Exactly my point – neither definion of the roots of History work very well …

Thanks – I was being tongue and cheek but it is a serious point. Knowledge is power.

And yes, would totally agree the problem is one of ownership. Until recently a woman couldn’t accuse a man of rape if she were married to him – even if this was forced onto her. The legal story then was that a woman was a man’s property and therefore he isn’t violating her. That was UK law , by the way.

Perhaps deep down we know that women are the stronger sex and that’s why we want to keep em down. Was it Malcolm X who said educate a man you educate an individual, educate a woman you educate a nation.

Yes I do – where are your pictures of your hols?

Justforfun

spot on!

Exactly.

And refusing to shake hands with the opposite sex doesn’t strike me as a great place to start!

The word ‘history’ comes from the Greek root historia meaning ‘narrative, history’, admittedly also from histor, meaning ‘learned, wise men’. The root of the word ‘his’ is Old English. In any event it would be hi story, or his tory, neither of which work too well!

In any event I do not believe it is that simple. If you care to look at emancipation of women in the Western world, it has been a struggle going on for nigh on 150 years. And it is a battle not yet won.

The drag factor in all of this debate has largely been about ‘ownership’, in the appalling Victorian sense that a husband owned his wife. And, frankly, the complicity of a lot of women in agreeing to that status. Sure, they went through a church ceremony that said that they were coming together in the sight of God, and all of that, but the legal situation was a lot more one sided. Given that the Church and the State were closer bedfellows back then than they are now, it is pretty plain to me that the Church was complicit in maintaining a status quo ante. Men on top!

You either believe in equality, beyond state or religious strictures, or you don’t. And, if you believe in equality and religion, it ought to be a duty of every woman that sees it that way to challenge the existing religious structural imbalance in favour of men.

Religion isn’t the only means that limit women’s freedom – there are so many isms that marginalise women, this is a useful link to the religions that do, though….More interesting question is why.

http://waf.gn.apc.org/

“I’d only say that all religions are masculine”

But generally though you could argue that all knowledge is masculine….

E/g the past is told to us as HIStory. Why not HERstory?

Whatever. You are obviously not liberal enough

Supreme governor indeed, what does that tell you about the masochist tendancy?

men in dresses …;-) i suppose the mullah outfits are a bit girly too if you come to think about it – like a long frock..

What about the Church of England?

Men in dresses; a woman as the supreme governor; most of the clergy are attracted to men.

Hugs. No, seriously. Hugs.

It is your decision to make.

You can make your own mind up about stuff. You are a very intelligent woman, you can figure it out for yourself.

I’d only say that all religions are masculine.

hilarious – chortle, that’s funny.

“Unless you want to become an atheist like me, that is not a bent rail you want to travel on.”

ah well – quite. perhaps that’s where i’m heading. not only do i think refresh was right about there being no answers on PP i think perhaps there are no answers?

i think the reason the mullahs don’t like questions like mine are because often they lead to just that – becoming an atheist.

This thread has been derailed so often you’d think it was Railtrack! Have we ever had a thread that reached 310, oops, if I post this 311, before?

I think what you are talking about is the divine versus religious bureaucracy. This seems to me to be quite prevelant in all religions, where earthly pursuits or concerns are allowed to over-ride the messages of peace, brotherhood, sisterhood too, and a basic humanity.

The media, the institution if you like, suppresses the message. I do not think that the interpretations that others place on the message is at all germane. As an ex-Christian, I happen to think Jesus Christ was an OK guy, with a great point to make. What I cannot accept is the ’stuff’ that surrounds it. OK, that is my problem, but the point is that hierarchies are built on obscuring simple messages, and the messages are lost in translation through a ‘priesthood’, for want of a better term.

What gives any mortal man – they tend to be men – the right to second guess a religious icon? How are they especially enabled? Unless you want to become an atheist like me, that is not a bent rail you want to travel on.

“You are absolutely correct to get answers for the things you don’t understand or dispute. That’s the nature of the faith. Verify for yourself. Follow nothing blindly.”

You are absolutely correct the things you don’t understand or dispute. That’s the nature of the faith. Verify for your self.

Having said that you’re clearly addressing the wrong audience. The answers are not going to be found on Pickled Politics.

There are numerous sites you could visit both by muslims and others more than happy to portray the faith in a poor light.

Have I got the answers? No. I don’t know enough.

Have you opened a can of worms? No.

Have you derailed the thread? Yes. Clearly you have.

Its all yours.