what if God is female?
Jacques Crouvier, brother of Alex
Would you then worship her?
I think I would worship God if she looked and acted like Priss Asagiri.
John
What if? I always thought that if God existed she was female (going
back to Astarte. Priss Asagiri? Nah, Roseann Barr.
John
Prince of Darkness
Metaphyics newsgroups instead of film newsgroups. Could you imagine?
maa...@my-deja.com
> What if? I always thought that if God existed she was female (going
> back to Astarte. Priss Asagiri? Nah, Roseann Barr.
> John
reminds me of a friend of mine...
he thinks god is a woman, and he's a macho...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ed-D
for five days in a row but doesn't die.
In article <xcU95.46704$dF.19...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>,
"Jacques Crouvier, brother of Alex" <jacques...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Suppose God is really a big mean bitch?
>
> Would you then worship her?
>
> I think I would worship God if she looked and acted like Priss
Asagiri.
>
>
--
Deja SUCKS
PonEgirl
>>
>>Would you then worship her?
If God is a woman, she is a twisted one. Our society has always favored men.
Unless, after we die, the tables are turned for eternity. Now, that would be
cool. =)
Julius
of God.
We would be in a Beauty Center, styling our hair, chitchating
about how would the world be if God were a man.
Philosophers: what the hell are we doing in this forum?
=============================================================
Mexico, since July 2th, is now a democratic country.
Fox Kids
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Warpig
Sawfish
>>>Suppose God is really a big mean bitch?
>>>
>>>Would you then worship her?
>If God is a woman, she is a twisted one. Our society has always favored men.
It favors the strong: physically strong, charismatic, forceful
personalities. Strength is an evolutionarily selected trait, it seems. If
more men are favored in this selection, this would mean that more men
(proportioantely) fit these criteria. Often, women select a strong male,
one exhibiting these traits, as a mate, thus aiding the evolutionary
success of this type.
This is something many people don't grasp when offering a critique of male
dominance. They often address the phenoenon as "men discriminate against
<victimDuJour>." What they mean to say is that male culture discrimates.
And it sure does. Against the *weak*.
Believe me. Men don't sit around in conference rooms figuring out ways to
dicriminate against women, for example. They kick each other's asses in
conferences rooms, with the weak losing out. Often, the weak are women,
since female culture often does not cull for forceful, agressive
presntation, style, etc.
But I assure you, whoever is the weakest is kicked right square in the
ass.
>Unless, after we die, the tables are turned for eternity. Now, that would be
>cool. =)
Well, yeah....
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant was awful--but at least the portions
were large!" --Sawfish
Geoff
deposited this nugget in this here newsgroup
What evidence do you have that She isn't?
>>>>>Would you then worship her?
All true men worship women anyway.
>>>If God is a woman, she is a twisted one. Our society has always favored men.
You haven't examined society closely enough yet.
>>It favors the strong: physically strong, charismatic, forceful
>>personalities. Strength is an evolutionarily selected trait, it seems. If
>>more men are favored in this selection, this would mean that more men
>>(proportioantely) fit these criteria. Often, women select a strong male,
>>one exhibiting these traits, as a mate, thus aiding the evolutionary
>>success of this type.
In many respects I agree with you, but have to say that you
underestimate the power of the pussy. Women exert their
influence "behind the scenes." And their particular means
of power is also evolutionarily successful.
>>This is something many people don't grasp when offering a critique of male
>>dominance. They often address the phenoenon as "men discriminate against
>><victimDuJour>." What they mean to say is that male culture discrimates.
>>And it sure does. Against the *weak*.
Not just "male" culture. Read accounts of who did the nasty
stuff when certain Native American tribes captured
prisoners. Women can easily be just as viscious as men.
>>Believe me. Men don't sit around in conference rooms figuring out ways to
>>dicriminate against women, for example. They kick each other's asses in
>>conferences rooms, with the weak losing out. Often, the weak are women,
>>since female culture often does not cull for forceful, agressive
>>presntation, style, etc.
A knife in the back or poison in the drink work just as
well. Women have learned the art of "gentle persuasion"
much to men's regret.
>>But I assure you, whoever is the weakest is kicked right square in the
>>ass.
A better target is in the front. Women know right where it
is.
>>>Unless, after we die, the tables are turned for eternity. Now, that would be
>>>cool. =)
I've always wondered why people accept the concept of
eternal punishment or reward for the little blips of a
lifespan that we "enjoy." How patently absurd.
Regards,
Geoff "Just hangin' around."
"Words, words. They're all we have to go on."
--Guildenstern, in Tom Stoppard's "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead"
Derek Janssen
>
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:46:34 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish)
> deposited this nugget in this here newsgroup
> >>pone...@aol.com (PonEgirl) writes:
Q: Why are we still answering a Gazzie thread two weeks after he slunk
away from the group in shame?
A: Well, *we* aren't, actually...Just the newbies who first join the
group, see dusty old cobweb-covered messages from six weeks ago, and
think, "Wow, a timely discussion! : D "
Keeps them cycling every two months or so.
Derek Janssen (which brings up the possibility it could be deliberate)
dja...@ultranet.com
misterha...@my-deja.com
Dawn Taylor
>This is something many people don't grasp when offering a critique of male
>dominance. They often address the phenoenon as "men discriminate against
><victimDuJour>." What they mean to say is that male culture discrimates.
>And it sure does. Against the *weak*.
Wanna have a spelling contest? I got yer dominance right here.
Dawn
(pfffft)
-----------------
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend
to be." -- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Sawfish
>On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:46:34 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
>>This is something many people don't grasp when offering a critique of male
>>dominance. They often address the phenoenon as "men discriminate against
>><victimDuJour>." What they mean to say is that male culture discrimates.
>>And it sure does. Against the *weak*.
>Wanna have a spelling contest? I got yer dominance right here.
Well, the point was not to impress you with my spelling (nor for me to
constantly correct other posters' errors when I include their posts in my
replies), but to offer you a viewpoint. Perhaps it might have value to you
to have an insight to how men actually relate to each other, then
extrapolate this to how they relate to women. It might help when dealing
with men.
I'll freely admit: I don't really understand how women relate to each other
in the sort of situation I'm sharing with you: the core values of the
masculine component of western industrial culture. I'd be interested in
hearing about the core values of female western industrial culture. I would
understand it better.
Fer example: in a group of men, it is most desirable to have the
unquestioned top slot. However, this slot is the focus of heavy and
unrelenting competition. As a consequence many (most?) men will settle for
anything other than the bottom (or bottom 25%?) of the grouping, since it is
both obtainable and fairly easy to maintain. On no account will you want to
occupy the bottom position since it will not only give you little in the
way of material comfort and security, but will expose you to ridicule and
disrespect, as well.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me
as a member." --G. Marx
Dawn Taylor
>dawn...@pacifier.com (Dawn Taylor) writes:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:46:34 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
>
>>>This is something many people don't grasp when offering a critique of male
>>>dominance. They often address the phenoenon as "men discriminate against
>>><victimDuJour>." What they mean to say is that male culture discrimates.
>>>And it sure does. Against the *weak*.
>
>>Wanna have a spelling contest? I got yer dominance right here.
>
>Well, the point was not to impress you with my spelling
Obviously.
>nor for me to
>constantly correct other posters' errors when I include their posts in my
>replies), but to offer you a viewpoint. Perhaps it might have value to you
>to have an insight to how men actually relate to each other, then
>extrapolate this to how they relate to women. It might help when dealing
>with men.
Gad, but I love being condescended to. Almost as much as being told
that my position on the food chain is one of inherent weakness, being
as I'm jest a gal an' all.
>I'll freely admit: I don't really understand how women relate to each other
>in the sort of situation I'm sharing with you: the core values of the
>masculine component of western industrial culture. I'd be interested in
>hearing about the core values of female western industrial culture. I would
>understand it better.
The key to understanding human behavior is to start by viewing people
as individuals with an almost limitless range of characteristics and
motivations, influenced but not dictated by societal mores.If you
honestly believe that all people can be quantified by separating them
into just the subsets "male" and "female", there's gonna be a LOT you
don't understand.
>Fer example: in a group of men, it is most desirable to have the
>unquestioned top slot.
This is far too general a statement to be accurate. What men? How old?
What ethnicity? How do they know each other, why are they in this
"group"?
Any time you make a blanket statement that "men ________" or "women
_______" without any further clarification, you've immediately set
yourself up for error. Because there is no characteristic or behavior
that you can attribute to all of either gender.
>However, this slot is the focus of heavy and
>unrelenting competition. As a consequence many (most?) men will settle for
>anything other than the bottom (or bottom 25%?) of the grouping, since it is
>both obtainable and fairly easy to maintain. On no account will you want to
>occupy the bottom position since it will not only give you little in the
>way of material comfort and security, but will expose you to ridicule and
>disrespect, as well.
Funny. I've been intimately involved with groups of men my entire life
- still am, in fact - and I don't see this dynamic in action at all. I
hear people make the claim, but I never, ever see it in action any
where but in specific, obviously competitive atmospheres.
Frankly, most of the men I've known have a great many things that take
prioroty over comparing their position on the dominance ladder with
other men. I would imagine that men who spend a great deal of time
focused on such a thing would either be extremely insecure or have far
too much time on their hands.
Dawn
dart...@my-deja.com
worship her.
In article <xcU95.46704$dF.19...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>,
"Jacques Crouvier, brother of Alex" <jacques...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Suppose God is really a big mean bitch?
>
> Would you then worship her?
>
> I think I would worship God if she looked and acted like Priss
Asagiri.
>
>
Sawfish
<SNIP>
>>
>>Well, the point was not to impress you with my spelling
>Obviously.
Well, I'll try harder, but I seem to suffer form some form of digital
dyslexia.
I've tried self-medication, but nothing seems to work...
>>nor for me to
>>constantly correct other posters' errors when I include their posts in my
>>replies), but to offer you a viewpoint. Perhaps it might have value to you
>>to have an insight to how men actually relate to each other, then
>>extrapolate this to how they relate to women. It might help when dealing
>>with men.
>Gad, but I love being condescended to. Almost as much as being told
>that my position on the food chain is one of inherent weakness, being
>as I'm jest a gal an' all.
If you'll read just a teensy bit further, you'll see that I freely place
myself in the same position in which you're complaining that I've placed
you--condescendingly, according to you.
Rhetorically, I'm treating you no worse than I treat myself.
>>I'll freely admit: I don't really understand how women relate to each other
>>in the sort of situation I'm sharing with you: the core values of the
>>masculine component of western industrial culture. I'd be interested in
>>hearing about the core values of female western industrial culture. I would
>>understand it better.
>The key to understanding human behavior is to start by viewing people
>as individuals with an almost limitless range of characteristics and
>motivations, influenced but not dictated by societal mores.If you
>honestly believe that all people can be quantified by separating them
>into just the subsets "male" and "female", there's gonna be a LOT you
>don't understand.
I disagree. This sounds like the content of the GE Psych classes I took,
back in the '60s. These explanations were tremedously confusing, because
in applying them to interactions I observed, they explained nothing. It
was only after I'd trusted my own observation, and reverse engineered the
situations to see what was happening, that I came to realize that there
are, in fact, culturally dictated repsonses, and that many of them are
role-based.
In my experience, there is a profound difference in values between what
can be generally described as "male" vs "female" culture. A good example
of this is the "bump in the night" scenario.
It's 3AM. You and your partner are awakened by an alarming and suspicious
noise. It persists. There's no phone in the room. Who goes down to check
it out?
This role generally falls to the male, or, if a homosexual relationship,
the person going down is assuming (for the moment, at least) the role
dictated by male aculturation; the person remaining assuming the
culturally assigned female role.
Now, it turns out that the cat got into the cupboard, again, and
everything is OK. You and your partner each go to your respective jobs. At
work, you each discuss the incident with co-workers. In mainstream western
culture, a male will not be able to say that his wife went down to secure
the house while he stayed upstairs. This is almost fatally demeaning, and
I guarantee you, you will lose respect and creditibility from almost all
of your male co-workers, and likely the majority of your female
co-workers, as well.
Flip it. The female goes to work says that she stays upstairs while her
mate quakingly went downstairs. Among the mainstream co-workers, will she
lose any respect or credibility, do you suppose? In my experience, not
much, since the cultural template does not require her to be the first
down the stairs.
And this scenario has NOTHING to do with the relative courage of the
couple! I've done this twice. On each occasion, I had to send my wife back
upstairs. (The other four times I insisted that she tuck me in before she
went down... :) ) I was scared witless, but something in me, as groggy and
disoriented as I was, would not countenance her being involved in this
aspect of guarding the house. In retrospect, it was a strong cultural
motivation.
I'll also add that as far as courage, my wife's got it all over me. Raw
courage is asexual and acultural. Posturing and demonstration (such as I
resorted to) are not; they're culturally indicated to a large degree. So
what passed for "courage" when I went down to check the noise out was
merely cultural pressure, and this sort of "courage" would break much
more readily than my wife's.
>>Fer example: in a group of men, it is most desirable to have the
>>unquestioned top slot.
>This is far too general a statement to be accurate. What men? How old?
>What ethnicity? How do they know each other, why are they in this
>"group"?
>Any time you make a blanket statement that "men ________" or "women
>_______" without any further clarification, you've immediately set
>yourself up for error. Because there is no characteristic or behavior
>that you can attribute to all of either gender.
I'll concede that I assumed that we were discussing the majority of
mainstream American heterosexual culture. I should have been more precise.
I was describing, in my experience, the male component of this culture, as
I've observed it from the inside for the last 40 years.
>>However, this slot is the focus of heavy and
>>unrelenting competition. As a consequence many (most?) men will settle for
>>anything other than the bottom (or bottom 25%?) of the grouping, since it is
>>both obtainable and fairly easy to maintain. On no account will you want to
>>occupy the bottom position since it will not only give you little in the
>>way of material comfort and security, but will expose you to ridicule and
>>disrespect, as well.
>Funny. I've been intimately involved with groups of men my entire life
>- still am, in fact - and I don't see this dynamic in action at all. I
>hear people make the claim, but I never, ever see it in action any
>where but in specific, obviously competitive atmospheres.
The fact that you've never noticed it is why we're having this discussion.
>Frankly, most of the men I've known have a great many things that take
>prioroty over comparing their position on the dominance ladder with
>other men. I would imagine that men who spend a great deal of time
>focused on such a thing would either be extremely insecure or have far
>too much time on their hands.
I'm sharing with you the honest-to-god reality of what it has taken to
attain a measure of independence and some degree of financial security in
the admittedly male-dominated period of the '60s thru the present. If
these frank observations of mine are too strong or too ugly for you,
perhaps film reality is, indeed, a better fit for your sensibilities.
I guess this r.a.m.c, anyway.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish: A totally unreconstructed elasmobranch.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ELurio
It's based on the fallicy that spelling is the sole basis of truth.
eric l.
Derek Janssen
>
> The rule is: When you're argument stinks, attack your opponent's spelling.
>
> It's based on the fallicy that spelling is the sole basis of truth.
That's "fallacy". ; )
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
Geoff
deposited this nugget in this here newsgroup
>>
>>It's based on the fallicy that spelling is the sole basis of truth.
You did that on purpose, didn't you?
Regards,
Geoff "I can tell."
Michael Whittier
(Dawn Taylor) wrote:
<big ass snip of Dawn compacting some trash, and carting it out to the
curb without looking back, which she do so well>
> Your observations are neither too strong nor too ugly. They are,
> however, limiting and incorrect.
>
> Dawn
Damn. I _lerv_ Dawn.
Dawn Taylor
<major snip of Sawfish saying that even though he's a bigger chicken
that his wife, he's the one to go downstairs when they hear a noise
late at night, so this proves that there are solid male/female
cultural differences, all of which is supposed to have something to do
with his assertions that men are all obsessed with pecking order and
who's the Alpha>
>>Funny. I've been intimately involved with groups of men my entire life
>>- still am, in fact - and I don't see this dynamic in action at all. I
>>hear people make the claim, but I never, ever see it in action any
>>where but in specific, obviously competitive atmospheres.
>
>The fact that you've never noticed it is why we're having this discussion.
No, the reason we're having this discussion is that you said some very
silly things and I foolishly engaged you further. I won't make that
mistake again after this response.
>>Frankly, most of the men I've known have a great many things that take
>>prioroty over comparing their position on the dominance ladder with
>>other men. I would imagine that men who spend a great deal of time
>>focused on such a thing would either be extremely insecure or have far
>>too much time on their hands.
>
>I'm sharing with you the honest-to-god reality of what it has taken to
>attain a measure of independence and some degree of financial security in
>the admittedly male-dominated period of the '60s thru the present.
No.
You are sharing YOUR reality, which - like a great many misguided men
on Usenet - you feel must therefore be THE reality that is true for
all men. And you are desperately casting about for confirmation that
Everyone Is Just Like You, so that you can feel a) normal and b) like
you now have everything figured out.
It's not that easy. There isn't a big book of "How People Are" that
categorizes human behavior into nice, neat easily understood
packages.There are tendencies ... and there are influences that make
some behaviors common and even "normal". But they are far from
absolute, because people are complicated. You're just going to have to
live with the fact that you can't understand or predict *all* of any
group of people based on your subjective evidence - or by shackling
them with perceived gender differences.
>If
>these frank observations of mine are too strong or too ugly for you,
>perhaps film reality is, indeed, a better fit for your sensibilities.
