I attended my sister’s graduation from South Carolina School of Leadership this weekend and heard some pretty awful things that were really quite normal in context, but from the outside perspective I bring these days, I heard them with some measure of shock and dismay.
A female graduate asked to speak about what her time at SCSL meant to her, said she had felt that she was “pretty much all right” when she came to SCSL and came to get closer to god and learn about faith. “But,” she said, “I used to be kind of a feminist about relationships, because when I was a child, I saw women being weak in relationships and I decided I didn’t want to be like that, and then when I went to the marriage class, I learned how marriage works best when the man is the head and women are submissive and that’s not being weak.”
Another one taught to ignore the evidence of her experience of real life and indoctrinated into the patriarchy.
No related posts.
{ 70 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
Male mammals who help with the young are actually pretty rare; it’s much, much more common in birds, for obvious reasons. There are species that do it, but it’s not the usual mammalian practice.
But the whole thing is bullshit. The truth is, the reason women are “better” than men in so many ways that pertain to the running of a civilized society is that women don’t have enough power to abuse their power, and that women are put in charge of the kids by society. Give women power, and we’ll be assholes too. Put men in charge of kids, and they’ll be priotizing children above themselves too. The point I was trying to make, though, is that based on the stereotypes the Christians believe in, and based on a cursory examination of the real world (where you see mammal “fathers” mostly completely ignoring their young, and where you see women being primarily involved in raising children), it should be immediately obvious that if you have to have one sex be in “charge” in a marriage it should be women.
As I said, personally, I believe in egalitarian ideals. There are too many asshole women and decent men to establish a “rule” that women should rule men any more than men should rule women. But one of the arguments these folks often make is “well, someone needs to be in charge.” Well, if someone needs to be in charge, then based on their OWN STEREOTYPES, it should be the woman.
Alara Rogers(Quote) (Reply)
There’s actually quite a bit of controversy among New Testament scholars among what those verses (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-14) actually mean. On one hand, Paul is seemingly telling women to be seen and not heard. On the other hand, in 1 Corinthians 12 (another debated passage, though it’s generally accepted as a cultural mandate unique to that period), he is telling wives to cover their heads when they pray and prophesy…in public; the church he starts in Phillipi is started with mostly (if not all) women (Acts 16:14-15, Phillipians 1:1-11). Paul commends Timothy’s grandmother and mother for their influence on him (1 Timothy 1:5). He works closely with and praises many women (Priscilla (married to Aquila), Phoebe (who delivers his letter to the church in Rome. The word he uses to describe her, diakonos, can either be translated as “servant” or “deacon” (Romans 16:1), plus the other women he mentions in Romans 16 – Mary, Junia, Julia, etc). Plus, in Galatians 3:28, he says “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Here is a link to an article (a PDF) by Frank Viola, author of the book “Pagan Christianity”, about his views on the verses I mentioned above. He has a more egalitarian view on women in the church, but even he mentions that these verses are tough to accurately interpret. It is from the Mediography section of his website
It’s unfortunate that many churches that have an opposing view to Viola’s treat women like second-class citizens. They say that women are just as valuable as men, but then do nothing but tell them what they can’t do! (Or, they just don’t talk about them at all).
This is something I am still trying to research and figure out; when I was younger, I took a more traditional view of women in leadership roles, but, once I hit college and began meeting women in leadership roles within the church, I began to rethink my position and realize that I wanted to look into for myself.
Dani(Quote) (Reply)
:shudder: The interviews with daughters and fathers living the Quiverfull life were disturbing enough, but the testimonies of these women are simply heartbreaking. I hope that SCSL girl’s view of submission doesn’t lead her down that path.
Dani(Quote) (Reply)
Yeah, I’m aware of the existence of apologists, however, I am quite capable of reading the passages for myself and forming my own opinions, just as I did when I made the decision to leave the church. I’ve read multiple translations on my own.
I have no interest in reading the works of someone trying to redefine words and phrases when I am capable of reading those same words and phrases on my own with full comprehension, as well as able to see how those words have been used throughout the years by the system that originally wrote the words and thus were quite aware of their original meanings and intents.
GardenGoblin(Quote) (Reply)
It’s absolutely true that there’s far LESS misogyny in the Bible than a lot of God’s followers would like us to believe. No argument there.
But Paul was a misogynist. He praises Exceptional!Women!, as all misogynists do. He appreciates women who stick to their womanly role and don’t try to do things better left to men – like, actually preach or something. His version of advocating celibacy was actually a rejection of marrying women rather than praise for whatever boons celibacy might confer.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
GardenGoblin: I’m sorry, I was not saying that you aren’t capable of reading and interpreting for yourself; if my comments came across as implying that, I apologize. It’s very natural for me to include sources and examples when I write about most things; I don’t so that because I think that other people are dumb or because I want to tell them how to think, I do so because I want to share where I’m getting my information from. I’m very research oriented, so when I write about, well, pretty much any subject, and have an opinion that’s based on or influenced by something I’ve read, I want to share that as well. Again, if my comments came across in any way as condescending or rude, that was not my intent, and I’m sorry.
Jennifer: I’ve always had a completely different interpretation when I’ve read Paul. The only section where I can remember him talking about celibacy is 1 Corinthians 7, and he always seemed to address men and women equally there. Like, when he says “the wife does not have authority over her own body, the husband does”, he then says “likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, the wife does” (vs 4); later on, he addresses both men and women in saying that someone who is single can concentrate more on pleasing God (vs 32-35). Sometimes he addresses them both at once (like when he says “brothers”; that word, depending on the context, can refer to siblings in a family, both male and female).
“It’s absolutely true that there’s far LESS misogyny in the Bible than a lot of God’s followers would like us to believe.”
Wow. That is so profoundly true, and very sad and infuriating because it is so true.
Dani(Quote) (Reply)
“It’s absolutely true that there’s far LESS misogyny in the Bible than a lot of God’s followers would like us to believe. No argument there.”
It’s also true that there is far MORE misogyny in the bible than a lot of followers, particularly of the apologist bent, would like us to believe.
I’ve had apologists try repeatedly to claim that Numbers 31:7-18 was an act of mercy, not rape, and that the women in question would have gratefully married their saviors.
They also claim Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is about love, not rape, but when asked where the woman got a choice on the matter, are remarkably silent.
Judges 5:30. Rape.
Exodus 21:7-11. How to sell your daughter into sexual slavery
Zechariah 14:1-2 God promising rape.
Judges 21:10-24. Rape.
I’m sorry, but the bible may just be one of the most misogynistic books ever written. Any text that promotes rape is an abomination, and any sect of followers that try to justify the rape are sick.
GardenGoblin(Quote) (Reply)
See Garden Goblin’s more recent comment. You really are acting as an apologist for the Bible at this point. While I am willing to acknowledge that some people insist there’s misogyny in it that just isn’t there – for example, preaching that Paul’s remarks about women being silent in church mean that women can’t serve as clerics – you appear completely unwilling to acknowledge that there is still plenty of misogyny (that Paul said WOMEN should be silent, not PEOPLE).
When we enlarge it to the OT, as GG has just done, your argument is completely fucked. I mean, that’s how modern societies got the idea of rape as a property crime against men, sort of like stealing someone’s car for a joy ride and then wrecking it. And while the OT has some Exceptional!Women!, so does the Republican party. Doesn’t mean their policies aren’t still on the whole “White Men First.”
If you want to argue that a Christian doesn’t have to be a misogynist, we’re way ahead of you – got Christians writing on the site and everything. If you want to argue that Christianity is not entirely misogynistic, that’s true, too. But if you want to argue the Bible is not misogynistic, I humbly submit that you wouldn’t recognize misogyny if it took up residence in your back pocket and talked to you in a very squeaky voice.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I don’t believe Judges 21:10-24 is meant to be looked at as a good thing. It ends with “in those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”, which seems to point to the above story of the war with the Benjaminites as being a chaotic event in a time defined by chaos.
But, yeah, Numbers 31:7-18, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, and Exodus 21:7-11 are some of the most troubling passages for me in the entire Bible. Granted, there’s a lot I don’t know or understand about the Old Testament, but, still…questioning God for me usually revolves around passages like these.
I don’t really buy any of the explanations that apologists have told you, either; they are either shaky at best or just plain wrong. It seems like an attempt to just smooth things over and not face the difficult questions these passages bring up for those of us who follow the Bible (questions I don’t have an answer to, and, while they don’t stop me from believing in God, they’re issues I certainly struggle with).
Dani(Quote) (Reply)
The answers are simple: God never suggested that women should be regarded as anything but property. There is actually no evidence to suggest Christians or Jews are expected TO see them as anything other than property – valued property, perhaps, but still property.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Hmmm…I can’t see it so simply, because I don’t believe Jesus would have died for property, or that God would have made property in his own image. But, I think this more influences my belief that, not only does a Christian not have to be a misogynist, but a Christian *shouldn’t* be a misogynist.
I have one quick question: I realize that I completely missed one of your posts, the one where you said “You really are acting as an apologist to the Bible at this point,” and I was wondering what you were speaking to in my post before that (where I commented on Paul’s writing about celibacy), or if it was something else?
You guys have sure given me a lot to ponder! It might have to wait until the end of the semester, but I want to go back now and look into Paul and what you said about the women he praised being “Exceptional!Women!”, as you called them. I’ve never heard it put like that before, and it’s worth looking into.
Dani(Quote) (Reply)
But god did NOT make women in his image. He made MEN in his image, then women from men. According to the Bible.
I could never reconcile my Catholic-influenced upbringing with the fact that I think I am a complete human being.
JT(Quote) (Reply)
also, according to the NT, Jesus died for the sins of everyone, including slaves. But the bible definitely asserts that slaves are property. Therefore…
Attackfish(Quote) (Reply)
Attackfish: Hmm…I’ve never thought about what you said about the slaves.
JT: I’ve always taken Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea…” to mean both men and women, one, because the word translated as “man” is the generic term for “humankind”, and, two, because the pronoun in the next sentence is “them”, not “him”.
Dani(Quote) (Reply)
I forgot to put this in my last post, but, I feel like I’m starting to argue just to argue, and that *never* ends well, so I’m probably not going to post a whole lot more in this thread. It was a very interesting discussion, though. While my friends (of varying belief systems) and I talk about religion all the time, I think this is the first time I’ve had a discussion about it from a strictly feminist perspective, and it gave me a lot to think about.
Dani(Quote) (Reply)
Part of the problem is that the bible was written by men, from the perspective of men. To be even more specific, it was written by men who were already part of very misogynistic cultures with patriarchal societies.
Even if it was ‘inspired by god’, it was still interpreted (and reinterpreted) and written (and rewritten) and translated (and retranslated) by men.
These men drew upon the perspectives of their lives, what they knew to be the ‘right and proper’ way of things due to what their cultures had already taught them. The misogyny was ingrained in them before they ever set pen to paper, how could it not come out in the bible?
GardenGoblin(Quote) (Reply)
@Dani, okay but then why were women made from Adam’s rib?? That’s made after the fact, after Man, god’s true creation.
I do not like what religion tells me I am: lesser, a derivative of the True Human, Other. Made to serve, breed, bow and scrape. No thanks.
Religion isn’t the only guilty party. Philosophy in general can be very male centric. Heck, there are a number of Objectivists in my family. Objectivism is an atheist philosophy founded by a woman, Ayn Rand, but she is very woman-hostile and thinks herself a special snowflake (to say nothing of her extremely privelege-laden political and economic views). Only men can achieve True Human Greatness. Women must Hero-Worship men, for that is their place. It’s the same crap in the oldest religions and philosophies.
Feminism is the only place I feel like a human being. And I don’t agree with every feminist out there and I am not politically compatible in every area. But they believe I am a person. That’s HUGE.
JT(Quote) (Reply)
No, but thanks! I’ll add the book to my list.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Dani, Jesus was egalitarian, but God certainly wasn’t. God supported the Israelites invading lands that looked good to them, and killing anyone who got in their way. God was okay with women as property (c’mon, there are rules about how many camels you have to trade for your 353rd wife). God was okay with slavery.
There is simply no reconciling God’s values with those of Jesus. And Jesus flat out said we should forget the old laws, because he was here to deliver the new. If you think about it, it actually doesn’t make any sense that Christians have kept the OT, since Jesus says it’s flawed, unless it’s to support an agenda of which Jesus would not approve: patriarchy without equality.
Their track record speaks for itself.
(Even more worrying are Christians who insist the Bible must be taken literally, but then pick and choose which rules to enforce: like, we can ignore the kosher deal, but the world will implode if we allow government (render unto Caesar) to define marriage a bit differently than the church does so as to accommodate the beliefs of an ENTIRE society supposedly enjoying freedom of religion rather than just the Christians.)
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Claiming that Jesus said the old laws were to be put aside requires seriously reinterpreting or outright redefining words in a manner that takes them completely out of context. The idea that Jesus said put away the old laws is really something invented by apologists in an attempt to make the bible seem more appealing by telling folks ‘oh, don’t worry your little head about those nasty bits’. On several occasions, Jesus condemned those that did not follow the old laws.
Jesus may have been more egalitarian than god (hard not to be) but he was certainly no feminist.
GardenGoblin(Quote) (Reply)
He did say flat out that ritual hand-washing could go – the rest is inferred from the general idea that it’s not following the letter of the law but the spirit of the law that matters. It doesn’t take a great deal of interpretation at all, and it’s standard teaching in some of the more realistic churches.
The bottom line: the Bible is chock full of acts of hatred, bigotry and dehumanizing, and not only does God fail to get upset about most of it (which has to be interpreted as tacit approval from someone so powerful), but he actively supports it on several occasions.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
JT: You’re right; that IS huge.
I guess for me growing up, church (specifically, my youth group) was one of the few places where I felt like a complete person. None of the older Christian role models in my life, whether it be my parents, or my youth pastor, or my college pastor, ever made me feel less than complete or inferior when compared to men. That really affected how I thought about faith when I got older and began thinking and questioning faith and religion for myself. In fact, while I knew it existed, I didn’t experience sexism from fellow Christians until very recently.
As for Genesis, I always read that as, God waiting to create Eve so he could show Adam how much he couldn’t do it on his own (of course, that didn’t stop Adam from blaming God for making Eve when they *both* ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil). Not in a “man, I need someone to boss around way”, but an “I can’t do this alone” kind of way. The Hebrew for “helpmeet” is “ezer”, and is used most of the time in the OT to refer to God when He gives help to Israel. (“Strong helper” might be a better translation, but even that isn’t completely accurate) To me, that doesn’t say “weak” or “helpless”.
As far as making Eve from Adam’s rib, versus, say, creating her from her own pile of dirt…that just said to me that they were both human. If they had each been made from separate piles of dirt, I think that would have made it easier to say one pile of dirt was inferior to the other, or that only one was human, and one was some sort of “other” (and it’s easy enough for people to do that now). That doesn’t take away from my issues with the rest of the Old Testament, but, if some misogynist would say to me that the Genesis account makes women inferior/lesser/stupid/*insert gender stereotype here*, I feel like I would have a much better time responding to them with Genesis 1-3 the way it is now.
(Also, side note, but your comment about Ayn Rand reminds me of one of the poets Mary Wollstonecraft slammed, who wrote about how women should be nothing more than pretty flowers.)
Dani(Quote) (Reply)
Jennifer: And those issues are *rarely* talked about. Usually it is just said to be Old Covenant (under the OT Law) vs. New Covenant (Jesus). They are especially important, I think, because Jesus says He is God, so…what happened between the OT and NT? Two things make delving into these issues even harder:
1) OT sermons are usually about someone like Moses or David (and not about his views on women, which I think were pretty poor), or some other well-known passage. I actually had a harder time finding outside research and books on the OT than I do NT (even on subjects like OT prophecies about Jesus, which I would think would be kind of important, considering there’s supposed to be several hundred of them…).
2) True to society today, women’s issues aren’t frequently talked about from the pulpit (this is mainly speaking to institutional churches; from what I’ve read, the House Church/Organic Church movement is less hierarchical and has more of an “active participation from all members”, so that might be different). This is *slowly* starting to change, as more women get into theology and more men in theology look at things from a female perspective, and as both start to address some of the gender issues in the church, but it takes a while to trickle down to the pulpit.
I think it’s good to keep the OT mainly because it’s quoted and referred to so much in the NT, so it helps to know where those references are coming from. But I do wish that more of the hard passages were discussed instead of just ignored, even if none of the answers are satisfying.
Dani(Quote) (Reply)
Actually, women’s issues ARE talked about from the pulpit in many churches. Specifically, that women need to be submissive to husbands and fathers, do not belong in the pulpit, need to stop tempting our men with their devilish lusciousness, etc. That stuff’s of GREAT concern to a growing number of Christians, alarmed at women’s increasingly near-human status.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I’ll believe that “man” is synonymous with “humankind” as soon as “woman” is as well. Or, for that matter, any other pronoun that describes a person. As it is, “mankind” and “men” and “man” refers, IMO, to men. Not all people. I do not hear the phrase “mankind” and identify myself with it. I hear “for all mankind” as said by Neil Armstrong and feel left out. When people make the argument (and my progressive dad has made this argument to me as well–I immediately smashed it to bits) that man and mankind refers to all human beings, it feels like what is actually being said is that humanity is by default male and that I should be totally okay with myself being called a man because being called a man is inclusive.
The Other Anne(Quote) (Reply)
I remember not so long ago, when I was wallowing in smarty-pants hipster privilege that I wanted to start talking all “old fashioned”/archaic by using “man” and “mankind” as a plural for all humanity/genders/sexes…then I remembered all the schwarmy douches I knew on the internet who would try to defend their sexism with that excuse of “I JUST REFER TO EVERYONE AS MAN, DURR HURR”…Nowadays it even bugs me when people call me dude.[/tangent]
Casey(Quote) (Reply)
And what is with the term “She-bro”? seriously? This is aside from the fact that bro culture is pretty hostile to us ladies anyway, bros before hos and all.
Attackfish(Quote) (Reply)
Actually, according to what I’ve read at least, man did used to be a gender neutral word that simply meant human. Saying ‘That man there’ was the same as saying ‘That person there’. The way people would indicate gender is by adding things like ‘Wer’ (male) or ‘Wyf’ (female) to it. Werman and Wyfman. It’s only in more modern incarnations of English that man came to mean male, and the word ‘mankind’ is probably a leftover from when it was neutral.
SarahSyna(Quote) (Reply)
I’m not excusing it by the way, I’m just saying that it didn’t start out with that connotation.
Though I find interesting (in a horrorified kind of way) that a word meaning human became the word for male.
SarahSyna(Quote) (Reply)
and the “Wyf” part of that has come down to us as “wife”. The old word for woman survives as the word for a married woman.
Attackfish(Quote) (Reply)
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →