Jun 28, 2012 -- 5:00PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

First, it goes without saying, everything I type here is my opinon, just as everything you do, is yours. 

But my opinion is not based on the opinions of a person who "believed" that he was a "manifestation" of god. 

Jun 28, 2012 -- 5:00PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I've stated, it is my view, the "my vagina" declaration in question was not offensive because of the word "vagina," but rather the implications of what was said -- which again, seems to compare the law and its advocates to would-be rapists. 

First, it goes without saying, everything you type here is your  opinon, just as everything you do, is yours.  The only difference is I gave reasons why for my opinion.  

Jun 28, 2012 -- 5:00PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Secondly, I don't know why you keep agonizing over women not being allowed on the UHJ.

I don't know why you are agonizing over the my opinion that to forbid women from being in the UHJ is not a sign of women being equal.  

Jun 28, 2012 -- 5:00PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

 But to me, it is indicative of a narrow view that might be called "presentisim" -- in other words, the value and truth of everything must be measured against the current zietgiest, as if it were the objective and all-time truth.

Because it is time to change the stodgy old conservative masucline zietgiest that just because women are not exactly homogenious with men, it is ok to deny them access to anyplace.

Jun 28, 2012 -- 5:00PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Abdul'Baha and Baha'u'llah weren't/are not "conservative" or " progressive" or anything of the sort. The concern is about universal and objective truths -- not what's popular according to the labels of any particular society at any particular time.

The homgeny excuse is an old, ancient masculine chauvinism.  

Jun 28, 2012 -- 5:00PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Baha'u'llah taught about cleansing the "mirror" of one's soul (or intellect and rationality) of "the obscuring dust of aquired knowlege" I suggest you contemplate and explore the meaning of that statement. It acutally has some very deep, profound and starkly view-changing implications.

The homogeny excuse is not logical, not deep, not rational and is dusty old chaunivsim.  

Jun 28, 2012 -- 5:00PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

 

IMO, both the "conservative" and "progressive" ideas miss the boat when it come to true equality of women, even if they both might contain grains of truth. 

IMO forbidding women from serving in the UHJ is a dusty old conservative idea.  

Jun 28, 2012 -- 5:00PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

 

Conservative ideas might be more rooted in biology -- such as women in general having maternal instincts. But again, as you pointed out, they might also be too stodgy and hung up on the way things used to be.

And of course you aren't hung up on biology.   Homeny is biology. 

Jun 28, 2012 -- 5:00PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Likewise, "progressive" sentiments, to me, seem to be hung up on equality meaning homogeny. In other words, if women can't/won't do everyting men do, then they aren't "equal" to men.

NO, NO, NO.   I do NOT, NOT, NOT, equate equality with homogenic-biology.  

The only things that women can't do what men can do, or what men can't do that women can do has to do with homgeny-biology.  

Jun 28, 2012 -- 5:00PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Therefore, the obsession over women being forbidden from serving on the UHJ. "Progressive" sentiment hits an intractable loop when presented with such an idea -- because it's so hung up on that concept, and therefore, can't compute.

You are as obessive about forbidding women from serving on the UHJ because the Bahuallah forbids its.  

Did the Bahuallah tell you that the reason HE forbids it is "homogeny?"

Jun 28, 2012 -- 5:00PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

However, if one might ponder what Abdul Baha indicated, as in the future being more feminine, one might surmise that "status" is in and of itself an essentially masculine/patriarchal concept. 

I disagree. Status is not an essentially masculine/patriarchal.  Women are just as concerned with status as men.  The only difference is that because of stodgy, ancient patriarachy women have not until recently been able to acheive equal status.   

Due to the Progressive contempory zietgiest women have become leaders of countries.  Despite homogeny. 

I see no valid reason as to why that if women can be Prime Ministers of countries they can't be in the UHJ.   Homogenity did not stop them.  

Help me understand why it is that women can be Prime Ministers and Presidents of countries that they can;t  

Jun 28, 2012 -- 5:00PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Therefore, ironically, the "progressive" mindset might get huffy about women not being allowed on the UHJ, because it's still hung up on the concept of "status." If women aren't allowed  the "status,"of UHJ service then they are "second class."

I see no valid reason as to why that if women can be Prime Ministers of countries they can't be in the UHJ.   Homogenity did not stop them.

Jun 28, 2012 -- 5:00PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

But from the feminine viewpoint, "status" means little to nothing. 

According to the Bahuallah. A man.  Now there may be women who are not conerned with "status" but there are women who want to have EQUAL status with men.

Jun 28, 2012 -- 5:00PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

To put it bluntly and crudely, "status" is essentially rooted in men comparing dick size.  The whole concept of "status" become so deeply rooted -- and seemingly important in our society, because way back when, some guy thought -- "Uh-oh, Og's dick bigger than Thag's. Thag need a bigger dick!"

And ever since then, it's been one dick-swinging contest after another. "I've got to have a bigger kingdom, I need a bigger horse herd, I need more political power, I need a bigger company, I need CEO status, I need a bigger SUV. My 'dick' isn't big enough... I need more STATUS." Again, essentially a product of the male mind, and the patriarcial paradigm. 

The feminine mind has more important things to think about than whether the other guy has a bigger dick -- so to speak. 

Status ain't got nothing to do with dick size.  Men can't do a damn thing about the "size" of their dicks.   "Status" is not going to make your dick bigger or smaller. 

What "status" does have to do with, for men is the more "status" a man has the more pussies he can put his dick into.  

Status ain't got dick to do with size. 

Jun 28, 2012 -- 5:00PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

And besides, serving on the UHJ isn't about "status" anyway.

("Oh, lookit me! I'm on the UHJ.. represent, dawgs!!!) -- It doesn't work that way. Serving on the UHJ doesn't make one a rap or rock star, or give them an ounce of personal power or "status."

Anyway, therefore, in a paradigm that was truely influenced by the feminine side, the entire concept of "status" would melt away. And therefore, the UHJ quandry/contradiction would become irrelevant. 

Yeah, yeah, yeah.   What a bunch of bullshit!   

Jun 28, 2012 -- 5:00PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Again, what would "status" mean in a feminized world?

"Status" is just the boys going, "See... see... mine's bigger than yours!"

Status in a feminized world would be my husband 's dick is "BIGGER"  or my husband is richer or better looking than yours and my pussy is "tighter".  

What

" p="">

Status in a feminized world would be my husband 's dick is "BIGGER"  or my husband is richer or better looking than yours and my pussy is "tighter".  

What

Status in a feminized world would be my husband 's dick is "BIGGER"  or my husband is richer or better looking than yours and my pussy is "tighter".  

What status  means is the position of an individual in relation to another or others, especially in regard to social or professional standing.  Law . The standing of a person before the law.

What Progessive men and women seek is equal status in relation to another or others and equal standing before the law.  

As I stated before if Bahia women have no problem about being banned from the UHJ then, I have no problem.  Just as I have no problem if women don't mind not being priests, or imans, but don't give the pathetic justification that it okay.