REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 215

Women's 'Liberation' Through Submission: An Evangelical Anti-Feminism Is Born

A disturbing number of Christian women are throwing their support behind the "patriarchy movement."
January 22, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

 

This October, more than 6,000 women gathered in Chicago for the True Woman Conference ’08: a stadium-style event to promote what its proponents call “biblical womanhood,” “complementarianism,” or -- most bluntly -- “the patriarchy movement.”

Women gathering to support the patriarchy movement? It’s evangelical counterculture at its most contrarian.

The Associated Baptist Press explains the relationship of biblical womanhood to feminism, highlighting an ambitious initiative that arose from the meeting: a signature drive seeking 100,000 women to endorse its “True Woman Manifesto,” which, the ABP writes, aims “at sparking a counterrevolution to the feminist movement of the 1960s.”

To outside observers of the patriarchy movement, the starkness of the calls for gender hierarchy often seem amusingly outdated (not to mention historically misleading: feminist blogs Feministing and Pandagon have deftly dismantled some of the speakers’ Leave it to Beaver idealizations of the 1950s as a time when women were universally protected).

Though only just under 3,000 women have actually signed the document since its unveiling on October 11, the fact that it exists, and the campaign to gather such a large showing of public support, reveals something important about this movement: that its followers don’t view themselves simply as a remnant of polite, churchy women, holding out against a crass culture, but rather as a revolutionary body waging “countercultural” rebellion against what they see as the feminist status quo.

“We are believing God for a movement of reformation and revival in the hearts and homes of Christian women all around this world,” one organizer, Nancy Leigh DeMoss, said at the close of the conference. “I just believe there is a massive women’s movement of true women in those millions of women who are able to capture all kinds of battlefronts for Christ.”

The terms of the manifesto (downloadable here) serve as a good shorthand description of the aims and principles of the submission and patriarchy movement. Signers affirm their belief that women and men were designed to reflect God in “complementary and distinct ways”; that today’s culture has gone astray distinctly because of its egalitarian approach to gender (and that it’s “experiencing the consequences of abandoning God’s design for men and women”); and that while men and women are equally valuable in the eyes of God, here on earth they are relegated to separate spheres at home and in the church.

The “countercultural” attitudes that signers support include the idea that women are called to affirm and encourage godly masculinity, and honor the God-ordained male headship of their husbands and pastors; that wifely submission to male leadership in the home and church reflects Christ’s submission to God, His Father; that “selfish insistence on personal rights is contrary to the spirit of Christ”; and, in a pronatalist turn of phrase that recalls the rhetoric of the Quiverfull conviction, their willingness to “receive children as a blessing from the Lord.”

Finally, in a reference to the importance of woman-to-woman mentoring within the conservative church, they affirmed that “mature Christian women” are obliged to disciple the next generation of Christian wives, training them in matters of submission and headship, in order to provide a legacy of “fruitful femininity.”

The speakers at the conference were the A-list of complementarian celebrities: Pastor John Piper, Christian radio personality Nancy Leigh DeMoss, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professor and antifeminist author Mary Kassian, J. Ligon Duncan III, chairman of the board for the Council for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (CBMW), Susan Hunt, an author and consultant to the Presbyterian Church in America’s Women in the Church Ministry, and others. The conference was organized by DeMoss’ St. Louis-based ministry (and eponymous twice-daily radio program), Revive Our Hearts, a women’s ministry that stresses submission as a militant discipline that will alter the culture.

DeMoss’ fellow speakers shared her faith. Striding to the stage to the soundtrack of Helen Reddy’s “I Am Woman,” Mary Kassian riffed on a common biblical womanhood theme: that the queasy unhealthiness of the vintage Virginia Slims slogan, “You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby,” was representative of feminism’s unhealthy promises to women: appealing to women’s desire for independence, but selling a dangerous product. Kassian’s premise -- that feminism took women a “long way” in the wrong direction -- echoed that of Mary Pride, submission and headship advocate and author of the homeschooling mother’s cult classic book, The Way Home: Away from Feminism, Back to Reality, published some twenty years earlier.

Pride made the case in the late ’80s for submission as a revolutionary calling, and Kassian’s evocation of Reddy’s old feminist fight song was as deliberate a declaration that the “True Woman” movement was as revolutionary as feminism had been. “I’m praying that God is going to raise up a counterrevolution of women,” she told the crowd, “women who hold the knowledge of our times in one hand and the truth and the clarity and the charity of the Word of God the other; women whose hearts are broken over the gender confusion and the spiritual and emotional and relational carnage of our day and who, like those men of old, know what to do.”


Kathryn Joyce is the author of Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement, a study of conservative Christian women's movements forthcoming from Beacon Press in Feb. 2009. Her articles have appeared in The Nation, Mother Jones, Newsweek, and other publications.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: gender, religion, feminism, women, christianity, patriarchy, submission


Comments are closed-

Part of their belief system
Posted by: Smartcookie on Jan 22, 2009 12:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author mistakes "submission" as blind submission towards husbands, but people who are genuinely christine actually have read the bible. I'd really like it if the authors of such articles actually took the time to find out why it is christian women do what they do.

Read the following:

Ephesians 5:22-33

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy"

It also commands husbands to love their wives, hardly the idea of slave like "submission" if you ask me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So the "husband is the head... Posted by: chance garden
» RE: So the "husband is the head... Posted by: Smartcookie
» Freely choose??? Posted by: Pirate1
» RE: Freely choose??? Posted by: BLAN
» RE: Freely choose??? Posted by: Smartcookie
» RE: Freely choose??? Posted by: Rungle
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» "Smart" cookie, my ass! Posted by: fsuthai
» RE: "Smart" cookie, my ass! Posted by: AvalonSeeker
» Desertion Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: "Smart" cookie, my ass! Posted by: medusa
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» How about 1Timothy 2:12? Posted by: Defenestrator
» Paul was definately gay Posted by: Chaimirija
» RE: Paul was definately gay Posted by: Eliz77
» RE: Part of their belief system Posted by: Madame Riverotter
» RE: Part of their belief system Posted by: Mike Smith

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: You could get down with Jebus? Posted by: chance garden
» RE: You could get down with Jebus? Posted by: Nietzsche’s Bastard

Comments are closed-

"...Submission is a wife’s divine calling, and truest form of power.
Posted by: chance garden on Jan 22, 2009 12:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, somebody really has these women trained!

What does that say about the men who prefer women like this...
...but really, when are we going to give up on this type of treatment...

...And you wonder why I don't like religious persons...

..When will the attempts at CONTROL end....

Please end this mental abuse now!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: On Trolls Posted by: chance garden
» RE: It says... Posted by: phatkhat

Comments are closed-

6000 isn't all that many
Posted by: noalternative on Jan 22, 2009 12:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
particularly when you consider how big the evangelical movement reputedly is.

There have always been antifeminist reactionary women. Look at Phillis Shafley.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Christian Taliban
Posted by: DrBrian on Jan 22, 2009 12:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For all of their mutual loathing, it's amazing how similar Christian and Muslim fundamentalists are. The only difference is that the Christian women aren't wearing burquas (yet).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly. Posted by: badkitty68
» RE: and they will fight and kill you Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: Christian Taliban Posted by: Gisele
» RE: Christian Taliban Posted by: Basenjis

Comments are closed-

I am a Muslim Feminist; I am not alone
Posted by: Dayaan on Jan 22, 2009 2:02 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Islam is submission to God by both men and women it is NOT submission of women to men. Mohamed, like Jesus, was a feminist. If you want to know why the Islamic world does not follow this model there are two reasons.
(1) The Arabic people and the Hebrew people came from the same nomadic, patriarchal cultures. Jesus and Mohamed both taught that God views males and females as equally valuable although biologically different. This upset the status quo and caused both men to be at odds with their cultures.
(2) For several hundred years following Mohamed's revelations, women had leadership roles in Islamic society. As Islam spread it eventually came into intimate contact with the Roman Catholic Church and many RC practices were brought into Islamic communities such as that women should cover their hair at all times (yes this was actually a Christian tradition; pre-Vatican II --1960's-- women still were required to cover their heads in Catholic Churches). So it is not surprising that fundamentalists of these two religions seem very similar. Incidentally, fundamentalist Judaism requires headcovers for women.
It is important to understand history or you will be doomed to repeat it.
It is also important to understand your religion.
The majority of my fellow Muslims (I am a convert) would disagree that covering your hair for a woman is un-Islamic and is in fact Jewish or Christian (via Paul not Jesus). Nowhere in the Qur'an (God's word spoken through the Angel Gabriel to Mohamed) does it state that a woman must cover her head; the Qur'an does state that a women should cover her breasts. Islam had its Paul and continues to have men interested in maintaining their superior position through false interpretation of scripture.
Judgment Day will come for all of us; believers and non-believers, and we will all have to answer to God for what we have done during life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Muslims women Posted by: 876
» On Angels and other Sky Critters Posted by: chance garden
» I know ... Posted by: Hechicera

Comments are closed-

I think these
Posted by: noalternative on Jan 22, 2009 12:51 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
3000 weirdos are less threatening to feminism than when "progressive" websites publish drivel like this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Danger
Posted by: jamilahspeak on Jan 22, 2009 4:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The danger is that these people will try to force their beliefs on the rest of the public. With Obama in office, these people are like wounded animals and when they feel threatened, they strike back. They will not spend the next 4 or 8 years quietly waiting for their turn.

Also, if these christian "leaders" are speaking falsely, then it is up to people to correct them. Gender is not a reason to live as a second class citizen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Danger Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

Stupidity Through Religion
Posted by: terradea42 on Jan 22, 2009 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've often struggled with the question, "Why do oppressed women in Middle Eastern countries put up with the abuse?" I realized that they are following their religious beliefs. If they turned away from those beliefs, they could overcome the men eventually and live free, safe lives. Christian women are no different, and no smarter. They will follow into the same hole, blindly, since they are told that God (aka Allah) wants them there. Problem is, "strong man" scriptures were written and selected by men to be bound into holy books, and the pro strong-woman scriptures were discarded. Seriously, religion must be weakened in society: humans are too weak and stupid to rise above it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stupidity Through Religion Posted by: Lilykins
» Well said Lilykins. Posted by: yale
» Stupidity Through Nationalism Posted by: suprmark

Comments are closed-

Where is the word of Christ in all this?
Posted by: fred_53_99 on Jan 22, 2009 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In all of this male wet dream submission crap, where is the Biblical text to support it? My guess is some minister had a revelation to somehow return the family to the 1950,s. Maybe he saw this week's epsode of 'Mad Men" and though it was cool.Note, nothing about bring back those 50 style wages that would support a one income household oh, sorry that's not Christian..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Alter Net is such a narrow minded site
Posted by: Calebvision7 on Jan 22, 2009 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
despite "ripping" other people for being "intolerant".
I switched from Fox News to MSNBC ( generallys peaking ) becuase I was tired of the incredibly biased, demeaning approach thatthey used toward the "other guys"and found that it was worse at MSNBC, but, of course, they "made fun" of "conservatives.
It's pretty much the same at Alter Net....they slam "narrow minded" people and "conservatives" but do not tolerate anyone who doesn't seee life and the world same as them!
Are these people doing something illegal or immoral???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Answer: Yes they are. Posted by: badkitty68
» RE: Here's a question about that... Posted by: Calebvision7
» RE: Answer: Yes they are. Posted by: Lilykins

Comments are closed-

Council for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood ???
Posted by: Yankeeinexile on Jan 22, 2009 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Margaret Atwood: "The Handmaids Tale"
page 285-286
Women's Prayvaganzas are for group weddings like this, usually. The men's are for military victories. These are the things we are supposed to rejoice in the most, respectively. Sometimes though, for the women, they're for a nun who recants. Most of that happened earlier, when they were rounding them up, but they still unearth a few these days, dredge them up from the underground, where they've been hiding, like moles. They have that look about them too; weak-eyed, stunned by too much light. The old ones they send off to the Colonies right away, but the young fertile ones they try to convert, and when they succeed we all come here to watch them go through the ceremony, renounce their celibacy, sacrifice it to the common good. They kneel and the Commander prays and then they take the red veil, as the rest of us have done....

