Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 650087" data-attributes="member: 8461">Because its not taking them into account, something you mention later on in your post here.You have got to be joking here. You're actually suggesting that men won't/can't take part in the moral upbringing of children, and that when they're expected to, they oppress women in response?? That is utterly preposterous.You aren't taking into account things like martial power, growth of culture, technological inventions, etc. Just because a society was matriarchal/matrilineal doesn't mean it's doomed to failure, it just happened to turn out that way for those cultures that did exist, and even then it wasn't because the culture collapsed, but due to outside forces such as disease or conquest.Now, let me see if I have this right...men oppress women because they (men) can't be expected to impart any sort of moral/emotional guidance into their children, and the other is because men are inherently evil, yes?I can't tell if you're being serious here or not.I'm not assuming anything, you just aren't seeing the larger issue here. Sex is not the only difference between genders, and I can't think of any society where its ever been that simple (except for that displayed by animals).Just because someone is male doesn't necessarily mean they're a man. Hence why we have transvestites who act as women, or gay men who act feminine. Lesbians who act butch aren't seen the same as heterosexual women who act as women, etc. It goes on and on.Such a culture could very well not respect secular prostitutes while respecting temple ones, which may not be seen as prostitutes at all, hence what I was saying earlier.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 650087, member: 8461"] Because its not taking them into account, something you mention later on in your post here. You have got to be joking here. You're actually suggesting that men won't/can't take part in the moral upbringing of children, and that when they're expected to, they oppress women in response?? That is utterly preposterous. You aren't taking into account things like martial power, growth of culture, technological inventions, etc. Just because a society was matriarchal/matrilineal doesn't mean it's doomed to failure, it just happened to turn out that way for those cultures that did exist, and even then it wasn't because the culture collapsed, but due to outside forces such as disease or conquest. Now, let me see if I have this right...men oppress women because they (men) can't be expected to impart any sort of moral/emotional guidance into their children, and the other is because men are inherently evil, yes? I can't tell if you're being serious here or not. I'm not assuming anything, you just aren't seeing the larger issue here. Sex is not the only difference between genders, and I can't think of any society where its ever been that simple (except for that displayed by animals). Just because someone is male doesn't necessarily mean they're a man. Hence why we have transvestites who act as women, or gay men who act feminine. Lesbians who act butch aren't seen the same as heterosexual women who act as women, etc. It goes on and on. Such a culture could very well not respect secular prostitutes while respecting temple ones, which may not be seen as prostitutes at all, hence what I was saying earlier. [/QUOTE]

Verification