• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?[W:771]

Men: Would you marry an American Woman?

  • Total voters
    83
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

NoC_T said:
I've no need to grope around in the dark, when you all but beat me to death with signposts. I work and play well with others. In fact, to such an extent that I've been accused of being indirect. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm getting a headache from your postings... can you please simply tell me what you want to tell me, instead of playing games? Or is playing games all you want?
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

ecofarm said:
Nonetheless, my point about the survival of churches is legit. There was a real need to arrange survivors.
Click to expand...
We can speculate, but what we know beyond all doubt is that at that point in history, women were still two millennia shy of a voice.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

German guy said:
I'm getting a headache from your postings... can you please simply tell me what you want to tell me, instead of playing games? Or is playing games all you want?
Click to expand...
How much 'simpler' would you like it, ffs? Should I address you in monosyllables?
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

NoC_T said:
We can speculate, but what we know beyond all doubt is that at that point in history, women were still two millennia shy of a voice.
Click to expand...

That's obvious, and probably not the whole story.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

NoC_T said:
How much 'simpler' would you like it, ffs? Should I address you in monosyllables?
Click to expand...

Yes, please address me as a tired-to-death English non-native speaker who's a tad retarded, please. Anything beyond that is too much for me at the moment.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

ecofarm said:
That's obvious, and probably not the whole story.
Click to expand...
If not, then we speculate, don't we?
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

German guy said:
Yes, please address me as a tired-to-death English non-native speaker who's a tad retarded, please. Anything beyond that is too much for me at the moment.
Click to expand...
How about morse code?

Maybe whale song?
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

NoC_T said:
If not, then we speculate, don't we?
Click to expand...

You have something against (informed, hindsight) speculation?

I specified "guess".
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

ecofarm said:
You have something against (informed, hindsight) speculation?

I specified "guess".
Click to expand...
Not at all. I'm just not sure how 'legit' it could be in that sense.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

NoC_T said:
Not at all. I'm just not sure how 'legit' it could be in that sense.
Click to expand...

Let's review...

ecofarm said:
My guess...
Click to expand...

And yes, informed and especially hindsight speculation can be legitimate or not, depending on its basis.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

ecofarm said:
Let's review...
Click to expand...
Yes, let's:

ecofarm said:
Nonetheless, my point about the survival of churches is legit. There was a real need to arrange survivors.
Click to expand...

And yes, informed and especially hindsight speculation can be legitimate or not, depending on its basis.
Click to expand...
How informed or legit is it, if it's a guess? The same applies for speculation. The basis is guesswork.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

NoC_T said:
Yes, let's:

How informed or legit is it, if it's a guess? The same applies for speculation. The basis is guesswork.
Click to expand...

Well, you agree that women, at the time, did not have a voice. I think you'll also agree that the women of the early church were probably not engaged in the first round of feminism the world had seen. Right? So, if the women were not rising up in rebellion against all of mankind and known history, then... why the need to specify the need to be careful about them being prominent members of a church.

Given an acceptance of the status quo of the time, and the persecution of the church, the need for this advice... is... survival of the church.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

ecofarm said:
Well, you agree that women, at the time, did not have a voice. I think you'll also agree that the women of the early church were probably not engaged in the first round of feminism the world had seen. Right? So, if the women were not rising up in rebellion against all of mankind and known history, then... why the need to specify the need to be careful about them being prominent members of a church.
Click to expand...
As a direct result of the matriarchal paganism that preceded Christianity. That was a threat to the patriarchal Church's power base. Women weren't thenceforth denied prominence in affairs (secular or religious) by means of clever wordplay. There was nothing whatever stealthy about it. They were directly and physically oppressed, as they had always been, but now with the specific objective of destroying any obstacles to a newly emergent theocratic hegemony. These guys weren't burning women as witches just for the sheer hell of it. It was systematised brutality with the objective of subjugating women beyond all hope of reclaiming paganism.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

NoC_T said:
As a direct result of the matriarchal paganism that preceded Christianity. That was a threat to the patriarchal Church's power base. Women weren't thenceforth denied prominence in affairs (secular or religious) by means of clever wordplay. There was nothing whatever stealthy about it. They were directly and physically oppressed, as they had always been, but now with the specific objective of destroying any obstacles to a newly emergent theocratic hegemony. These guys weren't burning women as witches just for the sheer hell of it. It was systematised brutality with the objective of subjugating women beyond all hope of reclaiming paganism.
Click to expand...

We all know that women were treated as livestock at that time. Matriarchal paganism my ass.

So why the need for the advice to the church?
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

ecofarm said:
We all know that women were treated as livestock at that time. Matriarchal paganism my ass.

So why the need for the advice to the church?
Click to expand...
If you can think of an alternative, enlighten me. I have no fear that you're about to drop a bomb on me, Eco. If I'm wrong I am. If so, stop beating about the bush. This is wanton cruelty.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

NoC_T said:
If you can think of an alternative, enlighten me. I have no fear that you're about to drop a bomb on me, Eco. If I'm wrong I am. If so, stop beating about the bush. This is wanton cruelty.
Click to expand...

I've explained very clearly the only logical reason for Paul to be moved to putting such advice in a letter to a church (in a particularly persecuted region). As you've acknowledged, women were in absolutely no position to have a voice at the time and there was almost certainly not a rising feminist movement in the church.

The claim of "matriarchal paganism" is laughable. It's noble savage.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

ecofarm said:
I've explained very clearly the only logical reason for Paul to be moved to putting such advice in a letter to a church (in a particularly persecuted region). As you've acknowledged, women were in absolutely no position to have a voice at the time and there was almost certainly not a rising feminist movement in the church.

The claim of "matriarchal paganism" is laughable. It's noble savage.
Click to expand...
It's one of those little historical foibles that continues to remain unresolved. They're still debating it to this day. There was no Feminism, this is true, but there was Paganism, with no singular emphasis on the masculine. I'm inclined to believe Paul was actually a misogynist, though I can be far from certain, as I've said. Whatever the case, he couldn't have hoped to waylay Christianity in any guise.

As a concession, I'd have better served you in using the word gynocentric, as opposed to matriarchal, that requiring more than merely an ideological proclivity. Still, the emphasis was on the feminine. The Church was never going to permit that. Were the Church's antipathy towards women merely grudging, as you suggest, why the need for a horrendous timeline of savage persecution? For kicks?
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

NoC_T said:
As a concession, I'd have better served you in using the word gynocentric, as opposed to matriarchal, that requiring more than merely an ideological proclivity. Still, the emphasis was on the feminine.
Click to expand...

Myth. The closest thing to "gynocentric paganism" at the time was whore houses (or hills, as the case was). Women had no power except as whores; paganism, Christianity and Judaism.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

ecofarm said:
Well, you agree that women, at the time, did not have a voice.
Click to expand...

WHY didn't the women of that time have a voice? WHY do women of today have a voice? WHY didn't the woman of that time do what the women of today did to get a voice? WHAT is stopping matters of today from reverting to the way things used to be?

Could you please speak to the processes which make all this possible.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

RiverDad said:
WHY didn't the women of that time have a voice? WHY do women of today have a voice? WHY didn't the woman of that time do what the women of today did to get a voice? WHAT is stopping matters of today from reverting to the way things used to be?

Could you please speak to the processes which make all this possible.
Click to expand...

Social progress.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

And were there even massive persecutions of women as "witches" by the church? Heard from a historian once that this is a myth that came up during the Age of Enlightenment to smear the church; in fact, most "witches" murdered had been men, and then, it were angry superstitious mobs that started the witch hunts, initially opposed by the church which considered the belief in witchcraft a remain of pre-Christian paganist beliefs. Only relatively recently, in the 16th or 17th century or so, the church eventually jumped that bandwagon.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

ecofarm said:
Social progress.
Click to expand...

So why didn't women of that day use this tool, what do you call it, oh yes, social progress (whatever that is) and change matters? Did no man yet invent this tool? Please explain in more detail.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

RiverDad said:
So why didn't women of that day use this tool, what do you call it, oh yes, social progress (whatever that is) and change matters? Did no man yet invent this tool? Please explain in more detail.
Click to expand...

Social progress is not achieved by a single gender.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

ecofarm said:
Social progress is not achieved by a single gender.
Click to expand...

Is this social progress like voodoo or something? What kind of tool is it? Why didn't the women back then use this tool?
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

ecofarm said:
Myth. The closest thing to "gynocentric paganism" at the time was whore houses (or hills, as the case was). Women had no power except as whores; paganism, Christianity and Judaism.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. If not as central to whichever format (in the form of ruling goddess) the feminine was revered as consort. The Church's prerogatives were such that it could only prosper by establishing monopoly. Don't mistake practicality as being purely ideological. As often as not, feminine principles weren't so much accorded literal interpretation as ideals anthropomorphised. Once established, the Church had only to consolidate its tyranny via application of the patriarchal tenets upon which it was predicated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom