Re: Women and evangelism

(message from thommandel@aol.com)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to
taborsky@primus.ca: Women and evangelism
> Date: 08/27/02 6:32:21 PM Central Daylight Time
> From: taborsky@primus.ca (Edwina Taborsky)
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es, ssalthe@binghamton.edu, Thommandel@aol.com

Well I for one believe in women. Certainly some women can be vicious, and
certainly some men can be loving, BUT men are not known for being
nurturing. I think that the few or many or even most of the women who have
the characteristics that men are famous for acquired them by trying to
emulate man. Perhaps they have a sense of insecurity which drives them to
constantly prove themselves. Perhaps this is shared by men alike. But not
all people are insecure. Woman are known for running a family, an
integrative affair to say the least. When men try that they usually are the
brunt of jokes. I don't know about genes, I do know there are different
genes in women than men, I don't know if that is sexist or even racist.
Male and female go back quite a way, and it is not easy to determine what
the original purpose was. I think that a large part of the problems we face
today are the result of corruption. And further that this corruption is
ubiquitous and even further the corrupt form a conspiracy
of association. In the scientific sense, it has been shown time and time
again that women think differently than men. Not all women. But for the
most part, women do not have the superior ego than men have. This ego does
in fact translate into a different kind of person. The way I look at it,
the male mind has the ego in control while in most women it is the
intuition that rules. The thinking is different because in one the goal is
separation while in the other the goal is bringing together. Perhaps if the
world were run by honest men, we would not have to think about who could do
better. Will it be any different if dishonest women gain control? Probably
not. But I can remember a time when the current joke was about how a
certain politician was on the take. The joke has been twisted around
nowadays into "who isn't on the take?" But that ain't no joke. We live in a
time when the world is being run by sick people. And anyone trying to
change that has my support.

tom

In a message dated 08/27/02 6:32:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
taborsky@primus.ca writes:

>Subj: Women and evangelism
>Date: 08/27/02 6:32:21 PM Central Daylight Time
>From: taborsky@primus.ca (Edwina Taborsky)
>To: fis@listas.unizar.es, ssalthe@binghamton.edu, Thommandel@aol.com
>
>
>
>
>I've been getting the same post, on 'women saving the world' from a
>number of sources. I find it quite offensive. Why? Because it's naive,
>reductionist, filled with false data, illogical ungrounded
>conclusions - and - racist.
>
>False assumptions - that women are innately good, nurturing and etc,
>when hard data shows that women are just as capable as men of hatred,
>ignorance, jealously, malice and violence. False assumptions - that IF
>women were in charge, THEN, all would be good and peaceful. False
>assumption - that women are 'good and peaceful' due to some genetic
>characteristic lacking in men. Sounds racist to me - the attribution
>of a behavioural characteristic grounded in genetic causality. So -
>men are genetically unable to generate peace? Prove it. And prove the
>opposite- that women are genetically bonded to peace. False data -
>that women do 2/3 of the work. False assumptions - of 'mind over
>matter' - assuming that all it takes is 'goodwill' to deal with the
>ecological, economic and educational disparities of the world. False
>assumptions - that men have no desire to do so. These type of post are
>evangelistic, advocacy rants. Not open to proof, to debate, to
>dialogue.
>
>Why do people of education send them out?
>Edwina Taborsky
>39 Jarvis St. #318
>Toronto, Ontario M5E 1Z5
>(416) 361.0898
Received on Wed Aug 28 11:18:09 2002