Quote: › 1. Points to the creation. Adam ruined it. He introduced death into a perfect creation. I'd rather have a baby, and the subsequent pain, than be responsible for that. 2. All was provided for in the garden. 3. Now work was to be hard and long instead of a joy. 4. Thorns and thistles are edible in your perfect paradise right? Yummy! 5. Plants of the field instead of the fruit of the trees and vines. Implies eating dirt. 6. The only way to eat is to work hard. 7. then what, death. Not my idea of paradise.

Out of all this list, I can only see three punishments, all of which are shared by women. They are guilt, work, and death. As those three are shared by women, then they appear to be inconsequential compared to the additional punishment doled out upon women.

Quote: › And before you start ripping me for being sexist, and you will, I believe that the man is the head of the household and it is his duty, obligation to care for the woman. And if men didn't fail in their duty and obligation, feminism and woman's rights wouldn't be an issue.

I don't want to rip you for being sexist, but the feminist movement is far older than most are willing to admit, and the whole concept of needing to be cared for and having someone over them is the issue, so I think you have missed the main ideas of feminism.

To be honest though, some feminists do carry it to an extreme. As some of the smartest feminists have said, feminism is about giving women the freedom to choose. If some women want to give up dominion over themselves and be cared for and to be wife and mother instead of working, then I respect that. If others want to work and do other things, then I respect that as well.

Not a fan of John MacArthur to be honest. He argues against the extreme side of feminism as though it were the whole of the movement, just like many other anti-feminists. Not entirely their fault as the extremists provide so much ready ammunition, but still don't like it.

Nator,

Quote: › He argues against the extreme side of feminism as though it were the whole of the movement, just like many other anti-feminists. Not entirely their fault as the extremists provide so much ready ammunition, but still don't like it.

The loudest wheel gets the most oil.

Quote: › so I think you have missed the main ideas of feminism.

Read Proverbs 31 to get the idea of feminism.

Quote: › The loudest wheel gets the most oil.

True, but it leads to attacking straw men.

Quote: › Read Proverbs 31 to get the idea of feminism.

Just did again. Nice, but I see no reason why women should have to fight so hard for equality and value outside of men and marriage.

Essentially what I think feminists want is what anybody else wants: respect and fair treatment. Some go too far in arguing their case, just as some of their opponents do the same.

Nator,

Quote: › True, but it leads to attacking straw men.

Yes it can.

Quote: › Nice, but I see no reason why women should have to fight so hard for equality and value outside of men and marriage.

Because of the failings of men.

In my profession, except for the ruggedness of the trade itself, women are usually more fluid, articulate and overall more competent and skillful. But they are told they can't do it because it is a man's job. It is a shame. But it is also reality.

Quote: › Essentially what I think feminists want is what anybody else wants: respect and fair treatment.

They deserve it.

Quote: › Some go too far in arguing their case, just as some of their opponents do the same.

Agreed.

As a related side note. My step-brother called me one night. (He wants to call himself a Christian, but his actions betray him horribly. Occult, drug dealing, wife beating, child abuse to name a few of the well known ones.)

But anyway, he calls and asks me, "Doesn't the bible say that a wife should submit to her husband?" I said, "yes it does. Why?" He said, "Well, my wife won't submit to my wishes." I said, "What are your wishes?" He told me some very ungodly things. Things I didn't need or want to know. I said to him he has to understand the context of what he is asking. He said, "What do you mean?" I said to him that a wife should submit to her husband AS TO THE LORD. I told him that if God would want her to do these things he would approve of them in the bible. He quickly cut the conversation short and got off of the phone.

Here was a a guy that wanted his wife to do things that are contrary to God's word.

Harrie wants to know how people can do that? It is real easy.

Quote: › Because of the failings of men. In my profession, except for the ruggedness of the trade itself, women are usually more fluid, articulate and overall more competent and skillful. But they are told they can't do it because it is a man's job. It is a shame. But it is also reality.

That's one way to look at it. I see it as a failing of society as a whole.

Nator,

Quote: › I see it as a failing of society as a whole.

Considering that in the entire human history, man has basically been governing society as a whole, I see it as a failing of men.

Women could have asserted their rights long ago, yes. In that way it could be view as a failure of society as a whole.

Quote: › Considering that in the entire human history, man has basically been governing society as a whole, I see it as a failing of men. Women could have asserted their rights long ago, yes. In that way it could be view as a failure of society as a whole.

That depends upon which society's history you are considering. For the Western world, you are correct.

At least we both view it as a shame.

Nator,

Yeah, I guess in some countries they would have immediately punished or even killed a woman who exercised her rights.

Quote: › Yeah, I guess in some countries they would have immediately punished or even killed a woman who exercised her rights.

Some portions of Western history are little better than that.

Nator,

A smidgen perhaps?

Quote: › A smidgen perhaps?

Depends on the era really.

Nator,

It really does depend on the era. I found this earlier today.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995960,00.html

Thornhill and Palmer are nuts.

They are correct on a level, and the author of that article has a terrible tendency toward oversimplification.

To be certain, there are better means available for survival advantage of the group, and that, I'd wager is the main forcing reason behind the laws against rape.

Way I see it, both sides on that issue have valid points. However, both want to view it in a vacuum that supports their side. Nature never takes place in a vacuum, so we have to look at all sides of the issue to get a really good perspective.

Nator,

Quote: › They are correct on a level, and the author of that article has a terrible tendency toward oversimplification.

Before I respond to this, who is "they"? The author of the article or Thornhill and Palmer?

Quote: › To be certain, there are better means available for survival advantage of the group, and that, I'd wager is the main forcing reason behind the laws against rape.

Not because it is absolutely immoral?

Give me just one example of rape in the natural world that is used to continue the race of the rapist.

Quote: › Way I see it, both sides on that issue have valid points.

No. Thornhill and Palmer have zero valid points. They are using their evolutionary bias to justify the fact that evolution relegates man to an animal and therefore there is no authority to be held accountable to.

What do you think Palmer would do if his daughter or wife or mother was raped?

"Oh well, the guy must not have had any children, so it is OK."

And don't accuse me of oversimplifying it. You don't need a degree is neurosurgery to know when someone is nuts and their theories are bull.

And the author of the article is an evolutionist. However, she doesn't think that it is possible that rape is an authentic evolutionary tactic used to spread the fittest genes in the bunch.

And... how fit is a gene that rapes?

Nator,

Quote: › They are correct on a level, and the author of that article has a terrible tendency toward oversimplification.

Before I respond to this, who is "they"? The author of the article or Thornhill and Palmer?

Quote: › To be certain, there are better means available for survival advantage of the group, and that, I'd wager is the main forcing reason behind the laws against rape.

Not because it is absolutely immoral?

Give me just one example of rape in the natural world that is used to continue the race of the rapist.

Quote: › Way I see it, both sides on that issue have valid points.

No. Thornhill and Palmer have zero valid points. They are using their evolutionary bias to justify the fact that evolution relegates man to an animal and therefore there is no authority to be held accountable to.

What do you think Palmer would do if his daughter or wife or mother was raped?

"Oh well, the guy must not have had any children, so it is OK."

And don't accuse me of oversimplifying it. You don't need a degree is neurosurgery to know when someone is nuts and their theories are bull.

And the author of the article is an evolutionist. However, she doesn't think that it is possible that rape is an authentic evolutionary tactic used to spread the fittest genes in the bunch.

And... how fit is a gene that rapes?