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]

[PghPanther]

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, unless there were another overriding issue that needed to be addresses.

JW

What???

An overriding issue for an all power creator of the universe?

If it existed it could have set the story straight back then and not have to wait until now to see it evolve into a path of equality.....

......No I don't buy that excuse one bit anymore than you would say your God is incapable of being all powerful.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 80 by KenRU]

Such as those raised in Eden

What is that suppose to mean?

and how would it influence the position women are being held in during NT times?

Let me tell you that a verse refers to man being the made to reflect the glory of God because he was made in God's image and that woman is made to reflect the glory of man because she was made out of his image referring to the garden is as sexist as it gets..

[bluethread]

KenRU wrote:


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.

When you say "both genders", what are you referring to, physiology or psychology?

Both.

If there are two people and one treats them differently what determines if that different treatment is sexist or some other form of differentiation?

Specific example please.

The method you are proposing is impractical to the point of absurdity. You have presented a definition you say is quite clear. However, if there must be an example, let's use the one in the definition you say is quite clear. If two people apply for employment and only one is hired, how does one determine whether that is sexist or not?

I keep bringing up the word "gender" because it is explicitly stated in the definition and you just said, "Sexism, by definition can be committed by both genders." If your protestations regarding "gender identity" is your way of saying that, at least for this discussion, "gender only refers to physiology, then fine. We will just have to make sure we hold to that, in this discussion.

Nice try. Since Gender Identity is an issue for some, and we recognize this as a fact, then Gender (as used by the dictionary) can be both physical and psychological.

You are the one pining for ultimate specificity to the point of making the definition irrelevant, not me.

It isn't a nice try, if it does not illicit clarity. I am sorry that clarifying a definition makes it irrelevant to you. However, generally, what makes a definition clear is it's applicability to most, if not all cases. If "sexism" refers to both physical and psychological differences, we can proceed on that basis.

So, please choose one, are we going with the definition that uses the term "sexism" to refer to both physiology and psychology, or one that is limited to physiology only.

Explain why your question has any meaningful distinction. Please use a specific example (a real world concern that represents why you think the meaning of Sexism is more unclear than clear, otherwise I will assume you are playing a Word Game).

One includes psychology and the other does not. Taking the psychology of the person identified as "sexist" and/or the individual identifying sexism into account greatly increases the lack of clarity. However, since we are to proceed with the view that the term includes those situations, we will see in the course of the discussion whether that is indeed the case.

I am not arguing that there are any, so any verse I pick would be arbitrary and/or off point. If you wish to insert "prejudice, discrimination, and against" for sexism, we can do that. However, this to is an alteration of the OP and we would need to be careful not to shift terms in the middle of the discussion.

Given that “discrimination�, “prejudice� and “against� are pretty much the definition of Sexism, it is NOT an alteration of the OP. No shifting required.

Well those terms refer to more than sex or "gender", but let's move on and see how this plays out.

Fortunately, the definition of Sexism has more words to describe its meaning.

Yes, but it was you who suggested we summarize the definition using those words. However, if that is not your preference, we can continue as has been noted above.

Are any of these sexist?

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.� (1 Timothy 2:12)
Why can’t women teach men?

This indicates a differentiation between women and men.

No, it indicates much more than that. It states point blank that women cannot teach men. All three definitions for Sexism apply here.

If that is all "sexism" means then the answer is yes. However, if "sexism" infers unjust, then one must establish a standard of justice and compare it to that. First, in context, this is only talking about the meetings of a particular voluntary group.

Irrelevant. Women cannot teach men because they are women is Sexist.

Of course, it is relevant. If "sexism" just indicates a differentiation then you are correct. if it implies a judgment call, then there must be a standard of judgment. Regarding the specific point, do you believe that women and men should be treated the same at all gatherings by all organizations? Do you not believe Women's clubs are required to let men speak at their gatherings?

Second, Paul uses the deception of Havah(Eve) and the relationship of Yeshua to His people as a justifications.

The justification is also sexist.

It does acknowledge that Havah was a woman and it does use men as a representation of Yeshua and women as His followers. Again, if sexism is just the treatment of men and women differently, then you have a point. However, you have not shown this to be wrong. One needs a standard for that.

Third, he refers to women discussing things with their husbands.

No teaching, nor authority – because she is a woman. The intended message is quite clear. Man, then woman.

Are you saying that he does not refer to women discussing things with their husbands? "let them ask their husbands at home"

Which of these reasons do you reject and on what basis?

All of them, as described above.

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.� (Ephesians 5:22)
Where’s the passage saying for men to submit to their wives?

The previous verse. "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God."

Yet the woman is told twice then? Why would that be? Let’s not forget this passage (for added context): “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.�

Pecking order established.

Yes, let's not forget this passage (for added context): "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" Ultimate sacrifice established.

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
Chain of command established: Christ, man THEN woman.

Again, are you just noting this, or implying to is unjust? If the latter, on what are you basing that judgment?

Are you denying the chain of command (so to speak) is God, man then woman?

So to speak, that is dooly noted. What now?

[KenRU]

KenRU wrote:


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.

When you say "both genders", what are you referring to, physiology or psychology?

Both.

If there are two people and one treats them differently what determines if that different treatment is sexist or some other form of differentiation?

Specific example please.

The method you are proposing is impractical to the point of absurdity.

And yet the word (sexism) is employed far more effectively than not, by a vast many more people who do not seem to be confused by its definition. Doesn’t seem absurd to me.

You have presented a definition you say is quite clear. However, if there must be an example, let's use the one in the definition you say is quite clear. If two people apply for employment and only one is hired, how does one determine whether that is sexist or not?

Intent.

I keep bringing up the word "gender" because it is explicitly stated in the definition and you just said, "Sexism, by definition can be committed by both genders." If your protestations regarding "gender identity" is your way of saying that, at least for this discussion, "gender only refers to physiology, then fine. We will just have to make sure we hold to that, in this discussion.

Nice try. Since Gender Identity is an issue for some, and we recognize this as a fact, then Gender (as used by the dictionary) can be both physical and psychological.

You are the one pining for ultimate specificity to the point of making the definition irrelevant, not me.

It isn't a nice try, if it does not illicit clarity.

It is clear far more than it is not. You wish to render the word useless for a very small number of cases (in comparison).

I am sorry that clarifying a definition makes it irrelevant to you.

It doesn’t, but thanks for your concern.

However, generally, what makes a definition clear is it's applicability to most, if not all cases.

And this is true for sexism. I can’t possibly see how you can argue otherwise, when a vast majority of the population DOES NOT have gender identity issues.

If "sexism" refers to both physical and psychological differences, we can proceed on that basis.

Sounds good to me.

So, please choose one, are we going with the definition that uses the term "sexism" to refer to both physiology and psychology, or one that is limited to physiology only.

Explain why your question has any meaningful distinction. Please use a specific example (a real world concern that represents why you think the meaning of Sexism is more unclear than clear, otherwise I will assume you are playing a Word Game).

One includes psychology and the other does not. Taking the psychology of the person identified as "sexist" and/or the individual identifying sexism into account greatly increases the lack of clarity. However, since we are to proceed with the view that the term includes those situations, we will see in the course of the discussion whether that is indeed the case.

I am not arguing that there are any, so any verse I pick would be arbitrary and/or off point. If you wish to insert "prejudice, discrimination, and against" for sexism, we can do that. However, this to is an alteration of the OP and we would need to be careful not to shift terms in the middle of the discussion.

Given that “discrimination�, “prejudice� and “against� are pretty much the definition of Sexism, it is NOT an alteration of the OP. No shifting required.

Well those terms refer to more than sex or "gender", but let's move on and see how this plays out.

Fortunately, the definition of Sexism has more words to describe its meaning.

Yes, but it was you who suggested we summarize the definition using those words.

Since the summary seemed to confuse you, I thought it prudent to remind you that a full definition is available.

However, if that is not your preference, we can continue as has been noted above.

You aren’t a fan of utilizing context are you?

Are any of these sexist?

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.� (1 Timothy 2:12)
Why can’t women teach men?

This indicates a differentiation between women and men.

No, it indicates much more than that. It states point blank that women cannot teach men. All three definitions for Sexism apply here.

If that is all "sexism" means then the answer is yes. However, if "sexism" infers unjust, then one must establish a standard of justice and compare it to that. First, in context, this is only talking about the meetings of a particular voluntary group.

Irrelevant. Women cannot teach men because they are women is Sexist.

Of course, it is relevant. If "sexism" just indicates a differentiation then you are correct. if it implies a judgment call, then there must be a standard of judgment. Regarding the specific point, do you believe that women and men should be treated the same at all gatherings by all organizations? Do you not believe Women's clubs are required to let men speak at their gatherings?

Really? Arguing the opinion that women can never teach men because they are women is not just a differentiation. It is an opinion about the status, intelligence and skills women have and a direct specification of the place that women have in a society (club or otherwise). None of your justifications or comparisons above can escape this.

Intent. Why can’t women teach men? What is the reason? It is simple, god says so, cuz they are women.

Second, Paul uses the deception of Havah(Eve) and the relationship of Yeshua to His people as a justifications.

The justification is also sexist.

It does acknowledge that Havah was a woman and it does use men as a representation of Yeshua and women as His followers. Again, if sexism is just the treatment of men and women differently, then you have a point. However, you have not shown this to be wrong. One needs a standard for that.

Women are followers, not leaders, by virtue of being women. Sexist. The intent of this “rule� is to lower women in status below men. For no other reason than that they are women. Sexist.

The standard is the definition of Sexism. The example amply qualifies. In fact, I’d argue it could be the standard bearer for the word.

To argue otherwise, you would need to explain how the intent of the “rule� is not based upon women being assigned this position just for being a women in the first place.

Third, he refers to women discussing things with their husbands.

No teaching, nor authority – because she is a woman. The intended message is quite clear. Man, then woman.

Are you saying that he does not refer to women discussing things with their husbands? "let them ask their husbands at home"

I’m saying the “rules� are gender specific, based upon nothing more then men being men, and women being women. Do you know of another intent?

Which of these reasons do you reject and on what basis?

All of them, as described above.

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.� (Ephesians 5:22)
Where’s the passage saying for men to submit to their wives?

The previous verse. "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God."

Yet the woman is told twice then? Why would that be? Let’s not forget this passage (for added context): “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.�

Pecking order established.

Yes, let's not forget this passage (for added context): "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" Ultimate sacrifice established.

Yep, as long as the women “know thy place�. Kinda diminishes the value of the sacrifice, imo.

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
Chain of command established: Christ, man THEN woman.

I await your response. Do you deny the pecking order, or not?

Again, are you just noting this, or implying to is unjust? If the latter, on what are you basing that judgment?

Are you denying the chain of command (so to speak) is God, man then woman?

So to speak, that is dooly noted. What now?

Now I kindly await your response. Do you deny that the pecking order is god, man then women?

[bluethread]

KenRU wrote:


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.

If there are two people and one treats them differently what determines if that different treatment is sexist or some other form of differentiation?

Specific example please.

The method you are proposing is impractical to the point of absurdity.

And yet the word (sexism) is employed far more effectively than not, by a vast many more people who do not seem to be confused by its definition. Doesn’t seem absurd to me.

