Religion and Your Body.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

Aside from hereditary diseases, the only ways I can think of that paternity matters are either emotional (and therefore personal) or cultural (and therefore artificial).

and evolutionary too

Yeah, that too. But I was thinking in terms of society. And when society consciously dictates genetics, you get eugenics.

On topic, though, religion has done an awful job of selecting for docility in women.

Sorry, couldn't help it.

I wholeheartedly agree society has no reason to care about paternity, but there are strong evolutionary reasons (not to mention compelling reasons of personal finance) for the individual to not want to get tricked into raising somebody else's kid. Especially in a society that's generally monogamous; in a society of promiscuity you wind up raising someone else's kid and someone else winds up raising your kid and it all approximately balances out in the end, but in a generally monogamous society you just get screwed over.

[Dubya]

You're preaching to the choir on the personal finance issue.

But.

Ive known more than one person who by one mechanism or another, wound up raising someone else's kid.

None of them cared any less for these kids than their own.

I put it to you that the monkey urge to favor ones own blood can be overcome, and that the social mechanisms that we built to deal with these matters are just plain retarded. Shall we have adultetesses wearing big red As? Bastards wearing Bs? Cuckolds wearing Cs?

The average project or trailer park would look like alphabet soup.

Whew, got a little carried away. Sorry. [/rant]

Still my opinion that in a proper society, all of this would be MYOB territory.

[Demolition Squid]

At the same time, it's a bit disingenuous to dismiss the historical role that religion - at least, notably, the religions that come from savannah agriculturists - plays in reducing women to chattel for the purpose of controlling paternity.

If we were talking about history, that'd be relevant.

But we're not. This article was written about the modern experience of religion (really, the modern experience of abrahamic religions, although that isn't made explicit in the article).

My point was that by singling out the misogynistic elements in the modern experience of religion you're actively missing the point - organized religion is about providing moral rules for everyone, man or woman, and that seems like the problematic element of it in the modern day - particularly around sexual behaviour. That's the challenge which organized religions need to confront if they aren't going to be rejected by an increasingly diverse and tolerant population.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

At the same time, it's a bit disingenuous to dismiss the historical role that religion - at least, notably, the religions that come from savannah agriculturists - plays in reducing women to chattel for the purpose of controlling paternity.

If we were talking about history, that'd be relevant.

But we're not. This article was written about the modern experience of religion (really, the modern experience of abrahamic religions, although that isn't made explicit in the article).

My point was that by singling out the misogynistic elements in the modern experience of religion you're actively missing the point - organized religion is about providing moral rules for everyone, man or woman, and that seems like the problematic element of it in the modern day - particularly around sexual behaviour. That's the challenge which organized religions need to confront if they aren't going to be rejected by an increasingly diverse and tolerant population.

The present doesn't exist in a vacuum, and people do have every right to focus on parts of their experience that are particularly relevant. But I think I'm out of this thread, it's veering into territory I find distasteful, ie. those wimmins shouldn't complain because mans have problem too.

[Doktor Howl]

At the same time, it's a bit disingenuous to dismiss the historical role that religion - at least, notably, the religions that come from savannah agriculturists - plays in reducing women to chattel for the purpose of controlling paternity.

If we were talking about history, that'd be relevant.

But we're not. This article was written about the modern experience of religion (really, the modern experience of abrahamic religions, although that isn't made explicit in the article).

My point was that by singling out the misogynistic elements in the modern experience of religion you're actively missing the point - organized religion is about providing moral rules for everyone, man or woman, and that seems like the problematic element of it in the modern day - particularly around sexual behaviour. That's the challenge which organized religions need to confront if they aren't going to be rejected by an increasingly diverse and tolerant population.

This is like complaining that the people at the bottom of the shit heap shouldn't holler, because they're interrupting the people in the middle.

Also, if you want complaints to be addressed, you want as many complaints as you can manage.

[Demolition Squid]

I'm not saying they shouldn't complain; I'm saying that it isn't helpful to look at one symptom of the deeper problem and declare that the problem which needs to be addressed. I think that doing so will delay any improvements in the overall system.

It is a red herring. People can - and should - speak up about the issues religion has caused in their lives, but when you're saying that religion has a particular interest over your body because you are a woman and therefore we should work to address that, you're directing your energy at delineating where and how, exactly, it is acceptable for religion to exert control.

That's the fatal mistake. They're looking at the effect of the control, not the fact that the control is being demanded at all - that's the only way you'll begin to reform organized religion in a meaningful sense for all people.

Do I still sound like I'm saying 'Shut up, woman?' Because if I am, I'll stop right here - but I've tried my best to make it clear that is not the problem I see in her argument.

[Doktor Howl]

I'm not saying they shouldn't complain; I'm saying that it isn't helpful to look at one symptom of the deeper problem and declare that the problem which needs to be addressed. I think that doing so will delay any improvements in the overall system.

It is a red herring. People can - and should - speak up about the issues religion has caused in their lives, but when you're saying that religion has a particular interest over your body because you are a woman and therefore we should work to address that, you're directing your energy at delineating where and how, exactly, it is acceptable for religion to exert control.

That's the fatal mistake. They're looking at the effect of the control, not the fact that the control is being demanded at all - that's the only way you'll begin to reform organized religion in a meaningful sense for all people.

Do I still sound like I'm saying 'Shut up, woman?' Because if I am, I'll stop right here - but I've tried my best to make it clear that is not the problem I see in her argument.

When the rock hits you, holler.

It isn't required to analyze the muscles used to throw the rock, or the eye-hand coordination required to hit.  Someone fucks with you, you sound off.

And if you can, you fuck 'em right back.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm not saying they shouldn't complain; I'm saying that it isn't helpful to look at one symptom of the deeper problem and declare that the problem which needs to be addressed. I think that doing so will delay any improvements in the overall system.

It is a red herring. People can - and should - speak up about the issues religion has caused in their lives, but when you're saying that religion has a particular interest over your body because you are a woman and therefore we should work to address that, you're directing your energy at delineating where and how, exactly, it is acceptable for religion to exert control.

That's the fatal mistake. They're looking at the effect of the control, not the fact that the control is being demanded at all - that's the only way you'll begin to reform organized religion in a meaningful sense for all people.

Do I still sound like I'm saying 'Shut up, woman?' Because if I am, I'll stop right here - but I've tried my best to make it clear that is not the problem I see in her argument.

Well, it's coming across an awful lot like you're complaining because she isn't complaining about the "right" piece of the problem. Dismissing historical motivations for physical control of women by various religions because that was then and this is now seems... disingenuous.

Compare, if you will, to dismissing historical reasons that black people in America still struggle with systemic racism and poverty because that was then and this is now.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It is, in fact, coming across a bit like "shut up, woman, you aren't even talking about the real problem, which is men's bodies being controlled by the church".

Which seriously as far as I can tell is not even in the same ball park of being as big of a focus by religion.

[Demolition Squid]

Alrighty then, I'm done here too.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

It is, in fact, coming across a bit like "shut up, woman, you aren't even talking about the real problem, which is men's bodies being controlled by the church".

Which seriously as far as I can tell is not even in the same ball park of being as big of a focus by religion.

No. You're still missing the point. The problem isn't who is being victimized, it's that anyone is being victimized at all

(with the secondary problems that society is being influenced by irrational superstition and by people who are overzealously obsessed by stupid bullshit like ancient traditions [the number of actually worthwhile ideas that anybody came up with prior to the renaissance is so small that they could probably all be listed on one page; anything ancient is suspect at best]).

[Reginald Ret]

It is, in fact, coming across a bit like "shut up, woman, you aren't even talking about the real problem, which is men's bodies being controlled by the church".

Which seriously as far as I can tell is not even in the same ball park of being as big of a focus by religion.

No. You're still missing the point. The problem isn't who is being victimized, it's that anyone is being victimized at all

(with the secondary problems that society is being influenced by irrational superstition and by people who are overzealously obsessed by stupid bullshit like ancient traditions [the number of actually worthwhile ideas that anybody came up with prior to the renaissance is so small that they could probably all be listed on one page; anything ancient is suspect at best]).

Let me try to translate the situation in a way that does not polarize the discussion:
Team 1: Religion tries to control women's lives, this is bad.
Team 2: Religion tries to control everyone's lives, this is worse.
Team 1: Women have it way worse than men, so talking about women is the main part of the discussion here.
Team 2: Gender is irrelevant to control being bad!

So Team 2 is saying that the suffering of women is irrelevant, and Team 1 is saying that women are not a subset of everyone.
Congratulations, you have both failed to communicate.



... Trying not to polarize didn't work at all!

[Doktor Howl]

Remembering the earlier disasters that occurred on these threads, I should leave.

And after the last two posts, I am.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

It's like the Seinfeld episode where Jerry buys his parents a digital organizer and they keep referring to it as a "tip calculator"; although it has a tip calculator function it does many other things and referring to it solely as a "tip calculator" seriously misrepresents it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well, the entire premise of the OP seems to be "look at this lady; she's doin' it wrong" rather than making its own standalone argument. It's a reaction to someone else's complaint, essentially. And then you get the "well history's in the past" argument. So I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to be getting as the takeway.