The Commander continues with the service:
"I will that women adorn themselves in modest apparel," he says, "with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
"But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection." Here he looks us over. "All", he repeats.
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
"For Adam was first formed then Eve.
"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
"Notwithstanding she shall be saved by childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."
Saved by childbearing, I think. What did we suppose would save us, in the time before?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The "Holy Book"
Posted by: freshlemon on Jan 22, 2009 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a strange lot we are as humans to take a book that is full of ambiguity, has a mixture of authors none of whom we are really sure about,has been rewritten and edited in countless ways,starts as the history of the Hebrew people and ends with the downfall of the world etc. and we call it "the Holy Bible". Who decided that this book was the final authority on "how God wants us to live and behave"?

A popular Christian song has the line "yes, Jesus loves me, the Bible tells me so". It also tells me about war and violence,crucifixions,beheadings,lying, lust,misogeny,polygamy,theft, jealousy, revenge and a few fairy tales like Jonah and the Whale thrown in for good measure. It is the only defense that Christians can offer to their often bizarre behavior. It is a book about power and control from the perspective of ordinary people trying to make sense of their history and to report and justify man's inhumanity to man.

Why should we be surprised when a group of unhappy people with no sense of self-worth pick a sentence out of the "Holy Book" and believe that they are more Christian for having done so? Because the Bible told them so. Whose interpretation of the Bible? Is the Bible more true to its believers than the Koran is to the Muslims? Isn't it time to debunk these sacred cows?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The "Holy Book" Posted by: Lilykins

Comments are closed-

No brainer: blanket return to traditonal gender roles unjust.
Posted by: Tim V on Jan 22, 2009 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There would be some unquestionable injustices in a blanket return to pre-1960's gender roles. For example, the following people would be shamed or looked down upon over things that are beyond their control: physically small men, infertile men and women, tall/large women, etc.

Also, the idea that women should blanketly submit to their husbands runs afoul of the saying "power corrupts,absolute power corrupts absolutely." Getting really traditional would entail a repeal of women's sufferage.

A look at what's "natural" reveals that there is a large spread of "masculine" and "femmine" traits among both genders. some women are stronger, taller, etc than some men, for example.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Here we go again
Posted by: kenhymes on Jan 22, 2009 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet has a bad habit of highlighting the work of writers who inflate micro-trends in far-right "Christian" circles into an imminent danger of theocracy. 6,000 people is a tiny number in the context of our culture, even within the right-wing Christian milieu.
It's not that you can't find plenty of examples of disturbing and regressive thinking among Christians in the US, because you certainly can (as well as in many other cultural and ideological groups, both religious and non-religious). But what Alternet's stable of contributors consistently miss is that interesting and positive changes are happening within and around religion in the US. Mindless fear, cruel insults, ahistorical commentary, none of these things are of any use if you are interested in a healthy future for our culture and our politics. It's fine that you think anyone who believes in invisible things is nuts, okay, we get it. But if you are so amazingly interested in empiricism and evidence and rationality... how about being impartially curious, interested in the actual larger trends and developments in religious culture in the US? Don't worry, we won't give you cooties.
Examples:

The Episcopal Church in the US has lost tens of millions of dollars in property and funding by standing behind an openly gay bishop.

Here in Charlottesville VA, the focus is increasingly on no-strings-attached service work, such as PACEM (People and Congregations Involved in Ministry) which houses homeless people in a network of churches. Or IMPACT, a social-justice coalition of many denominations and a local secular humanist group, which has kept affordable housing and access to dental care and transportation on the agenda, with some real victories over the last few years.

Young evangelicals, with most of whom I disagree profoundly about reproductive rights, nonetheless are walking away from old-school Jerry Falwell style politics and homophobia and mindless corporate/military boosterism. There's a new focus on stewardship of the earth, on poverty, and on mutual respect between believers and non-believers. Lots of problems, a certain insularity (but hey there's lots of that here), but a definite positive trend with profound implications for our future.

All I'm saying is... look around, get to know people, don't be afraid of dialogue with people whose cosmology you don't share. That's where hope is, not in throwing mudballs at each other.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here we go again Posted by: Tim V
» RE: strange and unfounded aspersions Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: thanks ! Posted by: cherylsass123

Comments are closed-

What I find most interesting is the notion that feminism is the status quo
Posted by: ladyoracle on Jan 22, 2009 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can assure you that "feminism" has only been tolerated as "that thing women do" in the places I have been that were not overtly feminist in nature like women's studies conferences and Planned Parenthood meetings. The professional men in my life have at best tolerated my feminism, smirking at me when they made a concession like naming five men who'd worked on a particular issue, then throwing in one woman's name, too.

But my point is just that feminism is on the fringes still. Look at the ERA that has still not been ratified by enough states to become law. Look at the disparate amount of housework that mothers with full time jobs do. If the women with this movement don't want equality, then that's their choice, and they can work the same job as a man for less money and not use birth control etc. But I would hate to see them lobby against equality for women who feel differently.

More importantly, though, because I do think feminism is not in the status quo, what's happening is that this group of conservative women has invented a straw man and is beating him/her to death. The reason for this, assuming feminism isn't mainstream, isn't to make a difference in the mainstream, but rather to make a difference in the fringes anyway, but not the feminist fringes, but rather their own conservative cranny. For what purpose? Well, I think that would have more to do with having their men be compelled to "stand up" and be a certain kind of man. Ever notice that although Christianity is based on patriarchy, more Christians are women? That has always puzzled me, because men get a much better deal power-wise within the church, but then again, it is a power with strings attached. So let's not forget that every time there's a cry for women to stand back, the other side of the statement is a cry for men to step up. And if Christian men aren't stepping up, well then maybe these women should find a more appropriate battle cry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Quite simply, IMHO, God doesn't exist...
Posted by: fsuthai on Jan 22, 2009 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
except in the educationally deprived minds of the religious practitioners and their frightened "flocks". I tried for over 50 years to have intelligent debates with some I cared for but things like facts and data just upset them and they always fall back on faith; like I'm supposed to accept the garbage being delivered from a raised dais by some less educated CON MAN (or woman)! Yeah, I'm bitter about it! They have been screwing up my world for far too many centuries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Now would be a great time to reach out to guys who aren't into machoegotistical patriarchy.
Posted by: jwverez on Jan 22, 2009 6:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When reasonable men and women work together to defeat dominance of one sex over the other, we all win.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Time to demand our police protect us. That IS what they are paid to do, right?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Jan 22, 2009 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cool activist tool. A pocket guide to the California Public records act

TruthOut has a story on my issue with the cops. I can't get the smirky look I saw on a young mans face the other day, when I was talking about how the police in our town don't care about rape. Grrrrrrr. I care.

End Torture, End Domestic Violence

When one compares what is done to a woman in an advanced domestic battering cycle and to prisoners subjected to torture, the situations are frighteningly similar. But only recently have they begun to be equated legally and culturally.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

MARRIAGE VS. SERVITUDE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 22, 2009 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If a man wants a servant and a woman agrees to the arrangement, that fine with me. It pays the rent. But some of us have a need to explore beyond the kitchen, babies and serving a master. There's school, a career and a host of things that a curious mind needs in order to function. That same woman might even choose to go to church. But when an agreement is drawn up I get suspicious. Why should a woman be required to promise anything? If her life is so wonderful, she's not going anywhere. They throw God into the mix to instill fear. If that's what it takes to 'sell' their idea then it's not a very good one. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: MARRIAGE VS. SERVITUDE Posted by: samd11

Comments are closed-

All the Desert Sky Bully Religions are Misogynistic
Posted by: WomanRebel on Jan 22, 2009 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Living one's life according to superstition strikes me as strange to begin with since I am an Atheist.

Following the doctrines of the blood thirsty desert big three is even more absurd since they are the religions of master and slave and are mainly used by the master to keep the slaves from challenging their rule.

Religion is a tool for manipulating money and good by the use of lies so that one doesn't have to do any real work.

Women are used as slaves to the slaves. John Lennon summed it up. "Woman is the nigger of the world".

This is nothing more than a sado-masochistic lifestyle with a sky fairy rationalization.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

carlie
Posted by: carlie727 on Jan 22, 2009 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it interesting that some well educated, successful business women, advocate against that which allowed them to get their success in the first place. The feminist movement started way before 60's and 70's when the "Equal Rights Amendment" was suggested. Women gained their right to vote because of feminists. Women gained their right to education because of feminists. Women gained their right to speak publicly and be taken seriously because of feminists. Don't complain about something when you are a direct beneficiary of it. Don't talk about "traditional gender roles" when you have used the opportunities that other women have fought for to get your BA, MA or PhD. If those traditional roles are important to you, then stay home and serve your household...there is honor in that. But please stop preaching from your self-made bully pulpit that "self-making women" are not doing it right. It is just not consistant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: carlie Posted by: Gisele

Comments are closed-

Religion..............
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jan 22, 2009 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is amazing how similar conservative Christianity and conservative Islam appear to each other in their views of "woman's roles" in the lives of each of these religions. While women are happily toiling in the homes these men are out doing their "manly" duties, what a crock; as usual it is another attempt to put "women in their place", what's next the burka?

Woman was taken from Adams side, not his backside to be behind him, not his foot to be trampled on, but from his side - to walk with him, to be a help-mate, to go through life at his side. Of course the conservatives (men started this idea) are balking at what they consider "the counter-culture of feminism", why should a woman be paid the same as her male counter-part for doing the same work? If she had a husband - then she would be home having babies, baking, and taking care of the house! Why should a women think that she should be educated, when her husband will take care of her? Because husbands do die, and then what will she do, live on social security?!

I am all for letting people live as they want to, but there are woman that should not have children, because they really aren't fit? Does anyone not remember Andrea Yates, the woman that drowned her children? There are many others, similarly mentally challenged after having all of those kids! But why care about them, after all, it was the Lords will, well wasn't it?

My issue with these people is that they want to enforce these ideas on the rest of the world! My issue with these people is that they are trying to use "the book" written so long ago to coerce people in the 21st century to go back to an age when not only was life harder (think no grocery stores, medicine etc.), but to live in ways that are not sustainable in today's age. People no longer have 10 children, because those children must be fed, clothed, and housed. They are not a farm where all hands are put to work! These ideas while they may work for some, are not for all people, and to coerce people into believing that they are is just plain irresponsible!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Women & Christianity
Posted by: WyrdSister on Jan 22, 2009 8:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The history of women in Christianity has always been subserviant. This was one of the reasons why, as a young woman, I questioned Christianity. When I learned the Truth, I quit.

Quotations from the Bible:

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power...." Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1

"And a man will choose...any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman...Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33. 1

"And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her." Ecclesiastes 7:26, from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)

Atatements made by church leaders:

St. Tertullian (about 155 to 225 CE):
"Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die."

St. Augustine of Hippo (354 to 430 CE). He wrote to a friend:
"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 to 1274 CE):
"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence."

Martin Luther (1483 to 1546):
"If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there."

These people hate women. Why any woman would want to be apart of an organization that routinely and consistantly view women as subserviant chattel is beyond me.

If you are a Christain woman who believes that this is the way to live, please reply and tell me why. Please do not spout scripture or tell me "God says so", because these are not reasons. Please give me your OWN opinion.

Oh wait....you wouldnt have one. My bad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Women & Christianity Posted by: kenhymes
» RE: Women & Christianity Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: Women & Christianity Posted by: Xynyx
» aren't those the same people Posted by: hurricane hugo
» Also from Tertullian: Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Also from Tertullian: Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Women & Christianity Posted by: Lilykins

Comments are closed-

Non-Christians are feminism's fault?
Posted by: mcubed on Jan 22, 2009 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The contortions of logic are interesting:

"Feminism begins with a deconstruction of a Judeo-Christian view of womanhood (the right to name self); progressed to the deconstruction of manhood, gender relationships, family/societal structures, and a Judeo-Christian worldview (the right to name the world); and concluded with the concept of a metaphysical pluralism, self-deification, and the rejection of the Judeo-Christian deity (the right to name God)."

It's odd that the history of the plurality of religions on this earth also includes men who either weren't Christian to begin with, or held opposing beliefs to the theology adopted at the Council of Nicea, and beyond. A lot of this happened before the 1960's and 70's.

Wow. I'm glad to have my facts straight now. Christianity was done in by the unsuccessful Pro-ERA ammendment marches of the 1970's.

As a female agnostic raised outside of the Christian Church, I probably helped by having a short haircut in the 1980's.

Although disturbing, this group is very small, and many of their children will probably look for opportunities beyond the confines of their conservative world view once they are grown. Teenage rebellion is an interesting thing.

Michele

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

DUMB AND DESPERATE
Posted by: sirios on Jan 22, 2009 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All is wine and roses until the first black eye appears.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

That's another reason I moved from Rural Misery (MO) to St Louis.
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Jan 22, 2009 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rural part of my miserable state is the worst and racism and misogynism are at all time highs. All it takes is going 30 miles west of St Louis and the fear, hatred, and intolerance are right out there.

Besides abortion, if you're single and haven't even married yet, you're treated as a pariah. My former high school boyfriend is single due to divorce and yet people respect him as a single. Yet when I go back just to visit my parents, the neighbors and my parent's friends are so rude and humiliating I can't stand their intolerant rightwing fundie mentality. They'll even try invoking quotes and citations from the bible blaming my desire to work as somehow the reason God punished me by keeping me single. Rural MO deserves to be CRUSHED until it can overcome its racism and misogyny !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

52% of humans are female
Posted by: nise52 on Jan 22, 2009 9:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So we're supposed to bow down to a MALE god, submit to MALE ministers and husbands, and become silent brood mares to create sons who die in wars and daughters who repeat our behavior?? What comic books are they reading?

Society suffers when over 1/2 of its citizens are forced into second-class citizenship. My suggestion is to eliminate organized religion. Allow each person to seek spirituality (or not) as they wish and NOT shove it down other people's throats. Treat all humans as the unique individuals they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 52% of humans are female Posted by: Basenjis

Comments are closed-

additional perqs
Posted by: Vik on Jan 22, 2009 9:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And don't forget all that really great incest that these religious nuts seem to like so much. Screw your daughters, and your "submissive" wife will really know what is going on, but she'll keep her "submissibve" mouth shut so her "family" will stay 'secure"--

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Women's Liberation
Posted by: renticy on Jan 22, 2009 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read both progressive and conservative sites. There's little difference -- both are narrow-minded and quick to judge others.

Open your eyes and your minds, learn and listen to others, and perhaps you will be able to see another side to the issue. Both the article and many reader's comments show ignorance. It may well be the intolerance and meanness of spirit felt throughout this article that causes some women (more than the writer realizes) to rebel against the feminist movement.

To degrade and criticize another person because of their beliefs is pitiful. I'm not a conservative Christian and I don't share their beliefs, but as a woman, I support and respect another woman's choice of life style.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's called debate, discussion Posted by: JackieGiles
» Amen! Posted by: badkitty68

Comments are closed-

My submission...
Posted by: Gisele on Jan 22, 2009 10:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is that this whole exercise is a red-herring, meant to divide. And it's doing a damn good job! Look at some of the comments, you'll see hate, confusion, frustration, disbelief...few if any agree on anything because no one really wants to 'hear' what is being said if it involves 'religion'. That's fair - I hate religion too.

I love my Father and His Son though - and His Holy Spirit too. Keep your damn flaming arrows to yourself unless you're supplying flame retardant along with them!

I don't see this article as something anyone needs to worry about, especially if religion is not your thing. If it is, then this article was written in vain - the author is preaching to the choir.

Yeah, the Bible does say wives are to submit to their husbands, and that husbands are to love their wives as themselves...and though it makes the blood boil in some of us, we usually 'react' before we think about what it really involves. Especially those of us born in the "I'll do as I damn well please" generation.

First - wives submit. It's the choice of the woman as to whether or not she will submit. Any idea the kind of strength, and trust it takes to give your will to someone else? To let another person have that much control over you? If she decides not to submit, there's not a damn thing he can do about it.

Second - love your wife as yourself. Unless a man is going to kick the crap out of himself, he ought not be doing it to his wife...and even then, it takes a special kind of loser to do that and hide behind his religion. I know, it happens every day. But please don't call him a Christian if that's the case. He's a wife-beater. So much for his oath to God. That one simply means, honor her, treat her as well as you'd treat yourself. Most men treat themselves pretty good as far as I've seen.

In this author's home, if she does something against her belief system and doesn't answer for it - her husband has to. It's him who'll bear the brunt of things, he's the 'head of the household' therefore; he's responsible for ALL things that happen within his walls. Yeah, neat trick - if she doesn't stand up, then he has to step up. That submission thing is a double edged sword, as many things in the Bible are.

As an aside, I wonder how many fewer marriages there would be if a couple were planning on living this lifestyle and they actually took the time to consider..."do I really want to submit myself to that for 50 years?!" Bet things would change a little :).

Over the years I've learned to set organized religion back in the dustbin for the most part. Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not written by men thus named..they're still unsure to this day of who actually authored those books. They're a rehash of of John, and John was pretty much written from the Gospel of Thomas - which is not even in the bible! It's a part of the heretical texts the CC doesn't want you to read.

So what to do? Believe as you will, allow others the same privilege. In both cases, try to understand where the other is coming from, and do it with an open mind and gentle heart. We all come to the truth in our own way, at the time that is right for us. It really IS about the Golden Rule.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Live and Let Live Posted by: renticy
» RE: Live and Let Live Posted by: Gisele
» fewer marriages means population reduction Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield

Comments are closed-

Oh, and did anyone tell this group
Posted by: WyrdSister on Jan 22, 2009 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That according to the dictionary, what they are attempting to convince people to do is impossible due to the fact that these words are opposites.

Liberation: to set free from traditional role expectations.

Submission: The act of submitting to the power of another.

Oxy-morons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

women's rights and animal rights
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 22, 2009 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A 1980 United Nations report states that women constitute half the world’s population, perform nearly two-thirds of its work hours, yet receive one-tenth of the world’s income and own less than one-hundredth of the world’s property. The impact of the women’s movement upon the church is being heralded as a Second Reformation. Women are now being ordained as priests, pastors and ministers, while patriarchal references to the Almighty as "Father" are replaced with the gender-neutral "Parent." Jesus Christ is designated the "Child of God." The words of Scripture—perhaps, more accurately, the words of the apostle Paul—on this subject are seen today not as a divine revelation, but rather as an embarrassment from centuries past:

"Let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak. Instead, they must, as the Law says, be in subordination. If they wish to learn something, let them inquire of their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church...let a woman learn quietly with complete submission. I do not allow a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man; instead she is to keep still. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, since she was deceived, experienced the transgression. She will, however, be kept safe through the child-bearing, if with self-control she continues in faith and love and consecration." (I Corinthians 14:34-35; I Timothy 2:11-15)

Many churches now claim these instructions were merely temporary frameworks used to build churches in the first century pagan world—they are not to be taken as universal absolutes for all eternity. If churches, Scripture and Christianity can adapt and be redefined or reinterpreted in a changing world to end injustices towards women, they can certainly do the same towards animals.

The International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA) was founded in 1985 by Virginia Bouraquardez. Its educational and religious programs are meant to "bring religious principles to bear upon humanity’s attitude towards the treatment of our animal kin...and, through leadership, materials, and programs, to successfully interact with clergy and laity from many religious traditions."

According to the INRA:

"Religion counsels the powerful to be merciful and kind to those weaker than themselves, and most of humankind is at least nominally religious. But there is a ghastly paradox. Far from showing mercy, humanity uses its dominion over other animal species to pen them in cruel close confinement; to trap, club, and harpoon them; to poison, mutilate, and shock them in the name of science; to kill them by the billions; and even to blind them in excruciating pain to test cosmetics.

"Some of these abuses are due to mistaken understandings of religious principles; others, to a failure to apply those principles. Scriptures need to be fully researched concerning the relationship of humans to nonhuman animals, and to the entire ecological structure of Nature. Misinterpretations of scripture taken out of context, or based upon questionable theological assumptions need to be re-examined."

In the winter of 1990, INRA’s Executive Director, the Reverend Dr. Marc A. Wessels wrote: "As a Christian clergyman who speaks of having compassion for other creatures and who actively declares the need for humans to develop an ethic that gives reverence for all of life, I hope that others will open their eyes, hearts and minds to the responsibility of loving care for God’s creatures."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

women's rights and animal rights (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 22, 2009 11:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a pamphlet entitled "The Spiritual Link Between Humans and Animals," Reverend Wessels writes: "We recognize that many animal rights activists and ecologists are highly critical of Christians because of our relative failure thus far adequately to defend animals and to preserve the natural environment. Yet there are positive signs of a growing movement of Christian activists and theologians who are committed to the process of ecological stewardship and animal liberation.

"Individual Christians and groups on a variety of levels, including denominational, ecumenical, national and international, have begun the delayed process of seriously considering and practically addressing the question of Christian responsibility for animals. Because of the debate surrounding the ‘rights’ of animals, some Christians are considering the tenets of their faith in search for an appropriate ethical response."

According to Reverend Wessels, "The most important teaching which Jesus shared was the need for people to love God with their whole self and to love their neighbor as they loved themselves. Jesus expanded the concept of neighbor to include those who were normally excluded, and it is therefore not too farfetched for us to consider the animals as our neighbors.

"To think about animals as our brothers and sisters is not a new or radical idea. By extending the idea of neighbor, the love of neighbor includes love of, compassion for, and advocacy of animals. There are many historical examples of Christians who thought along those lines, besides the familiar illustration of St. Francis. An abbreviated listing of some of those individuals worthy of study and emulation includes Saint Blaise, Saint Comgall, Saint Cuthbert, Saint Gerasimus, Saint Giles, and Saint Jerome, to name but a few."

Reverend Wessels notes that: "In the Bible, which we understand as the divine revelation of God, there is ample evidence of the vastness and goodness of God toward animals. The Scriptures announce God as the creator of all life, the One responsible for calling life into being and placing it in an ordered fashion which reflects God’s glory. Humans and animals are a part of this arrangement. Humanity has a special relationship with particular duties to God’s created order, a connection to the animals by which they are morally bound by God’s covenant with them.

"According to the Scriptures, Christians are called to respect the life of animals and to be ethically engaged in protecting the life and liberty of all sentient creatures. As that is the case, human needs and rights do not usurp an animal’s intrinsic rights, nor should they deny the basic liberty of either individual animals or specific species. If the Christian call can be understood as being a command to be righteous, then Christians must have a higher regard for the lives of animals.

"Jesus’ life was one of compassion and liberation;" concludes Reverend Wessels, "his ministry was one which understood and expressed the needs of the oppressed. Especially in the past decade, Christians have been reminded that their faith requires them to take seriously the cries of the oppressed.

"Theologians such as Gutierrez, Miranda, and Hinkelammert have defined the Christian message as one which liberates lives and transforms social patterns of oppression. That concept of Christianity which sees God as the creator of the universe and the One who seeks justice is not exclusive; immunity from cruelty and injustice is not only a human desire or need—the animal kingdom also needs liberation."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» B-12 Posted by: Bliss Doubt

Comments are closed-

Just wrong
Posted by: tawny6812 on Jan 22, 2009 1:44 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The term "complimentarianism" has got to be THE most degrading way to describe a woman that I have ever heard.
This harkens to the days when a woman was persecuted if she didn't have a husband...just so you know, that was during the Inquisition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

So ... um ...
Posted by: Cybershaman on Jan 22, 2009 1:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...why exactly does God need a penis? Does it serve any purpose? Just wondering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So ... um ... Posted by: tawny6812
» That is the absurdity Posted by: bbq
» RE: So ... um ... Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: So ... um ... Posted by: morticia
» RE: Hee hee! Posted by: Cybershaman

Comments are closed-

I'd be interested to know...
Posted by: bbq on Jan 22, 2009 2:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how many of these women do not work outside the home, and how many who work(ed) outside the home have quit their jobs to allow their husbands to do their job of supporting the family. And how many are single women who may not be submissive now because they have no husband, but plan to be submissive when they finally get a man. Or how many work to pay for daycare?
Or, how many still work to pay for that new Cadillac that they must have to drive to church each week. OK, I'm getting snide, but really, I'd like to know those stats.
I don't fault them for their beliefs, I'm a live and let live, whatever gets you through the night kind of atheist, but I really would like to know how many put their money where their mouth is, or is this like the virginity pledge? You sign it, but don't really plan on doing it. Mob mentality can make people do things they don't really want to- ever been to a Tupperware or candle party?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Godly men shall spank their wives
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Jan 22, 2009 4:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I first learned about this book (and website) I wished I'd thought of it first. The book sold out long ago, and can't be had for less than 245.00 on Amazon. I still wonder if it was written with tongue in cheek, but in the ironic way of such outrageous things as this, it appears to be totally serious. It's about christian S&M, sort of. Anyway, the author is Leah Kelley, and the book is "Christian Domestic Discipline, Spanking Romance Short Story Collection". The website is http://christiandomesticdiscipline.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

You say don't "judge" these women?
Posted by: zola77 on Jan 22, 2009 4:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm curious...

Some people on this site seem to believe that it is UNFAIR to comment on this article and the choices of these women.

I agree that women are free to do as they please (as long as their beliefs are not imposed on/hurt other people), but I would like to know WHY WE shouldn't comment, when it is clear that the people advocating this "antifeminism" are ATTACKING OUR IDEAS and way of life - our 'choice'?

As far as I am concerned open discussion on both sides of ANY issue is important.

People who are advocating a non-judmental approach should APPLY IT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE - AND THEMSELVES.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Some observations
Posted by: willymack on Jan 22, 2009 7:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Organized religions aren't good for people:
They begin with fear and ignorance and promote and thrive on both.
They're inherently intolerant of other points of view.
They have no grounding in Reality, and are obdurantly resistant to any factual rebuttals or persuations.
They bring out the worst in their adherents, and are a major factor in (if not the cause of) massacres, pogroms, ethenic cleansing, and wars.
They're all too ready to use modern technology to deadly effect, while damning it as evil.
If they ever gained control of our nation, they'd drive us into a new Dark Age, as they have in other nations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Some observations Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» good observations willyMack Posted by: Chaimirija

Comments are closed-

GeoLee
Posted by: intheknow on Jan 22, 2009 9:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I imagine every one of these voted for McCain Palin because Palin was on the ticket, too, thus by their votes negating the entire philosophy to which they are ascribing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: GeoLee Posted by: luzmejor

Comments are closed-

Enter the "Twilight Zone" of Fundies via...
Posted by: Lily H. on Jan 23, 2009 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the site, "Ladies Against Feminism" for a plethora of
amazing and thought-provoking articles and links about
Christian wives and mothers, and how they live, their outlook, etc. Some if it is interesting, but much of it will simply amaze you. I recommend it much for the
research alone...you will be astounded.
Also, are any Alternet readers watching TLC or Discovery Health Cnannel? There is a bizarre Christian family that has been touted with their own show, "17 And Counting", where they showcase their massively growing family of now, 18 children.
Their eldest son recently got married, and their
wedding will air this coming Sunday on DH Channel.
The couple (Mom and Dad) were featured on today's episode of "The View", well, I won't spoil it for you here, just check it out yourselves! They are fast becoming their own cult classic!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

irony
Posted by: sureshot45 on Jan 23, 2009 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
isnt it ironic that these women are able to leave their house and wifely duties, leave their children with a babysitter, take a day off of work (if they work..how feminist of them!) and are speaking their voices and signing petitions etc. none of which would be possible if feminists before them had not forged the way and given them the opportunity. these women actually think that they have a right to be heard!! and why? because women and men before them fought for that right. the same rights they are working hard to destroy. submissive women do not gather in stadiums shouting about having too many 'rights' these women are far from submissive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Bronze age dogma...
Posted by: keystone999 on Jan 23, 2009 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who live by bronze age dogmas and doctrines should only have access to Bronze age technology. Get out the clay tablets and trade in your mini-van for a donkey cart!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

dysnomy
Posted by: tatamchwh on Jan 23, 2009 11:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the early days of Christianity, there was a struggle between authoritarian personalities who wanted hierarchy and egalitarian personalities who wanted equality. Because of the hierarchical nature of the Roman Empire, the authoritarian personalities won out. That is to say, the Roman Empire co-opted the nascent Christian movement as soon as it had enough adherents to be a potential political force. If you want to know about competing brands of Christianity, more egalitarian, read Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman. There really were egalitarian threads throughout early Christianity, even though they got crushed and had to be reinvented centuries later. Also, look at the Bogomils and and Cathars. And take a look at the history of the King James translation, which deliberately mistranslated egalitarian language in Paul's letters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

How can I contact Kathryn Joyce?
Posted by: deni_haven on Jan 23, 2009 1:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am very interested in this topic because I lived as a "True Woman" of God for 20+ years until my oldest daughter's suicide attempt woke me up to the lie I was living. I have not only followed this patriarchal worldview, but have promoted it in my own Christian "Pro-life, Pro-family" newspaper (which I have since sold) and in my articles which have appeared in patriarchy / quiverfull movement publications including Home School Digest, An Encouraging Word and Above Rubies Magazines. I know many of the leaders of this movement personally ~ my oldest daughter lived with Nancy Campbell and R.C Sproul Jr. ~ two influential leaders in the movement.

After a year-long email exchange with my something-like-an-atheist uncle, I have totally left the patriarchal belief system ~ I divorced my abusive husband and am now a single mom to 7 kids. I quit homeschooling ~ put all my kids in public school for the first time this year.

After getting myself out of the cult-like movement, I contacted a fellow home-church mom whom I had been friends with and I knew she was having the same struggles that I experienced ~ burn out from too many pregnancies and the hard, demanding lifestyle, plus domination by a controlling, emotionally abusive husband. My friend felt trapped and wanted to kill herself. I invited her to stay in my home ~ she left her husband and 11 children in order to escape a lifestyle that was slowly killing her. Now that she is out, and has "seen the light" (we both read "Dance of a Dissident Daughter" and "The Skeptical Feminist"), she is now struggling with much anger and loss ~ she has lost half her life (we're both 43 years old) and all her children to a controlling ex-husband who has them convinced that she is deceived by Satan and on her way to Hell. (I'm not making this up!)

Anyway ~ I'm looking for resources ~ seems there must be a way that she can fight for her children. She is so fragile emotionally from all the abuse that she's endured. But she has not completely lost hope ~ she wants to help her children.

I would love to correspond with Ms. Joyce. There is so much more that I could add to this story ~ my friend and I both have been through an incredible trip through Hell ~ and I'm not sure if we've come out the other side yet!

We have a story to tell. We were both thoroughly convinced of the patriarchal, fundamentalist worldview ~ we understand the mindset and can totally relate to the women who submit themselves to that sort of lifestyle.

I would like to help other women that I know who are struggling desperately to survive ~ their worldview has them feeling trapped in unlivable conditions and they are burning out.

denihaven@hotmail.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How can I contact Kathryn Joyce? Posted by: axesbowledaslove

Comments are closed-

non-corporate free labor
Posted by: littlepitcher on Jan 24, 2009 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At a time when many men (and women) are single, many others elderly or disabled, and wages for housework are a reality in these and other households, Christian men want just one thing--free labor. Keep women out of the clothing stores, out of sight, out of communication, and they will have to do the work for free.

Additionally, the rise in home schooling enables the pedophile, who is not restricted by the Bible from "uncovering his daughter's nakedness" to keep the entire family in complicity.

It's a darned shame, because home-schooling is often far superior to the institutional product, and women who want to be full-time mothers should be allowed that opportunity without criticism.

And, of course, they hate and fear competition from women in an increasingly shrunken and unstable job market.

Christianity, always intolerant, wants the one and only right and only their right way enforced on all women, and is developing the propaganda and propagandists to run women out of the economy. Just like the Depression and post -WWII timeframes, employers will again give middle-class whiteboys affirmative action hiring, but now they'll be stump-knocking and bible-thumping while they do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Blame in on Saul-Paul
Posted by: jmmartin on Jan 24, 2009 3:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Evangelical Christianity's anti-feminist bent is founded on the writing of "Saint" Paul, which is to say, Saul of Tarsus, who was a Zealot reactionary terrorist until he "saw the light." Saul-Paul for all practical purposes "invented" Christeranity, but only after seeing that the cudgel was only setting him up for going out like Barabas.

This man was a model of enlightenment, believing as he did that his body was filthy and diseased; that he was a base sinner (inherently evil); that God made women inferior to men, putting them on earth to be "helpmates" (whatever in Jebus' name that is), which implies that the feminine sex are even more inherently evil.

Sheesh! A religion invented by a woman-hating, self-loathing homosexual Jew.

Oh, did I leave that out? Saul Paul was the model for Roy Cohn: a Jew-hating homophobe who also happened to be Jewish and homosexual, adding into the mix, in Saul-Paul's case, that contempt for women that sometimes visits itself on older repressed gay men.

Is this the sort of person to put "faith" in? He's inimical to all things held sacred by those who believe in freedom and equality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

And how is this different from the Taliban?
Posted by: juniorantique on Jan 25, 2009 11:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me get this straight. Women from this country are going into the military to Islamic countries to "liberate" them and their women, and then when they come back here they are supposed to put themselves in submissive lockstep to male dominance? How (except for the burqas and chadors) is this different from so-called "radical" Islam?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Chador Posted by: 876

Comments are closed-

Read the handmaiden's tale
Posted by: lalala on Jan 26, 2009 6:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For some women, life is being the support system to an old fashioned religious man. We all deserve the same independence of choice. But as history shows, dominant control freaks treat everyone around them like crap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Incredible
Posted by: nvannes on Jan 26, 2009 8:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Against their own best interest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Ads on AlterNet
Posted by: munchkinpup on Jan 27, 2009 12:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice to see ads for DeMoss's book, "Lies Young Women Believe," as well as, Christian Gifts for Men, and even an ad for the International Muslim matrimonial site?? AlterNet must REALLY need the ad revenue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Christian Taliban vs. Our Individual Freedoms and Rights
Posted by: Crazed Liberal1 on Jan 28, 2009 2:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I including this title to wake people up so they see how this movement and larger movements in tranditional, right-wing Christianity to control the future of what type of country we are, and most importantly what range of individual rights we all will be free to excercise w/out authoritarian, so-called social conservative radicals, controlling a future America like the Taliban in Afghanistan where the types of lives we lead, those who we choose to marry, and the god we choose to follow or NOT to follow, is defined for us.
What is so enraging...is that while I fully support the rights under our Constitution of those who hold beliefs I don't share and lead the lifestyle I wouldn't choose...I will actively oppose the radical element present in a large portion of today's Republican Party who actively want to restrict our rights and freedom to worship or NOT worship how we choose and lead the lives we choose, whether or not they think it's odd or one they wouldn't lead...b/c they self-righteous claim to know the mind of God which we all should be FORCED to follow by, yes, those I call the American, Christian Taliban.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Confused...
Posted by: gh0st on Jan 28, 2009 3:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am confused. In the past, when this type of thing has come up, The Church just changes the Bible to make it look less flawed.

Slavery? Whoa, edit! Rape and mutilation. Yah...better clip that. Jesus said epliptics were 'evil' and possesed...wow, yah we can't leave that. Surgery is evil...what, they are saving lives? Crap! Get out the god-pen! Wait, the earth is flat...and the sky is held up by pillars, well since it is 20 century and we have known about this for a couple centuries now, we should probably update that while we are at it...

Anyone, anywhere, that takes the Bible at face value is an ignorant fool. I do not use that as a flame, I use it as a very technical assesment: you are a fool (easily led and thougthlessly follows) who is utterly ignorant (lacking knowledge and/or insight) on history.

Philosophical manifesto? Christ's words are up there amongst the best, brightest and most meaningful in history. An historical tome? Heck, a semi-accurate account? I don't know...see, that's the difference between us: common sense dictates that I do not assume truth in something that I know has been edited, ammended, updated and modified...not to mention translated by barely-literate idealogues, but what could go wrong there, right?

And to argue that there are "degrees" of submission or something. If it helps you sleep, to each their own. Doesn't make it any less nonsensical, but what can be done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Sad, sad, sad
Posted by: Red State Gal on Jan 28, 2009 11:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is so sad to see conservatism and Christianity put in the service of oppressing women when in fact they COULD be liberating them!

Red State Feminists believe that feminism is the ultimate conservatism, and that feminism gets us to a truer and more fundamental Christianity than we have today. Not sure how that could be? Read this.

Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Comment on "wimpy theology"
Posted by: lihtox on Jan 31, 2009 10:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's ludicrous to say that any practicing Christian, feminist or not, thinks they get to decide who God is. God is God. But (speaking from a Christian perspective here) God is unknowable; the best we can do is come up with pictures and analogies and metaphors to try to understand. So what people get to decide is not who God is, but how they choose to view God, through what lens. All such views are incomplete, but all tell us something. If every Christian is looking at God from a different vantage point, rather than being forced to all stand at one spot as fundamentalists would have us do, how much better will we end up knowing God?

Fundamentalists think they have God all figured out, which is blasphemy in my book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

GOOGLEBBS
Posted by: itouch backup on Feb 11, 2009 10:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
M4R Converter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Part of their belief system
Posted by: Smartcookie on Jan 22, 2009 12:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author mistakes "submission" as blind submission towards husbands, but people who are genuinely christine actually have read the bible. I'd really like it if the authors of such articles actually took the time to find out why it is christian women do what they do.

Read the following:

Ephesians 5:22-33

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy"

It also commands husbands to love their wives, hardly the idea of slave like "submission" if you ask me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So the "husband is the head... Posted by: chance garden
» RE: So the "husband is the head... Posted by: Smartcookie
» Freely choose??? Posted by: Pirate1
» RE: Freely choose??? Posted by: BLAN
» RE: Freely choose??? Posted by: Smartcookie
» RE: Freely choose??? Posted by: Rungle
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» "Smart" cookie, my ass! Posted by: fsuthai
» RE: "Smart" cookie, my ass! Posted by: AvalonSeeker
» Desertion Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: "Smart" cookie, my ass! Posted by: medusa
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» How about 1Timothy 2:12? Posted by: Defenestrator
» Paul was definately gay Posted by: Chaimirija
» RE: Paul was definately gay Posted by: Eliz77
» RE: Part of their belief system Posted by: Madame Riverotter
» RE: Part of their belief system Posted by: Mike Smith

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: You could get down with Jebus? Posted by: chance garden
» RE: You could get down with Jebus? Posted by: Nietzsche’s Bastard

Comments are closed-

"...Submission is a wife’s divine calling, and truest form of power.
Posted by: chance garden on Jan 22, 2009 12:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, somebody really has these women trained!

What does that say about the men who prefer women like this...
...but really, when are we going to give up on this type of treatment...

...And you wonder why I don't like religious persons...

..When will the attempts at CONTROL end....

Please end this mental abuse now!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: On Trolls Posted by: chance garden
» RE: It says... Posted by: phatkhat

Comments are closed-

6000 isn't all that many
Posted by: noalternative on Jan 22, 2009 12:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
particularly when you consider how big the evangelical movement reputedly is.

There have always been antifeminist reactionary women. Look at Phillis Shafley.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Christian Taliban
Posted by: DrBrian on Jan 22, 2009 12:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For all of their mutual loathing, it's amazing how similar Christian and Muslim fundamentalists are. The only difference is that the Christian women aren't wearing burquas (yet).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly. Posted by: badkitty68
» RE: and they will fight and kill you Posted by: Sister_Lauren
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: Christian Taliban Posted by: Gisele
» RE: Christian Taliban Posted by: Basenjis

Comments are closed-

I am a Muslim Feminist; I am not alone
Posted by: Dayaan on Jan 22, 2009 2:02 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Islam is submission to God by both men and women it is NOT submission of women to men. Mohamed, like Jesus, was a feminist. If you want to know why the Islamic world does not follow this model there are two reasons.
(1) The Arabic people and the Hebrew people came from the same nomadic, patriarchal cultures. Jesus and Mohamed both taught that God views males and females as equally valuable although biologically different. This upset the status quo and caused both men to be at odds with their cultures.
(2) For several hundred years following Mohamed's revelations, women had leadership roles in Islamic society. As Islam spread it eventually came into intimate contact with the Roman Catholic Church and many RC practices were brought into Islamic communities such as that women should cover their hair at all times (yes this was actually a Christian tradition; pre-Vatican II --1960's-- women still were required to cover their heads in Catholic Churches). So it is not surprising that fundamentalists of these two religions seem very similar. Incidentally, fundamentalist Judaism requires headcovers for women.
It is important to understand history or you will be doomed to repeat it.
It is also important to understand your religion.
The majority of my fellow Muslims (I am a convert) would disagree that covering your hair for a woman is un-Islamic and is in fact Jewish or Christian (via Paul not Jesus). Nowhere in the Qur'an (God's word spoken through the Angel Gabriel to Mohamed) does it state that a woman must cover her head; the Qur'an does state that a women should cover her breasts. Islam had its Paul and continues to have men interested in maintaining their superior position through false interpretation of scripture.
Judgment Day will come for all of us; believers and non-believers, and we will all have to answer to God for what we have done during life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Muslims women Posted by: 876
» On Angels and other Sky Critters Posted by: chance garden
» I know ... Posted by: Hechicera

Comments are closed-

I think these
Posted by: noalternative on Jan 22, 2009 12:51 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
3000 weirdos are less threatening to feminism than when "progressive" websites publish drivel like this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Danger
Posted by: jamilahspeak on Jan 22, 2009 4:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The danger is that these people will try to force their beliefs on the rest of the public. With Obama in office, these people are like wounded animals and when they feel threatened, they strike back. They will not spend the next 4 or 8 years quietly waiting for their turn.

Also, if these christian "leaders" are speaking falsely, then it is up to people to correct them. Gender is not a reason to live as a second class citizen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Danger Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

Stupidity Through Religion
Posted by: terradea42 on Jan 22, 2009 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've often struggled with the question, "Why do oppressed women in Middle Eastern countries put up with the abuse?" I realized that they are following their religious beliefs. If they turned away from those beliefs, they could overcome the men eventually and live free, safe lives. Christian women are no different, and no smarter. They will follow into the same hole, blindly, since they are told that God (aka Allah) wants them there. Problem is, "strong man" scriptures were written and selected by men to be bound into holy books, and the pro strong-woman scriptures were discarded. Seriously, religion must be weakened in society: humans are too weak and stupid to rise above it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stupidity Through Religion Posted by: Lilykins
» Well said Lilykins. Posted by: yale
» Stupidity Through Nationalism Posted by: suprmark

Comments are closed-

Where is the word of Christ in all this?
Posted by: fred_53_99 on Jan 22, 2009 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In all of this male wet dream submission crap, where is the Biblical text to support it? My guess is some minister had a revelation to somehow return the family to the 1950,s. Maybe he saw this week's epsode of 'Mad Men" and though it was cool.Note, nothing about bring back those 50 style wages that would support a one income household oh, sorry that's not Christian..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Alter Net is such a narrow minded site
Posted by: Calebvision7 on Jan 22, 2009 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
despite "ripping" other people for being "intolerant".
I switched from Fox News to MSNBC ( generallys peaking ) becuase I was tired of the incredibly biased, demeaning approach thatthey used toward the "other guys"and found that it was worse at MSNBC, but, of course, they "made fun" of "conservatives.
It's pretty much the same at Alter Net....they slam "narrow minded" people and "conservatives" but do not tolerate anyone who doesn't seee life and the world same as them!
Are these people doing something illegal or immoral???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Answer: Yes they are. Posted by: badkitty68
» RE: Here's a question about that... Posted by: Calebvision7
» RE: Answer: Yes they are. Posted by: Lilykins

Comments are closed-

Council for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood ???
Posted by: Yankeeinexile on Jan 22, 2009 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Margaret Atwood: "The Handmaids Tale"
page 285-286
Women's Prayvaganzas are for group weddings like this, usually. The men's are for military victories. These are the things we are supposed to rejoice in the most, respectively. Sometimes though, for the women, they're for a nun who recants. Most of that happened earlier, when they were rounding them up, but they still unearth a few these days, dredge them up from the underground, where they've been hiding, like moles. They have that look about them too; weak-eyed, stunned by too much light. The old ones they send off to the Colonies right away, but the young fertile ones they try to convert, and when they succeed we all come here to watch them go through the ceremony, renounce their celibacy, sacrifice it to the common good. They kneel and the Commander prays and then they take the red veil, as the rest of us have done....

The Commander continues with the service:
"I will that women adorn themselves in modest apparel," he says, "with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
"But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection." Here he looks us over. "All", he repeats.
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
"For Adam was first formed then Eve.
"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
"Notwithstanding she shall be saved by childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."
Saved by childbearing, I think. What did we suppose would save us, in the time before?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The "Holy Book"
Posted by: freshlemon on Jan 22, 2009 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a strange lot we are as humans to take a book that is full of ambiguity, has a mixture of authors none of whom we are really sure about,has been rewritten and edited in countless ways,starts as the history of the Hebrew people and ends with the downfall of the world etc. and we call it "the Holy Bible". Who decided that this book was the final authority on "how God wants us to live and behave"?

A popular Christian song has the line "yes, Jesus loves me, the Bible tells me so". It also tells me about war and violence,crucifixions,beheadings,lying, lust,misogeny,polygamy,theft, jealousy, revenge and a few fairy tales like Jonah and the Whale thrown in for good measure. It is the only defense that Christians can offer to their often bizarre behavior. It is a book about power and control from the perspective of ordinary people trying to make sense of their history and to report and justify man's inhumanity to man.

Why should we be surprised when a group of unhappy people with no sense of self-worth pick a sentence out of the "Holy Book" and believe that they are more Christian for having done so? Because the Bible told them so. Whose interpretation of the Bible? Is the Bible more true to its believers than the Koran is to the Muslims? Isn't it time to debunk these sacred cows?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The "Holy Book" Posted by: Lilykins

Comments are closed-

No brainer: blanket return to traditonal gender roles unjust.
Posted by: Tim V on Jan 22, 2009 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There would be some unquestionable injustices in a blanket return to pre-1960's gender roles. For example, the following people would be shamed or looked down upon over things that are beyond their control: physically small men, infertile men and women, tall/large women, etc.

Also, the idea that women should blanketly submit to their husbands runs afoul of the saying "power corrupts,absolute power corrupts absolutely." Getting really traditional would entail a repeal of women's sufferage.

A look at what's "natural" reveals that there is a large spread of "masculine" and "femmine" traits among both genders. some women are stronger, taller, etc than some men, for example.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Here we go again
Posted by: kenhymes on Jan 22, 2009 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet has a bad habit of highlighting the work of writers who inflate micro-trends in far-right "Christian" circles into an imminent danger of theocracy. 6,000 people is a tiny number in the context of our culture, even within the right-wing Christian milieu.
It's not that you can't find plenty of examples of disturbing and regressive thinking among Christians in the US, because you certainly can (as well as in many other cultural and ideological groups, both religious and non-religious). But what Alternet's stable of contributors consistently miss is that interesting and positive changes are happening within and around religion in the US. Mindless fear, cruel insults, ahistorical commentary, none of these things are of any use if you are interested in a healthy future for our culture and our politics. It's fine that you think anyone who believes in invisible things is nuts, okay, we get it. But if you are so amazingly interested in empiricism and evidence and rationality... how about being impartially curious, interested in the actual larger trends and developments in religious culture in the US? Don't worry, we won't give you cooties.
Examples:

The Episcopal Church in the US has lost tens of millions of dollars in property and funding by standing behind an openly gay bishop.

Here in Charlottesville VA, the focus is increasingly on no-strings-attached service work, such as PACEM (People and Congregations Involved in Ministry) which houses homeless people in a network of churches. Or IMPACT, a social-justice coalition of many denominations and a local secular humanist group, which has kept affordable housing and access to dental care and transportation on the agenda, with some real victories over the last few years.

Young evangelicals, with most of whom I disagree profoundly about reproductive rights, nonetheless are walking away from old-school Jerry Falwell style politics and homophobia and mindless corporate/military boosterism. There's a new focus on stewardship of the earth, on poverty, and on mutual respect between believers and non-believers. Lots of problems, a certain insularity (but hey there's lots of that here), but a definite positive trend with profound implications for our future.

All I'm saying is... look around, get to know people, don't be afraid of dialogue with people whose cosmology you don't share. That's where hope is, not in throwing mudballs at each other.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here we go again Posted by: Tim V
» RE: strange and unfounded aspersions Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: thanks ! Posted by: cherylsass123

Comments are closed-

What I find most interesting is the notion that feminism is the status quo
Posted by: ladyoracle on Jan 22, 2009 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can assure you that "feminism" has only been tolerated as "that thing women do" in the places I have been that were not overtly feminist in nature like women's studies conferences and Planned Parenthood meetings. The professional men in my life have at best tolerated my feminism, smirking at me when they made a concession like naming five men who'd worked on a particular issue, then throwing in one woman's name, too.

But my point is just that feminism is on the fringes still. Look at the ERA that has still not been ratified by enough states to become law. Look at the disparate amount of housework that mothers with full time jobs do. If the women with this movement don't want equality, then that's their choice, and they can work the same job as a man for less money and not use birth control etc. But I would hate to see them lobby against equality for women who feel differently.

More importantly, though, because I do think feminism is not in the status quo, what's happening is that this group of conservative women has invented a straw man and is beating him/her to death. The reason for this, assuming feminism isn't mainstream, isn't to make a difference in the mainstream, but rather to make a difference in the fringes anyway, but not the feminist fringes, but rather their own conservative cranny. For what purpose? Well, I think that would have more to do with having their men be compelled to "stand up" and be a certain kind of man. Ever notice that although Christianity is based on patriarchy, more Christians are women? That has always puzzled me, because men get a much better deal power-wise within the church, but then again, it is a power with strings attached. So let's not forget that every time there's a cry for women to stand back, the other side of the statement is a cry for men to step up. And if Christian men aren't stepping up, well then maybe these women should find a more appropriate battle cry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Quite simply, IMHO, God doesn't exist...
Posted by: fsuthai on Jan 22, 2009 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
except in the educationally deprived minds of the religious practitioners and their frightened "flocks". I tried for over 50 years to have intelligent debates with some I cared for but things like facts and data just upset them and they always fall back on faith; like I'm supposed to accept the garbage being delivered from a raised dais by some less educated CON MAN (or woman)! Yeah, I'm bitter about it! They have been screwing up my world for far too many centuries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Now would be a great time to reach out to guys who aren't into machoegotistical patriarchy.
Posted by: jwverez on Jan 22, 2009 6:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When reasonable men and women work together to defeat dominance of one sex over the other, we all win.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Time to demand our police protect us. That IS what they are paid to do, right?
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Jan 22, 2009 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cool activist tool. A pocket guide to the California Public records act

TruthOut has a story on my issue with the cops. I can't get the smirky look I saw on a young mans face the other day, when I was talking about how the police in our town don't care about rape. Grrrrrrr. I care.

End Torture, End Domestic Violence

When one compares what is done to a woman in an advanced domestic battering cycle and to prisoners subjected to torture, the situations are frighteningly similar. But only recently have they begun to be equated legally and culturally.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

MARRIAGE VS. SERVITUDE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 22, 2009 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If a man wants a servant and a woman agrees to the arrangement, that fine with me. It pays the rent. But some of us have a need to explore beyond the kitchen, babies and serving a master. There's school, a career and a host of things that a curious mind needs in order to function. That same woman might even choose to go to church. But when an agreement is drawn up I get suspicious. Why should a woman be required to promise anything? If her life is so wonderful, she's not going anywhere. They throw God into the mix to instill fear. If that's what it takes to 'sell' their idea then it's not a very good one. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: MARRIAGE VS. SERVITUDE Posted by: samd11

Comments are closed-

All the Desert Sky Bully Religions are Misogynistic
Posted by: WomanRebel on Jan 22, 2009 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Living one's life according to superstition strikes me as strange to begin with since I am an Atheist.

Following the doctrines of the blood thirsty desert big three is even more absurd since they are the religions of master and slave and are mainly used by the master to keep the slaves from challenging their rule.

Religion is a tool for manipulating money and good by the use of lies so that one doesn't have to do any real work.

Women are used as slaves to the slaves. John Lennon summed it up. "Woman is the nigger of the world".

This is nothing more than a sado-masochistic lifestyle with a sky fairy rationalization.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

carlie
Posted by: carlie727 on Jan 22, 2009 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it interesting that some well educated, successful business women, advocate against that which allowed them to get their success in the first place. The feminist movement started way before 60's and 70's when the "Equal Rights Amendment" was suggested. Women gained their right to vote because of feminists. Women gained their right to education because of feminists. Women gained their right to speak publicly and be taken seriously because of feminists. Don't complain about something when you are a direct beneficiary of it. Don't talk about "traditional gender roles" when you have used the opportunities that other women have fought for to get your BA, MA or PhD. If those traditional roles are important to you, then stay home and serve your household...there is honor in that. But please stop preaching from your self-made bully pulpit that "self-making women" are not doing it right. It is just not consistant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: carlie Posted by: Gisele

Comments are closed-

Religion..............
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Jan 22, 2009 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is amazing how similar conservative Christianity and conservative Islam appear to each other in their views of "woman's roles" in the lives of each of these religions. While women are happily toiling in the homes these men are out doing their "manly" duties, what a crock; as usual it is another attempt to put "women in their place", what's next the burka?

Woman was taken from Adams side, not his backside to be behind him, not his foot to be trampled on, but from his side - to walk with him, to be a help-mate, to go through life at his side. Of course the conservatives (men started this idea) are balking at what they consider "the counter-culture of feminism", why should a woman be paid the same as her male counter-part for doing the same work? If she had a husband - then she would be home having babies, baking, and taking care of the house! Why should a women think that she should be educated, when her husband will take care of her? Because husbands do die, and then what will she do, live on social security?!

I am all for letting people live as they want to, but there are woman that should not have children, because they really aren't fit? Does anyone not remember Andrea Yates, the woman that drowned her children? There are many others, similarly mentally challenged after having all of those kids! But why care about them, after all, it was the Lords will, well wasn't it?

My issue with these people is that they want to enforce these ideas on the rest of the world! My issue with these people is that they are trying to use "the book" written so long ago to coerce people in the 21st century to go back to an age when not only was life harder (think no grocery stores, medicine etc.), but to live in ways that are not sustainable in today's age. People no longer have 10 children, because those children must be fed, clothed, and housed. They are not a farm where all hands are put to work! These ideas while they may work for some, are not for all people, and to coerce people into believing that they are is just plain irresponsible!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Women & Christianity
Posted by: WyrdSister on Jan 22, 2009 8:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The history of women in Christianity has always been subserviant. This was one of the reasons why, as a young woman, I questioned Christianity. When I learned the Truth, I quit.

Quotations from the Bible:

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power...." Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1

"And a man will choose...any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman...Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33. 1

"And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her." Ecclesiastes 7:26, from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)

Atatements made by church leaders:

St. Tertullian (about 155 to 225 CE):
"Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die."

St. Augustine of Hippo (354 to 430 CE). He wrote to a friend:
"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 to 1274 CE):
"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence."

Martin Luther (1483 to 1546):
"If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there."

These people hate women. Why any woman would want to be apart of an organization that routinely and consistantly view women as subserviant chattel is beyond me.

If you are a Christain woman who believes that this is the way to live, please reply and tell me why. Please do not spout scripture or tell me "God says so", because these are not reasons. Please give me your OWN opinion.

Oh wait....you wouldnt have one. My bad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Women & Christianity Posted by: kenhymes
» RE: Women & Christianity Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: Women & Christianity Posted by: Xynyx
» aren't those the same people Posted by: hurricane hugo
» Also from Tertullian: Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Also from Tertullian: Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Women & Christianity Posted by: Lilykins

Comments are closed-

Non-Christians are feminism's fault?
Posted by: mcubed on Jan 22, 2009 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The contortions of logic are interesting:

"Feminism begins with a deconstruction of a Judeo-Christian view of womanhood (the right to name self); progressed to the deconstruction of manhood, gender relationships, family/societal structures, and a Judeo-Christian worldview (the right to name the world); and concluded with the concept of a metaphysical pluralism, self-deification, and the rejection of the Judeo-Christian deity (the right to name God)."

It's odd that the history of the plurality of religions on this earth also includes men who either weren't Christian to begin with, or held opposing beliefs to the theology adopted at the Council of Nicea, and beyond. A lot of this happened before the 1960's and 70's.

Wow. I'm glad to have my facts straight now. Christianity was done in by the unsuccessful Pro-ERA ammendment marches of the 1970's.

As a female agnostic raised outside of the Christian Church, I probably helped by having a short haircut in the 1980's.

Although disturbing, this group is very small, and many of their children will probably look for opportunities beyond the confines of their conservative world view once they are grown. Teenage rebellion is an interesting thing.

Michele

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

DUMB AND DESPERATE
Posted by: sirios on Jan 22, 2009 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All is wine and roses until the first black eye appears.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

That's another reason I moved from Rural Misery (MO) to St Louis.
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Jan 22, 2009 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rural part of my miserable state is the worst and racism and misogynism are at all time highs. All it takes is going 30 miles west of St Louis and the fear, hatred, and intolerance are right out there.

Besides abortion, if you're single and haven't even married yet, you're treated as a pariah. My former high school boyfriend is single due to divorce and yet people respect him as a single. Yet when I go back just to visit my parents, the neighbors and my parent's friends are so rude and humiliating I can't stand their intolerant rightwing fundie mentality. They'll even try invoking quotes and citations from the bible blaming my desire to work as somehow the reason God punished me by keeping me single. Rural MO deserves to be CRUSHED until it can overcome its racism and misogyny !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

52% of humans are female
Posted by: nise52 on Jan 22, 2009 9:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So we're supposed to bow down to a MALE god, submit to MALE ministers and husbands, and become silent brood mares to create sons who die in wars and daughters who repeat our behavior?? What comic books are they reading?

Society suffers when over 1/2 of its citizens are forced into second-class citizenship. My suggestion is to eliminate organized religion. Allow each person to seek spirituality (or not) as they wish and NOT shove it down other people's throats. Treat all humans as the unique individuals they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 52% of humans are female Posted by: Basenjis

Comments are closed-

additional perqs
Posted by: Vik on Jan 22, 2009 9:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And don't forget all that really great incest that these religious nuts seem to like so much. Screw your daughters, and your "submissive" wife will really know what is going on, but she'll keep her "submissibve" mouth shut so her "family" will stay 'secure"--

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Women's Liberation
Posted by: renticy on Jan 22, 2009 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read both progressive and conservative sites. There's little difference -- both are narrow-minded and quick to judge others.

Open your eyes and your minds, learn and listen to others, and perhaps you will be able to see another side to the issue. Both the article and many reader's comments show ignorance. It may well be the intolerance and meanness of spirit felt throughout this article that causes some women (more than the writer realizes) to rebel against the feminist movement.

To degrade and criticize another person because of their beliefs is pitiful. I'm not a conservative Christian and I don't share their beliefs, but as a woman, I support and respect another woman's choice of life style.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's called debate, discussion Posted by: JackieGiles
» Amen! Posted by: badkitty68

Comments are closed-

My submission...
Posted by: Gisele on Jan 22, 2009 10:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is that this whole exercise is a red-herring, meant to divide. And it's doing a damn good job! Look at some of the comments, you'll see hate, confusion, frustration, disbelief...few if any agree on anything because no one really wants to 'hear' what is being said if it involves 'religion'. That's fair - I hate religion too.

I love my Father and His Son though - and His Holy Spirit too. Keep your damn flaming arrows to yourself unless you're supplying flame retardant along with them!

I don't see this article as something anyone needs to worry about, especially if religion is not your thing. If it is, then this article was written in vain - the author is preaching to the choir.

Yeah, the Bible does say wives are to submit to their husbands, and that husbands are to love their wives as themselves...and though it makes the blood boil in some of us, we usually 'react' before we think about what it really involves. Especially those of us born in the "I'll do as I damn well please" generation.

First - wives submit. It's the choice of the woman as to whether or not she will submit. Any idea the kind of strength, and trust it takes to give your will to someone else? To let another person have that much control over you? If she decides not to submit, there's not a damn thing he can do about it.

Second - love your wife as yourself. Unless a man is going to kick the crap out of himself, he ought not be doing it to his wife...and even then, it takes a special kind of loser to do that and hide behind his religion. I know, it happens every day. But please don't call him a Christian if that's the case. He's a wife-beater. So much for his oath to God. That one simply means, honor her, treat her as well as you'd treat yourself. Most men treat themselves pretty good as far as I've seen.

In this author's home, if she does something against her belief system and doesn't answer for it - her husband has to. It's him who'll bear the brunt of things, he's the 'head of the household' therefore; he's responsible for ALL things that happen within his walls. Yeah, neat trick - if she doesn't stand up, then he has to step up. That submission thing is a double edged sword, as many things in the Bible are.

As an aside, I wonder how many fewer marriages there would be if a couple were planning on living this lifestyle and they actually took the time to consider..."do I really want to submit myself to that for 50 years?!" Bet things would change a little :).

Over the years I've learned to set organized religion back in the dustbin for the most part. Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not written by men thus named..they're still unsure to this day of who actually authored those books. They're a rehash of of John, and John was pretty much written from the Gospel of Thomas - which is not even in the bible! It's a part of the heretical texts the CC doesn't want you to read.

So what to do? Believe as you will, allow others the same privilege. In both cases, try to understand where the other is coming from, and do it with an open mind and gentle heart. We all come to the truth in our own way, at the time that is right for us. It really IS about the Golden Rule.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Live and Let Live Posted by: renticy
» RE: Live and Let Live Posted by: Gisele
» fewer marriages means population reduction Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield

Comments are closed-

Oh, and did anyone tell this group
Posted by: WyrdSister on Jan 22, 2009 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That according to the dictionary, what they are attempting to convince people to do is impossible due to the fact that these words are opposites.

Liberation: to set free from traditional role expectations.

Submission: The act of submitting to the power of another.

Oxy-morons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

women's rights and animal rights
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 22, 2009 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A 1980 United Nations report states that women constitute half the world’s population, perform nearly two-thirds of its work hours, yet receive one-tenth of the world’s income and own less than one-hundredth of the world’s property. The impact of the women’s movement upon the church is being heralded as a Second Reformation. Women are now being ordained as priests, pastors and ministers, while patriarchal references to the Almighty as "Father" are replaced with the gender-neutral "Parent." Jesus Christ is designated the "Child of God." The words of Scripture—perhaps, more accurately, the words of the apostle Paul—on this subject are seen today not as a divine revelation, but rather as an embarrassment from centuries past:

"Let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak. Instead, they must, as the Law says, be in subordination. If they wish to learn something, let them inquire of their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church...let a woman learn quietly with complete submission. I do not allow a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man; instead she is to keep still. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, since she was deceived, experienced the transgression. She will, however, be kept safe through the child-bearing, if with self-control she continues in faith and love and consecration." (I Corinthians 14:34-35; I Timothy 2:11-15)

Many churches now claim these instructions were merely temporary frameworks used to build churches in the first century pagan world—they are not to be taken as universal absolutes for all eternity. If churches, Scripture and Christianity can adapt and be redefined or reinterpreted in a changing world to end injustices towards women, they can certainly do the same towards animals.

The International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA) was founded in 1985 by Virginia Bouraquardez. Its educational and religious programs are meant to "bring religious principles to bear upon humanity’s attitude towards the treatment of our animal kin...and, through leadership, materials, and programs, to successfully interact with clergy and laity from many religious traditions."

According to the INRA:

"Religion counsels the powerful to be merciful and kind to those weaker than themselves, and most of humankind is at least nominally religious. But there is a ghastly paradox. Far from showing mercy, humanity uses its dominion over other animal species to pen them in cruel close confinement; to trap, club, and harpoon them; to poison, mutilate, and shock them in the name of science; to kill them by the billions; and even to blind them in excruciating pain to test cosmetics.

"Some of these abuses are due to mistaken understandings of religious principles; others, to a failure to apply those principles. Scriptures need to be fully researched concerning the relationship of humans to nonhuman animals, and to the entire ecological structure of Nature. Misinterpretations of scripture taken out of context, or based upon questionable theological assumptions need to be re-examined."

In the winter of 1990, INRA’s Executive Director, the Reverend Dr. Marc A. Wessels wrote: "As a Christian clergyman who speaks of having compassion for other creatures and who actively declares the need for humans to develop an ethic that gives reverence for all of life, I hope that others will open their eyes, hearts and minds to the responsibility of loving care for God’s creatures."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

women's rights and animal rights (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 22, 2009 11:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a pamphlet entitled "The Spiritual Link Between Humans and Animals," Reverend Wessels writes: "We recognize that many animal rights activists and ecologists are highly critical of Christians because of our relative failure thus far adequately to defend animals and to preserve the natural environment. Yet there are positive signs of a growing movement of Christian activists and theologians who are committed to the process of ecological stewardship and animal liberation.

"Individual Christians and groups on a variety of levels, including denominational, ecumenical, national and international, have begun the delayed process of seriously considering and practically addressing the question of Christian responsibility for animals. Because of the debate surrounding the ‘rights’ of animals, some Christians are considering the tenets of their faith in search for an appropriate ethical response."

According to Reverend Wessels, "The most important teaching which Jesus shared was the need for people to love God with their whole self and to love their neighbor as they loved themselves. Jesus expanded the concept of neighbor to include those who were normally excluded, and it is therefore not too farfetched for us to consider the animals as our neighbors.

"To think about animals as our brothers and sisters is not a new or radical idea. By extending the idea of neighbor, the love of neighbor includes love of, compassion for, and advocacy of animals. There are many historical examples of Christians who thought along those lines, besides the familiar illustration of St. Francis. An abbreviated listing of some of those individuals worthy of study and emulation includes Saint Blaise, Saint Comgall, Saint Cuthbert, Saint Gerasimus, Saint Giles, and Saint Jerome, to name but a few."

Reverend Wessels notes that: "In the Bible, which we understand as the divine revelation of God, there is ample evidence of the vastness and goodness of God toward animals. The Scriptures announce God as the creator of all life, the One responsible for calling life into being and placing it in an ordered fashion which reflects God’s glory. Humans and animals are a part of this arrangement. Humanity has a special relationship with particular duties to God’s created order, a connection to the animals by which they are morally bound by God’s covenant with them.

"According to the Scriptures, Christians are called to respect the life of animals and to be ethically engaged in protecting the life and liberty of all sentient creatures. As that is the case, human needs and rights do not usurp an animal’s intrinsic rights, nor should they deny the basic liberty of either individual animals or specific species. If the Christian call can be understood as being a command to be righteous, then Christians must have a higher regard for the lives of animals.

"Jesus’ life was one of compassion and liberation;" concludes Reverend Wessels, "his ministry was one which understood and expressed the needs of the oppressed. Especially in the past decade, Christians have been reminded that their faith requires them to take seriously the cries of the oppressed.

"Theologians such as Gutierrez, Miranda, and Hinkelammert have defined the Christian message as one which liberates lives and transforms social patterns of oppression. That concept of Christianity which sees God as the creator of the universe and the One who seeks justice is not exclusive; immunity from cruelty and injustice is not only a human desire or need—the animal kingdom also needs liberation."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» B-12 Posted by: Bliss Doubt

Comments are closed-

Just wrong
Posted by: tawny6812 on Jan 22, 2009 1:44 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The term "complimentarianism" has got to be THE most degrading way to describe a woman that I have ever heard.
This harkens to the days when a woman was persecuted if she didn't have a husband...just so you know, that was during the Inquisition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

So ... um ...
Posted by: Cybershaman on Jan 22, 2009 1:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...why exactly does God need a penis? Does it serve any purpose? Just wondering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So ... um ... Posted by: tawny6812
» That is the absurdity Posted by: bbq
» RE: So ... um ... Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: So ... um ... Posted by: morticia
» RE: Hee hee! Posted by: Cybershaman

Comments are closed-

I'd be interested to know...
Posted by: bbq on Jan 22, 2009 2:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how many of these women do not work outside the home, and how many who work(ed) outside the home have quit their jobs to allow their husbands to do their job of supporting the family. And how many are single women who may not be submissive now because they have no husband, but plan to be submissive when they finally get a man. Or how many work to pay for daycare?
Or, how many still work to pay for that new Cadillac that they must have to drive to church each week. OK, I'm getting snide, but really, I'd like to know those stats.
I don't fault them for their beliefs, I'm a live and let live, whatever gets you through the night kind of atheist, but I really would like to know how many put their money where their mouth is, or is this like the virginity pledge? You sign it, but don't really plan on doing it. Mob mentality can make people do things they don't really want to- ever been to a Tupperware or candle party?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Godly men shall spank their wives
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Jan 22, 2009 4:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I first learned about this book (and website) I wished I'd thought of it first. The book sold out long ago, and can't be had for less than 245.00 on Amazon. I still wonder if it was written with tongue in cheek, but in the ironic way of such outrageous things as this, it appears to be totally serious. It's about christian S&M, sort of. Anyway, the author is Leah Kelley, and the book is "Christian Domestic Discipline, Spanking Romance Short Story Collection". The website is http://christiandomesticdiscipline.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

You say don't "judge" these women?
Posted by: zola77 on Jan 22, 2009 4:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm curious...

Some people on this site seem to believe that it is UNFAIR to comment on this article and the choices of these women.

I agree that women are free to do as they please (as long as their beliefs are not imposed on/hurt other people), but I would like to know WHY WE shouldn't comment, when it is clear that the people advocating this "antifeminism" are ATTACKING OUR IDEAS and way of life - our 'choice'?

As far as I am concerned open discussion on both sides of ANY issue is important.

People who are advocating a non-judmental approach should APPLY IT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE - AND THEMSELVES.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Some observations
Posted by: willymack on Jan 22, 2009 7:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Organized religions aren't good for people:
They begin with fear and ignorance and promote and thrive on both.
They're inherently intolerant of other points of view.
They have no grounding in Reality, and are obdurantly resistant to any factual rebuttals or persuations.
They bring out the worst in their adherents, and are a major factor in (if not the cause of) massacres, pogroms, ethenic cleansing, and wars.
They're all too ready to use modern technology to deadly effect, while damning it as evil.
If they ever gained control of our nation, they'd drive us into a new Dark Age, as they have in other nations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Some observations Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» good observations willyMack Posted by: Chaimirija

Comments are closed-

GeoLee
Posted by: intheknow on Jan 22, 2009 9:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I imagine every one of these voted for McCain Palin because Palin was on the ticket, too, thus by their votes negating the entire philosophy to which they are ascribing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: GeoLee Posted by: luzmejor

Comments are closed-

Enter the "Twilight Zone" of Fundies via...
Posted by: Lily H. on Jan 23, 2009 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the site, "Ladies Against Feminism" for a plethora of
amazing and thought-provoking articles and links about
Christian wives and mothers, and how they live, their outlook, etc. Some if it is interesting, but much of it will simply amaze you. I recommend it much for the
research alone...you will be astounded.
Also, are any Alternet readers watching TLC or Discovery Health Cnannel? There is a bizarre Christian family that has been touted with their own show, "17 And Counting", where they showcase their massively growing family of now, 18 children.
Their eldest son recently got married, and their
wedding will air this coming Sunday on DH Channel.
The couple (Mom and Dad) were featured on today's episode of "The View", well, I won't spoil it for you here, just check it out yourselves! They are fast becoming their own cult classic!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

irony
Posted by: sureshot45 on Jan 23, 2009 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
isnt it ironic that these women are able to leave their house and wifely duties, leave their children with a babysitter, take a day off of work (if they work..how feminist of them!) and are speaking their voices and signing petitions etc. none of which would be possible if feminists before them had not forged the way and given them the opportunity. these women actually think that they have a right to be heard!! and why? because women and men before them fought for that right. the same rights they are working hard to destroy. submissive women do not gather in stadiums shouting about having too many 'rights' these women are far from submissive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Bronze age dogma...
Posted by: keystone999 on Jan 23, 2009 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who live by bronze age dogmas and doctrines should only have access to Bronze age technology. Get out the clay tablets and trade in your mini-van for a donkey cart!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

dysnomy
Posted by: tatamchwh on Jan 23, 2009 11:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the early days of Christianity, there was a struggle between authoritarian personalities who wanted hierarchy and egalitarian personalities who wanted equality. Because of the hierarchical nature of the Roman Empire, the authoritarian personalities won out. That is to say, the Roman Empire co-opted the nascent Christian movement as soon as it had enough adherents to be a potential political force. If you want to know about competing brands of Christianity, more egalitarian, read Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman. There really were egalitarian threads throughout early Christianity, even though they got crushed and had to be reinvented centuries later. Also, look at the Bogomils and and Cathars. And take a look at the history of the King James translation, which deliberately mistranslated egalitarian language in Paul's letters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

How can I contact Kathryn Joyce?
Posted by: deni_haven on Jan 23, 2009 1:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am very interested in this topic because I lived as a "True Woman" of God for 20+ years until my oldest daughter's suicide attempt woke me up to the lie I was living. I have not only followed this patriarchal worldview, but have promoted it in my own Christian "Pro-life, Pro-family" newspaper (which I have since sold) and in my articles which have appeared in patriarchy / quiverfull movement publications including Home School Digest, An Encouraging Word and Above Rubies Magazines. I know many of the leaders of this movement personally ~ my oldest daughter lived with Nancy Campbell and R.C Sproul Jr. ~ two influential leaders in the movement.

After a year-long email exchange with my something-like-an-atheist uncle, I have totally left the patriarchal belief system ~ I divorced my abusive husband and am now a single mom to 7 kids. I quit homeschooling ~ put all my kids in public school for the first time this year.

After getting myself out of the cult-like movement, I contacted a fellow home-church mom whom I had been friends with and I knew she was having the same struggles that I experienced ~ burn out from too many pregnancies and the hard, demanding lifestyle, plus domination by a controlling, emotionally abusive husband. My friend felt trapped and wanted to kill herself. I invited her to stay in my home ~ she left her husband and 11 children in order to escape a lifestyle that was slowly killing her. Now that she is out, and has "seen the light" (we both read "Dance of a Dissident Daughter" and "The Skeptical Feminist"), she is now struggling with much anger and loss ~ she has lost half her life (we're both 43 years old) and all her children to a controlling ex-husband who has them convinced that she is deceived by Satan and on her way to Hell. (I'm not making this up!)

Anyway ~ I'm looking for resources ~ seems there must be a way that she can fight for her children. She is so fragile emotionally from all the abuse that she's endured. But she has not completely lost hope ~ she wants to help her children.

I would love to correspond with Ms. Joyce. There is so much more that I could add to this story ~ my friend and I both have been through an incredible trip through Hell ~ and I'm not sure if we've come out the other side yet!

We have a story to tell. We were both thoroughly convinced of the patriarchal, fundamentalist worldview ~ we understand the mindset and can totally relate to the women who submit themselves to that sort of lifestyle.

I would like to help other women that I know who are struggling desperately to survive ~ their worldview has them feeling trapped in unlivable conditions and they are burning out.

denihaven@hotmail.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How can I contact Kathryn Joyce? Posted by: axesbowledaslove

Comments are closed-

non-corporate free labor
Posted by: littlepitcher on Jan 24, 2009 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At a time when many men (and women) are single, many others elderly or disabled, and wages for housework are a reality in these and other households, Christian men want just one thing--free labor. Keep women out of the clothing stores, out of sight, out of communication, and they will have to do the work for free.

Additionally, the rise in home schooling enables the pedophile, who is not restricted by the Bible from "uncovering his daughter's nakedness" to keep the entire family in complicity.

It's a darned shame, because home-schooling is often far superior to the institutional product, and women who want to be full-time mothers should be allowed that opportunity without criticism.

And, of course, they hate and fear competition from women in an increasingly shrunken and unstable job market.

Christianity, always intolerant, wants the one and only right and only their right way enforced on all women, and is developing the propaganda and propagandists to run women out of the economy. Just like the Depression and post -WWII timeframes, employers will again give middle-class whiteboys affirmative action hiring, but now they'll be stump-knocking and bible-thumping while they do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Blame in on Saul-Paul
Posted by: jmmartin on Jan 24, 2009 3:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Evangelical Christianity's anti-feminist bent is founded on the writing of "Saint" Paul, which is to say, Saul of Tarsus, who was a Zealot reactionary terrorist until he "saw the light." Saul-Paul for all practical purposes "invented" Christeranity, but only after seeing that the cudgel was only setting him up for going out like Barabas.

This man was a model of enlightenment, believing as he did that his body was filthy and diseased; that he was a base sinner (inherently evil); that God made women inferior to men, putting them on earth to be "helpmates" (whatever in Jebus' name that is), which implies that the feminine sex are even more inherently evil.

Sheesh! A religion invented by a woman-hating, self-loathing homosexual Jew.

Oh, did I leave that out? Saul Paul was the model for Roy Cohn: a Jew-hating homophobe who also happened to be Jewish and homosexual, adding into the mix, in Saul-Paul's case, that contempt for women that sometimes visits itself on older repressed gay men.

Is this the sort of person to put "faith" in? He's inimical to all things held sacred by those who believe in freedom and equality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

And how is this different from the Taliban?
Posted by: juniorantique on Jan 25, 2009 11:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me get this straight. Women from this country are going into the military to Islamic countries to "liberate" them and their women, and then when they come back here they are supposed to put themselves in submissive lockstep to male dominance? How (except for the burqas and chadors) is this different from so-called "radical" Islam?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Chador Posted by: 876

Comments are closed-

Read the handmaiden's tale
Posted by: lalala on Jan 26, 2009 6:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For some women, life is being the support system to an old fashioned religious man. We all deserve the same independence of choice. But as history shows, dominant control freaks treat everyone around them like crap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Incredible
Posted by: nvannes on Jan 26, 2009 8:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Against their own best interest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Ads on AlterNet
Posted by: munchkinpup on Jan 27, 2009 12:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice to see ads for DeMoss's book, "Lies Young Women Believe," as well as, Christian Gifts for Men, and even an ad for the International Muslim matrimonial site?? AlterNet must REALLY need the ad revenue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Christian Taliban vs. Our Individual Freedoms and Rights
Posted by: Crazed Liberal1 on Jan 28, 2009 2:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I including this title to wake people up so they see how this movement and larger movements in tranditional, right-wing Christianity to control the future of what type of country we are, and most importantly what range of individual rights we all will be free to excercise w/out authoritarian, so-called social conservative radicals, controlling a future America like the Taliban in Afghanistan where the types of lives we lead, those who we choose to marry, and the god we choose to follow or NOT to follow, is defined for us.
What is so enraging...is that while I fully support the rights under our Constitution of those who hold beliefs I don't share and lead the lifestyle I wouldn't choose...I will actively oppose the radical element present in a large portion of today's Republican Party who actively want to restrict our rights and freedom to worship or NOT worship how we choose and lead the lives we choose, whether or not they think it's odd or one they wouldn't lead...b/c they self-righteous claim to know the mind of God which we all should be FORCED to follow by, yes, those I call the American, Christian Taliban.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Confused...
Posted by: gh0st on Jan 28, 2009 3:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am confused. In the past, when this type of thing has come up, The Church just changes the Bible to make it look less flawed.

Slavery? Whoa, edit! Rape and mutilation. Yah...better clip that. Jesus said epliptics were 'evil' and possesed...wow, yah we can't leave that. Surgery is evil...what, they are saving lives? Crap! Get out the god-pen! Wait, the earth is flat...and the sky is held up by pillars, well since it is 20 century and we have known about this for a couple centuries now, we should probably update that while we are at it...

Anyone, anywhere, that takes the Bible at face value is an ignorant fool. I do not use that as a flame, I use it as a very technical assesment: you are a fool (easily led and thougthlessly follows) who is utterly ignorant (lacking knowledge and/or insight) on history.

Philosophical manifesto? Christ's words are up there amongst the best, brightest and most meaningful in history. An historical tome? Heck, a semi-accurate account? I don't know...see, that's the difference between us: common sense dictates that I do not assume truth in something that I know has been edited, ammended, updated and modified...not to mention translated by barely-literate idealogues, but what could go wrong there, right?

And to argue that there are "degrees" of submission or something. If it helps you sleep, to each their own. Doesn't make it any less nonsensical, but what can be done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Sad, sad, sad
Posted by: Red State Gal on Jan 28, 2009 11:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is so sad to see conservatism and Christianity put in the service of oppressing women when in fact they COULD be liberating them!

Red State Feminists believe that feminism is the ultimate conservatism, and that feminism gets us to a truer and more fundamental Christianity than we have today. Not sure how that could be? Read this.

Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Comment on "wimpy theology"
Posted by: lihtox on Jan 31, 2009 10:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's ludicrous to say that any practicing Christian, feminist or not, thinks they get to decide who God is. God is God. But (speaking from a Christian perspective here) God is unknowable; the best we can do is come up with pictures and analogies and metaphors to try to understand. So what people get to decide is not who God is, but how they choose to view God, through what lens. All such views are incomplete, but all tell us something. If every Christian is looking at God from a different vantage point, rather than being forced to all stand at one spot as fundamentalists would have us do, how much better will we end up knowing God?

Fundamentalists think they have God all figured out, which is blasphemy in my book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

GOOGLEBBS
Posted by: itouch backup on Feb 11, 2009 10:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
M4R Converter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS