Bigotry against women in Fundamentalism

[Vulgaris Prime]

I like to think through things with other people.... is there a board where I can do that without every unanswered point being cause for people to pretend it matters?  If you direct me to that place, I'll happily go there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I hear what you're saying, Gerbil...

 

...and it sounds like "Wah! Wah! Everyone's calling me on being a bigoted asshole so I need to run away! Wah! Wah!"

[SkepticOfBible]

I guess I'm confused.

I don't know where I claimed women couldn't be excellent leaders.

 

If you believe my position to be that women cannot be good leaders then you are busy refuting a point I never made.  Not only did I never claim such a thing, but the context of Joan of Arc's leadership was entirely outside the bounds of marriage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry I about the misunderstanding. I was just to explain how this can work even in a marriage too. I did raise the issue of house husband.

 

I was only trying to demonstrate how a matriachal system would be equally successful.

[All Gods Fail]

Women have just as much capacity to be great leaders as men, and just as much capacity to be terrible leaders as men. In other words, we're both equally capable to be fuckups.

 

Assigning roles in leadership based on penises is just plain stupid. Good leadership depends on brains, not genitalia. Sure, muscles come in handy, but what good does it do you trying to figure out a solution to a problem?

 

Brains, not muscle, is what got us where we are as a species. Brains are our only hope at continuing as a species, too.

[Checkmate]

...............

Brains, not muscle, is what got us where we are as a species. Brains are our only hope at continuing as a species, too.

Good night, what a DEPRESSING revelation! We're doomed! DOOMED I tells ya!

[Reach]

I do wonder why none of the mods have said a single thing about this. But even so...there's always setting his posts on Ignore.

Ummm, Asimov?

 

There's been more than enough male insensitivity for centuries upon centuries regarding the subject matter in this thread. All buttons do not exist to be pushed, but to be avoided.

 

Play nice, ok?

[Asimov]

Ummm, Asimov?

 

There's been more than enough male insensitivity for centuries upon centuries regarding the subject matter in this thread. All buttons do not exist to be pushed, but to be avoided.

 

Play nice, ok?

 

Nice goin, Reach...you just killed the convo! It's not male insensitivity, trust me.

[Mad_Gerbil]

Hmmmm ~ but you did give 'PHYSICAL STRENGTH' as your number one suggested justification for men being best fitted to fulfill the headship role.

 

I'd like to direct you to post number 197. I'd be interested in your comments about societal organisation along class lines.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, I didn't say physical strength was a 'justification', but rather a cause because physical strength has a tendency to abuse. The difference is the recognition of the way things are vs. the ideal.

 

Since someone has to be in charge attempting to make that someone the less physically strong one -- in light of our natures -- would just be an exercise in fultility.

[Alice]

No, I didn't say physical strength was a 'justification', but rather a cause because physical strength has a tendency to abuse.  The difference is the recognition of the way things are vs. the ideal.

 

Since someone has to be in charge attempting to make that someone the less physically strong one -- in light of our natures -- would just be an exercise in fultility.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Unless you are saying it is OK for a physically stronger person to impose their will using physical force ~ the fact that you 'could' abuse your wife should have no bearing on your leadership ~ unless of course there is some kind of 'veiled threat' that you would use physical force if she did not submit to your decisions.

 

I think it is sad that power is seen as an issue in marriage for you. I think it is sad that a religion would impose roles based on the 'way things are' or rather ~ the 'way things were when it was written' ~ instead of raising up positive ideals.

 

If male leadership is 'a recognition of the way things are' in your eyes ~ what would be your view of the 'ideal'?

 

And again I point you in the direction of my earlier comments about societal organisation along class lines.

[Mad_Gerbil]

Unless you are saying it is OK for a physically stronger person to impose their will using physical force ~ the fact that you 'could' abuse your wife should have no bearing on your leadership ~ unless of course there is some kind of 'veiled threat' that you would use physical force if she did not submit to your decisions.

 

I've tried (unsuccessfully) to make the point several times -- I think you are helping because if forces me to try to find a way to say it so that it is clear. Such is the nature of a thought in progress.

 

Now then, I don't see an implied threat in all of this -- instead I just see the mandate as a recognition of reality. The fact is that for centuries men have been using their strength to dominate women (rightly or wrongly). The reason this has been the case is because of physical (and likely mental/emotional) differences. So I see the Biblical mandate as just a recognition of the order implicated in the design and as a stark embrace of reality.

 

 

I think it is sad that power is seen as an issue in marriage for you. I think it is sad that a religion would impose roles based on the 'way things are' or rather ~ the 'way things were when it was written' ~ instead of raising up positive ideals.

 

The Bible commands the husband to love his wife with a self sacrificial love -- the example being that of Christ -- Christ's example being that he was willing to suffer any humiliation for the sake of the Church -- even so a man should be willing to suffer anything for the welfare of his wife. That is a HUGE ideal.

 

I'm ignoring 'class lines' because it is entirely off topic. (IMHO)

[Reach]

Nice goin, Reach...you just killed the convo!  It's not male insensitivity, trust me.

Not likely. This topic has a way of resurrecting itself every few months. This is the fourth time we've explored this topic in a long conversation (lengthy thread) in the two years I've been here.

 

This topic is continuing to run the same course it has before. At 13 pages, we're about done until the next time...

 

It may not be male insensitivity on your part, but it is male insensitivity on the part of countless millions of men. And of course, we fear change.

[Alice]

I've tried (unsuccessfully) to make the point several times -- I think you are helping because if forces me to try to find a way to say it so that it is clear.  Such is the nature of a thought in progress.

 

Now then, I don't see an implied threat in all of this -- instead I just see the mandate as a recognition of reality.  The fact is that for centuries men have been using their strength  to dominate women (rightly or wrongly).  The reason this has been the case is because of physical (and likely mental/emotional) differences.  So I see the Biblical mandate as just a recognition of the order implicated in the design and as a stark embrace of reality.

The Bible commands the husband to love his wife with a self sacrificial love -- the example being that of Christ -- Christ's example being that he was willing to suffer any humiliation for the sake of the Church -- even so a man should be willing to suffer anything for the welfare of his wife.  That is a HUGE ideal.

 

I'm ignoring 'class lines' because it is entirely off topic. (IMHO)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So if I understand you correctly you are saying that the Bible's direction that the husband is the leader in his household and that his wife submits to his will is simply a recognition of the fact that if a battle of wills turned into a physical fight the one with the greater physical strength would win.

 

Therefore to avoid the fight, it is agreed before hand that the women will submit. The great ideal that the Bible adds to this scenario is that the husband should love his wife with a self sacrifical love?

 

If I have understood you correctly whilst I can see that such an arrangement can work for some couples, it is basically sexist.

 

The Bible recognises a state of affairs in which we are all basically selfish in our hearts. To love in a self sacrificial way is indeed a high ideal ~ it goes against the way the Bible says things are.

 

Why the acceptance of the fact that 'physically stronger' husbands could impose their will on their wives? Why not have a lofty ideal that despite this having been the pattern of oppressive behaviour in the past, this was no longer to be tolerated?

 

Why not a scripture that says 'despite the fact that the majority of men are physically stronger than most women ~ it in never acceptable in the eyes of God for a man to use his strength to impose his will on the women. Nor in the instance of a woman being physically stronger than her spouse is it acceptable for her to use her physical strength to impose her will'?

 

The risk of a fight breaking out, of physical force being used to impose the will of the one with stronger physical strength was resolved in my childrens lives between the ages of two and four years. There have been many 'battles of wills' in my household with four children. My children had learnt by the age of five that resorting to physical force was unacceptable in a loving home. Of course this has involved in each of them learing to submit to each other, but there is no hierarchy of submission, there is just mutual respect, negotiation and self sacrificial love that runs in every direction. despite all your efforts I still totally fail to see why this can't be the case in marriage.

 

My reason for raising 'class' was in respond to your suggestion that pre determining roles between men and women in marriage was benefical to the efficient running of society. This was a reason given for maintaining the class structure and of course we seem to survived without it and most people now accept that this was based on opression of some sectors of society for the benefilt of the 'ruling' class. I think that is right on topic!