Is Christianity responsible for denying women's rights?

[Flail]

The political history of the United States includes relatively few women compared to the number of men. Women did not have the right to vote for the first 140 years of our existence as a country. No woman has ever held the office of President or Vice President and very few have served in high office. Women's history as leaders in Christianity is similarly deficient.

Often we hear criticisms of Islam for treating women as second class citizens. Is Christianity the same, having advanced further to combat religious discrimination against women by reason of simply getting an earlier start?

Question for debate: Is Christianity responsible for the shameful history of women's rights in America?

[Flail]

Quenn Elizabeth I had no problem ruling the country that was at the time the most powerful in the world and in fact was responsible for raising her nation to such a lofty state.

i dont know crap about queen elizabeth. so i looked to wikipedia. and look what i find.

" Some historians are more reserved in their assessment. They depict Elizabeth as a short-tempered, sometimes indecisive ruler,[4] who enjoyed more than her share of luck. Towards the end of her reign, a series of economic and military problems weakened her popularity."

INDECISIVE? SHORT TEMPERED? maybe she was having cramps? maybe i should have looked up "quenn" elizabeth. maybe SOME OTHER "historians" told you about whatever lofty state youre referencing.

but hey man, you seem to appreciate fantasy. think about the movie 300. why do you think no woman would ever be a spartan?

why has no woman ever achieved rock star status like michael jackson and elvis presley?

why have i never heard of famous female chefs?

when will a female achieve "richest person in the world" status?

why has no female athlete achieved the fame of joe montana, wayne gretzky, or michael jordan?

why HAVENT any women been elected president or even vice president?

ill save you the time of answering. its a MANS world. it has ALWAYS been and ALWAYS will be a MANS world.

but i tell you what. when i was kid in high school, we were talking about the relationship between men and women. one kid said this. and im sure women everywhere are using it as their own personal motto. he said

men rule the world. women rule over men.

i dont contest that idea. matter of fact, i think that kid was ahead of his time.

By virtue of such posts as the above, the point of the OP is demonstrated; that such crude stereotypical attitudes of brawn over brain have persisted since pre-intellectual periods of humankind's evolution, wherein fighting, grunting, heaving and rutting were given precedence over higher ideals such as intellectual thought, contemplation, empathy and sympathy. The question remains: Why is this so? Does religion and particularly Christianity have any hand in this? Or have some men just missed out on the evolutionary process altogether?

[McCulloch]

first of all, there is nothing i could say about women being unqualified for the presidency that you wouldnt simply write off as "prejudice." by the way i like your choice of the WORD prejudice in place of "opinion." it speaks volumes.

I used the correct word. Prejudice is more than mere opinion. Prejudice is when you reject a candidate not on her qualifications or credentials, but on factors unrelated to her ability to perform the necessary job. Thus I am asking, and forumwarrior has so-far not provided, some rational unbiased reason why all women are unqualified for the presidency.

But let me help out by showing how a prejudice might manifest itself. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that height was a requirement for being president, that we really do not want a short person in the Oval Office. Now, it is a biological fact that women are shorter then men, that is to say that the average height of a female human is shorter than the average height of a male human. However, a quick survey of humanity shows that there are short men and tall women. Thus, even given the biological fact that women are shorter than men, a height preference in the White House would not disqualify women. The conclusion is obvious. Even if you could show that there is some attribute necessary for the task of being president that is statistically less likely to be found in women than in men, that still does not justify ruling out women for the presidency.

show me a reference in a the bible, new testament, that scorns, or belittles women.

second of all, youve gotta be kidding me. are you trying to say that these quoted verses SCORN and BELITTLE women? maybe you should instead say "IN MY OPINION (or prejudice if you like) these verses belittle and scorn women."

[font=Georgia]But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. [/font]

This passage clearly outlines the author's view of the correct place for women. Women should look upon their man as having the same authority as a man should look to Christ for. Yes, in my opinion, this belittles women.

[font=Georgia]For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the womans sake, but woman for the mans sake. [/font]

Again, the author shows his scorn for the contributions and value of women. Women, according to him, were created for man's sake. Women are chattel, servants and adjuncts, not individuals in their own right.

[font=Georgia]The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. [/font]

It is improper for a woman to ask a question in church. A man, who by the nature of his sex, is able to ask meaningful questions, has to be the one who gets the proper explanation for what confuses the little woman and then he can explain it to her when they get home. Don't worry your pretty little head about theology dear, your husband will explain what you need to know when you get home. Yes, in my opinion, this is belittling.

[font=Georgia]Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. [/font]

The entire fall from grace, the whole sin situation, has been placed at the feet of women. The implications here are impressive. Women are more easily deceived and their gullibility is a dangerous thing. Men, who know better and are less easily led, need to control and instruct the women. How is it that anyone can read this as being anything other than a passage that belittles women?

A woman should not be President of the United States. Gods Word has clearly stated that women are to follow men: Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior (Ephesians 5:22). A woman is to submit to her husband. If a woman is head of the country, then her husband is submitting to her, which is direct disobedience of the Word of God. A woman should not rule the country because a woman is gifted in other areas that is not in the political field.

I totally agree. A woman who believes what the Bible teaches has no place running for president. Heck, she has no business even casting a ballot without being instructed by her husband on who to vote for.

[Clownboat]

Yes there are submissive women who want men to be their masters.

There are also submissive slaves who want to be owned by their owners.

But the fact that such masochistic confused people exist, doesn't make sexism or slavery acceptable.

if you think its sexist to acknowledge that women fit certain roles better than men and men fit certain roles better than women, then its certainly your right to make that mistake.

but lemme tell you something. women will NEVER be like men. it doesnt matter how short they cut their hair. thats just the way things are.

i feel comfortable getting my hair cut by a woman. having a woman dentist is fine. my doctor is a female.

but i wouldnt want any female being my auto mechanic. i wouldnt want a female firefighter try to drag me out of my house. i wouldnt want and i wouldnt take orders from a female in a combat situation.

they simply dont fit the role. its silly not to acknowledge things like this. women will NEVER be on an even playing field with men.

Would you claim that no woman on this planet is stronger than you? (Could carry someone out of a burning building better than you for example)
Would you claim that no woman on this planet is a better strategist than you? (Not all men are equal in this area).

If yes, than I believe you to be naive because there are women stronger than you.
If no to either, than your point has been defeated.

[Clownboat]

The point is, while women....in general....are physically smaller than men...in general, if a woman firefighter can haul my behind out of a house, I'm not going to tell her that she can't save my life because she's unworthy of her job. Are you? Really?

talking about in general. in general. women are physically incapable of even BEING firefighters.

lets think for a second about the best women athletes vs the best male athletes. is it even a fair comparison?

would YOU want an army of "ladies" to go into combat for you when you could just as well pick an army of men?

im TIRED of being accused of prejudice by people who refuse to acknowledge reality.

women can do ANYTHING yeah. but theyre not as capable as men. youre being dishonest with yourself if you do anything but acknowledge that.

an army of children could haul my ass out of a burning building. that doesnt mean im going to recruit an army of children to be my firemen.

You are prejudiced though. You are prejudiced because you would deny the women that ARE strong enough to carry you from a burning building the opportunity to do so.

You are prejudiced because you would deny all women, even the ones that could run a country better than you (or the average man) the right to do so.

People will not disagree with your "in general" statements, but you are denying all the women that are outside the "in general" mold from doing something that they are capable of doing. You are prejudice.

[dianaiad]

By virtue of such posts as the above, the point of the OP is demonstrated; that such crude stereotypical attitudes of brawn over brain have persisted since pre-intellectual periods of humankind's evolution, wherein fighting, grunting, heaving and rutting were given precedence over higher ideals such as intellectual thought, contemplation, empathy and sympathy. The question remains: Why is this so? Does religion and particularly Christianity have any hand in this? Or have some men just missed out on the evolutionary process altogether?

(grin)

I vote for the latter...unless forumwarrior is just having us on. I'm beginning to wonder if he's really, y 'know, serious.

[dianaiad]

The entire fall from grace, the whole sin situation, has been placed at the feet of women. The implications here are impressive. Women are more easily deceived and their gullibility is a dangerous thing. Men, who know better and are less easily led, need to control and instruct the women. How is it that anyone can read this as being anything other than a passage that belittles women?

Oh, I have no problem whatsoever reading that story in a way that does NOT belittle women...or at least, not as much as it belittles men. Consider; here we have Eve, who was tempted, fine...but Lucifer himself...and she asked questions first, and made her own decision. It may have been the wrong one--or the right one. Either way, it was HER decision.

But Adam? if he were supposed to be the exemplar and guide, so much better than Eve, then why did it only take EVE to 'tempt' him, and then why did he blame HER for what HE did?

Eve, at least, had some excuse. Adam just went along, made his own choice...and then when things went sideways, blamed her.

Typical.

[forumwarrior]

lol this thread is deteriorating into the ridiculous. how many more people are going to be "offended" by me speaking about REALITY?

heres a video of a woman being physically as capable as a man.

[youtube][/youtube]

imagine if this was mike tyson vs laila ali

i love how she complains about being tossed around. just look at how she gets dominated. now if you ask me. which of these two would i depend on more to drag me out of a burning building? give me joey buttafuoco any day of the week.

as far as intellectually/politically. sure women can be on par with men. i happen to think jan brewer is great. but i would never vote for her to be president.

here is how i see it.

1. women are too damn emotional to be president. i dont want somebody who is accustomed to going insane every 4th week for the first 40+ years of her life making the decisions that affect the entire world. 40+ years is just too long to be able to break the habit. but maybe you like pain and suffering.

2. i dont believe that other IMPORTANT (notice i said important) countries would take us seriously with a woman at the helm. it would be like inviting challenges and trouble.

3. men and women are just made differently. theres a reason that men evolved to be the leaders of countries and civilizations. theres a REASON that little boys play cowboys and indians and little girls play house. and it has got nothing to do with evil sexism lol. it has got nothing to do with holding the woman down. its just the NATURAL ORDER. you can deny that until your face turns blue, it isnt going to change because the idea of having a female leader makes you feel good.

i think 3 is good enough for now. but i just had to laugh at this here.

You mean like Janis Joplin, Barbara Streisand or even Lady Gaga?

i know some of you out there are saying "OH NO YOU DI-INT!" but YES he did! he just compared janis joplin and barbara by god streisand to the king of rock and roll. LOL! thats gotta be a joke. kind of like lady gaga.

[dianaiad]

lol this thread is deteriorating into the ridiculous. how many more people are going to be "offended" by me speaking about REALITY?

You are quite right, forumwarrior. this thread has indeed deteriorated into the ridiculous...though not for the reason you think.

<snip video, unwatched>

i love how she complains about being tossed around. just look at how she gets dominated. now if you ask me. which of these two would i depend on more to drag me out of a burning building? give me joey buttafuoco any day of the week.

Oh.

My.

I think that says everything. The man who admires and puts a child rapist and total...sorry, even my extensive vocabulary is insufficient to describe the utter unsuitability of JB as anything but a bad example...is lecturing the rest of us on the unsuitability of women to run anything but a kitchen.

Y'know, given who you DO admire, I can only consider the fact that you do not think women capable of running nations to be a rare compliment. In fact, I would be leery of your admiration...it would be a little, I think, like getting a campaign contribution from the KKK; not something one particularly WANTS on one's resume.

[Clownboat]

lol this thread is deteriorating into the ridiculous. how many more people are going to be "offended" by me speaking about REALITY?

heres a video of a woman being physically as capable as a man.

[youtube][/youtube]

imagine if this was mike tyson vs laila ali

i love how she complains about being tossed around. just look at how she gets dominated. now if you ask me. which of these two would i depend on more to drag me out of a burning building? give me joey buttafuoco any day of the week.

as far as intellectually/politically. sure women can be on par with men. i happen to think jan brewer is great. but i would never vote for her to be president.

here is how i see it.

1. women are too damn emotional to be president. i dont want somebody who is accustomed to going insane every 4th week for the first 40+ years of her life making the decisions that affect the entire world. 40+ years is just too long to be able to break the habit. but maybe you like pain and suffering.

2. i dont believe that other IMPORTANT (notice i said important) countries would take us seriously with a woman at the helm. it would be like inviting challenges and trouble.

3. men and women are just made differently. theres a reason that men evolved to be the leaders of countries and civilizations. theres a REASON that little boys play cowboys and indians and little girls play house. and it has got nothing to do with evil sexism lol. it has got nothing to do with holding the woman down. its just the NATURAL ORDER. you can deny that until your face turns blue, it isnt going to change because the idea of having a female leader makes you feel good.

i think 3 is good enough for now. but i just had to laugh at this here.

You mean like Janis Joplin, Barbara Streisand or even Lady Gaga?

i know some of you out there are saying "OH NO YOU DI-INT!" but YES he did! he just compared janis joplin and barbara by god streisand to the king of rock and roll. LOL! thats gotta be a joke. kind of like lady gaga.

Like I said, people will not have a problem with you saying, "generally speaking, men are stronger than women". However, you are being prejudice by saying that no women should be allowed to be fire fighters, even the ones that ARE strong enough to do so because, generally speaking, most women are not as strong as men. So due to this generality, capable women should not be able to do a job that they are capable of doing.

I hope that is clear enough for you.

What would you say to someone that says, men should not be allowed to be president, because they are not as good at multi tasking as women are? Let's be honest, multitasking is important when your talking about being commander and chief, and women "generally" do it better than men.

Another point you seem to be ignorant of is that matriarchal societies are nothing new. They happen in human populations AND in nature.

[Wyvern]

imagine if this was mike tyson vs laila ali

It would at least have had a better chance of being an actual boxing match instead of the joke celebrity boxing was.

i love how she complains about being tossed around. just look at how she gets dominated. now if you ask me. which of these two would i depend on more to drag me out of a burning building? give me joey buttafuoco any day of the week.

You do know that real boxing matches are divided into weight classes don't you? Buttafucco is obviously a heavyweight while Laurer is just as obviously not. Also by throwing her around like he did if this was a real boxing match he would have been disqualified after the second incident and is also an indicator that he saw he could not compete with her in boxing so he decided to cheat, yeah great example you give here.

1. women are too damn emotional to be president. i dont want somebody who is accustomed to going insane every 4th week for the first 40+ years of her life making the decisions that affect the entire world. 40+ years is just too long to be able to break the habit. but maybe you like pain and suffering.

You keep saying women are too emotional but real life experience shows this to not be the case.

2. i dont believe that other IMPORTANT (notice i said important) countries would take us seriously with a woman at the helm. it would be like inviting challenges and trouble.

Most countries have had women as leaders of their nation at one time or another so I don't understand why you think a woman leader would not be taken seriously. I'm interested to know what do you think are the important countries?

3. men and women are just made differently. theres a reason that men evolved to be the leaders of countries and civilizations. theres a REASON that little boys play cowboys and indians and little girls play house. and it has got nothing to do with evil sexism lol. it has got nothing to do with holding the woman down. its just the NATURAL ORDER. you can deny that until your face turns blue, it isnt going to change because the idea of having a female leader makes you feel good.

So basically you are saying if we want a leader that will take care of our nation we should elect a woman and if we want to go to war a man should be elected. Sounds to me like we need a woman president.

You mean like Janis Joplin, Barbara Streisand or even Lady Gaga?

i know some of you out there are saying "OH NO YOU DI-INT!" but YES he did! he just compared janis joplin and barbara by god streisand to the king of rock and roll. LOL! thats gotta be a joke. kind of like lady gaga.

Hey did you hear that Mariah Carey surpassed Elvis's record of number one hits?

As a sidenote itwould be appreciated if you would start capitalizing. I know you know where the shift key is after all.