[quote]Maybe we're not intellectually and morally superior to Christians of the 19th Century. [/quote] I don't know about the rest of us, but it is quite apparent that you are not intellectually superior to [u]anyone[/u] even in your own century, so I doubt you're brighter than many 19th century folks. [quote]Maybe, in reality, the separate schools had less to do with men not respecting women and more to do with a healthy understanding of the differences between men and women. [/quote] Maybe you'll learn about the historical bias that has existed against everyone who wasn't a rich, white landowner for most of Western society. But probably not. In my experience folks like you aren't typically interested in actually learning anything. [quote]Look around us. We're much worse off morally and as families (over 50% divorce rate) than those of the 19th Century. Just a thought. Please do the research.[/quote] Hmmm... I wonder why that could possibly be... Surely it had nothing to do with the fact that women had limited rights, thereby largely restricting their access to an income, thereby making them largely dependent on men. Oh, and what do you know, back then women were expected to shut up, be faithful to their husbands and not get divorced. Well I guess with the added pressures associated with 19th century cultural mores as well as the lack of pragmatic means to subsist without a domestic partner, divorces would be a bit more scarce back then, wouldn't it. Speaking as a medical professional, trust me when I say that you don't understand the medical field at all. I placed 3 foley catheters (little rubber tubes that go up your pisser) in 3 different women this morning, and there was nothing sexual about it, as you would probably know if you had ever worked in the medical field. You are so eager that everyone should educate themselves, yet you cannot even untangle yourself from a messy web of extremist conspiracies, pseudo-truths, laughable misconceptions and misguided religious zeal, and so you have grossly out-of-touch views about the world around you and its beautiful history. It's such a waste of an otherwise highly advanced simian brain. You're no different from a billion other uneducated know-nothings that crawl in the mire believing themselves to be a special creation prized above the countless other atoms that circulate across an unimaginably vast expanse of space. A pity. Dante

[color=#0000FF][b]Dante wrote:[/b][quote][color=#800080][quote][b]Forcedelune wrote[/b]: Maybe we're not intellectually and morally superior to Christians of the 19th Century. [/quote][/color]I don't know about the rest of us, but it is quite apparent that you are not intellectually superior to [u]anyone[/u] even in your own century, so I doubt you're brighter than many 19th century folks. [/quote][/color]I'm going to take the high road on all of the personal comments made regarding my intellect and other attempts made at slinging insults. Such things will only take away from a rational discussion of the issues at hand. [color=#0000FF][b]Dante wrote:[/b][quote][color=#800080][quote][b]Forcedelune wrote[/b]: Maybe, in reality, the separate schools had less to do with men not respecting women and more to do with a healthy understanding of the differences between men and women. [/quote][/color]Maybe you'll learn about the historical bias that has existed against everyone who wasn't a rich, white landowner for most of Western society. But probably not. In my experience folks like you aren't typically interested in actually learning anything.[/quote][/color]Of course, there's always been a historical bias in favor of the rich in most every culture (color/creed) and it's still the same today. That really has nothing to do with why schools were most often NOT coed (mixed genders) in time periods like the 19th century. Let's stick to the topic at hand rather than just spewing out unrelated hot button issues most of us were taught back in our public middle school days...which may invoke emotion, but don't add to the rational discussion. The real point I was making is that Christian men of prior centuries often had good reason to keep schools separate for the sexes, based on natural differences between the male and female- in a noble attempt to protect the boundary lines from crossing between femininity and masculinity, as well as to protect both genders from sexual abuses by their peers (such as is too common in our coed schools of today). And those are just a few good reasons, for the sake of time. For a moment, just step out of the secular socialistic education you have received from on-high and think about this realistically...without all of the manipulative hype you've been spoon fed on the subject. The truth is that, just like today, men have always respected women in general and women have always respected men in general. Such men had a mother and sister and daughter and wife that they loved, whom they wanted to see prosper in life. So too, such women had a father and brother and son and husband that they loved, whom they wanted to see prosper in life. Yes, there are always exceptions to the natural order of things here and there throughout history (like child sacrifice and modern day abortion, which are the same). Maybe a hundred years from now they'll be taught that we hated babies here in America, but the reality is that most of us love babies...but we just do selfish things in times of trouble and so forth. It's easy to mis-characterize history for your own ends, but let's be real here. All of this propaganda hype that women have been seen as dogs throughout centuries past, until the dawn of our now awesomely enlightened age is just simply not realistic and is easy to see through if you just step back a few steps to think about the real world. It's just a bunch of divisive teachings meant to manipulate men and women into thinking the degrading secular system/culture we are under now is superior to the Christian ideals of the past. For example...the fact is women didn't vote, because most women didn't care to vote or to be involved in politics in Christian American 18th-19th Century society. Not that it was wrong, they just had more important more feminine pursuits that they would rather focus on. At any rate, I really wasn't advocating that ALL schools be separated by sexes, but just that it is appropriate that medical schools should be (out of respect for women and Biblical modesty). Although, I would respect any school that chooses to separate the sexes because I think it is wise in most circumstances. [color=#0000FF][b]Dante wrote:[/b][quote][/color][color=#800080] [quote][b]Forcedelune wrote:[/b] Look around us. We're much worse off morally and as families (over 50% divorce rate) than those of the 19th Century. Just a thought. Please do the research.[/quote][/color][color=#0000FF]Hmmm... I wonder why that could possibly be...Surely it had nothing to do with the fact that women had limited rights, thereby largely restricting their access to an income, thereby making them largely dependent on men.[/quote][/color] I think you have a very dark and misguided view of Christian men and women of the past...and it's not based on reality, but moreso on a secular influenced education filled with misinformation. Christian men of the past (just as today) loved their wives as Christ loves His Church. If such a man's wife wanted some "right" and he felt like it was a good thing for her to be involved in...he loves her and would support her. The truth is that most of the rights we harp about women not having were simply because they mostly weren't interested in having them...until later pressured into it or sold the idea by certain factions of feminism (which were more like weird masculinized female groups) Simply put...that generation had clear natural lines between the feminine nature and masculine nature...so most women were not interested in leaving their families for jobs or being involved in leadership roles in politics or in being business women. These women loved caring for their families, bearing children, and managing their own homes. They didn't have time or interest to be involved in other outward pursuits. [color=#0000FF][b]Dante wrote:[/b][quote]Oh, and what do you know, back then women were expected to shut up, be faithful to their husbands and not get divorced. Well I guess with the added pressures associated with 19th century cultural mores as well as the lack of pragmatic means to subsist without a domestic partner, divorces would be a bit more scarce back then, wouldn't it.[/quote][/color] Again, you display a shockingly negative view toward women of the past...like the only reason they didn't divorce their husbands was because they weren't allowed to? How about most Christian and Christian influenced families didn't want to get a divorce because they had integrity and knew how important family is and didn't have the modern selfish mentality we're so plagued with in this generation (both our men and women). Christian women overwhelmingly actually cared how they dressed in front of other men, kept themselves for their husband, and put family first in front of their own spoon fed goals for life that the so called modern world would try to feed them (as supposedly superior to being a wife and home maker). [color=#0000FF][b]Dante wrote:[/b][quote]Speaking as a medical professional, trust me when I say that you don't understand the medical field at all. I placed 3 foley catheters (little rubber tubes that go up your pisser) in 3 different women this morning, and there was nothing sexual about it, as you would probably know if you had ever worked in the medical field.[/quote][/color]As it happens, I've worked as a "medical professional" for over 6 years now and this is exactly why I know what I'm talking about in this area. And this is exactly why I personally would like to see change toward a more Biblical respect for modesty in even my own workplace. You could also tell me that you performed 3 abortions today and didn't feel a thing...you don't have to be in an angry rage to commit murder. Just because you don't feel what you naturally should feel in your conscience, does not mean it is a good thing. I say, let's respect the life of the baby...let's respect the modesty of a woman. As our Christian fore bearers once did. [color=#0000FF][b]Dante wrote:[/b][quote]It's such a waste of an otherwise highly advanced simian brain. You're no different from a billion other uneducated know-nothings that crawl in the mire believing themselves to be a special creation prized above the countless other atoms that circulate across an unimaginably vast expanse of space..Dante[/quote][/color]Nothing you've said here is anything new I'm sure that most of us have never heard before. And yes that was a double negative- get over it. ;) Most of us went through the same middle/high school secular history classes and got the same lines dumped on us that you've been regurgitating here. Sorry to burst your bubble of thinking you're so superior intellectually to us billion uneducated unwashed masses crawling out of the mire...but your thoughts on this matter are pretty base and commonplace in our culture. Most of us were taught the same...but some of us choose to step back, examine the Word of God, and then consider the way Christian history really was (as well as why it was that way). There's, of course, some truth to what we've been taught by secular sources in history (regarding the mistreatment of various groups at different times, including women), but the overall reality is that Christian men and women tend to respect one another (as they always have)...regardless of the twisted tale we were taught by our socialist (state is god) educational system, which benefits most from the breakup of the family (miring the lines between male and female that keep such families balanced and healthy).