Sexism in the Bible

[atheist buddy]

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man" 1 Corinthians 13

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." 1 Corinthians 11

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing." Ephesians 5

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord." Colossians 3

"Let the woman 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" 1 Timothy 2



Above is just a small sample of Biblical quotes which would seem to indicate beyond any doubt that the authors of the Bible require that women be submissive and obedient to men, that they should be silent and that they should not hold positions of authority. The Bible seems to indicate in the clearest terms possible that women, in their very essence, are intrinsically inferior to men, that they are the property of the man, that they were created for the purpose of serving men.


Question 1: Does anybody wish to argue that the Bible does not treat women as second class citizens?

Question 2: Is the Bible right in it's stance towards women, or is it wrong? Are women intrinsically inferior to men, and is it right to require them to be submissive, silent and obedient?

Question 3: If you think that it's wrong to treat women as intrinsically inferior to men, how do you reconcile the fact that the Bible is wrong with your belief that the Bible can't be wrong?

[OnceConvinced]

Question 1: Does anybody wish to argue that the Bible does not treat women as second class citizens?

I just can't argue. The bible clearly shows women as second class citizens and worse, property of males. Just look at how you had to purchase your wife. Women had little say in who they marry. They just had to accept their place in life. It seemed their only purpose was to look after the house, perform menial tasks, mother children, serve their husbands and provide sex whenever required.

Question 2: Is the Bible right in it's stance towards women, or is it wrong? Are women intrinsically inferior to men, and is it right to require them to be submissive, silent and obedient?

Hell no. The bible is completely wrong. This bible sexism is damning evidence that the bible is not God's words and simply written by sexist idiots who wanted to keep women under their thumbs. Paul was one of the worst. It's hard to argue that he wasn't a misogynist sexist pig. Most likely gay I wouldn't at all be surprised.

[bluethread]

Question 1: Does anybody wish to argue that the Bible does not treat women as second class citizens?

Class is not a Scriptural concept. The reasons for those requirements are in recognition of general traits and social order.

Question 2: Is the Bible right in it's stance towards women, or is it wrong? Are women intrinsically inferior to men, and is it right to require them to be submissive, silent and obedient?

Again, inferior and superior are not principles being addressed here. One may speak of dominant and submissive roles, but those roles do not presume inferiority or superiority.

Question 3: If you think that it's wrong to treat women as intrinsically inferior to men, how do you reconcile the fact that the Bible is wrong with your belief that the Bible can't be wrong?

I reconcile it as I did above. There are many things in the Scriptures that are required of men and not women, but that does not make the man inferior. You are conflating social roles, specifically those of females, with ones value. It is true that the Scriptures do not teach egalitarianism, but when it does speak of value it is generally in relation to work and not social roles.

[atheist buddy]

Question 1: Does anybody wish to argue that the Bible does not treat women as second class citizens?

Class is not a Scriptural concept. The reasons for those requirements are in recognition of general traits and social order.

Question 2: Is the Bible right in it's stance towards women, or is it wrong? Are women intrinsically inferior to men, and is it right to require them to be submissive, silent and obedient?

Again, inferior and superior are not principles being addressed here. One may speak of dominant and submissive roles, but those roles do not presume inferiority or superiority.

Question 3: If you think that it's wrong to treat women as intrinsically inferior to men, how do you reconcile the fact that the Bible is wrong with your belief that the Bible can't be wrong?

I reconcile it as I did above. There are many things in the Scriptures that are required of men and not women, but that does not make the man inferior. You are conflating social roles, specifically those of females, with ones value. It is true that the Scriptures do not teach egalitarianism, but when it does speak of value it is generally in relation to work and not social roles.

How lovely. Don't address my point, object to the labels I used to make my points.

Ok, let's use your labels then.

Question 1: Does anybody wish to argue that the Bible does not expect men to dominate women, that the Bible does not require women to be submissive to men, that it does not require women to be obedient, silent and subservient to men? NOTE: I am not using words other than the ones YOU authorized to make my case, and words specifically from the Bible.

Question 2: Is the Bible right or is it wrong in it's stance towards social roles, whereby men dominate women and women are required to accept this domination with submissiveness, servility, obedience, silence and subservience?

