How sad to abort a perfectly healthy fetus just because it's not the sex they wanted. This is the slippery slope in action!
Stockholm, Sweden (LifeNews.com) -- The National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden has ruled that sex-selection abortions are not illegal despite evidence that they are happening. Doctors at one hospital reported a case and some reports indicate women from Norway are going to Sweden for sex-selection abortions.

The board ruled that current national law in Sweden does not prohibit abortions based on the gender of the unborn child and, as a result, they can't be stopped.

According to a report in The Local newspaper, a woman in February went to the Mälaren Hospital and said she already had two girls and did not want a third. Pregnant, the woman received a an amniocentesis to check on whether the baby would have any disabilities and she also asked to learn the gender.

Doctors expressed their concerns to the board to craft guidelines for how to handle future cases and Sveriges Television indicates it said sex-selection abortions are allowed up to 18 weeks into the pregnancy.

They need to take a look at China. According to something I read some time ago, men are having more and more trouble finding mates. I figured that would happen at some point and it did.

It's a sad reason, mainly because it is probably mostly girls being aborted. Men want sons and women want to please their men. When women are recognized by both sexes as having value equal to males, maybe some of these old attitudes will gradually change and we won't have selective breeding, at least not for the sex of the child.

In China girls are aborted frequently. There is no social security or pension program in China. Caring for aged parents is the responsibility of the first born son and his wife. Since they can only have one child, most insist on a male. In China, men and women prefer male children.

Sweden has always had a very liberal abortion policy. Any time, any reason.

Yes, I knew all the problems with China. It's all so sad.

India has sonogram parlors right next to abortion parlors.

That is just horrible! How anyone could see the ultrasound picture and not think it's a baby is beyond me. What's the world coming to?

I can understand, but don't necessarily agree with, the wants and needs people in and of countries that are so overpopulated like China and India but Sweden could wipe itself off the map in a very short time if the female to male ratio becomes too one sided. If they are forced to import women from other countries in great numbers for mates, then very quickly the Swedes are no longer Swedes.

Girls have as much value in Swedish society as do boys. This particular woman already had two girls and wanted a boy. There is no danger in the male to female ratio getting out of whack in Sweden. They have already allowed much immigration into their country and have been particularly generous with refugees from Iraq.

Frankly. if China would just implement a social security program, it would stop female infanticide. Already there are close to 33 million excess males in China.
I don't know how China intends to address that.

And isn't it ironic that almost all organized religions have, since their inception, perpetuated the view of women as second-class and lesser than men?

Maureen

That is interesting. As a Catholic I don't feel any less than a man just because I can't become a priest though. Motherhood is sacred!!

Women are often referred to as "chattel" (sp) in the Bible, and are often likened to property. A woman, in the Bible, was in general not looked upon as an individual or as an independent person--but more so as bearer of children for men. I know that there are exceptions to this, but by and large, women were only extensions of the man or the father in Biblical times.

In the early days of organized religion, women weren't allowed to read the Bible--it had to be read to them. Partly because women were not taught to read--only the males were "schooled".

Regardless of how you feel--it doesn't alter the fact that many, many religions continue to proprogate the idea of women as second class citizens. And that it is based on what the Bible says.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

How you "feel" is not surprising. You "feel" like you have been trained to feel.

I "feel" that many of the priests think of women as lesser beings. I may be wrong in my "feelings" but nothing that they have done changes my perception. If they can convince you that you, the little woman, should stay in your place, then they maintain the power that they have held for centuries. It is certainly in their best interests to perpetuate your "feelings".

Anytime power is lopsided towards one sex, one race, one class of people, the powerful will do anything to maintain the status. Part of that is making sure that you "feel" a certain way.

And nowhere did I disagree with you. In some ways I understand about the Bible reading. It can be complicated. Back in the "old days" lots of things were different. Some places are still like that, some aren't.

You know what, I can give birth to a child and they can't! In many ways that trumps them, doesn't it? Lots of priests I know around here feel that way. That's another reason the Catholic Church honors (not worships) Mary, the mother of Jesus. She wouldn't have such a place of honor if women mean nothing.

It's not exactly like you could do it alone, though. And that whole argument, of 'honoring' women by keeping them in their place is the same one used to explain burkhas and purda.

And as far as how things were done in 'the old days', it's irrelevant. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God or the inspired word of God, then you subscribe (or should subscribe) to those beliefs today...either you believe it or you don't, you can't cherry[pick the ideas that you like and disregard the rest...if, of course, you believe the Bible came from God and isn't just a collection of stories put together by men seeking power. Bottom line, God doesn't change...what people want God to be changes, which is why the church (NOT God) changes it's views every now and then...to suit the masses.

Maureen

Catholic doctrine doesn't change. I just have a real problem with all the "equality" issues. Men and women have their strengths and weaknesses. Neither is less or more. Whoever can do the job the best should get the job and the pay should be equal. On the other hand, I don't like all the petty whining comparing males to females, etc... we ARE different.

Yes, men and women are different. However, let's consider that some religions require their ministers/pastors to attend seminary to "learn" how to be a "good" minister. Some of these religions stipulate that only men can be ministers or be ordained. Now, explain to me how only men can be taught to be good/effective ministers?
I've never understood that.
Yes, I am kind of hung up on not allowing women in the priesthood/leadership roles. I have the fortune of having a father who is ordained, as well as a mother who is ordained. Let me tell you---my Dad can preach an amazing funeral! My mom is much better at integrating less conventional methods in her sermons. My Dad preaches very short sermons (his theory is the brain can absorb only as much as the butt can endure!). Mom tends to be a little more long winded.
They are both exceptional ministers. I find it insulting that certain religion do not allow women in the pulpit or in leadership roles.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Other than the biological fact that my husband can write his name in the snow with his urine and I carried our children to birth and my breasts produced the milk to nourish them in infancy, (which could have easily been accomplished by adoption and formula) my husband and I are not different at all. Can you explain how we are different otherwise?

IMHO - the Catholic church and many of the crazy evangelical religions are huge abusers of females. Keep them pregnant. Perpetuate the religion AND keep the men in power. These females are no different to me than the burkha wearing Isamic females. Of course, many Islamic females have no real choice.

The Catholic chuch, IMHO, values families, which means both the male and the female. In the "old days" women did stay home to take care of the children and the home. I think that was pretty standard everywhere regardless of religion wasn't it? Back to the hunter/gatherer days. I don't see my church at all as giving all the power to men or abusing females. Sure it's happened but that's because we are all human and mistakes/sins will always happen. You will find ministers having affairs in Protestant religions and also abusing children. I have gotten close to a lot of Catholic homeschooling large families and I don't see inequality in these families. I see mutual respect for what each brings to the family. Maybe I'm just lucky to know a lot of really cool couples.
There are tons of differences between men and women besides the obvious. I can't believe you would have to ask for some examples.

So, give me some examples then. I must have missed the tons of differences. Differences that make a difference now, not when females had to depend on a males strength or financial circumstances.

While you are at it, do you have any examples of these big families you so adore where the female is not the primary caregiver, and dependent on the male for income to sustain their existence?

I don't have time right now to look up the differences but I'm sure if you google gender differences you will find a ton of info. As far as those families -in my best friends family the dad does kind of freelance work so he is in and out of the house often. However, he takes part in the homeschooling (teaches the upper level classes) and he's definitely hands on with the kids. He attends most of the events they go to. He's a good husband and dad. In another family, the dad is the main income earner but the mom does work part-time outside of the home. Most of these families operate in more of a partnership type of thing. Another family that I'm getting to know-the mom is going to work as my back-up in my current job and our first training session was today! He has the full time job whereas she home schools the 7 kids. She has a teaching degree. I don't think any of these families think of things in the same way "society" as a whole views things. They are a unit-obviously the mom gives birth, most of them nurse, etc... so it's a natural evolution to home-schooling, etc... If the mom is homeschooling that's as important, actually more important, than if she worked a "regular" job outside of the home. I think it's all how you look at it. "Money" is not the way to judge a successful family or whether or not the "man" is valued more.

I bet.

And, no. It has nothing to do with money. It has everything to do with manufactured dependence and male domination in the name of God. Which, oddly enough, brings us right back to your post about woman choosing an abortion over having a female child.

Wow, do I sense some major bitterness here? I've been divorced twice and have dated some real losers so I could sure have a bitter attitude towards men but I don't. Maybe I'm just independent enough to not view men as superior! lol The point of the thread was to point out the slipperty slope of abortion. Now it's allowed for gender. How soon will it be before they can determine hair and eye color or "artistic" genes, etc... that people decide they don't want a perfectly healthy fetus for any number of reasons and it's legal. I should hope that would disturb even abortion supporters. There's one thing favoring abortion for dire circumstances, disabilities, etc... but surely advocates have a line they dont' think is right to cross.

My DS's girlfriend is from China. It is so interesting to me to consider that she has no first cousins on either side of the family, and that she is the only grandchild either set of grandparents will have. Aunts and uncles? Nope. Nada.

If someone isn't Christian, they simply can't fully appreciate the dynamics. I don't mean 'incapable' as in 'too dumb to get it.' I mean that if it isn't your belief system, I understand why one wouldn't have any appreciation for the roles that are part of the Biblical way of doing things. When you are Christian and just see life on earth as someplace you're passing though, and aren't really all that caught up in your 'rights' and whether anybody is oppressing you due to you gender because you have *responsibilities* to fulfill... it's just a different world view.

If, as a Christian, you are really focused on the end goal - heaven - then whether you get to be the one standing behind a pulpit or the one having babies or the one whose spouse died too young or the one who is a slave or the one who is free or the one who is in a good marriage or the one in a bad one... none of those things *really* matter all that much. Worrying about your 'power' or lack thereof is simply rearranging deck chairs on a ship that's going down. There are bigger fish to fry.

Personally, when I read the Bible, I see God and Christ valuing men and women equally. That's because heaven -the ultimate reward - is equally available to both genders. I do think there are some roles that our biology dictates -and influences - and really, I could care less, because none of it is about *me* getting to do what I *want* to do. I think that if one is following Biblical precepts, one will naturally encounter some things he or she wants to do that Biblical law prohibits. Sex outside of marriage... taking on certain leadership roles... there are lots of things somebody might be drawn to or might wish to do, but due to their church's take on some scriptures could find themselves unable to do.

Personally.... I guess I just say, "Big deal. Who cares?" It's like arguing over who gets to sit in the front seat of the bus while the whole team is headed to the state tourney. In the grand scheme of things I have plenty to keep me busy without trying to find my way into some duties that, in my religious tradition, have been assigned to men.

Ultimately, if you are Christian, you answer to God. While it may seem on the surface that men have more options than women, that's really not accurate. In exercising ANY option, either gender is bound by God's parameters, and if you're Christian, you gladly allow your 'ear to be pierced' because you have your eye on a bigger picture.

Back to the OP.... it's terribly disturbing, IMHO, that there are those who think it's acceptable to try to orchestrate what the population of the world looks like by omitting those that don't fit their own personal vision for the next generation.

I thought you had no time......

Everyone knows your stand on abortion. How do you believe the problem of sex selection can be solved? Polygraph with a bright light over the stirrup table? Outlaw ultrasound machines?

There's a great Rosa Parks analogy in that, though, isn't there?

Maureen

I'm not trying to be catty or play dumb, but I've thinking about this for about the last 10 minutes or so and I can't think of anything that men are capable of that women aren't (except the writing in the snow thing, and really if I tried hard enough I might even be able to pull that off, though it'd be a really messy trial and error)

There may be slight difference where women tend to be a certain way and men another, but there are no absolutes and nothing that would point to women not being equal to a man. Many of those difference are likely a product of society than something genetic.

Men have a slight advantage in strength, but even that's not an absolute. Not all men are stronger than all women. Plus women have a slightly higher endurance level so it pretty much evens out.

So I guess what I'm saying is, yes, I do want some examples.

__________________
Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box.

This is another one of those things that - like I mentioned above - just doesn't matter if you are a Christian, and if you're not, it probably isn't going to seem reasonable.

There is a verse in the Bible that discusses your responsibilities if you a slave... and essentially, it says you responsibility is to be the best slave there is (paraphrasing, of course!) and to be obedient and be the sort of a person that nobody could ever say anything against. In other words... whether you are a slave or a master, your job is to live a life of integrity.

It also goes on to say that if you are a slave and have the opportunity to be free that it's good to seize the opportunity... but if it doesn't present itself, your job is still to behave with integrity, living a life above reproach. It just doesn't matter to you if you live a crappy 50 years on earth, because those 50 years are nothing when compared to eternity. Live with integrity, sleep with a clean conscience, and keep your eye on the prize.

I think Rosa followed that principle to a "T". She wasn't a slave, but the principle applies. She had an opportunity, and seized it with integrity.

I wasn't necessarily talking about what they are "capable" of doing. If there's not that big of a difference then why wuold anyone want a sex change operation? lol
from a quick google search:
Female brains are more compact than male brains in that, though smaller, they are more densely packed with neurons, particularly in the region responsible for language.[5] Also, females have language functions evenly distributed in both cerebral hemispheres, while in males they are more concentrated in the left hemisphere. This puts males more at risk for language disorders like dyslexia.

In the big five personality traits, women score higher in Agreeableness (tendency to be compassionate and cooperative) and Neuroticism (tendency to feel anxiety, anger, and depression).[7]
Demographics of MBTI surveys indicate that 60-75% of women prefer feeling and 55-80% of men prefer thinking.[8][9]

[edit] Aggression
Main article: Aggression
Males are generally more aggressive than females (Coi & Dodge 1997, Maccoby & Jacklin 1974, Buss 2005). There is evidence that males are quicker to aggression (Frey et al 2003) and more likely than females to express their aggression physically (Bjorkqvist et al. 1994). However, some researchers (such as Rachel Simmons) have suggested that females are not necessarily less aggressive, but that they tend to show their aggression in less overt, less physical ways (Bjorkqvist et al. 1994, Hines and Saudino 2003). For example, females may display more verbal and relational aggression, such as social rejection.

Females score higher on self-report scales of empathy, on samples ranging from school-age children to adults. Empathy scales include measures of perspective taking, orientation towards another person, empathic concern, and personal distress. However, such measures are subjective and empathy may be more related to gender role rather than sex.[10]

Simon Baron-Cohen's EQ SQ Theory claims that, in general, men are better at systematizing (the desire to analyze and explore systems and rules) and that women are better at empathizing (the ability to identify with other people’s feelings).

More males than females are diagnosed with autism and Asperger syndrome. According to Cohen, autistic and Asperger individuals are examples of an "extreme male brain." Autistic and Asperger individuals are very high in systematizing, albeit often in a manner which is hyperfocused, and may even oversimplify more complex systems due to missing certain details. Autistic and Asperger individuals are also very low in empathizing. [11]

Communication
Deborah Tannen’s studies found these gender differences in communication styles:[12]

Men tend to talk more than women in public situations, but women tend to talk more than men at home.
Females are more inclined to face each other and make eye contact when talking, while males are more likely to look away from each other.
Boys tend to jump from topic to topic, but girls tend to talk at length about one topic.
When listening, women make more noises such as “mm-hmm” and “uh-huh”, while men are more likely to listen silently.
Women are inclined to express agreement and support, while men are more inclined to debate.
When measured with an affect intensity measure, women reported greater intensity of both positive and negative affect than men. Women also reported a more intense and more frequent experience of affect, joy, and love. Women also reported a more intense and more frequent experience of embarrassment, guilt, shame, sadness, anger, fear, and distress. Experiencing pride was more frequent and intense for men than for women.[16]

Men and women use different cognitive strategies when coping with emotional situations. Women are more prone to depression because of their tendency to dwell on the causes of negative emotions while men distract themselves from dwelling on these emotions.[17]

Women have a greater affect intensity, which makes them more prone to "self-referring, overgeneralizing, and selective attention to emotional information, which may lead to more intense emotional reactions." (282)[18][19] Women also have a tendency to catch others' emotions, known as emotional contagion.[20]


If this doesn't suffice please google gender differences for more info.

Okay .. So you can find Wikipedia with a flash light. How does all this tell you males are more suitable for the priesthood, or woman are not suitable? Or, for being more able to raise a child? All have strenghts and weakness. And, socialization plays a huge role in how one would answer the questions of these studies. As WID so elequently states, she is quite happy to be the bestest slave she can be. So, I would guess she was socialized to express aggreement and support -- because that is what good little slaves do if they don't want to be punished.

And, why in the world are mostly aggressive, more prone to homosexuality, autistic, less empathetic dyslexics, who are not in touch with their emotions ruling the majority of religions? And why are guilt ridden and sad people, who are apparently more prone to depression and embarassment, mostly raising future generations?

It is interesting that you selectively copy and paste from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences

Why didn't you put this in your post?
"In one large scale study, most cognitive abilities and psychological traits showed little or no average difference between the sexes "

Or this "Many recent studies have concluded that IQ performances of men and women vary little"

Or this "The studies also reported that in general both sexes communicated in similar ways "

Or finally this "Stereotypes dictate how and by whom and when it is socially acceptable to display an emotion. Reacting in a stereotype-consistent manner results in social approval, while reacting in a stereotype-inconsistent manner results in disapproval. It should be noted that what is socially acceptable varies substantially over time, and between local cultures and subcultures"

The whole point being -- you can't perpetuate the religious dogma that men are somehow more able to be powerful and then chastise a future mother who wishes for a child to have more chance at power and success. This goes along the same lines as singling out homosexuals as devient and living in the shadows, yet denying them the opportunity to form recognized lasting and devoted bonds. Or, denying sex education and birth control on one hand, and stigmatizing abortion and also single parenthood and the possible reliance on public funds to help raise resulting children.

Surely you jest? And stop calling me Shirley! (Airplane!). You wanted to know about gender differences so I answered it. Maybe you need to speak to a sociologist to answer your questions. You can ask the Lord why he told his Apostles to go out and preach to all nations.That is where the male priesthood comes from. I think women, who actually carry the child, deliver it, sustain the child with their breast milk, etc... would be more likely to be the nuturing parent. Isn't that natures way of saying the mom should be with the child, at least those first several years, if possible? Wouldn't that then mean that the male would be out there doing the "hard work"? lol Isn't that innate? I know times have changed and all that but if you think back to earlier times the child would not have survived had the mother left to do the "hard work" and the man stayed "in the cave" to tend the baby all day. The baby would have had to have a wet nurse or die. So yes, there are differences in the genders and Mother Nature/God planned it that way. That's my humble opinion and you don't have to agree. I couldn't be more proud that I gave birth to two great boys and nothing on earth could be better. There's really no greater miracle than giving birth.

What's the connection? Would motherhood be any less "sacred" if you could become a priest?

I completely agree with those that say that certain religions subjugate women.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

I agree too that CERTAIN religions subjugate women.

And if you think for a moment that Catholicism isn't one of those religions, then:
A) You haven't read the Bible...truly read it, not just picked your favorite bits and
B) Know nothing about the history of the Catholic Church.

Maureen

Whatever......

I think there is a difference between "perceived: power and "real" power. On this topic, I think about Mother Teresa. She wasn't a priest. . .or a pope, but she ultimately wielded more power than any of them in current times. You don't have to be in the perceived position of power to hold the real power. We all know how this works. . .like at a school if you really want to get something done, forget the principal, get in with the right secretary. Just like after Lenin died. . .poor Trotsky. . .Stalin was a bureaucrat. . .he didn't stand a chance.

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

I was hopping you'd explain what motherhood being sacred has to do with the ability to perform the functions of a priest. I know several ministers that are mothers -- why are they able to do it in those religions, but not in the Catholic church?

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

I don't want to get involved in a long Catholic debate with you truble-you know where I stand on things and I know where you stand on things.

I agree with you except in one way. She didn't 'wield' anything. And that, in and of itself, is extremely powerful.

I think it all comes down to a complete misconception of what is most powerful when it comes to God. People get hung up on throwing 'positions' into the mix, as though *position* is *power*. That is in abject opposition to the very core of Biblical teaching.

From I Corinthians 1:
While I certainly agree that there are situations in the Bible where women take a 'lesser position' than men, there are situations in which men get the short end of the stock. Under Jewish law, if a man's brother died, the oldest remaining brother in the family had to marry his brother's widow. To her, that meant security in a society where she could not achieve it on her own. To him, it meant having to financially support a woman he might not even like, and to have sex with her and make sure she had children that would carry on his brother's name... and he also had to support those children. How many men today would want to take that on?

While women *couldn't* go to battle, men *had* to go to battle.

But Christianity isn't about any of that, and to get caught up in arguments over those rules and regs and positions and authority arguments is to walk a very fine line. The Pharisees got smacked around by Jesus (verbally) because they were 'all about the positions'. When two of the apostles were scheming to get to be the ones who sat by Jesus when he established his kingdom, they pretty much were told to sit down and shut up, because it wasn't about that.

It's about whether you believe he exists, whether you believe he is responsible for creating the world, and whether you believe Christ was his son. Those are the fundamentals. If you don't, then that is your right, and I believe that for a Christian to try to argue "Church Parlimentary Procedure" with someone who doesn't even believe those basic basic things is just a dumb idea. What's the point? And for those who *do* believe those basic things, it helps if all parties are at least in agreement about what constitutes "truth" from God.

If you are Catholic, you believe the Bible is the starting point, but that anything is subject to change if your church's hierarchy has given some new edict since 70 AD. If you're not Catholic, there are a 99% chance that you believe that the Bible is the end all, be all, final word, and hopefully you have bothered to actually *read* it - not just with a concordance to prove other people wrong if your earthly perception of an issue is different from theirs by picking and choosing some verses that taken out of context support your case.

I think both sides of any issue are guilty of that. And nothing bugs ME more when people say, "Read your Bible - crap happened in it that you won't acknowledge and unless you follow it ALL, you're a hypocrite!" That's the most bogus argument in the world. That's like taking an American History textbook and telling someone that if they don't follow the laws that applied to slavery in 1842 they aren't really an American. Some laws were done away with during the course of the authoring of the Bible. There are stories of extremely bad behavior in the Bible, but they aren't necessarily examples of how we SHOULD behave. Quite often, the opposite is true.

Bottom line: It's not about the position. It's about living with integrity and kindness and with a faith that leads one to try to understand the will of God. That's it.

I almost don't know where to start with this discussion. First, yes, babies do need to stay with their moms for about their first year. However, mom can still do the "hard" jobs. She just has to take baby with her. Even very primitive societies use slings.

Men are more aggressive (it's testosterone) which is why they do stupid things. I do not think that this makes them particularly good leaders.

I can't think of a simgle religion (Shinto? maybe) that does not make women subservient to men. As far as the Bible goes, a bunch of men sat down and decided which version of the
gospels that they would include. These stories were passed on for centuries verbally (which is why there is so much variation) before a single word was ever written down. But, there is a version of Genesis where Adam and Eve were made at the same moment to be equals to each other.

I don't know that motherhood is all that sacred. We aren't really so different from other mammals as far as our means of reproduction goes.

My mother told me that gay men were attracted to the priesthood because they have to be celibate. It was a way of not facing their sexuality. But, why shouldn't priests get married? Is sex somehow dirty? Isn't that why Mary had to be a virgin? (that particular story actually came from the Koran)

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world?

Never did think that that was true.

Mother Teresa didn't really weild any power. She believed in suffering. She was a good fundraiser.

Which ones don't?

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

A Sociologist could tell you that the Brits need 10 inches between themselves and that Italians need only 2 inches. They couldn't tell you a thing about gender difference.

You would need an Anthropologist for that.

The differences in the sexes are there so that we are compelled to exchange DNA.

Almost all marriages were arranged during the Bronze Age (when most of the Bible takes place) Life was short and pretty tough for most people. I think that the concept of "love" didn't enter into the picture as far as marriage was concerned until fairly modern times.

I don't think that women want to go to war. Men are more aggressive because of testosterone. War probably has as much to do with the male's need to prove himself a suitable mate as much as anything else.

I didn't ask for a long debate about Catholicism, I simply asked you to explain your comment in which you made a connection between motherhood being sacred and women not being priests. I respect your refusal to do so, but don't wrap it in something it's not to justify it.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

Interestingly, this is probably the first time I have ever agreed with you. My point was lost in your rebuttal, but I think everything you said is correct.

My point was that people talk about women getting the short end of the stick in the Bible as they stick their nose in the air about it all. I was simply trying to highlight the fact that men didn't necessarily have it all fabulous, all the time. There were unquestionably a number of ways in which women were treated as 'lesser' than men. And yet, there are many situations in which women could have a barrel over a man and he would be bound to live out something not of his choosing. Jacob got stuck marrying Leah, the ugly sister he wasn't all that fond of, and had to work for fourteen years in order to marry Rebekah, the cousin he really loved. He was a 'victim of culture' in that he had no choice in the matter.

I think you really hit the nail on the head with your testosterone comment, and would also add that estrogen and progesterone can certainly turn women into shape-shifters that their male counterparts don't recognize. I absolutely think men and women are different beyond just the 'equipment'. I believe we are all made in the image of God, and that consequently, we have many, many, many similarities.

And yet, because we're all under the influence of our body chemistry to a certain degree - and the fact that some of those chemicals are highly influential when it comes to our behaviors - there are some undeniable differences. That doesn't mean that every single male or every single female will posses every masculine or every feminine trait to any specified extent, but I do believe that generally, when you look at a gender as a group, you will find a lot of complimentary contrasting traits between men and women... traits that enhance our species.

See. . I think she didn't have much "perceived" power, but she definitely influenced many people and, too me, influence is "real" power. The same could be said for people like Ghandi or MLK.

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm