13 STARS = WOMAN.

01. Introduction.
02. Some Events Before Writing.
03. And What Does It Have To Do With Women?
04. Other Key Points Civilizing Development.
05. Something We Need to Know About Our Past.
06. The Framers’ Conception of Biblical Women.
07. The Evolution of Christian Thought.
08. Good Examples For Women Leaders Follow.
09. Conclusions.

01. INTRODUCTION.

Rev., 12, 1: “We have a great sign in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.”

I have been maturing long ago the idea of writing a text by analyzing the presence of women in the formation and composition of human civilizations. These are observations where I exhale my impressions with the sincerity and peculiar to me since my earliest youth.

I ask that the brotherhood men forgive me. I will not be betraying the class here, although this will be the impression of male chauvinism.

That the Club Lulu not be elated or perform my sincerity as a ruse to obtain their favors. I’m about to demonstrate, if not superiority, at least, gender equality in relation to human evolution as a whole. Don’t smile on me believing that you already knew everything about it. Binded to recognition of the importance of women at human development needed is to also recognize the responsibilities. Remember: “To one is much given, the same will be demanded.”

I confess, I’m in some way confused because I made plans to write things that now are getting out of my memory. Hopefully while I keep writing, I will end up remembering everything. We going to start from the part we call pre-history. But we must remember that, this name is mistaken because let you imagine that, History is not a continuous thing. We can say that, History is a continuous process which became written from some time ago on.

Now-a-days the ways to decipher History, we have so many other resources but writings made it possible to interpret readings from our past with out using letters. We now know facts from millions years ago with precision never imagined by the most famous scientists from one hundred years ago.

In another way, by new technologies and rational methods of research we have unfold how much the considered historical records and disseminated by writings have been found erroneous and imprecise. It is like that because the one’s who write is not always an ocular witness of the facts. Often, the facts were passed on from generation to generation by oral tradition before be written. And, as “who narrated a story add some points” the author is not always is author of the truth. Sometimes they write what is believed to be the truth but some particularities show it wrong.

Also often we need to analyse what are the author’s interests. Most of the times the writers of the acts the kings or others famous people put on their writings favorable opinions and impressions to those who were paying their jobs. Like that, instead of History they wrote eulogies dedicated to their masters.

One way to confront those deliberated errors is to put together the descriptions from the same fact made by different people, preferred those who served lords who were in opposition in fact. In case of a description of a battle for example is a good thing to verify the narrative of the loser’s side as much as the winner’s side. This is good to do because that makes things straight and make the records more precise. Although, in most of cases, we only have the writings from the winners who constructed the History as it pleased them.

Another way is to look at the places where the facts occurred and to try make the fact’s reconstitution to unveil if the narration is possible to be true. In synthesis, History is now written by true detectives and not more by curious in the job. It’s not that detectives do not make mistakes but “the errors from some is the delight of others” who do research on the same issue. And the combination of advanced technologies and many opinions is making possible to make a good description of History about the facts on human lives and civilizations.

02. SOME EVENTS BEFORE WRITING.

Before I was born (just kidding) a 3.5 million year old skeleton was found in Africa. At the night after the discovery, their authors heard on the radio the Beatles music which was making the big hit back then and gave the name Lucy to the skeleton after it. The news ran worldwide in the same velocity as that music’s popularity resounded under the celestial arch.

At last, thought many, we found the “lost link” which proves the “Theory of Evolution”, proposed by Charles Darwin. Darwin had said, and it is about almost 200 years ago since then, that the species of now-a-days are resultant from selective process which made earlier species evolve to others better adapted. He also said that, different species with a high degree of similarities in some point of its evolutive path came from a common ancestor. These common ancestors would be the link between the different species. The link between human beings and the other primates like the chimpanzee is called “lost link” because it is not yet identified.

Later on it was found that Lucy is not the “lost link” between human beings and other primates. She got some characteristics that made her more close to the human being line, like the way she used to walk on her feet. When other primates used their feet to walk, they experienced some trouble in doing that while it is the normal posture in the midst of humanideos.

We must remember that, Charles Darwin got an immense psychological pressure by publishing his theory. Firstly because he himself believed in the biblical account of creation. Secondly because the majority of scientists and pseudoscientists from his time believed in the Creationism. The Creationism is no longer considered a scientific theory because it is based on creed and not in science. It means that the creationists took the biblical account of Creation as literal historic fact. But they found not the necessary scientific evidence that prove their theory.

The Theory of Evolution instead accumulates evidence in all of sciences branches. One of those new sciences which is the studies for chromosome yet resolved a question which looks like to contradict the theory. All the primate, except humanideos, has 48 chromosome. We human’s have only have 46. The studying of our chromosomes show that, in some point of our past, two pairs of our chromosome got together making only one pair. It made the individuals who got this type of mutation separate themselves from the others and, within the separation, got the opportunity for to acquire new characteristics which made them more alike ourselves.

By the truth human beings still having 48 pairs of chromosome in total. The marks from the fusion still exists today showing that one of our pairs of chromosomes contain enough matter for make four and not two chromosome.

But it is extra information. I wanted to start my work from Lucy because the species which she represent have a primitive characteristic which makes the difference between it and us. The volume of her brain is only one third of our. And it, according to most recent theories, is what separate us from the others primates and others animals.

The most recent theory demonstrate that a bigger brain allow the coordination of a bigger number of functions. Even permit that we keep part of those functions in hibernation for we ddo not need to use it at the ambient where we live now. But those functions can be woken up in case of adaptation, like a great climate changing as example. Unfortunately, to the majority, a drastic changing on climate will mean the end of the world, even so we have some lucky ones who will benefit from it.

The humans ancestor’s brain acquired bigger volume in a relatively short space of time. 2 millions years after Lucy the humanideos already got double brain volume. (We must remember that 200 millions of Dinosaur evolution didn’t alter significantly their brain volumes. Instead their bodies got bigger and bigger).

One theory to explain the gain in volume of our brain is that, it come from the fortunate discovery of the control over fire. We know that human beings learned to control fire at least 1.5 million years ago. Fire has three important functions to humanideos. Make predators get lost, fountain of heat against cold times, and cook food.

Out of the three attributions of fire, the one which is directly linked to the gain of brain gain is the cooking of food. It is explained because the cooking of food acts like a pre-digestion of it. The swallow of predigested food lead to a better availability of energy. 60% of the energy which we need is consumed by our brain functions. Bigger brain means more capability but also demand more energy to keep it going.

The cooking of food could also have sculpted our bodies. The other primates for example need a bigger abdominal volume to keep more food not cooked to make them more efficient in getting the most from nutrients. The volume of our bellies could diminish in the function of the cooking of food because we can eat less and get more nutrients. (Now-a-days, as we aren’t having a big deal on getting food the easy way of getting ultra energetic nourishment is promoting the worldwide obesity crisis).

We don’t have the certitude that the cooking of food leads to a bigger human brain but is certain for sure that bigger brains demand more energy and the cooking of food make it available to the whole body. Even if the cooking of food is not the primary cause for the bigger brain it is a tremendous help to keep the brain development.

Some researchers are saying that the part of Africa where humanideos came from suffered frequent changing in climate. Is possible that those changing put some pressure in human evolution and it selected the best adapted. It means that the species which were getting more mutations for the bigger brain. For that the most adapted survived and the others were left to die. Above all that survived, it became possible only because of the cooking of food.

03. AND WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH WOMEN?

To answer that question we need to recall what we know about the primitive human being. Firstly, have the theory which says the cooking process was accidentally discovered. Is said that the natural fire as example from lightnings originated wild spread fires which was the most primitive known stove. At the path of the extinguished fire the primitive beings found the barbecue. Seeing it they knew the taste for meat and learned to keep the fire.