Yes, it is used as a propaganda tool to accept or reject certain forms of differentiation on an arbitrary and capricious basis.

You have presented a definition you say is quite clear. However, if there must be an example, let's use the one in the definition you say is quite clear. If two people apply for employment and only one is hired, how does one determine whether that is sexist or not?

Intent.

Based one what? The actual intent of the one doing the differentiation. The intent as perceived by the aggrieved party. Or, the intent as perceived by an appointed third part.

It isn't a nice try, if it does not illicit clarity.

It is clear far more than it is not. You wish to render the word useless for a very small number of cases (in comparison).

I am sorry that clarifying a definition makes it irrelevant to you.

It doesn’t, but thanks for your concern.

However, generally, what makes a definition clear is it's applicability to most, if not all cases.

And this is true for sexism. I can’t possibly see how you can argue otherwise, when a vast majority of the population DOES NOT have gender identity issues.

On the contrary, I wish to make the term useful by establishing a definition that is not dependent on the accusers perception of the intent of the accused. As it is, the term says more about the accuser than the accused.

If "sexism" refers to both physical and psychological differences, we can proceed on that basis.

Sounds good to me.

Yes, but it was you who suggested we summarize the definition using those words.

Since the summary seemed to confuse you, I thought it prudent to remind you that a full definition is available.

However, if that is not your preference, we can continue as has been noted above.

You aren’t a fan of utilizing context are you?

Summary is not context, but the removal of context to narrow the scope. Since it has been determined that we are not going to narrow the scope after all, the part of the discussion is no longer relevant.

If "sexism" just indicates a differentiation then you are correct. if it implies a judgment call, then there must be a standard of judgment. Regarding the specific point, do you believe that women and men should be treated the same at all gatherings by all organizations? Do you not believe Women's clubs are required to let men speak at their gatherings?

Really? Arguing the opinion that women can never teach men because they are women is not just a differentiation. It is an opinion about the status, intelligence and skills women have and a direct specification of the place that women have in a society (club or otherwise). None of your justifications or comparisons above can escape this.

Intent. Why can’t women teach men? What is the reason? It is simple, god says so, cuz they are women.

As I pointed out, this is a rule of a private organization, not an absolute. The use of the term "never" is deceptive. The actual requirement does establish the role of women in the social structure. However, your inference that it speaks to status, intelligence and skills is speculative. It might be best if we stick to the justifications provided in the passages.

Second, Paul uses the deception of Havah(Eve) and the relationship of Yeshua to His people as a justifications.

The justification is also sexist.

It does acknowledge that Havah was a woman and it does use men as a representation of Yeshua and women as His followers. Again, if sexism is just the treatment of men and women differently, then you have a point. However, you have not shown this to be wrong. One needs a standard for that.

Women are followers, not leaders, by virtue of being women. Sexist. The intent of this “rule� is to lower women in status below men. For no other reason than that they are women. Sexist.

The standard is the definition of Sexism. The example amply qualifies. In fact, I’d argue it could be the standard bearer for the word.

To argue otherwise, you would need to explain how the intent of the “rule� is not based upon women being assigned this position just for being a women in the first place. [/quote]

The question is how does one know this is wrong? Also, you state your judgment as the intent. The intent of this particular argument is ceremonial.

Third, he refers to women discussing things with their husbands.

No teaching, nor authority – because she is a woman. The intended message is quite clear. Man, then woman.

Are you saying that he does not refer to women discussing things with their husbands? "let them ask their husbands at home"

I’m saying the “rules� are gender specific, based upon nothing more then men being men, and women being women. Do you know of another intent?

No, it also includes a consideration of the marital relationship. This also raises the intent of strengthening the family unit by having the family unit speak in a singular voice. The fact, that the chosen voice is the man can be attributed to various reason, which we are currently examining, i.e. ceremonial symbolism. There could also be considerations associated with the surrounding cultures of the time, but we have not gotten to that yet.

Which of these reasons do you reject and on what basis?

All of them, as described above.

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.� (Ephesians 5:22)
Where’s the passage saying for men to submit to their wives?

The previous verse. "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God."

Yet the woman is told twice then? Why would that be? Let’s not forget this passage (for added context): “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.�

Pecking order established.

Yes, let's not forget this passage (for added context): "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" Ultimate sacrifice established.

Yep, as long as the women “know thy place�. Kinda diminishes the value of the sacrifice, imo.

I'm not sure what you are quoting, but IMO it is kind of hard to diminish the value of putting oneself in harms way. By that reasoning our veterans are diminished when we are asked to honor them.

Are you denying the chain of command (so to speak) is God, man then woman?

So to speak, that is dooly noted. What now?

Now I kindly await your response. Do you deny that the pecking order is god, man then women?

No, I do not deny that. Do you have any further point to make? Come to think of it, that is the general order. In some cases, i.e. sexual relations, that is a woman's prerogative, though Paul does refer to a mutual consent with regard to a vow of abstinence.

[KenRU]

KenRU wrote:


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.

If there are two people and one treats them differently what determines if that different treatment is sexist or some other form of differentiation?

Specific example please.

The method you are proposing is impractical to the point of absurdity.

And yet the word (sexism) is employed far more effectively than not, by a vast many more people who do not seem to be confused by its definition. Doesn’t seem absurd to me.

Yes, it is used as a propaganda tool to accept or reject certain forms of differentiation on an arbitrary and capricious basis.

That is a completely different argument though, isn’t it, than saying the word is unclear? Perhaps it is fair to say it is unclear (or propaganda, arbitrary or capricious) to you, but not to the vast amount of people who use it with very little difficulty.

You have presented a definition you say is quite clear. However, if there must be an example, let's use the one in the definition you say is quite clear. If two people apply for employment and only one is hired, how does one determine whether that is sexist or not?

Intent.

Based one what? The actual intent of the one doing the differentiation. The intent as perceived by the aggrieved party. Or, the intent as perceived by an appointed third part.

The intent of the person using bias, as the definition intends.

It isn't a nice try, if it does not illicit clarity.

It is clear far more than it is not. You wish to render the word useless for a very small number of cases (in comparison).

I am sorry that clarifying a definition makes it irrelevant to you.

It doesn’t, but thanks for your concern.

However, generally, what makes a definition clear is it's applicability to most, if not all cases.

And this is true for sexism. I can’t possibly see how you can argue otherwise, when a vast majority of the population DOES NOT have gender identity issues.

On the contrary, I wish to make the term useful by establishing a definition that is not dependent on the accusers perception of the intent of the accused.

You mean MORE useful, in YOUR estimation. As stated, it is already used quite successfully, by a very many people.

As it is, the term says more about the accuser than the accused.

So you say.

If "sexism" refers to both physical and psychological differences, we can proceed on that basis.

Sounds good to me.

Yes, but it was you who suggested we summarize the definition using those words.

Since the summary seemed to confuse you, I thought it prudent to remind you that a full definition is available.

However, if that is not your preference, we can continue as has been noted above.

You aren’t a fan of utilizing context are you?

Summary is not context, but the removal of context to narrow the scope.

In this case, a narrowing to the point of uselessness, it seems.

Since it has been determined that we are not going to narrow the scope after all, the part of the discussion is no longer relevant.

Agreed.

If "sexism" just indicates a differentiation then you are correct. if it implies a judgment call, then there must be a standard of judgment. Regarding the specific point, do you believe that women and men should be treated the same at all gatherings by all organizations? Do you not believe Women's clubs are required to let men speak at their gatherings?

Really? Arguing the opinion that women can never teach men because they are women is not just a differentiation. It is an opinion about the status, intelligence and skills women have and a direct specification of the place that women have in a society (club or otherwise). None of your justifications or comparisons above can escape this.

Intent. Why can’t women teach men? What is the reason? It is simple, god says so, cuz they are women.

As I pointed out, this is a rule of a private organization, not an absolute. The use of the term "never" is deceptive. The actual requirement does establish the role of women in the social structure. However, your inference that it speaks to status, intelligence and skills is speculative. It might be best if we stick to the justifications provided in the passages.

Sounds good. What are the justifications? Private or public organizations have no bearing on whether Sexism is applicable, btw. Is the sole reason for the rule of women not teaching men just because women are women?

Second, Paul uses the deception of Havah(Eve) and the relationship of Yeshua to His people as a justifications.

The justification is also sexist.

It does acknowledge that Havah was a woman and it does use men as a representation of Yeshua and women as His followers. Again, if sexism is just the treatment of men and women differently, then you have a point. However, you have not shown this to be wrong. One needs a standard for that.

Women are followers, not leaders, by virtue of being women. Sexist. The intent of this “rule� is to lower women in status below men. For no other reason than that they are women. Sexist.

The standard is the definition of Sexism. The example amply qualifies. In fact, I’d argue it could be the standard bearer for the word.

To argue otherwise, you would need to explain how the intent of the “rule� is not based upon women being assigned this position just for being a women in the first place.

The question is how does one know this is wrong?

The question is, is it Sexist? By definition it is.

We can debate whether this particular version of Sexism is wrong or right later.

Also, you state your judgment as the intent. The intent of this particular argument is ceremonial.

What is the ceremonial reason for women being secondary to men? What is the disntiction?

Third, he refers to women discussing things with their husbands.

No teaching, nor authority – because she is a woman. The intended message is quite clear. Man, then woman.

Are you saying that he does not refer to women discussing things with their husbands? "let them ask their husbands at home"

I’m saying the “rules� are gender specific, based upon nothing more then men being men, and women being women. Do you know of another intent?

No, it also includes a consideration of the marital relationship. This also raises the intent of strengthening the family unit by having the family unit speak in a singular voice.

Ok, why men before women? What is the reason, besides men being men, and women being women?

The fact, that the chosen voice is the man can be attributed to various reason, which we are currently examining, i.e. ceremonial symbolism.

Window dressing. What is the ceremonial reason? You certainly are not arguing it is an arbitrary distinction, are you?

There could also be considerations associated with the surrounding cultures of the time, but we have not gotten to that yet.

If the distinction is just because women are women, and men are men, it is sexist. Great, so you agree, since we don’t know the reason isn’t something other than bias against women, it can rightly be called sexist.

Which of these reasons do you reject and on what basis?

All of them, as described above.

“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.� (Ephesians 5:22)
Where’s the passage saying for men to submit to their wives?

The previous verse. "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God."

Yet the woman is told twice then? Why would that be? Let’s not forget this passage (for added context): “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.�

Pecking order established.

Yes, let's not forget this passage (for added context): "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" Ultimate sacrifice established.

Yep, as long as the women “know thy place�. Kinda diminishes the value of the sacrifice, imo.

I'm not sure what you are quoting, but IMO it is kind of hard to diminish the value of putting oneself in harms way. By that reasoning our veterans are diminished when we are asked to honor them.

My apologies. I did not mean to say it diminishes the sacrifice. It doesn’t. I meant to say it diminishes the integrity (or benevolence) of the commandment to sacrifice one’s self, when it also commands women be treated as less men.

Are you denying the chain of command (so to speak) is God, man then woman?

So to speak, that is dooly noted. What now?

Now I kindly await your response. Do you deny that the pecking order is god, man then women?

No, I do not deny that. Do you have any further point to make?

I thought it clear. Why are women below men? Can you provide another reason besides, because they are women?

[bluethread]

KenRU wrote:


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.

