Bros before Hos?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
This guy:
Well, I'll see your Gordon Brown and raise you with:
Zachary Taylor!
Um, no. I'm just having a bit of fun with Sam's topic. Still, one can't help but note the coorelation between females voting and pretty boy politicians.
Catherine the Great got people to do the more violent side of her politics for her.
So, after being shown that a number of women leaders have equalled and/or exceeded the achievements of male leaders in the past, you are now heavily hinting at the fact this was due to more masculine characteristics.
Is there any pleasing you?
No, there is no pleasing me on this site!
And interestingly, I hadn't thought of exactly what you mentioned above. But "male characteristics" might be something to explore. And just for grins and laughs, ....are there any female leaders in the world, past or present, who were really sexy, really hot, beautiful, lovely and desirable?
What I was trying to say/imply was that male methods are what gets things done ...in much the same way as you've stated about Catherine:
"Catherine the Great got people to do the more violent side of her politics for her."
She saw what she wanted to accomplish, then sent in the men to do the dirty work. Why didn't she send in the women?
Baron Max
Maybe if the women went to the front lines in the Civil war they would have had rights first.
Society degrades.
Society degrades.
not even worth my time . . .
Such as the Iroquois, compared with their neighbors the Puritans, in the early 1700s in the US?SAM said:
Or the Scottish peoples of the northern British Isles, compared with the aggressively monotheistic southerners who conquered them ?
Women took a fairly serious status hit, in both cases, under the conquering Patriarchies and their God.
It occurs to me that we're going to need a solid definition of "monotheistic", if we want to compare technologically and culturally disparate societies. Are we classifying the Catholic Church in Ireland or Italy, with its shrines to the Blessed Mary and its Trinity and its prayers to the Apostles and Saints, as "monotheistic"?
Several, including the Navajo in the US and various other Tribes on that continent.SAM said:
There were also various pioneer societies of non-religious whites in NA, to compare with their technologically and otherwise equivalent pioneer religious ones - the theism or lack of it is conjectural (in both cases) of course.
Last edited:
The indigenous tribes of Nth America were not atheist.
They had (and still have), a fairly developed set of theistic beliefs, and a 'true' god who was the head honcho of all the others. It was animist, but so was Judaism at the first - why were mountains so important, and storms, plagues, earthquakes, etc, labeled an act of a capricious god?
Just because they never heard of Jesus and the "Holy Trinity", and various other sacred cows, doesn't mean they had none of their own. That looks like a bit of a sweeping claim.
Where did Christianity come from? How many pagans were converted, i.e. from their indigenous beliefs? Weren't the Christian converters just keen to have everyone follow their brand of paganism?
They had (and still have), a fairly developed set of theistic beliefs, and a 'true' god who was the head honcho of all the others. It was animist, but so was Judaism at the first - why were mountains so important, and storms, plagues, earthquakes, etc, labeled an act of a capricious god?
Just because they never heard of Jesus and the "Holy Trinity", and various other sacred cows, doesn't mean they had none of their own. That looks like a bit of a sweeping claim.
Where did Christianity come from? How many pagans were converted, i.e. from their indigenous beliefs? Weren't the Christian converters just keen to have everyone follow their brand of paganism?
Many were - at least by the kinds of definitions of deity prevalent on this forum (excluding wood spirits, animal spirits, leprechuans, tooth fairies, etc). But that's not the criterion here - we are asked to compare pagan and tribal people (presumably not monotheistic, but otherwise unspecified) with monotheists, and I chose a couple of side by side comparisons, to illustrate the obvious fact that monotheism is not necessarily some kind of great advance in women's status.vk said:
The Navajo is not an atheist society. And even if they were they had several practices which would not be consistent with the image of a woman who has a separate identity. e.g. a man's brother had first dibs on his widow, she could not marry someone else if he wanted her. Or had to pay him if she did. Or, other members of the husbands family had a prerogative and she was not free until they gave her up. Both levirate and sororate were practiced by them
Monotheism is the only means by which the sranglehold of women as "property" of men was abolished.
Monotheism is the only means by which the sranglehold of women as "property" of men was abolished.
Last edited:
This guy:
Well, I'll see your Gordon Brown and raise you with:
Zachary Taylor!Um, no. I'm just having a bit of fun with Sam's topic. Still, one can't help but note the coorelation between females voting and pretty boy politicians.
Pretty boy and politician do not go together.
Is that just your own opinion, or is there some evidence to back up that claim?
Baron Max
S.A.M has already named three - now perhaps you can give me some hot male equivalents?
Because men are physically stronger, you idiot
. But of course, it is has always been the aggressive societies of the past that have achieved the most(!)