What I see is a mislead in that theory. That, the cooking in the wild spread fire provoked carbonization beyond the cooking point, which left a disgusting smell of carbonized meat. As supposed the primitive human olfaction were more selective because of the less variety of smells, they were exposed to it probably inaccurately. And the supposition they could spill saliva instead of spit it in nausea. Probably, with the wild spread fire what was first found were the broiling and the oven together. Even so, it is a better interpretation because wild spread fire must have caused human casualties what should have driven them away at the minor signal of fire.

The oven works in that form, as animals with lives in burrows as superficial roots would be broiled by the indirect heat of the fire. Accidentally, some gather/collector could discover such delicacy and transported the idea for his practice in day-by-day.

The most primitive form of oven would be a simple digging in a soil. In there would be placed whatever was used for cooking, covered over by a thin layer of soil or sand. The fire would be put over it. After that they would just extinguish the fire and cleanse the cooking. As the animal leather had a better use to the primitive human being learned to wrap the meat in leaves to make it easier to cleanse the food before they ate.

Another interesting fact we need to know about the primitive human life is that he was a hunter and gather/collector of everything he needed from nature. Basically, since then he must have started the division of work between sexes. Probably men were hunters and women and children were gather/collectors.

It is possible that, just after or during a great fire the men wanted to quickly go away to a preserved area where the hunt would not be interrupted. The food that a wild spread fire would bring on them had a short time of good use because the cooked meat would start to decay. Men like to rationalize things accordingly. It gave them importance and benefits. As a provider for the family, it was more logical to them to offer a recent hunted meat so that they could keep the zephyr as hunter and provider.

So, the changing of dwelling area would not impede women and children to get back to the fired area hopping to find something to eat. The men would quickly depart looking for new hunt. Then, in a meticulous examination, they would find the broiled food inside the burrows or, in case of vegetables, at its superficial caves.

The female curiosity also could have driven women to find the way to keep fire from the burning coal found at the rests of fire. In the beginning they would use a rod of wood to mix the hot charcoal which hypnotized their sights. Doing that they would see the reviving of the fire and the fire passing on to the points of the rods. Seeing those things they probably learned how to transport the fire, in short distances, and to keep it in the camp putting more wood on the collected fire.

This supposition is more logical than to imagine that, men had learned to transport fire to wherever they went. The hunt with primitive tools demanded coordination, strategy, tactics, and they had work together. It would be a serious deal when the team had to hunt and keep the fire going at the same time.

Women had a intrinsic obligation to stay part of the year in camp. It comes because their fragilities came when closed to delivering and because a characteristic of our species where babies need care for a more elongated time.

To keep the fire in the camp would be easier and useful to take away beasts at starting trouble. After that the cooking was equally important. In the midst of beasts, women must have learned to control them at these peculiar part of time that we relied on men. Who had the power over fire had the majesty. But not everything were only flowers. Accidents must have happened and it guaranteed that, not only women became the keeper of fire.

To take the fire to a hunt would be a recklessness and counterproductive because savage beasts go away at the least sign of fire and its sense of smell is much more accurate than ours.

Another characteristic in the formation of the human brain is that, it keeps in development until the three first years of children. That is a time which the new creatures was entirely kept by the care of mothers. Like that we need to thank to the maternal cleverness and care for the biggest evolutionary advancement and not to their respective companions

04. OTHERS KEY POINTS CIVILIZING DEVELOPMENT.

Do not have any doubts that after the development of ourselves brains what allowed most our technological advances is the discovery of agricultural techniques. Until recently, it was believed that the agricultural technologies were first discovered and developed in the Middle East more precisely in Mesopotamia (area between the rivers Tiger and Euphrates) which now is part of Iraq. It was supposed to have happend around 7,000 years ago.

I would add this information here because I just heard it in a public radio here in Massachusetts, in a show about science. In a neolithic cemetery were found some pottery used to brew beer. The find was dated from 9,000 years ago. Using the spectrophotometer the scientists deciphered the beer’s contents which had in its composition, rice, gergelin and another plant. It proves that, agriculture is much more ancient than what was thought.

The female ingenuity must have also given us the pottery which was a product from the camp and not from a hunt. Auspiciously, the modern women can’t complain to their husbands because they are drinking beer because it must be another find from women. Now is crystal clear why the hunters always got back to the camp!… To our friends that love beer. This so ancient beer is in production now.

Now the scientists found evidences of agriculture dated from more than 10,000 years ago in Peru. Little-by-little all established dates by the more old paleontologists are being contradicted by another much more ancient. Although, we can observe that, those dates must have being found in areas where agriculture was exploited at least for families consume.

It means some kind of sophistication in the technology, that the plants had been selected in a way it were enough productive for that some quantity of time could be dedicated to it and it would give back enough quantity of production which would surpass the lost at the work in hunt and gather/collect.

At least, to have such type of agriculture with such characteristics is reasonable to admit that, were done some previous laboratorial work that, in the ages of our History-without-letters could last for tens of thousands of years. We need to think the beginning of agriculture in a form with other goals rather than economic. In our case, economic means to be worth to change an activity to survive for a better one.

One information which can be useful in the elucidation of that question is that, human beings used to bury their dead ones since tens of thousands of years ago. More than one variety from the human family demonstrated respect for their ancestors. In the midst of them is the man of Neandertal and the Cro-Magno. Many times, the simple bury of corpses got some sophistication and it were deposited in a pre-established alignment and covered by offerings such as flowers and personal tools of the dead person. It shows the knowledge of transcendent life and another more mundane.

The presence of flowers on burials indicates more than respect for the dead. When we come back tens of thousand years ago we find a Europe totally frozen. Even today, when its climate is considered moderated, it has a short period of time for the native plants blossom. This moment is too brief during a year although death for human beings could come in on any part of whole year. So, flower should be cultivated just in case of that.

Although some flowers can be used as food for human beings, the justification to lose time cultivating it in that remote time of our History should be for medical or religious purposes. Anyways, the cultivating could only happen if you have somebody with a little time to spare to dedicate to it. And the only ones with such time would be the women at the camp. Such as that, the technology to plant was discovered by women. But only until it became agriculture past on some time.

Another female discovery with a great influential mean in our civilizations was the way of divine representation. We know that, the most primitive form of divine representation is the figure of the goddess of fertility. That representation comes from yet pale times in our History. And its conception is female for sure.

This affirmation is explained because we had the division of work and men were hunters and women were gather/collectors. The men had to walk long distances every day for to do their functions. Probably they stood weeks without come back home. Women had to stay in camp good part of their lives.

Lets analyze the psychological formation of those peoples. Put away the romantic ways which came to be just until recent times in human culture. Woman and man hang up together not for their beauty and hygienic habits. They stood together to complete each other, observing their own interests. It is possible that if it were not for the practice of sex, man wouldn’t approach woman and vice-versa.

The more hygienic they were, their smell would be terrible. The major attraction that would be between them was due to the youth of the couples. To men, the sexual practice had two basic functions, relaxing and procreation. It is innate in men the desire to see others creatures in their image, after their likeness. Maybe it is because of that not all man were selected for fidelity. What men are after is their own satisfaction and not for their companions. They lived and died hunting. The fertility was not the main preoccupation for men.

In other way the fertility was a fundamental part to women. It was desired and equally feared. It was feared because of the phases of fragility during the pregnancy period and just after the deliver. Up next, with a baby totally dependent on them, all the attributed work to women would become hardened. They wouldn’t take on security issues when in a free country. Do not think here the women as a fragile sex in our days. Probably, the women who lived in our distant past got more physical strength than most men today.

