Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

[Greatest I am]

If you want your duty protected then you are duty bound to protect the duty of the other. That is why the captain has a gun. To enforce duty.

So, not only does the Law of the Sea have precedence to your notion of duty but there is no room for exception as there is a man with a gun standing by to assure adherence. Nice system of ethics you've got brewing there.

There can be and likely are exceptions in every instance of the Law of the Sea being used.

As a Captain wishing to save as many as possible, he would accept older people and perhaps even others who wish to let another live instead of themselves.

So yes, it is about as nice a system as I can think of if the various people do what they are supposed to do.

If you have something better then please, educate us.

If not, -------

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

Regards
DL

---

[

That is wrong.

Then I await your figure.

Or did you decide that I was wrong the same way you decided your God was right? On pure faith?

“Faith means not wanting to know what is true.” — Friedrich Nietzsche -

Regards
DL

---

In our countries, the religious are the vast majority. If women do not presently have full equality it is primarily because of so called religious men. Religious men who have forgotten their duty to family.

Regards
DL

If we assume that in our country the religious are the vast majority, it does not necessarily follow that women do not presently have full equality (with respect to pay) in the workforce. The Biblically defined roles are within the context of a formal worship setting and the home. It does not define 'workplace' roles.

If A is true and B is true, does that necessitate that A caused B?

Your first is correct. It does not necessarily follow but it does follow in this case.

To your last. So a man must give women equality in the home but can abuse woman outside of it at the workplace.

Nice theology you follow friend.

To answer your last. B is cause by the immoral teachings of Christian theology that so called moral men have embraced, like, ---he shall rule over you.

Regards
DL

---

It's amazing that this thread has lasted 122 posts. Which part of 'no' don't you understand, the 'n' or the 'o'?

I agree.

But if man is going to continue denying women equality, and men will continue to rule, who should they rule for? Themselves?

You can say for the whole of society and would be partially correct but how is society structured and when push comes to shove, will men step up to protect families or will they try to get the weaker family members to protect their stronger asses?

The ancient Kings ruled for their Queens. They recognized their family responsibilities and duty and pride in doing that duty. To say that the King will sit at home and send the Queen to do his fighting seems rather cowardly to me. Not to you I take it?

Regards
DL

---

It really is my fault. What can I say, I'm a rebel.
But seriously I didn't mean to start the debate back up again. I figured the OP was long gone by now. Usually sexists don't last long here.

I am a Gnostic Christian and we recognize the spark of God within all of us. Full equality is something we have to embrace from the get go.

Gnostic Christian men have just decided that man is stronger and better, by will and body, and should thus be the main protector of family values and think that our duty is first to maintain life for our children and secondly to place our wives in that same safe environment.

IOW, the strong should serve the weak.

If you think the reverse should be in play, then you are not much of a moral or duty driven person.

Get thee behind me Satan.

Regards
DL