4,000 years ago in Crete people worshipped Snake Godesses with bare breasts controlling nature, taming wild creatures.

Now not only are we too controlled by hypocritical fake "morals" of Monotheism, which is always patriarchal, imposed upon us by fake men, speaking lies of a fake God, women are now subjugated to men and denied equal rights and equal pay for equal work.

Why are men free to walk down a beach or street topless if women are arrested everywhere, when they do the same.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_snake_goddess_figurines

I should be able to walk around with my cock hanging out too.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2019 12:34PM by Lot's Wife.

I wonder about clothing. There are extremes of weather that mandate clothing for survival. Sunlight can be deadly.

But, what if you could not hide your body's flaws with clothing? How much is the clothing part of the role, when it comes to dominance? When I see a dowager, a dowdy one, lecturing someone much younger and in good shape, I wonder, in sotto voice, just how the scene would play out if both were wearing only a loincloth?

There are mini-cultures where body shaming does not exist. It does in America. Thank ghawd for the lying internet!

Elder OldDog: 6'3" tall, 205 pounds, 2.2% body fat, 30" waist and silky black hair flowing down to my shoulders. Would I lie?

Fabio? Is that you?

I'm sorry...Did you have an appointment?

Remember, EOD, I've met you. And vice versa.

I found gray hairs in my ears recently, not that surprising.

And you're as stunning as me! But dang that BYU Boner for out shining us both!

Yeah, I would have put him more on "The Most Interesting Man in the World." A touch of gray but still charming the ladies.

But he still seems to think of himself as Fabio. . .

We're twins! Though I shave my head...it's a fashion choice and has nothing to do with being follicly-challenged.

Mark Zuckerberg wears a codpiece as a fashion statement and not because he needs one...

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/what-goes-up-must-come-down-a-brief-history-of-the-codpiece

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...women are now subjugated to men...

NOW? It ain't nothing new. They have been for most of human existence.

There were some cultures in which that was not the case. Mainly agricultural, including SC's Minoan Civilization but also some in the Middle East. Early Canaanite civilization was matriarchal, for example, with a female deity and a male consort and with female statuettes all over the region (Asherah in the Bible). Much of the early history of the YWHW cult comprised an attempt to crush that religion.

Even today, though, Jewish identity, strictly defined, descends through the mother. That appears to be a remnant of the earlier culture that survived the imposition of patriarchy by the incipient YWHW cult.

Today as well there are people who think Western culture is matriarchal and men are victims. Such counterfactual thinking even appears in the pages on this bulletin board from time to time.

It takes all kinds.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There were some cultures in which that was not the
> case. Mainly agricultural, including SC's Minoan
> Civilization but also some in the Middle East.
> Early Canaanite civilization was matriarchal, for
> example, with a female deity and a male consort
> and with female statuettes all over the region
> (Asherah in the Bible).

Statues and religious imagery don't prove a matriarchal culture any more than ubiquitous images of Mary prove that Medieval European culture was matriarchal.

No matriarchal culture has ever evolved beyond basic agricultural / pastoral stages.

Not true. Look it up.

And your statement that matriarchal societies didn't progress beyond agricultural/pastoral economies is fundamentally flawed. Why? Because pastoral societies were generally patriarchal. It was their intrusion into settled agricultural societies that transformed them from matriarchal to patriarchal. That's precisely what happened in Canaan.

The Mary Cult is another great example. It survived in Europe because the peasants, the farming communities, could not conceive of a God lacking in feminine characteristics.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Today as well there are people who think Western
> culture is matriarchal and men are victims. Such
> counterfactual thinking even appears in the pages
> on this bulletin board from time to time.
>
> It takes all kinds.

Yeah right! Western culture does benefit women in many areas. The suicide rate of young men is three times higher than that of women, and men are far more likely to die younger or experience an industrial accident. Women can enter traditionally male occupations, but men are mocked for going into traditionally female ones, even nursing.

Look at child custody battles. The woman gets the children in most divorces and will only get turned down in extreme circumstances. Men have to fight to get access to their children at all in many cases.

And it's nearly always men paying money to their ex-wives not vice versa, even if the ex-wives have better jobs.

So women DO get it better in some walks of life, despite what upper class feminists will tell you from their ivory towers.

Him Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Yeah right! Western culture does benefit women in
> many areas. The suicide rate of young men is three
> times higher than that of women, and men are far
> more likely to die younger or experience an
> industrial accident.

Male suicide rates are higher than female rates all around the world, so it isn't "Western culture" that causes that difference.


------------
> Women can enter traditionally
> male occupations, but men are mocked for going
> into traditionally female ones, even nursing.


Men are mocked for becoming nurses? I don't think there is much of that going on anymore. 1960s? Sure. 2019? Not so much.


---------------
> Look at child custody battles. The woman gets the
> children in most divorces and will only get turned
> down in extreme circumstances. Men have to fight
> to get access to their children at all in many
> cases.

True. And unfair to men and often to children.


---------------
> And it's nearly always men paying money to their
> ex-wives not vice versa, even if the ex-wives have
> better jobs.


Not true if women have the better-paying jobs. Which raises the question why women are paid less for the same work.


--------------
> So women DO get it better in some walks of life,
> despite what upper class feminists will tell you
> from their ivory towers.

Perhaps. On the other hand, ivory towers usually have decent internet reception and hence allow one to do searches to find the facts on such things as gender-based suicide rates.

olderelder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ...women are now subjugated to men...
>
> NOW? It ain't nothing new. They have been for most
> of human existence.

Seems like back in ancient Greece, women were revered, worshiped and it wasn't unusual for them to walk around with their breasts on display. In fact, in most indigenous societies, women were free to bare their breasts. In the middle East it was common prior to Islam turning them into prudes, in order to control women's sexuality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toplessness#Traditional_societies

"Traditional societies
Attitudes towards toplessness have varied considerably across cultures and over time. The lack of clothing above the waist for both females and males was the norm in traditional cultures of North America, Africa, Australia and the Pacific Islands until the arrival of Christian missionaries, and it continues to be the norm in many indigenous cultures today. The practice was also the norm in various Asian cultures before Muslim expansion in the 13th and 14th centuries."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2019 12:02AM by koriwhore.

Ancient Greece was actually quite misogynistic.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ancient Greece was actually quite misogynistic.

Epicurus allowed women and slaves into his academy.
And they had women Gods. Most of their temples were in honor of Goddesses.

Women were barely better than slaves. They had few rights, and men formed closer relationships, not infrequently sexual, with other men.

"Now not only are we too controlled by hypocritical fake "morals" of Monotheism, which is always patriarchal, imposed upon us by fake men, speaking lies of a fake God, women are now subjugated to men and denied equal rights and equal pay for equal work."

I see you've left one cult for another. You really believe this stuff?

If churches are controlled by men, why are there more women in attendance? Are they stupid? Suppose they kind of like the way it controls their man and pressures him to marry so she can threaten divorce and get his money? Suppose they like the control over his sexuality - reporting and shaming him over porn viewing or whatever? Suppose they like him pressured to be the sole breadwinner so she can focus on kids?

As for the gender wage gap, that has been debunked many times. The fake statistics are based on overall earnings, not comparing same job with same hours worked (i.e. a lie).

If women want to make as much as men, they need to work the same hours and take the same jobs. Stop being more interested in kids and family. They should push for equality - more women in sewer repair and climbing poles in subzero weather to restore power, more women roofing in 100+ weather, etc, etc.
BTW, if you can get just as much work from women for less, businesses would be stupid to hire men. To get rich, hire women, right?

https://fee.org/articles/harvard-study-gender-pay-gap-explained-entirely-by-work-choices-of-men-and-women/


"Why are men free to walk down a beach or street topless if women are arrested everywhere, when they do the same."

You think it's the men complaining? No, it is women who don't want competition who are the force behind the laws against topless women. I've listened to my wife, daughter, sister and mom bitching about other women even having their shoulders uncovered. While I've heard my bishop brother comment positively about ladies showing their cleavage.

In the city near me, women have been going to city hall to protest the espresso stands with scantily clad women. Something about "hurting the children". Yeah, right. It's just easier to cut the competition than to work to be attractive. Use puppet church leaders and cops to push for modesty.

"Today as well there are people who think Western culture is matriarchal and men are victims. Such counterfactual thinking even appears in the pages on this bulletin board from time to time."

Men Will never be the victims women are. We're just not wired that way, and any effort there will get us shamed into "be a man". And we're too busy subjugating women while dying of black lung disease and getting killed in war or logging (like my logging buddy) or whatever.

A few years ago my son was down in a hole fixing a lady's sewer line. He asked her to not flush the toilet. Sure enough, she did, and he got to be literally shit on. He asked her why she did that, and she said she thought they were done (despite that 10 foot hole in her yard and their equipment, etc).

I've thought of that often, how men are supposedly the oppressors, while being treated that way. On the surface we seem to be in control, but behind the scenes, not so much. BTW, why was my son working in shit? To bring home a paycheck for my daughter.

For those that don't follow the PC crowd, and care about facts, here's some from Karen Straughan and Dr. Helen Smith. Because these are women, to avoid these videos, or to disagree with these women would make you a misogynist.


History lesson, women haven't been as oppressed as we're told:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eqYEVYZgdo

How men are treated now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klx1cfV-8b4

BTW, here's an example I recalled about the power of women behind the scenes.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather

"The white feather is a widely recognised symbol, although its meaning varies significantly between different countries and cultures.[1] In the United Kingdom and the countries of the British Empire since the eighteenth century it has been used a symbol of cowardice, used by patriotic groups, including prominent members of the Suffragette movement and early feminists, in order to shame men into enlisting."

That is an awesome article, one which you may want to read.

--------------
First, you say that the white feather is a symbol of cowardice.

But note the following: "in some cases of pacifism and in the United States armed forces, [the white feather] is used to signify extraordinary bravery and excellence in combat marksmanship."

And how about this? "In the United States, the white feather has also become a symbol of courage, persistence and superior combat marksmanship."

So your symbol can actually be a positive thing.


---------------
Then you state that women used the white feather to shame men as cowards.

Yet the article states that: "Shame was exerted upon men in England and France who had not taken the cross at the time of the Third Crusade, 'A great many men sent each other wool and distaff, hinting that if anyone failed to join this military undertaking they were only fit for women's work'.[2]"

So this is a case in which MEN were using the white feather as an insult against other men, saying they were no better than women.

Note also: "Admiral Charles Fitzgerald founded the Order of the White Feather with support from the prominent author Mrs Humphrey Ward. The organization aimed to shame men into enlisting in the British army by persuading women to present them with a white feather if they were not wearing a uniform.[3][4]"

So when it is used as an insult, it is MEN enlisting women in the MEN's efforts to shame other men.


---------------

So I'm confused, how is the white feather an indication of women's power when it was devised and organized by men who then used the women to achieve their ends?

It doesn't seem very matriarchal, does it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2019 01:49AM by Lot's Wife.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/24/2019 03:17AM by Lot's Wife.

clothing does serve a somewhat valuable (at least today) social function, it signals status & position.

Police officers on patrol & other public functions are given uniforms, which have their names & often indications of their rank. It is important that people in crisis situations recognize them, fire-fighters & other safety personnel.

An Armani suit sends a distinct impression different than jeans & a T, doesn't it?

In a few U.S. places, women are allowed to bare their breasts, and of course also there are a few nudist parks. In Seattle, I've ridden in a couple of nude bike-rides in public, so nudity can be 'acceptable' in limited circumstances...

At the beaches, we accept the sight-display of more skin, but caution people about too much exposure (Use sun-screen!)


of course, apart from nudity, prudishness extends to sexual & other conduct choices, it's somewhat ambiguous & always subject to changes.


me: I've always tried to avoid extremes of choices & actions, whether/not that's attributable to or led me to association with ChurchCo is an open matter.


I hope I contributed to the thread/discussion.

We must have some criteria to judge each other. No? I'm sure even in cave man times somebody got the sable and somebody got the muskrats.

" . . . signals status & position." Exactly.

Dressing has become a very complicated part of our psyches and can be read the same as body language.

I've known a lot of wealthy people who earned their money the hard way that never wear obviously expensive and exclusive clothing.

I see the nouveau-riche or "nouveau-in-debt" who have all the designer gear with all the designer logos.

I see the "still poor" with the knock off designer goods--especially here in So-Cal.

I see people dress down because they are purposely pretentiously trying to avoid appearing pretentious just as others dress like peacocks to call attention to themselves.

I have known two women recently who put on push up bras and open their blouses an extra button to go to business meetings as they complain about how they are treated. Everybody uses the ace up their sleeve don't they? Still they annoy the other men and women in the meeting but don't realize it. No one is fooled but people still look.

The guys in the meeting are more likely to mention their cars rather than wear a push-pup jock strap. I know a guy who drives a brand new top of the line BMW and in order to do so lives in a one bedroom in a down scale neighborhood and rents out the bedroom and sleeps on the couch. Not kidding. May be the extreme, but I think the automobile is becoming the new Channel Bag and the Armani suit combined.

Labels are on the outside for a reason. Why have the Armani if everyone thinks you got it at Penny's? Why have the gym body if you can't flash it? Why not take your shirt off with your perfect abs to distract from your face--even though it's only 52 degrees out?

Why not insist others cover up not because it is immodest but because then you don't have to feel jealous, or, feel the need to compete when you know you can't.

We all love to talk about seeing the person inside. It's really wonderful when you do. Too bad there aren't special glasses so the Mormon 15 could see what is real and what is not and not have to go by earrings, hemlines, and shoulders. They put the rude in Prude?


What I really notice are the majority of wonderful people who aren't prudes and aren't really trying to impress, but just love their friends and family and want all to do well, have laugh, and share a pizza now and then.

What would have been offensive in that culture, I wonder? A woman with covered breasts?

Just think if we were okay with a reduction in clothing worn what it would do to our need to do laundry?

You get to clean the couch!

People need to launder themselves better, feed themselves better and not all over the place, keep their bodies under better control....

I never understood why our societies require clothing until I understood how they are engineered for our comfort and not our utilities as creatures.

What this lacks in crispness and clarity, is more than compensated by the entertainment value thereof.

Bravo!

Adam and Eve trusted the snake more than they trusted God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp6Ny2aMIQY

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4,000 years ago in Crete people worshipped Snake
> Godesses with bare breasts controlling nature,
> taming wild creatures.

Objectification! Cultural appropriation! Eurocentrism!

SJW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 4,000 years ago in Crete people worshipped
> Snake
> > Godesses with bare breasts controlling nature,
> > taming wild creatures.
>
> Objectification! Cultural appropriation!
> Eurocentrism!
I'm pretty sure women in Africa, Middle East, Asia, Australia were bare breasted up until missionaries showed up at convinced them that was shameful.

I loved National Geographic breasts...

I suspect some of those early "goddess" objects were actually just plain old porn from the time.

Exactly.

In fertility cults--most agricultural societies were at the time--sex was part of worship. That's one of the reasons the temples to the Goddess in Canaan were reviled by the YHWH cult. If you bear that in mind, obscure passages in the OT make more sense. So too does the Israelites' (really the Canaanites') constant return to their pagan gods and goddesses and the language about Israel "whoring" after other gods.

The Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition represented a sharp change in the religious patterns in the Near East and many parts of Southeastern Europe. Meanwhile in Rome there was explicit pornography on the walls of many public buildings.

If I had to choose, I'd take present day over ancient times.

I don't know, Cheryl... Must have been nice not to have to worry about the infirmities of old age!

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>Monotheism, which is always patriarchal,


Jewish mother + Gentile father = Jewish kids

Jewish mother + Jewish father = Jewish kids

Jewish father + Gentile mother = Gentile kids


...up until about three generations ago, all STDs would kill you dead within a few years.

up until a few generations ago, infant/childhood mortality was at least 50%.

sex was lethal.

prudery was the wisest behavior to mitigate risk for most of human existence.