Bigotry against women in Fundamentalism

[Alice]

I find it a wee bit amusing that a woman deciding to stay home and be a mom is veiwed as 'disturbing' while a woman that wants to work as a prostitute is 'enlightened'.

 

We do have a sex worker that checks in here and she is praised for being 'free' and 'open' and 'liberated' -- yet a mother of 4 checks in and talks about being a good stay at home mom and she is undoubtedly viewed as 'oppressed'.

 

If getting cash to have a long line of filthy men *hump* you is an 'enlightened and liberated career choice' then we are further apart on the basics of life than I'm capable of imagining.

 

Either freedom and respect goes both ways in this brave new freethinking, or it doesn't fly at all.  Which is it?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mad Gerbil,

 

who has undoubtedly viewed a mother who has chosen to be a stay at home mom as oppressed?

 

You have arrived at the same misunderstanding that has already cropped up and been dealt with in this thread.

 

This is about women accepting a belief that they are inferior to men and allowing men to determine their roles, actions and futures.

 

grrrrrrr.

[BeccasStillSeeking]

I find it a wee bit amusing that a woman deciding to stay home and be a mom is veiwed as 'disturbing' while a woman that wants to work as a prostitute is 'enlightened'.

 

We do have a sex worker that checks in here and she is praised for being 'free' and 'open' and 'liberated' -- yet a mother of 4 checks in and talks about being a good stay at home mom and she is undoubtedly viewed as 'oppressed'.

 

If getting cash to have a long line of filthy men *hump* you is an 'enlightened and liberated career choice' then we are further apart on the basics of life than I'm capable of imagining.

 

Either freedom and respect goes both ways in this brave new freethinking, or it doesn't fly at all.  Which is it?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What the hell are you babbling about? You're equating all women who don't want to be good little housewifies with prostitutes. How can you possibly expect anyone--especially any woman--to take your argument seriously when you start out with something vile and judgmental like that?

[BeccasStillSeeking]

Mad Gerbil,

 

who has undoubtedly viewed a mother who has chosen to be a stay at home mom as oppressed?

 

You have arrived at the same misunderstanding that has already cropped up and been dealt with in this thread.

 

This is about women accepting a belief that they are inferior to men and allowing men to determine their roles, actions and futures.

 

grrrrrrr.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This knee-jerk bullshit is starting to piss me off.

[Mad_Gerbil]

What the hell are you babbling about? You're equating all women who don't want to be good little housewifies with prostitutes. How can you possibly expect anyone--especially any woman--to take your argument seriously when you start out with something vile and judgmental like that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've made no such comparison.

 

I just find it odd that a woman who choses to be a prostitute is considered 'free' while a woman who choses to stay home must be 'brainwashed.'

[Mad_Gerbil]

This knee-jerk bullshit is starting to piss me off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Only because you don't understand it.

 

Incidently, I was a stay home father while my wife pursued her career. When she got tired of her career and I got mine up to speed we switched places and we are both happy with that arrangment.

 

So I don't see a woman who works outside the home as being the same as a prostitute since I encouraged my wife to do exactly that.

 

Incidently, we do have sex workers that visit this site -- you may wish to explain to them why you consider a prostitute to be a demeaning catagorization. Perhaps you are less opened minded than you advertise?

[BeccasStillSeeking]

I've made no such comparison.

 

I just find it odd that a woman who choses to be a prostitute is considered 'free' while a woman who choses to stay home must be 'brainwashed.'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're not getting it.

 

In hardline Christianity, women are not ALLOWED to have choices. THAT is the point. A woman should be able to be a stay at home mom if she wants, run a business, or whatever. Instead, she MUST be a housewife first and foremost, even if she is "granted permission" to have a job, etc. on top of that. She is supposed to be "in submission" to her husband; her free will is subordinate to his.

 

I don't give a damn what a woman does with her free will. I just want to know why some would choose to give it up!

[BeccasStillSeeking]

Only because you don't understand it.

 

Incidently, I was a stay home father while my wife pursued her career.  When she got tired of her career and I got mine up to speed we switched places and we are both happy with that arrangment. 

 

So I don't see a woman who works outside the home as being the same as a prostitute since I encouraged my wife to do exactly that.

 

Incidently, we do have sex workers that visit this site -- you may wish to explain to them why you consider a prostitute to be a demeaning catagorization.  Perhaps you are less opened minded than you advertise?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

YOU are the one who does not understand the topic of this thread.

 

And you were the one who went on a lengthy rant about what a disgusting and demeaning job prostitution is--and then equated women choosing to live a life other than housewifery with that disgusting and demeaning job.

 

Maybe you should just shut the fuck up. You don't even understand what we're talking about!

[white_raven23]

What usually seems to happen (I think) especially in areas with "small-town" mentality (seems to go hand in hand with fundie-ism), is a pointed lack of education (particularly for girls). If the family is on hard times, the eldest girl in a family may be encouraged to stay home and help out with house-stuff instead of going to school with younger siblings.

 

And I wonder at the focus of education in those more rural areas. Are the girls encouraged towards Home Ec classes still? Boys are encouraged towards college through sports, I know. And since college has requirements those guys end up getting an education whether they intended it or not.

 

Girls are still encouraged more towards marriage than college (or to use college as a means to meet guys to get married to), because their mothers were encouraged that way. Change happens faster in urban areas, but there are still more rural areas than urban ones. Change happens much slower....if at all.

 

I have relatives who still refer to black people as niggers and think of them as dangerous and threatening people. Are my relations in Georgia? Alabama maybe? Nope. They are in a rural area of Indiana. They've never been more than 80 miles from where they grew up and see no reason on earth to want to go farther.

 

At a certain point, the ignorance becomes willful ignorance. Rural women know that women in the cities go to school for educations and have decent paying jobs. But they've justified their own stunted point of view by musing that such women "must have a hard time finding husbands" and such a lifestyle must necessarily be lonely and bitter compared to the "joyous" clamor of her own family.

The women who do not have this comforting cognitive dissonance are very unhappy, but are now chained down with husband and kids because they got them when they were really still kids themselves (right before, or just after high school). Their responsibilities negate any chance of them trying for something else (unless the need gets to the point they up and leave, or kill themselves)

 

These families have plenty of "black sheep" children (don't fit the mold). Of the four kids my grandma had, only one (my dad) had the courage to want to do something else AND go through with it despite the misgivings of his family.

[BeccasStillSeeking]

What usually seems to happen (I think) especially in areas with "small-town" mentality (seems to go hand in hand with fundie-ism), is a pointed lack of education (particularly for girls). If the family is on hard times, the eldest girl in a family may be encouraged to stay home and help out with house-stuff instead of going to school with younger siblings.

 

These families have plenty of "black sheep" children (don't fit the mold). Of the four kids my grandma had, only one (my dad) had the courage to want to do something else AND go through with it despite the misgivings of his family.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I can grok the social and familial pressure thing. I wonder why more of them don't THINK about what they're doing. However, in America anyway, thinking isn't one of a lot of people's strong points. Otherwise our governmental leaders would largely be different people.

 

What I can't grok is Fundie women who ACTUALLY BELIEVE that God wants them to be good little second-class citizens. Maybe it's just me.

[Mad_Gerbil]

Maybe you should just shut the fuck up. You don't even understand what we're talking about!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Look here -- I DO know what I'm talking about because I live respect for women.

 

I don't use women as toys.

I committed my life to my wife in marriage.

I committed my life to raising my two daughters.

I stayed home with my kids.

I went to work while my wife earned her masters degree. (I only have a bachelors).

 

Now if you wanna talk about respecting women why don't you talk to the boys who pass porn around, or get gals drunk for a quick lay, or tell sexist jokes about you behind your back, or refer to you as a skirt, or think Clinton abusing women is no reason not to vote for him, or about a thousand other things that BOYS do.

 

I don't talk equal treatment -- I live it.

When you grow up you'll learn the difference between the slick BOY you meet at the bar who says he believes in equality and a MAN who is willing to commit his life to you and back it up with action.

 

I suppose because I strongly disagree with you about 8 people will jump in and call me a sexist. I guess if you don't have anything worth saying the name calling is good filler until something rational occurs to ya.

[Eponymic]

Look here -- I DO know what I'm talking about because I live respect for women.

 

I don't use women as toys.

I committed my life to my wife in marriage.

I committed my life to raising my two daughters.

I stayed home with my kids.

I went to work while my wife earned her masters degree. (I only have a bachelors).

 

Now if you wanna talk about respecting women why don't you talk to the boys who pass porn around, or get gals drunk for a quick lay, or tell sexist jokes about you behind your back, or refer to you as a skirt, or think Clinton abusing women is no reason not to vote for him, or about a thousand other things that BOYS do.

 

I don't talk equal treatment -- I live it.

When you grow up you'll learn the difference between the slick BOY you meet at the bar who says he believes in equality and a MAN who is willing to commit his life to you and back it up with action.

 

I suppose because I strongly disagree with you about 8 people will jump in and call me a sexist.  I guess if you don't have anything worth saying the name calling is good filler until something rational occurs to ya.

 

Then I guess you're not a True Christian. Since giving women equal treatment surely isn't following the Bible.

[Mad_Gerbil]

Then I guess you're not a True Christian. Since giving women equal treatment surely isn't following the Bible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well at least that is an argument instead of the same old sneering 'YOU SEXIST PIG' line that gets dropped every time this subject comes up.

[All Gods Fail]

Look here -- I DO know what I'm talking about because I live respect for women.

 

I don't use women as toys.

I committed my life to my wife in marriage.

I committed my life to raising my two daughters.

I stayed home with my kids.

I went to work while my wife earned her masters degree. (I only have a bachelors).

 

That's excellent, MG. No sarcasm here. That's an enlightened attitude to take.

But you seem relatively normal - it's the hardliners we're bitching about: the ones who view their women chiefly as subservient.

 

Now if you wanna talk about respecting women why don't you talk to the boys who pass porn around, or get gals drunk for a quick lay, or tell sexist jokes about you behind your back, or refer to you as a skirt, or think Clinton abusing women is no reason not to vote for him, or about a thousand other things that BOYS do.

 

Hmmm...Clinton again. I wish you Republicans could let that go!

 

I agree that sexually aggressive males certainly lack respect for women, but again that's not really what the thread is about.

 

And porn=bad is a whole other can of worms to open, dealing with morality, politics, gender roles, stereotypes, freedom of speech, etc. Not really OT for this thread.

 

I don't talk equal treatment -- I live it.

When you grow up you'll learn the difference between the slick BOY you meet at the bar who says he believes in equality and a MAN who is willing to commit his life to you and back it up with action.

 

That is true, MG. Well said - I've always thought the measure of a man depended more on how successfully he can make a life with his chosen sweetie, not how many chicks he can bang. Again, no sarcasm. You're right!

 

I suppose because I strongly disagree with you about 8 people will jump in and call me a sexist.  I guess if you don't have anything worth saying the name calling is good filler until something rational occurs to ya.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You don't come off as a sexist to me - maybe a little bit of a prude... :wink: (I'm just teasing!)

 

Normally, I don't agree with much of your posts, but seriously - you're right on the money here. If you really love a women, you're going to do your best for her. You'll support her, encourage her, give her some room when she needs it, etc. But the main issue is still the fundie practice of man=boss, woman=property.

 

Also, yay for women!

[Asimov]

Asimov, were you ever a Christian?

 

Nope.

 

When I started church and started to read the bible and listening to the sermons...

 

Oh I never said the bible wasn't sexist (esp. the OT). But it really depends on your perspective of the whole situation. If a woman enjoys being a housewife, and does it because the believes that is her role as a woman, and acts according to her value system as well as her husbands, then where is the problem? A lot of Christianity puts more focus on the NT itself anyways, because it's the new covenant created with Jesus.

 

If, for instance, we have the case where you felt the way you did and it contrasted with your values and beliefs then there is a problem. Your perspective on Christianity changed until you deconverted, which is great. Some people aren't meant to be Christian.

 

Anyway, that is just a glimpse at the brainwashing, but there is much much more, it's awful....

 

Once again, if it conflicts with your own values and belief systems...then there is a problem. Nothin in Christianity actually suggests that women have to be a certain way...even less conservative Christians realise that it was (like their views on rape) a culture of the times thing. A lot of cultures back then were male dominant. It's less of a problem now, in countries that recognize human equality. In less developed countries, they're still figuring things out.

 

If a woman believes in God, and believes that being a stay-at-home mom is what God wants her to do, then why stop her from doing that?

 

The only problem I see is when women aren't happy doing that, and you pointed out that a lot of women aren't. Ok, I agree they shouldn't have to be put in a situation like that, I never disagreed. All I've been saying is trying to "liberate" women from situations that they are content to be in could make their situation worse, rather than better.

[Asimov]

Then I guess you're not a True Christian. Since giving women equal treatment surely isn't following the Bible.

 

I'm really getting tired of this popping up on this site...

[Asimov]

Well at least that is an argument instead of the same old sneering 'YOU SEXIST PIG' line that gets dropped every time this subject comes up.

 

YOU FUCKING SEXIST PIG!

 

 

 

 

 

I changed it up a bit, didja notice that?

[Mad_Gerbil]

YOU FUCKING SEXIST PIG!

I changed it up a bit, didja notice that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thank you.

The variety helps.

[Cerise]

Associated Question: If some black people were happy being slaves, would that make it alright to keep them?

 

 

Hey MG, you do realize that you just spent an awful lot of time trying to convince Becca that you respect women only to treat her like a child, don't you?

 

When you grow up you'll learn the difference between the slick BOY you meet at the bar who says he believes in equality and a MAN who is willing to commit his life to you and back it up with action.

 

Asimov,

 

you haven't been a christian. Perhaps you don't know then, how it can feel like you are happy, truly happy, when you crawl and scrape and take your penence like a good little bride. You feel happy after the punishment's been doled out, the scars are shelved, and you are deemed worthy once more in the eyes of your master. Is that a healthy happiness?

 

And anyway, who was talking about "liberating" anyone? You can't free someone from their own mind. Those trapped in abusive power relationships can only free themselves first.

[Asimov]

Associated Question:  If some black people were happy being slaves, would that make it alright to keep them?

 

Yep.

 

 

Asimov,

you haven't been a christian.  Perhaps you don't know then, how it can feel like you are happy, truly happy, when you crawl and scrape and take your penence like a good little bride.  You feel happy after the punishment's been doled out, the scars are shelved, and you are deemed worthy once more in the eyes of your master.  Is that a healthy happiness?

 

I don't know how you would define "unhealthy happiness" or even "healthy happiness". If you're happy, you're happy.

[Cerise]

Yep.

 

So slavery is only harmful to those who are unhappy in their positions, not society in general then? I'm not quite certain I agree with you.

 

I don't know how you would define "unhealthy happiness" or even "healthy happiness".  If you're happy, you're happy.

 

Well, we could always get some mad scientists to fuck around with our brains so that a constant shot of endorphins always rushed through our heads. Then I guess it wouldn't matter what atrocities occur, everyone would be happy.

 

But would that be healthy?

[Asimov]

So slavery is only harmful to those who are unhappy in their positions, not society in general then?  I'm not quite certain I agree with you.

 

Slavery itself isn't harmful. Kidnapping Africans and bringing them over against their will and then beating them and killing them is.

 

Well, we could always get some mad scientists to fuck around with our brains so that a constant shot of endorphins always rushed through our heads.  Then I guess it wouldn't matter what atrocities occur, everyone would be happy.

 

But would that be healthy?

 

Or you could just make up some stupid scenario to show how ridiculous your stance is on the issue...oh wait, you just did.

[Cerise]

Hey Asi,

 

I'm not in the mood to deal with your crap tonight.

[pandora]

I see what Asimov is saying. In fact, if I could indenture myself to pay off my student loans, I would. Seems like a legitimate way to do things to me, but unfortunately the government doesn't agree. As long as I was treated with respect and once my time was served and money considered paid back, I would be happy.

 

Same applies to women in some middle eastern countries. They are "happy" with an abaya or a burka, and that is how they prefer it. I think it is a bit offensive to try and convince these people that they should bare their skin for the world when they feel very uncomfortable doing so. They feel dressing that way gives them equal footing with men in the public square. They would certainly not like to experience the sexism of our media for the ability to wear fashionable clothes. There are downsides to any cultural norm, and some people prefer the downsides of their own to the ones of the Western lifestyle.

 

If a woman is content in her situation, more power to her. If she wants more freedom or a different kind of freedom, she should go for it.

 

In actuality, I don't think there are many women in these religions who truly have a problem with the way fundamentalist religions view them. The ones who truly have a problem with it eventually leave or don't live the way they are told to live.

[Cerise]

I see what Asimov is saying.  In fact, if I could indenture myself to pay off my student loans, I would.  Seems like a legitimate way to do things to me, but unfortunately the government doesn't agree.    As long as I was treated with respect and once my time was served and money considered paid back, I would be happy.

 

Same applies to women in some middle eastern countries.  They are "happy" with an abaya or a burka, and that is how they prefer it.  I think it is a bit offensive to try and convince these people that they should bare their skin for the world when they feel very uncomfortable doing so.  They feel dressing that way gives them equal footing with men in the public square.  They would certainly not like to experience the sexism of our media for the ability to wear fashionable clothes.  There are downsides to any cultural norm, and some people prefer the downsides of their own to the ones of the Western lifestyle.

 

If a woman is content in her situation, more power to her.  If she wants more freedom or a different kind of freedom, she should go for it.

 

In actuality, I don't think there are many women in these religions who truly have a problem with the way fundamentalist religions view them.  The ones who truly have a problem with it eventually leave or don't live the way they are told to live.

 

What the majority of you seem to be ignoring, is that neither Becca, nor myself ever said we were talking about women who were satisfied with themselves as the handmaidens of men. Or that we wanted to "free the housewives" or any such ridiculousness.

 

But apparently, close reading isn't a skill people are familiar with here. And after a day of marking atrocious first-year essays, I have no patience left for this kind of thing.

[pandora]

What the majority of you seem to be ignoring, is that neither Becca, nor myself ever said we were talking about women who were satisfied with themselves as the handmaidens of men.  Or that we wanted to "free the housewives" or any such ridiculousness.

 

But apparently, close reading isn't a skill people are familiar with here.  And after a day of marking atrocious first-year essays, I have no patience left for this kind of thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Correct me if I am wrong (and I know you will with your attitude), but part of the thread's topic is why women would accept that they are inferior to men in fundamentalist religions.

 

Well... the answer is that they believe they are. They are ok with this. They are happy living that out. It is not complicated.