Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?

[typhonblue]

You are taking it out of context by isolationg it and not talking about the wifely obligations the bible spells out that go hand in hand with it. And so what if some men write about a litteral intepretation, if you truly love someone you will sacrifice for their well being.

I'm trying to place the concept of "submit" into the context of "to someone who sacrifices for you."

I haven't ignored the context.

What is your interpretation of this scripture?

[Daymar]

Equally, scripture shows that wives have little choice when a husband chooses an actionable course and follows it.

That is a leftover from before Christianity. Once Christianity is around for awhile and the man's actions are based around sacrificing for his wife, the man's authority doesn't really matter a whole lot anymore since he would be doing what his wife wants him too anyway.

What are the comparitive scriptures that talk about the wife sacrificing for the husband?

[typhonblue]

Yes, but what does it *mean* to be the head of someone you sacrifice everything for?

It can mean many different things.  A team is a unit that needs to work together to achieve, and teams benefit from leaders (as an example).

I notice you didn't answer the question I posed to you.

I am saying it is simplistic to view the christian theology through the lens of feministic paradigms, which you unwittingly seem to do.

Explain what you mean by this? What does "feministic paradigm" mean?
I'm interpreting "sacrifice for your wife" as "sacrifice for your wife".

I am not a christian, but I guarantee I have read more scripture than you care to.
My interpretation is that the scripture doesn't mean what you infer it to mean when you quote it in isolation.  
A living work has a framework, and you can't pick and choose elements of that framework to make your case in isolation.

Right. So there is more scripture then exsists in the bible? Because I have read it.

Equally, scripture shows that wives have little choice when a husband chooses an actionable course and follows it.  Are we to infer that they were simply following the omnipotent commanding vagina of the day?

And the end result of this "actionable course" is that a woman benefits. Again can a Christian man use his authority as "head of the household" to deliberately hurt his wife or, more pragmatically, pursue his own self-interest?

Or is he, as it's stated IN THE BIBLE, to use his authority to sacrifice himself to her benefit?

Perhaps they were so whipped they built golden vaginas and self-flagellated themselves before ordering their wives  and children to do that which they commanded?

Now you're just being silly.

[BRIAN]

I'm trying to place the concept of "submit" into the context of "to someone who sacrifices for you."

To me it means the female must submit in this case because the male sacrifices. The male must make sacrifices to the female because he is given the authority. You may have heard of the term "noblesse oblige" it means nobility obliges. It was the same concept but applied to lord and serf in fuedal society. The Lord of the manor was granted almost absolute legal authority over the serfs on his holdings. In exchange for this he was obliged to protect them, got to war and put his life on the line for them, hear their disputes and render judgement(holding court) and a whole lot of ther stuff in exchange for power. At first being lord and master seems like a cool job untill you find out about the other part of the job that goes with it.

[woof]

Just thought I'd start a poll to see people's opinions on the issue.

My personal opinion is that Christianity encouraged men to judge themselves by their sacrifices to women which laid the social groundwork for a misandrous movement like feminism.

What say you all?

Disagree totally......I can't quote Bible verses, but I think that it is safe to say hard line Chirstianity is harder on woman than men in the "demands" that it asks.

Chirstians that I know think that feminisim is the devils work because of abortions, sexual freedom, and of course a "woman belongs in the home".

For Chirstian woman it is an honor to have a family and stay at home. Also the wife in a Chirstian family will honor her husband as the head of the household, and the decession maker.

The roles for men and woman are pretty clearly stated in the Bible, this goes against everything "feminist".

[typhonblue]

I'm trying to place the concept of "submit" into the context of "to someone who sacrifices for you."

To me it means the female must submit in this case because the male sacrifices. The male must make sacrifices to the female because he is given the authority. You may have heard of the term "noblesse oblige" it means nobility obliges. It was the same concept but applied to lord and serf in fuedal society. The Lord of the manor was granted almost absolute legal authority over the serfs on his holdings. In exchange for this he was obliged to protect them, got to war and put his life on the line for them, hear their disputes and render judgement(holding court) and a whole lot of ther stuff in exchange for power. At first being lord and master seems like a cool job untill you find out about the other part of the job that goes with it.

Is the concept of the husband sacrificing to the wife as clear cut as "noblesse oblige"? What are the limitations to this? Are their provisions for when the husband's self interest conflicts with his commandment to "sacrifice to his wife?"

BTW, if the chrstian concept of marriage is parallel to "noblesse oblige", then the Roman concept of marriage at the time of the early church is parallel to slavery. No need to sacrifice to the wife since, technically, she's your property to do with what you will.

Submiting to someone who is commanded to keep your best interests at heart (by pain of possible damnation) is a damn sight better then submitting to someone who is under no obligation to consider your interests in the slightest.

Christianity was the first Woman's Rights movement for this reason alone. Wife goes from base, quasi-slave to center of the husband's spiritual life and the avenue by which the husband is spiritually uplifted.

[typhonblue]

Disagree totally......I can't quote Bible verses, but I think that it is safe to say hard line Chirstianity is harder on woman than men in the "demands" that it asks.

Like what? Christians demand both women *and* men be chaste and not promiscuous or adulterous.

Is there anything that Christians demand of women that doesn't have a parallel demand for men?

Chirstians that I know think that feminisim is the devils work because of abortions, sexual freedom, and of course a "woman belongs in the home".

The early feminists were anti-contraceptive, most likily anti-abortion as well. Regardless of their stance on abortion, feminists are very anti-sex (at least sex-with-men), just like the early Christian feminists.

As for "women belonging in the home", take a gander at this:

Proverbs 31:10-31 Who can find a virtuous woman? ... She looks for wool and flax And works with her hands in delight. She is like merchant ships; She brings her food from afar. She rises also while it is still night And gives food to her household And portions to her maidens. She considers a field and buys it; From her earnings she plants a vineyard. She girds herself with strength And makes her arms strong. She senses that her gain is good; Her lamp does not go out at night. She stretches out her hands to the distaff, And her hands grasp the spindle. She extends her hand to the poor, And she stretches out her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household, For all her household are clothed with scarlet. She makes coverings for herself; Her clothing is fine linen and purple. Her husband is known in the gates, When he sits among the elders of the land. She makes linen garments and sells them, And supplies belts to the tradesmen. Strength and dignity are her clothing, And she smiles at the future. She opens her mouth in wisdom, And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. She looks well to the ways of her household, And does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children rise up and bless her; Her husband also, and he praises her, saying: "Many daughters have done nobly, But you excel them all." Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her the product of her hands, And let her works praise her in the gates.

Sounds like women had a place working as well as "at home."

For Chirstian woman it is an honor to have a family and stay at home. Also the wife in a Chirstian family will honor her husband as the head of the household, and the decession maker.

It's an honor for a Christian woman to stay at home? Yet the scriptures make a virtuous woman out to be a bit of a tradesperson and shopkeep. And *also* someone who does not abide by idle time.

The roles for men and woman are pretty clearly stated in the Bible, this goes against everything "feminist".

I never said Feminism == Chrstianity, only that Christianity was one of the major elements that paved the way for Feminism to take root in our society.

[Laboratory Mike]

It seems I've come by just in time to make a particular point:

"The greastest heresy of the 20th and early 21st cetury is that the Bible is a set of instructions about how to deal with 20th century social issues."

I suppose that people have been trying to force the Bible to say one thing or another, in the sense that preists of most every religion have been trying to get God to join their side. But the Bible speaks for itself, and if more people read it, they'd find that it doesn't say much about social issues.

It mostly talks about God, and what our standing relative to Him is, and how to change it. Unsurprisingly.

Of course, because we live in a physical world, there are also physical needs, and physical distractions that take someone away from God. There is a lot written about how to deal with such things. One interesting and relevant teaching is that it is better if a man does not marry and instead fully devote his time to God, but if he can't handle doing so because he has a strong sex drive, he is encouraged to marry. Same for women. You can read it in 1 Corinthinans 7. Keep in mind that, once again, these things aren't about how a society ought to be, so much as how a believer can minimze physical distractions and maximize his relationship/standing with God. It does so to such an extent that it scares someone who can fully comprehend what it is really saying.

To answer the question... the other problem we have in trying to interpret something that is thousands of years old is the fact that we are living under a different set of conditions here is the modern West than the people of... everyone until about the 20s, and still all people in the 3rd world nations. A housewife then is not like a housewife now, nor was life then like life now. Think about simple things like cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the kids. Such things would have taken all day instead of an hour, and men would not have been able to stop at McDonalds for lunch. There was no social safety net either; if you went broke you were out on the streets, and you often starved. That's why the relationship dynami then was one in which the man was the breadwinner, and the wife the bread-maker. The man could not do both like he is forced to now, and if he was in those times, he would have worn out quickly, thereby being unable being able to bring home enough money and/or food for the family to survive. So, in a move of brilliance, the family unit was designed so that it would have the best possible odds of suriving; the one most able to work outside the home goes first, and the second if needed/able. If not, it was the job of the one staying at the home, usually the woman, to make sure that everything the man wasn't doing was taken care of. I think Angry Harry wrote a good article on it, which indicates that the way things worked until very recently are a matter of fact, and not of any matriarchal conspiracy.

For the question of "from where came feminism," I don't know, though my personal speculation is that it got going around the time of the Victorian era, when women were put on a pedestal. since then, the "women as nearly divine beings" concept has grown and grown, and unsurprisingly, it grew as Christianity began to sink. I'd also point out that feminist-controlled churches have been shrinking and shrinking, while in the US, the more "conservative" ones are growing, and that many Christians are identifying with the MRM while feminists bash Christianity as patriarchal.

