And you don't see how that's insanely sexist and derogatory?

@Starship

That is an extremely messed up view Starship. I don't mean to be rude, but how can you think a kind and loving god would oppress by nature an entire section of his children like that?

You both, and anyone else, is welcome to see it that way. For my part, no I don't see it as insanely sexist or derogatory.

I used the military hierarchy example. The CO might be "in charge" and his subordinates might be, well, subordinate. But both are valued officers in whatever armed force they're in and the rules really say in essence, both of you are to trust the other and cannot demean or belittle the other.

Additionally, unless someone can show me how women being the glory of God, but only through men, now means women are less than, cannot work the same jobs for the same pay, cannot do anything (well, except talk in Church), then I find nothing wrong in my logic.

The "CO" is not a sex-specific thing.

Man incharge of Women is an entirely sexist view. That cannot be denied.

We are equal. Or should be treated as so. There is no way around that what you just said isn't sexist. At all.

Urgh: even when I was going through my Confirmation lessons at 12, I hated that bit. Even when the various vicars tried to sell us girls (and, we were all girls for that class) that line, Maxima, it didn't stop us talking about it once they'd gone. None of us bought it: better yet, I "stole" my mother's Key Notes Bible Study course on Paul, to get more background to help us through.

And, when I say "stole", it was more a case of "got it pushed into my hands". We got the "Paul was a little rabid on this topic, and it's often taught to mean this, but you don't have to take it that way, due to cultural shifts" line from that.

None of us could feel anything but annoyed to be told that we were special, but not, apparently, fully equal in the world. Even if we are, you know... also equal in the eyes of God. Honest. Really. You're just... listen to your man and suck it up and learn about God through him like a good girl.

edited 26th Oct '12 7:57:49 AM by Euodiachloris

Any view where one gender is inherently superior in any fashion to another is a sexist view Starship, you can not possibly willingly be committing to such intellectual dishonesty to be denying.

edited 26th Oct '12 7:55:01 AM by LMage

The Bible says women are different than men. The Bible says in very specific situations, women are to sublimate themselves to men, and even goes so far as to say women should only sublimate themselves to men as men do the same to God.

If that's sexist, well, yes, then I guess it is.

Again, considering that if you accept that truth, nothing practically changes, then I can't help but chalk this up to Much Ado About Nothing.

edited 26th Oct '12 7:56:16 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It's because of the whole "but only through men" thing.

Does that mean that a single woman is not the glory of God, because there's no man to act as an intercessory force?

And the whole military hierarchy thing doesn't work, because in the military the subordinate can one day be promoted to officer. Women don't have that option, according to your Scripture. They're destined to always be playing second fiddle to men.

What this translates to (and yes, this does happen in real life) are guys who get pissy when a woman in the workforce is "above" them. It's where the "women ought to know their place" thing comes from.

I was raised in a house like that, where I was taught (using that exact same Scripture, with the exact same meaning that you give it) that, as a woman, I wouldn't be anything without a husband, that God's great plan for me was to get married, because without a husband I was nothing.

And they didn't see that as sexist. They just saw it as God's Word that needed to be followed.

Men are not gods though, and there is no situation- no situation where any woman should be required to surrender her autonomy against her will to a man.

edited 26th Oct '12 7:58:31 AM by LMage

You don't understand the damage of the book forcing women to submit to men as if men were God? That sounds a bit crazy to me. Especially since unlike the army, this isn't merit based. This isn't something where you can move up the ranks. This is establishing women as a permanent second class.

I have never in my life treated any woman as anything less than me. I sat in classes taught by women and excelled because I did as I was told. I was trained on jobs by women. I worked for them.

I treat no female troper here in any way misogynist.

Edit: Where do you people get this forced shit? No woman is to be forced to do anything. That runs counter to nearly every chapter and verse.

The Bible clearly uses the word "submit". As in willingly volunteer. The whole thing is invalid if you FORCE anything.

Geez, does the Bible always lead to this kind of reactionary reading?

edited 26th Oct '12 8:01:27 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

Yet you consider us "subordinates". That's misogyny, dude.

edited 26th Oct '12 8:00:14 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

It's not the Truth. Whatsoever.

If following the Bible means to treat Women as lesser than Men, I will call it an entire lie.

I will never ever see inequality as a truthful thing. Just a bit fat lie.

By that, I mean sapient intelligent beings are all equal no matter what. No exceptions to that rule. Ever. No sexism, or any other isms will ever be acceptable here. If an animal gains full sapient intelligent, I will treat them the same as I treat any other human being. If an "Alien"(as in other planets, not other countries) comes down here, he/she/it(whatever) deserves the same respect that we give mankind, pure equality. That does not mean that they'll be necessarily one we want to have around(you know, the whole genocidal alien joke that's in fiction), but that doesn't mean they deserve less respect until that particular person takes away their right to be respected.