Lets deal with these tow first and then get to the third.

Does the Bible require women to be submissive, subservient, obedient, and silent, whereas men are expected to dominate and command women? Yes or no?

Is it morally right to require women to be submissive, subservient, obedient, and silent, whereas men are expected to dominate and command women? Yes or no?


I'm 100% certain that I will NOT get a straight answer to this.

[atheist buddy]

Question 1: Does anybody wish to argue that the Bible does not treat women as second class citizens?

Class is not a Scriptural concept. The reasons for those requirements are in recognition of general traits and social order.

Question 2: Is the Bible right in it's stance towards women, or is it wrong? Are women intrinsically inferior to men, and is it right to require them to be submissive, silent and obedient?

Again, inferior and superior are not principles being addressed here. One may speak of dominant and submissive roles, but those roles do not presume inferiority or superiority.

Question 3: If you think that it's wrong to treat women as intrinsically inferior to men, how do you reconcile the fact that the Bible is wrong with your belief that the Bible can't be wrong?

I reconcile it as I did above. There are many things in the Scriptures that are required of men and not women, but that does not make the man inferior. You are conflating social roles, specifically those of females, with ones value. It is true that the Scriptures do not teach egalitarianism, but when it does speak of value it is generally in relation to work and not social roles.

Oh, another thing.

Who is superior, Jesus or man?

Would you say that it's not a matter of superioirity, because Jesus as the creator of the universe has one role, and man as his creation has another role, and that we shouldn't talk of superiority or inferiority?

Would you say that? Or would you admit that The Almighty Creator of the Universe, in the Sinless Flesh of Jesus Christ Our Savior, is superior to Joe Sixpack?

If the word "superior" is to mean ANYTHING AT ALL, if it can be used ANYWHERE at all, then it cna be used to describe God in relation to man.

Well the Bible says that Man is to woman, as God is to man.

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man"

The same relationship that exists between man and Jesus Christ, exists between a woman and a man.

The Bible says that women have to treat men as though they were GOD.

So for you to object to the use of the words "superior" and inferior" to describe men and women, two groups analogous in relationship as Man and God, is sooooooo misguided, so patently and demonstrably laughable, that I think you make my point for me much better than I could make myself.

Everybody, here is a perfect example of the true harm of religion. You can present a person with crushingly, devastatingly strong conclusive evidence that a book is morally wrong, and it will be impossibe for him to acknowledge it, and he will instead have to wiggle around moral realities.

Religion creates a dangerous blind spot in our moral vision.


Imagine a pill was invented, that messed with a patient's brain to the point that he was no longer able to acknowledge that the subjugation of women, the murder of homosexuals, the owning of concubines, is immoral.

That pill would be considered extremely dangerous, and it would be illegal everywhere. And yet religion, while having the exact same effect as that pill, thrives. Crazy, crazy world.


Bluethread, why can't you amdit that it's wrong for women to have to be submissive to men?

Or why can't you say that it's right for that matter?

Just honestly say what you believe!

[dianaiad]

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man" 1 Corinthians 13

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." 1 Corinthians 11

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing." Ephesians 5

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord." Colossians 3

"Let the woman 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" 1 Timothy 2



Above is just a small sample of Biblical quotes which would seem to indicate beyond any doubt that the authors of the Bible require that women be submissive and obedient to men, that they should be silent and that they should not hold positions of authority. The Bible seems to indicate in the clearest terms possible that women, in their very essence, are intrinsically inferior to men, that they are the property of the man, that they were created for the purpose of serving men.


Question 1: Does anybody wish to argue that the Bible does not treat women as second class citizens?

Question 2: Is the Bible right in it's stance towards women, or is it wrong? Are women intrinsically inferior to men, and is it right to require them to be submissive, silent and obedient?

Question 3: If you think that it's wrong to treat women as intrinsically inferior to men, how do you reconcile the fact that the Bible is wrong with your belief that the Bible can't be wrong?

You have claimed that the above are "just a small sample of biblical quotes..." when in reality what you have given us is a small sample of quotes from one author, in three letters.

....and you have claimed that this one author, and those quotes, comprise the entirety of the position of the whole bible?

