Is Christianity Inherently Supportive Of Slavery And Misogyny?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

tackattack made the very good point that the ‘PSA: Rape Apologetics’ is veering off topic. Since this goes against both the spirit and the letter of [Serious] threads, feel free to have that discussion here.

My answer: yup.

Boru

[zwanzig]

Agree, and sorry for also contributing on the off topicness of the other thread. 

The point I was trying to make is that "different roles yet equal" is often a sort of dog whistle in Christianity/Christian religions/cults that means "God says this particular oppression of women is okay." There are certain levels of misogyny which a lot of Christians can get on board with saying, "Yeah, that's not okay." But then they hit a certain point where everyone else is still saying, "That's misogyny" but they're saying, "God said this is okay, so, this isn't the same as what you all are talking about." 

Men and women can do the same things. It is possible most of the time. There's no reason for the two to have separate roles or jobs assigned to them. It is disingenuous to say that Eve being made out of Adam's rib puts her "at his side on equal footing." She was made out of parts of him, i.e. parts of him were used to create her. She is beholden to him and is seen as an extension of him. That's where the misogyny in that story is, in case folks had trouble figuring it out.

By the by, "different/separate but equal" is the justification often used for misogyny and racism.

[Fake Messiah]

Rape is at the center of Christianity because Jesus was begotten by God raping an underage girl.

[The Grand Nudger]

It certainly is, all but ensuring that some very committed people end up saying abhorrent things for no reason beyond their genuinely held faith. Things they personally struggle with, but feel compelled to accept nevertheless.

Small number. Like any christian thing, the vast majority ignore the vast majority of things. That's one of the religions pros, incidentally. Nobody wants christians acting too christian in the real world, especially christians.

[Nay_Sayer]

What is Yes.

That was easy.

I'll take potpourri for300$

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the fun part, people debate and question endlessly, as though a claim which begins with pure unfiltered misanthropy will end anywhere else.

[onlinebiker]

Yes and no.


They' re fine with owning slaves.

Not so much, being one.


That hardly seems consistent.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The answer

1.The bible literally states slavery is alright in both the Old and New Testaments both Indentured (taking advantage of people's poverty is awful) and Chattle. That's simply a fact.


2.Any idealogy that rejects the concept of egalitarianism and meritocracy in sex and gender roles is Misogynist and Misandrist.

[Angrboda]

The difference between a role and property is that in a role, the individual exercises constraint upon their actions voluntarily. In property, control and constraint of actions is enacted involuntarily through the threat of sanctions or the denial of resources. In the Judeo-Christian religion, constraint has been exercised by ruling institutions in which women have no role and dictating choices which women cannot abrogate. The Sanhedrin was male. The priesthood was male. The authors of the text are male. Rabbihood is exclusively male. Control of the household is male. Control in the synagogue is in the hands of men. Whether this control is total or involves the transfer of any compensation, control of women's choices has been denied them through sanctions and the denial of resources by the church and its male hierarchy. Even today, control of the choices a woman exercises over her reproduction is vested in others through a hierarchy that literally holds the keys to the kingdom. To suggest that this doesn't translate into making a woman a form of property can only be maintained through semantic obfuscation and cherry-picking. Beliefs, and the acts predicated upon them, have their origin in justification. The justification is the source. To suggest that justification and the source can be or are separate is simply semantic doubletalk. We believe things, hold them to be true, because of justification. Now it's true that the church and God place constraints upon the behavior of men as well, and so to some extent treat them as property as well. But the volume of choices which a women is constrained from choosing is so much greater that in the totality of such, women are treated as property to a much greater extent than men.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I wish to respond to the following comment from the PSA thread:

If a work of fiction glorifys rape, it encourages rape.

Typical evangelical as well as woke nonesense. I'm tired of this strawman. By your logic desater movies, such as Independence Day, encourages Destruction and that people are too dumb to discern between fiction and reality. It's literally the "Video Games cause violence/school shootings" strawman, but for adults and also it doesn't. You know why? Becuase normal people know the difference between real and fake. Something you clearly don't have a grasp on.

I think there is some general confusion here about how the brain processes and interprets information. That said, pornography that is violent (or has degrading themes) can increase callousness towards women, increase aggression towards women, desensitize men to violence against women, and disseminate myths about SA (or "rape scripts" as some feminists call them) such as all women secretly want it. This is particularly true for men who score higher on aggression, and not particularly true for nonviolent pornography (Malamuth, 2010).

"The research ... has demonstrated, for the most part ... that sexually explicit images, per se, do not in the short run facilitate aggressive behavior against women, change attitudes about rape, or influence other forms of antisocial behavior. Instead, the research indicates that it is the violent images embedded in some forms of pornography, or even the violent images alone, that account for many of the antisocial effects observed in experimental studies" (Scott, 2008, p 341).

Reference:

Scott, B. A. (2008). Women and pornography : What we don’t know can hurt us. In J. C. Chrisler, C. Golden, & P. D. Rozee (Eds.), Lectures on the psychology of women (4th ed., pp. 338–355). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Malamuth, N., Yuen, C., & Hald, G. M. (2010). Pornography and attitudes supporting violence against women: revisiting the relationship in nonexperimental studies. Aggressive Behavior, 14-20.