Feminism - Let's just do it

[DarkHorseRising]

wasn't that long ago

Yes but if I mention the 60's, Joe will shout that I wasn't there and he was so he must automatically be right.

 

[joethemechanic]

I would wager that for every one woman who cheats on her husband, there's two men who do so to their wives.

Why do you have such a bias against men?

 

[DarkHorseRising]

Why do you have such a bias against men?

I don't. I am a man and I know perfectly well how we are. On some level, I'd be thrilled with the idea of having sex with many attractive women. Of course, I also know where this temptation comes from and how harmful it could be if I ever carried it out. God has shown me that this isn't His plan for me and I accept that, but I don't for one minute pretend that a lot of men don't struggle with their sex drives.

 

[BobE]

I'm not opposed feminism, as in women having equal rights and opportunity for employment and careers. What's wrong with it? (Being a woman myself. Hehe.)

It irks me just a little bit when I see others acting like we're still being oppressed, though and claim that businesses are less likely to hire women. (Which may be true, but I rather doubt it as there are female employees, like, just about everywhere.)
That said, I believe some countries, like Saudi Arabia, do still treat women as inferior. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) So I can understand if they were talking about other countries.

I was rather of the same mind as you, until I became a professor at a Bible College attended by students from more than 20 different denominations. I was hired as the Director of Counselling Studies there, due to my background in sociology, psychology and religion.

(I'm going to take this as an opportunity to share what I discovered. Please don't feel I'm directing all of this information at you personally. You may be well aware of it. I'd just like to share what I found out with everyone participating in the thread.)

What I learned is that in some churches women still cannot speak (literally), others can't preach, some can't preach within the church building, some can't teach men, others can't be pastors, some can't be "senior" pastors. At home, men had the final say in any disagreement, simply because they are men. Women were expected to "submit" to all of their husbands demands, including sexual ones.

Some of my female students felt called to attend Bible College to develop pastoral skills, yet their denominations said that their call to preach the gospel was literally from the devil. It struck me as odd that Satan would want people trained to more effectively share the message of salvation in Christ--a house divided against itself cannot stand, after all.

So, I began what became a 5 year research project into the role of women in the church. What I discovered changed my life, and my faith, probably forever.

I learned that the oldest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament refer to women as ministers, deacons, leaders and apostles--quite literally. In other words, they certainly could teach, lead and preach in the early church. Some more recent Bible translations (e.g. the TNIV, the TIB) actually get this right. The King James Bible, however, tends to get this wrong.

I learned that some Christian leaders also appear to read the Bible through the lenses of prejudice. For example, when they see that Eve is described as Adam's "helper," they literally perceive this as meaning she was subordinate to him and inferior. They seem unable to recognize that the same word ("help" in English, "ezer" in Hebrew) is used to describe God. God is obviously not inferior to us, or subordinate.

Some people focus on the curse of Genesis chapter 3 (the reference that husbands will now rule over wives) and see it as God's will. They don't seem to recognize that this curse is a direct result of sin (i.e. not God's will). They also don't seem to recognize that Jesus died on the cross to redeem us from this very curse:

Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”) (Galatians 3:13, NKJV)

Galatians even spells out the effects of Christ's redemption:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28 NKJV).

Some Christian leaders literally read Genesis and think that the devil approached Eve when she was alone because she was more prone to error than Adam. They seem to miss the obvious detail provided in the Bible that Adam and Eve were together when the serpent tempted them:

“She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate” (Genesis 3:6, NKJV).


When I investigated the history of the bias against women, I found that it could largely be traced to the third century. Christian "thinkers" and writers like St. Augustine and John Chrysostom (both Bishops in the Holy Roman Church) took it upon themselves to protect people from heresy. Unfortunately, they wrongly viewed freedom from the curse of misogyny as heretical. They didn't get their views on women from the Bible, however. It's more likely they absorbed them from their Roman culture and Greek philosophy.


Augustine for example had this to say about women:

It is the natural order among people that women serve their husbands and children their parents, because the justice of this lies in (the principle that) the lesser serves the greater…This is the natural justice that the weaker brain serve the stronger. This therefore is the evident justice in the relationships between slaves and their masters, that they who excel in reason, excel in power. (Augustine, as cited in Wijngaards, 2010, emphasis mine)

You'll notice that he believes women require male leadership because of their inherent intellectual inferiority. He also uses the same argument to justify slavery.


John Chrysostom, the Bishop of Constantinople had this to say about women:

"women are, in general, "weak and flighty." He neatly put together the twin theological ideas of anti-women and anti-sex in this passage: "It does not profit a man to marry. For what is a woman but an enemy of friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a domestic danger, delectable mischief, a fault in nature, painted with beautiful colors?" [11] To help believers overcome the temptation of women, Chrysostom devised the following description: "The whole of her body is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, rheum and the fluid of digested food ... If you consider what is stored up behind those lovely eyes, the angle of the nose, the mouth and the cheeks you will agree that the well-proportioned body is only a whitened sepulchre." [12]http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/womenfathers.html

I learned that it was upon these beliefs--which have absolutely nothing to do with the Bible or the Christian faith--that the Canon Law of the church was based in the year 1140 A.D.. Canon law said that women may not teach, lead or even bear witness to the work of God. This became the institutional norm of the church. Those who attempted to defy this were even tried as as heretics, and some were literally executed.

And so, hundreds of years of oppression against women in the church began, and it hasn't ended yet.

I'm very thankful that there are a number of denominations that have turned their backs on this shameful legacy. They call it for what it is, prejudice and woman-hate. Still, too many others wrongly confuse these oppressive traditions with the "word of God." May God have mercy on us, and continue to lead his church to repentance.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I don't really see where you and I disagree, as far as the role of women goes. I don't view women as being inferior to men in any way.

For what you said about the original Greek manuscripts--I'd have to read up more on that before coming to a conclusion. Interesting, though.

 

[joethemechanic]

I am a man and I know perfectly well how we are.

So you think all men have the desire to have sex with lots of women? You truly have been indoctrinated to believe men are constitutionally incapable of monogamy. That is a feminist lie if there ever was one.

I can tell you I do not, and I never did want sex with more than one woman. My goal from the time I was old enough to understand love was to be with one woman forever.

 

[BobE]

Darkhorse, Every word you speak is pure feminist rhetoric. You have been indoctrinated by your liberal education.

In previous threads you have stated you have never had a girlfriend. Please get back to me about how much you believe in feminism after you have suffered a few "breakups"

I've got news for you, feminism was never about "equal rights" for women. It was about busting up the family unit in order to increase dependence on the government.

I was there in the 60's when all this feminist stuff started. It was started by communists, lesbians, and those who practiced witchcraft.

There are documents containing debates on the equality of women dating back to 195 B.C. Joe. I'm sure there are some that go back even further than this, but I have those from the Roman Empire in 195 B.C. on hand.

The notion that women began fighting for equal rights in the 1960s is very inaccurate. As is the notion that feminists are communists, lesbians and witches.

Women in the Roman Empire were viewed as a husband's property, to do with as he saw fit. This often included forcing them to have sex and beating them to death, legally.

Does it make sense that these women began speaking out? Yes, and it was a very courageous thing to do, given what they were risking.

Regarding the communist comment, I believe women in the 1920s were fighting for equality, so that they could vote. That hardly strikes me as a communist plot. The right to vote is the cornerstone of democracy.

Also, since I am an egalitarian (some would say "feminist") who was born in the 60s, I have trouble believing that I'm both a lesbian and a witch, being a Christian male. As for being a Liberal, I've actually shared data with the Conservative party to help them develop policy related to the safey of children in our communities. Thankfully, this work (and the work of many others) led to the creation of some excellent new legislation.

 

[BobE]

I don't really see where you and I disagree, as far as the role of women goes. I don't view women as being inferior to men in any way.

For what you said about the original Greek manuscripts--I'd have to read up more on that before coming to a conclusion. Interesting, though.

Hi Questdriven,

Thanks for reading my post. It was a long one :eeeekkk. No I didn't think we would disagree. I simply hit reply to your comment, because I felt exactly like you until I had a rather jarring, eye-opening experience.

I saw that although we've achieved equality in many areas of society, sexism is still alive and well in some corners of the church. I was very surprised and saddened to learn this.

P.S. If you'd like to read upon on the translation issue, here's an excellent source:
http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=830

I also wrote a book on this subject, summarizing my research, which I listed in the appropriate forum. There's also a good book by Charles Trombley on the subject, "Who Said Women Can't Teach?" I'd highly recommend this to anyone interested in exploring the topic further.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

So you think all men have the desire to have sex with lots of women? You truly have been indoctrinated to believe men are constitutionally incapable of monogamy. That is a feminist lie if there ever was one.

I can tell you I do not, and I never did want sex with more than one woman. My goal from the time I was old enough to understand love was to be with one woman forever.

Personal remark edited out I clearly state in my post that it's common to many men, not all. I also state that I don't do it, and I have little doubt that many other guys also refrain. However I don't deny that a lot of men do sleep around, especially those who aren't followers of God (though they're by no means excluded).

I like how you keep saying anyone who disagrees with you is "indoctrinated". Here's another possibility: Maybe I just have a different opinion and there's not some grand feminist conspiracy behind it. Occam's razor. Learn it and use it.

 

[ColdBlooded]

So you think all men have the desire to have sex with lots of women?

Yes. A males desire to procreate lasts throughout his lifetime and is a biological desire. Whether or not it's with different women or one the anatomy doesn't care.

Whatever you say about monogamy is a social construct, and biology disagrees.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

Yes. A males desire to procreate lasts throughout his lifetime and is a biological desire. Whether or not it's with different women or one the anatomy doesn't care.

Whatever you say about monogamy is a social construct, and biology disagrees.

I'd disagree with you about biology not favoring monogamy; in many higher order species a great advantage is conferred on individuals who spend a lifetime co-parenting their young.

 

[roger_dodger]

Joe do you hate all women or just a few?

A false dichotomy, Reba, and you know it.

 

[roger_dodger]

You cannot simply place all the blame of the past 50+ years on feminism.

No and he obviously doesn't. But, blame must be attributed where it is deserving.

The holocaust of abortion is the direct result of feminism. Forty-five million babies ahve been aborted - murdered - on the altar of "equality". That, in and of itself is enough to condemn it in toto.

 

[roger_dodger]

Yes, the opportunities and acceptance of women in general belies a lot of pretense that women need even more of a running start against the men.

But the growth of the Single Mother Family has been a symptom of this supposed equality between the men and women, forgetting the kids, who are raised without fathers and experience all sorts of abusive situations especially criminal behavior and incarcerations.

The working woman is no longer a wife, and the men are not paying the bills for the privilege of doing what a women says in the house and usually at work, too.

The price of this weird "equality" has been at the expense of the Traditional Family

I mean, this whole thing has been a Social Experiment, but no one wants tobjective evaluate the final evidence.

Quite right. But, I wouldn't say that "no one wants to objectively evaluate the final evidence." There are people who do. The problem with women and this topic is that women believe they have been materially enriched by the process. They do not want to accept what it has done for society as a whole because they believe they profit from it personally. If they looked at it more objectively, they would see they are actually poorer for it - but in less materialistic ways.

 

[roger_dodger]

My first experience with family court was a hearing to establish an order of support for me to pay for my daughter. The government provided everything my ex needed including legal council. I had to provide my own attorney.

When I asked about an order of visitation, I was told I had to hire my own attorney.

When she violated the visitation and I went to the court they told me "You have to hire your own attorney".

When she requested an increase in support, the domestic relations court handled everything for her, I had to hire my own attorney,,,,,,,,,,,,

That's right. Does that sound like "equality" to you? Of course not! Cultural marxism isn't about "fairness" or "equality" - it's about empowering some groups over others to break down the social order. A mythical "equality" isn't what they're after.

 

[roger_dodger]

joe:

Are you vulnerable?

AirDancer has talked to you about the danger of being driven by bitterness.

Hold on a minute. That's the whole point. There was no equality in that proceeding. What you say and what you do are two very different things. If we're going to make everyone "equal", then either both or neither should have had the benefits he mentions - as well as equal custody of the children.

That's not what happens even if you are so disengenuos not to admit it.

He has every right to be outraged and bitter!

 

[roger_dodger]

Who says it still isn't shameful? Morality doesn't change just because something becomes common. What you're neglecting to mention is that the shame was borne almost entirely by the woman. The man seldom lost his reputation for fornication; only the woman bore that shame.

That is wrong and I would remind you that you have absolutely no knowledge of what passed before you. Men developed reputations just as women did - even more so. Men would be ostracized by society even more than women because they were seen as taking advantage of women. Since you have no knowledge of a time before your own 19 or 20 years, you only know what you're taught by your cultural marxist professors.

Which is probably why feminism is seldom heard about anymore except when it's focused on third world countries, stopping women from being stoned to death for immodesty or sold as sex slaves.

False. Feminism is still referred to today every time women want to get something else from society they don't deserve and shouldn't have. Those "third world countries" you mention are mostly Muslim. Aren't you one of those people who consistently defend Islam on these forums? Hmm?[/QUOTE]

I don't have any cultural marxist professors though!

Of course you do. Firstly, they aren't going to tell everyone, "Hi! I'm Ms. Steinhem and I'm a cultural marxist! I'm going to indoctrinate you so when you leave this college you'll have the right attitudes on abortion, homosexuality socialism ad infinitum!"

 

[roger_dodger]

Newsflash: Both women and men do these things ALL THE TIME. Both genders are guilty of this. But you seem to be utterly silent on all that men have done to destroy family life while focusing 100% of your attention and blame on women.

No, child, the point is that these things exist in far higher numbers since feminism and can be attributed directly the feminist destruction of the Christian/Western social norm.

 

[joethemechanic]

He is oblivious to it because it's all he has ever experienced.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The agenda of hard core feminists is to be as much in power over men as they perceive men to now be in power over women. 'Equality' is just the palatable and PC way of presenting it to a naive society.