Originally posted by inimalist
The most important woman in the bible and she is known specifically for being a VIRGIN. This isn't appaling to your femenist sensibilities?
How is being a virgin anti-femenist?
Originally posted by inimalist
christianity hates women and is afraid of their sexuality
Yes yes and Jew poisons our society with their evil so that the colored man can steal our stuff. Sweeping generalization are such valid tools.
Originally posted by inimalist
mary is a symbol of patriarchical rule.more or less, just saying that the existance of mary is a very important topic when discussing her, as, if she didn't exist, her role in the oppression of women through symbolically steryotyping their role in society, justifying the cultural practices of the time, is very important in the discussion of her.
I don't recall the Bible saying much about Mary's personal life except that she didn't have sex, which isn't very similar to the culture of the time. I've never actually taken the time to look though.
Originally posted by inimalist
Is the feminist angel still good if she did exist, sure, i think so, as the presentation of mary is based more on myth than fact anyways, just saying.
Most religion is based primarily on myth. But that's not really important when discussing it internally.
lol
alright, ya, I was more channeling my girlfriend than anything, I'm really not a rabid feminist and am almost entirely unfamiliar with women in the bible, so not really prepared to make the argument. And probably wont sell you anyways.
Even with the qualifier though, I think it would go something like "female sexuality is restrained and virgin-ness is promoted, along with being passive, devotion and complete loyalty to a man, if not outright owned." but ya, concede that aside from mary being a virgin, I can't go too much further, given a total lack of reference to biblical story.
I was more using the feminist interpretation of mary, whoch I'm not making up, agree with it or not, as a place where the historical veracity of Mary is of importance. Not huge importance, but some. The feminist interpretation sees mary, at least as presented in scripture, as being, as the article I'm sourcing puts it, both de-sexed and de-humanized. Not that that argument is really important, more that the historicity of the biblical Mary is important to the discussion.
Sorry for trolling 😛
oops, edit, forgot to cite: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2296
I dated a feminist for a while too, in. Fun times. She had an uncanny ability to make any discussion into a critique of gender roles. I honestly didn't disagree with most of what she said, but she came across as intimidatingly militant about it. I don't wear the pants in pretty much any relationship I'm in, romantic or otherwise, so in order not to feel totally left out I resorted to a bunch of passive-aggressive digs involving man's superiority and women's subjugation.
To her credit, she took the jokes in stride, but also dumped me for some dude with a similarly revolutionary idiom about him. Didn't even give me time to make the Bogart speech. Hrn.
But anyway, I just had trouble seeing what the fuss was all about. Shape society and laws that promote equality, as well as personal principles involving freedom from gender-bias. Seems simple enough. But then they get all crazy and start putting out claims that women are genetic equals to men in many sports, or protesting for complete bans on legal pornography, and similarly oppressive and/or delusion causes.
Sorry. Tangent. Back to Mary. Personally, I'd wreck that chick. Best. Deflowering. Ever.
😐
Originally posted by inimalist
lolalright, ya, I was more channeling my girlfriend than anything, I'm really not a rabid feminist and am almost entirely unfamiliar with women in the bible, so not really prepared to make the argument. And probably wont sell you anyways.
Even with the qualifier though, I think it would go something like "female sexuality is restrained and virgin-ness is promoted, along with being passive, devotion and complete loyalty to a man, if not outright owned." but ya, concede that aside from mary being a virgin, I can't go too much further, given a total lack of reference to biblical story.
Oh, it's very true that when looked at with a critical eye women in the Bible are very often portrayed as either dangerously incompetent or down right evil. However, Mary and that chick Abraham was banging are the only ones that ever come off as passive. Overall the Judeo-Christian texts tends to ignore women entirely. Although, in context, that was not uncommon at the time pretty much anywhere.
On the other hand the Bible is very easy to interpret based on one's point of view and I have met a (small) number of women who consider many parts to be protofemenist.
Originally posted by inimalist
lol?
Ultimate dominance fantasy.
I guess I'm a practical-feminist in that I'm the equal pay for equal work kind...but I don't feel the Bible to be anti-woman. In as patriarchal a society as the ancient Middle East, reading about women like Ruth, Jael, and Tamar is refreshing and a feat in itself. If you want more strong women, read about Deborah and Esther.
Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene may not have been fighters, but most of the people in the Bible, men and women, are in there because of their great faith. Imo, God is not male or female. He (because that's just the established pronoun) is beyond all of those qualifiers that divide people. Saying God is a male figure is like making a claim that God is white or a liberal or what-have-you.
I believe Mary had sex after she had Jesus. There is nothing that says otherwise, to my knowledge, and even a passage in the Bible (think it's in Matthew) refers to Jesus' brothers. Aha! It is Matthew.
Matthew 13:55
"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brothers, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"
There is nothing sinful about engaging in sex with one's spouse, the Apostle Paul even encourages it, so it would not have been a discredit to Mary or Joseph for them to have had sex after the birth of Jesus and have more children.
Someone asked earlier if I really believe Jesus was born of a virgin. Absolutely I do.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I dated a feminist for a while too, in. Fun times. She had an uncanny ability to make any discussion into a critique of gender roles. I honestly didn't disagree with most of what she said, but she came across as intimidatingly militant about it. I don't wear the pants in pretty much any relationship I'm in, romantic or otherwise, so in order not to feel totally left out I resorted to a bunch of passive-aggressive digs involving man's superiority and women's subjugation.To her credit, she took the jokes in stride, but also dumped me for some dude with a similarly revolutionary idiom about him. Didn't even give me time to make the Bogart speech. Hrn.
But anyway, I just had trouble seeing what the fuss was all about. Shape society and laws that promote equality, as well as personal principles involving freedom from gender-bias. Seems simple enough. But then they get all crazy and start putting out claims that women are genetic equals to men in many sports, or protesting for complete bans on legal pornography, and similarly oppressive and/or delusion causes.
Its cool, I like it. She wants to pay for herself and is very independent, and can give a good rant from time to time.
She isn't as aggressive with her opinions as it sounds like your ex was, but she was raised in a very strict christian church and house, so she has some negative feelings toward the bible and women within it.
great sex too 😉
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Oh, it's very true that when looked at with a critical eye women in the Bible are very often portrayed as either dangerously incompetent or down right evil. However, Mary and that chick Abraham was banging are the only ones that ever come off as passive. Overall the Judeo-Christian texts tends to ignore women entirely. Although, in context, that was not uncommon at the time pretty much anywhere.On the other hand the Bible is very easy to interpret based on one's point of view and I have met a (small) number of women who consider many parts to be protofemenist.
fair enough, like I said, I admit my ignorance on the matter. I guess if you want to read anything into a religious text you can, but I do think there is some truth at least to the use of Mary in symbology as a way to oppress feminine sexuality.
Not that the bible isn't just as much against male sexuality (of course, if read in that particular light)
Originally posted by willofthewisp
I guess I'm a practical-feminist in that I'm the equal pay for equal work kind...but I don't feel the Bible to be anti-woman. In as patriarchal a society as the ancient Middle East, reading about women like Ruth, Jael, and Tamar is refreshing and a feat in itself. If you want more strong women, read about Deborah and Esther.Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene may not have been fighters, but most of the people in the Bible, men and women, are in there because of their great faith. Imo, God is not male or female. He (because that's just the established pronoun) is beyond all of those qualifiers that divide people. Saying God is a male figure is like making a claim that God is white or a liberal or what-have-you.
I believe Mary had sex after she had Jesus. There is nothing that says otherwise, to my knowledge, and even a passage in the Bible (think it's in Matthew) refers to Jesus' brothers. Aha! It is Matthew.
Matthew 13:55
"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brothers, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"
There is nothing sinful about engaging in sex with one's spouse, the Apostle Paul even encourages it, so it would not have been a discredit to Mary or Joseph for them to have had sex after the birth of Jesus and have more children.
Someone asked earlier if I really believe Jesus was born of a virgin. Absolutely I do.
cool, I had heard Jesus had siblings, and it was always something that confused me.
the article I cited (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2296) talks about how these kids were later, by church authority, turned into cousins and half brothers in order to give the impression of Mary's virgin-hood.
I want to reiterate again though, my point wasn't that the bible is anti-woman (i guess that sort of became my point... but anyways) but that whether or not Mary is fiction is important. Maybe less so than I origionally thought, but if the story of Mary has been maipulated from its origional for various political purposes, the validity of that story is important.
Originally posted by inimalist
great sex too 😉
Yeah, mine was the same. And we had dated years ago when she was a shy little Christian girl. Incomprehensible difference. Philosophical stances can come with unexpected perks.
😉
....
Anyway, we could have the "you can interpret the Bible any way you want" discussion, but I actually think women have more of a case than most concerning most Christian sects. For a religion purporting to be salvation for all, and who also prides itself on being "progressive" (Catholicism at least), it's embarrassingly male-dominated. I mentioned to my then-gf when John Paul II died that the 1000 people closest to his body at the funeral were male, and that was likely a gross understatement.
One can find strong female figures in church history as refutation, but it's inevitable given the length of time Christianity has been around. Compared to what it should or could be, the number is laughable, even in recent times. Look through a list of saints, popes, books, writings, history, etc. and compare notes. Women are second-class citizens in nearly every sense of the word.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
One can find strong female figures in church history as refutation, but it's inevitable given the length of time Christianity has been around. Compared to what it should or could be, the number is laughable, even in recent times. Look through a list of saints, popes, books, writings, history, etc. and compare notes. Women are second-class citizens in nearly every sense of the word.