The fertility to women meant the guarantee that men would come back with essentials nourishment for the family and as security guard in necessaries and periodically movement from camp to camp.

When we see reconstitutions in documentary films of those migration movements where women are shown carrying some tools and children while some men take great volumes and some others do the security, they probably got it wrong.

Women were supposed to be the carrier of all household articles from the camp. Men carried their weapons, divided and scouted ahead, lateral guards and bodyguards on back. They lived in a world where they were supposed to kill a beast per day. Any lapse could be fatal and each person had a fundamental importance for the preservation of the species. If they were taken by surprise by some beast, they wouldn’t have much time to take away the luggage to defend themselves. And some enemies at the time used to attack in pack, so, they would not dare to take risks.

In earlier times children were independent and walked side-by-side with adults.

Even so, becoming an adult was difficult. To stay alive was a work even for Titans. In that age, someone hardly knew their grandparents. Life was brief with a little time for pleasure. It’s possible that women didn’t survive to five deliveries. As they had always tried to avoid it, became unavoidable because they cast the Divine Person under the form of the goddess of fertility.

In the beginning, faith in plants were the only one remedy women could count on with. And the goddess of fertility reflects exactly the female personality. If it was a male idea, it probably had something to be with the hunt and not with fertility.

It show us that, those two discoveries were together for a long time. The cultivation of plants and religious belief. When we talk about quack in old times the image which come in our mind is the medicine man. But in more ancient times, before the intensive agriculture, it should be understood as a female figure.

These activity not yet detected by archeological finds, meaning the harvest of plants before the agricultural signs, is probably the source for the discovery of plants that we use today in our commercial plantations. Probably rice, wheat, and corn had been cultivated nor for its grain but for its straw and husk with the means of making household tools. The primitive plants of those species wouldn’t produce great amount of seeds. It produces it today only with the human interference through selection of productive plants and more sophisticated agricultural practices.

Before the plants could be developed enough to compensate that the abandoning the activity of hunt and gather/collect directly from the nature ment to dedicate to agriculture, it must have been an exclusive job for women. It is most obvious in seasoned parts of the planet.

The time for a plant is the spring for climate reasons. Justly when the abundance of hunting season is starting. I am pretty sure that, the primitive men wouldn’t dare to lose such opportunity of to extract finished food to invest time to set up ground, to plant, take care of the plants to get a minor production months later. It only became possible later, after the plants were positively responsive to patient work of selection and was producing enough for the maintenance of the tribe. The production had to be enough to maintain the tribe from the harvest until the new plants was showing the grain.

This condition is important because people had to eat without losing the same time that the hunt demand. And when the grain started to showing itself that it is the right time when nature starts to offer free fruits. Like that, while people waited for the grain be mature, they could obtain nourishment from nature itself.

They always say, “Empty heads is the industry of Satan.” I believe in that, these human “wisdom” is more due to envy than properly to truth. It allows me to remember my uncle, Gamaliel (Gama) Baptista Coelho. He always assured that, his brother and my grandfather, Jose (Juca) had never worked in his life and complained in saying that, all the brothers in their household had taken hard work in the farm.

My grandfather was a public servant and became the person who’s job was to write the reports of a criminal. But at that time he mostly stood waiting for something to happen than doing its writings. Because of that uncle Gama used to say that he never had worked in his life. The old uncle added to his accusative complains the fact of he himself had asthma which made his work twice as hard.

Although, even his theory was wrong and uncle Gama was not proved by the facts. While in his free hours at work, grandpa Juca served voluntary jobs. He was always with good intentions in his mind. It can be verified at my birthplace, Virginopolis, Minas Gerais state, Brazil, where almost all public building have my grandpa’s photo in the midst of other founders. It can be seen in the Hospital, middle school, etc.

We can’t find his photo among the ex-mayors because it was a position that he never wanted. He was a charming person to anyone but had no patience for contradictions on himself. Knowing himself political limitations he preferred to work on behalf of others. Some were elected thanks to his help.

It is one out of the reasons I gave that I think that my hypothesis is right. Women had been the true motor of civilizations. The time which they had in the camp must have helped them thought about ideas used to good collecting. Men only could have their “lazy” times after the invention of agriculture were already done. And, in a male way of vision, the work of women was the laziness time, in the same way my uncle Gama thought about grandpa Juca. Our good uncle Gama is remembered only by us now, the ones who knew him closely.

At least, from these beginning, another invention which changed the world and could have female origins is the wheel. As I said before, the burden of transporting heavy things at the migrations was to women. So they had the interest in to invent the wheel. At the start it should have been two big rods of wood and a big skin in between to pull their things. After that came the idea to put n wheel beside the rod. From that came the axle and the idea moved the world.

Now-a-days we don’t know who invented the wheel. When I was young, it was believed that the people Hiksus had introduced it in Egypt and from there it spread all around the world. By the truth, with the Hiksus it appears in a form of war cars and in full development. I don’t think it came with such a function. What you need is to look for more simple forms of beginning the idea. For human beings had invented the wheel, cars, and attached it to horses in one time it should have been like inventing the jet plane before any other simple form of flying.

I did a quickly look at the origins of the wheel and learned that it was long before the Hiksus people. It appears carved in pots and in a form of small wheels made from rocks which appear to be used as toys for children. It is evidence for my hypothesis because children playing only could be happening around the camp under the maternal command.

One evidence that could indicate that agriculture is an older invention that are registered in History books is the fact of all human communities around the globe knew some kind of agriculture even when we are talking about thousands of years ago. So, if the idea had been appeared in the Middle East or Americas, how could it have been transported to the rest of the world in times so remote? It would be only possible if some form of agriculture did exist before the great separations, before human kind got out of Africa, around about 100 thousand years ago.

Abbreviating, the morphological and cultural changing which determined the development of human civilizations was, the control over the fire, the cooking of food, the gain on brain’s volume, the manifestation of religious beliefs, the discovery of primary technologies for agriculture, and the wheel. All of those discoveries are authentically female.

We can remember also that, men contributed with astronomy which they needed to know how to go away and come back home. The taming of animals and the navigation on waters are others for example. The invention of weapons also gave control over beasts. Those discoveries are directly associated to the activity of hunting. So, we cnn’t attribute to women only the human cultural development. In same way we can’t have attributed to men any superiority on the same development.

05. SOMETHING WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT OUR PAST

One of the discoveries of modern sciences is that, although our evolution come from immemorial times, all of us are descendant of one woman. She must have lived around 140,000 years ago. Is not only her that exists at the time. Probably she had a big extended family. But only she acquired a mutation which is kept by all of her descendants until now. What is most certain is that we be descendants of all women in her time who let fertile off springs, although those who was not simultaneously descendants of her and had not the mutant inherit are extinct now. This woman, in an analogy to biblical text, can be considered our Eve.

Similar situation occurred about 100,000 years ago to one man. He got a mutation and pass it on to his offspring. This offspring is simultaneous descendant of millions of others men and women. But, in the evolutionary path, all of those who didn’t get that mutation are not more. These man we can call Adam because everybody descended from him.

Accordingly to what I know about genealogy though, I can say that, it is a contentious reading of truth. Our Eve and our Adan are descendants from a countless generations of ancestors, so, they were not created. And all their ancestors equally contributed for the humanity formation. Without themselves intentional participation into doing it. They only had children. Their children have children. And from generation to generation it got on until we became us.

If we want to be progenitor of the whole future of humanity it is relatively simple to be done. We only need to have two children. And we need to ask them to do the same and pass on the idea to next generations. Direct your descendants not through marriage to your lineage. At the end of the 33 generation, which correspond to approximately 1,000 years, you will have more than 8.5 millions of descendants. Only from the 33rd generation. If all the 31st and 32nd generations are still alive at the same time, parents and grandparents generations, your descendants would count on with about 15 billion people. Earth;s population today is less than half of it, the couple Adan and Eve could have been born less than a 1,000 year ago and yet be ancestors of all of our contemporaneos. But our descendants will, simultaneously, be descendant of all of our contemporaneos. God didn’t allowed any exclusivity in our gift for multiplication.

In practice these situation become not easy to happen or had happen in a short period of time because our cultures are seclusive. The separations by borders, the social division imposition, the religious prejudice etc, make it difficult in the realization of such intentions.

Another factor which interferes with it, is the condition that we can’t have marriages within the one self descendants during the 33 generations. Usually, the descendants of people concentrate in a limited geographic space. Such as that, in a minor number of generations all people from that space become inevitably descendant from the same people and the marriage between cousins become inevitable without move to different areas. Although it is true, one or another descendant from each family get away from the area on each generation. And those dispersed from the group are the ones that multiply the descendants of their ancestors. When you marry out of the close family much more descendants are generated.

Turning back to the issue of my text we found that the contributions from female ideas had its consequences in the formation of our civilizations. The civilizations would only be possible if we had concentration of people to support it. It is explained by, civilization is nothing more but the practice of day-by-day around some ideas. When the ideas come together we got civilization. For that the ideas that become together is necessary to have a bigger number of brains for thought and practice it. If we stayed to be hunters and gatherer/collectors it would had never happened because the natural sources don’t maintain great number of population.

With the starting of agriculture we gained the opportunity to settle up, to have a continuous fountain of food and, with a great importance, to get some time for “lazyness” which permit us to get more ideas and put it to the test. The ideas which favor civilizations are just the ones that make life easier to people for that they have more lazy time which is transformed in new ideas.

Our civilization today allow us to waste the equivalent to one entire life of our primitive ancestors at the “lazy” time dedicated to studies. At the time of hunting and gather/collecting, study would be considered time of totally lazyness. Yet, 100 years ago the education hadn’t the popularity and universality of today. Women dedicating to education, in countries like Brazil, was considered an exception and totally unwanted. In compensation the technological advances from this recent past was in turtle walk in relationship with our days.

If for one side the women idea of agriculture allowed our civilization advancement, in another side it made them victims. It is that because women were like queens in the camp and men were like servants who’s labor was to look after food and give protection. With the beginning of dwelling villages, it was made possible by agriculture. Also men got his “lazy” times. It is even possible that they got totally lazy because the labor in agriculture was for women, then they also start to have some ideas.

One of the consequences of agriculture were to have food on a regular basis, even in difficult times such as winters, thanks to the storage of food. It enhanced the expectations of life for people. At that time we start to know the grandparent generation. Grandparents must have been the first teachers, teaching oral traditions. They even took care of children giving to young adults more time for their labors.

In one side it was good to women, their lives as agricultural labors gave them more health, time of life, and extended their reproductive period. It made possible women to be mother more times.

Woman got some abilities not present in others beings in nature. Accordingly to an old teacher I had in medicine veterinary, “the she monkeys” are the only one female who got period.” He was talking about primates in general, including the human ones.

Another characteristic of women is not to have a seasonal fertile period. For other animals which was not selected by human intervention, the reproduction comes only in periods when nature offer more light and nourishment at spring and summer. In this case the female only ovulate annually or every six months. And only at this period the female permits to have sex with its partners.

The small animals, such as rats, can repeat more times because their gestational period is short, although, female practice sex only during the ovulation with repetition approximately each thirty days.

Maybe woman and bonobo’s female (a primate that looks like chimpanzee) are the only representative of the mammal world that make sex independently of be or not on ovulation period. Perhaps this it is the ability which guaranteed the female success on the preservation of our species in primitive times. Although, during the civilizing period, with the regularity of nourishment, women ended keeping their ability to be pregnant in any period of the year. Before it, even they having this ability, during the phases of privation of food, their bodies could respond it with infertility. In this case they preserve themselves having less pregnancies.

With the possibility of have more pregnancies and the need for more time taking care of children it gave men the opportunity for to occupy the power of alpha male in the family. In consequence, men diminished their geographical area of actuation taking care of agriculture while women diminished more keeping themselves around the houses.

The atheists can believe that there is no God. But they can’t deny that, the believing in God was fundamental to the civilization process. At the initial manifestations we can observe some balance between God’s representation with origins as male observations as much as female observations. The great goddess was the fertility. The admission of polytheism must had been a conciliatory treat between women and men for the pacific acquaintanceship in the villages. Like that, the divine manifestations pass on to be interpreted as individualized gods. It came from as much from hunters observations as she gather/collectors observations.

The representation of the goddess of fertility may have been born from the desire of woman to become mother and to have been protected for the delivery. After that the representation gained the borders of all type of fertility, even from Earth, from animal and everything that multiply for the benefit of human being.

Such concepts ended been adopted in some divine representations of male origins. At least, fertility and success are intimately linked in the conceptions of machocivilizatories. In some cases the fertility were totally transferred to male figure. And this is the concept which dominated the male creed until recently. The idea of fertility got so great in the male psychology that, just after the invention of microscope and the visualization of the individual spermatozoid, men start to theorize that, their were the only ones responsible for the reproduction process. They imagined that, inside the spermatozoid was already a miniature baby that in the womb just get bigger. But it put our History beyond the time I am talking about.

06. THE FRAMERS’ CONCEPTION OF BIBLICAL WOMAN.

We don’t know exactly when the first structural civilization was born in Earth. The most ancient writings that we know is the cuneiform writings and it was attributed to the Sumerian people at first. They were a people that blossoms at Mesopothamy around 7,000 years ago. But it’s hard to imagine that civilization and writings came together at the same time.

We have evidences that point out that the Egyptian Civilization started out around the same time. What is interesting to observe is that, those civilizations are anti-deluge, it means that, the civilizations started before the deluge related in the Bible and stood after it. By this and other reasons we know that the biblical text is not exactly what was said about it.

Is believed that the Bible was written, in a optimist vision, at a period around 1,000 years more or less. But probably it were written from 680 years BC. Until a little after 100 AD. When we talk about it some people got offended because it was said that, Moses wrote the five first books and he supposedly was born around 1,400 years BC. Although, it is a great difference between what is in the tradition and what can be proved by observations.

If we take at the example of the tale of Noah’s Arch, we find it written in Sumerian graphics from more than 5,000 years ago. Many other excerpts from the Bible are also found in others sources which came prior to the biblical writings. Some scholars believe in that it is proof for the most ancient parts of the Bible have been written at the date they want. But it does not exists such direct relationship because the Bible contains traditions much older than its writings. Moses would never be the author of the tale of Noah’s Arch because the tale existed ions before he was born.

Many excerpts of the Bible reflect traditions before itself. For us, it is now interesting to look how the Bible text is anti-female. And I think that it is a reflex from the time when the War of Sex got on its apex. As we saw, women had a fundamental participation in the beginning of our civilizations. In front of it the presence of women in our society should be, at least, same as the men. But it is not verified, mainly at the region what we know as Middle East and around about.

At the same time the Bible (it’s oldest parts) may have been written, in Greece it was believed that the true love was between two men. In there the pederasty was born, which is the union between a older man to a young one. The men used to live in one side of the house (androcel) while the women lived in other side (gymncel). They credited the contact between man and woman as necessary inconvenience for that she generated children.

But what worries us is what is written in the Bible for a simple reason. It contains a type of cultural thought that reflects the believing of people from some Ages and determined geographical point. And because its writings became to be the pattern of creed which came to accident, the majority feel that it is an obligation to believe in that, everything which is written on it is, in some way, truth. Even the women themselves don’t get how much some influences in our psychological formation are wrong thanks to these beliefs.

Don’t mistake what I’m saying. My thoughts are not anti-Bible neither anti-religious. I believe in God for a simple reason. I know God. The authors of the Believed without know Him. It is why they made so many mistakes. If anybody wants know if I follow everything dictated in the Bible the answer is no. Needed is to be coherent and to follow what does not contradict the knowledge we got about God.

For that not prolong anymore the present text, I will show a little where the biblical text is anti-women. Starting is enough to read the first chapter of Genesis and to ask ourselves who is the Figure call there by the name God. If the question was made to a old religious person, from immemorial times, they promptly would recognize Him as the goddess of fertility. Many will say that, the goddess of fertility hadn’t so many functions. And I say, it is exactly her by the same mean. The objective of the biblical author was to take the throne from the goddess of fertility and to substitute her by a male figure which had to be more powerful, for that the description not be exactly the same. Before be masculinefied, God was conceived as a female.

At the verse 27 we have, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Behind the subtly we perceive the intentions of the authors. For those that believe in God it can be truthful but for those that know Him find the mistakes. At the chapter 20 (4) of Exodus and 5 (7) of Deuteronomy we got the warning for, “not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in haven…” It makes those passages in conflict because all men would have some likeness of God, and it were attributed to God’s doing. To make something out of self image and likeness come from human ego and not Divine because God does not need to make Himself better. He has the Power of always being Present. So, He does not need images to remember nothing.

If God had made men out of His Own Image nobody could say it for sure because God also made Himself invisible to the sinner’s eyes. What is for sure is that the biblical author had an intention saying that, he would never accept in anyways that God would be out of female likeness as the goddess of fertility was.

God doesn’t have emotional crisis, so He has no need to make a creature after His Image and Likeness. It is a human requirement, basic from men. For those who believe in that, men were created after God’s Likeness, look the society created by men. Is there any likeness with a Divine Society?

At the next chapter, the number 2, the authors come back to creation. This chapter comes only to reassert the primacy the authors would like to men in detriment of women. They repeat part of the myth of creation to affirm that, everything was created for men and that, the woman, beyond be created for last, would be just a helper and not a equal creation.

To sophisticate more their intentions the authors describe the woman been formed from the rib of Adam. This image created by the biblical authors reveal their insecurity. We may say that, their imagination reveal a inferiority complex and, in the core, they got envy of the power of women to generate us in her womb. By the text we can’t say for sure if the people at the time imagined that we were originated from the maternal ribs or it was only a figure of language. It is that because at the last month of pregnancy the abdomen appear hanged by the ribs.

ONLY A NOTE. Many biblical interpreters today made up their mind and say that, we have two tales of creation inside the biblical text. They want to conciliate the impossible. Its obvious that the intention was to say that Adam was the first human being. Although its also obvious that in the time that the authors created Adam, humanity was an old thing in Earth. At 2, 5 it is written, “And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the filed before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.” Up next the creation of Adam is narrated. If it hadn’t rain upon the Earth hadn’t humanity before Adam. What is clear is that, the tale of creation is everything but a fact. It has the finality of to explain something that the authors didn’t comprehend and knew not. And obviously was the attempt of to reduce the woman to a second level of creation invented by the authors.

At the next chapter they, the authors, got less subtle. They construct a narrative to explain the origins of sin in the midst of human beings. And, logically, the chosen character to initiate all the human disgrace is obviously the woman. Accordingly to them, beyond Eve eaten the forbidden fruit, she offered it to man.

What most simpleton in all the narration is the presence and improvidence of God. God, the Omniscient, had made man innocent, and gave him the advise not eat the forbidden fruit. At the same time gave him a woman yet knowing that she was about to eat the forbidden fruit and offer it to man who was also about to eat it. Those who know God know that He does not act like that, so, we only got one conclusion about those things written in the Bible. It were included for man to get a argument against the equality between man and woman.

But what begun with errors hardly is corrected in its path. Since the first authors put those impressions in the most ancient book, all of the others were elaborated from that, so, the biblical contents as a whole is not properly a recognition of women have the capability to be the leader of something beyond the rooms of herself house.

There are many other excerpts within the same finality in the Bible. In there the women is generally treated as an inferior being, undesired, or corruptor. A snatch of times the woman is remembered by her wisdom and capability to take on decisions. In midst of those exceptions are the examples of Deborah, in Judges 4; Ruth and Naomi at the book named after the first one (Although the Book of Ruth came is an excuse for the David’s dynasty because, for she be a Moabitess and great grandmother of David, he would never may be enthroned as king, accordingly to the Laws attributed to Moses) and Esther at the book of herself name. Even so the authors are not preoccupied in to present such as women as heroes of the people but someone who, accidentally, got in History. (Here I am not putting all books from the Catholic Bible which are different from the others, for not being put the readers of other Bibles in difficulty.)

In conclusion, abbreviating what we find in the Old Testament in relationship to women, we find it more frequently in things such as, the disobeying of Lot’s spouse and the consequent transformation in a pillar of salt (Gen 19: 26); intrigue involving the daughters of Lot who mothered sons from themselves father giving origin to the Moabites and Ammonites (Gen 19: 30;38). Also the account from the chapter 34 where Jacob and Leah had a daughter, Dinah and the cleverly intention of to show that, have a daughter is a problem; beyond that the text is used for to send a male chauvinist message that women are inferior because all brothers of Dinah got the power of generate a tribe for Jacob but not Dinah. In Num 5: 11-31 is established a type of investigation for clarify if the jealousy from a husband have any basis or not where only the wife is subdue to humiliation and, for not prolong more these text, the behaving from the Job’s spouse who say to him, “curse God and die.” (Job 2: 9).

Obviously, biblical scholars would point out excerpts which appear to give value to woman and a quiet feel that He really does exists. But the general content indicates that, good women are those subdued to man and never dare to be leader of anything without the good direction from a man.

07. THE EVOLUTION OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT.

Jesus must have been the most revolutionary man in his time. He was born, lived and died professing Jewish faith. So, it was expected that he followed established conventions in the Old Testament. But he didn’t, particularly in relationship to women.

Scholars today believe that he was different but had a simple good reason for that. It was always known that he practically lived his whole life in Nazareth. And Nazareth was no more than a district in size with the autonomy of a city. So, raised in a small place, under the strong influence of traditions, he should be a traditionalist Jew.

But the most recent archeological finds show that, Nazareth was from a small distance of Cesarea and you could see it through a nude eye. Cesarea was a city of a good size built by Herod, the Great, for a charming to the Roman Empire. It was a city that mixed cultures, predominantly Greek-Roman. Now it is believed that, Jesus may have accompanied Joseph, or went by himself after his death, good part of work days to that city. The multicultural contact must have made him more tolerant, particularly with the pagan which put not so many restrictions to woman as the traditional Jewish faith did.

Someone once said to me that, the reason Jesus found to revoke the statute of divorcement (Mark 10: 2-12) was because the Jew at his time was given bills of divorce even for any futile motive. Reading the text attributed to Moses in Deut. 24: 1-4, we perceive that the writing a bill of divorce was a males prerogative and really didn’t matter the motivation. Beyond that, all laws and statutes, accordingly which is written in the Old Testament, had been mediated by Moses, although, attributed to God Himself. So, it does not sustain the allegation that it was “For the hardness of” men’s “hearth he wrote you this precept.”

So, its obvious that, Jesus recognized the difficulties of the bill of divorcement because of women. In the Jewish culture they and their children were men’s property (fathers and husbands) and without them they hardly would find ways to exist but being a prostitute, in case if they hadn’t any parents for taken them back home. The idea that marriage twain in one flesh didn’t impeded the divorce because if was God Who joined them together was also God authorizing to give the bill of divorce. The divorce wasn’t man put asunder what God had joined together but God putting apart what Him Himself had, supposedly, united.

Even so someone showed himself in front of his family, his friends and religious community to realize a marriage ceremony but if God keow that in the future this person will get the divorce, then, it will not be marriage but not more than a social reunion.

Jesus knew that not everything in the Bible corresponded to the Will of God and for that he knew that, the authors used God’s Name in vain saying that it was Him Who ordained the Scriptures. Saying Jesus that was Moses who wrote that precept for divorcement, he opened a precedence for the doubt, because if it was from Moses authorship what more was written by the pure human will and not God’s? The answer passed on, in part, through the path, everything that bring to discrimination come not from God because He did not respect any person. In this case, all discrimination that exist against other religions, other people and, particularly, against women come not, in no way, from the Part of God.

But what I want to make clear here is that, what is written in the Old Testament as much as is written in the New Testament are the result from human reflections, although it had been attributed to God. Jesus wanted to protect women against the society impositions but had no scape from the cultural ambient he lived. For sure, what God joined together and gave not power to man to put asunder, it will never be separated, even if man desired it. We need to remember that, God doesn’t want any bad thing to happen to nobody. For that, sometimes it is better to separate than to destruct two or more lives. Something in the Bible coincides with the Will of God and its what we need to identify and follow.

Something alike is seen at the judgment of the woman taken in adultery, in the very act, and narrated in John 8: 3-11. In there is not written but we can do a interpretation. Jesus wasn’t judging the adultery done by the woman. The Law says that, the couple taken in adultery shall be killed. They brought only the woman. When Jesus said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” he knew that the entire society was in adultery. It is why nobody executed the woman although they yet had condemned her before even the judgment. Jesus defended that woman because he recognized that she wouldn’t sin alone, but he recommended, “go, and sin no more”. That woman was a victim from the male chauvinist society. It doesn’t mean that all of the adultery person be the same.

It doesn’t have a way to affirm that, the Jesus thoughts was really liberator to the point of perfection. But certainly he were more liberal than the Church’s version that came to us in recent past. His thoughts was not liberator only in relationship to women but in relationship to all. While oppression still exists, the oppressed as much as the oppressor need to be liberated.

For certain Jesus opened some doors. The New Testament text mentioned 72 disciples. He wasn’t so modern that included women in the Apostles. But we don’t have the list of the 72 disciples to make sure the women were not in the midst of them. Some evidence though are given to us. For example, the women are the ones that first saw Jesus resurrected. The symbolism of it was too strong to be accepted by the traditional Jewish faith. The traditional Jewish faith only accepted the privacy of women when involved in sin.

Equally symbolics are the things related at the chapter 10 of the book Acts of the Apostles. In there is described the conversion of the centurion Cornelius and all of his friends. As him was Roman, he had no reservation in relationship to put together in the same ambient people from both sexes. At the end we have the account about the Gentiles pentecost, it means, “the Holy Ghost fell on all them” in a form of fire tongues (spiritual baptism). At the body of the chapter, verses 34 and 35, Peter recognizes and points out that, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.” What was a great news because at the chapter 10 from Deuteronomy, verse 17, is written the same thing, though, just after was said that, in verse 15, “Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.”

We, those that know God, know that He never made chosen ones and Love all equally. The referred choices dictated by the biblical authors are a theological fraud which had the only intention to impose the authors interests above all.

Although, the Christian Church is not only what Jesus thought. We find on it conflicts from thousands of years. There, exists many excerpts that discriminate women but I would like to point out just two. In the book of John 2: 4 is the first, “Jesus said unto her, Woman, what have I do to with thee?…” Those word were attributed to Jesus, talking to his own mother, just before he made the miracle known as, marriage in Cana.

I thought it would be interesting to point out it because when we showed it to a friend of ours, he found it a absurd. He scolded Jesus saying, If Jesus said something like that he would be a great… Our friend hadn’t the minor intention on to defend the woman as a whole with his distemper. He is a male chauvinist and, as such, doesn’t worry about what to talk about women. But he felt offended because he thinks that Jesus shouldn’t be the appropriated way of treatment reserved to his own mother. All male chauvinist have this reaction of defense in relationship to their own mother and don’t see the same need to respect mothers as a whole.

The other excerpt comes from I Corinthians 14: 34-35, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

We already know it is not entirely true. Many of the Christians first communities were directed by women. Including a Gospel was written and dedicated to Mary Magdalene. The book shows a completely different version of Christianity in relationship to the passage pointed out above and saint Mary Magdalene is presented in the same level or superior level of the Apostles. The scholars more aligned to the traditions which came to us until now affirm that, the book were written many times after and was about the manifestation of defiance from people who disliked the decisions made by the “legitimate leaders of the primitive Church.”

But what we can deduce is that, the movement initiated by Jesus was open to more advanced ideas. Yes it is possible that Mary Magdalene had the status of disciple of Jesus and take the leadership of some branch of the Christian Church. Like all other Gospels, the one named after her can yes be received some embellishment but is not possible to be elaborated just to defy the male chauvinist leadership. Perhaps it can appear like that for the now-a-days Christian churches leadership but it was OK to the first Christians.

And the reason I am sure about this is that. If had any group that had some differences with the other leadership in the Church, the group had to be composed also by men, in case if it was true that women were totally forbidden to teach. So, what had such group to gain electing a women as leader? Though, if they lived in a land where all had to be male chauvinist to be leader, the election of a woman leader only would be possible if it really had a solid basis. Auspiciously, the teaching from the book of Mary does not get away from the general teachings of Jesus.

Contrary to those evidences what was happening after is suspicious. The book dedicated to Mary Magdalene were not banned from the official Christianity alone. The saint herself were “villainified”. (The book was rejected at the Nicean Council and the “villainification” was done by the administration of pope Gregor, the Great). We don’t know if it was with intention or mistake on an interpretation, pope Gregor the Great, wrote a discourse where he assembled many biblical excerpts as referent to Mary Magdalene. In the midst of those the one about the prostitute who anointed Jesus feet with alabaster ointment (Luke 7: 38) next to his martyrdom. Since then the references to her as leader of a part of the Church faded away.

What call’s for attention is the reference to Mary as being “the Apostle to the Apostles” found in Christian documents from the first and second centuries. She was called like that because were the first to witness Jesus’s resurrection and to her Jesus sent to transmit this “good news” to the other Apostles. So, the number one fundamental teaching in Christianity was taught by a woman not by a man.

With the mislead interpretation made by pope Gregor, the Great knowledge she passed on to be remembered in literature and arts as the repented prostitute. The modern studies point out that it was a faked tendency with the goal of to block the influence of women leaders among the Church.

The modern studies also indicates another forgotten corner stone of Christianity referring to the construction of the Church basis. Naturally, for that the Christian movement survived, it should be necessary that it had some financial contributions from some good souls. Is known that many of those were women from the favored class who had the control over their husbands money or came from rich widows.

Then later, the Church also disregarded the great favor that the mother of Constantine I gave to Christianity. She was the one who influenced her son to adopt the Christian faith as official religion for the Roman Empire. Beyond that she headed a “archeological expedition” (the identification of places considered relevant in Palestine) looking to find the possible historical places mentioned in the Gospels and constructed commemorative churches in such places. Some of the places identified by her expedition continue to be points of pilgrimage even today. In the midst of those is the “Via Dolorosa”, the Church of Nativity etc.

Also, it is impossible to separate the foundation of the Christian Church from those who chose to die than to abdicate from the faith. Its most probable that the majority of martyrs from the Primitive Church had been women. Despite of their heroism, the Church that were formed after the Nicean Council and pass through the Middle Ages established that, the women would be good enough even for the martyrdom on behalf of the Church but not good enough to head it.

At last, the History of the Middle Ages has plenty of events which exemplifies the attempt of men to suppress women from becoming leaders. The exception we find is the Cathar people. The Catharism were a Christian Philosophy which looks like to have some link to the gnostic movement. The gnosticism was born since the beginning of Christianity and valued the knowledge of things from God. Mary Magdalene were one of the icons for the gnostic movement but it pass on to be persecuted by the impositions from followers of the Nicean Creed. Both groups already had their differences but the model of Church that was born from the association of religious and state powers ended in to suppress the movement. The Church as a whole were persecuted by the imperial power and the group that associated to that power started to persecute any other way of thinking but themselves.

May the Catharism been the uninterrupted continuity of the gnosticism. Probably it raised from the discovery of some information about the gnosticism. The Cathars had their territorial bases in southern France even in Aragon reign, which is now Spain. At the final years of 1,100 they had flourished enough not to be undetected in the landscape.

What they have of particularity in their belief was the rejection for the material life. They even despised everything corporal. What they believed was that the main goal of life was to try to make yourself perfect. For them, the perfection had to pass through celibacy. (Something that wasn’t yet an ideal adopted by the Catholicism). They believed in follow their ideal of perfection they would be saved without the need for reincarnation. They believed in reincarnation like as a form to repeat a scholar year. It wasn’t a punishment but just a needed stage to do things right. For them life was like a school where you would learn to be good, in case of you don’t achieve your goal, you would repeat a life with the objective of getting better for ones own benefit.

In midst of all that, they didn’t believed in Hell. They were pacifists. Above of all believed in female/male equality. Beyond not submited themselves to the established Church but considered it corrupted, also they did not accept the dogmas imposed by it.

By that, the Church equipped itself with all the violence which could count on to eliminate the movement. The persecution started at the final years of 1,100 and the elimination of the last remnant around 1,325. Like that the women lost the opportunity to have good examples of female leadership until our days.

It is needed to do a reflection about the human thinking at this point. Many think the actions taken by the historical Church had the sense to reestablish its authority. But it is not true. The person who got authority accepted even foment the challenging of him or herself thought because know that, the contrary opinion gave him or her the opportunity to better rethink him or herself’s conceptions. The person who have authority recognizes the human condition and admit the possibility of committing errors and, above all, observing a possible error of having the capability to change his or her opinion.

On contrary, it is the dream of all dictators that all concord with a unique type of thought, preferably their own. In the core, we all have some kind of dictator in us. We always dream that to have a better world it is needed that everybody agreed in everything. Although the better world is to recognize that, it is the others right to choose what is better for themselves. Impose everything that we think be correct is not be an authority. Yes, it is be a dictator.

08. GOOD EXAMPLES FOR WOMAN LEADERS FOLLOW.

We have many examples which normally are pointed out as ideals to women follow. I disagree on some of them. I will cite three women and after will say why they shouldn’t be examples to be followed.

BOUDICA OR BOUDICCA.

Boudicca was a queen in the midst of Britain tribes. She lived in the first century AD, at the one of the first generations after part of Great Britain had been conquered to the Roman Empire by Julius Caesar. After her husband died and her daughters been raped she united the Britainic tribes around her own leadership. It came to be around the years 60-61 when Nero was the “Beast” which was the emperor in Rome and yet was making plans to make human torches from Christians.

Boudicca was a war leader and she herself took weapons to combat the enemies. It was said that she was strong like a man. She lead a numerous force and won battle after battle.

The Roman soldiers had given the war for a loss. At the last combat they carefully chose the battleground. They put themselves in a part more elevated of the land where they wouldn’t be attacked from behind. And only hoped to die with honor.

The forces lead by the queen was much superior in number. And was so sure about the victory that they didn’t take any precaution. Everybody went to battle at the same time. Even the carriages with goods and the common people who was with them entered dangerously in the battleground.

The Romans had great experiences in battle and attacked and defended with their shields united, as it was a turtle carapace. In a such way united that was almost impossible that the enemies reached them while, through little openings, they managed their spears and gladiator sword, injured and killed the attackers.

The forces of Boudicca had the option to lay siege and let them die for lack of supplies or give up. But the anguish for victory was so great that the rearguard of her army pulled hard to the forefront against the Roman shields who kept killing the poor ones because those had not way of to avoid the Roman weapons. When the fighters of rearguard realized what was happening they tried to pull out but became in between the Romans and the carriages and multitude who with them. Included old people and children. From that it became a total massacre. Boudicca ended taking her own life because if the Romans got her she would be put to death or became a slave together with her people.

JOANNA D’ARC.

Another example of wonder woman was Joanna D’ Arc. She is well known. She won some battles against the English forces at the end of the War of 100 Years, between England and France. An agreement between the two enemy forces and she ended in the fire. She was pronounced saint but now is destituted.

ANNITA GARIBALDI

The third is our “heroine” Annita Garibaldi. She is a Brazilian and Italian heroess. In Brazil she fought in the Farroupilhas War and in Italy fought in the Unification War together with her husband, Giuseppe Garibaldi.

I wouldn’t point them as examples for women to follow. They were woman who detached from others by the male way as ways to try to resolve conflicts, it means, through weaponary. They were just clothed as female (not in all the times) but their methods fit on the ideal for hunters not for gatherer/collector.

We have thousands of examples of others male warriors heroes. All the wars made by them lead to others wars and not the solution of conflicts.

If I am worthy of credit to offer examples to be followed by women I would indicate to follow Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. They are better because they didn’t follow the hunter’s rules. Although they were men on their exterior, they were gatherer/collectors of ideas in their core. Were men that evolved and did not let be guided by their testosterone.

By the way, I forgot to mention before. There does exist teachings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels that demonstrate that, his theology had female ideas influence which were passed onto him. It is the case of comparisons which he did using tools used in sewing and kitchens. The most probable is that Mary, his mother, had been the source of information of part of the teachings attributed to him, by having living together with him since his first until the last moment of him on Earth.

the evangelist Luke didn’t say that but let it understood. When Jesus presented himself at the Temple on his 12 years of age, Luke describe at the chapter 2: 51: ‘And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.” Therefore the idea that Jesus had been the author of everything is false, and the Church founded by him deny to his mother obedience that he himself was subject to.

But who want now better about the revelations that I know about Christianity and the general religious doctrine have to read my book, THE THIRD AND LAST TESTAMENT from THE KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING GOD. Something is already in the Internet and also can be bought via this way in many sites such as Amazon.com and Barnes&Nobles. Just look for the names.

09. CONCLUSIONS.

At this point, forgive me many male chauvinists friends, relatives and known people that I have. I am not betraying the male brotherhood. I am admitting what I think to be truthful.

I can’t separate myself from this, I have father, I am a father for a son but equally am son of a mother, married to a woman and father for a daughter. I’m not a respecter of people. I don’t twist the rights to one side nor to another. As the “Minerians” jokes about, “We in Minas Gerais state are half-in-half and are doing very well.” (It contradicts the male chauvinism behaving).

That image which what I opened my nonsense discourse (as many will say) from Ap 12: 1, reflex a great truth. Even he, who were credited to be God with us had to ask permission to a woman for to be born a man. Accordingly to with is written, God didn’t needed man’s permission for to do His Perfect Work but borrowed the woman’s womb for realize His miracle. No woman was born from a man’s rib but all, men and women, are weaved in the womb of a women.

In the field of the religion which dominate in the accident does exist a debt to be paid to women. In particular, the Catholic branch is the most in debt one. At the letter I Tim 3: 2 somebody wrote that, “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;…” To those that believe in the biblical literacy, it is important to remember what is written in Gen 2: 18, “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

Now, if even God concluded that, the solution the man’s loneliness is a woman the human leaders shouldn’t impose the celibacy to their subordinated. I don’t believe in the obligation of marriage or celibacy to all. I only say that, the imposition of celibacy is a violation against the Will of God.

Beyond the affront to God in the first place, we have the contempt to the founders of the Church and to women themselves. It is not possible that the leaders of the Church now-a-days, who are also sons of mothers, will keep thinking that, they are better than the first Christians, who were married, and that the contact to women make them corrupted. If it was true, God had been the responsible to introduce contamination in the world.

Many priests believe in that their celibacy is needed so they do all their are supposed to do. They just forgot that, if they were given the option to be married, there will have many more priests and the burden on their shoulders shall be soften. The priests have to gain and also all the followers because it would be attended by people with more availability of time and, the most sure, many of the problems within the Catholic society shall be removed.

So, the reservation of priesthood only for the male portion of God’s Creation is what is major in disrespect to the majority of human beings. According to statistics we have a little more women than men in the world. I don’t believe, in no way, that God made such discrimination. After all, He is the One Who is no respecter of people.

How the Church want us to give our offspring to its service if it deny our right and duty to have grandchildren? How to obey the Church and refuse to obey God at his order for “Be fruitful, and multiply,…” (Gen 9: 1). Again. The most damaged in those decisions of prejudice and male chauvinists is the loyal community because count on a less number of priests to serve it.

On contrary to see those things between men as irreparable, it does not provoke on me no feeling of hatred or nausea. I see everything with the serenity of errors to be corrected. I come even to see it with good humor, (with all my respect to the part that discriminate women) and compare such attitude over male chauvinist from the Vatican as the last trench of the extreme male chauvinism. I see in there the image of the skinny dog which found the big bone and snarl even against the owner who try to put a hand on the find.

Besides, those reflections remembered me a parallel between the Catholic Church leadership and the other male chauvinists from the quotidian. Like that friend who I mentioned before. They want to have a mother as the idealized example of Mary, the mother of Jesus. They want for themselves an obedient and servant mother who put them on her lap even in the hours of their death. But when we talk about woman as leaders, it is the moment that they invert the roles. They become superprotective saying that it would demand more from them than they are able of to bear. Even the History saying the opposite.

I would like to have enough life to see the day when the pope would transmit a message to the world explaining the reasons for why the married man can’t exercise the full priesthood. And, principally, the why women are being denied to exercise priesthood in equal level to men. I would like an objective, rational and direct answer; without excuses nor subterfuge as regularly the explanations are presented by the Vatican. If I have reason like that, I will support, but, on contrary, I hope that somebody have the courage to admit that everything is all prejudice. If it was in my power, I would give one to bathe in gold for a truthful answer.

At this point I think that it is in the majority of men to have some fear of woman leadership. Perhaps, in their unconscious does exist something that remember the times in the camp where the woman controlled the fire and men. All must come by the fear of the same situation come back again.

Since the raise of the republics and ideals of democracy women are conquering rights unto the society. Theoretically, we yet have countries where the dream of equality between sexes appear to be real. But the numbers indicate that it is a lack of flowers to complete that garden. Women make less money than men for doing the same jobs and the number of women in key positions is yet less.

There doesn’t exist difference of intelligence between poor and rich; tall or smaller; men and women. What we have is difference of opportunities created by the human civilizations itself, headed almost exclusively by men.

I, for example, would like in the days of my life to see a meeting of G-8 and G-20 where we have only have skirts representing the countries. It excludes the scottish quilt, unless it comes to occult the female identity. I don’t want the status quo inversion. The problem is that we had long centuries of male supremacy. Then I believe to be good we experience a brief reverse so that we get some balance between the hunters and gather/collector decisions. The presence of men in such meetings would give a false appearance to genuine manifestations and decisions.

I know that the ideal point would be the balance between the two ways to take decisions and the world must be governed by its half male as much as the half female. But we need to detoxicate from the overdose of testosterone which we got along our History.

The great opportunity of it is that happening is now which a good part of the countries gave the equal opportunity to vote for men and women. As they are majority, they have the opportunity to make decisions on their destiny and humanity’s too, independently of men.

As I mentioned since the beginning, the power to give opportunities but also claim responsibilities. It is the biggest reason which we may have optimism for the balance and not for the domain. It will be demanded from women a form of administration much better than male’s. Yes, because if they don’t achieve it, or if they be not efficient, will be attributed to sex, although we know that men have been doing similar errors.

Women need to prepare themselves to be leaders but can’t forget their rearguard. As it is they are the ones that most influence in the education of children, they need to prepare their men, give themselves examples to children. They can’t be super protective because it will lead to the formation of male chauvinist in the midst of children. They also need to show themselves as independent without being controllers. Acting as I say they can form men with personalities in balance, capable of share the power and respectful of others decisions.

Women, you got the keys of the future at hand. Good luck and know how to use it.

PS1. I am not a formal scholar in History nor Theology. My observations come from a meticulous pay attention on what I saw and lived in my whole life and evidently from a self teaching studies.

PS2. By the things about God that I know e by the analysis that I did from the biblical text I found nothing that support Jesus as been God Himself or indivisible part of Him. I love the teachings brought by him but for that we compare him with God, we had to admit the existence of an inferior form of God in the Universe. Who know the Father know it be impossible. So, I believe only in God and His Essence as a true form of Divine Person. It is enough because God Is The Reason to everything and all.

PS3. This text is published also in Portuguese language at the page, https://val51mabar.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/13-estrelas-mulher/

Helper in the translation: T. Barbalho.

Tags: agriculture, ancient Greece, archeology, Bible, Biblical women, bigger brain, brew beer, camp, charcoal, Charles Darwin, China, Christian thought, chromosome, civilizing development, cooking, Creationism, fire, gather/collector, goddess of fertility, great sign in heaven, History, humanideos, hunt, letters, lost link, Lucy, male chauvinism, neolithic, Noah's Arch, opportunity, past, pottery, psychology, sciences, skeleton, strategy, studies, tactics, technology, wheel., woman first, women leaders, writings

This entry was posted on August 21, 2010 at 9:12 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Val51mabar's Blog

74 Responses to “13 STARS = WOMAN.”

Leave a reply to IMIGRACAO: SEM LENCO E SEM DOCUMENTO, O BARRIL TRANSBORDANTE DE INJUSTICAS. | Val51mabar's Blog Cancel reply

Val51mabar's Blog

13 STARS = WOMAN.

Share this:

Related

74 Responses to “13 STARS = WOMAN.”

Leave a reply to IMIGRACAO: SEM LENCO E SEM DOCUMENTO, O BARRIL TRANSBORDANTE DE INJUSTICAS. | Val51mabar's Blog Cancel reply