Do (many) religions tend to demean women?

[Zzyzx]

.
Do (many) religions tend to demean women?
If so, why?

Examples?

Justification?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 45 by bluethread]

At this point, I would like to point out the difference between differentiating and demeaning. Differentiation involves acknowledging the existence of a difference and demeaning involves degrading someone

Yes I agree men and women biologically are not the same all I have to do is look between my legs to see that. Specifically though what are those differences this verse supposedly points out?

The differences are that men represent Adam, a man, and women represent Havah(Eve), a woman. It is not appropriate to have a girl play George Washington and a boy to play Martha in the Presidents day play, because it introduces an inaccurate and unnecessary distraction.

, ie social structure, and the equality of both sexes before Adonai.

Yes as I have said this is arbitrary and demeaning to women it has no basis in reason or logic.

What is the reason for this social structure why is it created this way that is what I am asking for. What justifies it?

This is a drawback of rationalistic egalitarianism, especially when it is used to make judgments regarding commemorative traditionalism. Anything that is not equal and justified by reason is deemed to be an offense. That need not be the case. The fact that men and women are equal before Adonai is exemplified by other means, ie direct revelation is given to both men and women. The reason for the differentiation in public prayer is as a commemoration of Adam and Havah. Now, if you need a secular rationalization, one can make the point that the male of the species is the protector of the female of the species, that is the male covers the female.

For example. we discriminate against pedophilia because of the psychological trauma it causes to the victims. Hence there is a justifiable reason to discriminate.
It is still discriminating and demeaning though it is just culturally acceptable discrimination.

The

1.God

2. Man

3. Woman

societal structure as presented in the bible is demeaning discriminating and degrading with no justifiable reason.

As I pointed out above, seeing it as demeaning is to take offense where one is not intended. That is why Paul makes the point about a woman shaving her head. If one finds it offensive that a woman cover her head during public prayer, why does that one not find it offensive that women have long hair?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 45 by bluethread]

Ok, if he is just being pragmatic for his time, then you agree that the treatment of women in that time period is inherently demeaning, correct?

-all the best

No more than the treatment of men was demeaning, as Paul points out long hair is a glorious thing for a woman, but not for a man. We are talking about symbolic commemoration not oppression.

Really? Women were treated as equals in Paul’s time? So, you’re argument is that the bible doesn’t advocate that women are subservient to men?

You have some explaining to do:
_____________________________
Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

1 Peter 3:1-7
Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands,

1 Timothy 2:11-12 ESV / 26 helpful votes
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
____________________________

The Timothy quote is pretty specific, don't you think?

Is your argument that it is not demeaning for women to be subservient to men? Or, is your argument that they do not deserve to be treated as equal to men?

Either that or they were obviously and undoubtedly regarded as inferior or less valuable then men, both in the bible and during Paul's time.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to bluethread]

This is not just about symbolism in prayer though sure the shaving of heads and veils is part of the prayer ritual but the larger context of the verse is about the nature and role of men and women in society.

I also am not offended as you seem to suggest. I am simply observing what the structure presents.

Degrading and Demeaning deal with respect. When one has less respect or one causes an individual to receive less respect than the other we are degrading and demeaning. I don't have to take offense to this it is just what is observable.

The societal structure as presented here in the bible is demeaning to women in that they inherently have less respect than men in terms of societal value.

Men are subserviant to god women are subserviant to men.

The problem is this structure is blanketed and arbitrary. Whether you find offense to it or not does not change whether or not it is demeaning because it is.

Just answer this simple question.

Are women below men in this social structure?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 49 by bluethread]

It is not appropriate to have a girl play George Washington and a boy to play Martha in the Presidents day play, because it introduces an inaccurate and unnecessary distraction

why would that be confusing? You have lost me here. It is already inaccurate because they are children playing adults. Why does gender roles and types matter so much to you? Are you honestly saying a black kid could never play George Washington Ben Franklin or Abraham Lincoln? After all it would be inaccurate to let a black kid play that role.

[bluethread]

[Replying to bluethread]

This is not just about symbolism in prayer though sure the shaving of heads and veils is part of the prayer ritual but the larger context of the verse is about the nature and role of men and women in society.

I also am not offended as you seem to suggest. I am simply observing what the structure presents.

If your are simply observing, then there you have it. The head covering is just acknowledging that the male is protecting the female, as is the natural inclination of the humans.

Degrading and Demeaning deal with respect. When one has less respect or one causes an individual to receive less respect than the other we are degrading and demeaning. I don't have to take offense to this it is just what is observable.

So, are your saying that all acts of respect are degrading and/or demeaning?

The societal structure as presented here in the bible is demeaning to women in that they inherently have less respect than men in terms of societal value.

Well, that is a rather broad assertion given that we have just examined one passage so far and, as I stated, I do not think that is what this passage is saying.

Men are subserviant to god women are subserviant to men.

Interesting choice of terms and prospective. If I am responsible for protecting you, aren't I the one who is serving you?

The problem is this structure is blanketed and arbitrary. Whether you find offense to it or not does not change whether or not it is demeaning because it is.

It is a generalization in that it speaks of men and women in general. However, as I have shown, it is not arbitrary. It seems to follow the natural inclinations of humans.

Just answer this simple question.

Are women below men in this social structure?

