Women Shall Submit

[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.

[lucy]

Do you see the D/s lifestyle having more freedom and respect for the woman than these scriptures?

Yes, i do. Simply because i chose to submit to someone, and retain the right to get out of my submission again if i want (and if i am able) to.

For me, littlepet has summed it up rather nicely.