I find it poor logic to say that there are female leaders and strong female role models involved in Christianity due only to a length of time. I think it is the nature of Christianity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hinduism and Buddhism were around a lot longer than Christianity, along with the pagan religions of Greece/Turkey/etc, and those religions do not have a famous female name attached to them. I'm not referring to the Greek goddesses or even the oracles at Delphi because even though they were an important element, none of their names survived history. Yet many male leaders' names did survive.
In Islam, which is only about 600 years younger than Christianity, how many prominent women can you find in that faith? Yes, I know Mohammad's wife was the first convert to the faith, but do any of these faiths that are either older than Christianity or are a contemporary to, feature women like Tamar, Ruth, Esther, Jael, Mary, and Mary Magdalene, or even the female saints, like Christianity does?
Originally posted by willofthewisp
I find it poor logic to say that there are female leaders and strong female role models involved in Christianity due only to a length of time. I think it is the nature of Christianity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hinduism and Buddhism were around a lot longer than Christianity, along with the pagan religions of Greece/Turkey/etc, and those religions do not have a famous female name attached to them. I'm not referring to the Greek goddesses or even the oracles at Delphi because even though they were an important element, none of their names survived history. Yet many male leaders' names did survive.In Islam, which is only about 600 years younger than Christianity, how many prominent women can you find in that faith? Yes, I know Mohammad's wife was the first convert to the faith, but do any of these faiths that are either older than Christianity or are a contemporary to, feature women like Tamar, Ruth, Esther, Jael, Mary, and Mary Magdalene, or even the female saints, like Christianity does?
lol
why do biblical christian figures count, but not goddesses from paganism?
and Christianity can be better than any other religion (I'm not saying I think it is) and still oppressive of women. Humanity as a whole has a fairly negative history when it comes to making up myths in order to oppress people. I'd love you to come up with a Christian figure who even approaches Simone De Bouvier or any other real feminist figure.
Originally posted by willofthewisp
Because I'm talking about actual people, not a deity of any kind.Joan of Arc isn't a positive, strong female associated with Christianity?
ok, however, then we get into the historicity of the content of the bible, which you wont sell me on. Aphrodite is just as likely to have existed as Mary.
Joan o Arc, while being a powerful woman, might not be the best symbol or feminism.
You have to remember, a feminist critique isn't that women don't exist in christian mythology, but that they are potrayed as cowed, with no personal will and especially their lack of individual sexuality. Feminist critiques also are more directed at the use of the myths in society by church authority than at the actual dogma.
From a very cursory reading of the google results for "feminist Joan of Arc" it appears that as a symbol she is being potrayed as a symbol of female power. Cynicly, she was loyal, obedient, and her "power" came from the fact she was willing to dress and act like a man. Not the best example. Nothing even close to real feminism.
Originally posted by inimalist
why do biblical christian figures count, but not goddesses from paganism?
That's a valid point.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'd love you to come up with a Christian figure who even approaches Simone De Bouvier or any other real feminist figure.
Saint Barbara refused to let her father marry her off in the face of execution. Then she became the patron saint of blowing shit up which you'd think would go to a guy.
Joan of Arc isn't too bad either.
Julian of Norwich referred to God as female reportedly using "Mother" rather than "Father".
At least some of the Gnostics considered Eve to be the ultimate figure of human salvation.
Galations 4:21-31 can been seen as distinctly against women being subjugated. (I do realize there are far more passages with clearly oppositional views)
Of course there are some very twisted attempts to find feminism in the Bible:
http://christianfeminism.wordpress.com/
But overall there aren't many surviving religions with a pro-female angle.
Originally posted by willofthewisp
I find it poor logic to say that there are female leaders and strong female role models involved in Christianity due only to a length of time. I think it is the nature of Christianity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hinduism and Buddhism were around a lot longer than Christianity, along with the pagan religions of Greece/Turkey/etc, and those religions do not have a famous female name attached to them. I'm not referring to the Greek goddesses or even the oracles at Delphi because even though they were an important element, none of their names survived history. Yet many male leaders' names did survive.In Islam, which is only about 600 years younger than Christianity, how many prominent women can you find in that faith? Yes, I know Mohammad's wife was the first convert to the faith, but do any of these faiths that are either older than Christianity or are a contemporary to, feature women like Tamar, Ruth, Esther, Jael, Mary, and Mary Magdalene, or even the female saints, like Christianity does?
