Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Wars on Women- based on religion? Options · View
LadyX
Posted: Monday, April 23, 2012 7:04:37 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
I'm not sure I'm asking a question here, so much as venting from the heart and wishing for resolution.
(feel free to roll eyes and disengage from this thread at any time)

Is the ongoing subjugation of women really rooted in scripture/holy texts, or is religion a scapegoat for hateful men, giving cover for their stances? In either case, the blowback is swift and decisive, citing heresy for speaking out, leading to all sorts of punishments, up to and including death. And for what? Demanding the same rights that men have.

Catholics ban women from the priesthood, and several other Christian sects do the same, excluding females from their clergy. Declarations that abortions (which I realize is a whole other can of worms, but nevertheless) are not tolerated set a different standard between men and women. The same goes for stances on contraception- especially so, actually, since that solely deals with a woman's body, not implicating another particular life.

Then there are the statements that subjugate women by design- this is sometimes overt "obey your husband" and sometimes implied (multiple references to women's place being in the home, raising children...certainly not working!). These attitudes, and thus the conflict, extend today, even between groups of women (mommy wars).

Then it gets worse...

The real war on women is in the Middle East.

Based on their religion(?), women can't do the following in many/most Middle Eastern countries without being assaulted, jailed, killed (or d) all of the above):

-drive a car
-travel (at all)
-divorce
-decide independently on a marriage partner (and at what a non-barbaric society would consider "of age")
-divest of their virginity as they see fit

and, wait for it....

-vote

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah is lauded as a reformer because he's going to start allowing women to vote in their (completely symbolic and meaningless) elections in 2015. Why the wait? And how the hell is the King of Saudi Arabia given positive recognition here, given the rest of the anti-Women atrocities that he not only allows, but continues to enforce? Who cares if I can vote, I can't even drive myself to the polling place!

ALSO:

-Women that got involved in the "Arab Spring" protests were violated in order to determine the status of their virginity. In Egypt, the violators who were caught were acquitted.

-Women running for Parliament in the fundamentalist Salafi party were advertised with a flower over their face, lest they be seen at all. Women in the Kuwaiti parliament are made to cover themselves in black. Women are expected to neither be seen nor heard, even if they manage to be elected as lawmakers.

-Women are obligated to wear headscarves and/or complete concealment.

WHY?

is there any other reason besides hatred of women? Is there anything more antiquated and more misogynistic than to assume that all fault lies with those scurrilous temptress women? Is there any defensible argument whereby religion actually accounts for this modern day apartheid- be it minor and eye-roll worthy (bible-belt America) or barbaric and appalling (Middle East).

The same "restrictions" apply to many Islamic enclaves in Europe and the US, too. Hatred of women is tolerated, even institutionalized, right here in the supposed "land of the free".

But is religion really to blame? Or is there something about cultures that transcends religion? Is there something in people that is otherwise deprogrammed, but when it's not, it festers and creates a world where women are possessions, worth less than nothing if not pure. But there seems to be such joy in the torture, the subjugation, the punishment....

What accounts for this? Were people always this egregiously hateful toward fully half of it's race? Will there always be a place for this? I'd like to say no, but fundamentalist, government-mandated Islamism seems to be spreading, not retreating; invariably, hatred and subjugation of women goes hand-in-hand with Islamic theocracy and mandated "religious culture".

How can we help women to rise up? Calling it what it is- hatred- is the first step.

KONY's a bad guy, yes. But how about this for a worldwide movement?

MISOGYNISTS2012.

1curiouscat
Posted: Monday, April 23, 2012 7:47:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2011
Posts: 1,144
Location: São Paulo , Brazil
The simple answer - bitter jealousy.

Women have the power to create life, to nurture life. If god really exists, i would be willing to bet that He is actually a She.





Overwhelming Reality

From Across the Room
Buz
Posted: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:22:19 PM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 7,139
Location: Atlanta, United States
I doubt God would be a he or a she. Christians that treat women that way are not following Biblical teachings, but then again those groups are too ignorant or too prejudiced understand the words anyhow. Way too many are really just 21st century Pharisees. Catholics have so distorted the Bible that it is ridiculous. Saints? Most of the Catholic Saints are derived from ancient pagan gods. The Pope and his ridiculous attire is based on ancient Babylonian religion totally removed from Christianity. The concept of priests and nuns not marrying is actually contrary to Christian truth. The Catholic Church is a sham.

In much of the Middle East in Muslim countries if a couple is caught committing adultery, only the women is stoned to death. Nothing happens to the man. Afghanistan is one of those countries and The Taliban the enforces the anti-woman hatred.

The USA should get our troops out of Afghanistan but spread radiation in the ground where those scumbags cannot grow their poppy to supply the world's heroin and fund terrorism. Not very politically correct. Fuck political correctness.

But as to LadyX's question I think ancient culture has everything to do with the roots of this evil against women and some of that is still embedded by ignorant uneducated people through their religion or whatever means they can use to hold onto their pathetic belief that men are superior.

Women and men should see each other as partners, not one as Lord over the other.

Ruthie
Posted: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:26:26 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,696
Location: United States
Thank you for this post LadyX. The way women are treated around the world because of religion is horrible. Women are treated as worse than chattel in many cultures, having no rights whatsoever. The eye roll worthy you speak of needs to be fought too. If certain fundamentalist religious leaders and politicians have their way our rights will be nibbled away to nothing in the USA. We have to be vigilant about all of our freedoms. We can't let religious zealots take away our basic human liberties and dignity. Islam is especially hateful toward women, but there are women hating zealots in Judaism and Christianity as well. Many religions blame women for sin, simply because we are women. I understand people's need for spirituality and belief in a larger power than themselves, but maybe we'd be better off without any religion at all.

One big problem is that women in many cultures are so embedded in the religious rules and customs that they don't realize that there is a different way to live. I can't imagine their men giving them equality without a fight.

It's odd that we are always going off to war to liberate one people or another but we never liberate the women in these countries. Instead we find ourselves being told that our own situation isn't that bad because look at how women in Islamic countries are treated.
Guest
Posted: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:44:33 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 659,474


It is rather simple.

I will never acquiesce to tribal, mythical, almost globally accepted aspersions to views on women. But, in the same vein, know that there are many men that have freed their mind and await women to do so as well without the same commonly believed aspersions toward men. It's time to get past the norm, the accepted, and almost comical views about each other. But, no matter how diluted over time, belief against logic does get in the way.

Guest
Posted: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:45:37 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 659,474


MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, April 23, 2012 9:19:32 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,190
Location: United States
Buz wrote:

In much of the Middle East in Muslim countries if a couple is caught committing adultery, only the women is stoned to death. Nothing happens to the man. Afghanistan is one of those countries and The Taliban the enforces the anti-woman hatred.


I'll do you one better. In many of those places, a woman can be stoned to death for the unforgivable crime of allowing herself to be raped, while her rapist goes free and unharmed.

I'll answer this in much the same way I answer other posts about morality, bigotry, and hate. By looking to the past.

In bygone days, when the precursors to humankind were still living in caves and trying to figure out how to light a fire, the males were bigger, stronger, and better able to keep themselves fed. It's likely that females learned to attach themselves to the biggest, strongest available male, using his carnal desires to "buy" food, shelter, and protection. The females, being smaller and weaker, needed protection from other females, other males, and the elements - especially in those months when they were with child, and less able to protect themselves than normal. I'd imagine that in such a lifestyle, the males learned quickly that they could act as boorish as they wanted because because the females were beholden to them. Those males that were biggest, strongest and (probably) the most boorish controlled the largest harems, and therefore passed their genes on. Those males that were of the "sensitive" variety, passed their genes on less often. Possibly on the sly, while their more brutish counterparts were out hunting mammoths.

This aggressive gene, this "misogynistic" gene, then, was passed on from father to son as a "survival-of-the-fittest" trait. You would think that in these modern times the need for men to brutalize and dominate their mates would have died out. You would think that arranged marriages would be a thing of the past. You would think that women would be seen for their value as partners, and not as breeding stock. I really have no explanation for why this has not happened. I just know that I wish things were different. I also wish some overly-generous corporate entity would make available to the third-world women a covert supply of .45 caliber pistols and hollowpoint ammunition, but that's not likely to happen, either...
SITTING
Posted: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 3:45:58 AM

Rank: Wilful Wallflower
Moderator

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 859
Location: In the library, Leeds, United Kingdom
LadyX wrote:
The real war on women is in the Middle East.[/url]

Based on their religion(?), women can't do the following in many/most Middle Eastern countries without being assaulted, jailed, killed (or d) all of the above):

-drive a car
-travel (at all)
-divorce
-decide independently on a marriage partner (and at what a non-barbaric society would consider "of age")
-divest of their virginity as they see fit

and, wait for it....

-vote

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah is lauded as a reformer because he's going to start allowing women to vote in their (completely symbolic and meaningless) elections in 2015. Why the wait? And how the hell is the King of Saudi Arabia given positive recognition here, given the rest of the anti-Women atrocities that he not only allows, but continues to enforce? Who cares if I can vote, I can't even drive myself to the polling place!

ALSO:

-Women that got involved in the "Arab Spring" protests were violated in order to determine the status of their virginity. In Egypt, the violators who were caught were acquitted.

-Women running for Parliament in the fundamentalist Salafi party were advertised with a flower over their face, lest they be seen at all. Women in the Kuwaiti parliament are made to cover themselves in black. Women are expected to neither be seen nor heard, even if they manage to be elected as lawmakers.

-Women are obligated to wear headscarves and/or complete concealment.

WHY?

is there any other reason besides hatred of women? Is there anything more antiquated and more misogynistic than to assume that all fault lies with those scurrilous temptress women? Is there any defensible argument whereby religion actually accounts for this modern day apartheid- be it minor and eye-roll worthy (bible-belt America) or barbaric and appalling (Middle East).

The same "restrictions" apply to many Islamic enclaves in Europe and the US, too. Hatred of women is tolerated, even institutionalized, right here in the supposed "land of the free".

But is religion really to blame? Or is there something about cultures that transcends religion? Is there something in people that is otherwise deprogrammed, but when it's not, it festers and creates a world where women are possessions, worth less than nothing if not pure. But there seems to be such joy in the torture, the subjugation, the punishment....

What accounts for this? Were people always this egregiously hateful toward fully half of it's race? Will there always be a place for this? I'd like to say no, but fundamentalist, government-mandated Islamism seems to be spreading, not retreating; invariably, hatred and subjugation of women goes hand-in-hand with Islamic theocracy and mandated "religious culture".





OK, I'm not particularly smart when it comes to topics in The Think Tank (!) but I have a couple of things I just wanted to say.

So firstly, I think that the problem in the Middle East with the treatment of women really doesn't have much to do with Islam. According to Islam, women ARE allowed to initiate and go ahead with divorce. I feel that countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not following the rules that have been set down by their religion. I know that sounds ridiculous because the countries have a majority Muslim population but they seem to have overlooked one of the major points that Islam set down which is 'Men and women are equal'. The men in these countries make the rules to suit themselves; they don't follow what they're actually supposed to be doing at all.

Now, I don't really have an explanation for this ridiculous behavior but my only plausible theory is that the rituals and ridiculous rules that have been hanging around for the last couple of centuries haven't been wiped out. The whole reason that Islam spread like wildfire was due to all the glorious promises that came with it, the promises of equality, pragmatism, decentralization etc. But in the so called 'Islamic Nations' none of this ever even happened. Maybe back in the early days, (I'll have to check on that) but now all the leaders of Arabia, Pakistan, and those places are corrupt, and apparently 'justify' all their wrongdoings behind this phony form of Islam. If the people and leaders of these nations followed the teachings of their 'religion' word for word then none of this hatred towards women wouldn't even exist.

Hang on a sec, that makes it sound like I'm promoting Islam now which would be wrong, not in the sense of the attitudes towards women, but more in the religions perceptions of homosexuality and corporal punishment. WTF, am I even making sense anymore?! drunken

I can't concentrate because JIM is making me laugh with his freakin' IM's.

Anyway, if anyone understood a word of the above, then you must have a superior IQ. Seriously though, my basic point is, that it's the cultures that have been ground down and set in stone and not the actual religion which has this disgusting attitude towards women.

Oh god, please be nice and don't trample all over me: I'm relatively new to the forum scene. crybaby

Stalker, ballet dancer, obsession...
lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:32:32 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,428
Location: Alabama, United States
Religion is being scapegoated, sort of. Men throughout history have used women as possessions. As unequals. But religion gives men a "reason" to treat women in this manner. Most of society, at least in the States, has evolved to the thought that women and men are equal. We should all be afforded the same due respect regardless (or is it irregardless, that always confuses me) of our gender.

As mentioned before, the Roman Catholic church is way behind the curve in fair treatment of women. And we will never know what was actually in the original Bible. I would love to read the gospels that were omitted by the Vatican. However, not all denominations of Christians follow the same rigid gender guidelines as the R.C. church. The Episcopal and the United Methodist churches have long accepted women into the clergy. I grew up Methodist and the change wasn't fully accepted in the beginning. Many elderly church members, both male and female, were resistant. They did not want women in the clergy as they "couldn't handle it". The older generations still had old timey ways. It was expected. Well, they have handled it exceptionally well. Have thrived in fact. And the congregations have caught up. It's not really an issue that ever comes up anymore.

The Bible, even in it's distorted present form, celebrates women. That's what I don't get.

Eve, the mother of humanity.
Deborah became the first woman judge of Isaelites.
Mary and Martha were some of the first believers in Christ. And their love of him was shown, even at the expense of some of the 12 diciples who questioned them.
Mary, Jesus' mother. Revered throughout the world.
Mary Magdalene, who was one of Jesus' most devout followers. She is the first person to whom Jesus appears after he rises from the dead. Possibly even the wife of Jesus (although the Vatican may know, they aren't going to tell us) she is mentioned in the Bible shortly after the woman accused of adultery is mentioned. People for years have decided that they are the same person. Which isn't necessarily true.

There are many other women who were crucial Biblical history; Ruth, Esther, Jezebel, Sarah, Rachel, the list is long.

It's the corruption of power and men that hold women back. It's all about money and power. Some groups use religion as their crutch to justify their corruption. But there's just as much outside of religion as there is in religion.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 10:04:18 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 659,474
I have to say that I think it's more cultural with a tinge of religion thrown in. I've had the opportunity, once as an early teenager and then as a married woman to travel to the Middle East. While visiting Saudi Arabia with my mother, our host was offered a sum of money as well as a few camels and goats for my hand or the ownership of that hand. Our host got us out of having to accept the offer as graciously as possible but, the man that made the offer was quite confused as to why he was turned down. Just a little anecdote to lighten the mood.
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 10:07:52 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
I do agree that not all misogyny can be laid at the feet of religion. After all, it takes people to execute this sort of behavior, with or without their beliefs. But unfortunately, religion and misogyny can't be completely separated here. Yes, misogyny happens all the time at the hands of non-religious men, but large groups of men (with complicit women) use religion as a basis for subjugating women. You don't hear many people claiming that the use of birth control by women is a bad idea on balance, but there are large groups backed by religious organizations who claim that the use of it runs counter to their religion. Thus, women within that religion are coerced into either not using it, or using it in secret, both of which are equally bad. One can claim that the 'true religion' does not degrade women, but if the religion's name is invoked en masse by followers and spokespeople of said religion in the enforcement of such, then it's a bit of a stretch to say that religion isn't responsible.

In the case of Islam, from what I understand, it's considered blasphemous to translate the Quran out of it's original language, therefore it's difficult to disentangle the true, original texts from the way it's presented and enforced today. From what I've read and heard, it's often interpreted wrong on purpose, for the purpose of cultural control and enforcement. But if millions of followers accept and believe that Allah intends for women to exist only in service to men, since that's what they're clerics are teaching, isn't it a bit beside the point that the original scripture says differently? I'm not implicating the prophet Mohammed really, I'm more interested in current day Mullahs and Imams...what are they teaching? What version of Sharia law are they enforcing? In many cases we know: and it's far, far from any reasonable notion of equality. In most cases of Middle Eastern theocracies, it's reprehensible and abusive, and because they self-identify as Islamic societies, following the teachings of Islam in their laws, it's difficult to clear the religion from it's responsibility in the treatment of women. We can say that its cause is cultural, not religious- but what if the culture is based almost wholly on religion?

So if we theorize that the treatment of women is cultural, not religious, we're left more or less with geography, no? So, I guess the experiment would be this: What would women's rights look like in a Middle Eastern society that wasn't ruled by Islamic theocrats?

Well, Israel is one example. It's women's rights are by far the most extensive in the Middle East (granted, it's a low bar..). Israel offers freedom of religion and full political opportunity for women. Turkey, while not exactly in the Middle East, is a country with a Muslim majority of population, but a secular government. It's women are not required to comply with hijaab (Muslim rules for women's attire and public behavior), and have full political rights, including use of contraceptive and abortion. But in the rural areas, which are under religious cultural control, women are unfortunately often subjected to domestic violence, forced marriages, and (shudder) "honor killings".

If it's about oppression, then why are women not liberated at the same time that the governments that did the oppressing were thrown out? Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. As thieving dictators are being replaced by democratically elected new governments, strict Islamic representatives are being chosen in high numbers, and they are scaling back women's rights quickly.

If true Islam and true Christianity hold women in such high esteem, then where's the outcry from within those religions? I appreciate your sentiments to that effect, LM, but generally speaking when it comes to women's rights within religion, the men hold the power, and not coincidentally, the silence is deafening.

Rembacher
Posted: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 3:22:03 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
I think it's very difficult to separate culture from religion. To me, religion is a huge part of your overall culture. I think religion has been the tool used to control society by leaders for a long time. I agree with LM and Sitting that Christianity and Islam are not anti women. It's the leaders seeking to control people who have been anti women. They take stories and rules from the bible or Koran, and claim that those are rules that are at the core of the religion, rather than just rules that are a reflection of societal norms at the time the religious text was written. If you have a fervently religious population, especially one that is unified under the same religion, you have a very easy tool to control. People are generally taught from a very young age to just believe what religious leaders tell them, so if you tie your statements to religion, you are less likely to be questioned.

Here in the western hemisphere, we aren't as religious anymore. That means that religion can't be used to control us. So we use other mythology. "The American Dream" comes to mind. Science has become a religion in the west as well. How many times have you heard an advertiser say "scientists say..." and suddenly, that gave the product or service legitimacy to many people? So now politicians have their own scientists coming out with studies to back their agendas and advance their causes. And we follow blindly along.

And if you can use whatever control method you have to take away the voice of any large segment of the population, you do that. It means that you have less people to keep satisfied and in control. In the less developed areas such as Africa, that tends to be women. In the Americas, it's the poor and uneducated.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 6:53:54 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 659,474


Subtle huh?

BTW, Solomon, third king of Israel (reigned c. 968–928 b.c.e.), is said to have had a harem that included seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. You go King Joel, I mean, King Solomon.

I love watching TBN, CBN, and the ever sweet Angel. I've seen about 3 of these guys talk in front of replicas of bedrooms, yes, with a huge bed behind them. Oooo, so naughty and audacious. Most of the talk is how can man treat his woman better and how women should be set nicely on a pedastal like a nice beautiful figurine. It is up to the man you know.

In kind, it's not all Muslims, it depends on the Imam's interpretation. Not all of it kindly, not all of it helter skelter. But it does give some really strange allowances to strange and destructive beliefs.

littlemissbitch
Posted: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:15:25 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/6/2011
Posts: 776
Location: the land of enchantment, United States
LadyX wrote:
is religion a scapegoat for hateful men, giving cover for their stances?


i vote for this. the Quran doesnt say women cant drive. it doesnt say anything about driving. i know a lot of muslim women and they are educated free and happy..regardless if they choose to wear a head scarf or not.

i really do believe that some bad bad men saw an opportunity to take some serious control and they took advantage of it. now i just wish that the people they control come to realize what they've done and realize that indeed they have the power if they would just stand up and exercise it. but thats scary and dangerous and i believe that they have become (and excuse my rudeness but..) so brain washed they believe that any deviation or dissent will send them directly to the depths of hell.

its sad really because if you look at the underlying premise of all the major religions the main message is always love and tolerance. yes even in Islam, its just been so twisted and mangled that it some parts of the world you cant even recognize it at all. Islam literally interpreted means "submit". well you cant submit and by an tyrant dictator at the same time so clearly there is a disconnect somewhere. lol

so i vote for hateful men using religion as a scapegoat. and well said Xuani :)

littlemissbitch ~ professional face ripper offer, at your service..
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 11:24:57 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 659,474
lafayettemister wrote:
Religion is being scapegoated, sort of. Men throughout history have used women as possessions. As unequals. But religion gives men a "reason" to treat women in this manner. Most of society, at least in the States, has evolved to the thought that women and men are equal. We should all be afforded the same due respect regardless (or is it irregardless, that always confuses me) of our gender.

As mentioned before, the Roman Catholic church is way behind the curve in fair treatment of women. And we will never know what was actually in the original Bible. I would love to read the gospels that were omitted by the Vatican. However, not all denominations of Christians follow the same rigid gender guidelines as the R.C. church. The Episcopal and the United Methodist churches have long accepted women into the clergy. I grew up Methodist and the change wasn't fully accepted in the beginning. Many elderly church members, both male and female, were resistant. They did not want women in the clergy as they "couldn't handle it". The older generations still had old timey ways. It was expected. Well, they have handled it exceptionally well. Have thrived in fact. And the congregations have caught up. It's not really an issue that ever comes up anymore.

The Bible, even in it's distorted present form, celebrates women. That's what I don't get.

Eve, the mother of humanity.
Deborah became the first woman judge of Isaelites.
Mary and Martha were some of the first believers in Christ. And their love of him was shown, even at the expense of some of the 12 diciples who questioned them.
Mary, Jesus' mother. Revered throughout the world.
Mary Magdalene, who was one of Jesus' most devout followers. She is the first person to whom Jesus appears after he rises from the dead. Possibly even the wife of Jesus (although the Vatican may know, they aren't going to tell us) she is mentioned in the Bible shortly after the woman accused of adultery is mentioned. People for years have decided that they are the same person. Which isn't necessarily true.


There are many other women who were crucial Biblical history; Ruth, Esther, Jezebel, Sarah, Rachel, the list is long.

It's the corruption of power and men that hold women back. It's all about money and power. Some groups use religion as their crutch to justify their corruption. But there's just as much outside of religion as there is in religion.


Just to back this up, I'll quote a few passages from the Bible which I have recently read.

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, " Ephesians 5:25 (As much as I know from the Bible lessons I have attended throughout my life, Christ loved the Church very much and he died on the cross for the sinners. Thats how much He loved. This Scripture mentions that Husbands should love their Wives just as much.)

"Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them. " Col 3:19 (It says LOVE. Not force yourself onto her. Am I right? d'oh! )

1 Corinthians 7:1-40

“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ..."

Ephesians 5:28

"In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."



dontknow I hate being in debates like these but maybe these scriptures will help in some way. dontknow



EDIT : Oh look, http://www.watchtower.org/e/20051108a/article_01.htm <--- Something worth looking at.
Ruthie
Posted: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 11:32:01 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,696
Location: United States
How is it "good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman, Jezebelle?
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 11:36:28 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 659,474
CoopsRuthie wrote:
How is it "good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman, Jezebelle?


Based on the Bible..

1 Corinthians 7:1-40

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ..."

Basically saying, its not good to give into sexual temptations or be a slut but rather get married to man or woman you love and give into your sexual instincts together. Its not about being selebate its about having a little reserve about who you bed with.

The quoted text also goes on about how men and women are equal in the relationship and both should give themselves to each other equally not one side force themselves upon the other which happened alot through out history western and eastern.

Its not religion that failed us it's cultures and its interpretation of scripture that has failed us throughout history.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 5:22:24 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,635
Location: Burrowed, Norway
lafayettemister wrote:

And we will never know what was actually in the original Bible. I would love to read the gospels that were omitted by the Vatican.


Don't tell me you've been reading the Da Vinci code and think that was all true? The New Testamente was compiled together by different texts, gospels and letters, and the gospels and letters we have in the modern Bible are the ones that were most frequently used and weren't agnostic (which talks about the creation being a failure and a different idea of Jesus, him not being the son of God and that salvation is actually in knowledge). It was compiled together at around 200 AD and if I'm not too mistaken Christians were still being persecuted in the Roman Empire back then, so obviously this is before the existance of the Vatican. What's even more BS about the Da Vinci code is that they didn't pick the texts that makes Jesus look the most divine. If you look at all the other gospels then you'd see that Jesus is closer to human than God in the four gospels we have today. Also, the Vatican has been the front runner in preserving and translating the texts that didn't make the Bible. But this is kinda off topic.

If you're gonna look at religion you have to look at the time where the holy scriptures were written. The newest is from the creation of Islam, and there we're already 1400 years ago. Look at the way women were treated in general at that point, and you'll see that it's not the religious beliefs that have affected society, but actually the other way around. From there it becomes rather simple. History has shown us sooo many times that the best way to control a population is strict religious beliefs. Throw in a holy scripture that says women are less worthy than men and the group of people who are most likely to pick up arms are suddenly happy. Now to add the confusion have in several directions of Islam where some directions have scriptures besides the Qu'ran that they say his holy and other groups say pretty much does a big "Fuck you!" to them. Confusing? Unless you have a PhD in Islam it fucking is.

Now to make this post even longer. It's not just in Christianity in Islam you have the opression of women. Arranged marriages is actually more common in the hindu culture than it is in the areas where Islam is a majority. Fair enough the large cities of India are reforming, but the country side is still pretty much stuck in the old ways. I asked my professor who has a lot of knowledge about both Hinduism and Islam and he said that arranged marriages was a lot more a cultural tradition than a religious one.

To sum it all up; religion is merely used as a scapegoat and the reason for women to be upressed. Men uses their energy on hitting and fucking/raping their wives instead of worrying about the dictators sitting on top. It's Dictatorship 1.01: make sure they have food and entertainment and you can pretty much do whatever the fuck you like.

Also, sorry for anyone left like this --->dontknow after my post.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 8:10:11 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
elitfromnorth wrote:


Don't tell me you've been reading the Da Vinci code and think that was all true? The New Testamente was compiled together by different texts, gospels and letters, and the gospels and letters we have in the modern Bible are the ones that were most frequently used and weren't agnostic (which talks about the creation being a failure and a different idea of Jesus, him not being the son of God and that salvation is actually in knowledge). It was compiled together at around 200 AD and if I'm not too mistaken Christians were still being persecuted in the Roman Empire back then, so obviously this is before the existance of the Vatican. What's even more BS about the Da Vinci code is that they didn't pick the texts that makes Jesus look the most divine. If you look at all the other gospels then you'd see that Jesus is closer to human than God in the four gospels we have today. Also, the Vatican has been the front runner in preserving and translating the texts that didn't make the Bible. But this is kinda off topic.

If you're gonna look at religion you have to look at the time where the holy scriptures were written. The newest is from the creation of Islam, and there we're already 1400 years ago. Look at the way women were treated in general at that point, and you'll see that it's not the religious beliefs that have affected society, but actually the other way around. From there it becomes rather simple. History has shown us sooo many times that the best way to control a population is strict religious beliefs. Throw in a holy scripture that says women are less worthy than men and the group of people who are most likely to pick up arms are suddenly happy. Now to add the confusion have in several directions of Islam where some directions have scriptures besides the Qu'ran that they say his holy and other groups say pretty much does a big "Fuck you!" to them. Confusing? Unless you have a PhD in Islam it fucking is.

Now to make this post even longer. It's not just in Christianity in Islam you have the opression of women. Arranged marriages is actually more common in the hindu culture than it is in the areas where Islam is a majority. Fair enough the large cities of India are reforming, but the country side is still pretty much stuck in the old ways. I asked my professor who has a lot of knowledge about both Hinduism and Islam and he said that arranged marriages was a lot more a cultural tradition than a religious one.

To sum it all up; religion is merely used as a scapegoat and the reason for women to be upressed. Men uses their energy on hitting and fucking/raping their wives instead of worrying about the dictators sitting on top. It's Dictatorship 1.01: make sure they have food and entertainment and you can pretty much do whatever the fuck you like.

Also, sorry for anyone left like this --->dontknow after my post.


Applause Great post! Makes me wish I saw more of you around these parts.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 3:21:33 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 659,474
ladyx wrote:
How can we help women to rise up? Calling it what it is- hatred- is the first step.

KONY's a bad guy, yes. But how about this for a worldwide movement?


The KONY2012 thing probably isnt the best example to use (that imploded quickly). Perhaps look at the results of the freedom doctrine: Iraq and Afghanistan have the most progressive women's rights policies in the Middle east. They didn't get them because someone in the west was holding a sign or attaching a hashtag. No, it cost thousands of lives and a trillion dollars. The US government should embark on spreading freedom across the world, but we don't. We tweet.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 4:03:37 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,635
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Manny8 wrote:


The US government should embark on spreading freedom across the world, but we don't. We tweet.


No, that's the wrong way of doing it. It's reforming the old "White Man's Burden" that were showing in Europe in the 19th century that they used as a reason for imperialism. Then it was bringing the primitive natives in Africa the wonders of civilisation, technology and Christianity. Now it's democracy that has become the Western Man's burden, and especially the US. Show me one country where democracy have been forced upon the population and actually suceeded. Iraq is too fresh to use as an example considering that the US troops have just moved out of there and there are still a bunch left doing "training". The only other country that has been forced democracy was Germany, twice. Didn't work all that well first time and second time it was because they were a bit more leniant and let them decide more. That and the ideas had already been implemented in the people. Remember that Hitler really was elected to power. He just decided not to hold any more free elections.

No, democracy need to come from within. It's the people that need to realise that democracy is a better form of governance than dictatorship. It will take time and it will cost lives, but we can't go to war whenever there are countries trying to reform themselves. Not every country will be like Libya and Syria when there's enough international pressure. If the US starts on another campaign to get rid of dictators(which in itself will be a breach of the Geneva convention if I'm not mistaken), especially in countries where the majority of the population isn't ready for it, then it will be enough for the government to scream "American Imperialists!" and you will have more anti democracy forces than there will be people willing to support the international troops.

And should you be dumb enough to walk into another Iraq or Afghanistan then the number of bodies shipped home will be piled up and when you pull out there will be another struggle for power, leaving more bodies and possibly even a worse governance than you had to start with, maybe with more anti-western influence than you had from the start. Not to mention the economic costs of such a campaign. Hold your idealism and start with realism. It will save more lives and create a better world. Intentions might be good, but as the old saying goes; "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"...

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 7:51:26 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 659,474
Is it just me, or did this thread go David Lynch?
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 8:50:13 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,190
Location: United States
Kinda fits here...



beowulf69
Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 9:01:30 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/24/2011
Posts: 216
Location: Cocoa Beach, United States
All the wars in history were really fought about economics. Who controls wealth? Wealth is power. Religion, imperialism, nationalism are all just excuses to hide the truth. The leaders cannot get the masses to support wars for economy but they can sell the other disguised ideas to get mass support.

Once you understand the above then ask yourself, has a woman or women ever controlled economics? Now you know why the power has rarely been shared with women. A few ultra powerful men have always ruled. Do you not think that they are still in control? Have you ever wondered why that real power has always been passed down within a few families for centuries? Most leaders are just puppets of someone much more powerful.

Do you wonder why Obama came out of nowhere to defeat Hilary Clinton for the Democrat nomination in 2008? Look at Washington D.C. Has anything changed at all since he has been president?

My first story for Lush is posted, The Goodbye Fuck.
http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/the-goodbye-fuck.aspx
Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, April 27, 2012 2:19:17 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,196
Location: California
Here is a very interesting video of bride kidnapping practices in kyrgyztan... So fucked up.

This video showcases some of the most backward ass barbaric "dating" rituals I have ever seen.



redlips
Posted: Saturday, April 28, 2012 3:36:11 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/21/2011
Posts: 147
IMHO, concerning ladyX original question are 'Wars on Women based on religion?', the answer is NO! Religion has been, and still is, used as an excuse many times, but the real reason is the desire for wealth and power. That may very well be cloaked in the guise of religion. And add to the desire for wealth and power the depravity of mankind: a cruel delight in causing pain and suffering to any one different, be it race, sex, appearance, belief..... whatever. It is easier, and safer, to blame religion then it is to point your finger at a person and say, "YOU did this. YOU are to blame. YOU!" People mistreat people. I wish it were not so but it is. It is OUR fault, yours and mine. We need to stop it. All of us.

If you ignore beauty, you will soon find yourself without it.................Frank Lloyd Wright

I always practice obedience, when it's in my best interest.
nazhinaz
Posted: Sunday, April 29, 2012 1:10:07 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 294
Location: Longview, United States
Lady X.
Responding to your original question.
It is not that religions are to be blamed for the status of women.
We might reflect to the societies where religions evolved.
Allt three main religions, Judaism, Chirtianity and Islam evolved in societies where men were warriors, hunters, being the muscle power, with women producing and rearing babies.
The women thus had a status no better than chattel, OWNED by men.
Adultry was punishable by stoning even in Judaism as in Islam. Islam followed Judaism so closely for its so called Godly scripts.

The society changed with the invention of Printing Press, which enabled human beings to sources of knowledge.
Incidentally Printing Press was invented in Europe about late 16th Century and not in Asia or Middle East.
It may be of interest that the Printing Press originally was priniting bibles and interestingly, was not liked by the Christain heirarcy at that time, as thus Bible, the was being made available to people other than the preists thus challenging their exclusivity to Bible; the source of knowledge.
Women did not attain the status of bread earners and fighters even then.
They had to wait for Freud, Darwin and Marx who gave avenues to new sources of knowledge.
The new knolwedge produced new disciplines of Scientific knowledge, available to both, men and women.
The new knowlege also developed new armaments which could be used by both men and women equally effectively.
The new disciplines of knowledge and its availability also to women developed avenues for women to become bread earners.
The new armament gave women the oppurtunity to become equally good warriors.
It may be interesting to note that women did not get right to vote till 1930's in Europe.
And hardly any women were deployed as warriors in WW I and II, except as spies or nurses.

The Societies are changing with the advent of new scientific knowledge and greater reliance to scientific knowledge than to so called Godly scripts.
Now the women in China and India have almsot acquired status similar to men, as they are becoming equally good bread earners and also warriors.
In India, women got right of vote immediately after independence, 1947 and in China in 1949.
It is not religion or faith that is withholding the equality of women; it is the backwardness of social evolution in many countries of Africa, Middle East and Asia.
It surely is a pity that scientific knowledge was transmitted to Middle Eastern and African countries much later than in USA or Europe.
And greater reliance on Scientific knowledge than on so called Godly Scripts will take its own time as social consciousness evolves much slower than the sources of knowledge.
In Europe too, although Oxford Univeristy was established in 1230, still voting rights to women was granted as late as 1930's.
In Middle East too the change is coming.
The right to vote for local Councils in Saudi Arabia may not look very impressive for women in US or Europe, but its a big leap forward.
The women in Saudi Arabia are already asking for right to drive.
They too are practing family planning methods and though not reported, but thousands of women go to abortions every year in Saudi Arabia alone and are not penalized for that.
But just for a last sentence; not one woman was granted the status of Prophethood; not even Virgin Mary, as the social evolution did not allow it.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.