Let's see: we have Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Noadiah, Isaiah's wife, for crying out loud, Anna in the NT....three of whom were married. One to a rather famous prophet, come to think.

Yet the authors of the bible didn't have much trouble with them.

As well, you seem to have a little problem with one of your references: 1 Corinthians 11...for which you did not give the verse. I THINK you were going for v. 8, which reads (in the KJV) For the man is not of the ewoman; but the woman of the man.

But you should have read down a verse or two, to 11, which reads (again in the KJV)

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12; For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Then he goes on to local custom, telling women to grow their hair long, and for men to cut theirs.

In fact, I don't think you've read the context of anything you have quoted at us, atheist buddy. I really do not. I think you have searched some anti-site that has done the looking for you, and you have swallowed their attitude hook, line and sinker.

For instance, do you know what version of the bible you are quoting from? Do you know the context of the letter you are picking the verses from?

Finally, I would ask you to consider that the culture of the time was very misogynistic, in general. Certainly the Greeks and Romans weren't good to their women; the Jews were considerably better to theirs, and we all know your opinion of the way they handled things.

But in all your protestations, consider that Jesus honored women. Women saw Him first at His resurrection. On the cross, according to the story, He thought of his mother above, and apart from, everybody else.

Now I belong to a church that reserves the priesthood to men. I don't have any problem with that at ll, because I know what the priesthood is for. I know what my jobs are, I know what the men's jobs are, and there is nothing 'lesser' about mine, or 'better' about theirs. They can't get anywhere without us, and we get nowhere without them...I am not better than Jim because I bore the children, nursed them and taught them, even though my influence on them was, because of this, far more intense and lasting than his. He was not better than me because he could give someone a priesthood blessing when required.

So...well...

Oh, never mind. Sometimes I think that women hate themselves and their own strengths so much that they don't want to BE women. They look at their own strengths and, if they are strengths that men simply do not, or cannot, have, they themselves call those strengths 'lesser.'

I don't understand it, myself.

[bluethread]

How lovely. Don't address my point, object to the labels I used to make my points.

Ok, let's use your labels then.

No reason to be condescending. Labels emphasize connotation over denotation. I find it is best to address those connotations out of the box, so we can be clear.

Question 1: Does anybody wish to argue that the Bible does not expect men to dominate women, that the Bible does not require women to be submissive to men, that it does not require women to be obedient, silent and subservient to men? NOTE: I am not using words other than the ones YOU authorized to make my case, and words specifically from the Bible.

I would not say that I "authorized" those terms, but I did use forms of them in context. Yes, I do contest that that the Scriptures expect men to dominate women. There are times when men play the dominate role, but; (Col. 3:19) "Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them." and (1 Pet. 3:7) "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."

Question 2: Is the Bible right or is it wrong in it's stance towards social roles, whereby men dominate women and women are required to accept this domination with submissiveness, servility, obedience, silence and subservience?

(Eph. 5:21) "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." This is the overriding principle. There are two sides to the husband/wife relationship.

Does the Bible require women to be submissive, subservient, obedient, and silent, whereas men are expected to dominate and command women? Yes or no?

No, men are expected love their wives and daughters and give their lives for them and see that they are provided for.

Is it morally right to require women to be submissive, subservient, obedient, and silent, whereas men are expected to dominate and command women? Yes or no?

No, but that is not what the Scriptures teach.

I'm 100% certain that I will NOT get a straight answer to this.

I am about 75% certain that "No" is not straight enough for you and any explanation will be seen as a hedge. I suppose the one sided way you cropped the quotes to begin with was perfectly straight.

Oh, another thing.

Who is superior, Jesus or man?

Would you say that it's not a matter of superioirity, because Jesus as the creator of the universe has one role, and man as his creation has another role, and that we shouldn't talk of superiority or inferiority?

Would you say that? Or would you admit that The Almighty Creator of the Universe, in the Sinless Flesh of Jesus Christ Our Savior, is superior to Joe Sixpack?

Good thing I checked on your quotes, that way I was able to see the piling on post that you couldn't wait to post, before I even responded. To your question, I will let Yeshua speak for Himself, (Mt. 35:25-28) "Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave-- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

If the word "superior" is to mean ANYTHING AT ALL, if it can be used ANYWHERE at all, then it cna be used to describe God in relation to man.

Well the Bible says that Man is to woman, as God is to man.

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man"

The same relationship that exists between man and Jesus Christ, exists between a woman and a man.

The Bible says that women have to treat men as though they were GOD.

No, "superior" can be ordinal and not qualitative. Yes, Adonai is superior to us both ordinally and qualitatively. However, Yeshua, shows us that, among humans, since He was making the sacrifice of living a human life, ordinal superiority does not equate to qualitative superiority. Ordinal superiority equates to greater accountability. The wife is not to treat her husband as a deity, that would be blasphemy. She is to treat her husband as a rabbi.

So for you to object to the use of the words "superior" and inferior" to describe men and women, two groups analogous in relationship as Man and God, is sooooooo misguided, so patently and demonstrably laughable, that I think you make my point for me much better than I could make myself.

Everybody, here is a perfect example of the true harm of religion. You can present a person with crushingly, devastatingly strong conclusive evidence that a book is morally wrong, and it will be impossibe for him to acknowledge it, and he will instead have to wiggle around moral realities.

Religion creates a dangerous blind spot in our moral vision.


Imagine a pill was invented, that messed with a patient's brain to the point that he was no longer able to acknowledge that the subjugation of women, the murder of homosexuals, the owning of concubines, is immoral.

That pill would be considered extremely dangerous, and it would be illegal everywhere. And yet religion, while having the exact same effect as that pill, thrives. Crazy, crazy world.


Bluethread, why can't you amdit that it's wrong for women to have to be submissive to men?

Or why can't you say that it's right for that matter?

Just honestly say what you believe!

I am generally reluctant to respond to diatribes, but I am honestly saying what I believe. The fact that it does not comply with your world view does not make it dishonest. I am not going to admit to how you view things before the discussion has hardly even begun, that is silly. Let' make our cases and see how they shake out. Does that sound fair?

[atheist buddy]

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man" 1 Corinthians 13

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." 1 Corinthians 11

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing." Ephesians 5

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord." Colossians 3

"Let the woman 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" 1 Timothy 2



Above is just a small sample of Biblical quotes which would seem to indicate beyond any doubt that the authors of the Bible require that women be submissive and obedient to men, that they should be silent and that they should not hold positions of authority. The Bible seems to indicate in the clearest terms possible that women, in their very essence, are intrinsically inferior to men, that they are the property of the man, that they were created for the purpose of serving men.


Question 1: Does anybody wish to argue that the Bible does not treat women as second class citizens?

Question 2: Is the Bible right in it's stance towards women, or is it wrong? Are women intrinsically inferior to men, and is it right to require them to be submissive, silent and obedient?

Question 3: If you think that it's wrong to treat women as intrinsically inferior to men, how do you reconcile the fact that the Bible is wrong with your belief that the Bible can't be wrong?

You have claimed that the above are "just a small sample of biblical quotes..." when in reality what you have given us is a small sample of quotes from one author, in three letters.

....and you have claimed that this one author, and those quotes, comprise the entirety of the position of the whole bible?

Right, I'm quoting Saint Paul the Apostle Of Jesus Christ. The single most proliphic author of the Bible, the one who wrote 13 of the 27 books.

It's remarkable. When I quote bigorty and horror from the OT, you say "Well, that doesn't really count, because things changed with the NT". When I quote the most proliphic author of the NT, you say "well this bigoted stuff that the most proliphic author of the NT says, you are unable to show how his bigotry is reflected in every single other chapter of every other book in the Bible, so are you really sure you have a point?".

Come on, Diana. Are you kidding me?

Let's see: we have Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Noadiah, Isaiah's wife, for crying out loud, Anna in the NT....three of whom were married. One to a rather famous prophet, come to think.

Yet the authors of the bible didn't have much trouble with them.

Well, one must assume that the (male) authors of the Bible didn't have much trouble with these women because they were obedient, silent and submissive, as required of women. Did they attempt to usurp authority from men? I didn't think so.

As well, you seem to have a little problem with one of your references: 1 Corinthians 11...for which you did not give the verse. I THINK you were going for v. 8, which reads (in the KJV) For the man is not of the ewoman; but the woman of the man.

But you should have read down a verse or two, to 11, which reads (again in the KJV)

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12; For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

So what. The second half of the passage is simply noting that there can't be men without women. although the woman is property of the man, men are born of women.

Whooptie doo, Diana. The author is simply noting the PHYSOLOGICAL reality that women have uteruses that men come out of. The physiological symbiosis of the genders, acknowledged in the second half of the passage, in no way negates the notion of OWNERSHIP whereby men own women.

Then he goes on to local custom, telling women to grow their hair long, and for men to cut theirs.

Yeah, I don't care about that one bit.

In fact, I don't think you've read the context of anything you have quoted at us, atheist buddy. I really do not. I think you have searched some anti-site that has done the looking for you, and you have swallowed their attitude hook, line and sinker.

Yes, I've swallowed hook, line and sinker the notion that "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord" means.... "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."

How canniving of the the authors of those evil anti-sites to brainwash me into thinking that repeated passages spelling out mysogeny and oppression of women, indicate mysogeny and oppression of women.

For instance, do you know what version of the bible you are quoting from?

First, yes. Second, unless there is some translation of the Bible which states "Wives, DO NOT submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord", does it really matter what translation I'm using? Are any translations different enough to alter the basic meaning? No. Stop obfuscating.

Do you know the context of the letter you are picking the verses from?

Yes, it's a context of extreme mysogeny and subjugation of women.

Finally, I would ask you to consider that the culture of the time was very misogynistic, in general

I agree. And these passages, spelling out in the clearest terms imaginable to complete and utter subjugation of women, are perfectly in line with that.

Certainly the Greeks and Romans weren't good to their women; the Jews were considerably better to theirs, and we all know your opinion of the way they handled things.

Hitler was worse than Mussolini. Is that how low you've sunk? "Sure, these barbarians who advocated the intrinsic inferiority of half of the human race were horrible and indifensible, but there were other savages who were arguably even worse, and that proves that the Biblical texts commanding the utterly evil and indifensible subjugation of women were inspired by a morally perfect super-being".

That's like saying "Sure, Mussolini's war crimes were horrible and indifensible, but Hitler's crimes were arguably even worse, and that proves that Mussolini's crimes were inspired by a morally perfect super-being".

How dare you say something so utterly absurd?

But in all your protestations, consider that Jesus honored women. Women saw Him first at His resurrection. On the cross, according to the story, He thought of his mother above, and apart from, everybody else.

wow, Jesus loved is mom? Well, then that makes it ok that the Bible contains so many passages clearly and incontrovertibly declaring that women are inferior to men to the same degree that man is inferior to Jesus, and that they must NOT hold positions of authority, and that they must be in silence, and obedience, and subjugation. Really, Diana? Really? that's the best you can do? Jesus thought about his mom while being killed, therefore.... what? Therefore the passages above are not sexist? What are you talking about???

Now I belong to a church that reserves the priesthood to men. I don't have any problem with that at ll, because I know what the priesthood is for.

You don't have a problem with that becuase outside of your church you live in a society where women are treated as equals, or at least close to it. You live ina society where your husband doesn't OWN you. You live in a society where you are not required to obey, and serve and be submissive to your husband. You live in a society where you can divorce him if he treats you as anything less than his equal and you can land his butt in jail if he ever lays a finger on you in anger.

You might CHOOSE not to divorce him because of your religious beliefs, but you have the OPTION to.

I know what my jobs are, I know what the men's jobs are, and there is nothing 'lesser' about mine, or 'better' about theirs

Is there something "lesser" about being a slave? Because if you are required to always be silent, submissive and obedient to somebody who owns you and who is as much your superior as God is his superior, then you are his SLAVE.

There is nothing "lesser" about your job and nothing "better about your husband's, because in this society you are not his slave. But the Bible explicitly commands that men treat women like slaves. do you understand that a man owning a woman and requiring that she be submissive, obedient and silent IS WRONG? Do. You. Understand. That????

