Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Bigotry against women in Fundamentalism


BeccasStillSeeking

Recommended Posts

The facts are that women are vunerable -- they get pregnant for one, and are physically weaker.  When negotiations break down and push turns to shove who is gonna win about 95% of the time in a knock down drag 'em out? (Xena aside, of course)

 

I'm not making the claim to be a bully, rather I wondering out loud if the whole submission thing is just a stark embrace of reality -- a recognition of how things pan out in the real world.  How many societies are there that are entirely controlled by women (and no, a Queen on the thrown who depends upon a male army doesn't count).

 

I don't think recognizing that typically men are stronger than women and typically less vunerable -- I don't think recognizing that makes one a sexist -- unless the rationalist here have a problem with empirical evidence all of a sudden.

 

So can the stupid sexist stuff already, unless insults is all you got in the face of facts.

 

Why do you think the Bible talks about children submitting to parents and believers submitting to governmental authority?  Why?  Because that is just a stark embrace of who is actually in control in those relationships perhaps?

 

You guys wanna discuss this or just call names?

:twitch:

 

Gerby,

 

I think you like being considered sexist. I think you think it broadens your shoulders.

 

Just because someone could physically squash someone smaller than them - doesn't make it right!!!

 

This is where the Bible is so wrong ~ just because men have exerted physical power over women doesn't mean they should.

 

Your terms of reference in deciding who is 'vulnerable' are sexist. Men are more vulnerable to suicide than women for example ~ so in this respect men are by far the 'weaker vessel'.

 

If the Bible had wanted to give good marital advice it could have said

 

'husbands and wives submit to one another ~ if it comes to the crunch and you cannot agree on a decison, thou could draw straws, or perhaps more sensibly, determine where your various strengths and weaknesses lie and devise a strategy between you for the making of wise decisions ... For I the Lord am a wise God ~ and before you were born I had already planned out your life and chosen a partner for you and together you will have everything you need to make a good relationship, and neither one of you will be more important than the other.

 

And only a foolish husband would ever seek to use his superior strength to impose his will on his wife, and a wife should use her superior language in a fair and reasonable way so as not to undermine her husband's self esteem.

 

And when the wife is vulnerable due to pregnancy ~ the husband should take to see that he carries the shopping and props her up with cushions and massages her feet and ankles morning and night. Thus saith the Lord.

 

And so on and so forth'

 

Blimey - I had no idea alternative gospel writing could be such fun.

 

 

 

I'm guessing its the first one -- although I can look it up and find out exactly what it means in the Greek.  My guess is the 'yield or surrender to the authority of another' which is something every person on the planet does on a daily basis.

 

There isn't anything being asked for in a Biblical Marriage that isn't already a fact of life for all people everywhere anyways -- except that in marriage the one that has the authority is expected to LOVE HIS WIFE which makes it the sweetest deal anyone is gonna get.

 

...

 

The weaker vessel thing hasn't translated into a sweet deal ~ its been thousands of years of subjugation and mistreatment that has been prolonged by silly scriptures instead of challenged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 235
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mad_Gerbil

    42

  • Asimov

    32

  • BeccasStillSeeking

    30

  • Rachelness

    20

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Mad, when you're old and grey you'd better be thankful to us young ones that we allow you any sort of rights (if we allow you any sort of rights).

 

:close:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:leaps in feet first:

 

 

Well, my wife submits to me, by choice, on certain decisions... the financial ones. (I'm a lot better at maths and don't "impulse" shop)

On the other hand, I submit to her, by choice) on certain decisions... the social ones. (I'm the one who's happy just to ferment in a corner, staring at a screen all day)

 

Anything else, and neither of us submits... we discuss it and come to an agreement that we are both able to live with.

 

That's the way to do it... the one who is better at making those kind of decisions makes the decisions. (tempered by the knowledge that said decisions effect both of them)

Makes for a far better relationship than any other...

 

 

 

Oh, and in matters of sex? She has the ONLY say in that... It's her body, and if she doesn't want a great sweaty lump heaving away on/under/behind her, then that's her choice and her choice alone.

 

 

Guess I'm too moral a person to be a Christian...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CT, that's not the way it ought to be. :nono: I think it's time our in-house rodent gave you some marriage advice, and told you how things are. :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pointing out an Ad Hom attack isn't 'arrogance', it is just simply giving the logical reason for a total dismissil of the argument.

 

That wasn't an ad hom, as far as I'm aware of what an ad hom is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cerise, this is what I've come to expect from you -- instead of rationally addressing the factual statement you call names.  How about handling the assertion?

 

Pray tell, which part of your lunancy was fact?

 

The part in which you assert that just because a certain gender can crush a beer can more effectively with one hand is an accurate measure of either strength or vulnerability?

 

Or that pregnancy is a weakness?

 

When you find a rational argument, then I shall respond rationally to you.

 

Ps. Perhaps you should look up what an "ad hom" actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caption: I'm so happy I can vote now, and also really glad I no longer live in some Fundie country like USA or Canada. :woohoo:

post-122-1128452898_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello MG,

 

Been a while. I have been lurking on the boards for about a year, I remember you as having more of a sense of humor.

 

I disagree with what you have stated on many levels. I will try to be specific and quote what was said.

 

** 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?**

 

Could you please show me where prostitutes being “enlightened” is commonly accepted? In most cases women in prostitution are being controlled my males who are either in financial control or in physical control of them. Only when looking at the legalized prostitution in Nevada and the other countries can you see a situation where the woman is actually profiting in a positive way from this profession. If this profession is a choice, and not forced on them physically or for economic reasons, I have no problem with prostitution. I wouldn’t recommend it, but I will not condemn them for one of the oldest ways women survived in a hostile society. When widowed or left by their husband, with no money or means of support, many women throughout history have resorted to the one commodity the knew they could sell, their sex. Hate it if you will, but it is true. If men did not desire sex, women could not sell it. Period.

 

Generally, it is not prostitution I would like to see women excel at as the opportunities open to them. Science, business, medicine, and entrepreneurship are far more beneficial to humanity and to women then prostitution.

 

I hold no disdain for women who choose to be at home mothers. I believe their contribution is vital, as is the contribution of fathers who take the same role.

 

**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.**

 

Although you do not see the above post as comparing all women who are not at home making babies with prostitutes, most women do and will. Why? Because it is the only two options you mention in your post.

 

But this post is also not on topic. The thread is about women staying in a faith or relationship that is based on the blind acceptance of their husbands or churches view of how they should behave, even if the behavior is to their own detriment.

 

 

**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.**

 

I have no doubt that you mean every word of this and commend you for it. You are correct that there are many boys out there who think they are men simply because they can get it up. But having a dick does not automatically give a man the right to make all of the decisions in a relationship. Respect is earned. I respect my husband, but I do not obey him. I listen to his opinion, but I do not always follow it. I love him, but I will not let him harm me physically or emotionally. I need him, but not to the point I can not make it on my own. Self respect gives me so much internal fortitude that I do not need him to make me strong. We are stronger together, but I am no weakling physically, mentally, or emotionally.

 

To get to the point, each relationship is different. Some, the man is in charge, some, the woman is in charge, others, like mine, no one is “in charge”. As long options are available, and a decision is made, no one should be able to question. When there are no options but to obey for fear of whatever (physical violence, hell, fear of being shunned) how can we let women know there are other paths.

 

A woman in a bad situation needs to know that someone, maybe you, will stand up for her if she is being beaten in public, that god will still love her even if she has to leave the abusive prick that almost killed her with his last drunken beating, and that she is simply not alone.

 

I bet you would agree that god will not leave them behind if leaving the husband is the only way for her to stay alive and to keep her kids safe. (mind you I am a strong atheist, I am trying to frame this argument in your world view, if I fail, oops, not my bag) This is about women being able to choose and not being treated as a possession. I do not belong to my husband, I doubt you feel your wife belongs to you, but in many faiths, this is the case. In many societies that still exist, this is the law.

 

**3: Thirdly, any time you have a team you must have a leader. Someone has to be the final decision maker when the two disagree -- there is just factually no way around it. If the marriage is going to survive then someone has to submit at some point - those are just the facts. **

 

I disagree based on the fact that my 10 year marriage has no “leader”. If we do not agree, try, try again.

 

**4: Fourth, it is a startling embrace of reality to recognize that as long as men are physically stronger than women that women will in fact submit to men whether they want to or not. Any freedom that women have today is because the stronger sex allows it. That isn't politically correct -- I know that will get me labeled, but it is a fact of biology whether you like it or not.**

 

 

So all men are physically stronger than women and all women are weaker than men. Nope.

 

It was political and religious law that placed women in the role of second class citizens not simply their physical attributes. Most of the original hunter/gatherer societies were matriarchal. This passed along wealth through the mothers bloodline not the fathers. Later, as the societies developed there was a great need to control women because men of power wanted to make sure their wealth went to their sons. Up until DNA testing, you only had your mothers word on who your father was. Controlling women gave men more power over how and who their women saw.

 

I recommend a book called “when god was a woman” not because I think it will change your religious views, but more as a look back in history.

 

 

 

 

I need to break from this for a few. I will finish later.

 

:woohoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading this, and I am going to chime in with my two cents for what it is worth.

I am a submissive person, it is how I respond when I dearly love a person romantically. I am not aware of it being a learned responce, but I am sure I did learn some of it somewhere. I wasn't raised in a Christian home, or a religious home, and although my mother was a housewife, she was never overly submissive to dad. Okay my Mom wasn't submissive to my Dad at all, they did things together, and... it took them two days to get a Christmas tree. :vent: So it wasn't be a good little wifey girl and please mommy and daddy, in fact I said once to the "What do you want to be when you grow up?" question, "A Mommy" and my mohter about panicked. So, anyway being submissive is just how I am.

With that said, while I was a Christian me, submitting to my husband was not hard, um I had anyway, but I had to jump through all kinds of logic hoops to accept this was a good role for all women. Some women are just in charge, from birth, I know my oldest daughter was. I remember being told that those women would recieve a bigger blessing by following god in this. WTF! Go against your god given nature and get a bigger blessing.. stupid. That may be an answer to the OP question of why do they stay. Because within Chrisitanity the bigger the scarifice, the bigger the blessing.

The other side to this coin not discussed is submissive men. Yes, they do exist, and within Christianity, and no they are not all gay. sheesh. (Not that anyone here would think so, but um yeah) Ever see a couple, in the church, where the man is obviously submissive by nature, and the woman is not and they are trying to fit into that church mold? It's sad.

The church marriage mold works, for some. Which is why it has been accepted by so many. When one person or a couple question it, they drudge out all the happy happy married couples, whos marriages were asved by following gods instructions. Where they get it wrong is by insisting everyone must fit the same mold, but that is where fundementalist religions always fail. Not just Chrisitanity, but pretty much all fundie sections of any faith do not allow for the uniqueness that is humanity.

I saw, sorry abuot not quoting, where one of our Christian friends reminded us that the man is suppossed to love his wife, and said this is the sweetest deal going. It is IF the woman is submissive by nature AND her husband loves her. If not, it's miserable, if a man loves his wife, but he is a submissive person, and then gets told over and over that well, he's just not a man, how completely miserable is that? For me the sweetest deal going is being in love with and in submission to my Erus, who is a woman. :wub: but that's a completely different kettle of fish.

People in and out of the church feel submissive people are weak, not smart, not as valuable. It's not true, and I know it's not true. I think this attitude can be seen more glaringly though when you look at how people view a submissive man. We can talk for days about women taking on traditional roles in the home. Bring up a man, who submits to his wife, and a person who a moment ago was saying they do not see a submissive woman as weak may have a very different attitude.

What, to me, is wrong with this mold of marriage, is not that the wife is submissive. It is that it is the only right way. It leaves no room for moral monogomous adults to decide the right way for marriage to work for themselves. Marriage is hard enough without adding the pressure of being forced into ill fitting molds.

It's like someone decided that all women should wear a size 7 shoe, and all men should wear a size 9. It's GREAT for the people whose feet are those sizes, they can just not see why the rest of us are complaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we'll have leave it at disagreement then....

 

Not that anyone here thought it would be otherwise. :eek:

 

I do appreciate each person that weighed in with an opinion though (even Cerise :grin: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage is hard enough without adding the pressure of being forced into ill fitting molds.

It's like someone decided that all women should wear a size 7 shoe, and all men should wear a size 9. It's GREAT for the people whose feet are those sizes, they can just not see why the rest of us are complaining.

 

Wow Purple, that's a great analogy! Mind if I steal it for my "quips and quotes" scrap book? I'll make sure to attribute it to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was political and religious law that placed women in the role of second class citizens not simply their physical attributes. Most of the original hunter/gatherer societies were matriarchal. This passed along wealth through the mothers bloodline not the fathers. Later, as the societies developed there was a great need to control women because men of power wanted to make sure their wealth went to their sons. Up until DNA testing, you only had your mothers word on who your father was. Controlling women gave men more power over how and who their women saw.

 

I recommend a book called “when god was a woman” not because I think it will change your religious views, but more as a look back in history.

I need to break from this for a few. I will finish later.

 

:woohoo:

 

Well, that settles it for me - point and game, doomguarder! :woohoo:

 

Excellent post!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage is hard enough without adding the pressure of being forced into ill fitting molds.

It's like someone decided that all women should wear a size 7 shoe, and all men should wear a size 9. It's GREAT for the people whose feet are those sizes, they can just not see why the rest of us are complaining.

 

I am with Cerise, great analogy! I could not have put it better myself. :thanks:

 

 

 

Thank you for your kind remarks, AGF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow Purple, that's a great analogy! Mind if I steal it for my "quips and quotes" scrap book? I'll make sure to attribute it to you.

 

Thank you Cerise, and no I do not mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice one Purple!

 

*looks at feet* Hmm.....new shoes.

 

Hadn't checked on this thread in a while, I saw the bits about slavery, and I just wanted to point something out.

 

Slavery has had a darkened taint on it the past 300 years or so. The "version" of slavery we are most familiar with.....the "transplant" of an indigenous population into a country where all human rights are stripped family units ripped apart right off the boat, where a newborn baby is born a slave....and no chance to change the circumstances EVER (or rare)...... THAT version of slavery was introduced to us by......

 

drumroll please.....

 

early American Christians.

 

Yes, sure some slaves were treated very cruelly in the old world.....but it was more the exception than the rule. And good service earned most slaves rights, freedoms, and even some property from grateful masters. If a family sold themselves into slavery, it was AS a family. They weren't broken up. If a slave could prove wrongdoing, they had the right to sue. Children of slaves were frequently educated alongside the master's children, and could potentially get some seriously good employment come adulthood, and never have to worry about having to indenture themselves or their own kids ever again.

 

Back then slavery had a SYSTEM. Not perfect, not necessarily good, or right, but a damn sight better than what the early Americans came up with!

The American version was badly immature. There was no system. Those people were worked to death.....need more slaves? Eh just go buy more from those ignorant Africans (who were selling their bretheren under a different understanding of slavery....how were they to know?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

White Raven:

 

Your assertion that cruel slavery was introduced by Early American Christians is pure and utter nonsense. Cruel slavery practices go back to before America was discovered by the white guy.

 

That some early American Christians practices cruel forms of slavery cannot be denied, but to pretend that this sprung up on this continent as something entirely new is absurd.

 

People have been treating each other like garbage for a very long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

White Raven:

 

Your assertion that cruel slavery was introduced by Early American Christians is pure and utter nonsense.  Cruel slavery practices go back to before America was discovered by the white guy.

 

That some early American Christians practices cruel forms of slavery cannot be denied, but to pretend that this sprung up on this continent as something entirely new is absurd.

 

People have been treating each other like garbage for a very long time.

 

You want to try actually paying attention?

 

Yes, sure some slaves were treated very cruelly in the old world.....but it was more the exception than the rule. <snip>

Back then slavery had a SYSTEM. Not perfect, not necessarily good, or right, but a damn sight better than what the early Americans came up with!

 

Get the wax out of your ears. I never said the Early Americans invented cruel forms of slavery.......but they DID make an institution of it.

 

Pick up a history book. Try reading it instead of balancing the furniture with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are RIGHT to rebel against definitions of submission that are used to subjugate females to the absurd

 

Is there a way to subjugate women that isn't absurd?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a way to subjugate women that isn't absurd?

 

Do you submit to your boss at work?

Do you submit to a police officer?

Do you submit to a traffic signal?

 

If you are a woman and you submit to any of these authorities, then you are in a position where you on a daily basis submit to someone who is over you.

 

Submission isn't about subjugating all women to all men -- it is, in context, a parameter for a marriage relationship with the reciprocation of love. It is the definition of a relationship, not a statement about the ability or worth of the woman in marriage.

 

I might know more than my boss, I might be faster, stronger, smarter, and better looking but it doesn't change the fact that, for the purposes of that employee/boss relationship I am to submit to him/her.

 

For the sake of 'equality' and 'dignity' should women be exempt from obeying the police? Should they be exempt from paying taxes? Should they be exempt from obeying the boss at work because they are being forced to submit in those instances and a woman -- under any circumstances -- must NEVER submit?

 

That is one reason why I find this debate so silly.

Fact is, as a woman (or man) you submit to about a hundred different people every single day. You do it without being worth less, you do it without being less intelligent and less worthy -- you do it because it makes society work.

 

So if you wanna claim that on a daily basis women don't submit -- live in that fantasy world all you want.

 

I live in a world where I submit all of the time.

Dunno where you gals are living....

 

It isn't that foriegn of a concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get the wax out of your ears.

 

Wax?? Why not his head out of his ass first, then he can work on his hearing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, you wanna get excited over a 17-year-old, you go right ahead, seeing as how the age of consent in most states is 16 :shrug:

 

 

I'm still waiting for your apology at misrepresenting me, LadyFeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you submit to your boss at work?

 

I would never submit to him sexually, and if he asked me to do that, I'd quit. There is a reason for anti-harassment laws. I don't consider doing what you were hired to do submission. If you don't like it, you can always quit and get another job.

 

Do you submit to a police officer?

 

Again, not the same thing. If you don't obey the law, chances are you will be arrested and/or shot at while disobeying the law. We have laws for a reason. It isn't slavery. If you don't like it, you can always leave this country and go to Canada (or wherever else you want to go and apply for citizenship).

 

Do you submit to a traffic signal?

 

Again, not the same thing. If you don't stop at a stop sign, chances are good that someone else will hit you and possibly kill you, or that you will do that to someone else. That analogy is like comparing apples to TV sets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you submit to your boss at work?

Do you submit to a police officer?

Do you submit to a traffic signal?

 

If you are a woman and you submit to any of these authorities, then you are in a position where you on a daily basis submit to someone who is over you.

 

Submission isn't about subjugating all women to all men -- it is, in context, a parameter for a marriage relationship with the reciprocation of love.  It is the definition of a relationship, not a statement about the ability or worth of the woman in marriage.

 

I might know more than my boss, I might be faster, stronger, smarter, and better looking but it doesn't change the fact that, for the purposes of that employee/boss relationship I am to submit to him/her.

 

For the sake of 'equality' and 'dignity' should women be exempt from obeying the police? Should they be exempt from paying taxes? Should they be exempt from obeying the boss at work because they are being forced to submit in those instances and a woman -- under any circumstances -- must NEVER submit?

 

That is one reason why I find this debate so silly.

Fact is, as a woman (or man) you submit to about a hundred different people every single day.  You do it without being worth less, you do it without being less intelligent and less worthy -- you do it because it makes society work.

 

So if you wanna claim that on a daily basis women don't submit -- live in that fantasy world all you want.

 

I live in a world where I submit all of the time.

Dunno where you gals are living....

 

It isn't that foriegn of a concept.

 

Fact is men and women submit to each other in hundreds of different ways every day ~ that's exactly why its so silly that that the Bible states that wives should always submit to their husbands. If you are cool with submitting why do you need God to make a rule that you shouldn't in your house ~ but your wife should. Crazy.

 

The sexist stupid part is that irrespective of knowledge, insight, decision making capacity ~ one gender is to always submit to another. Where is the sense in that?

 

The sad part is that it creates marriage relationships that reflect the sort of relationship we have with policemen/our boss/traffic lights. (I guess that's why you get off on trying to make people see red ;) )

 

The nasty part is that these 'weaker vessel' scriptures have been used to deny women of basic human rights for centuries and continue to breed men who think they have some god given right to lord it over their wives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for your apology at misrepresenting me, LadyFeline.

 

Okay. I'm sorry for thinking that you're an arrogant, immature, jackass pervert...

 

...no, wait...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.