Gender-specific sin?

[WANDERER]

White collar...fashionism I'm afraid.

Edited August 13, 2008 by WANDERER

[funkymonkey]

White collar...fashionism I'm afraid.

HAHA!

[Fiannan]

I wrote a paper long ago about the evolution of organizational/social systems and the impact of the law/religion across them. I know I have the research somewhere with stats.

In many cultures, the law originate and codified by historical religious mores and values. thus a woman can be severely "punished" physically and even killed (honor defense) by her husband or father for an offense (adultery for example) without such (the injury) constituting a punishable offense for the male. Now, males do not suffer the same application of the law if they transgress the same law. We tend to inherit that kind of "flexible" application of the law here in the US. Depending on the cultural milieu, society tends to treat men and women differently for the same offense. In the research I cite stats for

1. Sexual offenses

2. Drug use/possession.

3, Prostitution

4. Assault and battery

5. White color crimes

There is gender-based bias within the social environment that is translated into the legal system.

Works to women's advantages too. A woman goes bizerk and murders her kids and people wonder what psychological condition led her to it -- a man does the same thing and everyone wants to put him in the gas chanber.

Homosexual acts were illegal since the days of the Founding Fathers ('till recently) yet only men were prosecuted for same-sex actions, never women. Of course, in the Bible male homosexual acts were punishable with death while lesbian acts were never mentioned in the Old Testament.

In contested child custody cases involving young kids the woman generally has the upper hand.

When a woman commits a murder her defense lawyer will generally dress her like she was a Molly Mormon and she will get a far less severe sentense than a male who commits the same crime.

And in polygamy cases that reach the court why is it only the husband who gets into trouble? The other wives are at the very least co-conspirators but even if it was another wife that convinced the husband to enter polygamy they never get in trouble.

[WANDERER]

The less severe sentences I think relate to child bearing years to some degree...but obviously not in all cases and the value of that I would think would relate to economics and birthrate stats perhaps and to the perceived level of value placed on motherhood/women...best I can come up with. And if dressing up like Molly Morman works....that would be the thought behind it...and where values lie. Who does it really advantage? Is condecension more of a liability to society in such cases? Not that I'm advocating Leviticus consequences...for either gender. I assume that the consequence of lesbianism was the same as fornication or adultery for women...whereas homosexuality received specific mention. This is still true in that homosexuality is discussed in terms of the new marriage laws but lesbianism isn't discussed at that degree...the focus hints at core social values...some no-nos are considered of higher mention than others due to cultural bias and underlying values. I think you mentioned part of the Dutch test of citizenship with the photo of two men kissing and observing the reaction...why not two women kissing? *Edit to add*Disclaimer: I am not a lesbian just curious about omission in the Bible and by the media.

I can't think of another way to explain why women don't get less severe sentences everywhere and in all parts of history.

The righteousness of women...well perhaps not having the original sin theory and Eve the temptress emphasised is one of the problems with some religious beliefs. But with that removed, do these righteous women get righteous treatment? Do they get grace instead of works? I'm still trying to understand after reading the responses on this thread where people are actually coming from in their perspectives...

; ) I can be a slow thinker LOL.

Edited August 13, 2008 by WANDERER

[rameumptom]

Queen Victoria signed laws against homosexuality, but not against lesbianism; because she could not comprehend how that could result in a what she viewed as a sexual act. The man inseminates the woman/man. Women do not inseminate.

This obviously was the view in other cultures, as well, including under the Mosaic Law.

[WANDERER]

During the 12th Century, Etienne de Fougères derided lesbians in his Livre des manières (about CE 1170), likening them to hens behaving as roosters, and reflecting a general tendency among religious and secular authorities in Europe to reject any notion women could be properly sexual without men.

Oh well there you go....a gender specific sin...

Edited August 13, 2008 by WANDERER