Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Raycpa

I imagine back then, it was more the other women in the household that took over her duties, not the men. They just didn’t want her around because she was unclean.


37 posted on 10/16/2012 8:58:10 AM PDT by stuartcr ("When silence speaks, it speaks only to those that have already decided what they want to hear.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: stuartcr
They just didn’t want her around because she was unclean.

But they still had a break from their duties. An added thought is the arrangement would have helped create mentor relationships with the women. Both older and younger women would be meeting each other regularly each month. This would provide an environment for women to have a regular ongoing relationship with other women.

This requirement that at first brush seems like a negative for women might actually have been a positive for them when it is fully applied.

It is not unlike the procedure for handling an out of control child, namely stoning by the full community. At first brush it seems terrible but when looked at in application it has many benefits. The parents are required to agree to bring the child to the priest. In almost all cases of children out of control, the cause is that the parents do not provide an even hand. Further, the entire town has to participate in the stoning. If I were a member of that town I would surely take an interest in kids that were not behaving. I would never want to be called on to administer the punishment. Finally, the children themselves are given a pretty strong incentive to behave and listen to their parents.

45 posted on 10/16/2012 12:00:01 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson