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?

[catalyst]

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.

YOU CANT BE SERIOUS MAN. MARIAH CAREY IS GOING TO BE A FOOTNOTE IN HISTORY. WHEN SHES DEAD AND GONE THATLL BE IT. BUT ELVIS IS GOING TO LIVE FOREVER. PEOPLE IN THE MOST OBSCURE COUNTRY OF THE WORLD KNOW WHO ELVIS PRESLEY IS. NO WOMAN HAS EVER OR WILL EVER ACHIEVE THAT TYPE OF NOTORIETY.

The man is playing with us, guys. Stereotypes this obnoxious don't really exist.

Not really.

Please?

Unfortunately Dianaiad, yes... yes they do exist. I have found however that like attitude from these specific men, rest purely on their...well... "shortcomings"..

Also, as to Mr forum warriors comment on ones right to become President, yes it IS a right for a woman to secure and hold any job she deems fit to; just as it is any man's right to; not only in the US but other countries too! The attitude of people with a certain mentality - (as shown on this thread) however curb that right of women when they vote with said attitude firmly in place.

What I wonder is, if god, as forum warrior speaks of, actually does hold MAN (men rather than mankind) in such high regard as he claims, then why did this god give women the most important role on earth?

Catalyst


**As it is known, I don't believe in any god model. The above was an hypothetical question only, aimed at forum warrior whom presumably believes in "god" given his previous comments

[WinePusher]

YOU CANT BE SERIOUS MAN. MARIAH CAREY IS GOING TO BE A FOOTNOTE IN HISTORY. WHEN SHES DEAD AND GONE THATLL BE IT. BUT ELVIS IS GOING TO LIVE FOREVER. PEOPLE IN THE MOST OBSCURE COUNTRY OF THE WORLD KNOW WHO ELVIS PRESLEY IS. NO WOMAN HAS EVER OR WILL EVER ACHIEVE THAT TYPE OF NOTORIETY.

Posts like this expose the need for a rule forbidding the excessive use of capitalization. There are more sophisticated ways to emphasize words and sentences, and capitalization, especially on an online site where capitalization is percieved as screaming and shouting, isn't one of them. It's not just forumwarrior, it's also a host of other users who portray themselves in this unappealing manner.

If you knew anything about music, you would understand that music tends to be an expression of the society as it is at that time. In this day and age, Elvis Presley holds no more fame and noteriety than someone like, Katy Perry, who has recently gone done in music history. To the contrary, Katy Perry along with other female singers such as Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga and Jennifer Lopez probably have more fame and noteriety in the modern age than Elvis Presly. You say people in the most obscure country know who Elvis Presly is and that no woman will ever achieve that type of fame. Well, Katy Perry's music is extremely popular in 21st century American and Elvis Presley's music will probably never achieve the same popularity which she has attained. After thinking about it someone like Adele who does not conform to modern Hollywood culture probably has more noteriety than Elvis Presly.

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

Katy Perry ties Michael Jacksons Singles Record.

[forumwarrior]

Which ad hom proves either of us knows what's going on? You damn and slander women, and expect to have your opinion respected? Are you unaware of how others may perceive you and your words?

i want you to show me where i "damn" and "slander" women.

are you saying im lying? youve never seen a woman lose her damn mind while she was menstruating? i KNOW youve seen it. EVERYBODY has seen it. theres a long running joke about it.

do YOU want somebody that goes through that in charge of pressing the big red button on behalf of the united states? you want somebody like that for a leader? because 3 weeks out of the month shes "peaceful" and speaks like the mother bear?

thats on YOU buddy.

but youre not going to guilt me into agreeing with you. i dont agree. i wont ever agree. i believe that no woman will EVER be qualified to be the most powerful person in the world.

[forumwarrior]

Well, let's see. You don't think they should be elected officials, or appointed officials...which leaves out the government. You don't think they should be police officers or fire fighters. Since you don't think they should run anything...i.e., tell men what to do in anything, that leaves out pretty much everything, doesn't it?

What other career do you think is open to a woman, when you don't think she is as good as a man in anything?

i think if you actually read what im saying instead of having your knee jerk reactions. youll find that im simply saying that i dont believe any woman is or will ever be qualified to be president of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

then i was talking to somebody about how women and men fit different roles, and i said that i would rather have a male firefighter drag me out of the house. somehow that ends up meaning i dont want women to be firefighters.

i didnt say anything about cops. and i didnt say anything that even remotely close to "they should not run anything." your pal notachance even said that i was denying them equal rights! where do you people come up with this nonsense?

i think at this point it would be beating a dead horse for me to say again that women and men arent equal.

looky here

if you folks want to watch womens "basketball" and say to yourselves "this stuff is as good as the NBA"

if you want to watch womens fake "wrassling" and say "wow, these women are equally as entertaining as the high flying men"

if you would rather have a lady with lackluster upper arm strength drag you out of a burning building instead of having somebody else that could do it in half the time.

if you think janis joplin and barbara streisand compare to elvis and michael jackson.

if you want a woman to be in charge of the most powerful nation the world has ever known, and the most powerful military.

thats completely fine with me. im not trying to belittle you people for holding your views. but why cant i say what i want to say without you people having heart attacks and dying in every post?

you guys have never heard anybody say that they dont believe a woman should ever be president? is what im saying new and shocking to you?

well i have to say. better you experience it on the internet than in person. because by god you might just pop a blood vessel somewhere.

i cant believe supposedly mature adults are having these types of reactions to simple words. in the future, ill be sure to do my best to walk on eggshells so as not to introduce you to ideas contrary to your own.

oh no i wont. but i think its safe to say that me and this thread are finished with each other. see you next round ladies and gentlemen. my time spent here has been enlightening and enriching and i thank you for that.

[Slopeshoulder]

youve never seen a woman lose her damn mind while she was menstruating? i KNOW youve seen it. EVERYBODY has seen it.

Three observations:
- I have enjoyed the company of post-pubescent women since I was 15. I'm (an shockingly young) 51. And I have never seen a woman "lose her damn mind" during menstration. Indeed that characterization is extreme, inaccurate and offensive.
- You may hide behind an extremist retrograde version of a particular "theology," but your actual language gives you away as a bigot, no more. Using the menstration argument to keep women down doesn't pass the straight face test. If anything, and if it has even an ounce of truth, men balance it out with high testosterone and inclinations towards irrational temper and violence.
- You wanna know what my enlightened POV has got me? 1. a clear conscience and 2. thirty six yearsof enjoying the company and collaboration of beautiful and brilliant post-pubescent women. My own brilliant and beautiful wife could run the world well if given a chance (give her time).

You're preaching misogyny, plain and simple. And like all hate speech, it is ugly. But wrapped in religion, it is obscene. Enjoy your little cave of hate while it lasts.
(Ladies, I'm accepting tokens. Thank you).

[Jester]

Moderator Warning

Wow. Can you do the Nazi next?

You're so good at interpreting a text as benign and positive no matter how explicit its negative connotations are, that I bet you could interpret Hitler's Mein Kamph as nothing more than a mild dislike for Jews.

Also, could you spin Bin Laden's last video as a loving expression of inter-faith tolerance?

This is neither civil nor of any value in terms of contributing to the debate. If you wish to rebut any points made, do so with logic and civility. Simply mocking is not allowed.
Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[McCulloch]

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.

[vapid sarcasm]That's right. No important country took the UK seriously while Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, India while Indira Gandhi was PM, Pakistan while Benazir Bhutto was Prime Minister or Israel while Golda Meir was running things.[/vapid sarcasm]

buddy to compare countries like england, india, pakistan and israel to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is like wyvern trying to compare janis joplin to elvis presley.

their responsiblities in the world, their power PALE in comparison. the leader of iran would laugh in the face of billary clinton if she ever tried to give him a stern warning.

Forumwarrior missed the point of my argument. I did not claim that England, India, Pakistan or Israel are important countries, although the argument could be made. The claim is that, contrary to Forumwarrior's earlier claim, important countries do take countries with women leaders seriously. I cited a number of countries which have had recent women leaders (omitting Iceland and Ukraine oops), that were taken seriously at the time by the international community including whatever countries you might deem to be important.

because women and men are NOT equal. theres nothing sexist about it. theres nothing belittling about it.

The biological differences between men and women are statistical rather than specific. Look at these data from the 1997 NY Marathon

Yes, men generally complete the marathon faster than women. Yet, there are some women who complete the marathon faster than most men. Women are constitutionally stronger than men, they live longer and are more resilient against fatigue, illness, famine, childbirth, and pain. Yet, forumwarrior believes, without apparent reason or evidence that there cannot be a woman qualified to hold a post once occupied by a polio sufferer and an early onset Alzheimer's patient.

is the presidencey a RIGHT?

The chance to be considered to run for the presidency is a right. One which you would like to deny to about half of the citizens eligible to vote in your country.

and i tell you what buddy. you might want to read about the theories on where our "equal rights" come from. because i think youre leaving out a couple key words.

"intrinsic humanity" is real nice and creative. it might be the atheist motto. but here in the good old usa, the rights are derived from GOD.

The framers of the constitution did not claim that the rights are derived from God. They claimed that rights are endowed by the creator and deliberately left it ambiguous as to who or what that creator was.

