Monday, February 28, 2011

The Poltically Inorrect Census only counting males over 20: Biblical reading of Exoducs Chapter 30:11-34:34

I am a week behind. You have to forgive me here. Anyway.

Here is some analysis of the very politically incorrect way the torah requires the Jewish people to do a census which they may have to do for a number of reasons. Military may be one situation(but there may be MANY OTHERS as men have to appear at the temple three times a year) but I am not sure this specifically because if that was the case why all men over 20. Older men over 45 maybe shouldn't be considered. Could be for representation as well as larger tribes deserve more representation.

God talks to Moses about taking a Census. In it God demands that we give a half shekel (in this case no body gives more then someone else) and it seems to suggest only men over 20 as it uses the hebrew word "Ish" in giving this half a shekel so no plague should befall the people during the census. (Exodus 30:11)

I was taught and it seems like a good reason was that well a Census may be needed numbers by itself could give a people a false sense of security which is why they have to give a half a shekel.

So the question becomes why only men over 20. What about women and children. Shouldn't they be counted for a census if it is a census to know how to allocate certain resources. Exodus 30:12 uses the hebrew word Rosh which means head and it literally means head of the children of Israel. Not every man over 20 may be married though.

My answer to this is that God wanted each family to be an entity in it's own right and the man was suppose to work and speak for his own families care. God didn't want to count women and children to make the government the ones responsible for them as by doing this you give very little role and responsibility to most men.

In fact someone may ask well why didn't our founding fathers be concerned about women voting. I think the answer is they were concerned about their own rights and their own experience is autocratic rulers put other men at risk sending them to fight endless war for the ego of the leader. Similarly they likely understood that autocratic rulers having to woo women also would undermine men who weren't connected to the autocratic rulers and that the bible itself didn't seem to think that "individuals' should be counted on their own.

I can't disagree. Despite the feminist propaganda the reality is it is natural for a man to want to protect a woman especially those who are fertile and attractive and men sometimes kill another man for a woman.

When the government becomes those who have to attract women towards them many times the government will them view other men as threats which they will then do what is their power to undermine men in every way which sadly goes on in most Western Countries where everything is done to make the father, the husband you name it a fool, an idiot. Furthermore, the women become focused on the government being their protector and provider and they see no need for a husband which again just gives power to a few men on top.

In fact during the early 20th century when many European and the US liberalized voting rights and gave women the right to vote it was not in a time when women were picked on. In fact it was after WWI when many men died for nothing and in the US there was the focus on the UN and globalism. And in the US the ones involved were very racists as they did not allow black women in their group.

To have women have full "individual" rights we really have to ban all religion as there are only two countries where women don't have sufferage. Saudi Arabia and Vatican City although in these cases not sure they really are doing it to PROTECT THE FAMILY UNIT AND GIVE RESPONSIBILITIES TO HUSBANDS and not have the government rule over women. It may just be a power grab in their situations. Certainly with the Vatican they support women like Sarah Palin so it seems like they are hypocrites as only in their situations do they not want women to have a say but in other situations they want women to rule over men.


SouthernBelle Rivky said...

Well, I see the U.S. Census is sort of modeled after the original Census in the Torah, at least originally. The goal is to count units/groupings of people. Today, a household composed of unrelated people such as roommates is counted as a unit even though it is often a temporary situation. I don't think situation existed in biblical times. A person with multiple homes is counted once. It's just the way the U.S. Census has evolved. We already talked about voting rights a while back and you actually liked my post!!! Remember that?? :)

In the time of Torah, situations weren't as transient as it is today. People tended to marry much younger since life expectancy was a lot shorter, so a 20 year old male was more established, i.e. already working, not in the middle of college like today. Multiple generations of people often lived together back then and they often were in the same line of work, so even if a twenty-something didn't have own land, he was expected to contribute value to a combined household unit.

Even though the wording is men, I am not sure if there had been man with special needs such that couldn't live independently if he would have been required to give a half shekel. Even if he was over 20, someone not capable mentally or physically is generally exempt from 'required' mitzvot. Ditto for a very elderly man with advanced Alzheimer's, cared for in his son's home. Even though 'required' one can't hold someone responsible to do something impossible for them. It isn't denying them personhood, just being realistic.

Logistically it wouldn't make sense to have counted women instead of men. Hypothetically coming up with a model of counting women instead of men compromising a household would be much trickier. Sometimes men had more than one wife, although I don’t think it was THAT common unless a man was wealthy. Widowed/divorced/abandoned women depending on their age went to their son's, father's, brother's or some other male relative home. Sometimes that might be a temporary situation since a relatively young woman could remarry or her spouse could come back from war and change households. While divorce wasn't very common, widowhood or lost in war or sea was.

So realistically one man could be supporting several adult women (a wife or two, his mother and/or mother in law, maybe temporarily a sister or niece, etc. if something had happened) and their kids. Possibly also people not related to him such as slaves, elderly/injured male relatives or say his best friend’s widow had no relatives to take care of her. So Torah in its wisdom counted men, not being sexist just logistically it was smartest way back then to count a household.

Analytical Adam said...

Originally in the United States at least to vote you had to be man that owned property. The Census though I think they did count women.

From reading the torah it does seem that polygamy was rare as it should be. It is better then a woman not being married at all or being dependent on the government or lawyers but it is not an ideal situation.

SouthernBelle Rivky wrote:>In the time of Torah, situations weren't as transient as it is today. People tended to marry much younger since life expectancy was a lot shorter, so a 20 year old male was more established, i.e. already working, not in the middle of college like today. Multiple generations of people often lived together back then and they often were in the same line of work, so even if a twenty-something didn't have own land, he was expected to contribute value to a combined household unit. <

I don't really agree here. People are getting married later because our society has given less responsibilities to young adults. In fact it was normal to get married in your early 20's and 20's in general and in fact in colonial periods some women did not start having their periods until their late teens. So I don't think I agree here. Puberty in fact today is starting younger and the age of fertility has not changed which as a man and being analytical and fact oriented I know the numbers.

Well I don't really believe this multi generation was ever so common and in fact the bible really doesn't seem to suggest that is an ideal model. In fact you are suppose to leave your parents and start your own family and actually I don't think it was common except when things were really bad and I am not sure it is a good thing anyway.

The whole college thing has nothing to do with living LONGER to be honest with you. In fact the life span really hasn't changed. Less people die in middle age today but old age today is still old age 300,400 years ago. People live to 90, 100 back then as well.
The years of your prime have not changed.

Also you are an adult at 20 and started to have serious responsibilities but I doubt you were "established" at that age. George Washington started making a name for himself in his early 20's. He got married at 27 by the way.

TO be President I think you have to be 35 years old. Obviously before that you were too young.

The Levites they did their service from ages 30-50. So I don't think the general life span has changed for a long, long time just less people die in middle age.

Certainly more people living to age 80 doesn't mean you should spend your younger years nonproductively because you may have more years being older which you will still be older. In fact it is sad that college goes on endlessly and these professors get tenure and I doubt would be able to work in the private sector some of them .

The endlessly focus on college in stupid electives is not something that is good. Only good for these professors who get a salary on some silly subject that has no real life implications.

Analytical Adam said...

Also for a SHORTER COMMENT if you look at Leviticus 27 in giving you own valuation which I assume these are "average" valuation of a person's worth in the supply and demand world the age ranges are pretty close to what they would be today. 20-60 is your prime. Over 60 you are considered elderly.

We consider senior citizens anything from over 55 to over 65. Interestingly an average man over 60 is worth only half as much as a woman in her prime.

This isn't to say in terms of intrinsic worth or trusting them they are just as believable as anyone else just in terms of their average value in the outside world.

SouthernBelle Rivky said...

Well in terms of multi-generational, I meant that people tended to take care of their relatives more so than a lot of people do today. Also people were geographically closer to their relatives too more than today. They didn't have nursing homes back then so an aging parent would go to an adult child's. Still done in a lot of traditional societies today. Same for handicapped relatives, they didn't have group homes for them. Today, it kind of common to take in relatives temporarily on a hard time, but certainly not meant to be permanent.

I wasn't meaning to say that man never left home. That would be huge confict with the women! No sane woman wants to indefintely live in their mother-in-law's home and their rules no matter how sweet the MIL may be or how nice their home is. A man might think that would be a great scenario, having both mom and his wife taking care of him and enjoy his parents home, but short of living out of cardboard box, his wife will never think that way!

Along those lines, military wives sometimes go back to their families when their spouses are deployed for company. The military base near where I grew up offered support services along these lines, so it seems that it isn't uncommon at least there and that was what I was thinking.

Wasn't bar/bat mitzvah the age one could get married although I don't think people actually did that young. I do think young adults in the past were expected to do more and thus could be prepare for marriage earlier. I also think if the educational system was re-vamped to day to include more useful content, people would be ready to start working earlier, not mid to late 20s after college and grad school like today. That's what I meant by established in having a profession even if they were working on a family farm or trade, not that they had a custom built home and car at 20 :) I see that a lot today, younger people thinking they should start off with their parents now have in their peak. Not rational.

Joseph's brothers, some of them must have been rather young when they started working out in the field. The younger ones likely didn't do as much of the harder physical labor, but they were learning. In guilds, a paige was a younger boy that was doing grunt work for a craftsmen until he became skilled himself. I think a lot more people took over their father's business out of practicality since they didn't have college back then.

In terms of people maturing physically later, I think some of maybe nutrition related. In times of scarity and harsh environment, I think that pushes things later. Of course today is plenty in much of the Western world, there could be issues with genetically modified food, chemicals and environment that cause earlier. Estrogen and anti-depressants have been found in the water supply which can't be good for anyone.

So actually I think we are largely in agreement maybe except for minor details.

Analytical Adam said...

Well the bigger issue today is women who can't leave their own family more then with men today.

In fact I am not sure if it is such a good thing if a woman goes back to her family when the guy is abroad. Shouldn't the son's family care about her if that is her son's wife. Many cultures do that (although some take it too far in that if the husband dies or something they don't go back to their family which in that case it is absurd) I have been in jobs and I know a lot of families don't want to let go of their daughter and if they marry a man it is a man that will do what the wife's family wants which is more of a problem then the reverse and I am not sure it is a good thing for a woman to continue to be more tied with her own family and not integrate at all with the fathers side of the family. I WOULD THINK THAT IF THE FATHER ISN'T AROUND THEN SHE AND HER CHILDREN SHOULD BE WITH THE FATHERS SIDE OF THE FAMILY so that side has some influence and it isn't the woman wants the man to fight endless wars so she and her family can control everything. In fact the army does nothing to protect the men from divorce either which is terrible and the judges laugh when these men in the military ask the judge don't they have rights.

Sadly. Most people don't care about their own sons as if they come home in a body bag that some kind of honor which is just terrible as clearly real people are upset when ANYONE dies in a war and God promised that no man would die if we followed God's word.

So you think having your first at menstruation at 16 is so terrible and meant people didn't have enough. I think that is a very harsh thing to say and to be honest if a woman is malnourished she won't menstruate at all which sadly some women think this is good to be very thin that they don't have what women have.