For any really interested in the sexism of the bible I recommend this article
http://www.salon.com/2009/03/14/joyce_quiverfull/

(October 11, 2014 at 7:49 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: "A woman does need to especially feel loved

Yeah because the Bible is the perfect example of love

Jesus says that divorce is permissible when the wife is guilty of fornication. But what if the husband is unfaithful? Jesus doesn't seem to care about that. Matthew 5:32, 19:9

Wives must submit to their husbands "in every thing" as though they were Christ. "For the husband is the head of the wife." Ephesians 5:22-24

(October 11, 2014 at 7:49 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: A man does especially need to feel respected."

And respect.

Don't defend yourself in court. Matthew 5:40

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. Mark 4:11-12

---

And let's be realistic the whole give more love than respect to women is a little mysoginist(women aren't objects to satisfy the man's news unlike what the bible teaches)
"For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man." 1 Corinthians 11:8

And assuming that a a man cares more to be respected than loved will only give him a fake happiness. What's the point of having respect if you don't have anyone in your life who cares for you?

(October 11, 2014 at 7:49 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: A Christian told me that today while explaining to me why their deeply cherished ideals contain not even the slightest hint of sexism. I lol'd.

And assuming what a person needs more(either love or respect) according to their gender isn't sexist? Why can't the bible teach to love and respect everyone by equal, why one group of people gets more of one and less of the other? That ideology by itself is sexist.

(October 11, 2014 at 8:29 pm)Zidneya Wrote: Why can't the bible teach to love and respect everyone by equal, why one group of people gets more of one and less of the other? That ideology by itself is sexist.

So true. There does seem to be an unfathomable brain-dead quality behind their rationalization -- I mean what is so difficult about realizing that the needs and desires of each individual are *not* defined by their gender-specific hormones alone? Given the obvious ability of people to use their brains to subjugate just about every natural impulse a person might have (i.e. like keeping to a religious "purity" promise as a teen...) why is it so difficult for religious people to also realize that men and women are far, far, far more influenced by the organ in the skulls rather than the organ in the pelvis region?

The success earlier this month of the first baby to be born from a transplanted womb may soon free up women from the one last gender-bound tasks left to them....Any forward thinking men out there who share my sense of adventure and think it might be a cool experience to be the first (or second or third) man to gestatate a baby to term (c-section required, of course)?

....Might be quite the bonding experience for you and the wife to compare and contrast notes about whose pregnancy was better or worse....

(October 11, 2014 at 10:09 pm)HopOnPop Wrote: The success earlier this month of the first baby to be born from a transplanted womb may soon free up women from the one last gender-bound tasks left to them....Any forward thinking men out there who share my sense of adventure and think it might be a cool experience to be the first (or second or third) man to gestatate a baby to term (c-section required, of course)?

....Might be quite the bonding experience for you and the wife to compare and contrast notes about whose pregnancy was better or worse....

Yeah why I haven't thought of that. Getting pregnant in order to know what a women wants and needs is the obvious solution(and I was thinking that asking them and treat people equally was the answer, hahaha silly me)But what should we do for women? Should we inject them a huge quantity of hormones and testosterone? Should we start researching penis implants? Oh but wait why stop there since we know that different racial groups age, and are more likely to develop diseases and are treated differently. Shouldn't I…dunno maybe dye my skin to understand how a black person feels when he is being discriminated? And shouldn't I convert to Islam in order to understand how islamic people think in order to realize how to hare their pains?

A few more thoughts I wrote on the topic today, and on that particular comment about "love" and "respect" (largely reiterating what's already been said):

The issue is only a matter of “positional distinctions” and their relation to “issues of person value” when positional distinction is taken to mean perpetual inequality in the treatment of persons on the basis of their sexual identity, in both their private and public life, as has been widely observed in the practice of so-called Christian morality, as in every other patriarchal framework. The very idea that, in the private and public spheres, a woman is commanded to be, “as the church is subject to Christ, subject in everything to their husbands,” (Eph. 5:24), “should keep silence in the churches... they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says” (“If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church”) (1 Cor. 14:34-35), and the list goes on and on (1 Cor. 11:2-10; 1 Tim. 2:11-15; Col. 3:18-22), is by definition patriarchal. In other words, women ought to be obedient and revere men at the expense of offending Christian sensibilities regarding the liberty to speak, learn or teach in public, and disregard the wisdom of any male “intrinsically appointed” as their parental-like authority. The justification for this patriarchal system that “since [man] is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man,” is just as sexist and devaluing as it would be racist to declare, “since light-skinned persons are the image and glory of God; but dark-skinned persons are for the glory of the light-skinned.” In both cases, attempts at justification are as equally abyssal in their lack of cogency to the easily perceived meanings and implications of the statements at hand.

“A woman does need to especially feel loved; A man does especially need to feel respected.”

a) It's a sweeping generalization that purports to convey a fundamental human need as “especially” dominant in women, in juxtaposition to an equally fundamental human need that is alleged to “especially” apply to men. Of course, none of this is based in any actual data. All human beings have certain basic needs, and the statement is insignificant when one admits that its reversal is equally true when modified to meet the facts of reality, which a rational and humanistic ethics should strive to promote: “Human beings, male and female, equally need to feel loved and respected.” Improving Christian thought on male-female relationships is that simple.
b) It perpetuates the role of husband-parent-master that males had in the first and second centuries, as well as many afterward, that Christian writers allegedly attempted to repudiate. As a generalization, the statement is a lot more sensible about the prominence that love and respect might have in a healthy parental relationship: “A child does need to especially feel loved; an adult does especially need to feel respected” is arguably more true than its reversal, “an adult does need to especially feel loved; a child does especially need to feel respected.” It should be a bit troubling when one's supposedly innocent “positional distinctions” are both obviously racist when race is substituted for sex and ring far more true when child and adult is interchanged for women and men. Unlike some patriarchal societies, including first-century Rome, however, the positional distinction of women to men or a wife to her husband is no longer equivalent to the role of a child to his or her father. We have a revolution of secular rather than religiously inspired ethics to thank.
c) Ephesians 5:33, which is presumably the only real basis for placing special emphasis on the “love” women require versus the “respect” men need, offers an even more contemptible picture. There the writer specifically uses the Greek word for “respect” consistently used elsewhere to mean “to fear,” “be afraid,” “revere,” “obey.” At least, to the author of 1 Peter's credit, he uses the Greek word for “value” or “esteem” when he implores his readers to “treat with respect,” or pay “honor to the woman as the weaker sex” (3:7)

(October 12, 2014 at 12:14 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: A few more thoughts I wrote on the topic today, and on that particular comment about "love" and "respect" (largely reiterating what's already been said):

The issue is only a matter of “positional distinctions” and their relation to “issues of person value” when positional distinction is taken to mean perpetual inequality in the treatment of persons on the basis of their sexual identity, in both their private and public life, as has been widely observed in the practice of so-called Christian morality, as in every other patriarchal framework. The very idea that, in the private and public spheres, a woman is commanded to be, “as the church is subject to Christ, subject in everything to their husbands,” (Eph. 5:24), “should keep silence in the churches... they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says” (“If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church”) (1 Cor. 14:34-35), and the list goes on and on (1 Cor. 11:2-10; 1 Tim. 2:11-15; Col. 3:18-22), is by definition patriarchal. In other words, women ought to be obedient and revere men at the expense of offending Christian sensibilities regarding the liberty to speak, learn or teach in public, and disregard the wisdom of any male “intrinsically appointed” as their parental-like authority. The justification for this patriarchal system that “since [man] is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man,” is just as sexist and devaluing as it would be racist to declare, “since light-skinned persons are the image and glory of God; but dark-skinned persons are for the glory of the light-skinned.” In both cases, attempts at justification are as equally abyssal in their lack of cogency to the easily perceived meanings and implications of the statements at hand.

This bit really hit home for me, in demonstrating the actual nature of the male-female relationship actually defined for Christians in their own dogma (as opposed to the whitewashed portrayal fed to the public by preachers and apologists). The new point I took away from your citations is, rather, that Chrisitianity isn't merely a patriarchal system, but rather something far worse.

You aptly described, at one point, the NT view of males as having a "parent-like" position in relation to women (implying too, that women have a child-like position in relation to men). Further, in passing, you noted that if one merely substitute ideas of white-purity (like light- vs dark-skinned) in for gender, it can demonstrate just how utterly incoherent this kind of doctrine sounds at its root. This exercise, while you may not have meant it this way, further demonstrated to me that the Christian male-female relationship, at times, it also very much a master-slave relationship.

Now, if Christianity were simply a patriarchal (or matriarchal) system, one might forgive its doctrine for a tendency to be imbalanced. Given the ever-present and deeply complex dialectic between men and women (and their respective gender-sociopolitical issues) it would perhaps seem likely, and I would think rather uncontroversial, to believe one gender would likely dominate at different eras of human history, far more often than having society strike a true balance between the genders (for striking such a balance is a difficult feat for any dialectic to ever achieve). Indeed, I think earlier posts in this thread discussed this tendancy toward matriarchal-patriarchal dominance in human societies.

But when one really examines the Christian view, it isn't really just a benign form of patriarchy, say, like "the protectors protecting the nurturers" or "women needing more love and men needing more respect" or some other equally banal "different but somehow equal" justification for existing gender inequity. If the patriarchy of Chrisitianity were really that minor, one might live with it; and it certainly would not be so infuriating to women. Given your plentiful quotes from the NT, however what we actually see creeping out is a truly harsh inequity that one would certainly call unethical (as well as insideous in its design). Not merely a patriarchical system, but one perhaps better labeled male-supremacy.

I think humans all understand that those in power (for whatever reason) do deserve a chance to rule, and demonstrate their ability to be mostly fair for those that they rule over, before society condemns them. That is simple politics. In a rather "acceptable" form of patriarchy (or matriarchy) if such a thing could exist-- which Christianity usually attempt to claim their's to be -- both men and women could likely feel mostly equal and free despite the obvious imbalance at the top. But when the powers-that-be attempt to reforge society in terms of institutionalizing the "ins" as innately superior, and the "outs" as innately inferior -- as the NT undeniably does with these incideous master-parent and slave-child gender roles -- this kind of patriarchy violates human morality itself. For such a system really has nothing in it that reflects human "traditions" or ideas that reflect "natural order" (assuming we are willing to accept the existence of such notions, in the first place) as one often hears in the defense of Christian patriarchy. Instead, this kind of patriarchy attempts to redefine humanity as a strongly sexually dimorphic species, which even a child can clearly see to be false.

I would think, having now pondered this thing for a mere couple of days, that Christian patriarchy would shock any truly moral person who, alternatively, reads this stuff all the time over a lifetime. It baffles me, even more than ever, that so many Chrisitians instead defend it. Those who attempt to "innocently" portray Christian patriarchy today, in terms like “A woman does need to especially feel loved; A man does especially need to feel respected” now sound more like Christians of a bygone era, who once upon a time, thought opposing abolitionism was part of God's plan too.

(October 10, 2014 at 3:00 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: So saying women can get pregnant and have babies is sexist?

No - but saying that is their role is - if they do not want to. A woman does not have to get pregnant or have babies - that is a choice. AND a man forcing that on a woman is a crime.

As far as your sign off -= saying that no amount of proof is enough for a non-believer - that is ALSO not true

All the god has to do is appear before everyone - and PROVE its existence - and explain its DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE to human life.

TO date - there have been THOUSANDS of gods -but none have ever proven to be real

There is nothing new under the sun.

Start at the beginning, or at Page 9 post #83

Why is a non equal gender role a bad thing?

Have you ever heard the word FREEDOM?