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?

[WinePusher]

No woman has actually won the General Election.

Why do you think that is?

Ignoring your pre-selected answers, it's because very few women have offered themselves up as a candidate. Along with that, you have to take into consideration the period in which they're running. Did Hillary Clinton lose the Democratic Primary cause she's a woman, or cause she failed to gain traction among the Democratic Base as Barack Obama did? The answer is the latter, not the former as you would have us believe. Its not cause Democratic Primary voters are sexist, but because she was percieved as a moderate and someone who would fail to represent and advance liberal ideas.

Are you suggesting that ever since women gained the right to vote in 1920 and have had the right to run for high office, that factors other than gender have created their relative absence in of high office...in politics and in business?

That's right. You see, your reasoning is based upon a fallacy and has been thoroughly discredited. The reason why so few women occupy high level positions in Business and Politics is because they are traditionally homemakers and child rearers. And since they serve in that capacity, it is more difficult for them to progress through the ranks. Occupations such as a teacher, or a secretary are generally held by women because it is easy for them to resume that job even if they have to take a nine month maternity leave. However, the occupation of a Corporate Executive or a Politician requires constant attention and thus if a woman would have to take a nine month maternity leave it would be more difficult for them to resume that high level position. There is no invisible glass ceiling, Flail, and there is no institutional sexism.

Is it likewise your claim that Obama was the first qualified black to run for high office?

What are you talking about? The history of Blacks is a seperate issue from the history of Women and I'm not going to waste my time explaining the distinctions.

[Flail]

No woman has actually won the General Election.

Why do you think that is?

Ignoring your pre-selected answers, it's because very few women have offered themselves up as a candidate. Along with that, you have to take into consideration the period in which they're running. Did Hillary Clinton lose the Democratic Primary cause she's a woman, or cause she failed to gain traction among the Democratic Base as Barack Obama did? The answer is the latter, not the former as you would have us believe. Its not cause Democratic Primary voters are sexist, but because she was percieved as a moderate and someone who would fail to represent and advance liberal ideas.

Are you suggesting that ever since women gained the right to vote in 1920 and have had the right to run for high office, that factors other than gender have created their relative absence in of high office...in politics and in business?

That's right. You see, your reasoning is based upon a fallacy and has been thoroughly discredited. The reason why so few women occupy high level positions in Business and Politics is because they are traditionally homemakers and child rearers. And since they serve in that capacity, it is more difficult for them to progress through the ranks. Occupations such as a teacher, or a secretary are generally held by women because it is easy for them to resume that job even if they have to take a nine month maternity leave. However, the occupation of a Corporate Executive or a Politician requires constant attention and thus if a woman would have to take a nine month maternity leave it would be more difficult for them to resume that high level position. There is no invisible glass ceiling, Flail, and there is no institutional sexism.

Is it likewise your claim that Obama was the first qualified black to run for high office?

What are you talking about? The history of Blacks is a seperate issue from the history of Women and I'm not going to waste my time explaining the distinctions.

I assume you admit to historical evidence of discrimination against blacks and against women. Finally we have a black president which must be seen as overriding long standing racial prejudices in many voters. Few blacks have ever run for President. Why? Racial discrimination? Or were they too busy being slaves?
Few women have run for President. Why? You seem to propose it is because they were too busy being housewives and that gender discrimination had nothing to do with it. So I guess you are admitting that many women, and many blacks are have been qualified to be President, but just haven't gotten around to running.

Obviously, there are many factors involved in why we have never had a women President; why we have had few women in high office; why women remain underpaid in the market place despite doing the same job with the same ability. Yes they were late to the game. But why? You have given one explanation. But for decades, millions of women have seen their role as homemaker as a choice...and for decades have striven to achieve equality....still to no avail...so what gives?

I contend that a cultural bias remains against women in areas of intellect and leadership and I contend that, at least in part, such bias is founded in Christianity in the West, just as it is founded in Islam in the mid-east. I believe these points have been made previously by others in this thread. Your post does little to alter these positions.

[SOP]

Nope. A very poor comparison on your part.

Faith, n. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Knowledge and civilization has proven to be an effective method of raising moral standards. Moral choice is based on making the best decision possible. Thus knowledge and understanding is the linchpin of morality because it allows us to make better choices. The only way we have been able to attain a better understanding of this world is through civilization.

I'll give Christ credit for treating Jewish women better than the standard at the time. That was two thousand years ago. This is the ONLY knowledge Christianity can add to the moral equation. Our morality has not grown by re-reading the bible.

I disagree. The definition you gave is akin to mere wishful thinking. The definition of faith Im using is more along the lines of:
1a: the act or state of wholeheartedly and steadfastly believing in the existence, power, and benevolence of a supreme being, of having confidence in his providential care, and of being loyal to his will; belief and trust in and loyalty to God

1b: an act of or attitude of intellectual assent to the traditional doctrines of ones religion (Websters Third New International Dictionary).

In brief, faith is (though not only) trust. Just as when one puts his faith in a surgeon after investigating her abilities and track record, faith begins in knowledge, so its not blind. It builds on facts, so its not speculation. It also implies a personal commitment.

As for knowledge and civilization, these dont arise in a vaccum. Theres a general intellectual culture and tradition in which they are born and developed. And whether one thinks that tradition is Greek or Judeo-Christian (or more likely both), belief and trust (to some degree or other) in some higher power (God, say) is a part of that tradition. And neither Greek or J-C traditions accept that belief on wishful thinking.

Whatever faults Christians have (and theyre many to be sure), Christianity itself has done much to advance not only womens rights but the abolition of slavery, the advance of literacy, the care of the poor and sick and other social goods. I would suggest that such things occurred because a number of people continually read the bible.

[Flail]

SOP wrote:

In brief, faith is (though not only) trust. Just as when one puts his faith in a surgeon after investigating her abilities and track record, faith begins in knowledge, so its not blind. It builds on facts, so its not speculation. It also implies a personal commitment.

Some definitions:
Fact: something indisputably the case.
Ability: the proven capacity to do something.
Knowledge: facts

What facts, ability and knowledge have you discovered as to 'God' and where did you find them?


SOP wrote:

Whatever faults Christians have (and theyre many to be sure), Christianity itself has done much to advance not only womens rights but the abolition of slavery, the advance of literacy, the care of the poor and sick and other social goods. I would suggest that such things occurred because a number of people continually read the bible.

It is certainly the case that many people, who also happened to be Christian, have advanced the cause for women. It is also the case that certain, modern, non-fundamental interpretations of the Bible can be considered pro-woman. However, the Bible itself as a literal rendition, has been used for centuries by men to downgrade and justify their discriminatory treatment toward and the subservience of women....in the name of BibleGod...in the name of KoranGod.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Whatever faults Christians have (and theyre many to be sure), Christianity itself has done much to advance not only womens rights but the abolition of slavery, the advance of literacy, the care of the poor and sick and other social goods. I would suggest that such things occurred because a number of people continually read the bible.

Why would you suggest this? On what basis?

It seems that you neglect to mention that while Christianity may have done much to advance the abolition of slavery (for example), it has also done much to hinder the abolition of slavery. The Christians who fought against abolition surely read their bibles just as much as the Christians who fought in favour of it, and neither side had much trouble finding support for their positions within them. So while we might credit the success of the abolitionists to their continual bible reading, we must at the same time blame the success of the pro-slavery Christians on their continual bible reading.

Since the bible is generally on both sides of these debates, how can it be considered a factor at all? Can history be so simplistically summarized? I think it likely that there were other more relevant factors influencing the last few thousand years of history, not merely people reading a collection of ancient texts over and over and over again.

[micatala]

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?

Islam and Christianity have been mentioned.

However, these are not the only two religions or cultures of the world, either today or in the past.

It seems to me the answer to the question for debate is clearly no for the simple reason that nearly every society throughout history, including most of those today, have a relative paucity of women political leaders.

How many Pharoahs were female?

How many rulers in the various Chinese dynasties were female?

Any of the Khans?

How many Tsars?

How many rulers of the Babylonians, Persians, Medes, Assyrians, Amalekites, etc.?

How many cultures, even looking at only those with a hereditary ruling class, ever allowed females the same status as males? How many did NOT follow the rule that females ruled only when no male errors were present?



Now, if we want to get to more recent times, what percentage of European leaders over the past 30 years were female?


In fact, a little data I happened to have on hand from the Population Reference Bureaus (www.prb.org) indicates the following about the 30 odd countries of the OECD as of 2005.

Only 9 out of the 31 included in the data had legislatures or parliaments with more than 30% of the members female. Only 1 had more than 40% (Sweden). 16 had fewer than 20%, including the U.S. at 14%, but also Japan at 13% and South Korea at 7%. Note the latter two countries are not exactly known for their tradition of Christian influence. South Korea only bested Turkey at 4%.

In fact, outside of Japan, South Korea, and Turkey, every single country can be legitimately considered to have a tradition within Christianity.




Here is more data from the International Women's Democracy Center.

http://www.iwdc.org/resources/fact_sheet.htm

As of June 2008:

- Women occupy only 18% of parliamentary seats around the world.

- Regional averages of the percentage of women in parliament vary greatly:

Nordic countries - 41.4%
Americas - 21.8%
Europe (excluding Nordic countries) - 19.1%
Asia - 17.4%
Sub-Saharan Africa - 17.2%
Pacific - 13.4%
Arab states - 9.6%
-The US currently rankes 68th of 134 nations worldwide with only 16.8% women elected to the House of Representatives and 16.0% women elected to the Senate. If you count all nations that tied for a position due to the same number of women represented in government seperately as well as those nations for which no information is available (such as Myanmar), the US is ranked 83rd of 189.

If Christianity was the cause of the gender disparity in the U.S., why is this disparity so wide spread all over the world and throughout history, including in areas that have never had any significant Christian influence?

[Question Everything]

My take on this topic is that the whole thing is caused by the desire to push other people down in a vain attempt to push yourself up. Religion is not the cause, it is the excuse, and often the weapon used to accomplish this.

[Angel]

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?

Question 1. No.
Question 2. No.

I answered no because the subjugation of women goes back further even before Christianity ever existed. When it comes to Christianity as defined by the NT, I don't find any 2nd rank status of women except for when it comes to Church positions and role in marital relationships. Those 2 areas have little to nothing to do with keeping women from having an equal opportunity to vote, to work and earn income, to education, etc. The latter point in the very last sentence are what have kept women subjugated for the most part. Just on the lack of knowledge and education alone, ANYONE (women included) would be left virtually powerless in society.

[Angel]

...and maybe we could try a woman for President....we certainly coudn't do any worse than our last two choices....I thought Bush was a joke...but Obama is a nightmare.

We voted him in to prove we weren't racist. Now we need to vote him out to prove we're not idiots.

Both Bush and Obama did not know what they were doing, but at least Obama has been far better when it comes to foreign policy. I can never forget when Bush led this country into the war with Iraq and being stuck there years after the war rebuilding another country who hates America while our country is crumbling and our borders are lacking security (and I don't mean against hard working Mexican families whom I love to see). This is one thing I worry about some Republicans when it comes to some of their banter regarding America being the greatest and they being God led. Someone with this thinking will be quicker to lead us into war than someone who thinks otherwise, imo.

[Flail]

...and maybe we could try a woman for President....we certainly coudn't do any worse than our last two choices....I thought Bush was a joke...but Obama is a nightmare.

We voted him in to prove we weren't racist. Now we need to vote him out to prove we're not idiots.

Both Bush and Obama did not know what they were doing, but at least Obama has been far better when it comes to foreign policy. I can never forget when Bush led this country into the war with Iraq and being stuck there years after the war rebuilding another country who hates America while our country is crumbling and our borders are lacking security (and I don't mean against hard working Mexican families whom I love to see). This is one thing I worry about some Republicans when it comes to some of their banter regarding America being the greatest and they being God led. Someone with this thinking will be quicker to lead us into war than someone who thinks otherwise, imo.

Yet after two years under Obama, the Mexican border is even more insecure....the war in Iraq is still on...the war in Afghanistan is raging....we are participating in a war in Libya and are on the verge of war in Iran and Syria...meanwhile our failure to add jobs in our economy is the worst since 1945 and our credit standing in the world has been downgraded for the first time in our history...we truly need leadership and experience....and Obama has neither.