Numbers 31:17-18: THE BLESSING OF KIDNAP, RAPE, AND MURDER

When an atrocity is committed and justified with deity constructs, there are always a great many believers in said deity constructs which will go along with the defense and seek to tout the atrocity as all for the better -- many demanding that murdering people is "saving" them and some kind of "gift."

A perfect example of this twisted ideology was exhibited almost two years ago when a believer in the Christian gods sought to defend the Christian mythologies known as "Numbers 31:17-18." If you're reading this page you may already know of the Internet Infidels' web pages dedicated to the exposure of individuals who share this evil ideology. Compared against the sickos exposed on the Internet Infidels' web site, this one is vastly less intelligent yet exposes his hatred for women as a side effect of his purely evil Christian ideologies.

We start this exposure with a bizarre spam from one George Mooth. This is the individual responsible for the phrase, "Moothing someone." Since Moothing consists of mindlessly quoting occult claptrap with no desire to defend it, others took the opportunity to return the favor but Mooth with intelligent responses negating the mindless spam.

This series of postings is a bit lengthy and I've applied a little effort to make them readable. As you read this, it's important to note that the defender of evil -- Jim G -- is denying that these archived materials are accurate and claims, in fact, that they are edited forgeries. (He's embarrassed greatly by them two years after he first posted them.)

To "prove" that claim, he manufactured an obvious hoax message wherein Fredric Rice stated his desire to have lived during the time of Numbers 31 so that he could "get some" of the boys the Christian gods ordered murdered.

George Mooth:
gm> THE BLESSING OF PERSECUTION. Read: Matthew 5:1-12. Blessed
gm> are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for
gm> theirs is the kingdom of heaven. -Matthew 5:10

Fredric Rice:
FR> THE BLESSING OF RAPE AND MURDER
FR> Read: Numbers 31:17-18

FR> "Now therefore kill every male among the little
FR> ones, and kill every woman who hath known man by
FR> lying with him. But all the women children, that have
FR> not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for
FR> yourselves."

Actually this sounds quite HUMANE. Think about it. No point having all those orphaned children and widows around after their hubbys have died in the war. And of course you wouldn't want to be taking another mans woman for your new bride. SO take only the virgins. And at the same time, you continue the race through the virgins.

Rena Mcgee
RM> No, *humane* would be allowing the women and children to live
RM> in peace, with a promise that the survivors not seek revenge.

Oh really ? And who would the women marry ? In that day and age, any kind of mercy to a defeated enemy would be looked on as weakness and invite others to rebel against you or attack you.

Rena Mcgee:
RM> Despite what you may think, females *are* capable of surviving
RM> without male "protection"

HAHAHAHA ! Yeah in todays society with all the lobbying of politicians and the laws and legal institutions. We are not talking about modern day North America . We are talking of a savage land and a savage people.

Jim G:
JG> And of course you wouldn't want to be taking another mans woman for
JG> your new bride. SO take only the virgins. And at the same time, you
JG>l continue the race through the virgins.

Depends on how you view marriage. Perhaps they might consider it to continue on a spiritual basis after physical death. Also a great way to be safe from the passing on of STD's :-)

Rena Mcgee:
RM> Also, do you know *how* to tell if a girl is a virgin
RM> or not? Here's the most common method (that I know of)

RM> Tie girl-child down spread eagle, insert instrument,
RM> If there's blood the girls a virgin.
RM> The one problem with this no-brainer test is that the hymen
RM> sometimes breaks on its own...especially if the girl is
RM> physically active.

RM> Are you telling me that this kind of molestation is
RM> humane? Also, these girl-children were taken for slaves,
RM> not wives. Do you condone slavery...?

It has nothing to do with "condoning" anything. I merely state what I think may have been the reasons why these things were done in those ancient times. As far as condoning slavery, what do you call having to punch in a clock at 9:00 AM and have to stay till 5:00 pm ? :-)

I had a coffee mug that said on the side "They can't fire me", and on the bottom continued "slaves have to be sold" :-)

FR> ... Married life presupposes the power of the
FR> husband over the wife and children, and subjection
FR> and obediance of the wife to the husband. - Pope
FR> Pius XI, _Casti Connubii_

Jim G:
JG> Sounds great to me :-) . As long as it is voluntary. But then the
JG> husband must love and cherish the wife. Someone always has to hold the
JG> balance of power or nothing would ever get done if both sides refused
JG> to give in. The responsibility is on the husband then to be sure that
JG> he does the RIGHT THING or HE pays the consequences.

Rena Mcgee:
RM> You can't really *love* someone who has to be obey you in all
RM> things. And if someone is subordinate to you, then its obvious
RM> you're superior, right? So if you're superior, and the
RM> subordinate disobeys you, you have to discipline the subordinate,
RM> right? After all, the subordinate has to *obey* you, because
RM> you're *superior* to the subordinate, correct?

Not really. You have to remember that the wife doesn't HAVE to be subordinate, she CHOOSES to in a good marriage. A man should not have to force a woman to give him the title of "head" of the family. She should trust him enough to allow him to have the final say in matters they have discussed together and have not been able to agree upon. On his part, he must be fair and consider what is best for all in the family, not what is best for him.

It is NOT a question of being superior, it is merely a question of responsibility. It is not a question of being subordinate, it is a question of being trusting.

It is not a question of "obedience" like a dog, It is a question of willingness. If the woman is "unwilling" then that is her choice. But what does that do to the relationship ? That means she doesn't trust her husband to make the right choice, and what is love without trust and what is a marriage without love?

Jim G:
JG> And to this day while man has lost his rights ...ie say in abortions

Rena Mcgee:
RM> It isn't his body, unless you believe that the *subordinate is
RM> also property* And you wouldn't *admit* to believing something
RM> like that would you?

I never said it was the man's body, however remember that the child within the woman, IS half of the man. I would think that a woman would take that into consideration.

But then a woman who would kill her unborn child would hardly have much consideration for the rights of the father of that child either.

I am not talking about the marriages that we see today, I am talking of a marriage where the husband and wife respect each other. Not one where the husband considers himself to be superior. Not one where the wife does not trust her husband.

Actually in marriage I am talking about yes the woman's body belongs to the man and the man's body belongs to the woman because they have been united in a spiritual bond of love and commitment. EQUALS

Jim G:
JG> up thinking that was the way you were suppose to be. It is a
JG> LEARNED BEHAVOIR and has to be more UNLEARNED than punished.

Masochistic Maiden:
MM> Sometimes it crosses over the area of needing only unlearning. It
MM> needs intervention! I recently faced my Uncle with his abusive
MM> treatment of my aunt.... boy was I nervous..... He took anger
MM> management classes, and some child care classes.... seems like they've
MM> all learned a lot. But I wonder how different it would have been if I
MM> had remained silent.

And many times, it isn't so much the person doing the abuse that needs treatment, as the person who is allowing their rights to be abused. I mean if a person doesn't let the abuser know they are crossing that line, it adds to the problem. And what about the abused person who is either consciously or unconsciously baiting the abuser and WANTS to be abused. As a foster parent, we were educated about abused children who try to get their foster parent to spank them or abuse them because the see it as an expression of love and caring.

And there was some talk about how Nicole Simpson said she like to get O.J. worked up because it excited her to see him angry. The excitement, "living on the edge". With that kind of psychological manipulation happening is it any wonder that some people become "abusive". I myself had personal experience with a female who wanted me to help her get together with an exboyfriend because she wanted to dump him for spite.

Date: 13 Mar 96 10:20:39
From: Jim G
To: Norbert Sykes
Subj: Your Daily Death Cult

Jim G:
JG> It is NOT a question of being superior, it is merely a question of
JG> responsibility. It is not a question of being subordinate, it is a
JG> question of being trusting.

JG> It is not a question of "obedience" like a dog, It is a question of
JG> willingness. If the woman is "unwilling" then that is her choice. But
JG> what does that do to the relationship ? That means she doesn't trust
JG> her husband to make the right choice, and what is love without trust
JG> and what is a marriage without love?

Norbert Sykes:
NS> Then why can't the husband be subordinate to the wife? There's
NS> nothing making the husband superior to the wife, is there?

Then we would be saying why can't the wife be subordinate to the husband. But I would say basically it makes more sense for the physically stronger person to bear the responsibility , especially in the past where it was necessary for purposes of protection and lower factor of intimidation. The man has nearly always been considered the provider and the protector, making him less likely to make decisions out of fear or intimidation.

But as I said I don't consider it being "subordinate" as much as trusting the man to do that which he is suited for by nature. The woman is physically the one who must bear the children.

Date: 29 Mar 96 15:05:49
From: Jim G
To: Lynda Bustilloz
Subj: Adolph Hitler (yawn)

Jim G:
JG> in any case. God is the spirit of Truth and Love. Jesus was the
JG> physical embodiment of that truth and love. You can go through denial

Lynda Bustilloz:
LB> Does that spirit of Truth and Love embody the concept that it's a
LB> darned shame that women have gotten so uppity that you see no recourse
LB> but to either backhand them, or start gunning women down at random?

I have presented such scenarios in terms of sick people who do not know any other way of coping with this changing world. Men have to learn how to deal with the mental abuses of women, in another way. In general men AND women must learn respect for one another. The scars that a woman has learned to leave upon men, are not physical, they are mental and so there are no polaroid snapshots that can be presented in a trial. And of course society still laughs at a man who allows a woman to abuse him. Women also must bear the curse of their own aggressiveness, and sadly their children must also bear the curse of a woman who has chased her husband out of the home and marriage through constant verbal abuse, free from the previous threat of physical defence once used by men. Some men on the other hand who have not learned another way other than the physical will continue to go mad from this verbal spousal abuse of women and in their madness strike out at those who have scarred their minds, perhaps irrepairably.

No one is justifying this action of men. Just pointing out the possibilities for it.

Jim G:
JG> for the rest of your life. You are only trying to fool yourself. Do

Jim G:
JG> absolutely USELESS because you have no idea what the SPIRIT of those
JG> words are. You cannot interpret them properly because your heart is so
JG> full of fear of the truth. You are so puffed up with pride , that you

Jim G:
JG> could never admit you are wrong. It isn't me you have to answer to , it
JG> is GOD , it is the TRUTH that you refuse to answer to. Not MY truth,
JG> but the truth that God right now is laying upon your heart, and you are
JG> fighting so desperately to DENY !

Jim G:
JG> It is really sad. All God wants to do is give you peace and joy, and
JG> you would rather live this life of strife and bitterness. God is

Jim G:
JG> crying for you. His heart is breaking because he loves you so
JG> much and you refuse to believe it. How very very sad.

Lynda Bustilloz:
LB> Physician, -- ah, skip it. This patient is obviously terminal.

And of course that is your answer, physician heal thyself. So you ignore the REAL physician, the spirit of God, Jesus Christ. I am just a man, I cannot heal myself, I can only reach out to the true physician.

Jim G:
JG> hasn't changed one bit. And neither has religion. There are still
JG> those who use it as a political tool to manipulate people and others

Lynda Bustilloz:
LB> Like claiming that it was a mistake to let women get so uppity you
LB> have to backhand them?

I have never backhanded any woman in my life. I said that was what some men used to control women. In fact I was always taught that you should never hit a lady. But then of course that was in the days when women were ladies not like today when many women are just men without penises. They have no respect for their own femaleness and wish they were men.

Lynda Bustilloz:
LB> Do you think he got much done, having all those women around who
LB> needed a good rap across the mouth? Or did he just "cull the herd" when

You must be really desperate, to keep HARPING on the same thing. But then you are a female. Is that sexism ? or just pointing out a trait common to the disrespectful females of the human species.

David Rice:
DR> ROTFL! You're the drooling, busted shit pipe who has been
DR> spewing the inanities.

Jim G:
JG> Once again you prove why you cannot understand or believe in the
JG> bible and it's spiritual truths. Your life must be a very sad one
JG> to have such a ridiculing , disrespectful attitude toward others.

Lynda Bustilloz:
LB> So, you equate YOUR words with the Bible, and YOUR life with Christ's?
LB> *shudder* God save me from Your followers.

And your praise of his words shows you are a follower of his god of rudeness and insults.

Preston Simpson:
PS> Think about it. If you awoke one morning to the sound of gunfire and
PS> discovered that your neighbor had invaded his neighbor's house, killed
PS> everyone there except for that family's little girl, and taken her as
PS> a slave, wouldn't *you* feel disposed to do something about it, before
PS> he came after you?

Jim G:
JG> I'd become his friend as soon as possible :-). A STRONG friend as
JG> opposed to a snivelling cowardly friend. He would see the benefit of
JG> forming an alliance with me and be wary of attacking me or betraying me
JG> for his own safety.

Sue Armstrong
SA> Disgusting. You have no sense of morals. You'd turncoat as soon
SA> as the troops came marching in, wouldn't you? Just to save your
SA> cowardly ass?

We were talking in reference to the mentality of the people of 10,000 years ago in a far different social atmosphere, and PS wanted to parralel it to today's world with the same kind of social atmosphere. The problem is sometimes you lose the thread of the conversation and the context things were meant by the limitations of having to quote only part of the message to make it shorter.

Of course in todays society, we do not accept such behavoir legally or socially. But if this were a common place occurence and a socially accepted form of behavoir it is a different scenario. It has nothing to do with "turncoating" it has to do with protecting your own space in such a way that does not invite this marauding neighbor to make you his next victim, by 1) giving him no cause to attack you , and 2) making it known such an attack would cost more than it would be worth.

To parrallel a WARLIKE social country situation with a peaceful law oriented FAMILY social obviously is obviously going to present these problems of conceptualization.

Of course this reply is meant for people who want to understand what is being said and not for people like you whose only intent is to ridicule and insult others .

Preston Simpson:
PS> You are living in a dream world, Jim. Though the average male of that
PS> day and age could probably defeat the average female in single combat,
PS> factor in the possibility of that female attempting to defend a child
PS> and the situation gets much, much bloodier.

Jim G:
JG> Oh yes please tell me of the amazon armies of egyptian or roman women
JG> soldiers. Tell me how women of those times were feared by the men.

Norbert Sykes:
NS> I see, so might makes it right, eh? I thought all the neanderthals
NS> were extinct.

Where does it say up there that mightmakes "right?" no one mentioned anything at all, about it being "right". Man has in fact chosen as a people to NOT do what is right. It is called "sin", and then to avoid facing this fact the same people are now trying to say that god and sin don't exist.

Sue Armstrong
SA> Norbert's quite correct. You are betrayed by your own words - you
SA> are, quite obviously, a disgusting and utterly unlikable creature.
SA> I hope your fiance finds out what you REALLY think and runs as far
SA> as she can away from you.

It is so easy to take a persons words out of the context in which they are presented in order to justify your own evil attacks and insults and ridiculing which is your own purpose in responding to the messages in the first place. So play your little games of deceit and ridicule.

Preston Simpson:
PS> You're talking about killing innocent people, Jim. I hardly think that
PS> it's a subject worth levity.

Jim G:
JG> No I am talking about killing an aggressive nation that is intent on
JG> destroying your own. War is hell, every one from the Indian Massacre's
JG> of the earlie "civilized?" americans .. where do you think you got the
JG> land your sitting on in your easy chair typing away. Had the americans
JG> not slaughtered the indians, maybe you would be half indian sitting in
JG> a teepee. To the slaughter in vietnam by "civilized?" americans and

Sue Armstrong
SA> Some of us might have been quite happy to be "half-Indians sitting
SA> in teepees". Are you trying to say now that the American wars
SA> against the Indians were the RIGHT thing to do, just so YOU could
SA> live the way you do now?

And that would have been because the Indians "slaughtered" the Europeans. What I am saying is that you condemn the people of 10,000 years ago for their attrocities, but enjoy a lifestyle that was attained by much more modern attrocities of patriotic Americans that are enshrined as heroic deeds in the history books. Why don't all the non native americans get there asses back to the countries of their forefathers ? Because while they like to heap scorn and ridicule on the actions of those who gave them such luxuries, they are hardly willing to give them up to make things "right ?" .

Jim G:
JG> It has nothing to do with "condoning" anything. I merely state what
JG> I think may have been the reasons why these things were done in those
JG> ancient times.

Sue Armstrong
SA> Bullshit. I saw your post on how men of your ilk feel so hard
SA> done by in this modern age of women actually being human beings,
SA> rather than submissive sex toys for your pleasure. You can't con
SA> a conman, Jim.

That is YOUR interpretation of my post. What I said was that I think it is wrong to deny a man any right to his child life, but if you decide not to murder the unborn child, all of a sudden it is the mans responsibility. It should be No rights/ No responsibility ...Total rights/ total responsi- bility. I also find it telling how women are so up in arms about the verbal and physical abuse of women by men and rightly so, BUT it is fine for women to verbal and physically abuse men without fear of retribution because, 1) Men are "ridiculed" if they admit to it and 2) Men are not believed if it comes to a womans word against a mans.

Also women are much more skilled at the art of mental abuse than men, this has been shown in psychological studies of the difference in the way men and women think and deal with problems. It is also shown by womans ability to survive in a world of physically superior men. Now you take away that physical superiority or control of men with laws, and you end up with a situation where women are free to carve up a man mentally without fear of retribution by the man.

And talk about vicious people , the saying "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." did not come about by accident.

Preston Simpson:
PS> And putting it under the banner of "God
PS> told us to" somehow makes it

Sue Armstrong
SA> Correct; your god TOLD the Hebrews to go take land from their
SA> neighbours, if the bible is to be taken at face value, and to act
SA> like the utter barbarians they actually were.

You merrily go on interpretting the bible in terms of todays standards. First of all man was limited in his ability to percieve God, and also today it is obvious this ability is still a matter of desire and some men still choose to perceive god in barbaric ways.

Second god had to use language and actions that these savage men would understand. It would be like saying to the school yard bully. "Please don't beat me up and steal my lunch money". He is not going to listen to such <in his opinion> snivelling and will continue his bullying ways until he is forced to stop in a more aggressive manner, because aggression is the only language he understands.

Sue Armstrong
SA> You seem to wish to go BACK to this barbarism, where women are
SA> property and can be taken as booty or killed if they are of no
SA> further use. You are truly a disgusting creature. It really
SA> doesn't surprise me that you're in Toronto - that city seems to be
SA> the Disgusting Creature capital of the world. Do the rest of the
SA> country a favour - jump off the CN tower, and quit embarrassing us
SA> all.

You should try reading your own words up there when talking about barbarism . You sound far more barbaric than I. I am merely trying to explain why I think people act barbaric to one another in the past. You on the other hand are actually being barbaric in your suggestions to me personally today.

I believe that men and women should respect each other as equals, with different responsibilities. These responsibilities revolve mainly around the physiological abilities of the gender. The women being responsible for the birthing and nurturing of the children , the man being responsible for the providing and protection of the women and children. The problem comes in when 1) The men do not respect the women and renege on their responsibilities. 2) The women do not respect their own responsibilities and want to be men.

Had the responsibilities of birthing and nurturing and taking care of the home been given its proper due respect by both men and women, we would have a much nicer world.

Lynda Bustilloz:
LB> Like claiming that it was a mistake to let women
LB> get so uppity you have to backhand them?

Jim G:
JG> I have never backhanded any woman in my life. I said that was what
JG> some men used to control women. In fact I was always taught that you
JG> should never hit a lady. But then of course that was in the days when
JG> women were ladies not like today when many women are just men without
JG> penises. They have no respect for their own femaleness and wish they
JG> were men.

Sue Armstrong
SA> What the hell is "femaleness"?
SA> Not wanting a say in what goes on?

Femaleness is the femininity of women 1) physically as child barers and nurturers 2) Socially as child nurturers and homemakers 3) Mentally as a different being than the male of the species, with different perceptions and outlooks and qualities which are wll recognized by psychologists and other professionals. This has nothing to do with not having a say in what goes on. It has nothing to do with being inferior to men. This is what has been perceived and so women no longer respect the role that their gender best suits them for , in favor of taking on what they see as the more glamorous and superior role of the male.

Sue Armstrong
SA> Not wanting the vote? Not wanting a job to be self-sufficient,
SA> whether one is married or not? Not being happy living on one's
SA> own, without a man's support? Not wanting to speak one's mind?
SA> Not having opinions of one's own? Not wanting an education to
SA> better oneself? What?

Each individual is free to choose how they want to live. Are we meant to live on one's own ? Then why have different genders and why make it necessary for them to physically bond in order to procreate ? Why have children that must be taken care of for so long before they are ready to take care of themselves?

Voting ? Speaking ones mind ? Having your own opinion? Getting an education ? All of these can be accomplished while fulfilling the natural physical/social role of the female.

As noted above each of us is free to choose are own lifestyle. The question is why are so many women choosing to be in essence "men" ?

Becke Jones:
BJ> What you are forgetting is that it was the "men" who created these
BJ> gender roles for women in the first place. Men can be just as capable
BJ> of these acts (nurturer, homemaker, etc.). Just because women are
BJ> escaping the restraints that men have put on them in the past doesn't
BJ> make them any less a woman...
BJ> Becke

Give me a break. A man does not have a WOMB or BREASTS necessary to bare and feed children. And you as a woman MUST know the value of breast feeding in the bonding of a child to its mother and how important it is for babies to bond, if the are to thrive and be healthy. Men just as capable ? Hardly.

And now just because we have infant formula and all its additives and cows milk with all its allergic reactions and intolerences, women think it is fine to deny a child the BEST food processed specifically for it within its mothers body, and allow their poor infant to suffer all the problems related to substitute milk or soya products. Just because we have day care centres, it is fine to deprive the child of the bonding to his real mother. The nurturing of his natural mother you SHOULD care more about it than any day care worker possibly could, but obviously doesn't care enough to provide that nurturing because she wants to be a businessman.. oops businessperson.

Men have put these restraints on women ? Hardly, it was love for their children that once put these restraints on women. A love that seems to have dissapated. And when these chidren grow up what love will they pass on to their children, probably even less than their businessmother gave them.

Any less a woman ? depends on your definition of "woman", if you mean physically, other than breast implants probably not. But in terms of womanhood and a mothers natural love for her family, and a womans pride of being a mother and nurturere and homemaker for her family, yes these are much less women and getting to be more and more like men in a mans body, I wonder if this could be a cause of the rise in lesbienism ? And of course with women castrating men with the same knife of women lib fanatacism, it is no surprise their is an increase in the number of gay men.

Sue Armstrong
SA> Please give references for your claim that women are "much more
SA> skilled at the art of mental abuse than men", being sure to identify
SA> what is classified as abuse by the studies that you cite.

I don't need studies. The evidence is all around you. No studies would convince you of what your own eyes see and ignore.

Sue Armstrong
SA> BTW, men are not always physically
SA> superior than women, thank you.

I was not talking about individuals, I was talking about as a species in general.

Jim G:
JG> I believe that men and women should respect each other as equals,
JG> with different responsibilities. These responsibilities revolve
JG> mainly around the physiological abilities of the gender. The women
JG> being responsible for the birthing and nurturing of the children ,
JG> the man being responsible for the providing and protection of the
JG> women and children.

Sue Armstrong
SA> So, Jim. What happens if the woman does not want to bring
SA> children into this world, or cannot due to physical problems of her or
SA> her husband? What is her responsibility then? What is her

I cannot tell any individual woman what her responsibility is. I have no problem on an individual level with a woman being a Priest or a Firewoman or a Policewoman, in fact policewomen are VERY important when it comes with giving female criminals and suspects proper treatment.

My problem is this general idea that seems to exist that being a woman or the womanly responsibilities of birthing and nurturing and homemaking are some how not as important as being a businessperson or a truck driver or other outside the home occupation. I believe it is really damaging to our children both physically and socially and mentally.

Sue Armstrong
SA> responsibility if her husband cannot make enough money to keep a roof
SA> over the head of the children, or food in their mouths? What is the

A great point ! But it is a vicious circle. There was a time when a man's salary would pay for the home . As soon as families had 2 incomes , the cost of homes rose accordingly. Why ? Because now families could afford 100,000 dollars for a home instead of 50,000 dollars, so 100,000 dollars was demanded. NOW the one income family cannot afford a home because of the rise of the 2 income family!

Sue Armstrong
SA> woman's responsibility to her children if she is in an abusive
SA> relationship? What is the woman's responsibility if she has a very

Certainly such men <and abusive women> should not be allowed to do so. Such people should first receive counselling and legal action should be taken. What ever happened to "For better or worse, richer or poorer in sickness and in health ?" I certainly do not expect a woman to allow herself to be abused, and at the very first sign of abuse action should be taken to end the abuse, but not necessarily the relationship. It is so easy now for a woman to just walk out and take everything with her, that I really believe it is becoming a ploy of women, to hook rich men with the intention of walking out after a couple years with a couple of kids and a house and a guaranteed child support income.

You tell me in this situation, who is being abused. WHo is being taken for a ride and not only being raped materially, but emotionally as well when he has given everything to this woman including his trust and heart and she just stomps on it and walks out !

Sue Armstrong
SA> good career and the man is much better at raising children? Hell, what
SA> happens if a woman just plain has not found anybody she wants to marry?

These are all individual choices and are fine as such. But again my point is why are women so ashamed to be "just" mothers, wives and homemakers ? It doesn't mean they can't be educated. It doesn't mean they can't be active in other things in life. But why must the children suffer because she wants to do it in spite of the fact that her children need HER ! And they need her for many years to be a MOTHER and WIFE and HOMEMAKER , FULL TIME ! They are suffering greatly by her decision to neglect them all day while she is at work and by being to tired for them at night when she finally gets home.

Sue Armstrong
SA> Are the women in the above scenarios shirking their resonsibility
SA> by not living their life the way you want them to?

Individuals fine , but a whole nation of women who dislike their own children so very much ?

Jim G:
JG> The problem comes in when 1) The men do not
JG> respect the women and renege on their responsibilities. 2) The
JG> women do not respect their own responsibilities and want to be men.
JG> Had the responsibilities of birthing and nurturing and taking care
JG> of the home been given its proper due respect by both men and
JG> women, we would have a much nicer world.

Sue Armstrong
SA> I can tell you straight out that I prefer to be the gender that I
SA> am, yet I will not follow the choices you would have me make for my
SA> life. What color is the sky in your world, anyway?

I would not expect you to follow any choices, but your own, but my question remains , why do women no longer love being mothers and wives and homemakers which are the most important jobs in the world, and would rather be truck drivers, office managers and lumberjakcs? As you say, women who choose to be so when they are single or childless I can see. But why would they choose these so much over being mothers, and why would mothers abandon their children to do these things ?

Jim G:
JG> Femaleness is the femininity of women 1) physically as child barers
JG> and nurturers 2) Socially as child nurturers and homemakers 3)

Sue Armstrong:
SA> Physcially, there is nothing evident that makes a female a
SA> "nurturer". As human beings, we have the ability to decide whether

Are you a mother ? Have you had any formal early childhood education at all ? Women nurture a child by breastfeeding. It is also very important that the child bond with it's mother, especially in the first few weeks of life. And while this is going on <ideally a child should be breast fed for the first few YEARS of its life, not weeks or months, and while this is going on it would make sense that the male or father, would be providing the food and shelter type needs for the family.

Sue Armstrong:
SA> or not children are wanted. We do not need to be baby-machines if
SA> we do not want to any longer.

Of course you dont "need" to be. Women can be a mass murderers if they CHOOSE to be. But why is being a "mother" seem to be so repulsive to you ?

Sue Armstrong:
SA> Socially, is a bunch of bullshit. The sociological aspect is purely
SA> artificial, imposed only by narrow cultural tradition. Some of us
SA> don't even like children, and can think of nothing more hellish than

OBVIOUSLY ! But then we were talking of the "norm" of human females, not the abnormal ones. The "natural" ones that wouldn't kill their children at birth but that would propagate the species in the "natural" way of evolution for most primate mothers.

Sue Armstrong:
SA> doing nothing more than dusting potted plants all day long. Today's
SA> society allows, at it SHOULD have done long ago, the opportunity to
SA> be so much more than that.

I wonder how many girls feel that way , you know that feeling that their dads "always wanted a boy" ? It is a shame when that kind of thing happens and a child grows up with those kind of feelings. But there are a lot of dysfunctional people out there who could use a good psychologist.

Jim G:
JG> Mentally as a different being than the male of the species, with
JG> different perceptions and outlooks and qualities which are wll
JG> recognized by psychologists and other professionals. This has nothing

Sue Armstrong:
SA> Who are also blinded by millenia of tradition. Sorry, but some of
SA> us happen to have been able to break through your narrow cultural
SA> expectations, and are able to broaden our minds beyond the low
SA> standard traditionally imposed on us.

Jim G:
JG> to do with not having a say in what goes on. It has nothing to do with
JG> being inferior to men. This is what has been perceived and so women no
JG> longer respect the role that their gender best suits them for , in
JG> favor of taking on what they see as the more glamorous and superior
JG> role of the male.

Sue Armstrong:
SA> Do you like denying one thing on your left, and then confirming it
SA> on your right? "Role that their gender best suits them for". ROFL!

Hello ? Can you say BREAST !!! Can you say WOMB !!! YES the role that best suits them !!!

Sue Armstrong:
SA> There's no way in hell I'll let society, or even some individual
SA> man, define who I am for me, simply on the basis of my gender. I
SA> have news for you, asshole - I have no wish to ever be a

Me an asshole ? You probably don't know the difference between an asshole or a vagins because it obviously doesn't matter to you if it goes in you asshole or your vagina because you obviously dont know the difference in their purposes.

Sue Armstrong:
SA> "housewife"; in fact, my food is useful in cockroach control. I
SA> can't bloody well cook worth a damn. Cleaning? Fuck that noise. I

Oh oh. . . sigh . . . I don't like what I am seeing here at all. Look you don't have to be a master chef to be a homemaker. I cook many of the meals at home here, and many is the time I had to throw it out because I put to much salt in it, or burnt it or some other disaster. You know some times we have to do things we don't like in order to obtain things we do like. I usually don't like cleaning anymore than anyone else, but I also don't like looking at a pile of dishes all day long, I don't like wearing dirty clothes so I do the wash and I also mow the lawn because I don't like it up to my knees.

Sue Armstrong:
SA> pick up and mop once in a while, if I feel the place needs it.

What are you trying to say here ? That because you don't enjoy cleaning, you can't be a loving mother and wife ? Hardly. But if that is how you feel, you are perfectly free to remain single. The question is why women in general, not you as an individual feel that way ? It only comes down to your reason if ALL women have the same reason, and then the question would be why don't women want to "clean" in general.

It may be a "dirty job", but someone has to do it. Cleaning sewers might be a dirty job for a man, but someone has to do it. Mowing the law, cleaning the garage , working on a broken engine, can all be dirty jobs that men do. Should we just throw up our hands and say lets the both of us just bake cookies and water the lawn and leave the "dirty jobs" undone ? Having babies may be no picnic either, but if all women decided it wasn't worth the trouble, the human race would soon cease to exist.

Just because things may be difficult or unpleasant, doesn't mean it is good to just not do them. Sometimes it is necessary. As far as whether or not you are a great cook, it doesn't matter, cause you still gotta eat and your family, if you have one.

Sue Armstrong:
SA> Usually when I find I can't find anything any more. Otherwise, I
SA> don't worry too much about it. 20 years ago, girls were still being
SA> told not to bother with sciences and maths - I considered this a
SA> stupid constriction and pursued my own education (and read the book

Good for you as an individual, but if women in general do this, what will the kids turn out like if women keep having them and then neglecting them in favor of their career?

Sue Armstrong:
SA> I have in front of me now, "Grzimek's Encyclopaedia of Evolution",
SA> for the first time at age 8). I am now pursuing a CAREER (yes, an

Umm I don't think you mean 8 ... Should it be 80 ? And certainly at that age, I would assume that your child bearing and nurturing days might be well left behind you. But until the kids are grown, I think it is important that the parents spend their time giving the kids the BEST upbringing possible which in my humble opinion doees not include throwing them in a daycare all day and then ignoring them when you get home because you have home things to do and then you need your own space to relax after a hard day.

Sue Armstrong:
SA> actual CAREER) of my choice, that I feel combines all the best of my
SA> abilities and knowledge into one convenient package. And no man
SA> will dare stand in my way by telling me "get back to the kitchen",
SA> because the first person to say that will find his teeth down around
SA> his feet. I am fully capable of doing this, too. I also understand
SA> semi-automatic firearms, and still remember how to field-strip one,
SA> thanks to a several-year stint as an army cadet.

Oh hooray now you are "man enough" to advocate violence. I would consider the above to be indicative of a "sick man" let alone a woman and would advise you to seek psychiatric help before you kill someone.

Sue Armstrong:
SA> Women are human beings, with the same wants, desires, dreams and
SA> aspirations as men. They always have had them; now, we merely have
SA> the opportunity to act on these despite the whinings of Neanderthals
SA> like yourself.

No you merely have decided to ignore the womans natural role of birthing and nurturing, in favor of the mans role , which in this particular case you have mistaken for knocking teeth and shooting people.

Sue Armstrong:
SA> Not wanting the vote? Not wanting a job to be self-sufficient,
SA> whether one is married or not? Not being happy living on one's
SA> own, without a man's support? Not wanting to speak one's mind?
SA> Not having opinions of one's own? Not wanting an education to
SA> better oneself? What?

Jim G:
JG> Each individual is free to choose how they want to live. Are we meant

Exactly, Now the question is , why are so many women now ashamed of that very important role of motherhood of which they were once so proud ? It is a question of lost self esteem that they are trying to find ny being like men. It is a real shame and a great loss to mankind.

Jim G:
JG> to live on one's own ? Then why have different genders and why make
JG> it necessary for them to physically bond in order to procreate ? Why

Sue Armstrong:
SA> If someone wants to remain single, it's their business. If someone
SA> doesn't want snotty, bratty little kids running around, that's their

Individually of course you are right. But for a whole generation of women to forsake their natural role as mothers and abandon their children ? No wonder our societies morals are going to hell in a handbasket.

Jim G:
JG> have children that must be taken care of for so long before they are
JG> ready to take care of themselves?

Sue Armstrong:
SA> are the only type of "parents" one can have? FYI, I was raised by
SA> my mother and grandmother, two very formidable women. No dad. No
SA> brothers. Nada.

No wonder they raised you as a man. I guess they thought it would help you survive better in life. I am a tad curious about what happened to their husbands, and if that is why you are so bitter about this "injustice" of women done by men ?

Becke Jones:
BJ>> What you are forgetting is that it was the "men" who created
BJ>> these gender roles for women in the first place. Men can be
BJ>> just as capable of these acts (nurturer, homemaker, etc.).
BJ>> Just because women are escaping the restraints that men have
BJ>> put on them in the past doesn't make them any less a
BJ>> woman...

MM> Sorry to contradict you, but I think you forget that zoology is
MM> more guilty than the human male. In ALL classes of mammals will
MM> the female take on the nurturing role. The male may assist,
MM> but he is usually a poor wet-nurse :-)

Becke Jones:
BJ> But what sets us apart from all other animals is that we have the
BJ> ability to think and rationalize. In OUR species, the male gender has
BJ> just as much natural ability to nurture as the female does.

Yeah and the ability to make nuclear bombs and blow each other up. WHat man is ABLE to do is not always what is the best or right thing to do. And the male gender does not have the most important nurturing and bonding facilty which is BREASTS and certainly while a woman can pump her breasts, and a man can give the child his 2 oclock feeding, the suckling process is very important in nurturing a child. But why make do with substitutes when the real thing is available ?

Becke Jones:
BJ> True, to a point. But the point of the conversation was that in OUR
BJ> species, the male has created most of the gender roles for the female.
BJ> Yes, we are evolving and breaking out of those molds, and some of the
BJ> more conservative men don't like it too much. I consider myself far too
BJ> intelligent to be held back by ANY man.

The roles naturally evolved, and unfortunately attitudes about the importance of those roles and the equality of men and women and those roles, became twisted and the female roles were maligned and discreditted by both men and women. Men refused to acknowledge that these roles were as important as mens roles. Women bought into this idea and as a result sought freedom to pursue the so called more important role of provider and career person. Add this to the men who thought because their paycheck had their name on it, that it belonged only to them, and it makes a volatile situation, that had to explode into a power struggle.

In the words of Rodney King "Can't we all just get along " :-) as "equal" but "different" genders with equal but different responsibilities ?

Jim G:
JG> Are you a mother ? Have you had any formal early childhood education at
JG> all ? Women nurture a child by breastfeeding. It is also very important

Becke Jones:
BJ> What about women who choose to pump their breast milk? Or bottle feed?
BJ> Does that lessen the nurturing effect that a woman has with her child?

I believe that it does. Maybe it isn't life threatening, but it is breast feeding is best for both mother and child in terms of bonding.

Becke Jones:
BJ> Or, in the same case, if the father were to feed the baby the bottle,
BJ> would his additional organ prevent him from bonding with the child in
BJ> that way?

Once again the answer is yes the father feeding the baby from a bottle is going to help the father and child bond more than the father not feeding the child or holding the child. But in the early years in terms of bonding and nutrition, I believe breast feeding is best, and of course pumping breasts when necessary. Of course all of this is in connection with the woman eating properly and being healthy and nnot having her own breast milk contaminated.

Jim G:
JG> that the child bond with it's mother, especially in the first few
JG> weeks of life. And while this is going on <ideally a child should be
JG> breast fed for the first few YEARS of its life, not weeks or months,
JG> and while this is going on it would make sense that the male or father,
JG> would be providing the food and shelter type needs for the family.

Becke Jones:
BJ> Why can a male not bond with his son/daughter? Breast feed a child for
BJ> years?? Jim, obviously you know nothing about being a parent. Most

As if you do ? As a father of 4 and a former foster parent, scout leader Sunday school teacher, I have had occasion to learn a bit about parenting.

Beck Jones:
BJ> child are weaned from any type of formula/breast milk after the first
BJ> year. Could you picture a 3 or 4 year old child still breastfeeding?!

As a matter of fact, I have read literature that says that is best for the child. It is our "social values" that have taken precedence over the best health and welfare of the child.

Beck Jones:
BJ> And it is just as possible (if not necessary) for a woman to work these
BJ> days. The cost of living being what it is, and the wage being not as
BJ> much as it used to be, merits the NEED for both parties to work.

BUT we were not talking about what is "necessary" but what would be BEST for the child. And that is where this conversation is having problems. I am more than willingg to admit that many of your points are very valid in terms of social and economical pressures. We cant always do what is "best", but it doesn't mean that in our own individual lives we can't "strive" for what is best. And if in our own particular circumstances it was possible to breast feed for 3 or 4 years, or would we rather put our "career" above that "best case scenario" for our child ?

Jim G:
JG> Of course you dont "need" to be. Women can be a mass murderers if they
JG> CHOOSE to be. But why is being a "mother" seem to be so repulsive to
JG> you ?

Beck Jones:
BJ> Would you rather a person bring a unwanted child to life and then let

First of all, I it makes me feel sick to think that any person could not want their own child. If there is one thing in this world that we as decent human beings should have, is love for our children, I mean Jesus would suggest we should love our enemies, how much more our own children?

Beck Jones:
BJ> that child suffer under conditions that NO person should bring a child
BJ> into the world around? I was an unwanted child, Jim--and suffered holy

You do not know the pain in my heart those words have caused. No it is not pity, the shame if what you are saying is true, is on your mother and father, and not on you. But let's define terms here first. I can understand that sometimes we are not prepared to take on the responsibilities of parenthood and as such may not "want" to have children at the time we are about to have them, but certainly after the conception and the knowledge that the child of our flesh is alive, we should have a desire to love and raise and teach "want" our children in that sense.

Beck Jones:
BJ> hell because of it. Don't get me wrong. I'll probably want to be a
BJ> mother one day. But I'm responsible enough to know that *now* is not
BJ> the time. When the time is right (and I mean _really_ right, my SO and
BJ> I will know, and act accordingly...

And I agree whole heartedly. You are being very responsible in your decision to wait until you are financially and mentally prepared to have children. But remember they do not come with an instruction book and even the best "manuals" by doctors and child psychologists may not be valid as the "experts" often contradict each other. Also as noted we each have our own special personal circumstances to deal with. Above all, like anything else, you learn from experience. There is nothing I hate worse thann talking to some child psychologist or other professional who has had no children of their own and are entirely text book learned. I really want advice for someone who has raised 4 children of their own successfully for example.

Sue Armstrong:
SA>> Socially, is a bunch of bullshit. The sociological aspect is purely
SA>> artificial, imposed only by narrow cultural tradition. Some of us
SA>> don't even like children, and can think of nothing more hellish than

Jim G:
JG> OBVIOUSLY ! But then we were talking of the "norm" of human females,
JG> not the abnormal ones. The "natural" ones that wouldn't kill their
JG> children at birth but that would propagate the species in the
JG> "natural" way of evolution for most primate mothers.

Becke Jones:
BJ> What exactly is "normal" and "abnormal" as far as being a female goes?
BJ> Who sets this norm?

NATURE sets this norm. The majority of women instinctively love their children and I would suggest that those who do not probably have been hurt in their own lives, such as a woman who felt their parents didn't want them or who were not raised with love themselves. But each individual must follow their own path and I would not even suggest that a woman who doesn't want children, should have them. I would not suggest that a woman who doesn't want to get married or be a "traditional" wife and mother, do so. My only comment is, how sad that we have lost the respect we once had for the "traditional" wife/mother/homemaker role of the woman.

Sue Armstrong:
SA>> doing nothing more than dusting potted plants all day long. Today's
SA>> society allows, at it SHOULD have done long ago, the opportunity to
SA>> be so much more than that.

Jim G:
JG> I wonder how many girls feel that way , you know that feeling that their
JG> dads "always wanted a boy" ? It is a shame when that kind of thing
JG> happens and a child grows up with those kind of feelings. But there are
JG> a lot of dysfunctional people out there who could use a good
JG> psychologist.

I was watching Oprah one day and she said to the audience one day "How many of you people here today come from a dysfunctional family?", and just about everyone in the audience raised their hands :-). Why should I not be a part of the majority :-). Sure I include myself in the statement :-).

Sue Armstrong:
SA>> There's no way in hell I'll let society, or even some individual
SA>> man, define who I am for me, simply on the basis of my gender. I
SA>> have news for you, asshole - I have no wish to ever be a

Jim G:
JG> Me an asshole ? You probably don't know the difference between an
JG> asshole or a vagins because it obviously doesn't matter to you if it
JG> goes in you asshole or your vagina because you obviously dont know the
JG> difference in their purposes.

Becke Jones:
BJ> vagins?<G> Hmm...I take it you don't like anal sex. What do you think
BJ> of coitus interuptus? It doesn't produce a child (in most cases). Is
BJ> the only time _you_ have sex done with the intention to breed?

I don't intend to make my sex life open to the public. But I do understand that there is more to sex than reproduction. But that IS the "natural" purpose of it, and it is about the only "natural purpose" of life in general. As such the nurturing of and protection and teaching of the offspring until they are able to survive on their own is off utmost importance. Humans developed the the traditional family unit to provide this environment for their children.

Jim G:
JG> for a man, but someone has to do it. Mowing the law, cleaning the
JG> garage , working on a broken engine, can all be dirty jobs that men do.

Becke Jones:
BJ> As do women. I know more about fixing cars then most men I know. I've
BJ> mowed my share of lawns. I bet you think that women shouldn't be
BJ> construction workers either, huh?

In general, no, as individuals they should do what they want. I just wish more would choose to be mother/wife/homakers. But I learned to cook and wash and sew and change diapers when I was a kid. And I have performed all of them as a married adult. I also do windows :-). So I certainly do have respect for the importance and work involved in being a mother/wife/homemaker. I may not have had "periods" or labour pains, but I was their for the birth of all three of my natural children and I sat up through the entire labour of my ex wife on each birth. I also changed the diapers and gave the 2 o'clock morning feedings to them and my adopted child. And believe me every dollar I earned I concidered a dollar also earned by my ex wife.

Jim G:
JG> Should we just throw up our hands and say lets the both of us just bake
JG> cookies and water the lawn and leave the "dirty jobs" undone ? Having
JG> babies may be no picnic either, but if all women decided it wasn't
JG> worth the trouble, the human race would soon cease to exist.

Becke Jones:
BJ> If a man enjoys cooking, let him do so. I'd actually be quite happy
BJ> if my SO cooked a meal for me..=)

Even if he doesn't :-) I have certainly done my share of cooking and dishwashing and dusting and vacuuming and cleaning the ovens in my marriage. In fact I did most of the cooking in my 17 year marriage, because my ex wife didn't like cooking.

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank