Women should be seen but not heard

stahrwe · Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:25 am


	CWT36 wrote: The position of the SBC plants the seeds into young girls, and at the same time it is planting corresponding seeds in young boys. I know that the church doesn't condone, but rather speaks out against abuse. But simultaniously they are planting seeds of abuse. Just like real seeds, they won't all germinate. Many kids, most kids, will grow up with good healthy beliefs. But some seeds will germinate, and young girls and young boys grow up with faulty belief systems (unintentionally of course). We know this happens, and yet the church fosters it just the same. Again, I want to be as careful and respectful as I can, but maybe some of those seeds germinated in your daughter. But whether they did or not, the mere possibility that it may be the case should have you adamantly opposed to the practice of submission. Every young girl should be ingrained with the fact that she is never, never, never in any way less than a man. They need to be taught that there is no gray area, there is no "it's ok to be submissive in regards to the chores, but not in regards to your body." NO submission ever. Anything less is unacceptable and dangerous.

First, the SBC is not a controlling entitiy like the Pope. Each Southern Baptist church is independent and there is a wide diveristy of teaching between churches. That said, there are some general principles of doctrine that Southern Baptist churches find common ground.

Your error is in equating being submissive with being inferior. They are not the same thing and it is a pervision of the Gospel of Christ to teach that. Jesus did not die only for the sins of the male gender. Also, someone in an earlier post somewhere mentioned that Jesus did not have any female disciples. That is not true. He had many female disciples it is only that they were not included in the 12. Before you go pointing out how sexist that is for males and females to have been together in that situation would have been a scandal. Additionally, there were a number of women who were active and had prominent roles in His ministry.

Why don't we review women's rights around the world.

India-suck
China-worse than sucks, especially if you are a female fetus.
Africa-suck unless you are in a country with a large Christian population.
Japan-used to suck, bound feet, tea ceremony, etc., but with westernization, much better.
Muslim world-sucks. Get ready for sharia law in the US. The Muslims are working on it and if you think you atheists are going to stop them, fat chance. The only thing that will stop the Muslims is Christianity.
Speaking of Christianity, countries with heavy Christian influences are the only ones where women have rights to speak of .

CWT36 · Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:43 am


	stahrwe wrote: Your error is in equating being submissive with being inferior.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_m ... prefix_sub


	Quote: The latin Prefix 'Sub' can mean 'under', 'beneath', or 'below' (such as in the Word 'Subconscious'), 'inferior to', or 'part of' (such as in the Word 'Subhuman'), 'less than normal' (such as in 'Substitute'), or 'almost/nearly' (such as in the Word 'Subcentral')

Definitions and synonyms of submissive


	Quote: inclined or willing to submit to orders or wishes of others or showing such inclination; ;slavish, subservient; willing to submit without resistance to authority; deferent: unassertive - inclined to timidity or lack of self-confidence; servile;a less common word for subordinate; unresistingly or humbly obedient:resigned, subdued.

As I said previously, there is no defense for preaching that women should be submissive but you will continue to do so anyway. I wonder what other great men besides Reverend Stah have preached submissiveness?


	Quote: And ladies, build up your husband by being submissive. That's how you will give your children success; you will want your children to be obedient, to be submissive to righteous living. Warren Jeffs

Excuse me while I go puke.

Interbane · Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:55 pm

What is this, are we redefining the word submissive now? :laugh:

Let's justify baptist feminine submissiveness by exemplifying other countries who are worse off!

You're a piece of work Stahre.

seespotrun2008 · Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:41 pm


	Quote: I agree with your concluding sentence, however, the objectification is not restricted to the male gender, it seems to me that the popular culture promotes the idea that women are as obsessed with their own and other women's bodies as men are. That may not be the case with women who particpate on Booktalk.org, but you don't have to look far to see it in movies, magazines, on TV.

Women as a group in Western culture have seen themselves through male eyes for so long that it is not hard to understand why this may be. When I say that, I mean that men as a group have had legal, financial, and political power. With that power men as a group has decided how women should be seen and how they should see themselves. It is the similar to WEB Du Bois’ “veil”.


	Quote: “…the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in the American world, - a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks in amused contempt and pity.”

Although, I am hesitant to give a lot of credence to what is seen in movies or television about an individual group, it is true that women are influenced as a group by fashion magazines and images of women in the media. The media is a patriarchal institution that contributes to women’s oppression.

So are you saying that a woman’s body does signify only sex?


	Quote: On what basis are men behaving badly?

By allowing themselves to think of the female body as sex. Even Jesus expected men to take responsibility for their own thoughts and desires.


	Quote: “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

The object of lust is not responsible for the lust in this sentence the one who is lusting is.

Compare this to the pamphlet by Mary K Mohler:


	Quote: Don’t blame the men around you who happen to be unfortunate enough to be within sight and say that they need to get their minds out of the gutter.

We are all responsible for our thoughts and our actions. Rape survivors are often blamed for the rape because of what they wore, or what they said, or what they did. This diverts responsibility from the real person who is to blame – namely- the rapist.


	Quote: Aren't men just reacting as nature intented in manifesting our evolutionary interest in reproducing?

Since we are all biological creatures, then that would mean that women have that same interest. Many women are attracted to men who wear suits or make a lot of money. Does that mean that we tell men that they should limit the amount of money that they make or when going out in public put on grubby jeans and a t-shirt? That way the women around them will not be tempted. How ludicrous is this? Yet we do this to women all of the time.


	Quote: Perhaps you could be specific about how SBC hurts women through our policies.

I will quote Colin. It is "bigoted and oppressive".


	Quote: When I was in college, U of F getting my BS degree, I was dating a girl, what she liked to be called. I thought she was the most beautiful girl in the world and was amazed that she went out with me. She was a Southern Baptist, believed in dressing modestly, that anyone she married had to be older than her, and taller than her. She beleived in a wife submitting to her husband, insisted on having the car door opened for her and many more. Truly an old fashioned oppressed girl you the standards of most feminists. At the same time I had some acquaintances, friends of a friend who were on the other spectrum. Richard was a radical and Mary, his female companion an avowed feminist. He used to introduce her to people as his, "piece of flesh". If I ever had introduced my oppressed girlfriend that way then, or my submissive wife that way now, I shudder to imagine the consequences, but I would not because it would never occur to me to do so. Mary would just smile.

Neither of these stories disproves oppression. It just demonstrates people trying to survive within that oppression. And men are also affected by oppression. They are not allowed to be emotional, or weak, or victims. 85 percent of domestic violence victims are women; that leaves 15 percent who are men. And there may be more. Statistics are based on people who call the police or use public services. Yet, men who report abuse are so often treated like they are being silly that it does not benefit them to report.


	Quote: Your quote is from a biased website and its impartiality if not its voracity is highly susptect. I have been associated with conservative SB churches for more than three decades and every one of them advises that at the first sign of physical abuse the abused spouse should seek shelter, and absolutely not stay in an abusive relationship. There is nothing scriptural about being abused and it is grounds for divorce.

I am glad that you say that, Stahrwe. However, there many incidents of women going to pastors who tell them to be better wives. There are also women who are convinced that if they do not go back to abusers that they will burn in hell. I am not sure why you say the website is biased, however. I looked at it and it seemed like they were trying to be objective. I also noticed that the SBC as a whole does not support Fred Phelps. That is good.


	Quote: The Bible says that when we marry the husband and wife become one flesh. Two become one.

If this is true then why would anyone have to “submit”? They would always be on the same page and there would be no decisions apart from each other. It would be like the Borg or something. Telling one party that they must submit to the other party, instantly creates inequality. The goal may be “one flesh” yet if you create inequality you have already destroyed that.


	Quote: Your error is in equating being submissive with being inferior.

Actually this is what this means. If you have to be submissive to someone it means that you do not have the power that he or she does. The Christian church has kept women out of leadership positions and made them believe that they are inferior to men. And the church continues to do so.


	Quote: Definitions and synonyms of submissive Quote: inclined or willing to submit to orders or wishes of others or showing such inclination; ;slavish, subservient; willing to submit without resistance to authority; deferent: unassertive - inclined to timidity or lack of self-confidence; servile;a less common word for subordinate; unresistingly or humbly obedient:resigned, subdued.

Thank you, Colin.

Robert Tulip · Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:22 pm


	stahrwe wrote: countries with heavy Christian influences are the only ones where women have rights to speak of .

This recognition of Christian respect for women is a good point in the main, and neglected by critics of Christianity. Of course women in non-Christian societies have rights, but it is true that the Christian heritage has provided a core ethic of equality, especially through Saint Paul’s teaching ‘in Christ there is neither male nor female’. The Christian ethic of ‘love thy neighbour’, when lived out coherently, produces an intrinsic respect for the dignity of all people, including women. By saying ‘the last shall be first’ the Biblical ethic critiques the conscience of those who act as if the first shall be first.

I recently attended a Bible Study group on NT Wright’s book on Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians. Our reading found a serious intellectual tension in Paul, between an initial statement that he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility and a later comment Wives, submit to your husbands.

Here we see a division between an ‘end times’ thinking in the first statement, that Christ dissolves all barriers, and a ‘temporal’ thinking in the second statement, that social hierarchies deliver stability and should not be upset in the name of a messianic transformation.

Kevin · Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:33 pm

Robert Tulip wrote:


	stahrwe wrote: countries with heavy Christian influences are the only ones where women have rights to speak of .

This recognition of Christian respect for women is a good point in the main, and neglected by critics of Christianity. Of course women in non-Christian societies have rights, but it is true that the Christian heritage has provided a core ethic of equality,

Hello. I wonder though (and this is merely wondering, and actually, hoping) if it's not simply a case of it being that Christian-dominated societies are not so bad as the Muslim ones when it comes to matters of gender equality. Is it true that women in say, China, are lacking this core ethic of equality that you, apparently, see as being present in the Christian-dominated societies? I wonder too about in the former USSR... I will say that it will be disappointing to me if I find out that Christianity is as good as it gets when it comes to overall equality on any significant scale.

Robert Tulip · Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:53 pm


	Kevin wrote: a case of it being that Christian-dominated societies are not so bad as the Muslim ones when it comes to matters of gender equality. Is it true that women in say, China, are lacking this core ethic of equality that you, apparently, see as being present in the Christian-dominated societies? I wonder too about in the former USSR... I will say that it will be disappointing to me if I find out that Christianity is as good as it gets when it comes to overall equality on any significant scale.

Hi Kevin. The communist line from Mao was 'women hold up half the sky'. However, this was more a source of exploitation than of freedom and dignity for women. By contrast, Christianity teaches that the meek shall inherit the earth and that many that are now last will be first. The Gospel provides a vision of a radical dissolution of existing hierarchical barriers, including those of sex, race, class and creed. But the institutional church was not capable of applying this vision, instead supporting social stability through validation of patriarchal traditions. The hope for equality has long found inspiration in the vision of Jesus, for example his story of the woman at the well.

Frank 013 · Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:05 am


	Quote: RT By contrast, Christianity teaches that the meek shall inherit the earth and that many that are now last will be first.

Of course this message is lost in the mass of text that says that women come second to men as shown throughout this thread.


	Quote: RT The Gospel provides a vision of a radical dissolution of existing hierarchical barriers, including those of sex, race, class and creed.

Again a message that is lost in the stories of racial genocide and the prejudice acts of both god and Jesus.


	Quote: RT But the institutional church was not capable of applying this vision, instead supporting social stability through validation of patriarchal traditions.

That “vision” is NOT the only one to be found in the bible… furthermore it does not appear to have always been the message of most import over the ages. Christianity always runs the risk of falling back into the dark ages it dragged us through once before.


	Quote: RT The hope for equality has long found inspiration in the vision of Jesus, for example his story of the woman at the well.

Possibly… the problem is that Christianity has never made good on this promise… it was not until secular law, institutions and ideas surfaced and started to become popular that Christianity began to loose its power and hold on the people.

That is when equality truly began to surface… as religions loose their hold; equality can finally begin to manifest.

Look at the history of this country… Christian doctrine was nearly as restrictive to women in the past as Islam currently is… it was not until the church began to loose its power to the new secular government and ideas that equality really began to make any real headway.

As the Christian church changed its stance and was finally defanged, it became less powerful across the globe… those societies are the ones that became free. But this is not the result of the religion in question… but the result of the religion loosing its power to make law.

This is evident as has been shown many times here on BookTalk in other threads; studies show that the less religious a country or region is the better human rights and woman rights we see.

Later

seespotrun2008 · Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:43 am

I think you are right, Frank. And so is Robert. The thing that I love about religion is it's complexity. All religions contain both the seeds of oppression and liberation. I do not agree with Stahrwe that Christian countries are the only ones that treat women well. I have read the argument that Muslim women were treated better than Christian women in the middle ages. I have also read that India's relationship to women is very complex. And Indian women have used the Hindu texts to fight for equality. And like you said, Frank, oftentimes as countries move away from religion equality follows. Religion is pretty amazing in my opinion. It cannot really be pigeon-holed, although people try to do that. I suppose that any human endeavor is like this.

johnson1010 · Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:21 am

women are more often oppressed in religious view points than not. The problem is that religion, by and large, resists change of any kind, especially to the foundations of the religion, because it is supposed to be the complete truth (in many religions) and above reproach or improvement.

What that means for us today is that the predjudices, falsehoods, misunderstandings, bigotry, and sexism of the times are preserved in a state of religious sanctity that makes it taboo to even consider that these backward practices may be incorrect.

it ossifies thinking and carries it forward to the next generations, but because the founding of these religions date back hundreds, or thousands of years, it is not too hard to imagine that for the most part, they had it all wrong.

seespotrun2008 · Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:39 pm


	Quote: women are more often oppressed in religious view points than not. The problem is that religion, by and large, resists change of any kind, especially to the foundations of the religion, because it is supposed to be the complete truth (in many religions) and above reproach or improvement.

I think that’s true. But I think that here we have a chicken or egg sort of argument. Is religion the cause for sexism or is it a mirror for an already existent sexism? I know that religion has been used for all sorts of oppressions. But what is interesting it has also been used to challenge those oppressions. On a series on OPB about slavery they were saying that slave holders in the South were using the Bible to justify their oppression of African-American people. At the same time African Americans were seeing the Exodus. This eventually led to the civil rights movement. I thought that that was so amazing.

I am not saying that religion has not been responsible for many problems. But I also think that oppression is very complex. It is more than just one idea or institution that creates it. It is ultimately about people trying to maintain power and I think that we use multiple means to do that. Religion is just one of those. And may I point out, that atheists are often no better at not oppressing women than religious groups are.

johnson1010 · Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:59 pm

very true there are a number of elements that come together to allow things like sexism and racism to exist, and i do not place all the blame on religion, however, it is a convenient tool for those who hold these positions to push their bigotry onto the next generation with holy authority at their backs.

seespotrun2008 · Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:05 pm


	Quote: it is a convenient tool for those who hold these positions to push their bigotry onto the next generation with holy authority at their backs.

Very true.

Grim · Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:07 pm

I happened to be looking for a place to share this gem of a quote:

"I have read about sixteen pages of your manuscript and it made me - smile. It is clever, well observed, honest, it stands on its own feet up to a point, and yet it is so typically feminine, by which I mean derivative and vitiated by personal rancour." - Einstein "The World as I See It"

:book:

DWill · Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:59 am


	seespotrun2008 wrote: On a series on OPB about slavery they were saying that slave holders in the South were using the Bible to justify their oppression of African-American people. At the same time African Americans were seeing the Exodus. This eventually led to the civil rights movement. I thought that that was so amazing. I am not saying that religion has not been responsible for many problems. But I also think that oppression is very complex. It is more than just one idea or institution that creates it. It is ultimately about people trying to maintain power and I think that we use multiple means to do that. Religion is just one of those. And may I point out, that atheists are often no better at not oppressing women than religious groups are.

Great thought about oppression. We do usually see it as a simple matter. But while Christians were using the bible to justify slavery, so too were evangelicals actively opposing slavery, and some historians would contend that theirs was the most important contribution to the anti-slavery movement. Same with science. While the church actively suppressed science early on, it wasn't that long before its power to do this disappeared. Indeed, historians say that Christianity provided quite a favorable environment for the development of science (Gregor Mendel being a monk, after all!).

Forum rules

Women should be seen but not heard Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!