[WinePusher]

The chance to be considered to run for the presidency is a right. One which you would like to deny to about half of the citizens eligible to vote in your country.

Since all individuals, based on race, gender and creed, are able to run for the presidency and be seriously considered for the office there should be no problem. Does the 'chance' for a woman to be considered to run for the presidency not exist in my country? No, we had a woman from the Democratic Party run in the last cycle and now we have a woman from the Republican Party running this cycle. So, what's the problem? Is it that the American electorate have never actually put a woman in the White House? Don't mistake Americans as people who overindulge in Identity Politics as liberals do. I will gladly vote for a woman this cycle not be she's a woman, but because I am aligned with her when it comes to policy and ideology. If Hillary Clinton is a contender in the General Election, I will gladly not vote for her not because she's a woman, but because I am not aligned with her when it comes to policy and ideology. The principle you're espousing is no different than the principle people in this thread are so against. If a woman was a presidential candidate, people like you would want her to win simply because she's a woman and people who are opposed to having a woman in office would want her to lose simply because she's a woman. You're essentially one in the same, you vote and form policy according to race, gender and creed without incorporating any other factors into your decision.

[dianaiad]

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.

YOU CANT BE SERIOUS MAN. MARIAH CAREY IS GOING TO BE A FOOTNOTE IN HISTORY. WHEN SHES DEAD AND GONE THATLL BE IT. BUT ELVIS IS GOING TO LIVE FOREVER. PEOPLE IN THE MOST OBSCURE COUNTRY OF THE WORLD KNOW WHO ELVIS PRESLEY IS. NO WOMAN HAS EVER OR WILL EVER ACHIEVE THAT TYPE OF NOTORIETY.

The man is playing with us, guys. Stereotypes this obnoxious don't really exist.

Not really.

Please?

Unfortunately Dianaiad, yes... yes they do exist. I have found however that like attitude from these specific men, rest purely on their...well... "shortcomings"..

Also, as to Mr forum warriors comment on ones right to become President, yes it IS a right for a woman to secure and hold any job she deems fit to; just as it is any man's right to; not only in the US but other countries too! The attitude of people with a certain mentality - (as shown on this thread) however curb that right of women when they vote with said attitude firmly in place.

What I wonder is, if god, as forum warrior speaks of, actually does hold MAN (men rather than mankind) in such high regard as he claims, then why did this god give women the most important role on earth?

Catalyst


**As it is known, I don't believe in any god model. The above was an hypothetical question only, aimed at forum warrior whom presumably believes in "god" given his previous comments

.....(Grin)

Well, I have found that some men, once in charge, tend to exercise something called "unrighteous dominion." (yeah, Mormon term, sorry about that.)

They forget...or perhaps they actually remember, but are trying their best to keep women from thinking about it....that there isn't anything in the world a woman cannot do, save one; and that one thing can be handled, if necessary, by one man for a whole bunch of women.

But men need women; not one woman to do a very short-lived bit of business for a whole bunch of men, but one woman who will spend a great deal of time and physical effort to produce offspring and to nurture them. I'm not talking about loving, teaching or raising them; I'm talking about the purely physical requirements of bearing and feeding the infants. Yeah, a man can feed a child a bottle, but that is just a substitute for what the baby was meant to have.

So. Men REQUIRE women to have a culture. Even if they only see a woman once a year after adulthood, their very existences require women for considerably more than a quick joining and a disappearance.

Indeed, when it comes right down to it, if humanity were to be winnowed down to 10,000 individuals, the species could survive if only 10% were men. If the ratio were reversed, however, extinction is pretty much guaranteed.

When it comes right down to it, that is biological fact.

Men like forum warrior know this on some level, and are frightened to death of it.

....and because they ARE bigger and stronger, physically, they use the only thing they've got to enforce their non-existent superiority on the women around them; bigger muscles.

..................and violence.

The problem is, he's brought a fist to a gun fight.

[McCulloch]

I will gladly vote for a woman this cycle not be she's a woman, but because I am aligned with her when it comes to policy and ideology.

That is wonderful! Then if there is a suitable woman candidate then she will get votes from you and people like you.

If a woman was a presidential candidate, people like you would want her to win simply because she's a woman and people who are opposed to having a woman in office would want her to lose simply because she's a woman. You're essentially one in the same, you vote and form policy according to race, gender and creed without incorporating any other factors into your decision.

While I would really like to see a woman in the top political position, just to break the political barrier and to set presidential precedent, I, and I assume people like me, will not vote solely on that principle. For me this is not a mere hypothetical. I did not vote for Kim Campbell in 1993 even though I would have liked to end the male monopoly of Prime Ministers of Canada. But thank you for your presumption.