Our_Will:_Men,_Women,_
    _and_Rape_.  It is by Susan Brownmiller.
    
    							Ann B.

>    And again apropos of the "soldiers rape" dictum:  my HS Social Studies
>    teacher had been a bomber pilot in WWII in the Pacific, and in response
>    to someone's assertion that "American soldiers never committed
>    atrocities!" he recounted how he and his crew had been the first to
>    land on an island that had been recently recaptured.  Their first duty
>    turned out to be the courtmartial and execution of a marine who had
>    taken some "battle trophies":  several pair of human female breasts
>    from local women he had raped and murdered in the course of the
>    mopping-up operation!

    maggie,

    Couldn't agree with you more.  The main difference is that we made
    some effort to punish those responsible for such things.

    Dick

RE: .85

that's a good way to put it... "Impulse of Denial"... yet, such a thing exists
in both sexes.  Yes, to give in to it is wrong...

Well, yes, I know I'm nit picking about the soldiers, but it's in a good cause
against generalizations, just as the arguments about gender in speech are
nitpicking. 

RE: .87

Yuck!

Jim.

I feel that we have taken an abrupt turn to the rathole side in this topic.

It is kind of silly to say that we can't discuss what a particular passage
in the bible mean unless we have studied the bible, the talmud, etc. in 
great detail.  In the story about Hillel, we seem to have missed the most
basic point -- Hillel said " ... all else are commentaries - *study them*!"
but he did not say "memorize them".  The term "study" implies an attempt
to reach an understanding of the subject.  One studies what other scholars 
have to say on the subject and then makes one's own interpretations - one
shouldn't just blindly accept someone else's judgement.

Also, to a very great extent, it is almost irrelevent what the scholars 
have to say on the subject, since laws and societies are not createde by
scholars, but by the political satraps of the day.  Very few political
leaders of any era have been noted for their high level of scholarship and
intellegence (there were a few exceptions), so what the bible means was
usually interpreted not by the scholars, but by othe, less educated, 
individuals.  It therefore becomes very germaine to the subject of how
the bible (or any other piece of religious writing) influences a society.

How the non-educated react to a passage in "the Bible" (or "The Koran")
affects the way they act.  It is the overtones they glean which dictate
the way they act.  Before 1850, very few people could read, therefore
they had no chance to delve into the meanings of biblical references
for themselves.  Thus when the congegration heard the local priest (or
minister) declaim from the pulpit that "The Bible" says "Thou shalt not
suffer a witch to live!", it's easy to understand that they took it
literally -- and ended up executing 116 people as witches in Salem.

As in all other forms of communication, it is not what is meant that
drives, but, rather, what is understood.

The various passages, stories, and parables, of The Bible, are all capable
of various interpretations, and the rabbis and other scholars can and do
debate the possibilities.  But the societal implecations stem far more
from the general tenor of the entries, and how the general populace reacts.

As a result, when The Bible admonishes that a man stands to his wife in the
same relationship as Jesus stands to "The Church", I think that is is
remarkably likely to plant the implication that man is superior to women.

To Marvin Minnow and others:  I agree that in order to obtain a correct view of 
what the testaments mean, you must study them in depth, but I do feel strongly
that the societal and historical ramifications stem from a far less-than
scholarly understanding.  I also feel that one can criticise the content
of the Old Testament and other Jewish religious writings and even draw
negative conclusions about their effect without being anti-semitic.  I do
not necessarily agree with all of the points made in .0, .1, & .2, but I
think you are being unnecessarily defensive.  Even if we are not all Talmudic
scholars here, perhaps by discussing what we do know or believe, we can all
learn from it.

In harmony;

Dirk

    Well spoken Dirk

    Hear, hear!  And I'm glad it was heard here :-).
    
    Marcia

    I just ran into another interesting example of religious dehumanization
    of women. (It's only that I can't determine who was really the less
    human in this instance. B^) 
  
    The Jains were an ascetic order who although small in number today had
    a large influence upon India's past. Their most celebrated teacher was
    Mahavira who died in 485 BCE. 
    
    The Jains held a horrific cosmology designed to lead one down a
    psychological path to the extinction of desire for life. In this
    endeavor the monk (male and female) is supposed to kill off all desire
    for life and strive for a transcendent reality that is not human. As
    such it could be considered self-destructive. 
    
    The ultimate end of the Jain existence was to achieve nirvana, a state
    of no wind, no breath, possibly no soul either. 
    
    After a man applies himself to the way of the Jains he retires to the
    forest to live an extremely difficult life. Among the list of duties
    are vows, religious observances, restraint of all senses, removal of
    all hair, daily duties, nakedness, avoidance of bathing, sleeping on
    the ground, not cleaning of ones teeth, the reception of food in the
    standing position, abstinence of sex and/or masturbation and of course
    one vegetarian meal a day. 
    
    It is interesting that in a Jain guide to nirvana, nirvana is not
    achievable by women. Women are not allowed to progress into the
    nakedness (sky clad) state because: 
    
    "Infatuation, aversion, fear, disgust, and various kinds of deceit
    (maya), are ineradicable from the minds of women. For women, therefore,
    there is no nirvana. Nor is their body a proper covering; therefore
    they have to wear a covering. In the womb, between the breasts, in the
    navel and in the loins, a subtle emanation of life is continually
    taking place. How can they be fit for self control? A woman can be pure
    in faith and even occupied with a study of the sutras or of the
    practice of terrific asceticism; in her case there will be no falling
    away of karmic matter." _Oriental Mythology_, by Joseph Campbell, page
    237, quoting _Tatparya-vrtti_ III.24B 
    
    and:
    
    "'As deceitfulness is natural to women,' states another guide, 'so are
    standing, sitting down, roaming about, and teaching the law, natural to
    sages'". Ibid, quoting _Pravacana-sara_, I.44 
    
    From this ancient influence upon India we can readily see that for
    women to achieve nirvana they (women) would have to reincarnate first
    as a man. In contemporary terms we could say that for a woman to
    achieve heaven/nirvana she must first submit to her husband as lord
    and master, extinguishing her ego in the image of her husbands (in a
    fashion reincarnating as a man). 
    
    This type of belief system is unsatisfactory for todays world. 
    
    I'm not sure this really matters though because women seem to have come
    out on top as being most human and men were somewhat suicidal. Anyway
    being a adherent of the Jains beleif system and being a woman was
    somewhat less than a man... (Who knows, maybe a very smart woman
    wispered some indelicacy into the Teachers ears whilst he was
    meditating one day...B^) 
    

    In this Sunday's Boston Globe there is a book review of "The Devil
    in the Shape of a Woman" by Carol F. Karlsen, Norton Press.
    Dr. Karlsen's theory is that the witch craft trials grew out of
    "the determination of men in that society to restrict the role
    of women. The basis for her arguement is one fact: Women were acused
    of witchcraft four times as frequently as men. Moreover, most of
    the men (or boys) who came before a court wre there because of
    acusations made against their wives or mothers.  Witchcraft, so
    the colonists supposed, ran in families where the woman took the
    lead in imitaiting compacts with the devil.
    
       "None of this is true: that is, no one actually made a compact
    with the devil or practiced evil magic. As Karlsen reminds us, the
    process of singling someone out and naming her a 'witch' is a social
    process that accusors perform for reasons taht are social and economic,
    tho idology and religion enter in as well....In sum, that women
    were accused of witchcraft in such numbers was no accident. Nor
    was the ratio merely the result of vulgar prejucide or misogyny/
    Rather it stemmed from facors basic to the social system.
    
       "Karlsen...demonstrates taht a majority of these women were placed
    in a different economic situation from most of their peers in being
    privileged as inheritors. In brief they did not have to hsre with
    male siblings or descendants. Whether wll to do or poor (and witches
    were a mixture thought they tended to have limited resources), these
    women lacked male heirs or  rivals in a family line. This situation
    gave them greater power and more independence than women were usually
    accorded: hence the reason men perceived them as a threat to male
    dominance and why witchcraft accusations followed."
    
    I have saved the rest of the review and will send a copy of it to
    whomever asks me (*by mail* please :-) ).
    
    I have a couple of objections to the above...one is that I have
    read strong evidence in the past that the witch craft accusations
    could very well have been the result of a temporary dementia due
    to ergot contamination of the rye crop. Ergot poisoning produces
    a lot of symptoms that were described as possession or witch craft
    influenced...
    
    second...while I personally believe as a 20th century woman that
    a person cannot made a compact with a real devil...how can the
    author or anyone else say from this point of view that a person
    in the past didn't think that they had or believe that they were
    working black magic?
    
    the power of the mind to make us believe isn't really appreciated
    in this computer technological age, we tend to poo poo the beliefs
    of the past just because we 'know' it "isn't so".
    
    Bonnie

    I gather that Karlsen is speaking of our own Salem Village trials?
    I've never seen any indication that *those* trials were associated
    with ergot contamination, and many that they were thoroughly
    grounded in social factors.
    
    Well, even in the 17th century, I'd think it would be difficult
    to locate a devil with whom to enter into a contract.  Black magic
    is a matter of intent and symbolism.  However evil your intent,
    if you can't conjure up an entity, you can't create the necessary
    symbolism.
    
    							Ann B.

    Ann, Yes the reference was to the Salem Village trials.
    
    The ergot connection was by another author, that I read
    ten or maybe fifteen years ago...and it was indeed also
    in reference to Salem Mass.

    re .97:
    
    Have you seen "Three Sovereigns for Sarah"? I understood that to
    be a very accurate telling of the events in Salem village. And there
    was no indication of ergot contamination. 
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    
    
    If it was contamination why was it the women who suffered and not
    the men?
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |
    			Satan is MALE
    				any woman not contected to a mortal
    				male must be connected to an immortal
    				male for "we all know that a woman
    				can not be without a man... :^) 
    
    

    
    RE .99    >  SATAN is male
    
           I take exception to this sexist statement.  You have no
           more defined definition that Satan is male vs female, then
           you do by defining GOD as either gender. I believe the men
           of this conference are owed an apology.

                                         Bob B

    Hack, hmm.  In the Middle Ages, the description of Satan was
    *very* explicit, right down to the pinecone shape of his genitals.
    
    In Job, Satan is referred to as one of the sons of God (Elohim,
    meaning goddesses and gods, actually).  Satan is likely to be
    derived from the Egyptian god Sata, called the Son of the Earth.
    
    Only male humans can be "sons", correct?
    
    							Ann B.

    	I was certainly more amused than offended by the final comment
    in .99.
    
    	I have never seen the slightest suggestion that Satan might
    be female, and many explicit descriptions that he is not. The same
    is true for God, of course. For at least the last few thousand years
    he/she/it has been male too.
    
    	Now the feminists are taking over God again, we males need
    something to hang on to :-)   (not quite sure how to express smiley
    face that currently extends way up to the ears)

    
    	RE:  .100
    
    	Bob, that was not a sexist comment.  No apology is necessary
    	to you or to anyone else in this conference because Peggy's
    	remark did not insult anyone.
    
    	Let's try to keep some perspective here, shall we?
    
    							  Suzanne...

    	RE:  .104
    
    	Why do you take a comment about Satan so personally?  (Are
    	you trying to tell us something?)  :-)
    
    	A personal attack from you doesn't surprise me either.
    

	RE:  .106
    
   .104> Oh, so you are the sole arbiter of what is or is not
   .104> insulting..? Just who appointed you Minister of Truth?
    
   .104> I am insulted, but not suprised...
    
    
    Bob Holt, you didn't merely disagree with me.  You made a snide
    nasty comment amounting to an accusation.  I was neither more nor
    less definite about my opinion (regarding the comment on Satan)
    than was the person that I addressed.  Why are you not asking
    the other party if he, too, believes he is the sole arbiter of
    what is or is not insulting?
    
    Saying that Satan is a male does not reflect badly on any man on
    this Earth (nor does it say anything about Satan himself.)
    
    If you think that saying Satan is a male insults all men, you are
    really grasping at straws (i.e., you are looking for hidden meanings
    that do not exist in Peggy's and/or my comments on this matter.)
    

    RE:  .106
    
  
    > Suppose you tell me what I'm supposed to be thinking
    > about Satan, other than he's probably every male's
    > first cousin..
    
    Oh yeah, I forgot to include the quote where you made a guess
    as to what "Satan is a male" might possibly mean in this conference.
    
    You are quite imaginative.
    

        Cue song:- 'Where has all the humour gone?
                       Long time passing..."
        
        Satan has always been portrayed as male, as have the mainstream
        Gods in the  current religions - let's not pick nits where (I'm
        sure) none were intended.
        
        Andy
        

    Speaking as a male, I'd like to know who gets off deciding that
    something is or is not insulting to me. No one asked *me* if
    what Peggy said was insulting, so no one has that right to say
    that what she said is "insulting to men". Not *this* man!
    
    --- jerry

    RE:  .110
    
    > Speaking as a male, I'd like to know who gets off deciding that
    > something is or is not insulting to me. No one asked *me* if
    > what Peggy said was insulting, so no one has that right to say
    > that what she said is "insulting to men". Not *this* man!
           ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^  ^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^
    
    Your *feelings* are valid for you (no matter what they might be
    on this or any other issue that affects you.)
    
    The question of whether or not a statement is "insulting to men"
    is sort of theoretical (i.e., does the statement that "satan is
    a male" reflect badly on all men?)
    
    My position is that it does not.  
    
    RE:  General (not .110 in particular)
    
    Satan is most often portrayed as a humanoid male with a short beard.
    Should all bearded men in the world be especially insulted (or should
    it be limited to men with *short* beards?)
    
    If Satan is portrayed as having blue eyes and being 5'11" tall
    (with horns portruding from his skull and being right-handed), should
    all blue eyed people be insulted (or all persons 5'11" tall, or
    all persons who write with their right hand?)
    
    There are quite a number of non-human species on our planet that
    grow some sort of horns on their heads.  Are all living things with
    horns on their heads being insulted when anyone in the world makes
    reference to a Satan with horns?
    
    Assigning humanoid characteristics to Satan does not mean that those
    particular features are inherently evil.  If we wanted to carry
    this discussion to an extreme, we could say that all *humans* are
    insulted (because Satan is portrayed as a humanoid) and/or that
    all living things on this planet are insulted because Satan is
    portrayed as a "living being" that resembles a type of species
    that is native to this planet.
    
    If any of us tried hard enough, we could say that almost any statement
    possible in any of the human languages spoken on this Earth could
    be insulting to someone.  Were we to arrive at such a conclusion,
    all communication would become difficult and/or pointless.
    
    The words "Satan is a male" says absolutely nothing about all males
    (or about any individual mortal male.)
    
    If anyone wants to assume that there is a hidden meaning behind
    a simple statement that does *NOT* even mention all/many/most/some men,
    then that person should take it up with the individual through mail
    instead of making an issue out of it in a notesfile.

    							   Suzanne...

    re:.111
    
    That's all well and true.
    
    What I was getting at is that some man may decide that "Satan
    is male" is insulting *to him* personally because he is male,
    but to say that it is insulting to men in general is presuming
    that he speaks for all men, which he has no right doing.
    
    --- jerry

    
    
    BTW -- I did not say "Satan is a male human" did I.
    
    But I will admit that I did talk about women needing to
    have a man to care for her or some sort of rubbish.
    
    _peggy
    
    			(-)
    			 |	Goddess but you can't say 
    				hardly anything any more.
    
    

    To continue on with the discussion and concerning the Greeks during the
    Golden Age... 
    
    "One of the most repressive societies, the most militant in it's
    expression of misogynists beliefs was that of Athens, Greece, during
    the so called Golden Age. Infanticide of girl babies kept the female
    population down. Families rarely had more than one daughter. Girls were
    only needed to perpetuate the race. They were married at 14 to men of
    thirty or so whose primary sexual, affectionate, and intellectual
    intercourse was other men. The women existed on a spare, inadequate
    diet that was supplemented only when they bore a male child. At that
    time they were given a little extra food, a "mothers ration". At all
    times women were treated with scorn, ridiculed, sequestered, and
    treated with contempt. A man's legal rights could be taken away if it
    was found that he was "under the influence of a woman."  Even to have
    legal existence a woman needed at least one male relative. A family was
    made up of males only. Women were seldom educated and worked long and
    hard during their brief lifetimes --36.2 years. Yet, despite ten years
    of compulsory military service men managed to live an average of 45
    years." 
    
    "During this "golden age" women in other parts of Greece and the known
    world fared better. It is important to note that the men of Athens, who
    traveled widely, knew full well that the virtolic writings against
    women by the Athenian leaders was a bunch of hogwash. Women in other
    places had demonstrated abilities equal to that of men. Yet, the
    Athenian men choose to disregard this proof of inherent equality. A
    parallel today would be men who say that attaining fair and equitable
    justice on the job, maintaining abortion rights and reproductive
    freedom, and gaining equal access are a woman's issue." 
                          
    Taken from _Chinese Don't Wear Pigtails_, by Cleo Kocol as quoted in
    _Free Thought Today_, Volume Four, Number 9, November 1987, page 7. 
    
    We have already seen that the Greeks taught the people that children
    belonged to the father, not the mother. And since the baby is the
    property of the father he could do with it as he pleased. Perhaps the
    inequalities of the above are a result of that propaganda. Anyway, it
    seems very likely that such a belief could cause female infanticide in
    the Greek populace. 
                                                          
    Bring us closer to today...
    
    "... Yet, no matter how they justify and raltionalize, the bottom line
    is that the bible does not glorify or elevate women. Instead it
    denigrates and imprisons. As does the Koran and other religious
    texts." 
    
    "Every morning orthodox male Jews praise God that they weren't born
    women. Among other things women are "unclean". Traditions based upon
    such myths are only slowly being changed." 
    
    "Jewish women, like Christian women, seem to feel that donning clerical
    garb themselves will end the problems. The elevation of women to
    "priest" in the Episcopal church brought banner headlines around the
    world. Other Protestant denominations--including Methodists accept
    women into the pulpit. But most, including Southern Baptists and Roman
    Catholics, want nothing to do with female clergy or any reform that
    lessens the power of the patriarchy" 
                                                    
    "In the book _Subject Women_ by Ann Oakly various feminists groups were
    asked the same questions. Their answers were shown in a table. Some
    feminists said that women's oppression began with industrialization and
    the split between work and home. Other groups mentioned male
    aggression, women's biology and other facets of the subjugation of
    women.  That NONE of the groups MENTIONED religion is to me a
    reflection of how deeply women have internalized their bondage.
    Battered women often cite their second-class status as a reason for
    their battering. Fundamental Christian women believe that women are
    inferior to husbands and God and DESERVE a life of pain. Orthodox
    Jewish women know that Moses Maimonides, rabbinical scholar and
    philosopher, wrote in the Torah, "If a wife refuses to carry out such
    wifely duties as washing her husband's hands and feet, or serve him at
    the table, she is to be chastised with rods." Source as listed above,
    emphasis mine. A further note, in the recent documentaries on the Hara
    Krishna commune, "Golden Palace", or something like that, women
    adherents must believe that women are inferior to men or they are
    battered into submission. 
                  
    It is rather apparent that for today women are the deciding force that
    will determine how they (women) are to be treated by the various
    religions of our culture. Men are split into differing ideologies
    concerning the status of women. If women can get their act together,
    liberate themselves from the myths, they can create a better existence
    for themselves and for their daughters. Women must FIRST liberate
    themselves from the myths. Liberation begins in the mind. Nothing else
    can or should suffice or substitute for complete equality between women
    and men. The power lies within women and that power exists today. 
         
    B*B  Mikie?

    Reply to .100; Barber,
    
    I don't think an appology is needed. Peggy was merely stating the
    subconscious belief, held by many men, that any self-sufficient woman
    is a loose woman, or a sick woman (both of which result from sin). And
    as such is aligned with the mythical Satan. 
    
    In Jewish mythology the power players are pretty much viewed as male.
    The female deities, especially Lillth (sp?), were demoted to demoness
    status. (I think I could get into Lillth (sp?). B^)  
    
    Hymn to Lillth       
    
    Where or where are you to night,
    Why did you leave me here all alone,
    I searched the world over and thought I found true love,
    but you became a demon and pffffssst you were gone...

    RE: .100
    
    Actually, I've often been called a horny little devil. I wasn't
    insulted at all. :-) :-)
    
      Alan    \ /
              ( ) 
                 

    
    OK , I get the message, you don't believe that the statement 
    is "out of taste" as such, fine. But I must admit that I find
    it interesting that when the shoe is on the other foot things 
    seem to take on a whole different headset. I will keep this
    in mind.
    
                             Bob B 

    Reply to 118; Barber,
    
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Please clarify.

    Bob,
    
    You took exception to the statement that "Satan is MALE"?!
    
    That's not sexist, that's the simple truth! Satan IS male in *ALL*
    depictions *I've* ever seen. Have you got some other Satan in mind?
    How is calling Satan male sexist? For that matter, the Christian
    ideal of "God" is male as well. "Our Father who art in heaven" and
    all that.
    
    Please, *I* wasn't insulted by Peggy's note. Yours however, insulted
    my intelligence.
    
    	-- Charles

    So, If SATAN is male,
    
    and SATAN doesn't really exist,
    
    does that mean.....
    
    
    NAAAH....
    
    
    --DE
    

RE: .101

"Apologize?  Not for the truth"

Oh? Do you really believe that it is the truth that Satan is male and male only?
By your own argument, there are certainly enough explicit descriptions of
feminine demons. 

RE: all 

this is ridiculous!

RE: Satan is male & God is female

It certainly is an insult.  In the same way that saying 'all important X are
male, and all worthless Y are female', is a sexist insult.

I also believe that remarks of this nature are known to be insults, and the
insult is done purposefully, and knowingly, with the intent to insult.  I
believe that if there were no intent to insult, and apoligy should have been
made before this point. 

Part of the reason I object to "Satan is male", is same the reason that I am
horrified that most rapists are men.  Too me, being male, I feel a certain
amount of responsibility for 'policing' the group that I belong to, 'men'.

I cannot take insult by 'most rapists are male' except when the motive for that
statement is insult, because it is a fact.  I *do* take insult from 'rapists are
male', or 'Satan is male'  partly because it is not a matter of fact. 

RE: .115

Where *do* you find this *&^%$, Mikie???

"We have already seen that ..."

No, *"We"* have not already seen anything, Mikie.  You saying it is so, does not
make it so, and neither does Cleo Kocol saying it so make it so.  I have not
"seen" anything.

"the bible does not glorify or elevate women"

Not true... What of Mary, Martha, Ruth, to name a few...  There are quite a few
female saints.  The most highly revered "human", Mary, is female.

"Every morning orthodox male Jews praise God that they weren't born women."

According to who?

"Among other things women are "unclean"."

An untruth based with some reason upon menstral periods for various motives.

"But most, including Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics, want nothing to do
with female clergy or any reform that lessens the power of the patriarchy"

An assumption and generalization on a class of people's motives.  I am against
female priests, but not for any fear of lessening the power of the patriarchy".
What gives you the ability to make such assumptions and generalizations? 

"groups mentioned ... women's biology and other facets of the subjugation of
women."

Oh, is women's biology the fault of the male sex?  Did Men plan Women's biology
so as to subjugate Women?

"That NONE of the groups MENTIONED religion is to me a reflection of how deeply
women have internalized their bondage."

It couldn't be that they weren't in oppressed by religion, now, *could* it?

"Fundamental Christian women believe that women are inferior to husbands and God
and DESERVE a life of pain."

I know of *no* "Fundamental Christian" who believes "women ... DESERVE a life of
pain."  Any Christian who believes that women are inferior to men has not read
his bible objectively.  For each reference in the Bible relating women to men,
there is a similiar reference relating men to women.  While the relationship is
not completely symetrical, it is clearly a two way relationship, with each
caring for the other. 

""If a wife refuses to carry out such wifely duties as washing her husband's
hands and feet, or serve him at the table, she is to be chastised with rods.""

There are similiar punishments for the husband refusing to fullfill his duties
as well.  Again, they are not completely reciprocal, but this quote, out of
context is out and out propaganda.

"A further note, in the recent documentaries on the Hara Krishna commune,
"Golden Palace", ..." 

Big deal, we all know how weird fanatics can get...  try some Jim Jones Grape
Koolaid :-{ ...

"It is rather apparent that for today women are the deciding force that will
determine how they (women) are to be treated by the various religions of our
culture."

True.

"If women can get their act together, liberate themselves from the myths,..."

And their own propaganda ...

"Peggy was merely stating the subconscious belief, held by many men, that any
self-sufficient woman is a loose woman, or a sick woman (both of which result
from sin). And as such is aligned with the mythical Satan."

I doubt that Peggy, or Ann was "merely" doing that.  The statement in that light
fits equally well substituting "good" for "sin", and "God" for "Satan". Such a
statement has no meaning in and of itself because it's negation is just as true.

"In Jewish mythology the power players are pretty much viewed as male."

And Mary, Martha, Elizabeth, Ruth, and the rest?  What are they? Chopped Liver?

Jim.

    What *I* or *Peggy* believes about the nature of a numinous being
    inimical to the supreme deity of the universe is entirely beside
    the point.  What she spoke of was the 1) medieval 2) Christian
    3) belief about what such an entity 4) ought to be.  Find a medieval
    Christian to complain to.

    You wrote, "There are certainly enough explicit descriptions of
    feminine demons."

    "Enough" makes a really charming adjective in this case, doesn't it?
    Did you somehow miss the point that the Christians took the names of
    the Goddess from different cultures, and turned them into the names
    of *male* demons?  (Such as Mammuti to Mammon.)  Was this because
    ~male is better~ or because they wished to hide the nature of the
    competing religions?  (Hint:  What are "ashtaroth"?)
    
    You wrote, "RE: Satan is male & God is female"

    Apples and oranges.  There is *no* negative, opposing deity (of any
    or no gender) in the Goddess-based religions.  This idea is something
    you just made up.

    You quoted, "Every morning orthodox male Jews praise God that they
    weren't born women.", then asked, "According to who?"

    *I* learned it from a rabbi.  I don't know from whom Mikie learned
    it, but it is a customary prayer of thanksgiving.

    You speak of the "unclean"ness of women, saying "based with some
    reason upon menstral periods for various motives."

    Ah, yes.  "Various motives."  PRECISELY.  Since blood is blood, and
    since I'm sure you don't feel *your* blood is intrinsically "unclean",
    can you guess at what such motives could be?  I can.

    You declare, "For each reference in the Bible relating women to men,
    there is a similiar reference relating men to women."

    You've said this before.  Prove it.

    							Ann B.

< Note 478.123 by YODA::BARANSKI "Too Many Masters..." >

    Come on Jim, chill out a little.  Some of these things are true.

>"Every morning orthodox male Jews praise God that they weren't born women."
>
>According to who?

    Baruch atah ha-shem elokeinu melech ha-olam, she-lo asini isha.

    Praised are you Lord, our God, king of the universe, who didn't make
    me a woman.

    Baruch atah ha-shem elokeinu melech ha-olam, she-asini ki-rotsono.

    Praised are you Lord, our God, king of the universe, who made me
    because he wanted to. (very literal, normally "made me according to
    his will").

    These are part of the morning blessings said EVERY DAY.  They fall
    shortly after "who didn't make me a gentile"   8^{).  These are
    generally considered to mean "thank's for making me what you made me."
    If they seem to value men more than women, remember that even the
    Orthodox agree that men wrote the blessings.

>"Among other things women are "unclean"."
>
>An untruth based with some reason upon menstral periods for various motives.
>

    The problem in Jewish law is not the women ARE unclean but that they
    MAY BE unclean.  Blood is a powerful implement of impurity in Judaism.
    Anyone who handles a dead body or comes in contact with the blood becomes
    ritually impure.  There are various methods for removing the impurity
    but for women only after menstruation is finished (and the contact with
    blood is ended).

>"In Jewish mythology the power players are pretty much viewed as male."
>
>And Mary, Martha, Elizabeth, Ruth, and the rest?  What are they? Chopped Liver?

    You forgot Sarah, Esther, Hannah and even Delilah (not on the side of
    "good" but still a power player  8^{).

    Gavriel

    Re .123:  (Jim)
    
    I have also been told by present and former Jews of this "Thank
    God I was not born a woman" prayer.  Mikie didn't just make it up.
    
    It is true that there are accounts of female demons - but all accounts
    of Satan are of a male, including pictures and descriptions of his
    genitalia.  If you don't like this, talk to a Pope from the 13th
    century.  If you will recall, God is male, Satan is male, Jesus is
    (obviously) male.  This is called patriarchal religion.  Goddess based
    religions don't *believe* in Satan, so the point is moot.  You site a
    few women that are mentioned in the bible.  These women are side
    characters to the main stories in the Bible.  Abraham, Moses, Isiac,
    Jacob, his 12 sons (only 1 daughter is mentioned, and then only in a
    story where she is raped), the prophets were all male, Paul, the 12
    (male) disciples, need I go on?  Just face it.  This is a patriarchcal
    religion, and you really need to do somersaults to try to show
    it otherwise.
    
    You say you oppose female priests in the Catholic church.  If not
    to promote patriarchy, why???  Would a woman be less able to perform
    the duties of a priest, if called to do so, and had appropriate
    training?    
    
    I personally have known Christian women who believe that it is their
    husband's right to do whatever he pleases with them.  In fact, there
    are some Christian groups that actively oppose battered women's
    shelters - they should just go home and be submissive to their
    husbands.  Have you read the writings of Paul objectively?  His
    writings certainly do not put much value on women or give them any
    significant status within the Church.  Certainly there are obligations
    put on men as well, but they keep their status.  Note that the
    punishments for failure to meet the obligations are *not* being beaten
    by their wife.  The punishment for a wife's failure to meet her
    obligations are punishable by a public beating from her husband. There
    is a passage in the Bible "Man is the glory of God, Woman is the glory
    of Man". This doesn't sound like equality to me! 
    
    Elizabeth

    Reply to .121; Evans,
    
    Or..
    
    God is male,
    I am male,
    Therefore I am a myth.  (Don't worry about the curious twist.)
    
    Right! B^) That's what I been trying to become ever since I started
    participating in Bible a couple years ago.
    
    I could have people praying to me (or at least sending me mail)
    for anything and everything under the sun. Let's see now, who's
    been good lately... Where did I put those toy military carbines...
    
    Mikie? (a myth in the making B^)

    
    Reply to Note 478.123   YODA::BARANSKI "Too Many Masters..." 
         
    I'll try not to cover ground already covered..
    
         >this is ridiculous! 
    
    Seems pretty important to others. Important enough to continue this
    discussion past 100 replies.
   
         >It certainly is an insult.  In the same way that saying 'all
         >important X are male, and all worthless Y are female', is a
         >sexist insult. 
   
    I disagree. The human pastime of declaring one sex superior or inferior
    to the other is not an insult. It is something deeply ingrained
    within us all. It's something we have to deal with.

         >I also believe that remarks of this nature are known to be
         >insults, and the insult is done purposefully, and knowingly,
         >with the intent to insult.  I believe that if there were no
         >intent to insult, and apoligy should have been made before
         >this point. 

    Peggy has an opinion that is just as valid as yours. I think your
    partriarchal mind is peeking out. B^)
    
         >Part of the reason I object to "Satan is male", is same the
         >reason that I am horrified that most rapists are men.  Too
         >me, being male, I feel a certain amount of responsibility for
         >'policing' the group that I belong to, 'men'. 
                                   
    Is this a problem on your end on on Peggy's end?
    
         >I cannot take insult by 'most rapists are male' except when
         >the motive for that statement is insult, because it is a
         >fact.  I *do* take insult from 'rapists are male', or 'Satan
         >is male'  partly because it is not a matter of fact. 
                                                    
    Then why do you take insult? 
    
         >RE: .115 

         >Where *do* you find this *&^%$, Mikie??? 

         >"We have already seen that ..." 

         >No, *"We"* have not already seen anything, Mikie.  You saying
         >it is so, does not make it so, and neither does Cleo Kocol
         >saying it so make it so.  I have not "seen" anything. 
                                 
    If you had read the other replies in this topic you would know where
    they came from. And, yes, I agree with Ann. How do you qualify "we".
    
         >"the bible does not glorify or elevate women" 

         >Not true... What of Mary, Martha, Ruth, to name a few...
         >There are quite a few female saints.  The most highly revered
         >"human", Mary, is female. 
                                        
    I'm glad you brought this up. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is of almost
    no consequence whatsoever in Protestant theology. Even Jesus blew her
    off saying "who is my mother, my brothers or my sisters?  Those that
    do the will of my Father." Another sexists remark Jim?
    
    Now as Theotokos, (I think that means Mother of God), she is the
    most disempowered entity that ever laid claim to that status.
                                                                 
    She has no power. She can only ask the Father to grant our prayers.
    Perhaps the Catholics can clarify this for me. The Mother has been
    demoted to the office of messenger for lowly humans solely because she
    has a little of the Fathers ear. 
    
    Mary and Martha Magdelene were beloved servants, but servants none the
    less. It is interesting to note that the Gnostics have a "Gospel
    According to Mary Magdelene", or whatever it's called, wherein Mary
    claims to be the head of their little cult on the basis that she is the
    beloved of Jesus. Peter opposes her. I don't know which won the fight
    in that story. 
    
         >"But most, including Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics,
         >want nothing to do with female clergy or any reform that
         >lessens the power of the patriarchy" 
         
         >An assumption and generalization on a class of people's
         >motives.  I am against female priests, but not for any fear
         >of lessening the power of the patriarchy". What gives you the
         >ability to make such assumptions and generalizations? 
    
    If you'd read what I have posted before you'd know that my stand is
    that men suffer from a mental attitude some call "patriarchy" and don't
    even know they suffer from it. My stand is further clarified by saying
    that this condition "patriarchy" is fostered by our religious belief
    systems. Further, it acts like a parasite feeding upon the host (the
    religious belief system). 
    
    Then why are you against "female priests". Your very terminology
    betrays you. Female Priests?????  The term used in the original text is
    female clergy, Yours is female priests. 
    
    Actually, I can't complain. I'm against female priests too. B^) They
    should more properly be priestesses. That our (and others) culture has
    no conventional usage of priestesses is in itself remarkable. But
    you already knew that.
    
         >"groups mentioned ... women's biology and other facets of the
         >subjugation of women." 

         >Oh, is women's biology the fault of the male sex?  Did Men
         >plan Women's biology so as to subjugate Women? 
                          
    No, but it is extremely likely that men took advantage of the physical
    differences.  Who do you think developed Chinese foot binding customs
    or Africian (Moslem?) clitodectomy. Can you say man? Women certainly
    wouldn't have developed these crimes, forcing men to do it to them,
    just for fun. There were other purposes...
    
         >"That NONE of the groups MENTIONED religion is to me a
         >reflection of how deeply women have internalized their
         >bondage." 

         >It couldn't be that they weren't in oppressed by religion,
         >now, *could* it? 
                                 
    What was being commented upon is that religion, as a CAUSE or SOURCE of
    patriarchy, has always been an out of bounds topic for women to discuss
    and fight in their endeavors to improve their lot. Such is not the case
    now. 
  
         >I know of *no* "Fundamental Christian" who believes "women
         >... DESERVE a life of pain."  Any Christian who believes that
         >women are inferior to men has not read his bible objectively.
         >For each reference in the Bible relating women to men, there
         >is a similiar reference relating men to women.  While the
         >relationship is not completely symetrical, it is clearly a
         >two way relationship, with each caring for the other. 
  
    Did you grow up in the Bible Belt? I agree that mutual caring is
    taught to us in our various religious documents. Still, it is generally
    always presented in the light of "man is better or more closer to
    God than woman". More probably this is a case of the Golden Rule
    being overlaid by patriarchal religion. Ie. if I want her to
    love me I should love her, then placing over that the "man is better
    or closer to God than women" fallacy.
    
    Then perhaps you've _never_ heard of the Divine Punishment (placed
    upon women by the Father) of pain in childbirth. I wouldn't hesitate
    to say that the myriads of literalist believe this.  Can you counter
    this statement?
                    
         >""If a wife refuses to carry out such wifely duties as
         >washing her husband's hands and feet, or serve him at the
         >table, she is to be chastised with rods."" 

         >There are similiar punishments for the husband refusing to
         >fullfill his duties as well.  Again, they are not completely
         >reciprocal, but this quote, out of context is out and out
         >propaganda. 
                    
    So where are they? The references I mean.
    
         >"A further note, in the recent documentaries on the Hara
         >Krishna commune, "Golden Palace", ..." 

         >Big deal, we all know how weird fanatics can get...  try some
         >Jim Jones Grape Koolaid :-{ ... 
                  
    Have you forgotten your cultish heritage?
    
         >"It is rather apparent that for today women are the deciding
         >force that will determine how they (women) are to be treated
         >by the various religions of our culture." 

         >True. 
                                             
    Amazing. B^) 
    
         >"If women can get their act together, liberate themselves
         >from the myths,..." 

         >And their own propaganda ... 
    
    We could argue that forever. I don't think there is enough disk
    space here for that though. B^)
    
         >"Peggy was merely stating the subconscious belief, held by
         >many men, that any self-sufficient woman is a loose woman, or
         >a sick woman (both of which result from sin). And as such is
         >aligned with the mythical Satan." 

         >I doubt that Peggy, or Ann was "merely" doing that.  The
         >statement in that light fits equally well substituting "good"
         >for "sin", and "God" for "Satan". Such a statement has no
         >meaning in and of itself because it's negation is just as
         >true. 
                              
    This has already been answered.
    
         >"In Jewish mythology the power players are pretty much viewed
         >as male." 

         >And Mary, Martha, Elizabeth, Ruth, and the rest?  What are
         >they? Chopped Liver? 
                                   
    Well, let's take a look at some of these players. Mary, Jesus's mother
    has already been dealt with. Mary and Martha Magdelene have already
    been dealt with also. 
    
    Ruth, a _Moabite_ woman, mother of Obed, grandfather of David, of who
    Jesus is a direct descendant. Ruth is a foreigner who married into an
    exilic family. 
    
    I'll quote from _The Abingdon Bible Commentary_ on _The Book of Ruth_.
    
    "Boaz is the hero of this incident. His morals do not crack under the
    strain to which they are subjected... Boaz is depicted as one who is
    meticulously upright in his observations of all the accepted social
    customs of the day" Page 378, column 1. 
    
    Ruth did NOTHING outstanding in and of herself except getting married
    into _two_ different Jewish families via a quirk in Jewish law. All
    other things she did was at Boaz's behest. And further she was the
    PROPERTY of Boaz. "Moreover Ruth, the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon
    have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon
    his inheritance..." Ruth 4:10 
    
    Elizabeth, a woman praying to God for a child did nothing important
    though she is the mother of John the Baptist. Nice prose though.
    
    Sarah, wife and half sister of Abraham. Main accomplishments: looked
    pretty, fooled the Egyptians, got pregnant late in life, attempted to
    murder Hagar and Ishmel.                
    
    Delilah, now there's a woman. _The Abingdon Bible Commentary_, page
    371, is very lucid on this story. Samson is a solar hero and Delilah is
    the night (demon?). Delilah is closely connected to the Hebrew word
    'layelah' meaning night. This is a mythical story depicting the
    conflict of the day with the night, possibly sun and moon, and the
    victory of the day over night. Even in this myth it can be seen that
    men (solar deities) are more powerful than women (lunar or night)
    deities. Nothing out of place here in respect to patriarchal thought.
    
    I see absolutely nothing of any consequence in these four (or the
    previous three). Their contrasting male counterparts are much more
    important to their stories. These stories are much the same as tossing
    bones to starving dogs. The meat having been given to those more
    worthy. 
    
    Sorry, I think there is ample evidence to disprove your theory.
    Any other ideas?

    BTW, your a relative late commer to this topic. Are you interested
    in the topic or are you sniping, looking for a controversey?
                                                                
    B*B Mikie?

    re:.123
    
    "The most revered 'human', Mary, is female."
    
    True (depending on one's beliefs, of course) but ask yourself
    *why* this is true. Was Mary a woman of action? Did she become
    a leader of people, did she make some great discovery that
    enhanced the quality of life, did she stop a war? No, her part
    in human history was entirely passive. God knocked her up and
    that's it. Her importance is *solely* due to her relationship
    to Jesus.
    
    --- jerry

    
    re: .123
    
    What the &%*$ is your problem?
    
    My statement about Satan being male was very closely tied to the
    rest of the text that followed.  And the meaning was (since I wrote
    it I know what was meant - maybe - unless yo do know more) that
    a woman "needs to have a male to exist - Goddess knows she couldn't
    open a jar of pickles with out help - so if I woman did not have
    a human male then she must be involved with a spiritual male - so
    if the woman was not a woman of the church and therefore involved
    with a male spirit (bride of Christ) she must be involved with another
    male spirit know to some as Satan - you know the guy with little
    horns on his head, red skin, pointed tail, large genitals, a learing
    smile and a three pronged fork.
    
    NOw it you have problems with this - guess what - I don't need to
    your acceptance or approval.
    
    ESAD.
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |
    			Male consorts of the Goddess
    			were represented as Bulls with
    			horns, and tails, and large genitals.
    			Could this be where the symbol of
    			came from?
    
    BTB
    
    	What did "all" those women you mentioned from the Bible do?
    	How many lines are there that refer to them and their actions?
    	How many times is Mary mentioned in the Bible?  How is she
    	refered to?
    
    

    re .130 about the Bulls...according to the Chalice and the Blade
    the answer to your question is yes.

    I don't understand the idea of God or Satan being male or female.
    At least not as in the way that humans are male or female. Even
    the appearance of Jesus as male is strictly (in my opinion) one
    of convenience rather then part of His true nature.
    
    If people insist of calling God (or gods) as either male or female
    I suspect some other motive then understanding the true nature of
    God. Perhaps for convenience ? Or some hidden agenda? 
    
    			Alfred

>      	What did "all" those women you mentioned from the Bible do?

    Well, Esther saved the Jewish people and changed the direction of
    a major (non-Jewish) nation. The majority of the book of Ruth talks
    about how she managed to go it alone after the death of her husband.
    No mean feat in those days. Mary (several Mary's) and Martha are
    all treated as intelligent people whose questions were taken and
    answered seriously by Jesus. At least as seriously as most of the
    men recorded as talking with Jesus. 
    
>    	How many lines are there that refer to them and their actions?
>    	How many times is Mary mentioned in the Bible?  How is she
>    	refered to?

    Hard to say but both Ruth and Esther have separate books dedicated
    to their stories. Ruth's has 4 chapters and Esther's has 10. The
    women is Jesus' life are mentioned pretty often. There are more
    entries for Mary (in my little concordance) then there are for Mark
    or Matthew for example. A lot more men are portrayed as 'bad' then
    are women in the Bible. Most women (that I can remember) are portrayed
    as devout, serious, caring, intelligent, strong people. A lot of
    them appear to have strong ambition; if not for themselves then
    for their children and husbands.
    
    				Alfred
    

RE: 478.124 Medieval Christian Beliefs

Thank you for pointing that out to me...  Perhaps I should be more outraged at
Medieval Christians then at Ann Broomhead.

Still, I don't see that the past "Dehumanization of Women" is as bad as your
notes make it out to be. Sometimes your notes seem quite propagandistic to me. I
suspect that some of it is because you necessarily present only the tip of the
iceberg that you have read, and I can't accept the tip of the iceberg which, in
my view, is floating six feet off the floor without any supporting facts. 

I had a nasty thought thinking about this topic last night... what if Satan
were depicted as female?  How would that have changed women's lot in the
'past'?  The thoughts I had were quite grim.

"Did you somehow miss the point that the Christians took the names of the
Goddess from different cultures, and turned them into the names of *male*
demons?"

I've heard the idea that names of deities are borrowed from culture to culture
from many places, and the idea seems ludicrous to me.  Yet I can see a fire and
brimstone preacher (of any religion) using the names of opposing deities for
evil.  I don't accept that every time you say a name was borrowed, that it
indeed was, but I accept that it does happen.

Why 'they' changed the names to 'male', is beyond me; have you any ideas?

"You wrote, "RE: Satan is male & God is female" 

"This idea is something you just made up."

NO!  This is not an idea *I* made up.  I am not the first to say it, and it is
not my belief.  You, I believe, believe God is female, and it was Peggy in
478.99 who stated the Satan was male.  *I* believe that God, and Satan transcend
any such gender difference. 

"Since blood is blood, and since I'm sure you don't feel *your* blood is
intrinsically "unclean", can you guess at what such motives could be?  I can."

Yes, but *my* blood doesn't spill out every month or so...  typically when you
are bleeding from a wound, you must 'cleanse' yourself and your surroundings. I
suspect that the 'unclean women' bit got started from this, and was used for
various base motives which are *not* restricted the the male sex. 

"You've said this before.  Prove it."

I'll tell you what, for every reference that you can find showing how men
are directed to make women submissive, I will find you an opposing verse.

It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, the proof can only be
in proving that it exists.  Just as you cannot prove that something is
impossible, you can only prove that it is possible.  This applies these verses;
you cannot expect me to prove that such do not exist, you must prove that they
do exist.

RE: .125

Thank you, I like to hear it from the horses mouth :-), if at all possible.

What kind of morning prayer do women say?  Do they say, 'thank God for making me
a woman'? 

Is it true that one must be 'Jewish' by descent on the *maternal* side? Why? 

RE: .126

"These women are side characters to the main stories in the Bible."

That does not mean that they were not powerfull women. 

"You say you oppose female priests in the Catholic church.  If not to promote
patriarchy, why???"

I oppose it, because I feel that men and women *are* different.  I oppose women
being "priests" in the strictest sense of the title.  I feel that there does
need to be some restructuring to allow *both* women *and* men, lay and clergy,
to allow them to make the most of their talents given to them by God.  Certainly
not to promote any 'patriarchy'.

"Would a woman be less able to perform the duties of a priest, if called to do
so, and had appropriate training?"

A woman should do *whatever* she feels called to do, priest, or bricklayer. I
treat women priests the same as I treat men priests.

"This is a patriarchcal religion, and you really need to do somersaults to try
to show it otherwise."

No, I do not need to do somersaults...  What you are talking about now, is a
matter of 'who gets their face in the newspaper', not religion.

"I personally have known Christian women who believe that it is their husband's
right to do whatever he pleases with them."

I am sure that there are people who believe anything, but that is not what
Christianity, as defined in the Bible, directs.

"Have you read the writings of Paul objectively?"

Yes, I have also read the "Song of Songs".  Paul is well noted for his ideas.
That does not make them universal, and I am not a 'Paulist'.

""Man is the glory of God, Woman is the glory of Man""

I'd like to know the context; there are several ways to take that.

"This doesn't sound like equality to me!"

I am sure that it doesn't.  It does not sound like it to me.  I am simply saying
that: 

1) It is not as bad as you make it out to be.  You speak as if the negatives
   were all that existed.

2) The solution is not in a 'female religion', which would be equally as
   wrong in principle.

RE: .128

"I'll try not to cover ground already covered.."

PLEASE!!! Don't do me any favors, and everybody else disfavors.  That's 90% of
the problem you had in BIBLE, was not covering ground (you) already covered!

"The human pastime of declaring one sex superior or inferior to the other is not
an insult. It is something deeply ingrained within us all. It's something we
have to deal with."

Saying that it happens, does not make it not an insult.  It has to be dealt
with.

"I think your partriarchal mind is peeking out"

I do not believe in *your* patriarchy.

"Is this a problem on your end on on Peggy's end?"

I don't think that this is a problem, those are my feeling, rightfully mine.

"Then why do you take insult?"

Because Peggy said "Satan is male", which an insult to all males, whether all
males feel insulted, or not, unless, or course that is what a particular male
believes to be true.

"If you had read the other replies in this topic you would know where they came
from."

I read what you wrote.  That is insufficient for me to believe in it.

"How do you qualify "we"."

The "we" *you* wrote, signified a group of people numbering you the writer, and
your readers.  As one of your readers, I protest to "We had seen that"
conclusion, because I (for one) have not seen.

"Even Jesus blew her off saying "who is my mother, my brothers or my sisters?
Those that do the will of my Father." Another sexists remark Jim?"

Not sexist.  If it was sexist, "brothers" would not be in there. 

"She has no power."

How odd, when it is 'Mary' who has reappeared numerous times on Earth.  I feel
that there is quite a bit of significance in that.

"Then why are you against "female priests"."

See above.  I intentionally used the word "priest", when I said I was against
women "priests".  I am not against female clergy, which I take to be a more
generalized superset of "priests". 

"No, but it is extremely likely that men took advantage of the physical
differences.  Who do you think developed Chinese foot binding customs or
Africian (Moslem?) clitodectomy. Can you say man?"

I can say that these were most likely developed by men, but I do not believe a
blanket statement that all such things were developed to 'take advantage of
women'.  I do not presume to know the motives, which I feel is quite a large
assumption on your part. 

"Did you grow up in the Bible Belt?"

No.

RE: The Divine Punishment.

Yes, I have heard of it, and *if* the story is literally true, then the
punishment is for a crime; did you forget that?

"Have you forgotten your cultish heritage?"

Which cultish heritage are you refering to? 

"This has already been answered."

It has??? where?

"Elizabeth, a woman praying to God for a child did nothing important though she
is the mother of John the Baptist. Nice prose though."

I think you contradict yourself, that seems pretty important...

"Sarah, wife and half sister of Abraham. Main accomplishments:"

My, how well you trivialize...

BTW, I have never heard of "The Abingdon Bible Commentary", how about "Cruden's
Concordance", or some such?

RE: .129

"True (depending on one's beliefs, of course) but ask yourself *why* this is
true. Was Mary a woman of action?" 

Well, for one thing, I don't imagine being Jesus's mother stopped at birth...
One account in the 'Lost Books of the Bible', has an account of Mary's life,
which has some interesting things... I'll have to go look it up sometime... 

"Was Mary a woman of action?"

Why does Mary have to be a woman of action?

RE: .130

"My statement about Satan being male was very closely tied to the rest of the
text that followed."

Perhaps...  But I, of one, did not appreciate the insulting sarcasm which
accompanied it, and I have no way of knowing how much of that excrement you
believe, and how much you do not believe. 

"NOw it you have problems with this - guess what - I don't need to your
acceptance or approval.

ESAD."

I suppose that is as close to an apoligy as anyone is going to get.  I would
have been satisfied by a simple, 'No, I don't really believe Satan is Male',
without more insulting sarcasm.

Am I to assume that ESAD = "Eat Shit And Die"?

Thanks a Lot...

Jim. 

>Thank you, I like to hear it from the horses mouth :-), if at all possible.
>
>What kind of morning prayer do women say?  Do they say, 'thank God for making me
>a woman'? 

I was not clear in .125.  Men say:

    Baruch atah ha-shem elokeinu melech ha-olam, she-lo asini isha.

    Praised are you Lord, our God, king of the universe, who didn't make
    me a woman.

Women say:

    Baruch atah ha-shem elokeinu melech ha-olam, she-asini ki-rotsono.

    Praised are you Lord, our God, king of the universe, who made me
    because he wanted to. (very literal, normally "made me according to
    his will").

>Is it true that one must be 'Jewish' by descent on the *maternal* side? Why? 

Traditional Jewish law says that membership in a PEOPLE is determined by the
mother.  This is because you always know for sure who the mother is you do
not necessarily know father is  8^{).  Tribal/caste membership is, however,
determined through the father (Kohane, Levite, Israelite).

Today there is much controversy about this.  The Reform movement recognizes
any child of a Jew and a non-Jew to be jewish if the child is "raised as a
Jew."  This is not recognized by any of the other organizations withing
Judaism.  This has come about because the Reform movement is based on
abandonment of Halacha (jewish law).

One can also become a Jew through conversion.  Again some controvery here
since the Reform do not always follow all of the steps required in Halacha.
The steps for this are:
    1) Ask to be taught and be refused 3 times.  We don't go looking for
       converts  ;^{).
    2) Study.  (The period varies among movements and among individual
       rabbis within the movements).
    3) Bet Din or religious court.  Here you are examined as to your
       motives and commitment to Judaism.
    4) Brit Milah or circumcision (for men only).  This can be just the
       drawing of a drop of blood if you are already circumcised   :^{).
    5) Mikvah or ritual immersion.  Where do you think baptism came from  ;^{)?

>"Elizabeth, a woman praying to God for a child did nothing important though she
>is the mother of John the Baptist. Nice prose though."
>
>I think you contradict yourself, that seems pretty important...

I believe the point is that many women in the bible are described as
having been important because they bore and raised important sons and
not because of any particular individual accomplishments.  Elizabeth
of the N.T., Rachel of the Torah are examples of this.

Of course, Judaism teaches that it is a woman's responsibility to
pass values to her children.  This is because the men are too inept
to be entrusted with such an important task  ;^{).

Gavriel    

set mode/slight_digression

Re: .135 and several before

When I saw the basenote and the first several replies, I spent 
several minutes counting to ten in Arabic (I always forget the 
word for 9 :-), and then told myself to sit still.  I have to do 
this anytime someone wants to bring the "Judeo-Christian" 
ethic into an argument.  I don't believe that there is such an 
animal, although I don't wish to write a 500 line essay 
explaining exactly how different current Jewish values are from 
Christian ones.

Gentlebeings, Christianity and Judaism diverged almost 2000 years ago!!
Later developments within Judaism have arguably had no impact 
on Christian thought, dogma, or practice since probably the 
Second Century of the Common Era (that A.D. to you'all :-). 


What Gavriel calls "traditional Judaism" 
developed mostly in the centuries after the destruction of 
the Second Temple, *about 35 years *after* the death of Jesus).  
Descent was patrilineal until after Jesus's time.
The prayers cited in .135 (I believe that should be she'lo 
asani, not asini, btw) did not exist until about 900, possibly 
later.  

Similarly, the passage of the Rambam's cited earlier, 
about beating women with rods, does not have bearing upon 
Christian thought.  The Rambam (Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon) lived in 
Moslem Spain (let's see now, Islam rose in the seventh century?? 
(I may be off by 100 years) -- I *think* Rambam was 11th century).  
Christianity was off doing its own thing, and /heavy_sarcasm_on 
certainly wasn't concerned with what a member of a hated race who 
lived in the domain of another hated race thought about 
women/heavy_sarcasm_off!

Evelyn Torton-Beck, editor of 
_Nice_Jewish_Girls,_A_Lesbian_Anthology, was motivated to put 
together that book precisely because the oppression of women in 
Europe (and countries dominated by European thought -- such as 
the U.S.) is ascribed to the Jewish bible -- as if Christianity 
hadn't developed on its own for 2000 years since.


If you want to use the Bible to state your position, fine.  (But 
at least get your facts right, Jim.: Mary, Martha, and Elizabeth 
are _not_ part of Jewish mythology!).  I may dispute your 
intepretation (for example, I think that Ruth is about Ruth's 
devotion to her mother-in-law Naomi, and the basic theme of the 
book is loyalty) -- that's my right.  But most of the 
intepretations I've seen here are Christian ones, not Jewish 
ones, and your mileage may change :-)

If people want to discuss the position of women in Judaism, 
start another note (I personally would not choose this particular 
forum for that discussion).  

I have my own issues about the role and place of women within 
Jewish tradition and culture (imagine, some people have even 
called me "strident"! :-)   But please please remember that Judaism has 
had little, if any impact on the generic oppression of non-Jewish women 
in Europe.

/bobbi 

SOME_single_working_parents_have_little_time_to_read,_much_less_write,_notes

    I'd like to thank Dick and Bobbi for adding new information.  I
    think that both entries are pertinent to the topic.
    
    I agree that Jewish and Christian mythology are different. I disagree
    with the conclusion that they are separate. It seems to me that
    they both spring from the same well. 
    
    Why did linage change after the time of Jesus? That is interesting
    because one genelogy of Jesus is based upon Joseph and the other
    is based upon Mary.
    
    Would that mean that say, I could have been Mikie? ben (momma's name)
    instead of Mikie? ben (father's name) somewhere around 50 C.E.? 
                                  
    I think someone (and Ann) said that you always know who your mother
    is but not so with your father. Is that the primary reason why?

>     < Note 478.136 by CADSE::FOX "Don't assume ANYTHING" >
>                            -< A slight digression >-
>        ....
>When I saw the basenote and the first several replies, I spent 
>several minutes counting to ten in Arabic (I always forget the 
>word for 9 :-), and then told myself to sit still.  
        
        Tisaa!
        
        Andy.
        
        PS., I always forget '8'! :*)
        

    I'd like to reiterate that in presenting this topic I wasn't intending
    to pick on any certain religious belief system. I was attempting to
    show that Patriarchy is a mind set that is more or less parasitic in
    many western and some AsianIndian religions. 
    
    I started with Western Christian Traditions, which some thought
    anti-semitic, moved to Classical Greek, and added in some info on
    the Jains.  
    
    Changes in the way we view our chosen religion are always emotional
    events.  I can deal with minor flames and excess verbage that result
    but, please, don't think that I was attempting to destroy anyones
    religion. I was attempting to expose and ferret out a parasite.
    
    And I wonder if the parasite can be removed without killing the
    host...

RE: .136

"Gentlebeings, Christianity and Judaism diverged almost 2000 years ago!!"

Good point...

"Jim.: Mary, Martha, and Elizabeth are _not_ part of Jewish mythology!)."

I don't believe I said they were.  I was sticking to 'Biblical', rather then
choosing a particular Jewish or Christian flavor.  I don't know much about
strictly Jewish history.

FWIW, I believe that the "Jewish" role of women is more oppressive then the
"Christian" role of women, mostly because Judaism is a 'rule' of Law, and
Christianity is a rule of Spirit; which is less oppressive to *everybody*.

Just my opinion.

The fact that the Middle Ages, or "Dark Ages" was oppressive does not change my
believe about what Christianity *should* be, as opposed to what some people do
with it. 

RE: 'Pagan'

You know, as Mr. Topaz pointed out in the 'Cape Cod Judge' note, and as I have
tried to point out before, you are painting a picture all white on your side,
and all dark on our side.  Perhaps we all tend to do this.  

I think that this accusitory attitude on either side is getting us no where.  I
don't think that there is much benifit to proving to each other how nasty people
have been to each other in the past. WHAT ***REALLY*** IT THE POINT OF THIS
TOPIC??? What I believe that we have to do, is worry about what we can do right
here and now, to correct what is right here, and now, and in the future. I think
we will have our hands full. 

Let us all help each other find the splinters in the blind spots in our eyes.
Being accepting, instead of accusatory.  Becuase, you know, we *all* have
a really hard time finding our own, and it's a whole lot nicer, easier if
we help each other. 

I will admit that I don't know ancient middle eastern goddess religions, but I
can think of a couple of inequalities to point out in addition to the quite a
few I have found in *your* notes, against men. 

In several versions of the Mother Earth religions, there is a ruling Priestess
for each village.  Each year, a new consort for the Priestess is choosen. At the
end of each year, the consort was slain as a sacrifice, and symbolically
fertilized the fields.  One male is killed each year for each village.

In the current NeoPagan Goddess religions the head is *always* a Priestess.
There is a consort, but of substantially lesser importance. 

Is this Equality?  Is this Discrimination?  Is this Subjugation?  

Now, I'm not going to carry on about some grandious female conspiracy, like I
have seen a few women doing about a male conspiracy.  I don't believe that one
exists of either sex.  I believe that it is individual human failings.  Looking
out for Number One.  I don't even think that in most of the individual cases
that it is a matter of individuals oppressing women individually. 

As Jim Burrows pointed out, most men have not had an easy role in life. They
have in some cases done *whatever* necessary to make life easier for themselves.
But men resent it when the cry goes up that men have oppressed women so that
they could have the 'easy life', because it hasn't been easy for most men *or*
women. 

Second of all, I don't believe that in all cases, having a secondary position
means that you are being subjugated.  There are quite a few epitaphs about how
lonely and heavy the responsibility it is at the top.  I personally prefer to be
second fiddle; I feel that I have more fun in a supporting position, and can do
a better job, in a supporting or partnership reltation, rather then being top
dog.  It just happens that 'supporter' is one of the root meanings of James. 

RE: female persons in the Bible

If I didn't know better, I would say that you women were denegerating these
women's work, and their conribution to history, becasue they were ***merely***
mothers & wives.  It seems that that is something that you were complaining
about *men* doing???  Why are you doing it now? 