Respect is given because we deserve it. By that, I don't mean the general "don't be an ass", but I mean the whole "they are equal to you" kind of respect.

@DG - And I've treated you as subordinate.....how? Take your time...I'll wait.

@Starship: Reactionary? What do you think the New Testament was all about?

It was Fair for Its Day, but... you always have to read it in that light, mate. Paul had issues: they coloured his words, and that should always be born in mind. And, yes: when the meaning is that bleeding transparent... you can read them that way. And, it seems, you have. Without knowing it, it's coloured your thinking, too.

edited 26th Oct '12 8:05:32 AM by Euodiachloris

@Starship: By believing that, as a woman, I am supposed to submit to men like they're supposed to submit to God. That's how you've treated me as a subordinate.

Just because a guy treats his slaves (women) well and gives them respect and certain freedoms doesn't mean that he's not terrible for owning them in the first place.

edited 26th Oct '12 8:07:25 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

No, this is reactionary. "Women are the glory of God, but only through Men." Oh shit, this means the people who hold this view will never accept us as lawyers, cops, teachers, CE Os, superheroes, ice cream salespeople, whatever the hell, because this means.....

STOP!

It means what it says on the page. If you want to say, "Well what else could it mean?" That's fair.

Being very familiar with the Bible, I freely admit I misread and don't always understand everything on the page. I get that while I believe I try to follow it as loyally as possible I can get it wrong.

But if your objection to a passage is based on "well it means...." then I say please consider that maybe it doesn't mean this horrible thing.

I didn't ask you to repeat my views to me. I asked you to show me how I treat you one way and Drunk Scriblerian, or Taoist, or Fast Eddie, or any guy different.

edited 26th Oct '12 8:12:54 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

@Starship: You treat me badly by believing that I'm second-best. It's that simple.

Edit: Look, if someone came up to you and said "I believe the KKK was right and that black people are supposed to submit to white people, but that's not racist, because I think that it's okay that black people have the same jobs as us" would you believe that he's not racist?

edited 26th Oct '12 8:17:13 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

Read as: I cannot defend this belief with anything objective and provable, so I'll simply restate it, call it a fact, and ignore that even the statement itself is wrong.

Okay, fair enough.

Good analogy, but the analogue doesn't apply in a few areas. The KKK didn't say blacks should submit to whites. They said whites should rule blacks, with our without their consent, or else, blacks shouldn't be here. And they don't believe blacks should have the same jobs, live in the same neighborhoods, etc.

Now, let's tweak that, suppose someone says "Starship, I think guys, while being smart, intelligent, etc, don't inately possess the maternal instinct that comes in extremely handy as a educator of special needs children. I think man can still be one, I just think they should defer to a woman's opinion should it arise. Of course, the choice is yours, and nobody will think less of you if you don't agree.

Would I have a problem with that? Nope.

<head hits desk with audible thump>

You know what? You're obviously not seeing how fucking insulting you're being, so I'm going to leave before I say something I regret.

Christianity is evil. I don't care what other people try to tell me, it's evil.

edited 26th Oct '12 8:29:49 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

Nope: Paul was a misogynistic little bugger of a bigot with a wonderful set of complexes. Doesn't make the core, messages of loving God, your neighbours and yourself wrong or particularly evil.

But, it does mean taking all Paul's words without pinches of salt is... an issue.

edited 26th Oct '12 8:32:35 AM by Euodiachloris

Head-desk thumps and storming off don't change the fact that what I said stands. Nobody anywhere can find where I treat anyone different based on their stated sex, and nobody can find any evidence that's contrary to the Bible.

People can feel how they will, but it won't change the truth any more than my personal feelings change the truth.

@Starship

I really suggest backing off from the computer and reviewing yourself Starship, you're really toeing the line here.

If you're now a Moderator and you're telling that as a result of my views I have to leave, I can do that.

Now I review myself regularly, long before you showed up and long after. But as I've said before, I'll repeat, I don't appease. Not you, not anyone.

When someone presents a statement, I'll either agree, disagree, or say nothing in response. If I offer a counter-argument, I expect that argument to be acknowledged and responded to. If you choose to say "I don't find that argument valid", that's fair. Many people do that and I can have a conversation with them.

But there are people whose only justification for what they believe is "I said so". I don't do that. Without exception, if asked for why I believe something, I'll give a reason, or admit, that I'm not sure why I see it the way I see it. And I do it with respect and courtesy regardless of religion, sex, orientation, gender, stated gender, or political affiliation, sometimes without receiving the same in turn.

I've fulfilled by obligation as a troper to the best of my ability and I won't be browbeat or made to feel like I've insulted someone if I haven't actually done that.