[lit-ideas] Re: Warrior world.
- From: Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 10:41:34 -0500
Donal:
"Come now. This is more "jejune" than "jesuit"."
: ) I resemble that remark.
"Surely there are often competing authorities and therefore, in choosing
between them, we cannot - logically - be deciding which to submit to "simply
because it is 'authority'."
I had in mind the willing submission to military authority. How willing it
is, might be of question, but obedience is not.
.
"Hard to discern where these figures come from...."
My head.
"the capacity for violence clearly crosses the gender divide..."
Yes, I conceded that. However the incident rate of violent behavior is
overwhelming attributable to males.
"there are reasons, connected with the greater risks of death and serious
injury, why men would be more wary of male-male violence than a woman need
be wary of female-female... as violence between females very rarely results
in death or grievous injury [aside from being rarer].... "
Thank you for arguing my case.
"Hold on. Jesus was a misogynic fascist?"
I don't know. I assume Jesus was one of hundreds if not thousands of
itinerant preachers wandering around preaching a "purer" religion, one not
corrupted by Sadducean or Pharisaical institutionalism. More of an Essene
or a Gnostic. I don't believe he believed he was God. Nor was he, in my
beliefs. If the Scriptures give an accurate account of Jesus's beliefs,
then, no, I don't think he was a misogynistic fascist. But he was not the
founder of Christianity, St. Paul was and he was decidedly a fascistic
misogynist. As were all the Fathers of the Church and such "great"
theologians as Thomas Aquinas and a startling number of Western
philosophers. Men hate women because they need them.
"25% is not many?"
Not compared to 75%.
"We may as well say not many women were either."
How many tens of thousands constitutes "many" for you?
Mike Geary
Memphis
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Come now. This is more "jejune" than "jesuit".
>
>
> --- On *Mon, 24/5/10, Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>* wrote:
>
>
> >Within that "willing to do" is the killing of innocent people because of
> their beliefs, the willingness to blow themselves up to kill those who don't
> believe as they do. The willingness to submit their autonomy to authority
> simply because it >is 'authority'.
>
> Surely there are often competing authorities and therefore, in choosing
> between them, we cannot - logically - be deciding which to submit to "simply
> because it is 'authority'." Second, resistance to authority is a strong
> human tendency, often stronger than any tendency to blind obedience.
>
> >The number of women who are willing to commit themselves to programs of
> militarism or who abuse their spouses, their children, who commit violent
> crimes >are minuscule compared to the number of men.
>
> Hard to discern where these figures come from or how they must be
> interpreted given the distinction between "willing" and "able", and given
> social and cultural constraints on women expressing violence as well as
> constraints on men avoiding its expression, and that the effects of male
> violence are likely more 'visible' than female violence. Etc.
>
> Even if we accept there are differences between the genders in their
> propensity and expression of violence, the capacity for violence clearly
> crosses the gender divide [as evolution would suggest it would, like the
> nipple]. And there are constraints on male violence that do not apply to
> female violence: for example, there are reasons, connected with the greater
> risks of death and serious injury, why men would be more wary of male-male
> violence than a woman need be wary of female-female: this is even reflected
> in sentencing policy in England, as violence between females very rarely
> results in death or grievous injury [aside from being rarer] the need for a
> deterrent sentence is less.*
>
> >But for a couple of latter day exceptions, men are the founders and rulers
> of religions, all are misogynist and fascist at core and have great violent,
> murderous >crimes in their history -- the workings of men.
>
> Hold on. Jesus was a misogynic fascist? That's not the Jesuits talking, is
> it?
>
> >Not many men were burned as witches.
>
> 25% is not many? We may as well say not many women were either. For an
> authoritive source:
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn.htm
>
> Donal
> *When last looked at, there were only two reported English cases where
> persons sentenced to imprisonment for 'street fighting' had the sentence
> reduced on appeal:- one involved a Navy submariner who, beered up, attacked
> a "hey, keep it quiet you" Pc in Leicester Sq [an ex-Services
> Appellate judge headed the decision which was not, as is often the way in
> such cases, very clearly explained in terms of jurisprudential niceties but
> which might be guessed to have come down to these practicalities: if prison
> sentence were upheld, the Navy would lose a good fighting man since
> dismissal is automatic on a prison sentence; working on a sub half the year
> is comparable in its restrictions to imprisonment; so fine him half a year's
> salary instead so he serves his 'time' while serving his country] and may be
> taken as confined to its facts. The other was a vicious drunken fight
> between girl groups in the Liverpool area that involved punching and kicking
> others when they were on the ground _but where, nevertheless, no one was
> that seriously hurt_; the increase in such girl fights may have led to
> a harsher "deterrent" policy since, but it is clear the more likely serious
> consequences of male-on-male violence argues for a greater "deterrent"
> element in sentencing than with female-on-female violence].
>
>
>
Other related posts:
