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]

[Danmark]

[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]

No it doesn't teaches that. People just had taken it out of context without readfing it very carefully.

Is in direct contrast with:

1 Corinthians 14:34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

[4insight]

[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]

No it doesn't teaches that. People just had taken it out of context without readfing it very carefully.

Is in direct contrast with:

1 Corinthians 14:34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

You are a man that knows how to read; and so then read the whole book of 1 Corinthians and which the whole book is on the same topic of how they are suppose to behave towards one another. A lot of people has ben reading the verse by verse, but without reading the whole book and so they has taken it out of context.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[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]

No it doesn't teaches that. People just had taken it out of context without readfing it very carefully.

Is in direct contrast with:

1 Corinthians 14:34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

You are a man that knows how to read; and so then read the whole book of 1 Corinthians and which the whole book is on the same topic of how they are suppose to behave towards one another. A lot of people has ben reading the verse by verse, but without reading the whole book and so they has taken it out of context.

You are a man that knows how to read; and so then read the whole book of 1 Corinthians and which the whole book is on the same topic of how they are suppose to behave towards one another. A lot of people has ben reading the verse by verse, but without reading the whole book and so they has taken it out of context.

1 Corinthians is not a book. It is a letter written by Paul to the Christian church in Corinth. It represents Paul's personal opinion and world view. I've read the entire letter. So what?

[4insight]

[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]

No it doesn't teaches that. People just had taken it out of context without readfing it very carefully.

Is in direct contrast with:

1 Corinthians 14:34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

You are a man that knows how to read; and so then read the whole book of 1 Corinthians and which the whole book is on the same topic of how they are suppose to behave towards one another. A lot of people has ben reading the verse by verse, but without reading the whole book and so they has taken it out of context.

You are a man that knows how to read; and so then read the whole book of 1 Corinthians and which the whole book is on the same topic of how they are suppose to behave towards one another. A lot of people has ben reading the verse by verse, but without reading the whole book and so they has taken it out of context.

1 Corinthians is not a book. It is a letter written by Paul to the Christian church in Corinth. It represents Paul's personal opinion and world view. I've read the entire letter. So what?

And in this epistle that it explains to not treat the women as second rate citizens. That he explains why. Paul did not said that a woman should remain silent; but instead he was going over with the men of the church of their policies. Paul was trying to reformed the church, but at the time they weren't ready for solid foods and from what I see, that they aren't still are not ready for it as well.


Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

[KenRU]

I do not understand why the gender label is of concern to you. I’ll allow that sexism may become abit confusing when gender is not clearly defined. But since this is not relevant to the OP, I’m not sure why we need to discuss it, nor, what it has to do with the far more relevant and predominant examples of sexism in the bible.

We need to discuss it , because it is an integral part of the definition of sexism, that you insist IS clearly defined.

"I think the dictionary is fine for the definition. Why don't you?

Dictionary.com
SEXISM
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 word is defined quite clearly. No need to wonder."
Emphasis Mine

This does not answer my question to you. Unless you are going to argue that gender confusion was an issue in biblical times?

There is no reason this cannot be discussed using the most common definition of the term Gender. The Gender label can be accurately used for far more people than for whom it might be an issue.

Without an example of why this is a concern for you, I’m left to wonder why you are making this an issue.

I really hate multiple nesting of quotes, but your continued flip flopping requires it.

I am doing no such thing. Your issue, clearly, is with the definition – and apparently with the fact that Sexism can be reasonably discussed by far more people and about far more topics than the issues you “worry� about.

Note the quotes from above.

"I’ll allow that sexism may become abit confusing when gender is not clearly defined"
"There is no reason this cannot be discussed using the most common definition of the term Gender."

Are we to see that "gender" is "clearly defined" to avoid confusion, or just go with "the most common definition", at the risk of confusion..

I’ll repeat, Sexism can be reasonably discussed despite the fact that for some Gender Identity may be an issue.

If you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, that is your call.

Many of us are quite capable of understanding the definition AS IS, and dealing with Gender Identity Issues as they arise.

So, it is relevant to you? Can you give me an example so I can better understand where our differences lie?

I did. I think it is an ill defined term, much like many of the modern -isms, that is primarily little more than a vague pejorative. If one were to take an etymological approach, sex - ism, is a philosophy that is based primarily on sex, and a sex - ist is one who does things based on sex. If that is what we are talking about, then fine. However, we must be careful that we do not morph the term "sex" to fit the position one is arguing at the time.

For example?

"Sexual orientation" for example. That is just a cheat to throw things back into the "gender" confusion. If we use the word "sex" to refer to one's physical characteristics and the hormones associated therewith, the confusion is greatly reduced.

I’m afraid you will have to elaborate for me here, as I’m not sure I’m getting your point. I think I do, but want to be sure before commenting. Thanks.

3. Why isn't "misogyny" good enough? Also what about institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of men, ie misandrony?

It can be, reread the definition. Sexism is not defined as a biased action against women.

No, that is literally what the definition you provided says? "3. ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of women; misogyny." Are you saying that the use that implies misogyny should not be accepted?

Hmm, interesting. You choose the 3rd definition and think it as the only one. Why?

I did respond to all three definitions. You are just appear to be saying that the third definition is not right.

I said no such thing. Please show me where I did.

"Sexism is not defined as a biased action against women."

My point was that it is not SOLEY defined by that line.

That is clearly the third definition, is it not?

It is, as long as you agree that it is not the only definition.

If that is all we are talking about, then why isn't misogyny good enough?

Because one can have a hatred or prejudice against women, and not act on it. You do see a difference in the definitions, don’t you?

If not, we need a clear definition of gender, because it is to that is the other two definitions refer. The definition you provided centers around gender and misogyny.

You’re losing me. What other definitions? Sexism and Misogyny clearly have two different meanings. There is common ground, but two separate meanings.

Throw out? What are you talking about? All the definitions provided constitute the use of the word. Just because one usage isn’t compatible, doesn’t mean the others aren’t.

Well, if one is not compatible, would that not be saying it should not be considered?

No, that is why there are multiple usages of the word. Surely you don’t think that words have only one definition?

So, your concern is that equal and fairness are not the same thing? Can you give me an example (with respect to Sexism) where this might be a problem?

Fairness and equality (colloquially) can be the same thing, but I acknowledge there are differences.

Well, a current problem is with regard to bathroom access. Women's restrooms are not equal to men's restrooms, because they do not have a urinal. Yet, for most people, this is not considered unfair. However, now it is being argued that equal access to women's restrooms for men is somehow unfair, if the man happens to feel like a woman. Are we next going to be required to put urinals in the women's restrooms, because these men who feel like women are not being treat equally with the men who have no problem using the men's restroom? Can't you see how convoluted the discussion of social policy becomes when one equates fairness and equality, and then claims these are rights?

I can see how the subject can be quite convoluted. Unfortunately, psychology can be a messy affair, and I’m not one to say who is wrong or right when discussing gender identity. Are you?

Acknowledging this does not in any way mean we can’t discuss Sexism – and still be on the same page. You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater go right ahead. The rest of us are quite comfortable discussing Sexism – despite the bathroom confusion.

How would you address the very real concerns of Sexism? How would you define it?

As long as Sexism is based in something being unfair, if it is unequal, it is a real concern. Either it is unfair for the sexes to always be treated unequally, or it is fair for the sexes to always be treated unequally. If it is fair for the sexes to be treated unequally sometimes, then fairness in not equal. It may HAPPEN to be equal in some cases, but equality is not it's nature, as the previous direct comparison of the two definitions showed.

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.

That is what I said, FAIRNESS implies justice, EQUALITY does not. It is not just to treat everything equally.

If you change your sentence to: Fairness MAY imply justice, I will agree. See the above OR in bold to illustrate my point.

Ok, it may imply justice. The point is EQUALITY does not. A man MAY pee standing up, but that does not mean he MUST pee sitting down, just to make things equal. It is unequal for a man to pee standing up, but it is not unjust.

Fortunately the supposedly “ill defined� word Sexism allows for us to acknowledge this possibility.

Ok, so are you saying the sexism is not necessarily unjust, or is it not necessarily about equality?

I’m saying that by allowing Sexism to be defined by both, we can move forward and address far more problems than not.

I have no intention of showing that sexism is just a meaningless word game. I am merely stating that the term is ill defined, so it is not clear whether one is talking about biology, a social and cultural construct, fairness, equality, or something else. When the term is used it often changes definition over the course of a discussion, with the only constant being it's use as a pejorative.

Sexism is a pejorative label. Well, we can disagree that it is ill-defined. What’s next?

Well, if it is just a pejorative and nothing more, it should be a banded term on this site.

I certainly never said it is just a pejorative term. Are you making this assertion?

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.

If it an all the above term, depending on how one wishes to use it, then it is ill defined and useless.

Since the word can be used to accurately describe so many real world examples (where gender identity is not an issue), how can this be the case?

That is my point. It is only useful in civil debate if it is clear what it refers to, i.e. biology, a social and cultural construct, fairness, equality, or something else.

