Women Shall Submit

[littlepet]

I feel the bible is another misogynistic book. I have a very very hard time understanding how women ignore the violence spoken against them in this book (actually collection of books.)

Genesis 3:16 Says that all women must suffer great pains during child birth due to Eve eating the fruit of knowledge. (As if it is somehow just that humans should pay for their ancestor’s sins nor is a woman dying in labor some how befitting of a crime she did not commit.) The verse finishes of by saying a husband shall “rule” over his woman, stripping us off all power in between the sexes.

Exodus 21:7 God not only sanctions selling ones daughter into slavery, but he also gives out laws on how it should be done.

Leviticus 12:1-8 Explains that a woman has to be purified after giving birth because she is “unclean”. It goes on to say that birthing a male is cleaner then birthing a female, hence a mother must purify TWICE as long when having a daughter. This is BLATANT sexism from the point of birth. A woman is dirty simply for being a woman; this is obviously very biased and chauvinistic.

Numbers 31: 14-18 Moses tells his men to kill all the males, non-virginal women, elderly and children of the Midianite tribe. Of course, the virgin women are kept for raping. If you read later down in the scripture God states that the Jews can not even marry a Midianite woman (with exception to Moses). Hence these women who were captured were repeatedly raped and impregnated and they weren’t even allowed a marital status in which to protect them.

(Oh and as a side note, all the comments above with the bible verses come from http://www.evilbible.com the comments after each bible verse are not my own, though I probably would have made very similar comments.)

Just a small sampling. Voluntary female submission to a male is fine. It's what some of us get off on, BUT...the big caveat is...SOME of us...and the even bigger caveat is...when it is proscribed by any book or religion it leads to larger wholesale abuse of women that goes beyond just a personal dynamic between any given man or woman.

And yes, I am probably about to piss off everybody on the forum today. It is my special gift.

[Thorne]

And yes, I am probably about to piss off everybody on the forum today. It is my special gift.

Doesn't piss me off. I tend to agree with what you say. Many cultures in this world have, and still do, treat women as either second class persons or as property. This is especially pronounced in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim faiths, mainly because of the Biblical treatment of women.

And despite great advances in American society over the past 100 years, there is still a hard core of these feelings present here. And I believe it's primarily out of fear!

I have known several men who constantly put down women, regardless of how good at their jobs they were, or how smart they were. They always complained that any successful woman was only successful because of what they had between their legs. They felt that women could exert too much power over men because of their sexual organs.

This seems to be the idea in many Muslim nations even today. We hear stories of women who are executed for committing adultery, while the man they committed this heinous crime with only receives a pat on the wrist. Or a woman who was gang-raped in an Arab country who received a harsher sentence than her rapists because she was out of the house without a male escort. In other words, if a man cant keep his cock in his pants it must be the woman's fault!

I have never understood this concept myself. My feeling is that any person, whether male or female, can only have the power that you give them. If I don't allow myself to be influenced by a woman's short skirts and tight shirts, they no longer have power over me. Yes, I find them attractive, and I'll ogle along with the best of them. But that doesn't mean I have to run out and attack every shapely ass I see on the streets!

Yes, I am dominant, sexually, and I like women who are submissive, sexually. I don't find much to enjoy about a woman who is submissive all the time, though. I like women who are feisty and intelligent and who know what they want. And above all, I like women who know when to say "no", and I will respect that "no" every time.

Except, of course, when she really means "yes"!

[littlepet]

Hey Thorne, it's because you possess actual strength, as opposed to brute force or a sense of entitlement based on your gender.

[Thorne]

Hey Thorne, it's because you possess actual strength...

LOL! You don't know me very well, do you?

[orchidsoul]

Littlepet- doesn't piss me off either. I tend to agree with you as well.
I liken many sacred scriptures to the Declaration of Independence... they were constructed based upon the times, and the times, they are a changin'. Unlike the Declaration though, the bible doesn't have ammendments per se, rather new denominations and spin offs of the religion.

Many cultures in this world have, and still do, treat women as either second class persons or as property. This is especially pronounced in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim faiths, mainly because of the Biblical treatment of women.

I can't speak for anything except Judeo, but it's only in Orthodox that women are treated any differently- and it's quite a bit. In Conservative or Reformed, it's a fairly, if not completely, equal treatment between men and women.

[Thorne]

I can't speak for anything except Judeo, but it's only in Orthodox that women are treated any differently- and it's quite a bit. In Conservative or Reformed, it's a fairly, if not completely, equal treatment between men and women.

Yes, a sign of change and modernization, if you will. Not unlike Catholicism, which is still struggling toward it but is definitely on its way. Women are being allowed more freedom within the Church, though nowhere on a par with men. Islam, it seems to me (someone correct me if I'm mistaken, please), is still mired in more medieval/archaic treatment of its women. I have no familiarity with Oriental religions, so I cannot comment on those.

But many cultures throughout the world, even in these modern times, place a higher value on the birth of a boy than of a girl, and still reckon the ownership of property to descend through the males of the family more than through females.

[orchidsoul]

Not unlike Catholicism, which is still struggling toward it but is definitely on its way. Women are being allowed more freedom within the Church, though nowhere on a par with men. Islam, it seems to me (someone correct me if I'm mistaken, please), is still mired in more medieval/archaic treatment of its women. I have no familiarity with Oriental religions, so I cannot comment on those.

I don't know too much about the church... but I think it's sort of the same. Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, etc are more stringent with the separation, or rather purposes of the females in the family, of men and women to the best of my knowledge. But denominations like Episcopalean, Unitarianism, etc are more modern derivatives of Christianity and don't recognize many beliefs of Catholicism.

I have a few friends my age that practice Greek Orthodox and they are in no way comparable to their Mothers... in the sense they have jobs, are treated as equals in a relationship, are not expected to be barefoot, pregnant, and solely running a household unless they so choose. It's amazing how even one generation has changed.

Another difference is in Orthodox Judaism. Women do not sit with men, rather sit in the back of the temple, and in Greek Orthodox they can sit wherever they choose. When I went, we sat near the front and it was the most beautiful church and service I'd ever attended. Even when I went to the Basilica at the Vatican, women were intermixed with the men.

You are absolutely correct about Islamic faith. It's mired very much towards archaic treatment of women. Fully covered unless in the company of your immediate family, husbands only requirement for being a polygamist is to provide equally, devotion and financially, for each family... but good luck proving otherwise... and good luck trying to ever divorce your husband.

Like all the 'orthodox' (for lack of a better way to differentiate) religions, I think particularly practiced within the US there is more equality within the relationship, but often the man may have the final decision... not unlike a 24/7 relationship.

But many cultures throughout the world, even in these modern times, place a higher value on the birth of a boy than of a girl, and still reckon the ownership of property to descend through the males of the family more than through females.

I wonder if it's because in these cultures women are never the providers? It's only been a couple generations since some women have become the financial breadwinner in the family in the US...

In China with the birth restrictions (only one child) if the first is a girl, she will probably be put up for adoption. *shrugs* It's viewed almost as a failure for not being able to provide a boy as the first born. And if a second child is born... if that child is not put up for adoption, there's huge financial fines making it near impossible to pay the government and your bills.

[Thorne]

I wonder if it's because in these cultures women are never the providers? It's only been a couple generations since some women have become the financial breadwinner in the family in the US...

Good point! It really wasn't until after WW2 that women in this country even began to move towards careers outside the home, primarily because of their experiences during the war, replacing the men who were sent to the fronts. (A generalization, I know, but valid nonetheless.)

Zealotry and close minded fundamentalist thinking is the real enemy, not the religions themselves.

Absolutely! And it applies in any endeavor, not just religion. There have been many instances throughout history of older, more established scientists trying (and sometimes succeeding) to prevent younger, more radical students from publishing their "heretical" ideas, even to the point of blackballing them.

It is not my intention to pass judgment on any faith, though. There is nothing wrong with women adhering to their faith if that is what they truly want. What I don't like, regardless of where it occurs, is a religion or culture or what-have-you which forcibly suppresses any group or individuals for no reason but to maintain the status quo. If a person has a knowledge and understanding of something different and chooses their faith, all well and good. It is their choice to make, and I can understand and respect that. But when the leaders proclaim it forbidden for you to learn of other ways of life, and fiercely persecute those who wish to change, that is oppression and unconscionable.

That being said, it has long been my belief, as stated here often, that any religion (not faith) is based on fallacies and fantasies, and is designed to isolate its followers from any outside influences. They use ritual to perpetuate these fantasies and fear to maintain their hold on their people. Again, a generalization, but no less true because of it.

[orchidsoul]

Good point! It really wasn't until after WW2 that women in this country even began to move towards careers outside the home, primarily because of their experiences during the war, replacing the men who were sent to the fronts. (A generalization, I know, but valid nonetheless.)

not that much of a generalization- the difference being career vs. job. My grandmother began her career after having to get a job in the factory whilst her husband and all his brothers were at war. It was the reality of the times.

What I don't like, regardless of where it occurs, is a religion or culture or what-have-you which forcibly suppresses any group or individuals for no reason but to maintain the status quo. If a person has a knowledge and understanding of something different and chooses their faith, all well and good. It is their choice to make, and I can understand and respect that. But when the leaders proclaim it forbidden for you to learn of other ways of life, and fiercely persecute those who wish to change, that is oppression and unconscionable.

nods head in agreement.