In that the man is the protective covering for the woman, yes. Generally, which is more valuable, that which protects or that which is protected?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 49 by bluethread]

It is not appropriate to have a girl play George Washington and a boy to play Martha in the Presidents day play, because it introduces an inaccurate and unnecessary distraction

why would that be confusing? You have lost me here. It is already inaccurate because they are children playing adults. Why does gender roles and types matter so much to you? Are you honestly saying a black kid could never play George Washington Ben Franklin or Abraham Lincoln? After all it would be inaccurate to let a black kid play that role.

If we are being honest, I did not say that. That said, are you honestly telling me that if you went to a President's day play and there was a girl playing George Washington and a boy playing Martha, it would not be distracting? Would that not be the topic of discussion for most parents after the play?

[Zzyzx]

.

If we are being honest, I did not say that. That said, are you honestly telling me that if you went to a President's day play and there was a girl playing George Washington and a boy playing Martha, it would not be distracting? Would that not be the topic of discussion for most parents after the play?

Perhaps you are unaware that in Shakespearean times male actors played all roles in plays -- which was evidently not considered unduly distracting.

Most who view a play are aware that it is intended as entertainment, not reality. Those who have difficulty distinguishing between entertainment / fantasy / fiction vs. reality / real life may fail to make that distinction and become upset.

[bluethread]

.

If we are being honest, I did not say that. That said, are you honestly telling me that if you went to a President's day play and there was a girl playing George Washington and a boy playing Martha, it would not be distracting? Would that not be the topic of discussion for most parents after the play?

Perhaps you are unaware that in Shakespearean times male actors played all roles in plays -- which was evidently not considered unduly distracting.

Most who view a play are aware that it is intended as entertainment, not reality. Those who have difficulty distinguishing between entertainment / fantasy / fiction vs. reality / real life may fail to make that distinction and become upset.

Yes, I am aware of that in Victorian times. I thought of dealing with that a while back, but considered it not relevant to the passage under discussion. Also, as you say, there were only male actors. What I was referring to was not a play in Victorian times, but a school play today in which there are both boys and girls acting. The issue being discussed here is a ritual in a group of men and women that commemorates Adam and Havah. It is like the lighting of the candles and saying the associated blessing on Shabbat. That is the privilege of the woman of the house. Is this demeaning to men?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 54 by bluethread]

Uhmm no it wouldn't.. why would it be?

What about kids who play trees in plays is that confusing to you? Seriously why is it confusing you get a little pamphlet that lists out who is playing who and there are things like costumes and wigs. Honestly my 4 year old can tell the difference between when a boy is pretending to be a girl and when a girl is pretending to be a boy. This is not the 1950s it happens all the time these days and shockingly parents are not in an uproar about it.

I could see how it could be confusing to an individual who cannot tell the difference between fiction and reality but its really not that complicated. If a toddler can figure it out I trust that adults can to.

Seriously you are going to have to explain this to me. Why it would be confusing for adults. I just don't get it. Explain it to me like you would a child because this is not in the realm of something I would get why people would be upset about. I live and grew up in the south and we southerns are a bit slow when it comes to progression in race and gender roles so if we can figure it out I am sure the rest of the country can to.

A play is pretend so accuracy to gender typing is not paramount. Do parents get confused that a little boy or a little girl playing a tree is not really a tree? I don't mean to sound insulting I just don't get the point you are trying to make. Do you have kids was this an issue for parents at one of your kids school plays? If so why?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 43 by DanieltheDragon]

This has the appearance of silly word games and not actual debate. You are comparing two different concepts using separate definitions to make false equivocations.

It should have the appearance of trying to communicate, trying to find a common language.

In one sense I agree we are off topic but in another sense we are directly on topic because one of my arguments in this thread will be that atheism demeans quite totally. Words that can be applied to everyone end up getting emotional connotations as good or bad words and so I'm a religionist but you aren't, even though because Jesus did all the work I don't know of a single religious action I need to take to get to heaven.

Just observe post 44.

[Replying to post 44 by Zzyzx]

Did you read "have to do" in my post? "Frequently attempt" does not mean the same thing.

It's a key point of differentiation between Christianity and other religions.

As Danmark so well said, "Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel." That sums it up nicely and simply enough for all to understand.

I like the quote too but I don't think it is true that there is an off switch. The void gets filled and mostly that void gets filled with evolutionary teachings amongst western atheists. It should be, if what you claim is true that there are western atheists that reject God and evolution - ie: turned the tv off. Where are they?

I leave philosophy to those who fancy themselves philosophers (and the few who actually qualify).

It is a bit embarrassing to admit that I once thought Santa Clause and Gods were real; however, it was almost seventy years ago that I learned better.

This is where I link your post to my reply to Danmark. Not one metaphysical concept that you are willing to acknowledge. Now tell me which religion is doing the most demeaning in this thread so far?

We are not bound by biblical use of terms or biblical definitions (at least I am not)

Well I can use your terms, what do you call yourself that I can substitute for religionist.

I don't like labels in general – or the pigeon holes that they denote. I do not conform to expectations associated.

Then perhaps don't use them?

If one wishes to use the same terminology regarding money as they use regarding their chosen "God", I have no objection (though I think it silly and demeaning of religious worship), so help yourself.

I don't see why you should think one god (money) is higher than another God.

I tend to prefer definitions in common use in the real world applied consistently. If "god" is defined as money one time and as a supernatural entity the next time, that does not lead to effective communication – nor does a day meaning 24 hours in common use but 1000 years in religion (as needed), or Non-belief being defined as a religion . . .

I think you can handle it.