Read 'em and Weep
-
What about women?
Has the nature of women changed?
Do women not want to be able to decide what they want to do themselves now?
Did women not want to be able to decide what they want to do themselves back when the various books in the Christian Bible were written?@Axtremus said in Read 'em and Weep:
What about women?
Has the nature of women changed?I wonder if that isn't a harder question to answer. Men's nature has always been more overt, more out there. More plainly acknowledged universally. Women have had more reason to be more circumspect. It's always been more "a man's world".
I'm kind of spitballing here, I don't know how valid that is . . . women have always had more to lose, have always been more at risk. They've had more cause to be political. The dynamics are different.
I don't know. Women have had to use more care, more guile -- not always in a bad way -- have had to be less direct than men to get what they want. Possibly different times, different eras, have guided women to behave differently from one age to another, and that has not been as evident, as easy to see.
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
@Renauda But what is immutable? Consider:
"I have just three things to teach: simplicity, patience, compassion. These three are your greatest treasures."
-- Lao Tzu, 500-? BC“Those who educate children well are more to be honored than they who produce them; for these only gave them life, those the art of living well.”
― Aristotle. 384-322 BC“The things that we love tell us what we are.”
― St. Thomas Aquinas, 1225-1274"It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well." -- René Descartes, 1596-1650
“It is not the length of life, but the depth.” -- Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1803-1882
"If it's your job to eat a frog, it's best to do it first thing in the morning. And If it's your job to eat two frogs, it's best to eat the biggest one first." -- Mark Twain, 1850-1910
(And if that ain't wisdom, I don't know what is!)
Any one of these men could have said these things to you whilst sitting next to you on the bus. True in our time, and understood in theirs!
I've always believed that human nature is unchanged throughout our history. You're right -- practically everything else under the hand of man has changed (in one direction or another) but wants, desires, ambitions, grief, craftiness, sacrificial love -- you name it, are unchanged from their time to ours.
-
@Axtremus said in Read 'em and Weep:
What about women?
Has the nature of women changed?I wonder if that isn't a harder question to answer. Men's nature has always been more overt, more out there. More plainly acknowledged universally. Women have had more reason to be more circumspect. It's always been more "a man's world".
I'm kind of spitballing here, I don't know how valid that is . . . women have always had more to lose, have always been more at risk. They've had more cause to be political. The dynamics are different.
I don't know. Women have had to use more care, more guile -- not always in a bad way -- have had to be less direct than men to get what they want. Possibly different times, different eras, have guided women to behave differently from one age to another, and that has not been as evident, as easy to see.
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
women have always had more to lose, have always been more at risk.
Up until very, very recently, only men fought in wars.
Please love yourself.
-
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
women have always had more to lose, have always been more at risk.
Up until very, very recently, only men fought in wars.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
women have always had more to lose, have always been more at risk.
Up until very, very recently, only men fought in wars.
Unless they were Boadicea...
I was only joking
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Ignoring the somewhat bizarre and extreme nature of what he's saying, what I did notice about both articles is that he seems to be blaming the problems on groups which he doesn't belong to. He's saying that the police are pretty much responsible for all the violence, and the wimminz are shouldering much of the blame for not knowing their place.
He uses the phrase 'getting the mote of your own eye first', and then proceeds to blame everybody else.
In the first article, you may find that bizarre, but it used to be a common way of life. It's still not uncommon down here.
And if finances permit, it actually makes for a pretty decent home life.
Of course, that's not the only thing mentioned in the piece...
Funnily enough, Mrs. Phibes has looked after our kids their whole lives, and hasn't worked other than part-time work a few years back. It was her choice, and we made a number of sacrifices on that basis.
The point isn't whether somebody does it or not. It's about some guy, or bunch of guys, telling people how to live.
The way he talks about women is pretty creepy, if you ask me. Feel free to disagree, but he's still pretty creepy.
I don't find it creepy, I find it Biblical. It lays out tasks and and responsibilities. The husband is tasked to be the provider. He should provide for his family's needs. In return, the woman also has her tasks and responsibilities. She is tasked to be the "help meet" of the family.
According to the author, neither should allow the lusts of the eyes, the lusts of the flesh nor the pride of life to undercut the role of either.
The author also talks about the introduction of debt into a marriage and who is responsible for it. He goes on to talk about frugality and eradication of debt within a home, which both husband and wife have part in accomplishing.
And he makes another statement, which many might disagree with, but can certainly wreck a home...If a woman wants or feels like she needs to work outside of her home, it should be a joint decision of husband and wife.
Lastly, the article is written for everybody, but I feel it has a certain emphasis for the black community and the dissolution of the black family.
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
She is tasked to be the "help meet" of the family.
Speaking of “help meet”, here you have a bunch of male GOP candidates trotting their wives out to meet the voters in attempts to “soften” the candidates’ images after the candidates made strident anti-abortion statements and lost support, bigly, among women:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/06/skeptical-female-voters-gop-senate-00054747
-
-
@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:
And what is wrong with that?
The Craw article, as you have acknowledged, makes it a point to distinguish “needs” from “lusts.” Whether there’s anything “wrong” vis a vis the Craw article may depend on whether the wives were put in public spotlights to help meet a “need” or to help chasing after a “lust” (e.g., for power or prestige of elected offices).
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
women have always had more to lose, have always been more at risk.
Up until very, very recently, only men fought in wars.
Unless they were Boadicea...
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Unless they were Boadicea
Or Joan of Arc. Or Molly Pitcher.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Unless they were Boadicea
Or Joan of Arc. Or Molly Pitcher.
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Unless they were Boadicea
Or Joan of Arc. Or Molly Pitcher.
You've named 3.
(Of which, all 3 are embellished legends, by the way.)What do you suppose the guy/girl ratio is on the Ukraine front?
-
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Unless they were Boadicea
Or Joan of Arc. Or Molly Pitcher.
You've named 3.
(Of which, all 3 are embellished legends, by the way.)What do you suppose the guy/girl ratio is on the Ukraine front?
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
(Of which, all 3 are embellished legends, by the way.)
They are?
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
(Of which, all 3 are embellished legends, by the way.)
They are?
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
(Of which, all 3 are embellished legends, by the way.)
They are?
You have a habit of citing things in your posts you haven't looked into yourself.
-
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
(Of which, all 3 are embellished legends, by the way.)
They are?
You have a habit of citing things in your posts you haven't looked into yourself.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
You have a habit of citing things in your posts you haven't looked into yourself.
And I'll probably continue to. Not everything is worth the effort of verifying. It's easier to take my lumps when I get caught out.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
You have a habit of citing things in your posts you haven't looked into yourself.
And I'll probably continue to. Not everything is worth the effort of verifying. It's easier to take my lumps when I get caught out.
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
You have a habit of citing things in your posts you haven't looked into yourself.
And I'll probably continue to. Not everything is worth the effort of verifying. It's easier to take my lumps when I get caught out.
Are you saying that you're fine with not knowing what you're talking about?
-
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
You have a habit of citing things in your posts you haven't looked into yourself.
And I'll probably continue to. Not everything is worth the effort of verifying. It's easier to take my lumps when I get caught out.
Are you saying that you're fine with not knowing what you're talking about?
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
Are you saying that you're fine with not knowing what you're talking about?
No, that's your leap.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
Are you saying that you're fine with not knowing what you're talking about?
No, that's your leap.
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
Are you saying that you're fine with not knowing what you're talking about?
No, that's your leap.
Well, if you're not, you're in luck. A great way to prevent that is to make an effort.
-
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
Are you saying that you're fine with not knowing what you're talking about?
No, that's your leap.
Well, if you're not, you're in luck. A great way to prevent that is to make an effort.
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
Well, if you're not, you're in luck. A great way to prevent that is to make an effort.
Thank you for that life lesson, particularly when I've said I've no wish to prevent it. At least, not for random postings that are not of do-or-die significance.
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
Contemporary accounts indicated Celtic women probably fought alongside men. Obviously, it was a fucking long time ago, so we don't really know. In fact, it was pre-Christianity, which now apparently tells women to 'keep quiet' in case they become a hindrance to their man and provider.
I have to wonder how that conversation would go in the majority of cases.
I was only joking
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
Well, if you're not, you're in luck. A great way to prevent that is to make an effort.
Thank you for that life lesson, particularly when I've said I've no wish to prevent it. At least, not for random postings that are not of do-or-die significance.
@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:
Well, if you're not, you're in luck. A great way to prevent that is to make an effort.
Thank you for that life lesson, particularly when I've said I've no wish to prevent it. At least, not for random postings that are not of do-or-die significance.
Here's an honest question: if you're not interested in giving a damn, why should anyone take the time and effort to discuss things with you?
Please love yourself.
-
Contemporary accounts indicated Celtic women probably fought alongside men. Obviously, it was a fucking long time ago, so we don't really know. In fact, it was pre-Christianity, which now apparently tells women to 'keep quiet' in case they become a hindrance to their man and provider.
I have to wonder how that conversation would go in the majority of cases.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:
Contemporary accounts indicated Celtic women probably fought alongside men. Obviously, it was a fucking long time ago, so we don't really know. In fact, it was pre-Christianity, which now apparently tells women to 'keep quiet' in case they become a hindrance to their man and provider.
I have to wonder how that conversation would go in the majority of cases.
Yes, they did do that. No, there's no such thing as "the Celtic amazon." They "fought alongside men" not because they were woke. That is a term that was coined and proliferated on the internet. The Celts didn't have access to the internet. Or electricity. Or stores the likes of which you can buy computers from. Or the very concept of "stores" or even the economic platform that gave rise to everything we now see and do.
In other words, you're right, it was a very long fucking time ago. And they were desperate, like every other person alive at that time. So if you could wield a hatchet, spear, pike, whatever, congratulations, you were using that thing when next we get invaded.
When next we get invaded.
Warring parties were often different.
Point remains, though: there are far, far more remains of males from times past who suffered mortal injuries in battle than women. And that's true across cultures, continents and centuries.
Please love yourself.