If "sexism" refers to both physical and psychological differences, we can proceed on that basis.

Sounds good to me.

Yes, it is used as a propaganda tool to accept or reject certain forms of differentiation on an arbitrary and capricious basis.

That is a completely different argument though, isn’t it, than saying the word is unclear? Perhaps it is fair to say it is unclear (or propaganda, arbitrary or capricious) to you, but not to the vast amount of people who use it with very little difficulty.

No, it is the same argument. The lack of clarity is what makes it useful for propaganda, and arbitrary or capricious. The vast amount of people who use the term do so on a casual basis. The only people who use it in serious discussion are either pushing an egalitarian agenda or are doing so to show how ill defined it is.

Based one what? The actual intent of the one doing the differentiation. The intent as perceived by the aggrieved party. Or, the intent as perceived by an appointed third part.

The intent of the person using bias, as the definition intends.

Ok, how does one determine the intent of the offender?

On the contrary, I wish to make the term useful by establishing a definition that is not dependent on the accusers perception of the intent of the accused.

You mean MORE useful, in YOUR estimation. As stated, it is already used quite successfully, by a very many people.

As it is, the term says more about the accuser than the accused.

So you say.

You mean successfully in YOUR estimation. The use of the term says that the user is accepting of egalitarianism and in most cases has a grievance agenda. What does the term say about the accuse?

The actual requirement does establish the role of women in the social structure. However, your inference that it speaks to status, intelligence and skills is speculative. It might be best if we stick to the justifications provided in the passages.

Sounds good. What are the justifications? Private or public organizations have no bearing on whether Sexism is applicable, btw. Is the sole reason for the rule of women not teaching men just because women are women?

Well, one is that it serves as a memorial to the story of Adam and Havah. Another is to exemplify the relationship between Yeshua and his followers.

The question is how does one know this is wrong?

The question is, is it Sexist? By definition it is.

We can debate whether this particular version of Sexism is wrong or right later. [/quote]

Well, the best I can make out sexism involves the treatment of men and women differently based on physiology and/or psychology alone. Would you acknowledge that there are physiological and psychological differences between men and women, and/or is that acknowledgement sexist?

Also, you state your judgment as the intent. The intent of this particular argument is ceremonial.

What is the ceremonial reason for women being secondary to men? What is the disntiction?

I would say that the reason why the ceremonial roles are what they are is do to general tendencies one sees in nearly every society.

I’m saying the “rules� are gender specific, based upon nothing more then men being men, and women being women. Do you know of another intent?

No, it also includes a consideration of the marital relationship. This also raises the intent of strengthening the family unit by having the family unit speak in a singular voice.

Ok, why men before women? What is the reason, besides men being men, and women being women?

Again, I would say that the reason why the ceremonial roles are what they are is do to general tendencies one sees in nearly every society.

There could also be considerations associated with the surrounding cultures of the time, but we have not gotten to that yet.

If the distinction is just because women are women, and men are men, it is sexist. Great, so you agree, since we don’t know the reason isn’t something other than bias against women, it can rightly be called sexist.

No, I said, There could also be considerations associated with the surrounding cultures of the time, but we have not gotten to that yet.

I'm not sure what you are quoting, but IMO it is kind of hard to diminish the value of putting oneself in harms way. By that reasoning our veterans are diminished when we are asked to honor them.

My apologies. I did not mean to say it diminishes the sacrifice. It doesn’t. I meant to say it diminishes the integrity (or benevolence) of the commandment to sacrifice one’s self, when it also commands women be treated as less men.

It doesn't command women be treated as less men. It appears that you are arguing that women are men, and the Scriptures are treating them as lesser men. Is that how you view women as just transgendered men?

No, I do not deny that. Do you have any further point to make?

I thought it clear. Why are women below men? Can you provide another reason besides, because they are women?

Below is not the term I would use. Men do have a natural tendency to take the lead and women do have a tendency to follow. Why do you think that is? Is nearly ever society sexist?

[KenRU]

KenRU wrote:


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.

If "sexism" refers to both physical and psychological differences, we can proceed on that basis.

Sounds good to me.

Yes, it is used as a propaganda tool to accept or reject certain forms of differentiation on an arbitrary and capricious basis.

That is a completely different argument though, isn’t it, than saying the word is unclear? Perhaps it is fair to say it is unclear (or propaganda, arbitrary or capricious) to you, but not to the vast amount of people who use it with very little difficulty.

No, it is the same argument. The lack of clarity is what makes it useful for propaganda, and arbitrary or capricious. The vast amount of people who use the term do so on a casual basis. The only people who use it in serious discussion are either pushing an egalitarian agenda or are doing so to show how ill defined it is.

Do you believe I am pushing an egalitarian agenda?

Based one what? The actual intent of the one doing the differentiation. The intent as perceived by the aggrieved party. Or, the intent as perceived by an appointed third part.

The intent of the person using bias, as the definition intends.

Ok, how does one determine the intent of the offender?

We can ask that person, if it is an informal discussion or setting. Or, we can try it in a court of law, and review the evidence.

On the contrary, I wish to make the term useful by establishing a definition that is not dependent on the accusers perception of the intent of the accused.

You mean MORE useful, in YOUR estimation. As stated, it is already used quite successfully, by a very many people.

As it is, the term says more about the accuser than the accused.

So you say.

You mean successfully in YOUR estimation. The use of the term says that the user is accepting of egalitarianism and in most cases has a grievance agenda. What does the term say about the accuse?

You’ve lost me here. I think you may be responding to your own posts. Can you clarify here for me? Thanks.

The actual requirement does establish the role of women in the social structure. However, your inference that it speaks to status, intelligence and skills is speculative. It might be best if we stick to the justifications provided in the passages.

Sounds good. What are the justifications? Private or public organizations have no bearing on whether Sexism is applicable, btw. Is the sole reason for the rule of women not teaching men just because women are women?

Well, one is that it serves as a memorial to the story of Adam and Havah.

Which means all women can’t teach based upon the fact that they are women.

Another is to exemplify the relationship between Yeshua and his followers.

Exactly, women are below men. Remember this concession when I bring it up below, lol.

The question is how does one know this is wrong?

The question is, is it Sexist? By definition it is.

We can debate whether this particular version of Sexism is wrong or right later.

Well, the best I can make out sexism involves the treatment of men and women differently based on physiology and/or psychology alone. Would you acknowledge that there are physiological and psychological differences between men and women, and/or is that acknowledgement sexist?

Physiologically, of course. And no, acknowledging the physical differences is not sexist. Psychologically, I’m not sure a blanket statement is applicable. But, I am not learned in that field to say.

Also, you state your judgment as the intent. The intent of this particular argument is ceremonial.

What is the ceremonial reason for women being secondary to men? What is the disntiction?

I would say that the reason why the ceremonial roles are what they are is do to general tendencies one sees in nearly every society.

That is a circular answer. Or is it an admission of “that’s the way it is�? And thus, sexist?

I’m saying the “rules� are gender specific, based upon nothing more then men being men, and women being women. Do you know of another intent?

No, it also includes a consideration of the marital relationship. This also raises the intent of strengthening the family unit by having the family unit speak in a singular voice.

Ok, why men before women? What is the reason, besides men being men, and women being women?

Again, I would say that the reason why the ceremonial roles are what they are is do to general tendencies one sees in nearly every society.

So, as I said, this decision is based entirely upon men being men and women being women.

How is that not the definition of Sexism?

There could also be considerations associated with the surrounding cultures of the time, but we have not gotten to that yet.

If the distinction is just because women are women, and men are men, it is sexist. Great, so you agree, since we don’t know the reason isn’t something other than bias against women, it can rightly be called sexist.

No, I said, There could also be considerations associated with the surrounding cultures of the time, but we have not gotten to that yet.

Then what “considerations� might make this not Sexist?

I'm not sure what you are quoting, but IMO it is kind of hard to diminish the value of putting oneself in harms way. By that reasoning our veterans are diminished when we are asked to honor them.

My apologies. I did not mean to say it diminishes the sacrifice. It doesn’t. I meant to say it diminishes the integrity (or benevolence) of the commandment to sacrifice one’s self, when it also commands women be treated as less men.

It doesn't command women be treated as less men.

If they have restrictions that men do not, it most certainly does treat them as less then men.

It appears that you are arguing that women are men, and the Scriptures are treating them as lesser men. Is that how you view women as just transgendered men?

No, I view them as human beings, with the same potential as men.

How do you view them?

No, I do not deny that. Do you have any further point to make?

I thought it clear. Why are women below men? Can you provide another reason besides, because they are women?

Below is not the term I would use.

Bluethread: “Another is to exemplify the relationship between Yeshua and his followers.�

How is this not hierarchical?

Men do have a natural tendency to take the lead and women do have a tendency to follow.

Thank you for admitting it is just a tendency. Considering this, wouldn't it be wrong, then, to treat all women with a blanket rule?

Why do you think that is?

This is irrelevant. As you admit, it is a tendency, and does not apply to all women.

Is nearly ever society sexist?

It sure seems they were in biblical times.

-all the best

[bluethread]

KenRU wrote:


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.

If "sexism" refers to both physical and psychological differences, we can proceed on that basis.

Sounds good to me.

Yes, it is used as a propaganda tool to accept or reject certain forms of differentiation on an arbitrary and capricious basis.

That is a completely different argument though, isn’t it, than saying the word is unclear? Perhaps it is fair to say it is unclear (or propaganda, arbitrary or capricious) to you, but not to the vast amount of people who use it with very little difficulty.

No, it is the same argument. The lack of clarity is what makes it useful for propaganda, and arbitrary or capricious. The vast amount of people who use the term do so on a casual basis. The only people who use it in serious discussion are either pushing an egalitarian agenda or are doing so to show how ill defined it is.

Do you believe I am pushing an egalitarian agenda?

I am addressing the concepts, not making accusations against you. That said, I do think you are depending on casual usage and connotation, rather than clear definition to support your points.

Ok, how does one determine the intent of the offender?

We can ask that person, if it is an informal discussion or setting. Or, we can try it in a court of law, and review the evidence.

So, short of going to court one just has to take the person's word for it. So, take my word for it, the Scriptures have no ill intent toward women.

You mean successfully in YOUR estimation. The use of the term says that the user is accepting of egalitarianism and in most cases has a grievance agenda. What does the term say about the accuse?

You’ve lost me here. I think you may be responding to your own posts. Can you clarify here for me? Thanks.

The person using the term presumes ill intent on the part of the accused. Does that mean that the accused has ill intent, simply because one is presumed.

Well, one is that it serves as a memorial to the story of Adam and Havah.

Which means all women can’t teach based upon the fact that they are women.

No, it means that women don't teach, as a memorial to Havah's deception. A proper memorial needs to have a correlation.

Another is to exemplify the relationship between Yeshua and his followers.

Exactly, women are below men. Remember this concession when I bring it up below, lol.

No, it means that women play the role of followers.

Physiologically, of course. And no, acknowledging the physical differences is not sexist. Psychologically, I’m not sure a blanket statement is applicable. But, I am not learned in that field to say.

We are talking about social standards and such standards do not speak to all cases, but to general tendencies.

Also, you state your judgment as the intent. The intent of this particular argument is ceremonial.

What is the ceremonial reason for women being secondary to men? What is the disntiction?

I would say that the reason why the ceremonial roles are what they are is do to general tendencies one sees in nearly every society.

That is a circular answer. Or is it an admission of “that’s the way it is�? And thus, sexist?

It is not circular, because it is a comparison of a specific standard to general tendencies. The problem with your conclusion is that the definition, as you have argued, requires ill intent. The intent is commemorative and comports with general tendencies. No ill intent.

I’m saying the “rules� are gender specific, based upon nothing more then men being men, and women being women. Do you know of another intent?

No, it also includes a consideration of the marital relationship. This also raises the intent of strengthening the family unit by having the family unit speak in a singular voice.

Ok, why men before women? What is the reason, besides men being men, and women being women?

Again, I would say that the reason why the ceremonial roles are what they are is do to general tendencies one sees in nearly every society.

So, as I said, this decision is based entirely upon men being men and women being women.

How is that not the definition of Sexism?

No, ill intent.

There could also be considerations associated with the surrounding cultures of the time, but we have not gotten to that yet.

If the distinction is just because women are women, and men are men, it is sexist. Great, so you agree, since we don’t know the reason isn’t something other than bias against women, it can rightly be called sexist.

No, I said, There could also be considerations associated with the surrounding cultures of the time, but we have not gotten to that yet.

Then what “considerations� might make this not Sexist?

The fact that male physiology and psychology are more well adapted to living in the confrontational society of the time.

I'm not sure what you are quoting, but IMO it is kind of hard to diminish the value of putting oneself in harms way. By that reasoning our veterans are diminished when we are asked to honor them.

My apologies. I did not mean to say it diminishes the sacrifice. It doesn’t. I meant to say it diminishes the integrity (or benevolence) of the commandment to sacrifice one’s self, when it also commands women be treated as less men.

It doesn't command women be treated as less men.

If they have restrictions that men do not, it most certainly does treat them as less then men.

You are taking one restriction, ie teaching in a theological setting, and making it the full measure of a man or a woman.

It appears that you are arguing that women are men, and the Scriptures are treating them as lesser men. Is that how you view women as just transgendered men?

No, I view them as human beings, with the same potential as men.

How do you view them?

I also view them as human beings, with potential subject to their physiology and psychology, just as I see men.

No, I do not deny that. Do you have any further point to make?

I thought it clear. Why are women below men? Can you provide another reason besides, because they are women?

Below is not the term I would use.

Bluethread: “Another is to exemplify the relationship between Yeshua and his followers.�

How is this not hierarchical?

Men do have a natural tendency to take the lead and women do have a tendency to follow.

Thank you for admitting it is just a tendency. Considering this, wouldn't it be wrong, then, to treat all women with a blanket rule?

As I said, below is not the term I would use. Below has a connotation of value. Social standards are rarely, if ever, inclusive of all possible circumstances. As stated, there are commemorative, physiological and psychological consideration involved in this standard. There are clear differences between men and women. Not all of these differences are manifest in every man and woman. However, social standards based on those differences is not proof of ill intent.

Why do you think that is?

This is irrelevant. As you admit, it is a tendency, and does not apply to all women.

Is nearly ever society sexist?

It sure seems they were in biblical times.

-all the best

So, are you saying that societies should only have standards that are a perfect fit for all citizens? What about today? Is nearly ever society sexist, today?

[KenRU]

KenRU wrote:


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.

If "sexism" refers to both physical and psychological differences, we can proceed on that basis.

Sounds good to me.

Yes, it is used as a propaganda tool to accept or reject certain forms of differentiation on an arbitrary and capricious basis.

That is a completely different argument though, isn’t it, than saying the word is unclear? Perhaps it is fair to say it is unclear (or propaganda, arbitrary or capricious) to you, but not to the vast amount of people who use it with very little difficulty.

No, it is the same argument. The lack of clarity is what makes it useful for propaganda, and arbitrary or capricious. The vast amount of people who use the term do so on a casual basis. The only people who use it in serious discussion are either pushing an egalitarian agenda or are doing so to show how ill defined it is.

Do you believe I am pushing an egalitarian agenda?

I am addressing the concepts, not making accusations against you. That said, I do think you are depending on casual usage and connotation, rather than clear definition to support your points.

Some definitions are more precise than others, more specific than others. Do you acknowledge this?

Ok, how does one determine the intent of the offender?

We can ask that person, if it is an informal discussion or setting. Or, we can try it in a court of law, and review the evidence.

So, short of going to court one just has to take the person's word for it. So, take my word for it, the Scriptures have no ill intent toward women.

If you wrote them, I might take your word for it, lol.

You mean successfully in YOUR estimation. The use of the term says that the user is accepting of egalitarianism and in most cases has a grievance agenda. What does the term say about the accuse?

You’ve lost me here. I think you may be responding to your own posts. Can you clarify here for me? Thanks.

The person using the term presumes ill intent on the part of the accused. Does that mean that the accused has ill intent, simply because one is presumed.

It might. It might not. The truth of the matter reveals ill intent or not. A specific example will be necessary to answer your question. But in short, if a person is being/acting sexist, yes, that will cause someone to feel ill intent - as the definition of Sexism intimates.

Well, one is that it serves as a memorial to the story of Adam and Havah.

Which means all women can’t teach based upon the fact that they are women.

No, it means that women don't teach, as a memorial to Havah's deception. A proper memorial needs to have a correlation.

So this memorial likens all women (by virtue of being women) to a deceitful character, therefore they should not teach. The correlation is that all women are like Havah, deceitful? Do I have that right? If not, what IS the correlation you speak of?

Another is to exemplify the relationship between Yeshua and his followers.

Exactly, women are below men. Remember this concession when I bring it up below, lol.

No, it means that women play the role of followers.

Why? By virtue of what correlation must they be followers? What defining characteristic determines this?

Physiologically, of course. And no, acknowledging the physical differences is not sexist. Psychologically, I’m not sure a blanket statement is applicable. But, I am not learned in that field to say.

We are talking about social standards and such standards do not speak to all cases, but to general tendencies.

Well then, when speaking of general tendencies, we should be easily able to acknowledge that it is unwise to make blanket rules when pigeon-holing the capacities for men and women. What is good for many women, may not be for all, correct?

Also, you state your judgment as the intent. The intent of this particular argument is ceremonial.

What is the ceremonial reason for women being secondary to men? What is the disntiction?

I would say that the reason why the ceremonial roles are what they are is do to general tendencies one sees in nearly every society.

That is a circular answer. Or is it an admission of “that’s the way it is�? And thus, sexist?

It is not circular, because it is a comparison of a specific standard to general tendencies. The problem with your conclusion is that the definition, as you have argued, requires ill intent. The intent is commemorative and comports with general tendencies. No ill intent.

We will have to disagree that the “general tendencies� of biblical times had no ill-intent towards women. You can maintain that tenuous stance despite the massive amount of data to the contrary. You have a tough sell there.

Are you (by saying it is not circular) saying that the time period in question, was not biased towards man (over women)?

I’m saying the “rules� are gender specific, based upon nothing more then men being men, and women being women. Do you know of another intent?

No, it also includes a consideration of the marital relationship. This also raises the intent of strengthening the family unit by having the family unit speak in a singular voice.

Ok, why men before women? What is the reason, besides men being men, and women being women?

Again, I would say that the reason why the ceremonial roles are what they are is do to general tendencies one sees in nearly every society.

So, as I said, this decision is based entirely upon men being men and women being women.

How is that not the definition of Sexism?

No, ill intent.

Definition one of 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.

Seems to fit them all, as far as I can see. Ill intent or not (we disagree on its preence), the action you describe easily fits the definition.

There could also be considerations associated with the surrounding cultures of the time, but we have not gotten to that yet.

If the distinction is just because women are women, and men are men, it is sexist. Great, so you agree, since we don’t know the reason isn’t something other than bias against women, it can rightly be called sexist.

No, I said, There could also be considerations associated with the surrounding cultures of the time, but we have not gotten to that yet.

Then what “considerations� might make this not Sexist?

The fact that male physiology and psychology are more well adapted to living in the confrontational society of the time.

Is this an across the board rule, or are you making an assumption and placing all women under that assumption? Some women were probably quite well adapted to such an environment, or are you arguing that it is not possible?

I'm not sure what you are quoting, but IMO it is kind of hard to diminish the value of putting oneself in harms way. By that reasoning our veterans are diminished when we are asked to honor them.

My apologies. I did not mean to say it diminishes the sacrifice. It doesn’t. I meant to say it diminishes the integrity (or benevolence) of the commandment to sacrifice one’s self, when it also commands women be treated as less men.

It doesn't command women be treated as less men.

If they have restrictions that men do not, it most certainly does treat them as less then men.

You are taking one restriction, ie teaching in a theological setting, and making it the full measure of a man or a woman.

You’ve just moved the goalposts. We are talking about whether the act of restricting women from teaching men is sexist. For the aspect of women teaching men, in ANY setting or environment, restricting it based upon the fact that a woman is a woman is sexist.

“full measure of a man or woman� is irrelevant. It is clearly a condition applied to women and not men.

It appears that you are arguing that women are men, and the Scriptures are treating them as lesser men. Is that how you view women as just transgendered men?

No, I view them as human beings, with the same potential as men.

How do you view them?

I also view them as human beings, with potential subject to their physiology and psychology, just as I see men.

Do you agree that this “potential� you refer to is not 100% applicable? That this “potential� may vary depending on the very much varying attributes of men and women?

No, I do not deny that. Do you have any further point to make?

I thought it clear. Why are women below men? Can you provide another reason besides, because they are women?

Below is not the term I would use.

Bluethread: “Another is to exemplify the relationship between Yeshua and his followers.�

How is this not hierarchical?

Men do have a natural tendency to take the lead and women do have a tendency to follow.

Thank you for admitting it is just a tendency. Considering this, wouldn't it be wrong, then, to treat all women with a blanket rule?

As I said, below is not the term I would use. Below has a connotation of value. Social standards are rarely, if ever, inclusive of all possible circumstances. As stated, there are commemorative, physiological and psychological consideration involved in this standard. There are clear differences between men and women. Not all of these differences are manifest in every man and woman. However, social standards based on those differences is not proof of ill intent.

Your continual avoidance of the word Below speaks volumes. You speak in one breath that the order is Jesus, man than woman, yet refuse to admit levels.

Is man equal to Jesus in this order? Or is he below Jesus?

Secondly, we disagree on the ill-intent, so we’re going to have to move on from that. You don’t see creating a rule (based upon generalities) for all women to adhere to as having any ill-intent. I do.

I guess you just believe it is just a coincidence that men continuously seem to come out on top with all of these divinely inspired rules.

I would think a god who is passing down wisdom might see that generalizing all women is a bad idea.

Why do you think that is?

This is irrelevant. As you admit, it is a tendency, and does not apply to all women.

Is nearly ever society sexist?

It sure seems they were in biblical times.

So, are you saying that societies should only have standards that are a perfect fit for all citizens? What about today? Is nearly ever society sexist, today?

I’m saying that society should strive for being as fair and as unbiased as possible, and we have improved dramatically since biblical times. Wouldn’t you agree?

Or, do you believe that society is less fair today than in biblical times (with respect to the topic at hand)?