Legal discrimination of women

[Viking]

It meant in that context that one do not have to consider a prejudice to begin with. Are there any reason why women should not be allowed to lead meetings? Organisations? Are there any reason at all for these claims? Through empiricism one can close in on truth.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well this religion expanded it's borders quite substantially and so could have replaced less discriminating cultures. When Christianity replaced Norse Mythology, women could no longer lead religious ceremonies et cetera.

This is a very bad example, because the Norse lacked a priestly cast like the Celtic Druid. I'm not aware of many Norse ceremonies, the only one that springs to mind is the ritual strangulation and hanging of dead men as a sacrifice to Odin, though I suppose there is also the "Blood Eagle" where the ribcage is ripped open. In any case I don't recall a specific form for worship of the Aesir or Vanir.

Point being that most of the modern discrimination could ultimately for the greatest part stem from a certain set of books. Not too much of a strong point, but my argumentation regarding this was in response to what seemed like a justification for to continue with any discriminating practises still on going, because humanity would disrespect women regardless of society; which is wrong.

Your point is bad, because discrimination is a product of the developement of the society common to almost all cultures at a certain stage. I've already given you the reasoning. Men do the fighting, so they make the decisions, while the women stay at home. when the whole tribe is on the move the women share more of the risks and usually have more of a say.

Greek, Roman, Semetic, Persian, Celtic, Iberian... all these ancient cultures discriminated to one level or another, the Greeks were worst followed by the Romans and the less settled and orderd the culture the better things are for women. The same thing happens in the Middle Ages, as society puts itself back together things get worse for women.

Your thesis seems to be that but for religion things would have been better for women but if you look at women's rights movements they are rarely rooted in secularism, and the prejudice is seen in every culture.

That in no wise makes it right but but blaming "ignorant" or "evil" religion is an exercise in historical revisionism. As the Bishop of Rochester said recently, Christianity fosters a belief in equality because we are all God's children.

[Viking]

This is a very bad example, because the Norse lacked a priestly cast like the Celtic Druid. I'm not aware of many Norse ceremonies, the only one that springs to mind is the ritual strangulation and hanging of dead men as a sacrifice to Odin, though I suppose there is also the "Blood Eagle" where the ribcage is ripped open. In any case I don't recall a specific form for worship of the Aesir or Vanir.

I was citating my history book which I consider a fairly reliable source.

I found this on Wikipedia as an example: Völva.

Your point is bad, because discrimination is a product of the developement of the society common to almost all cultures at a certain stage. I've already given you the reasoning. Men do the fighting, so they make the decisions, while the women stay at home. when the whole tribe is on the move the women share more of the risks and usually have more of a say.

Seeing that not at all all societies have been equally discriminating to women, it should be perfectly valid. Not at all all societies need to tak the same path.

Your thesis seems to be that but for religion things would have been better for women but if you look at women's rights movements they are rarely rooted in secularism, and the prejudice is seen in every culture.

Yes, but the cultural prejudice has it's roots in somewhere. I do not think the societies would be better for women without religions, no (if such a thing is even possible for the first tribes/socities). If something is viewed as heresy and that "preaching" it could lead to death, it'd certainly slow down any process.

Actually, through empiricism alone people are absolutely unequal and probably shouldn't even be treated as such.

Absolutely so. Men cannot give birth to babies (ignoring silly claims from a certain topic), only women can; they must thus be treated unequally in that aspect. What other aspects should they be treated different in though, apart from the obvious? I'm not sure to which you're referring.

[ajaxfetish]

Seeing that not at all all societies have been equally discriminating to women, it should be perfectly valid.

Not all Christian societies have been equally discriminating to women, either. Or all religious societies for that matter, either.

Absolutely so. Men cannot give birth to babies (ignoring silly claims from a certain topic), only women can; they must thus be treated unequally in that aspect. What other aspects should they be treated different in though, apart from the obvious? I'm not sure to which you're referring.

Not all people are equally tall. Not all people are equally strong. Not all people are equally intelligent. Not all people are equally coordinated. Not all people are equally graceful. Not all people are equally creative. Not all people are equally charismatic. Shall I go on?

Ajax

[Viking]

Not all people are equally tall. Not all people are equally strong. Not all people are equally intelligent. Not all people are equally coordinated. Not all people are equally graceful. Not all people are equally creative. Not all people are equally charismatic. Shall I go on?

Ajax

And in what ways should they, seemingly politically incorrect, be treated different?

[ajaxfetish]

And in what ways should they, seemingly politically incorrect, be treated different?

Your original contention was that empiricism should allow us to close in on the truth, the truth presumably being that all people should be treated equally. Tuff's response was that the assumption that all people should be treated equally is entirely separate from empiricism, and is a value judgment, whether its origins are in religion or a secular human ethic.

Empirically we find innumerable differences between individuals. It is not logical to assume that because people are different, they should be treated the same. If your empiricist schema were utilitarian, I imagine the strong people should be given tasks requiring strength, the charismatic should be leaders, the creative artists, and so on. If the schema were more opportunist, the smartest and strongest would simply be in charge and tell others what to do. This is not equal treatment. It is a separate, and ethical, impulse that everyone should receive equal treatment. And one which, at least in terms of gender, seems more prevalent in prosperous and developed societies than in more poor and primitive ones (with a possible exception for nonsedentary cultures, as previously referenced).

Ajax

[Papewaio]

I don't believe in equality because we are the same (we aren't).
I believe in equality for the same actions.

Being paid the same based on the market regardless of ones sex, race or religion for the exact same output.

Having the same justice regardless of ones sex, race or religion for the exact same crime.

Equal rights for equal actions.

[Viking]

Your original contention was that empiricism should allow us to close in on the truth, the truth presumably being that all people should be treated equally. Tuff's response was that the assumption that all people should be treated equally is entirely separate from empiricism, and is a value judgment, whether its origins are in religion or a secular human ethic.

I don't see how it could be interpreted that empiricism should lead us to that people are equal, that is certainly not empiricism. In the context I wrote it, it merely suggested that instead of just saying "women do worse as leaders compared to men" and stick to it, one should test the hypothesis and see if it is true. That is empiricism.

Empirically we find innumerable differences between individuals. It is not logical to assume that because people are different, they should be treated the same. If your empiricist schema were utilitarian, I imagine the strong people should be given tasks requiring strength, the charismatic should be leaders, the creative artists, and so on. If the schema were more opportunist, the smartest and strongest would simply be in charge and tell others what to do. This is not equal treatment. It is a separate, and ethical, impulse that everyone should receive equal treatment. And one which, at least in terms of gender, seems more prevalent in prosperous and developed societies than in more poor and primitive ones (with a possible exception for nonsedentary cultures, as previously referenced).

Ajax

But most differences are irrelevant in most contexts. Some people got blue eyes, others brown and some green or grey. It has zero impact on how people should be treated. However, when you are going to find the best person for a job, you do not treat them all equally, you judge them by their qualifications. Here, empiricism enters the stage. One could treat them unequally not only based on their qualifications, but also because of their skin colour, gender et cetera. For 100 years ago, a "coloured" man running as a a president candidate would haven been ridiculed by most. Yet today it is possible; and by what other means than more or less empiric methods has it become so?

If your empiricist schema were utilitarian, I imagine the strong people should be given tasks requiring strength, the charismatic should be leaders, the creative artists, and so on. If the schema were more opportunist, the smartest and strongest would simply be in charge and tell others what to do. This is not equal treatment. It is a separate, and ethical, impulse that everyone should receive equal treatment.

That doesn't only sound utilitarian, but also authoritarian; and it implies that the best society for everyone is the one where the smartest are in charge, but why would it be so? I don't see how that is empiric, as what one define as the best society is semantics in many ways.

Religion makes men equal. Without it, men are obviously not equal - unless you are misleading yourself for a greater good (which tends to be derived from religious understandings whether you like it or not).

That is not at all true. It highly depends on how one interpret the wholy texts. Apparently, the afro-American were not equal to other men until the late 20th century.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not all people are equally tall. Not all people are equally strong. Not all people are equally intelligent. Not all people are equally coordinated. Not all people are equally graceful. Not all people are equally creative. Not all people are equally charismatic. Shall I go on?
Ajax

Exactly - people are equal in the eyes of God, If there was no God, how could they be?

[ICantSpellDawg]

It meant in that context that one do not have to consider a prejudice to begin with. Are there any reason why women should not be allowed to lead meetings? Organisations? Are there any reason at all for these claims? Through empiricism one can close in on truth.

Actually, through empiricism alone people are absolutely unequal and probably shouldn't even be treated as such.

[Husar]

It meant in that context that one do not have to consider a prejudice to begin with. Are there any reason why women should not be allowed to lead meetings? Organisations? Are there any reason at all for these claims? Through empiricism one can close in on truth.

Of course, everyone thinks his lovely hobby will one day bring world peace if all the other stupids would just start loving it as much as she/he does.

[naut]

So all those drunkards beating up their women are religious people?

Haha, yeh, it makes you wonder why Ireland isn't on the list...

[Husar]

Haha, yeh, it makes you wonder why Ireland isn't on the list...

Yeah, they're so religious they even used to kill people of other denominations.

[Adrian II]

Funny how this thread has narrowed down to a peeing contest over religion. Whereas poverty seems to be the most important determinant of legal and factual discimination of women. Is it because poverty compounds existing legal and social (including religious) obstacles for women?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Funny how this thread has narrowed down to a peeing contest over religion. Whereas poverty seems to be the most important determinant of legal and factual discimination of women. Is it because poverty compounds existing legal and social (including religious) obstacles for women?

You're initial post was about Religion. As a known and avowed atheist - you made the discussion primarily about religion. I'm sure it is understandable that the conversation would further revolve around that topic.

Any conversation about religion with people who actually believe in their own becomes a peeing contest.

[Adrian II]

You're initial post was about Religion. As a known and avowed atheist - you made the discussion primarily about religion. I'm sure it is understandable that the conversation would further revolve around that topic.

Any conversation about religion with people who actually believe in their own becomes a peeing contest.

I think your post indirectly answers my question.

No, my original post was about legal discrimination of women and the false assumption that Islam was mainly to blame for that. In fact, as I wrote, the report shows that religion as such (any denomination) takes second place after poverty as an obvious determinant.

Maybe the fact that religion is mentioned in a post is enough for some members to assume that it is about religion, even if said post explicitly denies this.

[Vladimir]

Funny how this thread has narrowed down to a peeing contest over religion. Whereas poverty seems to be the most important determinant of legal and factual discimination of women. Is it because poverty compounds existing legal and social (including religious) obstacles for women?

It's the Backroom Certainty Principle. All threads will eventually devolve into religious, firearm...or something else disputes, can't remember.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're thinking of abortion.

Anyway, I'm personnally fed up with religion being blamed for all the social problems throughout history. Especially given the secular hellhole I live in.