Judeo-Christian Doctrine is Sexist

[Skullymund]

[font=Times New Roman]Religion has been the greatest oppressor of women's rights throughout the history of man. Judeo-Christian doctrine preaches that women are second rate to men: "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14) The old testament was much more gruesome: "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

There are so many things wrong with the bible, it is often difficult to know where to begin when refuting or criticizing it. The subjugation of women has been one of the greatest detracting forces on society. The best way to cure poverty is the empowerment and education of women, and for too long have the religions of the world preached the madness that woman are property to men, on the level of cattle. People such as Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris write about a future in which we can be free of the shackles of wish thinking, of a more humanistic world in which we derive morals not from ancient religious texts, but from a discussion of the human condition as it exists in reality, and how we can improve lives and reduce suffering.

Any sort of religion that preaches for the subjugation of women should be looked at not as sacred, but as barbaric, and at best written by the hands of man, not those of God. It is clear that any sort of faith that is so disgusted by a woman's vagina, and the sorts of things that relate to it, must be written not by a divine and loving creator, but by ignorant, iron-aged men.

Feel free to challenge my views.[/font]

[JehovahsWitness]

Your God is all powerful it should have set their rules and roles not for the culture of when this was written but straighten that culture out to begin with ..

That is, unless there were another overriding issue that needed to be addresses.

JW

[KenRU]

Your God is all powerful it should have set their rules and roles not for the culture of when this was written but straighten that culture out to begin with ..

That is, unless there were another overriding issue that needed to be addresses.

JW

Such as?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 80 by KenRU]

Such as those raised in Eden

[bluethread]

If it is not about "gender" or misogyny, what use is it other than a pejorative.

The definition is quite clear:

1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles.
2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women.
3. ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of women; misogyny.

It protects both sexes from being treated with bias based upon their gender. The fact that Gender Identity is an issue for a minority, doesn’t mean that the word has no use or is not helpful.

The bottom line is this. What is gender? Is it physical or psychological?

No, the bottom line is that the gender label is not an issue for far more people than for those it is. I fail to see why this is an issue with respect for the bible’s sexist views on women.

Also, the third definition is misogyny, which you seem to think should include misandry,

Fail. I never said that. What I did say was that misandry (if acted upon) is included in the FIRST TWO definitions of sexism.

The first two definitions refer to gender as the basis of the act. Look, it's right there above! There is no reason for me to make any statement regarding sexism as long as you refuse to even acknowledge what is integral to the definition.

The beauty of Sexism is that it allows for either scenario. You don’t have to like it, but it is a strength not a weakness. There are inherent differences in the sexes, so it allows for people to determine when to be equal or when to be fair. You want to hamstring the word because of a minority issue, and thus de-fang the word Sexism, even though it is far more useful than not.

This appears to be saying the definition can refer to different things at different times, depending on the intent of the user. Though this can work to the advantage of the user in a discussion, such a condition does not lend itself to clear communication.

Seems to me that since the gender identity issue you are so concerned about is such a small portion of what sexism encompasses that it is quite clearly understood more times than not. Perhaps the issue isn't the definition, and more to do with something else?

Communication with respect to sexism seems to happen far more often than not, so by your own argument, it IS clear.

I said nothing about gender identity. I was asking you whether sexism refers to physiology or psychology. If you wish to just address discrimination based on physiology only, that is fine. However, that would be limiting the scope of the OP.

So, are you saying that the loose nature of the definition leaves equality and fairness open for debate, or are you saying that the term helps one determine what is equal and what is fair?

I’ll quote Danmark, as he said it quite well (hope you don’t mind, D): “The operative words are 'prejudice, discrimination, and against.'�

Whether one should apply fairness or equality will depend on the nature of the charge.

Why don’t you pick a verse from the bible so we can examine it for sexism?

I’m betting we don’t run into one issue of a character with a confused gender identity.

-all the best

I am not arguing that there are any, so any verse I pick would be arbitrary and/or off point. If you wish to insert "prejudice, discrimination, and against" for sexism, we can do that. However, this to is an alteration of the OP and we would need to be careful not to shift terms in the middle of the discussion.

