Women should be seen but not heard

stahrwe · Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:45 pm

CWT36 wrote:

Stah -

In perusing the Southern Baptist Convention website I came across this publication published by the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:


	Quote: Modeling Modesty This booklet by Mary K. Mohler addresses the important topic of modeling and teaching modesty in women. http://www.sbts.edu/resources/files/200 ... -24-09.pdf

Since you have stated that your denomination does not believe in the subjugation of women, why is there no corresponding booklet that "addresses the important topic of modeling and teaching modesty in [men]?"

Did you read the article?

How is it subjugating women to take a stand against the pervasive sexualization of women in our society. Why is it that every new girl celbrity turns out to have pictures of her topless, and why are these pictures pasted in every magazine and TV tabloid with the obligatory blurring? Why is it that all the girls on 'reality' tv shows are size 2s but the average real girl is a size 6. How is it that teaching a young girl that she doesn't have to be a sex object to have an identity is subjugation?

How many times do you read or hear,: "nude pics of (whoever the hot new boy celeb of the moment is) revealed?"

Are you still asleep?

stahrwe · Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:48 pm

seespotrun2008 wrote:


	Quote: Deceivers

Who is that? I mean in order to call someone an enemy you have to separate yourself from them. They lose their humanity. This is how and why wars get started.

Our enemy is not of flesh and blood.

stahrwe · Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:05 pm


	seespotrun2008 wrote: Wow, and that is recent. I love how we criticize Muslims for the way we treat women when we are just as sexist on many levels.

We don't advocate that women wear burka's (sp? of course) nor do we teach that it is all on the woman's side. I have always believed that true intimacy between a man and woman is when you have a loving and nurturing relationship and is not merely the sex act.

Let me ask you freekers a question. In the movie Saturday Night Fever, one of the guys is in a car having sex with a girl. The scene sets up a line where it turns out he doesn't even know the girls name. Now a Southern Baptist would advise against that behavior by both people, is that subjugation of women or is the random sex?

seespotrun2008 · Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:09 pm


	Quote: How is it subjugating women to take a stand against the pervasive sexualization of women in our society. Why is it that every new girl celbrity turns out to have pictures of her topless, and why are these pictures pasted in every magazine and TV tabloid with the obligatory blurring? Why is it that all the girls on 'reality' tv shows are size 2s but the average real girl is a size 6. How is it that teaching a young girl that she doesn't have to be a sex object to have an identity is subjugation?

This is not taking a stand against subjugating women. It is blaming women for men’s bad behavior and telling them that they need to change themselves in order for men to be more in control of their behavior. It is the same stance that many Muslims take. The female body does not signify sex. That is where the subjugation of women lies. This is basically saying to women that men are just naturally going to objectify them, so here is the best way to prevent that. Maybe there should be a pamphlet telling men how to not objectify women.

seespotrun2008 · Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:10 pm


	Quote: Our enemy is not of flesh and blood.

Ok.

seespotrun2008 · Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:21 pm


	Quote: We don't advocate that women wear burka's (sp? of course) nor do we teach that it is all on the woman's side. I have always believed that true intimacy between a man and woman is when you have a loving and nurturing relationship and is not merely the sex act.

I know you don’t, Stahrwe, but it is the same thing. It does not matter how much clothing you tell a woman she needs to wear, you are still telling her that it is her fault that men objectify her.

I am not sure that the woman in Saturday night fever probably knows his name either. It is probably objectification on both sides.

stahrwe · Sun Oct 25, 2009 5:04 pm

poettess wrote:

I was reading through this post because I find it interesting but I have not said anything until now because most of my thoughts have already been eloquently and clearly spoken. I did rankle a bit at this quote from Stahrwe though, mainly because it shows such a lack of education or even willingness to engage in educational processes that I had to say something.


	Quote: It is the other way round. The stories in other cultures are perversions of the Hebrew Bible.

What data do you have that he biblical stories were written before the other stories? What about the Madonna and child imagry that existed long before Jesus was even mentioned in the New testament? (Egyptian mythos) If you are going to say something about what came before, can you please cite your sources for this assumption?

It's obvious that you did not read my post. Go back and read it, I answer your question in the post.

poettess · Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:50 pm

First of all I want to give a big BOOYAH to SeeSpot Run for this little gem right here which gets to the heart of sexism...thank you so much for the post..


	Quote: This is not taking a stand against subjugating women. It is blaming women for men’s bad behavior and telling them that they need to change themselves in order for men to be more in control of their behavior. It is the same stance that many Muslims take. The female body does not signify sex. That is where the subjugation of women lies. This is basically saying to women that men are just naturally going to objectify them, so here is the best way to prevent that. Maybe there should be a pamphlet telling men how to not objectify women.

Secondly, I would like to say to Stahrwe that I looked over this post diligently with the intention to find this alleged information that you included which includes any kind of citation whatsoever to support your claim that everyone else copied off of the Bible and not the other way around and I found nothing. Perhaps you would be so kind as to post this information again so that my feeble mind can easily access it.

seespotrun2008 · Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:56 pm


	Quote: First of all I want to give a big BOOYAH to SeeSpot Run for this little gem right here which gets to the heart of sexism...thank you so much for the post.

Thank you, Poettess.

Robert Tulip · Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:20 pm

poettess wrote:

First of all I want to give a big BOOYAH to SeeSpot Run for this little gem right here which gets to the heart of sexism...thank you so much for the post..


	Quote: This is not taking a stand against subjugating women. It is blaming women for men’s bad behavior and telling them that they need to change themselves in order for men to be more in control of their behavior. It is the same stance that many Muslims take. The female body does not signify sex. That is where the subjugation of women lies. This is basically saying to women that men are just naturally going to objectify them, so here is the best way to prevent that. Maybe there should be a pamphlet telling men how to not objectify women.

Secondly, I would like to say to Stahrwe that I looked over this post diligently with the intention to find this alleged information that you included which includes any kind of citation whatsoever to support your claim that everyone else copied off of the Bible and not the other way around and I found nothing. Perhaps you would be so kind as to post this information again so that my feeble mind can easily access it.

Hi Poettess, fantastic comment. YAHBOO!

The Abrahamic faiths derive from pre-existing religion, notably the Vedas and Babylonian and Egyptian myth. My view is that the Brahma-Sarasvati = Abraham-Sarah etymological linkage is strong evidence for the Indian origin of this mythic gender partnership. The claim that the Sarasvati River dried up in about 2000 BC and its inhabitants migrated west is supported by the etymology. Even God comes from India. Deus Patera (God the Father in Latin) is Dyaus Pita, the Vedic Sky God. In moving west, the old hindu pantheon in which male and female were equal was captured by patriarchal monotheism, an oppressive and limited worldview which still hangs around as creationism.

CWT36 · Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:29 pm


	stahrwe wrote: Did you read the article? How is it subjugating women to take a stand against the pervasive sexualization of women in our society. Why is it that every new girl celbrity turns out to have pictures of her topless, and why are these pictures pasted in every magazine and TV tabloid with the obligatory blurring? Why is it that all the girls on 'reality' tv shows are size 2s but the average real girl is a size 6. How is it that teaching a young girl that she doesn't have to be a sex object to have an identity is subjugation? How many times do you read or hear,: "nude pics of (whoever the hot new boy celeb of the moment is) revealed?" Are you still asleep?

Stah my divergent friend, I don't care to talk pop culture. The issue is you and your Southern Baptist Convention's stance on equality, or should I say lack of equality, of the sexes.

I notice you didn't comment on the other three articles I referenced. Let me jostle your memory in case they slipped your mind, they are the articles specifically instructing wives to submit to their husbands. Aren't you going to tell us that submit doesn't really mean submit? Or are you going to be a man and stand up and admit to what you really believe a woman's place is.

Or maybe Seespot's cat has got your tongue.

seespotrun2008 · Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:52 pm


	Quote: Or maybe Seespot's cat has got your tongue.

President Camacho · Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:52 pm

Poor guy. He only wants to objectify women without appearing politically incorrect. That must be pretty difficult. Who wouldn't want a woman waiting on you hand and foot and submitting to your every whim? I know I would... as long as she was attractive. Ugly and obedient is soooo cliche. I'm down for some pamphlet making if this will help our cause Stah. Maybe we can get all the females here on BT to do our bidding!

stahrwe · Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:30 am

seespotrun2008 wrote:


	Quote: How is it subjugating women to take a stand against the pervasive sexualization of women in our society. Why is it that every new girl celbrity turns out to have pictures of her topless, and why are these pictures pasted in every magazine and TV tabloid with the obligatory blurring? Why is it that all the girls on 'reality' tv shows are size 2s but the average real girl is a size 6. How is it that teaching a young girl that she doesn't have to be a sex object to have an identity is subjugation?

This is not taking a stand against subjugating women. It is blaming women for men’s bad behavior and telling them that they need to change themselves in order for men to be more in control of their behavior. It is the same stance that many Muslims take. The female body does not signify sex. That is where the subjugation of women lies. This is basically saying to women that men are just naturally going to objectify them, so here is the best way to prevent that. Maybe there should be a pamphlet telling men how to not objectify women.

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.

stahrwe · Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:37 am


	President Camacho wrote: Poor guy. He only wants to objectify women without appearing politically incorrect. That must be pretty difficult. Who wouldn't want a woman waiting on you hand and foot and submitting to your every whim? I know I would... as long as she was attractive. Ugly and obedient is soooo cliche. I'm down for some pamphlet making if this will help our cause Stah. Maybe we can get all the females here on BT to do our bidding!

You betray your own prejudices by your statements. Subjecting yourself to someone's authority does not imply nor require that one become someone's slave. Nor does the NT show women in that light.

Ephesians 5:
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The women have an easy compared with the requirement imposed on men. Can you imagine what kind of world we would live in if men followed this requirement?

Women should be seen but not heard Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Casual Chats