Just for the record, its hard to find names of Athenian leaders.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Saint Barbara refused to let her father marry her off in the face of execution. Then she became the patron saint of blowing shit up which you'd think would go to a guy.
very interesting, I had never heard of her. I read the Wiki (which of course makes me an expert now), really good example.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Joan of Arc isn't too bad either.
personally I think it takes a bit of reading into for it to work, but that is hardly a really good criticism.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Julian of Norwich referred to God as female reportedly using "Mother" rather than "Father".
again going just by the Wiki, another good example 🙂
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
At least some of the Gnostics considered Eve to be the ultimate figure of human salvation.
I should read more on these gnostics...
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Galations 4:21-31 can been seen as distinctly against women being subjugated. (I do realize there are far more passages with clearly oppositional views)
still, not bad. Its good to know that there is at least something there to make the argument from. Sort of like a "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" kind of thing.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course there are some very twisted attempts to find feminism in the Bible:
http://christianfeminism.wordpress.com/
I did find a bunch of pages similar to this. I guess if you do really feel motivated and freed as a woman from scripture, all the power to you.
But ya:
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But overall there aren't many surviving religions with a pro-female angle.
agree 200%
Not that I am just trying to shit on your examples or anything, but as a last point, it is possible to read cynical interpretations into most of the examples you gave (that Julian is pretty tight). Much like anything, it depends on what you want to highlight. For instance, Barbara refused to marry because she was a Christian, not because she as a woman had different plans for her life (splitting hairs, I admit).
It depends how you define feminism. For me, it has always meant a woman having the freedom to live her life how she wants, her value placed on what she is as an individual. So for me, Joan of Arc, although dressing like a man cannot be called feminism, established an identity for herself outside that of just being someone's daughter/sister/wife.
Although technically a Jewish figure, Deborah is a fine example of feminism in the Bible. She not only established an identity for herself and lived her life how she chose, but her name eclipses even that of her husband. Deborah may not be as well known as Jacob or Moses, but she is certainly better known than Lappidoth.
Oh, I know it's hard to find Athenian names. But it is the names that survive the test of time that seem to be in question here.
"All oppression creates a state of war. And this is no exception. The existent who is regarded as inessential cannot fail to demand the re-establishment of her sovereignty.
Today the combat takes a different shape; instead of wishing to put man in a prison, woman endeavours to escape from one; she no longer seeks to drag him into the realms of immanence but to emerge, herself, into the light of transcendence."
"It is nonsense to assert that revelry, vice, ecstasy, passion, would become impossible if man and woman were equal in concrete matters; the contradictions that put the flesh in opposition to the spirit, the instant to time, the swoon of immanence to the challenge of transcendence, the absolute of pleasure to the nothingness of forgetting, will never be resolved; in sexuality will always be materialised the tension, the anguish, the joy, the frustration, and the triumph of existence. To emancipate woman is to refuse to confine her to the relations she bears to man, not to deny them to her; let her have her independent existence and she will continue none the less to exist for him also: mutually recognising each other as subject, each will yet remain for the other an other. The reciprocity of their relations will not do away with the miracles — desire, possession, love, dream, adventure — worked by the division of human beings into two separate categories; and the words that move us — giving, conquering, uniting — will not lose their meaning. On the contrary, when we abolish the slavery of half of humanity, together with the whole system of hypocrisy that it implies, then the 'division' of humanity will reveal its genuine significance and the human couple will find its true form."
Simone de Beauvoir - Le Deuxième Sexe (1949)
Originally posted by willofthewisp
I find it poor logic to say that there are female leaders and strong female role models involved in Christianity due only to a length of time. I think it is the nature of Christianity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hinduism and Buddhism were around a lot longer than Christianity, along with the pagan religions of Greece/Turkey/etc, and those religions do not have a famous female name attached to them. I'm not referring to the Greek goddesses or even the oracles at Delphi because even though they were an important element, none of their names survived history. Yet many male leaders' names did survive.In Islam, which is only about 600 years younger than Christianity, how many prominent women can you find in that faith? Yes, I know Mohammad's wife was the first convert to the faith, but do any of these faiths that are either older than Christianity or are a contemporary to, feature women like Tamar, Ruth, Esther, Jael, Mary, and Mary Magdalene, or even the female saints, like Christianity does?
Islam is repressive toward women in many traditions. And are you really enough of an authority on Buddhism or Hinduism to make such claims? I'm not, and my guess is that your assumption that there are no famous females is just that: an assumption.
And I conceded famous females, but also stated that the percentage is inordinately low. There are more females on the planet than males. They'd be lucky to account for 5% of famous church figures, and I feel like that's being very generous.
Like in said, they can be "progressive" compared to other religions and still be repressive. I didn't compare them to other religions. You did. I compared it to what it should be like, which is far more advanced from a gender perspective than Christianity approaches.
Joan of Arc, Mary, etc. are anecdotes, not statistical trends, and don't address my central point.