[Hamsaka]

[font=Times New Roman]Religion has been the greatest oppressor of women's rights throughout the history of man. Judeo-Christian doctrine preaches that women are second rate to men: "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14) The old testament was much more gruesome: "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

There are so many things wrong with the bible, it is often difficult to know where to begin when refuting or criticizing it. The subjugation of women has been one of the greatest detracting forces on society. The best way to cure poverty is the empowerment and education of women, and for too long have the religions of the world preached the madness that woman are property to men, on the level of cattle. People such as Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris write about a future in which we can be free of the shackles of wish thinking, of a more humanistic world in which we derive morals not from ancient religious texts, but from a discussion of the human condition as it exists in reality, and how we can improve lives and reduce suffering.

Any sort of religion that preaches for the subjugation of women should be looked at not as sacred, but as barbaric, and at best written by the hands of man, not those of God. It is clear that any sort of faith that is so disgusted by a woman's vagina, and the sorts of things that relate to it, must be written not by a divine and loving creator, but by ignorant, iron-aged men.

Feel free to challenge my views.[/font]

An oldie but a goody.

Last week I was indulging my documentary addiction and watched the first episode of a TV series about neolithic culture, where men and women shared power, in distinct sex-roles kind of way, these aspects varied. The evidence brought forth for this 'egalitarian' pre-patriarchal set of cultures is in their art and recovered 'religious' artifacts.

By the time the Hebrews splintered off into their own tribes, a new kind of social structure was emerging, along with monotheism. It took a few centuries to complete the process into the patriarchy so evident in the Hebrew bible. Women began to lose what we would call 'civil rights' today across semitic cultures. Over time, women could no longer own property but became a kind of property (of her father or husband).

The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament rose straight out of the patriarchal culture, of course it's going to be what we'd call 'sexist' today. What a concept! Big shock and surprise (not!) .

Blaming Christianity for its sexism is like blaming apple trees for bearing apples. What else could Christianity be?

Ironically (and to our credit) modern western culture is more like the egalitarian neolithic cultures than more recent patriarchies. Christianity has been deeply impacted by this. But it's still a religion with deep roots in one of the 'first' patriarchal cultures in existence. It can't not be sexist. It's impossible.

[bluethread]

Last week I was indulging my documentary addiction and watched the first episode of a TV series about neolithic culture, where men and women shared power, in distinct sex-roles kind of way, these aspects varied. The evidence brought forth for this 'egalitarian' pre-patriarchal set of cultures is in their art and recovered 'religious' artifacts.

So, how would one expect to find patriarchal behaviors in neolithic culture and how would the artifacts speak to that? What specific patriarchal behaviors are you referring to?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 80 by KenRU]

Such as those raised in Eden

The rules/commandments provided to us in the bible were meant for those living in Eden?

[KenRU]

If it is not about "gender" or misogyny, what use is it other than a pejorative.

The definition is quite clear:

1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles.
2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women.
3. ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of women; misogyny.

It protects both sexes from being treated with bias based upon their gender. The fact that Gender Identity is an issue for a minority, doesn’t mean that the word has no use or is not helpful.

The bottom line is this. What is gender? Is it physical or psychological?

No, the bottom line is that the gender label is not an issue for far more people than for those it is. I fail to see why this is an issue with respect for the bible’s sexist views on women.

Also, the third definition is misogyny, which you seem to think should include misandry,

Fail. I never said that. What I did say was that misandry (if acted upon) is included in the FIRST TWO definitions of sexism.

The first two definitions refer to gender as the basis of the act. Look, it's right there above! There is no reason for me to make any statement regarding sexism as long as you refuse to even acknowledge what is integral to the definition.

Your point is being lost on me. Misandry is covered by the first two definitions of Sexism. Sexism, by definition can be committed by both genders. What are you disagreeing with?

The beauty of Sexism is that it allows for either scenario. You don’t have to like it, but it is a strength not a weakness. There are inherent differences in the sexes, so it allows for people to determine when to be equal or when to be fair. You want to hamstring the word because of a minority issue, and thus de-fang the word Sexism, even though it is far more useful than not.

This appears to be saying the definition can refer to different things at different times, depending on the intent of the user. Though this can work to the advantage of the user in a discussion, such a condition does not lend itself to clear communication.

Seems to me that since the gender identity issue you are so concerned about is such a small portion of what sexism encompasses that it is quite clearly understood more times than not. Perhaps the issue isn't the definition, and more to do with something else?

Communication with respect to sexism seems to happen far more often than not, so by your own argument, it IS clear.

I said nothing about gender identity.

You keep bringing up gender as an issue. If gender identity is not an issue, please do explain further.

I was asking you whether sexism refers to physiology or psychology.

Hence gender identity.

If you wish to just address discrimination based on physiology only, that is fine. However, that would be limiting the scope of the OP.

As I have stated, both physiology and psychology can be covered by the definition. But you keep ignoring my point. You argued it isn’t clearly defined, but it obviously is, given how many real world issues are addressed by the term, and how many of the rest of the world do discuss this with far less issues (definition wise) then not.

The fact that you don’t want to accept that Sexism covers both physiology and psychology (gender identity issues) is your problem, and not mine.

So, are you saying that the loose nature of the definition leaves equality and fairness open for debate, or are you saying that the term helps one determine what is equal and what is fair?

I’ll quote Danmark, as he said it quite well (hope you don’t mind, D): “The operative words are 'prejudice, discrimination, and against.'�

Whether one should apply fairness or equality will depend on the nature of the charge.

Why don’t you pick a verse from the bible so we can examine it for sexism?

I’m betting we don’t run into one issue of a character with a confused gender identity.

-all the best

I am not arguing that there are any, so any verse I pick would be arbitrary and/or off point. If you wish to insert "prejudice, discrimination, and against" for sexism, we can do that. However, this to is an alteration of the OP and we would need to be careful not to shift terms in the middle of the discussion.

Given that “discrimination�, “prejudice� and “against� are pretty much the definition of Sexism, it is NOT an alteration of the OP. No shifting required.

Are any of these sexist?

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.� (1 Timothy 2:12)
Why can’t women teach men?

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.� (Ephesians 5:22)
Where’s the passage saying for men to submit to their wives?

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
Chain of command established: Christ, man THEN woman.

There are plenty more.

-all the best

[bluethread]

The definition is quite clear:

1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles.
2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women.
3. ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of women; misogyny.

The first two definitions refer to gender as the basis of the act. Look, it's right there above! There is no reason for me to make any statement regarding sexism as long as you refuse to even acknowledge what is integral to the definition.

Your point is being lost on me. Misandry is covered by the first two definitions of Sexism. Sexism, by definition can be committed by both genders. What are you disagreeing with?

When you say "both genders", what are you referring to, physiology or psychology? If there are two people and one treats them differently what determines if that different treatment is sexist or some other form of differentiation?

I said nothing about gender identity.

You keep bringing up gender as an issue. If gender identity is not an issue, please do explain further.

I was asking you whether sexism refers to physiology or psychology.

Hence gender identity.

I keep bringing up the word "gender" because it is explicitly stated in the definition and you just said, "Sexism, by definition can be committed by both genders." If your protestations regarding "gender identity" is your way of saying that, at least for this discussion, "gender only refers to physiology, then fine. We will just have to make sure we hold to that, in this discussion.

If you wish to just address discrimination based on physiology only, that is fine. However, that would be limiting the scope of the OP.

As I have stated, both physiology and psychology can be covered by the definition. But you keep ignoring my point. You argued it isn’t clearly defined, but it obviously is, given how many real world issues are addressed by the term, and how many of the rest of the world do discuss this with far less issues (definition wise) then not.

The fact that you don’t want to accept that Sexism covers both physiology and psychology (gender identity issues) is your problem, and not mine.

OK, sexism covers both physiology and psychology (gender identity issues). The only reason "gender identity issues" were left out is because you insisted that they be. So, please choose one, are we going with the definition that uses the term "sexism" to refer to both physiology and psychology, or one that is limited to physiology only.

I am not arguing that there are any, so any verse I pick would be arbitrary and/or off point. If you wish to insert "prejudice, discrimination, and against" for sexism, we can do that. However, this to is an alteration of the OP and we would need to be careful not to shift terms in the middle of the discussion.

Given that “discrimination�, “prejudice� and “against� are pretty much the definition of Sexism, it is NOT an alteration of the OP. No shifting required.

Well those terms refer to more than sex or "gender", but let's move on and see how this plays out.

Are any of these sexist?

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.� (1 Timothy 2:12)
Why can’t women teach men?

This indicates a differentiation between women and men. If that is all "sexism" means then the answer is yes. However, if "sexism" infers unjust, then one must establish a standard of justice and compare it to that. First, in context, this is only talking about the meetings of a particular voluntary group. Second, Paul uses the deception of Havah(Eve) and the relationship of Yeshua to His people as a justifications. Third, he refers to women discussing things with their husbands. Which of these reasons do you reject and on what basis?

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.� (Ephesians 5:22)
Where’s the passage saying for men to submit to their wives?

The previous verse. "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God."

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
Chain of command established: Christ, man THEN woman.

Again, are you just noting this, or implying to is unjust? If the latter, on what are you basing that judgment?

[KenRU]

The definition is quite clear:

1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles.
2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women.
3. ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of women; misogyny.

The first two definitions refer to gender as the basis of the act. Look, it's right there above! There is no reason for me to make any statement regarding sexism as long as you refuse to even acknowledge what is integral to the definition.

Your point is being lost on me. Misandry is covered by the first two definitions of Sexism. Sexism, by definition can be committed by both genders. What are you disagreeing with?

When you say "both genders", what are you referring to, physiology or psychology?

Both.

If there are two people and one treats them differently what determines if that different treatment is sexist or some other form of differentiation?

Specific example please.

I said nothing about gender identity.

You keep bringing up gender as an issue. If gender identity is not an issue, please do explain further.

I was asking you whether sexism refers to physiology or psychology.

Hence gender identity.

I keep bringing up the word "gender" because it is explicitly stated in the definition and you just said, "Sexism, by definition can be committed by both genders." If your protestations regarding "gender identity" is your way of saying that, at least for this discussion, "gender only refers to physiology, then fine. We will just have to make sure we hold to that, in this discussion.

Nice try. Since Gender Identity is an issue for some, and we recognize this as a fact, then Gender (as used by the dictionary) can be both physical and psychological.

You are the one pining for ultimate specificity to the point of making the definition irrelevant, not me.

If you wish to just address discrimination based on physiology only, that is fine. However, that would be limiting the scope of the OP.

As I have stated, both physiology and psychology can be covered by the definition. But you keep ignoring my point. You argued it isn’t clearly defined, but it obviously is, given how many real world issues are addressed by the term, and how many of the rest of the world do discuss this with far less issues (definition wise) then not.

The fact that you don’t want to accept that Sexism covers both physiology and psychology (gender identity issues) is your problem, and not mine.

OK, sexism covers both physiology and psychology (gender identity issues). The only reason "gender identity issues" were left out is because you insisted that they be.

No, read again, I said it is irrelevant, as it is already covered by the definition, that is how we got so derailed in the first place, by your insistence that the word is not clearly deifned – due to gender.

You started with being worried about gender, not me. From the get go, I said it is NOT a concern.

So, please choose one, are we going with the definition that uses the term "sexism" to refer to both physiology and psychology, or one that is limited to physiology only.

Explain why your question has any meaningful distinction. Please use a specific example (a real world concern that represents why you think the meaning of Sexism is more unclear than clear, otherwise I will assume you are playing a Word Game).

I am not arguing that there are any, so any verse I pick would be arbitrary and/or off point. If you wish to insert "prejudice, discrimination, and against" for sexism, we can do that. However, this to is an alteration of the OP and we would need to be careful not to shift terms in the middle of the discussion.

Given that “discrimination�, “prejudice� and “against� are pretty much the definition of Sexism, it is NOT an alteration of the OP. No shifting required.

Well those terms refer to more than sex or "gender", but let's move on and see how this plays out.

Fortunately, the definition of Sexism has more words to describe its meaning.

Are any of these sexist?

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.� (1 Timothy 2:12)
Why can’t women teach men?

This indicates a differentiation between women and men.

No, it indicates much more than that. It states point blank that women cannot teach men. All three definitions for Sexism apply here.

If that is all "sexism" means then the answer is yes. However, if "sexism" infers unjust, then one must establish a standard of justice and compare it to that. First, in context, this is only talking about the meetings of a particular voluntary group.

Irrelevant. Women cannot teach men because they are women is Sexist.

Second, Paul uses the deception of Havah(Eve) and the relationship of Yeshua to His people as a justifications.

The justification is also sexist.

Third, he refers to women discussing things with their husbands.

No teaching, nor authority – because she is a woman. The intended message is quite clear. Man, then woman.

Which of these reasons do you reject and on what basis?

All of them, as described above.

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.� (Ephesians 5:22)
Where’s the passage saying for men to submit to their wives?

The previous verse. "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God."

Yet the woman is told twice then? Why would that be? Let’s not forget this passage (for added context): “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.�

Pecking order established.

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
Chain of command established: Christ, man THEN woman.

Again, are you just noting this, or implying to is unjust? If the latter, on what are you basing that judgment?

Are you denying the chain of command (so to speak) is God, man then woman?