RE: .139

"And I wonder if the parasite (patriarchy) can be removed without killing the
host..."

Substituting matriarchy for patriarchy (such that may exist)  is not what
I would call a cure!

Jim.

    Jim,
    You mentioned earlier that you were against female priests "because
    men and women are different".  I don't understand.  In this day
    and age we are all aware of the differences between men and women
    and none of them seem exclusive of priesthood.  Could you elaborate
    on why you are against female priests?
    Thank you,
    Mary
    

    re .140:
    
    No one's sugggesting we replace patriarchy with matriarchy, Jim.
    Stop being so Paranoid.
    
    I'm still waiting to see the Biblical references which you claim exist.
    
    And I, too, would like to know why you are "against female priests
    [sic]".  That statement in itself is telling.  No matter WHAT else
    you have to say about equality between men and women, I have you
    labelled in my mind as "not being for equality of the sexes", because
    of that one single, simple belief.
    
    	-Ellen

RE: .141

I'm sure that I have said this before...

I feel that men and women are different.  I believe that there is a specific
jobs with the title, "priest" that men are suited for.  I believe that there
should be a comparible job that women are suited for.  I also believe that the
whole hierarchy needs to be restructured to allow *all* people to make the most
of the talents God has given them, lay people and clergy, male and female. I
believe that each person should do what they feel called to do.

I try not to let rules get in the way when dealing with people.  It's the
people that are important, not the rules. 

RE: .142

I feel that what some people are describing as equality is a matriarchy.

"I'm still waiting to see the Biblical references which you claim exist."

Which references are you refering to?

"I have you labelled in my mind as "not being for equality of the sexes",
because of that one single, simple belief."

I think that that is what you want to believe.

Jim.

    REply to .143, Jim,
    
    We are not trying to replace patriarchy with matriarchy. We are
    discussing the change over to partnership. And, fortunately, attitudes
    will have to be adjusted for such a change to happen.

    Jim,
    
    You may have said this before but you haven't explained anything
    at all.  Why do you believe that "priest" is a specific job that
    only men are suited for?  
    
    What is the difference between men and women that makes men more 
    "suitable" for the job of priest?  Does the job of "priest" require 
    heavy lifting?  Does the job of "priest" require brute strength?  
    What is it about that specific job that makes it more suitable for 
    men than for women?  
    Mary

    Why don't we start a list of suggestions or items we'd like to see
    to help correct some of these problems?
    
    o	Women should be equals functionally (not just considered equals)
    with men in their chosen religion. 
                                                                       
    o	Women and men should be in the pulpits with more or less equal
    standing based upon their skills, not upon their sexes.
    
    o	Any reference to which sex is blamed for sin should be ignored,
    considering sin a species problem.
    
    o	Women and men should be taught their procreative rights by their
    peers. 
    
    o	Both sexes should be taught and allowed to use birth control.
    
    o   Woman's ability to sense and synthesize should be included in
    forming decisions that will effect their religion.
    
    o	Both sexes should drop or ignore any doctrine concering wo/man as
    being the epiphenomena of creation. 
    
    o	Doctrines which force a separation of sexes on a spiritual
    (religious) basis should be ignored or rewritten. 
    
    o	Doctrines which force a separation of sexes on economic basis
    should be ignored or rewritten. 
    
    o	Doctrines which force a separation of sexes on phisological
    basis should be closely examined.
    
    o	Doctrines which force a separation of sexes on psychological
    basis should be closely examined.
    
    o	Deity should be viewed sexless, all pronouns based upon sex ie,
    He, His etc., should be changed to reflect Deity as sexless.
                                      
    o	Marriage should be redefined to reflect the idea that two do
    not become one, but two in unified purpose. Retaining an individual's
    independent status as a human being.
    
    o	Doctrines concerning divorce should be restructured, acknowledging
    that people change, that sometimes we make mistakes, making divorce
    easier on both parties. (This will cause some discussion B^) 

    Are there any you'd like to add or subtract from this list?

    Jim: You still haven't said what parts of priesthood would be 
    unbsuitable for women to particiapte in.
    
    Mikie: (RE: .127) No, no, no - you're not a "myth"
    
    You're a "myth-ter" ;-)
    
    --DE
    

RE: .145, .147

I haven't said what parts of priesthood are unsuitable for women, because I
don't know.  I can't claim to have a great understanding of what it is like to
be a male or female priest. 

I feel that men and women differ in more then merely the physical ways. To what
extent I am not quite sure, and in any case it differs with different
individuals.

As I have said before, I feel that if a woman feels called to be a member
of the clergy, then she should do whatever she feels called to do.

RE: .146

Your list seems pretty vague, perhaps necessarily...

"Women and men should be taught their procreative rights by their peers."

Why is this necessary?  What do you mean?

"Both sexes should be taught and allowed to use birth control."

Lamentably there is a lack of choice with male birth control.

What is an "epiphenomena"?

"Doctrines which force a separation of sexes on economic basis should be ignored
or rewritten."

What does this mean?

"Marriage should be redefined to reflect the idea that two do not become one,
but two in unified purpose."

Is this really necessary, or is this mere semantic?  It's sort of the difference
between a Unitarian, and a Trinitarian, it's mostly semantical.

Jim.

    Reply to .148; Jim,
    
    It was necessarily vague as a starting point. I wanted to see others
    comment, add or subtract, before I said anything more.

    Hmm.  The only thing I can think of that males can do that females
    can't, is provide Y chromosomes (basically that's the idea, right?)...
    
    Now, what would the priests be needing to supply Y chromosomes for?
    
    :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)

    Jim Baranski,

    In your entries in this note (.123, .134, .140, .143, .148) you
    have made so many factual errors and misstatements that I hardly
    know where to begin.

    Let's see.  You wrote that "Satan is male & God is female".  If you
    had written "Satan is male .XOR. God is female" you would have
    written a correct statement.  But in a society with a mother-like
    Supreme deity, we *never* find a male-satan-like entity, (or a
    female-satan-like one either).  Such are only found in male-oriented
    societies.  You see, Satan's roles are those of tempter of the flesh,
    and eternal tormentor of the souls of sinners.  In Goddess religions,
    sex is not a "temptation"; it is one of the good things in life.
    (This seems to be *why* it is not in dominator religions.)  In Goddess
    religions, there is no eternal torment.  You may die and stay dead
    in some versions, or you may die and be reborn in others, but punishment
    per se is never part of the deal.

    Do you understand the explanation this time?

    		*		*		*

    Then you asked, "what if Satan were depicted as female?"  This and
    the sentences which follow demonstrate to me that your understanding
    of the nature of the creation of supernatural beings is non-existant.
    It is not a conscious process at all.  The characteristics of such
    entities are not created in a list; they are deduced by modern
    anthropologists from their reading of myths, hymns, and the like.
    A myth is created and maintained when it evokes a response from the
    subconscious of the listener.  This is how we get from the tragedy of
    King OEdipus to the oedipal complex, and how we get from the tale of
    Psyche and Eros to the term, psyche.

    To depict a Satan as female, there must be an emotion which says,
    "Yes, this is how it must be.  The female principle must be very
    powerful, strong enough to challenge the male principle of the Lord
    God.  It must be evil, glorying in giving pain to men, women and
    children."  Somehow this emotion was not evoked among Christians;
    they felt no real compulsion to believe in a cruel, powerful female
    principle.

    		*		*		*

    Someone had remarked in this note that, "In Jewish mythology the power
    players are pretty much viewed as male."  In response to this, you
    asked the insensitive set of questions,  "And Mary, Martha, Elizabeth,
    Ruth, and the rest?  What are they? Chopped Liver?"

    This is insensitive because "Mary, Martha, Elizabeth" are only found
    in the New Testament, so they are nothing so kosher as chopped liver
    to Jews.  Later, when this was pointed out to you, you claimed that
    you had not said anything like that -- or rather, you didn't "believe"
    you had "said they were [Jewish]".

    		*		*		*

    First, you wrote, "For each reference in the Bible relating women to
    men, there is a similiar reference relating men to women."  Then, when
    I challenged that, you changed it to "I'll tell you what, for every
    reference that you can find showing how men are directed to make women
    submissive, I will find you an opposing verse."  Please do not think
    that I (or anyone else) failed to notice the change in your claim.
    Then, when someone else remarked, "I'm still waiting to see the Biblical
    references which you claim exist." your response was "Which references
    are you refering to?"

    Also in referring to that subject, you cited Goedel's Proof, which is
    the second time I have seen you do that since I explained it in the
    old [second] BIBLE file.  Unfortunately, although you can explain it,
    you do not seem to understand it.  *I* asked *you* to prove the
    positive; i.e., for every verse of class <x> there is a verse of
    class <y>.  Further, since the Bible is a finite system, it is
    possible to make absolute negative statements about its contents;
    e.g., the Bible does not contain any phrase which means "internal
    combustion engine".

    So, about those citations:  Find me a counterpoint to Genesis 3:16,
    where Yahweh says that the husband shall rule over the wife, a
    counterpoint to Exodus 20:17, which states that a man's wife is one
    of his possessions, a counterpoint to Judges 19, especially verses
    25 through 29, in which a man shoves his concubine out the door to
    be tortured, raped, and murdered, then takes her body home, cuts it
    up into a dozen pieces, and mails them out to every tribe, a
    counterpoint to Numbers 31:15-18, in which the Lord provides brides
    to the Israelites (I'm looking for a provision of husbands after
    the numbers of the men are reduced in (for example) battle), a
    counterpoint to Hosea, in which a prophet of Israel marries a
    priestess of Ba'al, and a counterpoint to First Corinthians 11:3,
    11:7, and 11:8-9, in which woman is firmly ranked below man.

    		*		*		*

    I invariably cite my references, so your comment that you "can't accept
    the tip of the iceberg which, in my view, is floating six feet off the
    floor without any supporting facts." indicates to me that you are
    refusing to check any facts, yet are demanding that everyone else
    accept your *opinions* as just as valid as any expert's *facts*.  To
    this, you added the comment, "I don't accept that every time you say
    a name was borrowed, that it indeed was...."  This reads rather like
    you are calling me a liar, and doing so just because you do not wish
    to accept the facts I am presenting.

    		*		*		*    

    You cling to the ideal of "Christianity, as defined in the Bible"
    when others are pointing to its practices, the reality of the
    slaughter of millions in the conversion of Europe alone.  Then,
    having embraced the ideals of the Bible, you wrote, "I am not a
    'Paulist'."

    		*		*		*

    I am sure that you do not really wish to discuss the Veneration of
    Mary, which the Christian Church has repeatedly discouraged as
    inappropriate.

    		*		*		*

    In one place you claim that those (such as myself) who describe the
    Goddess religion show only the white, while painting Christianity
    as wholely black.  Then you turn around and speak of the Cycle of
    the Corn God, as a black mark against the Goddess religion, blithely
    ignoring that you got all your information from me.

    You wrote, "I don't know ancient middle eastern goddess religions".
    This is quite correct.  Your interpretation of what you learned from
    me is thoroughly mistaken:

    	"There is a ruling Priestess"  Wrong.  There are priestesses, and
    	one of them is the leader [of the priestesses], but she does not rule.

    	"for each village."  Wrong.  This is for each community, which
    	is larger than a single village.

    	"Each year,"  This changed to every three years, then every seven
    	years, then to `as needed'.

    	"a new consort"  This is no mere consort.  The husband becomes
    	the King, the ruler in deed and name.

    	"for the Priestess"  Wrong.  He is the husband of the Goddess
    	Herself -- as represented by a priestess, who is a mere stand-in.

    	"is choosen."  He volunteers.  Consent is vital; [they think]
    	the magic will not work without it.

    	"At the end of each year," or the start of the year, or the
    	end of the seventh year, � l� _Harvest_Home_, depending.  (Humanity
    	did leave the Neolithic, you know.)

    	"the consort was slain"  He is not a consort; he is King and the
    	God of the Grain.  To kill the God Made Mortal is to return him
    	to immortality, as is proven by his return in the growing corn.

    	"as a sacrifice,"  It is not much of a sacrifice; after a year
    	of easy living and worship, he bestows continuing life on his
    	people, and dies with a smile on his lips.

    							Ann B.

>I feel that men and women differ in more then merely the physical ways. To what
>extent I am not quite sure, and in any case it differs with different
>individuals.

	If it differs with different individuals, then what on earth
	does it mean to say "men and women differ"?
	
	Or am I nit-picking:-)?
	
	Mike

RE: .151

"You wrote that "Satan is male & God is female"."

I replied *to* the idea that "Satan is male & God is female", I did not state
that I believed that.

"you may die and be reborn in others, but punishment per se is never part of the
deal."

Is it true that the negative actions/karma are reflected back to you?  That
seems like one way of looking at punishment. 

"This and the sentences which follow demonstrate to me that your understanding
of the nature of the creation of supernatural beings is non-existant."

I don't think that is a very good assumption.

"Then you asked, "what if Satan were depicted as female?""

I asked that in reference to some women's apparent belief that men can/have
depicted Satan any way they feel to oppress women.  I pointed out that I didn't
think it mattered whether Satan was one sex or the other, it would still have
negative impact. 

"Later, when this was pointed out to you, you claimed that you had not said
anything like that -- or rather, you didn't "believe" you had "said they were
[Jewish]"."

That is correct, what of it?

"Then, when someone else remarked, "I'm still waiting to see the Biblical
references which you claim exist." your response was "Which references are you
refering to?""

That's right, I would prefer to dicuss individual references.  What of it?

"Further, since the Bible is a finite system, it is possible to make absolute
negative statements about its contents; e.g., the Bible does not contain any
phrase which means "internal combustion engine"."

True, but that is one hell of a lot of work, and neither you, nor I have the
time and energy for it.  We can discuss individual references without having to
do all the work before showing any results.

I will look up your references, and reply in a seperate note.

"I invariably cite my references, so your comment that you "can't accept the tip
of the iceberg which, in my view, is floating six feet off the floor without any
supporting facts." indicates to me that you are refusing to check any facts, yet
are demanding that everyone else accept your *opinions* as just as valid as any
expert's *facts*."

For your information, I have a copy of C & B, and in the process of reading it.
I find much that I agree, and disagree with, and much that you have left out to
paint men black, and woman white.

"This reads rather like you are calling me a liar, and doing so just because you
do not wish to accept the facts I am presenting."

I am not calling you a liar.  But I certainly think that you could be wrong.

"You cling to the ideal of "Christianity, as defined in the Bible" when others
are pointing to its practices, the reality of the slaughter of millions in the
conversion of Europe alone.  Then, having embraced the ideals of the Bible, you
wrote, "I am not a 'Paulist'.""

Yes, what of it?  I have already stated that the Bible has been misused by
many...  I believe that there is more to the Bible then Paul's Letters.

"I am sure that you do not really wish to discuss the Veneration of Mary, which
the Christian Church has repeatedly discouraged as inappropriate."

Yes, I would like to discuss it, but perhaps WOMANNOTES is not the place.

"Then you turn around and speak of the Cycle of the Corn God, as a black mark
against the Goddess religion, blithely ignoring that you got all your
information from me."

I did not get that information from you.

Your correction of my information varies from my source.  Who is correct is
debatable.  My point still remains, whether it is every year, or, as needed,
whether it is for each village, or whether the consort is conditioned by society
for the job (just as women are conditioned in our society), it is still a
discriminating *use* of *men*, by a matriarchy.

It's not all one sided, and a matriarchy is not necessarily better then a
patriarchy. 

Jim.
    

re: .151:

    Further, since the Bible is a finite system, it is
    possible to make absolute negative statements about its contents;
    e.g., the Bible does not contain any phrase which means "internal
    combustion engine".

How about Daniel 6.27:

    "After that, as I looked on in the night vision, there was a fourth
    beast--fearsome, dreadful, and very powerful, with great iron teeth--
    that devoured and crushed, and stamped the remains with its feet.
    It was different from all the other beasts which had gone before
    it; and it had ten horns.

Well, it doesn't *specifically* mention an "internal combustion engine,"
but it is a perfect description of a hot-rod a  highschool buddy
of mine owned.

Martin.

    Nah.  It was powered by a *jet* engine.
    						Ann B.

    Thanks, Ann!

RE: Ann

I would like to modify what I said in .154 a bit.

I do not mean to imply that you absolutely paint men black, and woman white. But
I feel that there is a lot of history, facts, and what have you, that has been
left out of the discussion.  I feel that this whole topic is roiling troubled
waters unnecessarily, and that the picture that you paint is just as slanted as
any other history.  It is difficult to be objective about history, because most
of the details we can only guess. 

More later...

Jim.

    Reply to .158, Jim,
    
    This topic has a purpose and is pursuing that purpose very well.

    
    RE .156  > Nah.  It was powered by a *jet* engine
    
        Couldn't have been, otherwise it would have sucked 
        Daniel into the intake also.   :-) Had to have been 
        some type internal combustion motor.

Actually, it was a '57 Roadmaster.  The teeth are a dead giveaway.

M.

    Re: .142
    
    > No one's suggesting we replace patriarchy with matriarchy, Jim.
    > Stop being so Paranoid.
    
    If you assume that the current system is a patriarchy then change
    in the system tword more power for women would serve to balance
    the system out.
    
    If you assume that the system is currently balanced, a mix of
    patriarchy for some areas, and matriarchy for other areas, then
    change in the system tword more power for women would tend to
    create a pure matriarchy.
    
    I happen to believe that the current system is closer to the latter
    then the former.  Reading this notes file gives me more empathy
    for what it is like to be a woman in our society.  I don't believe
    that there is an equivalent place for women to learn empathy for
    men in this society.  You may, therefore, be insensitive to the
    characteristics of a matriarchy in our society (The male feelings
    of powerlessness in the face of female power).
    
    Re: .146
    
    I agree with this proposed set of changes to religion.  I don't
    participate in any religion so I probably don't have any right
    to an opinion on it anyway.
    
    Re: .160
    
    A jet engine is an internal combustion engine....now if you said
    rocket...
    
    					MJC 

    I apologize in advance for extending a tangent but it is just my
    engineering nature:                   
    
    Re .162:
    
    > A jet engine is an internal combustion engine....now if you said
    > rocket...
      
    I disagree, the combustion in a jet is NOT taking place in a sealed
    chamber as in the cylinder of a automobile engine. I would classify
    a jet as an external combustion engine, same as Stirling cycle and
    steam locomotives. But, I may be wrong, if you can document your
    statement, I would be gladly educated.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

>    If you assume that the current system is a patriarchy then change
>    in the system tword more power for women would serve to balance
>    the system out.
>    
>    If you assume that the system is currently balanced, a mix of
>    patriarchy for some areas, and matriarchy for other areas, then
>    change in the system tword more power for women would tend to
>    create a pure matriarchy.
>    
>    I happen to believe that the current system is closer to the latter
>    then the former.  


	I happen to believe that the current system is closer to the former
	than the latter.

	...Karen

    
    
    Please take the discussion of engines someplace else.
    
    Now closer to the topic.  Exactly what is the power women have that
    men do not have is a larger quantity?
    
    I think I must have missed something here.
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |		I once thought...
    					then I doubted...
    						Then I saw the Goddess
    				This is a power available to woman and	
    				man.
    

RE:

"I happen to believe that the current system is closer to the latter then the
former."

"I happen to believe that the current system is closer to the former than the
latter." 

Well, it is debatable, surely...  and the amount of change toward matriarchy to
counter whatever patriarchy in our society is debatable.  Actually, they
both exist in different areas.

Jim. 

    RE: .167
    
    If you're saying women have more power over children....
    
    Bullcookies.
    
    IF you're saying women are assumed to be default care-takers of
    children...OK....but that's not an answer to .165
    
    
    Dawn
    

    In Susan Brownmiller's _Against_Our_Will:_Men,_Women,_and_Rape_,
    (I think it was) she said that there were twelve kinds of power.
    (Of course I don't remember them all.)  Monetary power, political
    power and sexual power were three of those mentioned.  She pointed
    out two things:
    
    	1.  Women can have sexual power.
    	2.  All but one kind of power can be translated into all the
    	other kinds of power.  The exception is sexual power.
    
    							Ann B.

    
    
    What power do women have concerning children - can I keep my son
    from being addicted to drugs - can I keep my daughter from being
    attacked and molested in her home?
    
    Where is the power?
    
    All I see is the lack of power.
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |		Feeling a bit out of sorts
    

	RE: women's power with children

	My sister stays home and does most of the child-rearing of my
	neice.  Since her husband is at work most of the day, Jenny
	tends to save things for when Daddy is home.  Because Daddy
	is special in that he "works" (it's hard to indicate the Mom
	"works" too), she will assume that Daddy is the one who
	knows more and is more important.  This is amazing considering
	the effort there is to bring her up in a non-sexist environment.
	(My sister's theory is that children are inherently sexist and
	that you have to train them otherwise :-) ).  Anyways, my
	point is that men tend to have a *lot* of power with
	children, even more so in a "traditional" family.

	...Karen

    I thought he meant the power to *bear* children. And I agree, the
    absent parent can take on almost mythical power. 

    	What is all this talk about the sexual leanings of various
    characters qualified in religious writings?  People - mostly men
    - assumed the roles of teachers and told the stories through
    generations.  In time, the stories were written - again mostly by
    men.  Is it logical to argue the true sexual leanings of the characters
    when there is so much about the story tellers we don't know?
    
    	Remember the party trick of whispering something into the ear
    of the person next to you and having that person whisper the same
    thing to the next person, and so on?  The last person does not repeat
    very clearly what the first person says.  And so it probably was
    with the story tellers whose words, after generations, found their
    way into print.
    
    Douglas

    Re: .165
    
    > Now closer to the topic.  Exactly what is the power women have that
    > men do not have in a larger quantity?
    
    I wrote a long list of the power and advantages that women have
    over men in this society, in preparation for replying to .165. 
    After reading it over I concluded that ideas expressed were more
    likely to bring flames than enlighten an open mind.  I have no
    interest in offending Peggy or anyone else here.  As it is the
    concept of woman's power and men's weakness in accommodating to that
    power flies too much in the face of the prevailing attitude.
    
    If you wish to see women only as victims and men only as victimizers
    than I can't hope to change your mind.  If you, some day, find
    that you are interested in the ways that this society victimizes
    men I would be glad to enlighten you.
    
    In the meantime I will continue to read here to learn about the
    vitimization of women and hope that some day men might be seen
    as victims too, and that some women will be interested enough to
    study it.

    				MJC O->
              
    In the past minds were closed to the suffering of women.  Minds
    are still closed to the suffering of men.
    

    re .173
    
    Aye, but the underlying truth there is that each repeats what each
    wants to hear, and each repeats what each wants to repeat.  Or,
    if a storyteller should have an axe to grind, the storytelling will
    not be unbiased.

    > After reading it over I concluded that ideas expressed were more
    > likely to bring flames than enlighten an open mind. 
      
    Did you really mean this to appear to be such a gratutious insult?
    
    If you have such a list, why did you not consider posting it to
    another note?  To what purpose is it to tell people that they are
    not open-minded enough, when we have had evidence of a sharing
    attitude?  Posting it under this note might indeed be perceived
    as a defensive stance, considering the title, but why did you not
    post it under a separate topic, such as "Dehumanization of men"?
             
    Rather, post your information, and not your insults.

    Re .176
    >> After reading it over I concluded that ideas expressed were more
    >> likely to bring flames than enlighten an open mind. 
      
    >Did you really mean this to appear to be such a gratuitous insult?
    
    No.  I don't mean to be insulting.  There is nothing wrong with
    the people here that might flame at me.  It may well be that, in
    time, some of the flamers might be strong supporters of the same
    concepts they would flame at today.
    
    I understand the concepts behind the woman's movement.  Expowzing on
    many of my ideas would make me appear, to some, to be indistinguishable
    from you common garden verity sexist male.  I believe that it is
    possible to distinguish but I am unsure that I would be able to
    convince the people here of all the subtle differences, all by myself. 
    
    > To what purpose is it to tell people that they are not open-minded
    > enough, when we have had evidence of a sharing attitude?
    
    I'm sure that there are at least a few here that have a sharing
    attitude.  The response I got to my original note here was closer
    to "You're full of shit" than "That's an interesting view, I'd like
    to hear more."  I'd hardly call it a sharing attitude.
    
    I'm trying to do my part to cut down on the flames in this file.
    Sometimes it's harder to stop than it is to continue flaming.
    
    						MJC O->
                                                                          

    re .177
    
    What I don't understand is why you DON'T bring up these questions
    in *mennotes*.  After all, isn't that what it's there for?
    
    Lee

    Well, all right, but it works a little better if you don't tell
    us just how considerate you're being!  :-)

I won't spend a lot of time on this, but...

Women has the power to take children away from their fathers.

Women have the power to literally sit at home and be supported.

Women have the power to drive you bankrupt.

Women have the power to drive you crazy.

Jim.

    
    
    		    Merry Christmas Everybody!!!!

    

    And from the otherside of the fence,
    
                               Happy Yule, and a
                               Happy Solstice.  
    
    The Sun King is reborn, the days get longer, the Goddess rejoyces
    at the rebirth of Her Son.
    
    Ahhhh... I can feel those summer breezes already. B^)

    And a Happy Holidays to you too Kerry.

    REP .180
    
    This is a joke ,, right?
    
    If not,,  and if true,, boy am I doing something wrong.  Gee, I
    could stay home all day, be 'supported', and bankrupt someone
    else...instead of ruining my _own_ credit rateing 8-)
    
    Jim,  think about what you wrote.  If someone else, male, or female,
    has the power to bankrupt you,  drive you crazy,  then what kind
    of person are you?  Do you have no responsibility for yourself?
    Arn't you ultimately responsible for how your resources are used,
    either emotional or monetary? 
    
    About the only statement that bears some semblance to reality 
    for me,  is that women can take children
    away from fathers.  And that was only true in the past.  Today,
    if a father wants custody, and request's it, both parents are reviewed
    to see who will provide the best for a child.  (Don't forget,  that
    in the past,  the father _usually_ didn't want custody,)
    
    Now I know that you can come up with a specific example that appears
    to refute what I've said, but one example does not prove an overall
    'truth'.
            
    Mary
    
    
    BTW,
    Wouldn't it be better if we started reading and responding to the
    complete _idea_ behind a note,  as opposed to picking a phrase,
    showing how that _phrase_ is wrong, and that the whole _idea_ is
    wrong by implication?

RE: .188

No Joke...

"Arn't you ultimately responsible for how your resources are used, either
emotional or monetary?"

Not according to the government...

"women can take children away from fathers.  And that was only true in the
past."

In the past, ~98% of mothers were given custody of the children in divorce
cases. Currently ~95% of mother are given custody of the children in divorce
cases.  The difference represents the fact that more mothers *choose* not to
have the children, to have the children live with the father, not that fathers
are winning many custody cases. 

"Today, if a father wants custody, and request's it, both parents are reviewed
to see who will provide the best for a child." 

Yes, and according to the MA Family and Probate Court, what is best for the
child is to be with the mother, unless you can *prove* abuse.  Fat Chance.

"(Don't forget,  that in the past, the father _usually_ didn't want custody,)" 

In the past, fathers were brainwashed to let the mother have the children, and
there was virtually no way to get the children.  This still applies.

See, I believe it is Note 24.*  Child Custody for more information.

Didn't you know that a husband is responsible for his wife's debts?

Jim. 

    A wife is also responsible for her husband's debts.
    
    A man who refuses to work, and sit at home, and be supported is
    a possibility too.  The wife will have to go out and support him.
    Not as socially acceptable, but just as much a reality.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    Jim,
    
    You wrote "~95% of mother are given custody of the children in
    divorce cases."
    
    I would like a fuller analysis of this statistic.  What state(s),
    what marriage:divorce ratio, the economical and cultural demographics
    of the divorcing parties, the number of children per family and
    how they were allocated.  Thank you.
    
    Then you wrote, "... fathers were brainwashed..."

    Please give me your written, published sources for this.  Thank you.
    
    							Ann B.

    Jim,
    
    Obviously, the whole issue of child custody is a sensitive one for
    you.  While I don't agree with either your statements, or 'supporting
    facts', you don't agree with mine.  So let's agree to disagree on
    this issue.
    
    On debts:
    
    ANY spouse is responsible for the other spouse's debts.  However,
    if only one is working, then the wage earner controls the credit
    of the family.  Cancel credit cards.  Inform the banks that you
    will not authorize more than $X over the bank ballances,  and put
    most of the money in an account that only the wage earner can access
    (Not that I reccomend this in general, but only if there is a problem
    handling money). DO NOT AUTHORIZE ANY OTHER CREDIT.  How can 'legal'
    debts be built up?  I'd understand if one partner was self employed,
    and the other was responsible for the business debts.  But I don't
    see how a spouse who is un-employed, and who's spouse will not sign
    any credit applications,  can run up exceptional bills.
                
    
    Can you give me any facts or evidence to show where this can happen?
    (If I ever run into this situation,  _I_ don't want my spouse to
    ruin my perfectly terrrible credit !!! )
    
    
    mary

    Please take the child custody discussion to another more appropriate
    note!

RE: .191 ~95%

I don't remember the sources, but they are in 24.* somewhere...

Sorry, I don't have a lot of that detailed info.  What difference do you think
that might make?

"Then you wrote, "... fathers were brainwashed...""

I don't think I need published sources.  When a man conditioned by society t say
'no wife of mine is going to work', he is also conditioned to think that he must
solely support his family, and could not possibly stay home to be with the
children. 

Jim. 

    Ah.  I had not realized that you are not required to have facts
    available to back up your assertions.
    
    							Ann B.

RE: -.1

I have facts.  They are not the detailed facts which you seem to want, but I do
have facts.  If you would bother to say what faults you have with the facts I
gave, and possible alternative intrepretations, it would help a lot more then
asking for more facts for the hell of it.

Jim. 

    It is now 1988, and Jim Baranski has not yet provided the information
    which he promised in 478.154, and which he claimed existed in a few
    replies previous to that.  While he was quiescent in this conference,
    I saw no reason to point this out, since it could be presumed that
    he was working on it.  Since, however, he once again has time for
    replies of one and two hundred lines, his failure to respond seems,
    at best, impolite.

