| History of God |  |  | |
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Mat ® 01/21/2002, 22:58:33 Author Profile Mail author |
I have almost finished reading " A History of God" by Karen Armstrong and was fascinated by her knowledge and insight. Has anyone else read it? What did you think?
Here are some interesting quotes and comments from the book that I thought might be of interest. Tertullian on women: "Do you not know that you are each an Eve? THe sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway; you are the unsealer of that forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law; you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You so carelessly destroyed man, God's image. On account of your desert, even the Son of God had to die." Whoa! A portion from her book with a quote from A.J. Ayer: "Theism is so confused and the sentences in which 'God' appears so incoherent and so incapable of verifiability or falsifiability that to speak of belief or unbelief, faith or unfaith, is logically impossible". Then, her comment: "Atheism is as unintelligible and meaningless as theism. There is nothing in the concept of "God" to deny or be skeptical about."
|
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Re: History of God Re: History of God -- Mat Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
01/22/2002, 00:05:16
Author Profile Mail author
Then, her comment:
"Atheism is as unintelligible and meaningless as theism. There is nothing in the concept of "God" to deny or be skeptical about."I am not impressed. In fact, I listened to an interview with Armstrong on NPR, and was severely unimpressed with her then. She pretty much just regurgitates all of the standard nonsense about gawd, religion and atheism. She has a sort of Deistic outlook, that allows her to keep believing in gawd, but to eschew all of the bad stuff. In short, she chooses what she wants to believe, and calls it "religion."
The quote above is typicall of her aggressively ignorant thinking. If she had actually read anything by any atheists about what they believed, then she would know that the statement is ridiculous. Apparently she has no need to actually examine what atheists think.
Atheism IS intelligible in the same way that non-belief in Santa Claus is intelligible. What is unintelligible about non-belief? It is only unintelligible if one has constructed a belief, and has refused to examine the belief -- as Armstrong has.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: History of God Re: Re: History of God -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: mikwut ®
01/22/2002, 12:13:07
Author Profile Mail author
Her bibliography is replete with sources from "atheistic" writing, as is her always balanced scholarship, she is incidently an former catholic nun and now an avowed atheist. mikwut
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Not true. Re: Re: History of God -- mikwut Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
01/22/2002, 14:45:37
Author Profile Mail author
mikwut said, "Her bibliography is replete with sources from "atheistic" writing, as is her always balanced scholarship, she is incidently an former catholic nun and now an avowed atheist." She is not an avowed atheist. She is a former atheist. It seems that she was a nihilist who lost faith out of despair, rather than reasoning her way out of it. It is not uncommon for these types to regain a belief in god, for they do not rely on reason, but rather on emotion to inform their beliefs. Her case is all too familiar, in that she has found a way to rationalize what she always wanted to believe, that a god exists.
Here is the interview with her:
http://www.theconnection.org/archive/2001/11/1106b.shtmlIt doesn't matter if her bibliography includes atheist writers, because it is clear that she does not understand what atheism means. She is a vapid bimbo who parrots old cliches in modern day garb.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Not true. Re: Not true. -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: mikwut ®
01/22/2002, 15:00:25
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you for that interesting interview, I had read Armstrong seven years ago and admittedly assumed my prior biographical information was still to date, how quickly things change! Could you help inform me of what atheism means because it is seeming to be as mutable as the Mormonism I espouse. mikwut
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Athieism Re: Re: Not true. -- mikwut Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Waspinatrix ®
01/25/2002, 09:43:29
Author Profile Mail author
(Correct me if I'm wrong...) The basic Cosmology:
The basic (current) premise of athiesm is that there is no God, there is no pre-/post-exisitance, and there is no soul (as far as defined by general theism). Everything was created/formed by chaos/chance, and was built on the evolutionary ladder of increasingly complicated lifeforms. Humans are the (current) pinnicle of evolution.The basic moral code:
A more detaled list can be found at: http://bsh.wash.org/principles/summary.htmAthiests, ideally, believe that humans are good by nature. That it is the duty of the self to 'save the self'. There is much emphasis placed on rationality, intelligent reasoning, and emotional maturity, and self-reliance.
Kindness, charity, respect, honesty. These tenents are followed because there is a wisdom in it (it both protects your back by making allies, it also serves the higher perpose of being a contributing member of society at large). Even with the removal of 'God' there is still a sense of sptirtually as found in nature, and one's meaningful relationships with others.
Many athiests' moral code is based on two concepts: 1) 'I am a cell in the organism of humanity.' and 2) 'How would I want to be treated?'
Contributers to this belief system:
Scientists, paticularly Charlie Darwin and Carl Sagen. And any scientific theory/research that helps the athiest understand the world around him/her. Neo-Tech is also a good read, though hard as heck to find.This is my understanding of athiesm, as an ideal. Of course, just like any system of 'reality filters' you'll get all kinds of people. It's a confusing jumble of adherants, and hypocrites, and others who put there own spin on it. The important thing is that they find something that puts things in perspective for them.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Karen Armstrong is a" vapid bimbo?" Re: Not true. -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/22/2002, 22:07:44
Author Profile Mail author
Those of you who doubt or discount the occurrence of sexism on this forum, please take note of this comment. I was under the impression from reading many of Tyler's threads that he was at least as liberal as the most liberal of us here. Could it be that the so-called rational atheists and agnostics here are every bit as capable of hypocrisy as the they are so fond of explaining us that theists are? I haven't read "The History of God," but I did read "The Battle For God," a while back, when it first came out in hard cover. I too found it to be a bit dry, although I wouldn't go so far as to say "vapid," so I can almost understand that remark, but "bimbo?" Where is that comming from Tyler? What exactly do you find bimbositic about this book? Is it possible that you have let not only your irrelevant feelings about Armstrongs equally irrelevant personal beliefs, but some deeper bias, distort your judgment here?
Let me just leave you with a thought: perhaps Tyler, if you could only get in touch with your own "vapid bimbo" side, really own it, you know, you too could earn a degree from Oxford University and write a best-selling non-fiction work.
Zoe
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Karen Armstrong is a" vapid bimbo?" Re: Karen Armstrong is a" vapid bimbo?" -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ollie ®
01/22/2002, 22:58:24
Author Profile Mail author
I agree, Zoe. I haven't read Armstrong, but I've never heard her derrided the way Tyler has here. There are plenty of ways to critique without appealing to cheap, sexist comments. Very uncool. Ollie
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Now that's what you call an ad hominem attack! Re: Karen Armstrong is a" vapid bimbo?" -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
01/23/2002, 01:35:50
Author Profile Mail author
Zoe, You are really getting desparate to vilify me if you have to resort to charging me with mysogyny. The charge is, of course, utterly absurd.
It is my opinion that Armstrong has never had any original ideas, and has merely parrotted comfortable ideas about religion and god in her books. This she does for a nice profit, while at the same time using her celebrity as a woman writer on religion to secure tenure.
As a writer she is utterly worthless, and will be forgotten in 20 years, along with the vast majority of hacks out there who pretend to some literary ability.
love,
Tyler
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
By the way... Re: Now that's what you call an ad hominem attack! -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
01/23/2002, 01:50:16
Author Profile Mail author
"Bimbo" is not a term that I apply exclusively to women. I have often referred to W as a bimbo, for example.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
But what do you mean by it? Re: By the way... -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/23/2002, 10:46:26
Author Profile Mail author
It matters less whom it's applied to. Who is W by the way? Zoe
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Example: Re: But what do you mean by it? -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/23/2002, 11:20:39
Author Profile Mail author
When I was in college, one of my female friends referred to another of my female friend's boy friend as "an air-head in pants." Sexist Tyler? I think, for your penance, you should write us an essay, explaining why you think this remark is, or is not sexist (meanwhile, I will be typing "I will use spell check every time" repeatedly). Love,
Zoe
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: But what do you mean by it? Re: But what do you mean by it? -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Waspinatrix ®
01/25/2002, 09:49:01
Author Profile Mail author
It matters less whom it's applied to. Who is W by the way? George W Bush
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Yeah; thanks; I did figure that out. Re: Re: But what do you mean by it? -- Waspinatrix Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/27/2002, 16:08:18
Author Profile Mail author
Apparently I had succeeded in repressing the subject for the moment. Zoe
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You mean your "vapid bimbo" remark, and Re: Now that's what you call an ad hominem attack! -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/23/2002, 10:42:59
Author Profile Mail author
argument from Ms. Armstrong's personal beliefs? Yes, it was an as hominem attack. I didn't use the word "mysoginist" here, and I have no "need to villify" you Tyler. You're on a roll. Zoe
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Oops! Should read "ad" in place of "as." n/t Re: You mean your "vapid bimbo" remark, and -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/23/2002, 11:11:01
Author Profile Mail author
.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You can edit (or delete) your own messages Re: Oops! Should read "ad" in place of "as." n/t -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rpcman ®
01/23/2002, 12:33:05
Author Profile Mail author
Just click on your message and then the "edit" link.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Having comprehension problems? Re: You mean your "vapid bimbo" remark, and -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Tyler ®
01/23/2002, 16:08:23
Author Profile Mail author
The ad hominem attack I was talking about was your labelling my criticism of Armstrong as "sexist."
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
No, but you are. Re: Having comprehension problems? -- Tyler Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/23/2002, 18:42:01
Author Profile Mail author
Tyler: "The ad hominem attack I was talking about was your labelling my criticism of Armstrong as 'sexist.'"
Response:
Not to worry though; I don't mind clarifying for you. Actually Tyler, my "labelling" of your "criticism" of Armstrong is not technically an ad hominem attack, since it was of your comment, which was in fact, sexist, and not of you. Sorry I didn't bother to point this out in my first post today, but I thought it was too obvious to need mentioning.
Your "criticism" (if that's an accurate description, and I don't think it is, but I won't bother to get into that issue here either) of Armstrong herself, rather than her book, is a classic ad hominem attack. That's why your complaint is so amusing.
If you want us to believe your remark wasn't, in fact, sexist, please explain why you called Armstrong a bimbo, and what, exactly, you meant by it. Otherwise, kindly pick a term with no gender specific connotation, that's accurate, or better yet, stick to the subject, the book in this case, and leave the author and her beliefs out of it.
Zoe
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: No, but you are. Re: No, but you are. -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: grendel ®
01/24/2002, 03:28:38
Author Profile Mail author
the word 'bimbo' is typically reserved for women, and generally questions the intelligence of that individual woman. just as the word 'bitch' is typically reserved for women, and generally questions the kindness or congeniality of that individual woman. is 'bitch' a sexist remark? does the word 'bitch' question the kindness of all women? likewise, does the word 'bimbo' question the intelligence of all women? does the word 'bimbo' have some inherent quality that implies men have superior intellectual abilities than women? are there not derogatory words that are generally reserved for men? words such as jerk, asshole, motherf***er, etc. how many of these words do you commonly associate with women? these are historically gender-specific insults, yet noone considers these to be sexist comments. here lies the difference between us(as inferred by your previous posts): if you call me an asshole, i assume you are making a statement about me. however, if i call you a bimbo, you assume i am making a statement about the entirety of womanhood.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
I suggest that you think again, because... Re: Re: No, but you are. -- grendel Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/24/2002, 16:50:54
Author Profile Mail author
because you're wrong. Not only is this term used to describe women as being stupid, but also as being sexual loose; it objectifies them. I know many who consider the use of the term "bimbo," to be sexist, no matter whom it is being used to describe. If this is not the case for you, or if "no one" you know considers the use of this term sexist, maybe you need to broaden your horizons. Under your reasoning, the use of the term "ni****" to describe an African American, would not be racist: how is any individual African American at whom it's been directed to know that all African Americans, and not just him- or herself is being derided, after all? But in fact the use of that term IS ALWAYS racist, no matter whom it is applied to, or by whom it is being applied. If this were not the case, the alleged use of the term would not have used up days of national television coverage in the murder trial of a major sports celebrity during the last decade.
The reason this term is always racist, as the term Bimbo is always sexist, has to do with history. Within recent recorded history (and relatively speaking, within the last two hundred years in, conservatively, three thousand of written history is VERY recent) the group of human beings with which it has been associated have not been regarded as fully human individuals, but as property, objects, the primary function of which was to serve the needs of others regarded as fully human. Likewise, within recent history, women have not been regarded as fully human individuals, but property, and objects, the primary function of which is to serve the needs of others regarded as fully human.
The history of discrimination, not present discrimination (although, of course there continues to be some), is the reason the use of these terms are ALWAYS biggoted, and the reason that their use is frowned upon, censured, and sometimes severely sanctioned in our present society. History is the reason for according certain groups of people extra sensitivity by refraining from the use of language which is particularly hurtful to these groups, and avoiding it at all costs and under all circumstances. Not only are these terms particularly hurtful to the groups to which they have been historically applied, but their use tends to perpetuate the harmful stereotypes that have served as an excuse for the historical discrimination. By contrast, the uses of the terms "a******", and motherf*****" are not sexist terms, because they have no such historical baggage, and have generally always been applied on an individual basis.The differences between you and I are many. Most relevant among them both a knowledge of and appreciation for history and a sensitivity toward discrimination, none of which, you have demonstrated the most basic familiarity with.
Zoe
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
'New Speak' or PC English Dictionary Re: I suggest that you think again, because... -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Waspinatrix ®
01/25/2002, 10:39:31
Author Profile Mail author
Hey Zoe (and others)
I understand that you truly do want the betterment of the human race, Zoe. And it just rubs you the wrong way when someone something (a word, a sentince) that can potentially hurt someones feelings, or make them feel typecast (thus less than human).
But doesn't it get hard to constantly being on 'Crusade mode'? It's like you go out of your way to find a cause to fight for. Not that it helps to have disgruntled, 'unfeeling' men getting on your case like a pack of ravonous dogs.
And the words you knitpick about... Yes, they can be construde as sexist, or racist... But consider, for a moment, the beauty of the first amendment. We all have an uninaliable right to make a jackass of ourselves, don't we?
And there are some subcultures in the US that have actually turned negative conotation into a positive expresion as part of way to identify themselves. (Example: Nigger is used by some black people to refer to their 'brothers'. This same hip-hop sub-culture has turned the words Phat, stupid, and wack into cultural expressions, most of a good/possitive meaning. And the homosexual populous has used the word 'bitch' for quite a while.) Would you really obliterate 'negative words', even if it meant stripping a sub-culture of it's identity? Part of having, and maintaining diversity is putting up with jackasses.
I'm not saying that you should quit being a defender of humanity, as you see fit. All I ask is that you think about what I said.
I don't like being called sexist remarks. But even more so, I don't like having my language destroyed to 'protect me from feeling hurt'. PC is Poison Communities - IMNSHO
I wish I were a Transformer,
Waspi~
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Can't agree. Re: 'New Speak' or PC English Dictionary -- Waspinatrix Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/25/2002, 18:56:30
Author Profile Mail author
"But doesn't it get hard to constantly being on 'Crusade mode'? It's like you go out of your way to find a cause to fight for. Not that it helps to have disgruntled, 'unfeeling' men getting on your case like a pack of ravonous dogs." I don't think I'm on a constant crusade, and as for nit-picking, this is only the third time in almost 8 months I've ever commented on any term or remark I've read here as being sexist. I don't want to hear these words here. I certainly don't want to hear them from someone who posts pretending to be a liberal. I live in a fairly conservative state, in a fairly conservative city (Dallas), and I'm not accustomed to hearing this particular word used in civil conversation, even from conservatives. It just ain't done. So, when I see it here, I'm damn sure gonna comment on it.
Unfortunately, and for whatever reason, we seem to have had a rash of people here the last few months who are either not very well-educated, or not, for whatever reason, actually very socially aware, despite pretense to the contrary. Why should I sit by in the face of this ignorance and say nothing?
I gave a long list of reasons, present and past, why it is an incredibly big mistake for us, as women, to take our rights for granted,in my post in response to grendel below, so I won't repeat them, but I think it's completely stomach-turning, that some on this board tolerate, and/or, in some unfortunate cases, encourage, this stuff.
Zoe
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Diversity is the spice of Life... Re: Can't agree. -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Waspinatrix ®
01/25/2002, 22:12:10
Author Profile Mail author
Zoe: don't think I'm on a constant crusade, and as for nit-picking, this is only the third time in almost 8 months I've ever commented on any term or remark I've read here as being sexist. Me:
Forgive me, please. I stated an absolutism, based upon limited exposure. I've been here less than a month. I only commented because a lot of the threads that I've observed you on, that go four and more deep, especially with particular males have a tendancy of going off-topic and onto sexism, or just basic personal squables over the 'character' of X person.
Zoe: I don't want to hear these words here. I certainly don't want to hear them from someone who posts pretending to be a liberal. I live in a fairly conservative state, in a fairly conservative city (Dallas), and I'm not accustomed to hearing this particular word used in civil conversation, even from conservatives. It just ain't done. So, when I see it here, I'm damn sure gonna comment on it.Me:
I respect you Zoe. You are very articulate. And opinionated. You're willing to go balls-to-the-wall and give as good as it gets. It isn't so unusual, when I think about it, you being a libreal conservative. You have a sense of protocule. In a lot of ways I could be considered a liberal conservative too.Zoe:
we seem to have had people here the last few months who are either not very well-educated, or not, actually very socially aware. Why should I sit by in the face of this ignorance and say nothing? Me:
Like I said... You are a crusader (used in the sense of fighting for a cause you believe in). You know were you stand. And you sure don't mince words. I'm not saying that you should say nothing. Definitely, follow your heart. I've locked horns with a few people myself here. The only thing I'm asking of you personally is that you think about what I've said. That doesn't mean that I want you to change. After all, I liked your posts since the beginingZoe:
it is an incredibly big mistake for us, as women, to take our rights for granted, [and] I think it's completely stomach-turning, that some on this board tolerate, and/or. Me: As far as I know, women as a group do neglect the fact that we have some hard-earned rights and responsibilities. How many women before me suffered so I had the right to vote (which I'm too lazy to excersize)? Certainly we have a right to the vote. To equal pay. To a safe, non-hostile work place... All of us do... We have a right to be respected as individuals, not typecaste based on being women, men, theists, atheists, a lighter or darker hue of brown, etc... We also have a right to say what we say. Like I said, we have a right to make ourselves into verbal jackasses. With just as much right as you have to confront what has offended you.
Just me,
Waspi~
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Yeah, I do have a lot of opinions, don't I?. Re: Diversity is the spice of Life... -- Waspinatrix Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/25/2002, 22:24:30
Author Profile Mail author
(Something, my baby brother - considerably younger than I am- once said about me with that wide-eyed, void of malice, honesty that only children can muster convincingly.) I do appreciate your remarks, and I will try to give it some thought.
Zoe
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: I suggest that you think again, because... Re: I suggest that you think again, because... -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: grendel ®
01/25/2002, 13:33:34
Author Profile Mail author
note-i tried posting a reply recently, but my computer crashed as i submitted...so, here's my response again. just to avoid confusion if it pops up at some point. anyways, on with the response... "Under your reasoning, the use of the term "ni****" to describe an African American, would not be racist: how is any individual African American at whom it's been directed to know that all African Americans, and not just him- or herself is being derided, after all?"
of course the term ni**** is racist. the word refers to the person's skin color, and not any defining characteristics or qualities of a person(whether or not those perceived qualities are accurate). as i stated before, the term bimbo alludes to a specific woman's lack of intelligence and yes, sometimes her sexual impropriety as well, whether or not those perceived qualities are accurate. in order to be a sexist term, the term must, by definition, show discrimination against women--not a single woman, but women in general.
"The reason this term is always racist, as the term Bimbo is always sexist, has to do with history."
for someone who espouses their knowledge of history, this argument is quite nugatory. equating the historical plight of african-americans in the US with the historical plight of women in the US is a stretch at best.
"Within recent recorded history (and relatively speaking, within the last two hundred years in, conservatively, three thousand of written history is VERY recent) the group of human beings with which it has been associated have not been regarded as fully human individuals, but as property, objects, the primary function of which was to serve the needs of others regarded as fully human. Likewise, within recent history, women have not been regarded as fully human individuals, but property, and objects, the primary function of which is to serve the needs of others regarded as fully human."
this a poor and insensitive likeness. being lynched, being sold at auction, being forced into torturous slavery...the objectification of african-americans was brutally literal. the objectification of women in the US, simply by comparison, seems metaphorical. i don't discount the history of discrimination against women. i don't discount current discrimination against women. i neither condone it nor deny it. however, to compare these two situations is quite inaccurate and shows poor scholarship.
"The history of discrimination, not present discrimination (although, of course there continues to be some), is the reason the use of these terms are ALWAYS biggoted, and the reason that their use is frowned upon, censured, and sometimes severely sanctioned in our present society."
the implication that the word ni**** and the word bimbo carry the same literal or historical connotation or hateful sentiment is preposterous. what historical images do you envision when you hear the word ni****? national guardsmen leading children to school in arkansas? the kkk? slavery? what historical images do you envision when you hear the word bimbo? a tasteless joke at an office party? a crude remark at a construction site as a women passes by? the word ni**** often expresses sentiments of hate. the word bimbo is often a misguided attempt at humor. i admit that historically, the use of the word bimbo has been demeaning and hurtful. i guess that's what an insult is meant to be. also...i couldn't help but notice the grief you gave someone on this thread regarding spelling miscues. perhaps you should double-check the next time you use the word "bigoted".
society's aims in creating a respectful atmosphere are sincere, but sometimes misguided. i recall an instance three years ago in which a man was fired for using the word "niggardly" in an office memo(unfortunately, i cannot recall the name of the company...perhaps someone on this board does. it made national news).
"By contrast, the uses of the terms "a******", and motherf*****" are not sexist terms, because they have no such historical baggage, and have generally always been applied on an individual basis."
they are still gender-specific terms--just like bimbo, bitch, etc. the terms asshole and motherf***** have much worse literal meanings than their feminine counterparts. who wants to have sexual intercourse with their mother? you fail to recognize that these terms are used in similar situations with similar presiding sentiments. the man that calls a woman a bimbo or bitch is no more disrespectful or discriminatory than the woman that calls a man an asshole or motherf*****. these terms express the same emotions.
whether you recognize it or not, the term bimbo is not seen as a hateful or discriminatory term by the majority of society. the fact that it might have been at point is largely irrelevant. terms such as negro, colored, and afro-american used to be the politically correct equivalent of african-american. using these terms now would raise more than a few eyebrows. what's important is not the term itself--what's important is the meaning behind it....a concept you seem to completely ignore.
"The differences between you and I are many. Most relevant among them both a knowledge of and appreciation for history and a sensitivity toward discrimination, none of which, you have demonstrated the most basic familiarity with."this claim is absurd. your cognizance of history and societal evolution is patchy at best. rather, i find your inability to infer meaning from language, and your nescience of the contemporary lexicon to be a more glaring difference between us. it is one thing to be a student of the past(which i consider myself). it is quite another thing to live in it.
grendel
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Women are still institutionally enslaved in many Re: Re: I suggest that you think again, because... -- grendel Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/25/2002, 18:35:44
Author Profile Mail author
countries across the globe, right now, with the tacit approval of the "free world." Until the recent terrorist attack on this country, no one except Mavis Leno, and a few PC feminists like me, gave a damn that women in Afghanistan were under de facto house arrest, throughout the country, and subject to being beaten summarily by men and even by male children if their behavior was disapproved of in the least. In Saudi Arabia (one of our allies) they are not even allowed to drive, and may be murdered by their father or brothers on the mere suspicion of adultery or for wanting to chose their own spouse. In Saudi Arabia and Iran females actually convicted of adultery are executed by stoning. In India they are being burned alive with acid or flame by their husbands who are dissatisfied with their dowries, and hoping for an excuse to obtain a better one, and female babies are being selectively aborted in large numbers. Two thirds of women on this planet live in abject poverty; conservatively, that's two billion, out of three billion women. I'm sorry to hear that you consider that to be "nugatory." Shame on you.
As for history, in this country, there's no stretch about it. Women in this country received the right to vote after African American males, and were referred to within the 19th century as property, restricted in their own right to own property in most states, and valued, at 1/3 for purposes of inheritance from their husbands. Slaves counted as as 2/3 of a human being for purposes of assigning a state its representatives in the house.
I'm also sorry that you consider this to be "a poor and insensitive likeness." Shame on you again.
In fact, it's not. Until very recently, most states had no laws to protect women from rape by their husbands; in addition, birth control in many states, right up through the sixties (1960's)in some, was illegal. Considering the high childbirth mortality rates for women in the 19th century, and the number of children they had no choice but to attempt to bear, many more women died as a result of these laws than did African Americans from lynchings, which, regardless whether they were ever prosecuted, were, at least technically, illegal.
Who are you, pray tell, to judge whether "bimbo," and bit**," have worse connotations that ass****" and "motherf*****?" Where is it written that they don't? Who are you to say what indicates or incites hate? The very fact that men working at a construction site consider it their prerogative to comment on any anonymous woman's perceived sexual availability, is an indication of sheer contempt.
You are simply ignorant regarding this subject, as, unfortunately, are many women who take their present freedoms in this country for granted. Frankly, it's disgusting, as are your comments, regardless whether they stem from ignorance or not. Shame, shame, shame.
Zoe
Modified by Zoe at Fri, Jan 25, 2002, 20:15:48
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: I suggest that you think again, because... Re: Re: I suggest that you think again, because... -- grendel Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Maude ®
01/25/2002, 23:46:39
Author Profile Mail author
society's aims in creating a respectful atmosphere are sincere, but sometimes misguided. i recall an instance three years ago in which a man was fired for using the word "niggardly" in an office memo(unfortunately, i cannot recall the name of the company...perhaps someone on this board does. it made national news).
grendelGrendel, you probably are thinking of David Howard, an aide to the mayor of Washington, D.C. I don't think the professor got quite the media attention. I still can't remember who or where that one took place.
Maude
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Karen Armstrong is a" vapid bimbo?" Re: Karen Armstrong is a" vapid bimbo?" -- Zoe Top of thread Archive
Posted by: grendel ®
01/23/2002, 17:32:19
Author Profile Mail author
"Let me just leave you with a thought: perhaps Tyler, if you could only get in touch with your own "vapid bimbo" side, really own it, you know, you too could earn a degree from Oxford University and write a best-selling non-fiction work."
what do credentials have to do with anything? there are a lot of idiots that have gone to oxford. there are even more idiots that have written best-selling non-fiction works.i have not read the book in question, so i personally cannot comment on her at this time. however, where a person has gone to school is quite immaterial when it comes to discussing a book's merits.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
"What do credentials have to do.... Re: Re: Karen Armstrong is a" vapid bimbo?" -- grendel Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Zoe ®
01/23/2002, 19:59:12
Author Profile Mail author
with anything?" In the context of this thread, no more than
personal beliefs or gender.Zoe
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Freud would have fun here... Re: History of God -- Mat Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Waspinatrix ®
01/25/2002, 08:54:13
Author Profile Mail author
I haven't read the book. I can only judge on what you quoted of her. The author sounds like she's guilt ridden, and doesn't quite know how to purge the matter. Is this a study of the bible through the eyes of traditional Chatholosism? Because it sure doesn't sound like any history of God I know, or believe in.
Did she referance anything? Did she attempt to use 'the original languages/texts'? Or is this her interpertaion of the english bible (just about any version) and read through blood-tinted glasses?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Freud would have fun here... Re: Freud would have fun here... -- Waspinatrix Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Mat ®
01/25/2002, 21:17:49
Author Profile Mail author
I haven't read the book. I can only judge on what you quoted of her. The author sounds like she's guilt ridden, and doesn't quite know how to purge the matter.
Is this a study of the bible through the eyes of traditional Chatholosism? Because it sure doesn't sound like any history of God I know, or believe in.
Did she referance anything? Did she attempt to use 'the original languages/texts'? Or is this her interpertaion of the english bible (just about any version) and read through blood-tinted glasses?It is not a biblical study but rather a study of the history of God in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. She provides evidence of how the concept of God has changed throughout the ages from the very beginning of God with the Jews up until the present. She also goes a little further and ponders the future of God.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
