Does Christianity discriminate against women?

[Confused]

From Another thread.

Is there any equality offered to women in Christian scripture? Or are we simply "vessels" to be used to carry the seed of men? Does Christian scripture simply discriminate against women or is there some obscure scripture that offers women something equal to men?

[Peg]

those women were spared, they were taken as wives and as wives of hebrew men they had the same rights to law and resources as every other hebrew woman.

I think in the modern world such treatment is more accurately described as "kidnapping" and "rape." See Deuteronomy 21:10-14 for the "rights" such women had. They had the right to be held prisoner for a month before having sex with one of the men who killed her family. She did not have the right to say "no thanks."

Deuteronomy 21 set forth the laws that the Isrealites were required to adhere to in terms of taking women captives:
12 you must then bring her into the midst of your house. She must now shave her head and attend to her nails, 13 and remove the mantle of her captivity from off her and dwell in your house and weep for her father and her mother a whole lunar month; and after that you should have relations with her, and you must take possession of her as your bride, and she must become your wife. 14 And it must occur that if you have found no delight in her, you must then send her away, agreeably to her own soul; but you must by no means sell her for money. You must not deal tyrannically with her...

the captive woman was to have the 'mantle of capitivity' removed from her...in other words, she wasnt locked away or tied up or feted. She was given time to mourn for her family before the isrealite man was able to consummate his marriage to her, so no sex means that this was not a case of 'rape' as you claim. And even then if for some reason he did not like her after consummating his marriage to her, he could only send her away if SHE agreed to be sent away and he was forbidden from selling her as a slave. So really, the charge that God permitted Isrealite warriors to rape captive women is absolutely false. Isrealite men were under the mosaic law which outrightly forbade sex outside of marriage, and it forbade rape. Rapists were put to death under the mosaic law. Adultery was illegal and most warriors were married men...so it is a baseless claim you are making.

Gods law upheld the rights of women and it protected their sexual rights...the right to not be abused and used as a sex object... unlike our own nations today who have made such abuses legal in the form of prostitution and pornographic films where women are depicted in all forms of filthy ways... God has so much more regard for women then you can imagine.

I've often said this, but using the OT as a resource for information on the Midianites is like using Mein Kampf as a resource for information on the Jews. Your source might be just a little bit biased.

Do you have evidence for any of these claims?

i am thinking particularly of the canannites to which there is plenty of archeological evidence for their practice of human sacrifice to their god Baal...the midianites also worshiped the same diety which would explain perfectly why God did not want the isrealites mixing with them. [/b]

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

the captive woman was to have the 'mantle of capitivity' removed from her...in other words, she wasnt locked away or tied up or feted.

Or, according to a more straightforward reading of the text, she was to remove the clothing she was wearing when captured. What makes you think this is a metaphor?

Are you making the claim that this woman was free to go at any time she pleased? "You must take possession of her" and "she must become your wife" do not strike me as phrases indicating that the consent of the captive woman was necessary at any point in this process.

She was given time to mourn for her family before the isrealite man was able to consummate his marriage to her, so no sex means that this was not a case of 'rape' as you claim.

This doesn't make sense. The text says there was a waiting period before sex was allowed, yes. A waiting period before sex does not mean "no sex." Where are you getting "no sex" from the text?

And even then if for some reason he did not like her after consummating his marriage to her, he could only send her away if SHE agreed to be sent away and he was forbidden from selling her as a slave. So really, the charge that God permitted Isrealite warriors to rape captive women is absolutely false. Isrealite men were under the mosaic law which outrightly forbade sex outside of marriage, and it forbade rape. Rapists were put to death under the mosaic law. Adultery was illegal and most warriors were married men...so it is a baseless claim you are making.

Deuteronomy clearly is discussing marriage, what is the relevance of bringing up adultery laws?

Appealing to rape laws does not explain away the text. If the text describes rape, and rape is against other laws, what we have found is a contradiction in the biblical texts.

I've often said this, but using the OT as a resource for information on the Midianites is like using Mein Kampf as a resource for information on the Jews. Your source might be just a little bit biased.

Do you have evidence for any of these claims?

i am thinking particularly of the canannites to which there is plenty of archeological evidence for their practice of human sacrifice to their god Baal...the midianites also worshiped the same diety which would explain perfectly why God did not want the isrealites mixing with them. [/b][/quote]
If you have any actual evidence for your claims about the Midianites, please present it.

[Flail]

Peg wrote:

... unlike our own nations today who have made such abuses legal in the form of prostitution and pornographic films where women are depicted in all forms of filthy ways... God has so much more regard for women then you can imagine.

Are you blaming men for the fact that many women choose to sell their bodies today for sex as paid prostitutes or to sell themselves for a fee to be viewed in sexual pornographic acts? Are such not the voluntary actions of women in our country choosing to contract themselves for sex in exchange for monetary reward? Are the women not responsible and accountable for themselves, their choices and for their actions?

[Peg]

Peg wrote:

... unlike our own nations today who have made such abuses legal in the form of prostitution and pornographic films where women are depicted in all forms of filthy ways... God has so much more regard for women then you can imagine.

Are you blaming men for the fact that many women choose to sell their bodies today for sex as paid prostitutes or to sell themselves for a fee to be viewed in sexual pornographic acts? Are such not the voluntary actions of women in our country choosing to contract themselves for sex in exchange for monetary reward? Are the women not responsible and accountable for themselves, their choices and for their actions?

you've heard of the term 'supply demand'

it means that if there is a demand for something, then it will be produced and supplied. Its the demand that dictates if something is sold or not. If nobody wanted porn, then there would be no market for it and no industry at all.

so it is men who feed the porn industry because its what they want. Women do it for the money...men buy it for other reasons.

[JohnPaul]

Peg wrote:

... unlike our own nations today who have made such abuses legal in the form of prostitution and pornographic films where women are depicted in all forms of filthy ways... God has so much more regard for women then you can imagine.

Are you blaming men for the fact that many women choose to sell their bodies today for sex as paid prostitutes or to sell themselves for a fee to be viewed in sexual pornographic acts? Are such not the voluntary actions of women in our country choosing to contract themselves for sex in exchange for monetary reward? Are the women not responsible and accountable for themselves, their choices and for their actions?

you've heard of the term 'supply demand'

it means that if there is a demand for something, then it will be produced and supplied. Its the demand that dictates if something is sold or not. If nobody wanted porn, then there would be no market for it and no industry at all.

so it is men who feed the porn industry because its what they want. Women do it for the money...men buy it for other reasons.

It is the male sex drive that creates the demand for porn, prostitution, etc, but if this drive did not exist, the demand for women would also have a very different form, and women long ago would have acquired the status of cattle, or at best slaves, and breeding would be an impersonal process mass-production process.

It is the male sex drive that gives women the power they have always had.

[Peg]

Peg wrote:

... unlike our own nations today who have made such abuses legal in the form of prostitution and pornographic films where women are depicted in all forms of filthy ways... God has so much more regard for women then you can imagine.

Are you blaming men for the fact that many women choose to sell their bodies today for sex as paid prostitutes or to sell themselves for a fee to be viewed in sexual pornographic acts? Are such not the voluntary actions of women in our country choosing to contract themselves for sex in exchange for monetary reward? Are the women not responsible and accountable for themselves, their choices and for their actions?

you've heard of the term 'supply demand'

it means that if there is a demand for something, then it will be produced and supplied. Its the demand that dictates if something is sold or not. If nobody wanted porn, then there would be no market for it and no industry at all.

so it is men who feed the porn industry because its what they want. Women do it for the money...men buy it for other reasons.

It is the male sex drive that creates the demand for porn, prostitution, etc, but if this drive did not exist, the demand for women would also have a very different form, and women long ago would have acquired the status of cattle, or at best slaves, and breeding would be an impersonal process mass-production process.

It is the male sex drive that gives women the power they have always had.

what a strange way of looking at the situation.

Personally, i'd like it if men were not so preoccupied with their genitalia and ways to satisfy it... surely there are more important things in the world to care about. Imagine what they could accomplish if they were not so preoccupied with themselves.

[Flail]

Peg wrote:

Personally, i'd like it if men were not so preoccupied with their genitalia and ways to satisfy it... surely there are more important things in the world to care about. Imagine what they could accomplish if they were not so preoccupied with themselves.

I hope you are not engaging in stereotypical misandry so as to mean 'all men' rather than 'some men'. I agree that some men are preoccupied with sex and that some women are preoccupied with slavishly and mindlessly satisfying such preoccupations; if women weren't so preoccupied we wouldn't be bombarded with fake-breasted, made-up women who appear as little more than carnival freaks selfishly obsessed with their appearance. Just think how much women could accomplish if they didn't spend hours everyday getting primped and adorned.

But to equate all men with being preoccupied with sex to the extent of causing women to engage in porn and prostitution (your supply demand scenario) is akin to saying that if housewives weren't vacuous stay at home birthing machines we wouldn't have soap operas and gossip.

[dianaiad]

[


what a strange way of looking at the situation.

Personally, i'd like it if men were not so preoccupied with their genitalia and ways to satisfy it... surely there are more important things in the world to care about. Imagine what they could accomplish if they were not so preoccupied with themselves.

I dunno, coming from a purely evolutionary sense, the drive to procreate is more powerful than pretty much anything, in terms of species survival.

In humans, that comes in the form of trickery. Look at it this way;if there were any more successful way to make the men stick around and protect the women and children, don't you think that's the way that would have 'won?' Or in terms of religion, the 'natural man' needs to be tricked into sticking around, and 'gotten to' through his gonads.

In other words, men tend to be selfish pigs. All they care about is the jollies of the moment. Women, on the other hand, are the half of the race that needs to bear, feed and care for the young. I don't care how politically correct you want to get, men don't get pregnant OR breastfeed.

As a result, women are vulnerable in areas that men aren't. Men are vulnerable in areas women aren't. Unfortunately, the areas in which women are vulnerable are physical strength and the need to protect her young. That means that men can, and historically have, treated women like cattle and breeding factories.

The areas in which men are vulnerable are mental and emotional; they think weird and have short attention spans. So the women, physically weaker and hampered by the demands of child bearing, can lead the men around by....whatever bit of anatomy needs immediate attention.

It's quite a dance. My only hope, evolutionarily speaking, is that since women have to be smarter than men, as men have to be stronger than women, these qualities, smarts and strength, get inherited in ever greater qualities by both sides--until, at long last, both sides grow up.



This incredibly biased, yet erudite, explanation of the difference between men and women is brought to you by the mother of five kids.

[Flail]

[


what a strange way of looking at the situation.

Personally, i'd like it if men were not so preoccupied with their genitalia and ways to satisfy it... surely there are more important things in the world to care about. Imagine what they could accomplish if they were not so preoccupied with themselves.

I dunno, coming from a purely evolutionary sense, the drive to procreate is more powerful than pretty much anything, in terms of species survival.

In humans, that comes in the form of trickery. Look at it this way;if there were any more successful way to make the men stick around and protect the women and children, don't you think that's the way that would have 'won?' Or in terms of religion, the 'natural man' needs to be tricked into sticking around, and 'gotten to' through his gonads.

In other words, men tend to be selfish pigs. All they care about is the jollies of the moment. Women, on the other hand, are the half of the race that needs to bear, feed and care for the young. I don't care how politically correct you want to get, men don't get pregnant OR breastfeed.

As a result, women are vulnerable in areas that men aren't. Men are vulnerable in areas women aren't. Unfortunately, the areas in which women are vulnerable are physical strength and the need to protect her young. That means that men can, and historically have, treated women like cattle and breeding factories.

The areas in which men are vulnerable are mental and emotional; they think weird and have short attention spans. So the women, physically weaker and hampered by the demands of child bearing, can lead the men around by....whatever bit of anatomy needs immediate attention.

It's quite a dance. My only hope, evolutionarily speaking, is that since women have to be smarter than men, as men have to be stronger than women, these qualities, smarts and strength, get inherited in ever greater qualities by both sides--until, at long last, both sides grow up.



This incredibly biased, yet erudite, explanation of the difference between men and women is brought to you by the mother of five kids.

Well, ok then, you have figured us out. Well stated and, although I hate to, I have to agree. I read what you wrote here to my wife as she prepared the turkey, and as I finished reading your words she turned to me smiling and said, with her fist raised holding the paring knife, 'right on sister'.

She then went on to mention some exceptional examples of perfectly healthy and virile men who apparently have grown up and whom she observes visiting their demented wives daily in nursing homes and dotting on and loving them with tears of affection despite the fact that these women no longer recognize them. Of course they probably go home later to their computers....

[JohnPaul]

Peg wrote:

what a strange way of looking at the situation.

Personally, i'd like it if men were not so preoccupied with their genitalia and ways to satisfy it... surely there are more important things in the world to care about. Imagine what they could accomplish if they were not so preoccupied with themselves.

Looking back on it now from the much more clear-headed viewpoint of 80 years, I am amazed at how much of my life was devoted to chasing women. In most cases, the results were not really worth the trouble, and in a couple of cases resulted in marriages which were total disasters. The male sex drive seems to override common sense and good judgment, which is perhaps fortunate, or there would be far fewer marriages.

It was not all wasted. My last wife was wonderful and I would not trade my years with her for anything. I would not have had her except for my sex drive which I still had back then and which drove me to respond to her rather obvious invitations.

Women are as much obsessed with sex as men are, although they may express it with more romantic terminology and more indirect behavior. What are soap operas except a woman's version of porn?

John