Your observations are neither too strong nor too ugly. They are,
however, limiting and incorrect.
Dawn
Sawfish
>On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:10:32 GMT, m...@q7.com (Sawfish) wrote:
><major snip of Sawfish saying that even though he's a bigger chicken
>that his wife, he's the one to go downstairs when they hear a noise
>late at night, so this proves that there are solid male/female
>cultural differences, all of which is supposed to have something to do
>with his assertions that men are all obsessed with pecking order and
>who's the Alpha>
I guess you don't see the connection, huh?
>>>Funny. I've been intimately involved with groups of men my entire life
>>>- still am, in fact - and I don't see this dynamic in action at all. I
>>>hear people make the claim, but I never, ever see it in action any
>>>where but in specific, obviously competitive atmospheres.
>>
>>The fact that you've never noticed it is why we're having this discussion.
>No, the reason we're having this discussion is that you said some very
>silly things and I foolishly engaged you further. I won't make that
>mistake again after this response.
Ahhh. It's as I had feared: you are denying that there are gender-specific
roles that are culturally enhanced while at the same time preparing to
engage in a stereotypically female behavior, contrary to your own point
that there are no such differences, or that they are unnoticeable.
You are preparing to pettishly walk away from a discussion because it
threatens you. You are afraid that your cherished worldview will be put
under too much logical pressure to survive, and so you'll just hide for a
while.
Men don't usually get away with this.
>>>Frankly, most of the men I've known have a great many things that take
>>>prioroty over comparing their position on the dominance ladder with
>>>other men. I would imagine that men who spend a great deal of time
>>>focused on such a thing would either be extremely insecure or have far
>>>too much time on their hands.
>>
>>I'm sharing with you the honest-to-god reality of what it has taken to
>>attain a measure of independence and some degree of financial security in
>>the admittedly male-dominated period of the '60s thru the present.
>No.
>You are sharing YOUR reality, which - like a great many misguided men
>on Usenet - you feel must therefore be THE reality that is true for
>all men. And you are desperately casting about for confirmation that
>Everyone Is Just Like You, so that you can feel a) normal and b) like
>you now have everything figured out.
a)I am, and b) I don't have everything figured out. I never will, but
that's OK, because no one else ever will, either.
Apparently, I've figured out a bit more than you have, however. I don't
consider it a major accomplishment, though.
>It's not that easy. There isn't a big book of "How People Are" that
>categorizes human behavior into nice, neat easily understood
>packages.There are tendencies ... and there are influences that make
>some behaviors common and even "normal". But they are far from
>absolute, because people are complicated. You're just going to have to
>live with the fact that you can't understand or predict *all* of any
>group of people based on your subjective evidence - or by shackling
>them with perceived gender differences.
Absolutely. But if I engaged a person in discourse, then ran sulking from
it when the issues raised were a) emotionally threatening, and b) not
easily dismissed (except by childish fiat), I'd never be a part of a
male-dominated decision making group again, and I'd get cut out of the
goodies. I'd be considered too weak-willed to be counted on.
>>If
>>these frank observations of mine are too strong or too ugly for you,
>>perhaps film reality is, indeed, a better fit for your sensibilities.
>Your observations are neither too strong nor too ugly. They are,
>however, limiting and incorrect.
Nevertheless, I'll stick with them, thank you.
Sawfish
>In article <3984e47e....@news.pacifier.com>, dawn...@pacifier.com
>(Dawn Taylor) wrote:
><big ass snip of Dawn compacting some trash, and carting it out to the
>curb without looking back, which she do so well>
...better watch it, or she'll crticize your spelling...
OOOOOOOOOHHHH!
>> Your observations are neither too strong nor too ugly. They are,
>> however, limiting and incorrect.
>>
>> Dawn
>Damn. I _lerv_ Dawn.
I guess you were threatened, too? If not, talk about the issues, don't
ignore them with an immature flip of the wrist. That's a dead give away.
Dawn Taylor
Whittier) wrote:
>In article <3984e47e....@news.pacifier.com>, dawn...@pacifier.com
>(Dawn Taylor) wrote:
>
><big ass snip of Dawn compacting some trash, and carting it out to the
>curb without looking back, which she do so well>
Garsh!
>> Your observations are neither too strong nor too ugly. They are,
>> however, limiting and incorrect.
>>
>> Dawn
>
>
>Damn. I _lerv_ Dawn.
<smooooch!>
Ahhhh. Some days, it's all worthwhile.