Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Should man rule over women for women’s own good?


    Scriptures, and other myth’s, say that God determined that men should rule over women. This gives form, --- in a demographic sense, ---- to our common and society, and says that our demographic pyramid should have a hierarchical shape and or form. This initiates tension and has God demonizing woman, as well as any notion of female equality with man.

    His motive must be for the good of women. Somehow!
    After all, sanctity of the family is one of the main points of morality.

    God was arguably right for his time. Think in the barbaric way. Below the belt. Thank God that time is almost past. Women in our modern world do not need man’s dubious ape like help. I hope you agree. Be honest now with yourself be you male or female.

    Men have dominated women long enough I think. To give them equality would be justice.

    What do you think?
    What would real men do?
    What would real women demand?
    Do men and women have what it takes to be free?

    Justice under law should be gender and age neutral, with limits, but with a good spirit of assuring equality. We do not administer that justice. We only give it lip service. Men are not walking their talk. Neither are women.

    In Gods timocracy, a place of government in which love of honor is the ruling principle. All honors go to the Queen and her children. A king’s first responsibility is to insure the veneration of his queen. Honor demands it. He accepts this burden and pleasure wisely. The Queen, as the Beta archetype is the life of the kingdom. The archetypal king’s duty is to raise woman’s position. That means that all men have the same duty. That of not denying women equality and elevating her.

    Men. Be good kings. You are making good just men look bad. Step up.
    God wills it.

    Women. Be good queens and demand what is yours.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez6wf...layer_embedded

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iMBUoxLOmA


    Regards
    DL
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    umm youre assuming god exists and that everyone believes in it. they dont and youre going to get a lot of neg for that!!!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    seeing as the bible, quran, torah, etc were all written by men, i wonder why they all say that.............
    • 53 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by POWCATTY)
    umm youre assuming god exists and that everyone believes in it. they dont and youre going to get a lot of neg for that!!!
    That's not actually what he thinks, he's just putting across his interpretation of the position held by scripture. To quote him;

    God was arguably right for his time. Think in the barbaric way. Below the belt. Thank God that time is almost past. Women in our modern world do not need man’s dubious ape like help. I hope you agree. Be honest now with yourself be you male or female.

    Men have dominated women long enough I think. To give them equality would be justice.
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by POWCATTY)
    umm youre assuming god exists and that everyone believes in it. they dont and youre going to get a lot of neg for that!!!
    I have no belief in bible God and the question of man's duty towards women and society is a valid one.

    Regards
    DL
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cattty)
    seeing as the bible, quran, torah, etc were all written by men, i wonder why they all say that.............
    But where those books of myths right for the wrong reasons?

    They showed self-centeredness while morality should be outward looking.

    Men forgot their duty to women and society but the advice may have been good.

    Regards
    DL
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greatest I am)
    ...
    Nobody needs to be designated as 'in charge'. Some women like to feel a man is keeping them safe, or looking after them, to be there to catch them if they fall; others hate that idea and would rather be the primary driving force in their own life.

    Some men love to be in charge; others perfer to take a back seat. Many couples swap roles daily, often depending on the task or activity at hand.

    Let's just try and make a society where each person can choose as they wish.
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    That's not actually what he thinks, he's just putting across his interpretation of the position held by scripture. To quote him;
    Good discernment.

    Regards
    DL
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prime Suspect)
    Nobody needs to be designated as 'in charge'. Some women like to feel a man is keeping them safe, or looking after them, to be there to catch them if they fall; others hate that idea and would rather be the primary driving force in their own life.

    Some men love to be in charge; others perfer to take a back seat. Many couples swap roles daily, often depending on the task or activity at hand.

    Let's just try and make a society where each person can choose as they wish.
    Yes and no.

    Let me use an analogy showing why men should rule for the right reasons.
    If I am a captain on a sinking ship, your way, some children and women might be the last to the lifeboats and some men first if all are equal.

    My way, women and children come first.

    I apply that same philosophy to society as a whole.

    Regards
    DL
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greatest I am)
    Yes and no.

    Let me use an analogy showing why men should rule for the right reasons.
    If I am a captain on a sinking ship, your way, some children and women might be the last to the lifeboats and some men first if all are equal.

    My way, women and children come first.

    I apply that same philosophy to society as a whole.

    Regards
    DL
    Ha, no that's not my way at all.

    Continuing your analogy, my way would be based on survival. People board the lifeboats, the most likely to survive first and the least likely last. Of course most people balk at this idea, because it is likely that those we 'feel' we 'should' protect are left behind. Logically, however, it does not make sense to give a place to a person who will likely die anyway, killing someone who would likely live.

    In terms of society, I advocate a 'best person for the job' philosophy. Broad stroke 'group X should be in charge' setups are illogical and inefficient in my view.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No one should 'rule' over anyone. I am an adult. I am capable of making my own choices and to face my own consequences. I do not need anyone to tell me what to do or command me. Now people can ask me to do things for them and I may oblige, they may give me advice and I may listen, they may offer to protect me and I may let them but at the same time I will ask for things, give advice and protect people. These are choices and though you may ask of me you may not command me. Though I acknowledge that I am physically a lot weaker than most men (and even women due to my height and weight) and in terms of pure strength I can easily be forced this does not mean it is right for people to force me and I should not use force against others. It also doesn't mean I can be commanded, ruled or bullied because you can over power me. I will still chose to make my own choices regardless of the physical harm you may force upon me. I don't want to rule you and nor do I want to be ruled. I want to stand beside you as an equal.
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prime Suspect)
    Ha, no that's not my way at all.

    Continuing your analogy, my way would be based on survival. People board the lifeboats, the most likely to survive first and the least likely last. Of course most people balk at this idea, because it is likely that those we 'feel' we 'should' protect are left behind. Logically, however, it does not make sense to give a place to a person who will likely die anyway, killing someone who would likely live.

    In terms of society, I advocate a 'best person for the job' philosophy. Broad stroke 'group X should be in charge' setups are illogical and inefficient in my view.
    The strangest are most likely to survive so you would put the men in the lifeboats and not the women and children.

    Nice morals that. Not.

    You must be an Italian captain.

    Regards
    DL
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Can't decide to +ve or neg you. It's right, women don't need men. Women can have careers, money, education, etc (they are entitled to it). But women (through the laws of nature) also desire children (most do, its natural so you can't deny this) that only men can give them. Also, I'm pretty sure most women don't want to grow old alone, or have to raise a child(ren) by themselves, therefore men AND women are equally important in society.
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nightstar-27)
    No one should 'rule' over anyone. I am an adult. I am capable of making my own choices and to face my own consequences. I do not need anyone to tell me what to do or command me. Now people can ask me to do things for them and I may oblige, they may give me advice and I may listen, they may offer to protect me and I may let them but at the same time I will ask for things, give advice and protect people. These are choices and though you may ask of me you may not command me. Though I acknowledge that I am physically a lot weaker than most men (and even women due to my height and weight) and in terms of pure strength I can easily be forced this does not mean it is right for people to force me and I should not use force against others. It also doesn't mean I can be commanded, ruled or bullied because you can over power me. I will still chose to make my own choices regardless of the physical harm you may force upon me. I don't want to rule you and nor do I want to be ruled. I want to stand beside you as an equal.
    I am there for that. Equality under the law. Till curcumstances force me to be the law.

    If you and I are in the lifeboat scenario above, be ready to be forced to go ahead of me because I do it out of duty and I will use my larger muscle to force you.

    If you are half the woman you show yourself to be here, and I respect your position, you will not force me to force you. You will recognize the rightness of my duty not just to you but to all children and women.

    Regards
    DL
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by justmyopinions)
    Can't decide to +ve or neg you. It's right, women don't need men. Women can have careers, money, education, etc (they are entitled to it). But women (through the laws of nature) also desire children (most do, its natural so you can't deny this) that only men can give them. Also, I'm pretty sure most women don't want to grow old alone, or have to raise a child(ren) by themselves, therefore men AND women are equally important in society.
    No argument.

    Please read the post just above and decide to =ve or neg me.

    Regards
    DL
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greatest I am)
    The strangest are most likely to survive so you would put the men in the lifeboats and not the women and children.

    Nice morals that. Not.

    You must be an Italian captain.

    Regards
    DL

    I fail to see how acting to minimise fatalities is immoral. Or are you suggesting the life of one is more valuable than another?
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prime Suspect)
    I fail to see how acting to minimise fatalities is immoral. Or are you suggesting the life of one is more valuable than another?
    I am suggesting that man should think more of his duty to family and society than to himself.

    If we are the strongest physically then we should work to make our character the strongest as well in moral terms.

    Regards
    DL
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greatest I am)
    I am suggesting that man should think more of his duty to family and society than to himself.

    If we are the strongest physically then we should work to make our character the strongest as well in moral terms.

    Regards
    DL
    This scenario isn't about duty or morals. It's about numbers, probability and logic.

    All men's superior strength provides is the responsibility not to use it to overpower a woman. That's it. Otherwise, both men and women have the same responsibility to uphold the same morals (side note: I don't hold much stead with morals - they're ever changing according to society, and I don't much trust things that aren't consistent)
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prime Suspect)
    This scenario isn't about duty or morals. It's about numbers, probability and logic.

    All men's superior strength provides is the responsibility not to use it to overpower a woman. That's it. Otherwise, both men and women have the same responsibility to uphold the same morals (side note: I don't hold much stead with morals - they're ever changing according to society, and I don't much trust things that aren't consistent)
    Yes. I can tell that morals are not high on your agenda.

    If you wish to stick to your foolish it is all in the numbers song then consider that children are first then women and men last as you can stack more women and children in a lifeboat than men.

    Regards
    DL
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greatest I am)
    Yes. I can tell that morals are not high on your agenda.

    If you wish to stick to your foolish it is all in the numbers song then consider that children are first then women and men last as you can stack more women and children in a lifeboat than men.

    Regards
    DL
    If you look back at my post you will see that I did not suggest putting men in first. I suggested ordering by survival probability. You assumed that meant men first. Of course, if there is a way to pack more people onto the lifeboat, I would take that into consideration.

    Like I said, my goal is to minimise overall fatalities. That is a problem of logic. Your feelings getting in the way are counterproductive and will cause more lives to be lost.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 20, 2012
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.