They can't get anywhere without us, and we get nowhere without them...I am not better than Jim because I bore the children, nursed them and taught them, even though my influence on them was, because of this, far more intense and lasting than his

Correct. The physiological differences between men and women, and the gender roles that result from them, are not important, and they do not give either gender the right to OWN the other gender, and demand that they be silent, obedient and submissive.

I genuinely don't understand the non-sequitur of your response.

you describe the way things are now in our mostly egalitarian and non-gendered-biased society, in an attempt to defend the horros of the sexist texts of the iron age? "Things are good, now that my husband can't treat me like chattel, and that means that the Bible is right in saying women should be treated like chattel".

I swear that I'd have a hard time thinking of something more non-sensical than that. I'll try, but it's gonna be hard. Ok, here goes.

"Things are good now that we have modern medicine, and that proves that Jehovah's witnesses are right in rejecting blood transfusions".

What is the matter with you!

So...well...

Oh, never mind. Sometimes I think that women hate themselves and their own strengths so much that they don't want to BE women. They look at their own strengths and, if they are strengths that men simply do not, or cannot, have, they themselves call those strengths 'lesser.'

I don't understand it, myself.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Here's what I know: Saying that a woman MUST be subservient, submissive, obedient to men, must not teach, must not hold positions of authority and must be subject to her husband to the same degree that the church is subject to the God it worships, is wrong. Do you agree?

[Zzyzx]

.

Sometimes I think that women hate themselves and their own strengths so much that they don't want to BE women. They look at their own strengths and, if they are strengths that men simply do not, or cannot, have, they themselves call those strengths 'lesser.'

I don't understand it, myself.

Diana,

Is it just possible that what you observe and question is caused or influenced by women having been conditioned for thousands of years to be subservient to men – to accept second-class citizenship – to be quiet and endure – to ignore or conceal their strengths?

Only a tiny percentage of women do or did hold positions of influence and power. The few who do / did are regarded as outstanding (or "uppity"). Of the top 500 corporations in US only twenty-three (23) have females as CEO. Women make up only one-fourth the total of tenured university professors. In Congress only twenty percent of Senators and Representatives are women.

Is that because females are INFERIOR (other than size and strength usually)?

HECK NO it isn't. It is because they are perceived as such by themselves, by other women, by men, by the social system, by employers, by voters, etc.

WHY is this so? Males as a group are typically more aggressive. That might account for some differences. Motherhood is (rightly or wrongly) seen as a hindrance to women in leadership. Female hormone shifts are often blamed.

I also hold accountable religions and religious leaders. The Bible God and Jesus are portrayed as having male attitudes toward women. Had they said, "Guys, women are NOT inferior, not to be subservient, not to be property, not to be just baby machines. They are just as capable as you of being leaders in church, communities and business" that would have gone a long way toward bringing about equality.

Instead, male-dominated religions purporting to represent God and Jesus reinforced male-superior attitudes – and still do.



I have, for a lifetime, encountered this attitude from women. It is exactly the opposite of what I want in a partner – a proud, competent, EQUAL partner – equally mentally, physically and personally. Of course that does not imply total physical size and strength but general fitness. It DOES imply totally equal mental ability (not identical but "in equal measure"). Personal characteristics include self-confidence, integrity, "spirit", adventuresome / bold, unafraid, pleasant demeanor (not extreme in any direction),

If a woman's self-identified greatest strengths are "I'm a great cook and housekeeper" that is a complete turn-off for me. I eat to live not live to eat – and do not use food for comfort or as a major source of enjoyment. If her primary interests are television, movies, gossip, parties, occasions, etc we are not likely to be on the same page. I'd vastly prefer that she be knowledgeable about significant matters rather than frivolous, fantasy, fluff and "FUN-seeking focus).

I would expect her to be able to hold her own in these discussions / debates regardless of her theistic position. It makes no difference to me if she is a Theist provided that I am not expected to participate or be exposed to commercials.

[dianaiad]

Let's see: we have Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Noadiah, Isaiah's wife, for crying out loud, Anna in the NT....three of whom were married. One to a rather famous prophet, come to think.

Yet the authors of the bible didn't have much trouble with them.

Well, one must assume that the (male) authors of the Bible didn't have much trouble with these women because they were obedient, silent and submissive, as required of women. Did they attempt to usurp authority from men? I didn't think so.

Atheist buddy, I'll tell you what: when you actually read the bible and figure out what you are talking about, then we can talk. The women I just referred to were prophetesses in their own right. They were not talked about because they were 'subservient to their husbands.'

But you go ahead. Look them up for yourself.

As well, you seem to have a little problem with one of your references: 1 Corinthians 11...for which you did not give the verse. I THINK you were going for v. 8, which reads (in the KJV) For the man is not of the ewoman; but the woman of the man.

But you should have read down a verse or two, to 11, which reads (again in the KJV)

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12; For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

So what. The second half of the passage is simply noting that there can't be men without women. although the woman is property of the man, men are born of women.

and you absolutely ignore the 'neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man' part.....

I'm done.

I repeat; I see little indication that you have actually read the source...that is, the bible. Do that and argue from your own impressions.

Then we can talk.

Whooptie doo, Diana. The author is simply noting the PHYSOLOGICAL reality that women have uteruses that men come out of. The physiological symbiosis of the genders, acknowledged in the second half of the passage, in no way negates the notion of OWNERSHIP whereby men own women.

Then he goes on to local custom, telling women to grow their hair long, and for men to cut theirs.

Yeah, I don't care about that one bit.

In fact, I don't think you've read the context of anything you have quoted at us, atheist buddy. I really do not. I think you have searched some anti-site that has done the looking for you, and you have swallowed their attitude hook, line and sinker.

Yes, I've swallowed hook, line and sinker the notion that "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord" means.... "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."

How canniving of the the authors of those evil anti-sites to brainwash me into thinking that repeated passages spelling out mysogeny and oppression of women, indicate mysogeny and oppression of women.

Well, it is if they tell you to repeat their line, and you don't go look at the source for yourself. Context is important.

You don't get context in those sites. Really. You don't.

For instance, do you know what version of the bible you are quoting from?

First, yes.

That's nice. What version is it? I mean, I may as well use the same one you do.
<snip to here>

Now I belong to a church that reserves the priesthood to men. I don't have any problem with that at ll, because I know what the priesthood is for.

You don't have a problem with that becuase outside of your church you live in a society where women are treated as equals, or at least close to it. You live ina society where your husband doesn't OWN you. You live in a society where you are not required to obey, and serve and be submissive to your husband. You live in a society where you can divorce him if he treats you as anything less than his equal and you can land his butt in jail if he ever lays a finger on you in anger.

You might CHOOSE not to divorce him because of your religious beliefs, but you have the OPTION to.

You really do have a problem with context, AB. Did you know that the women of MY church were voting, having careers as physicians, lawyers, judges, etc. for nearly three generations before the rest of this vaunted society you are so proud of? That the federal government only allowed Utah to become a state if Utah took the vote AWAY from women? My great grandmother had to vote to allow her right to vote to be taken away from her in order for Utah to achieve statehood...and she and all her sister Mormon women did so because the men promised that it would be restored in the state constitutional convention. Those women trusted the men....and the right of women to vote was one of the first things passed IN that convention.

Don't tell me about why I 'don't have a problem with that," because I come from...unlike the rest of American women, generations of women who voted, who were active in community life, who held responsible positions in that community...and who, when they were defeated in their efforts, were defeated not by the church they belonged to, but by that society you seem so proud of.

Y'know, when you actually do some research, you might come to a slightly different point of view.

I know what my jobs are, I know what the men's jobs are, and there is nothing 'lesser' about mine, or 'better' about theirs

Is there something "lesser" about being a slave? Because if you are required to always be silent, submissive and obedient to somebody who owns you and who is as much your superior as God is his superior, then you are his SLAVE.

Then I suggest that you go after a belief system that actually thinks that way. Mine does not. Sorry to disappoint you in that.

There is nothing "lesser" about your job and nothing "better about your husband's, because in this society you are not his slave. But the Bible explicitly commands that men treat women like slaves. do you understand that a man owning a woman and requiring that she be submissive, obedient and silent IS WRONG? Do. You. Understand. That????

Be careful, atheist buddy. you are coming really close to crossing the line of civility here.