    							Ann B.

Is that the proof that you've been demanding?  Why didn't you say so...

Thank you for reminding me.

Pardon me while I find my concordance...

Jim.

    Jim,

    No, the reference I made in reply .198 was NOT to the facts I had
    requested in reply .191.  That (.198), as I specifically stated, was
    in reference to the promises for quotations which you had made in
    reply .154.  I have quite given up on getting any of the facts I
    had requested in .191.

    If you find reply numbers so confusing, perhaps you should reconsider
    your insistance that it is perfectly proper for you to refer to
    other people's replies by just their number, without any other
    identifying material.

    							Ann B.

        If you guys want to hear something REALLY incredible (yet true),
    	up until THREE YEARS AGO in Switzerland it was the woman's LEGAL 
    	responsibility to pay her husband's debts if he became unable to 
    	during their marriage.  It was legal if a man decided to move to 
    	another canton (state) or city to INSIST his wife follow him.  
    	She could not purchase an automobile without having her husband 
    	co-signing the purchase, even if it was cash.
    
    	My boyfriend is Swiss, and now says there's no reason whatsoever
    	to move back to Switzerland!!!!!!  =8-)  (Fortunately he's joking
    	or I'd chop his ears off.)
    
    						Carla
    	

RE: .199

I think that you are the one who is confused.  I wrote .198, not you!

You still have not given me any reason to think that more facts are needed; I am
not going to waste my time without a reason diggin for details that are
unnecessary.

RE:  Biblical Quotations

I refer you to 642.* and 643.*  I suggest that the discussion be continued
there.

Jim Baranski

The truth hurts, doesn't it, Russ?

/Mike

    It is a pity that you were not paying attention to _The_Chalice_
    _and_the_Blade_ while your eyes were passing over its pages.
    (A particular example of this is your inability to identify the
    teacher of Socrates.  If you had been paying attention you would
    have noticed at the least that she was a priestess, and not his
    mother.)
    
    What Eisler states over and over again, and acknowledges that she
    cannot state too often, is that the split is not woman/man but
    cooperative/competitive.  She emphasizes that women *happen* to
    have been the ones who muddled their way to a consensus-based form
    of governance, and that one particular bunch of men *happen* to
    have been the ones who muddled their way to a hierarchical form
    of governance.
    
    What is not happenstance is that most *people* have leanings of
    preference towards the former, but that the operation of the latter
    requires (and the more extreme the form of hierarchy, the more
    extreme the teachings and actions) the quashing of the former.
    Rather like Gresham's Law applied to realms instead of to the coin
    thereof.
    
    							Ann B.

RE: Russ

In the small portion of C&B I have read it is stated quite clearly that men
do not deserve all the blame.  However people see what they want to see,
even when reading.  (what does that tell you about your/my reading? :-))

Jim.

This is an excelent article from Dave Butler off usenet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.religion.misc,soc.men
Path: decwrl!decvax!tektronix!pogo!daveb
Subject: Re: Subjugation of Women in Christianity (and many religions)
Posted: 24 Feb 88 05:28:01 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Xref: decwrl soc.women:16558 talk.religion.misc:7179 soc.men:5380
 
It has recently been discussed whether the Christian religion and the 
Christian god subjugate women. Well since the Christian god doesn't 
have an account on Usenet, we can't ask for a written statement of his position.
But we can see what has been accepted as doctrine by that religion, as 
well as by other religions, and see how the religions of the world (as opposed 
to the gods that they represent) view and therefore treat women.
 
The following are excerpts from the article "Why We Burn, What Famous Men
Throughout History Really Think of Women", written by Meg Bowman and 
published in _The_Humanist_ magazine in November 83'. Most of the quotes are 
by "great" men of religion.
 
 
    One hundred women are not worth a single testicle.
                                                Confucius(551-479 BCE)
 
 
    The five worst infirmities that afflict the female are indocility,
    discontent, slander, jealousy, and silliness.
    ... Such is the stupidity of woman's character, that it is incumbent upon
    her, in every particular, to distrust herself and to obey her husband.
 
                                                The Confucian Marriage Manual
 
 
    A proper wife should be as obedient as a slave. 
 
    The female is a female by virtue of a certain lack of qualities- a
    natural defectiveness.
                                                Aristotle(384-322 BCE)  
 
 
    In childhood a woman must be subject to her father; in youth to her
    husband; when her husband is dead, to her sons. A woman must never 
    be free of subjugation.
 
    If a wife has no children after eight years of marriage, she shall be
    banished; if all of her children are dead, she can be dismissed after
    ten years; and if she produces only girls she shall be repudiated after
    eleven years.
                                                The Hindu Code of Manu 
                                                (c. 100 CE)
 
 
    Among all savage beasts, none is found so harmful as woman.
                                                St. John Chrysostom 
                                                (345-407 CE)
 
 
    Any woman who acts in such a way that she cannot give birth to as many
    children as she is capable of, makes herself guilty of that many murders...
                                                St. Augustine
                                                (354-430 CE)
 
 
    Do you know that each of your women is an Eve? The sentence of God - on
    this sex of yours - lives in this age; the guilt must necessarily live too.
    You are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the forbidden tree; you
    are the first deserter of the divine law.
                                                Tertullian in 22 CE
 
 
    Woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not
    rule and command him.
                                                John Knox (1505-1572)
 
 
    The souls of women are so small that some believe they've none at all.
                                                Samuel Butler (1612-1680)
 
    What misfortune to be a woman! And yet, the worst misfortune is not to
    understand what a misfortune it is.
                                                Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
 
 
    Woman is ontologically subordinate to man.
                                                Karl Barth
 
 
    The pains that, since original sin, a mother has to suffer to give birth
    to her child only draw tighter the bonds that bind them; she loves it the
    more, the more pain it has cost her.
                                                Pope Pius XII in 1941
 
 
    It seems to me that nearly every woman I know wants a man who knows how
    to love with authority. Women are simple souls show like simple things,
    and one of the simplest to give... 
    Our family airedale will come clear across the yard for one pat on the 
    head. The average wife is like that. She will come across town, across 
    the house, across the room, across to your point of view, and across 
    almost anything to give you her love if you offer her yours with some 
    honest approval.
                                                Episcopalian Bishop 
                                                James Pike 
                                                in a letter to his son in 68'
 
 
    You must learn to adapt yourselves to your husband. The husband is the 
    head of the wife.
                                                St. Paul
 
 
 
    Let a woman learn in silence with submissiveness. I permit no woman to 
    teach or to have authority over men; she is to be kept silent... Yet 
    women will be saved through bearing children.
                                                I Timothy 2:11-15
 
 
    Let us set our women fold on the road to goodness by teaching them to
    display submissiveness... Every woman should be overwhelmed with the 
    shame at the thought of being a woman.
                                                St Clement of Alexandria
                                                in 96 CE.
 
 
    In the year 584, in Lyons, France, forty three Catholic bishops and 
    twenty men representing other bishops, held a most peculiar debate:
    "Are Women Human?" After many lengthy arguments, a vote was taken. The
    results were thirty two, yes; thirty one, no. Women were declared 
    human by one vote. 
                                                Council of Macon
 
 
    Men are superior to women.
                                                Koran
 
 
    Blessed are thou, O Lord our God and King of the Universe that thou didst
    not create me a woman.
                                        Daily prayer, still used today,
                                        of the Orthodox Jewish male
 
 
    If... the tokens of virginity are not found in the young woman, then they 
    shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and
    the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones because she has
    wrought folly... so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you.
                                        Deut 22:20-21
 
 
    To the women he said, I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; 
    in pain will you bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your 
    husband, and he shall rule over you.
                                        Gen 3:16
    In 1847, a scandal resulted when British obstetrician Dr Simpson used 
    chloroform as an anesthetic in delivering a baby. The holy men of the 
    Church of England prohibited the use of anesthetic in childbirth, 
    citing this quote.
 
 
    Women should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bring up children.
 
    If a woman grows weary and, at last, dies from childbearing, it matters
    not. Let her die from bearing; she is there to do it.
                                        Martin Luther (1483-1546)
 
 
 
It should be noted that these are the quotes of the men, not gods (ie: these 
opinions do not necessarily therefore have divine origins). But it should be 
realized that these men controlled the doctrines and philosophies of the 
worlds religions. Thus, looking at the philosophies of men who controlled 
the churches gives an excellent indication of how the churches viewed, and 
therefore treated women. From the above quotes one would come to the opinion 
that the world's religions have considered women as somewhere between a 
demented, barely human child, and "Satans" tool to corrupt "Man", and it's 
therefore no surprise that these religions would treat women in a manner 
consistent with those philosophies.
 
				Later,
 
				Dave Butler
 
    Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life.

    	RE:  .210
    
    	Steve, have decided to return to ignoring Pollitz myself (after
    	having explained in 727.59 about the shameful series of notes
    	that Pollitz wrote about regarding women as property, etc.,
    	in Soapbox.)
    
    	It makes me downright nauseous to see him come here the day
    	after writing about women in such a dehumanizing way.
    
    	However, you are right.  All his quotes are out of context
    	(and are written with almost no understanding of what the
    	author had intended.)
    
    	Thanks for the reminder.

    	RE: .212
    
    	Steve, with all due respect, I don't think that Russ Pollitz's
    	persona turned out the way that he had hoped it would (unless
    	he was deliberately trying to look bad over in Soapbox.)
    
    	I also don't believe that he was "baiting" womannoters by what
    	he wrote there.
    
    	I think he meant every word he said.
    

    YAY!

    "God is dead!"
    			--Nietzsche
    
    "Nietzsche is dead."
    
    			--God

                              "The Dead are God"
    
    				-- Anonymous Deadhead

>    "God is dead!"
>    			--Nietzsche
>    
>    "Nietzsche is dead."
>    
>    			--God

    "God is Nietzsche."
			--Dead


    "Russ is boring us."
			--God,Nietzche,Dead

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

		       ______________
		      /              \
		     /                \
		    |   __  _____  __  |
		    |  /  \/     \/  \ |
		    | |     O   O    | |
		    |  \__/\     /\__/ |
		    |       \   /      |
		    |       >\ /<      |
		    |         o        |
		    |                  |
		    |                  |
____________________|                  |_______________________________________

    re .205   The cooperation/competitive split is real. 
    
              The Male/Female split is also real. 
    
              The first takes in the M/F split as well as those in
              Politics, business, media, ecology, ideologies, and
              so forth. 
    
              The M/F split strikes me as the most serious one.
              
              I hope we can all work diligently to resolve those
              issues that continue to oppress us all.
    
              Let's talk.
    
                                                        Russ

    re .223   Do not confuse my being non-feminist with being anti-women.
    
              I am pro-woman. I am against destructively based ideologies
              that make man out as an enemy. I will not and do not tolerate
              any ideologies with such foundations. 
    
              How about yourself. What do you TOLERATE Mr Thompson?
    
              Is TOLERATION a GOOD thing?  Is mis-reading me a good
              thing?
    
                                                      Russ

    I don't know, I've spent a lot more on my woman (me) than on my
    car.  Women are great things to own; I think every woman should
    own exactly one (herself).  Of course, it gets worse when you consider
    that everytime I by her (me) a car, it's still spending money on
    her (me).

    I love my car - it is like me - just a plain functional vehicle
    that thinks like a Porshe.  heheheheheh
    
    
    My alter-ego (the car) thinks that me (the woman) is just a plain
    functional vehicle that thinks like a Porshe.  
    
    We both have agreed to love until death do we part - this is the
    only truly long-term relationship that is based on mutual need that
    we will abide.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |
    			What me love a car!!!!
    			What me love a non-car!!!!
    

    I love my car.  It's a 69 Mustang and we've been together all it's
    life.  Talk about committment!
    

    Steve,

    I think your idea of leaning on definitions is an excellent one.
    Before we can talk about something, we should know what "something"
    is.  Anything less is a waste of time.

    It is unfortunate that this is unlikely to work, since Russ shies away
    from anything like a definition with almost religious fervor.  He
    doesn't give definitions for his own made-up words, he doesn't
    specify which of many meanings he is using for ambiguous terms, he
    doesn't acknowledge the existance of definitions that others have
    entered, and, although he claims to know what some terms mean, he has
    thoroughly avoided actually attempting to demonstrate this knowledge.

    Instead, whenever someone tries to get him to address such a point,
    or any other for that matter, he goes off into a formless word-waving
    reminiscent of "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

    Could it be that he is suffering from what Randites would call
    "blankout", an inability to articulate concepts due to their inchoate
    nature?

    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  Of course "auto" love is "self" love!  ;-)

re:< Note 478.233 by XCELR8::POLLITZ >
    
�              I ask you - without men where would you 'brilliant' women
�              be today?  
    
That has got to be the stupidest question I have ever seen coming from
someone who is at least smart enough to log into an account. Now I'm
really convinced that your knuckles drag on the ground when you walk..that
is if you DO walk upright.

    Steve, 
    
    	We aren't ignoring him at all!  We're laughing!
    
    Without men, the brilliant women would be able to take credit for
    their own work (see note 397).

    re: .233
    
    "Feminism always must add the 'put down men' label upon
    *US*. . ."
    
    What do you mean "us"?  I have no intention of being part of
    any "us" that involves you; gotta be the strangest agent I've
    seen in many a moon. . .
    
    Steve
    

    >  "Feminism always must add the 'put down men' label upon
    >    *US*. . ."
     
    Hmm, interestingly enough, this criticism was mentioned in the lecture
    last night.  (I promise--I'm working on my notes.)

    re: .238
    Lisa, I still wonder who were those 2 men in the audience....could
    it be...ahh, never mind.
    
    am

    
    Its just like having kerry back.

    Russ,

    I see that you have adopted Jim Baranski's discourteous and
    uncharming habit of using only note numbers, without name or
    context, in your "replies".

    So, this is written in response to your comments (I think that's
    what they were) in .233.  Elsewhere, you have alleged that you
    will answer direct questions.  Let's try these:

    1.  What do you feel is "the hatchet job" I performed in 478.205?

    2.  Why did you delete your entry 478.204 after I had replied to it?

    3.  Why did you delete your earlier reply to my 478.205 (with its
    incoherent reference to Gresham)?

    4.  I do not understand your use of the phrase "put down men" vis
    � vis my reply .205.  What is your rationale for using it?

    5.  You claim to have "all" the feminist dictionaries.  What
    definition do they give for the term "witch"?

    6.  Do you understand why they use that definition?

    Your answers should be precise, concise, and use complete sentences,
    set into paragraphs, preferably paragraphs with lead sentences.
    Grammar and spelling should be close enough to accurate to permit
    the average human to discern your meaning.

    							Ann B.

    Re: .233
    
    >it is small wonder that Men continue to dominate the World
    >unchallenged.
    
    Unchallenged?  You haven't been paying attention.
    
    >Feminism always must add the 'put down men' label
    
    Feminism or radical feminism?  You were making a distinction in
    Soapbox; has that gone by the board or do you really mean feminism
    in general?
    
    >I ask you - without men where would you 'brilliant' women be today?
    
    Same place all the brilliant men would be without women - unborn.

    It was, I believe, intimated a few RELPYs ago, that while the phrase
    "put down men" cannot be applied to feminism, it CAN be applied
    to "radical feminism".
    
    WRONG. This is a misconception. I know of NO form of feminism
    dedicated to "putting down men". This is another example of the
    dichotomous thinking we find in which "using one's energy to
    help women" is somehow magically transformed into "putting down
    men"
    
    Please, leave us not fall into this trap.
    
    --DE
    

    Yes, and in fact if we combine Dawn's definition and Russ's other
    definition:
    
    	feminism raises women 		(Dawn)
    	women are lower than men 	(Russ)
    	therefore, feminism raises men  
    
    :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  

BINGO!!!

Bobbi_who_believes_in_raising_consciousness_as_she_raises_her_daughter

    re: .246
    
    Eagle, I see your point.  
    
    There are some notes of mine in this and some other files that I
    would hate to have someone new read and become angered by.  My
    feelings and attitudes have changed so much that I have trouble
    even remembering why I felt that way. 
    
    And in light of some of the personnel-oriented discussions
    recently, certain things I've said could be difficult to account
    for in a personnel interview.  My only defense is that I was wrong
    and I have changed my mind.  (and apologized, in most cases.)
    
    But I did feel that way when I wrote those notes, and going back
    and deleting them would deny that part of my experience.  It would
    seem to me like I was trying to pretend I have never felt
    otherwise, that I haven't grown and changed.  I did say those
    things.  It wasn't somebody else, and I won't try to cover up.
    
    --bonnie 
    

    re .241    Ann,
                    The following comments are in response to your
                    questions.
    
          1. re .205 para 1: I read the book with care seeing and feel-
             ing many insights and emotions. Paragraphs 2 and 3 would
             have made .205 the best note I'd ever seen. Unfortunately,
             paragraph 1 was condescending. 
    
          2. I deleted 50+ notes during this period and this was one
             of them.  I'd rather focus on the best Eisler ideas than
             the redundant (negative) terminology that filled her work.
             It's not easy - but it's the only way.
    
          3. Ibid. (2^).
    
          4. See # 1 above. 606.78, .129, and .141 evinced some 
             patronizing attitudes. IE in .78 "You are going to wave
             Germaine Greer's comments under my nose. Don't bother."
             The reviews given there were not reviews. I'm being kind.
    
          5. WITCH is defined originally as 'Women's International 
             Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell.' Over the years, various
             Conference groups that like that heading (originally from
             NY Radical Women '68) transform the definition to their
             liking. IE Women Inspired To Commit Herstory, etc.
    
             Regarding dictionary definitions, the above is one, others
             include "Witches were scientists and healers of the people."
             ( Ann Oakley, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Deirdre English )
    
             Another is "Is really all women; it names the natural state
             of women." ( Morene 1982; quoted in Karen Payne 1983 ).
    
          6. I'm trying to understand the reasons.
    
    
             Ann I found the first WITCH Conf meeting in Cambridge
             last week was about radical feminist ideas. Sharon Welch
             was an interesting speaker and Mary Daly was in the audience
             too.
    
             I asked Sharon Welch about Eisler's book afterwards and
             was surprised she had never heard of her. Ms Welch did
             agree that the cooperation/competition split is the problem-
             not M/F.  
    
             In closing, .241 could have been titled 'Of centaurs and
             mermaids'.  At least be fair!   :-)
    
                                                          Russ

    Deleting inflammatory notes was a habit of at least one former
    participant here.  It's aggravating to the reader who would rather
    have been treated with courtesy, and it's aggravating to the catch-up
    reader who, when reading the notes at a slightly later time finds
    the discussion disjoint and wonders what all the fuss is; futhermore,
    it may lead some to conclude that a person is being dumped on for
    no reason, since none of their inflammatory notes are there as proof
    of the writer's contributions.
    
    Most of post some notes that aren't worth a whole lot, and some
    of us post notes occasionally that we aren't proud of and sometimes
    even ashamed of.  If you're going to delete your note, post an apology:
    very few of us re-read and re-read a topic and will therefore never
    get the message that you are changing some of your words.  Furthermore,
    you owe it to the people you've offended.
    
    However, if this continues, you may find that your deleted notes
    get reposted, as happened before to someone else.

    Russ,

    My first question was:
    1.  What do you feel is "the hatchet job" I performed in 478.205?

    Your "answer" was:  "...paragraph 1 was condescending."

    So, my first new question is:
    7.  Why do you feel that performing "a hatchet job" is the same
    as being "condescending"?

    My next two questions asked why you had deleted notes.  Your answer
    was that you did it because you felt like it.  I gather, by reading
    between your lines, that you felt your comments were too negative.

    My new question is:
    8.  Why, if you felt that you had to delete these because they were
    so unwise, did you feel entitled to criticize my response, in which
    I demonstrate that *I* had reached that conclusion too?

    Another new question, which leads out of your reply to my second
    question:
    10.  You have repeatedly stated that Eisler uses negative terms
    and concepts.  What are they?

    My fourth question asked for an explanation of "your use of the
    phrase "put down men" vis � vis my reply .205."

    Your answer should have been "Nothing.", since the answer you *did*
    give indicated that what you had taken offense at had been written,
    not in 478.205, not in any reply in 478.*, but in *606*.78, .129,
    and .141!  And what offense had you taken to those?  Why, that parts
    of them were "patronizing"!  (An infelicitous choice of term on
    your part, I fear.)

    In 606.78, .129, and .141, I addressed you as an individual, one
    Russ Pollitz, and pointed out several inexcusable failures of the
    thinking process on your part.

    This leads to my next questions:
    11.  Why do you consider that comments addressed to you as a specific
    individual who has made specific, demonstrably false, claims, may
    be legitimately referred to as a way to "put down men"?  [Note use of
    general term (men).]

    12.  Do you feel that you are all men?

    You thereupon continued, in your response to my fourth question, to
    write, "The reviews given there were not reviews."  Since I quoted
    passages from text describing this particular book, written by
    people who were employed as book reviewers, in the periodicals that
    employed them as such, and which advertised themselves as collections
    of book reviews, I find it hard to credit that these were not
    "reviews" in the standard, English sense of the term.  My question
    therefore is:
    13.  Other than being Not-what-Russ-Pollitz-wanted-to-read, why
    were these not "reviews"?

    Your reply to my question 5 indicates that you have trouble
    distinguishing between the term I used (witch), and the term I did
    not use (W.I.T.C.H.).  What little you did say about it indicates
    almost none of the depth and richness of the term.

    Your reply to my question 6 was "I am trying to understand the
    reasons."  Yet you, in several previous notes had indicated that
    you had already passed judgment -- and a negative one, at that --
    on the term and what it stood for.

    So, for my next question:
    
    14.  Why do you feel entitled to pass judgment on something you
    admit you don't understand?

    Your answers should continue to follow the requirements previously
    stated.  :-}

    							Ann B.

    P.S.  "Centauri" is a place (quite nearby), not a bunch of entities
    from Greek mythology.

    re .252    Ann,
                    My only interest in this topic involves finding
           out more about the idea of cooperation/competition split
           being the problem - not Female/Male.
    
             In theory I feel that the first is the way to go about
           solving numerous problems.
    
             In reality I tend to feel/find that people are still 
           caught up in the traps of the latter.
    
             I hope we can talk about this.  Little else matters.
    
    
                                                     Thank You
    
                                                         Russ

    this discussion was sent to me via a mailing list from a network, it
    began in a note about international women's day, and discusses the
    practice of bride-burning in India...
    
    -jody 
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather mentions that the bride-burning in India is hearsay until
further proof is offered...well, I've read about it in the
Washington Post.  It's called "bride-burning" because the men marry
the bride for her dowry, then request more (or maybe not, maybe the
original was enough), and burn the woman alive.  They are rarely
punished and never severely, although there are some enlightened
judges and others who are trying to change things.  It's very
difficult because no one will file a complaint--not the bride's
family, not the neighbors who saw it.  It's accepted. The woman is
just not worth much, and men can do whatever they want with their
wives.
 My brother-in-law, who is Indian, says it's not very common, but it
does exist.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
Re: wife-burning in India
 
I don't have the "documented evidence" Heather asked for, but I can
assure you that wife-burning does happen in India.  It is not a
common occurrence, but it is common enough that it is recognized as
a problem.  Cases show up in the press with perhaps the same
frequency as particularly gruesome abduction-rape-torture-murders
show up here.  It is absurd to deny that these sorts of spectacular
crimes happen, but to focus solely on them may obscure the much more
common forms of abuse of which they are only the worst form.  Most
rapes do not end in dismemberment, and most abuse of Indian women
over dowry disputes does not end in murder.
 
For those unfamiliar with the issue, in most parts of India a
bride's family is expected to promise a substantial payment to the
groom's family in order for the wedding to take place.  The payments
take the form of everything from jewelry and household appliances to
cash and real estate.  This goes on at all levels of society, from
the poorest peasants to the wealthiest industrialists, who have been
known to give downtown Bombay skyscrapers as dowries.
 
The consequences of this system for women are horrendous.  In the
first place, it causes a female child to be seen from birth as an
economic liability and a male child to be seen as an asset.  This
not only reinforces the subservience of women in general but even
results in female infanticide and the widespread neglect of female
children.  Secondly, once a woman is married, she is a hostage to
her husband's family until dowry payments are made in full.  This
may simply mean that her in-laws are harsh to her and make her do
most of the work as a means of pressuring her family to fulfill its
promises, but it can also lead to overt abuse and even murder.  The
best-known form such murder can take is death by fire.  (Since
Indian women cook squatting on the ground and wear long flowing
saris, it is not hard to disguise such a murder as a "cooking
accident.")
 
The caste system and the dowry system were the two great social
evils which Gandhi sought to abolish at the same time as he sought
Indian independence.  On both counts he succeeded only on paper --
dowries are illegal in India, but they are as prevalent as ever.
 
For documentation and more information on women's issues in India, I
recommend the fine Indian feminist magazine "Manushi".  If any of
you are interested, I can dig up an address.
 

    -----------------------------------------------------------------
 
``Similarly, I am told that in India, many men will ask the wife's
family for more dowry after the initial one is given at the time of
marriage.  If the family does not comply then he simply douses his
wife in gasoline and burns her to death.''
 
Indian society does not treat women well.  However, the above
description is exaggerated.  A short description:
 
1. Most marriages in India are `arranged marriages' - this means
that families have a lot of say in the process.  In particular, in
many parts of India, the arrangement of a marriage includes deciding
on the amount of the dowry.  (Parents start worrying about dowries
for their daughters pretty early on.)  The importance of the dowry
varies from ethnic group to ethnic group, but is especially
emphasized in rural(=undeveloped) India.
 
2. Most families in India are joint families.  In particular, it is
quite possible for the mother-in-law to make life hell for the
daughter-in-law.  In the U.S. people make jokes about the wife's
mother, in India, people make equivalent jokes about the mother-in-law,
except that the humourous aspect is ruined by the fact that abuse by
the mother-in-law is responsible for a large part of the abuse meted
out to Indian wives.
 
3. If the dowry is found to be not as stipulated, or later found
inadequate, the wife comes in for more abuse.  Wife-beating is not
uncommon, even in cities.  (I don't think it's uncommon in the U.S.
either.) It is quite rare for women to be burned or killed due to
this.  It does happen, and is reported in newspapers if it occurs in
developed parts of India.  It is nowhere near as `routine' as the
above message implies.
 
4. A major part of the problem is that it is (in many ethnic groups)
regarded as unthinkable that women should return to their parents'
home if they're unhappy.  Notice that I don't say that they have the
option of living on their own or getting a divorce.  That would be
unthinkable from almost any Indian's point of view, including the
woman's parents!
 
5. Things are changing, very slowly, and hopefully for the better.
A big problem is that there are very few jobs to be had.  In a
repressed, male-dominated and extremely sexist society, women have a
very hard time getting reasonable jobs, which implies that they have
no way of being able to live by themselves.
 
Believe it or not, this is a short description, given the incredible
diversity of conditions.  There are quite a few generalizations
incorporated in the above.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
After I received all these responses, I read in Sunday's paper that
there is another problem in India now.  There are a number of "sex
determination clinics" popping up all over.  They were originally
set up as prenatal care clinics, but a side effect of ultrasound and
amneocentesis is that the parents now know the sex of the fetus.
Since girls are such a financial drain on the family -- what with
both dowries and the fact that they will go live with their husbands
when they marry -- there is an alarming number of abortions of
female fetuses going on.  Of course, this is not sanctioned by the
government, but there is not a lot they can do about it.
 
I would expect that this problem is not unique to India, but is
endemic to any country with a burgeoning population and a
non-burgeoning economy for the lower classes.
 
 
========================================================================

    
    re .255>
    
    About the comment on amniocentis tests to determine the sex of a
    baby, and then aborting the baby if it is female, it does happen
    in other countries too. This issue was recently raised by Radio
    4 in England, apparently it is not uncommon in England amongst ethnic
    groups who value male children more than females.

    About a week ago a similar topic was covered by 60 Minutes.  In
    Brazil it is still acceptable for a man to save face if his wife
    strays by murdering her or mutilating her.  The program pointed
    out that the men if they go to trial are not sentenced.
    
    It was pointed out that one woman's crime was that she wanted to
    go to college!  Her husband did not approve!

    The cure would be for a woman to kill her philandering hubby and
    demand equal treatment. Unfortunately, the Brazilian system of justice
    would likely make this futile - male judges, male juries, the 
    inherent machismo of the culture. 

    A few inflammatory replies in this discussion have recently been
    deleted.  In the interests of preserving historical contexts, I
    am reposting the notes, but setting them hidden.  

                      1987 Book Review Index
    
                                Reviews
    
               Riane Eisler 'The Chalice and the Blade'
    
    1 LATBR - 8/16/87 - P8              Los Angeles Times Book Review
    2 NYTBR - v 92 - 10/4/87-p32        New York Times Book Review
    3 BL - v 83 - 5/15/87 - p1390       BookList
    4 LJ - v112 - 6/15/87 - p80         Library Journal
    5 PW - v231 - 4/10/87 - p87         Publishers Weekly
    
    
      I may reprint a review or two of this fine book in the Books Conf.
    when I find the time.
    
                                            Russ

     re .259
    
    I don't understand. Why replace these notes if we can't see them?

    I take it you don't really want to see them or you would have sent
    me mail.  Other than that, I thought it was made clear, but I will
    further clarify: I don't believe everyone should have to reread
    them; however, should anyone care to, they remain accessible through 
    myself (or the moderators, if they're amenable).  Also, this preserves
    some anonymity, albeit superficial, for the authors.

    re .0  Eisler's book is the first of 3 that are planned for this
           subject.
    
           Eisler is an optimistic futurist and I think her hopes for
           us all show the high qualities that feminists thinkers
           best reflect.
    
           Some commentators felt that Eisler's 'The Chalice and the
           Blade' is an important recording of history.
    
           It was also felt that the jargon took away from the work.
    
           If Dr Eisler's next 2 books focus more on hard findings
           and less on (redundant) jargon, I believe she will gain 
           high marks throughout the literary world, along with a
           broader range of interested readers.
    
           The fear is that a work like hers only attracts a select
           audience.  
    
           Let's hope Eisler's next work dispels all such doubts.
    
    
                                                   Russ P.