Seems to me it is clear enough for so many real world examples to be accurately discussed – far more than where it is not clearly defined.

Accuracy is dependent on detail. If one can not identify, in detail, what something refers to, one can not say it is an accurate description.

Seems to me that you are losing/ignoring/discounting the larger message by being hung up on a smaller detail. IMO, that is a bad idea.

My action is sexist or not depends on my reasoning. The definition is quite clear.

Ok, in this case, what is sexist reasoning and what is not sexist reasoning?

“You’re the man, you should put the seat down for me.� – to me, this would be sexist.

See, the definition works quite fine.

So, is it always sexist to require men to put the seat down or is there a non-sexist reason to require men to put the seat down?

I’m very baffled that this needs belaboring. Such a trivial topic given how the bible treats women. But ok, I’ll play along:

IMO, requiring (by gender) either the man to put down the seat or for the woman to lift up the seat is sexist – given that both have functioning arms and can do this for themselves.

And, I believe my sentiment fits quite nicely with the definition. Can we now move onto the OP?

All the best

[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? Also, the third definition is misogyny, which you seem to think should include misandry, even though the definition provided does not do that. The reason why it is important to clear this up is highlighted in what you said below earlier in your post.

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. 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?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 65 by bluethread]

Well... THAT was an elliptical romp around the topic, avoiding the truth of the matter that the Bible is clearly sexist:

Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. Sexism can affect any gender, but it is particularly documented as affecting women and girls.
_ Wikipedia or just about any standard dictionary

sex·ism
ˈ
noun
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

Ok, let's start fresh. I am reluctant to give a direct yes or no, because I'm not sure what is presumed when one says something is sexist. Does it recognize sexual differences and have tenets that take that into account, Yes. However, so does every social system I am aware of. The question is when is such discrimination justified and when is it unwarranted prejudice. According to a strict literal application of the definition, it is sexist for locker rooms and gang showers to be segregated based on sex or gender. Is that what we are really talking about?

Of course not. The operative words are 'prejudice, discrimination, and against.'

The church and scripture have historically distinguished men from women and relegated them to an inferior role, with men as the leaders, the preachers, the people in authority. Are you being deliberately obtuse to suggest this is about separate showers?

Now, go ahead and make your case for why the bible is right and women are inherently inferior to men and therefore should not be leaders or have prominent places in the church. Because THAT is the position of the church and the Bible. But let us not have any more deflections about separate bathing facilities being 'sexist' or being 'against' either males or females.

The example is for the purpose of clarification. The term sexism is often used to paint all discrimination as immoral. Unlike some, you seem to understand that is not the case. So, the question is not whether certain social rules are related to whether one is physically male or female, but whether those social rules are appropriate or arbitrary. If we are agreed on that being the real issue, we can proceed. If not, then we will need to clarify the nature of the issue that we are discussing.

[OpenYourEyes]

[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]

Your text from the book of Judges does not support your conclusion because it is not doctrine (a teaching to be followed). The author was merely describing an event that happened just as it describes Jews being killed and exiled, etc, etc..

What you call sexist, I would call just a matter of God wanting different roles and this is mostly when it comes to marital roles and Church leadership positions.

[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.

even though the definition provided does not do that.

The first two definitions do account for this behavior.

The reason why it is important to clear this up is highlighted in what you said below earlier in your post.

I don‘t see anything highlighted, so I’m not sure of your point.

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.

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

[PghPanther]

Hello people!!!

I might not make friends on this post, but this topic is something I am very passionate about.

First, when the Bible was written, women did have more of a submissive role, and secondly, one has to look at the culture from where it was written. I am not going to address all this, but I certainly wanted it on the table. Moving on...

In today's society, in the race for equality, I can see where some might have a problem with women being second to man. I would however, like to point out, that I really don't think that God would have us women running around barefoot and pregnant, scrubbing floors and ironing clothes. I don't even think that is what the Bible is referring to when it talks about submission. It"s purpose wasn't intended to make us feel like a lesser person, but rather loved and cherished. In the Bible, it also says that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church (which is a whole bunch). Husbands are to care for their wives as Christ so graciously cares for us. I like being pampered once and a while. I like being cherished. I even like being taken care of. I don't see the problem.

Blessings for a spectacular day!

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 if it existed.

Same deal with slavery..........God "managed" slavery with rules and regulations because it was a norm within culture............yet this God should have eradicate it immediately with one of the ten commandments something like, "No human will ever own another human and/or their labor as debt or property"............

The fact that this God never changes culture but culture changes how this God is suppose to provide revelation is more like humans making up the God they what to believe in rather than anything existing independently of them..