Those are my two bits.

[typhonblue]

For the question of "from where came feminism," I don't know, though my personal speculation is that it got going around the time of the Victorian era, when women were put on a pedestal.

But they were put on a pedestal in a *Christian* context.

Since then, the "women as nearly divine beings" concept has grown and grown, and unsurprisingly, it grew as Christianity began to sink.

Perhaps it is because feminism offered a competing womanist paradigm that provided more benefits to women without as many restrictions?

I'd also point out that feminist-controlled churches have been shrinking and shrinking, while in the US, the more "conservative" ones are growing, and that many Christians are identifying with the MRM while feminists bash Christianity as patriarchal.

Special Report: The American Church in Crisis

Church attendance is declining both absolutely and as a preportion of the population of the US.

[Laboratory Mike]

It looks like Typhon noted a few other things while writing. I'll put in one more answer.

Like what? Christians demand both women *and* men be chaste and not promiscuous or adulterous.

Is there anything that Christians demand of women that doesn't have a parallel demand for men?

The guy you were quoting wasn't quite right in saying that women had it harder, because there is equal accountability. In Old Testament law, both the man and woman were punished with death for adultery, incest, and a few others (in Leviticus 20), and in Deuteronomy 22, a married or betrothed woman who is caught lying with a man cannot accuse him of rape once caught, given it can be demonstrated she had opportunity to cry for help. In other words, we see the first law that deals with a false accusation of rape coming from deep in the Old Testament. And, of course, don't forget the slew of warnings about adulterous women all throughout Proverbs. Based on these quotes, you could almost say that the Bible was the original MRA literature before the Movement existed, but then again, it's goal is to help believers, and not to take sides in our politics.

[typhonblue]

The guy you were quoting wasn't quite right in saying that women had it harder, because there is equal accountability. In Old Testament law, both the man and woman were punished with death for adultery, incest, and a few others (in Leviticus 20), and in Deuteronomy 22, a married or betrothed woman who is caught lying with a man cannot accuse him of rape once caught, given it can be demonstrated she had opportunity to cry for help. In other words, we see the first law that deals with a false accusation of rape coming from deep in the Old Testament. And, of course, don't forget the slew of warnings about adulterous women all throughout Proverbs. Based on these quotes, you could almost say that the Bible was the original MRA literature before the Movement existed, but then again, it's goal is to help believers, and not to take sides in our politics.

The only problem with that line of reasoning is this... prior to Christianity, the social mileu was inequitable. Women were punished with greater severity for adultery, incest, homosexual behavior and so on.

In *equalizing* the punishments between the sexes the Bible was *elevating* the situation of women.

Now, in a situation where women are treated with greater lenience, we see a situation of equality as a pro-MRA position.

[Sir Jessy of Anti]

Equally, scripture shows that wives have little choice when a husband chooses an actionable course and follows it.

That is a leftover from before Christianity. Once Christianity is around for awhile and the man's actions are based around sacrificing for his wife, the man's authority doesn't really matter a whole lot anymore since he would be doing what his wife wants him too anyway.

What are the comparitive scriptures that talk about the wife sacrificing for the husband?

Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,  

Tts 2:5 [To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.  

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  

Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.  

Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.  

1Pe 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

1Pe 3:5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:  

and

Proverbs 31
1The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him.

2What, my son? and what, the son of my womb? and what, the son of my vows?

3Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.

[..]

10Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

11The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.

12She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

13She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

14She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.

15She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

16She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

17She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

18She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.

19She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

20She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

21She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.

22She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.

23Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

24She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

25Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

26She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

27She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.

28Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.

29Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.

30Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.

31Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

[typhonblue]

Equally, scripture shows that wives have little choice when a husband chooses an actionable course and follows it.

That is a leftover from before Christianity. Once Christianity is around for awhile and the man's actions are based around sacrificing for his wife, the man's authority doesn't really matter a whole lot anymore since he would be doing what his wife wants him too anyway.

What are the comparitive scriptures that talk about the wife sacrificing for the husband?

Sir Jessy, to be completely accurate Daymar spoke of the wife _sacrificing_ for her husband, not obeying or submitting.

[Sir Jessy of Anti]

Equally, scripture shows that wives have little choice when a husband chooses an actionable course and follows it.

That is a leftover from before Christianity. Once Christianity is around for awhile and the man's actions are based around sacrificing for his wife, the man's authority doesn't really matter a whole lot anymore since he would be doing what his wife wants him too anyway.

What are the comparitive scriptures that talk about the wife sacrificing for the husband?

Sir Jessy, to be completely accurate Daymar spoke of the wife _sacrificing_ for her husband, not obeying or submitting.

And that is completely covered in Proverbs 31.

[Sir Jessy of Anti]

Though Galt may have issue with some of it, the undeniable conclusion is that wives were instructed not to be idle and be constructive with their knowlege, using it to better the husband and family.