Does Christianity have something to do with Feminism?

[Malakas]

Phew!!

Those parts of the Bible that deal with rules for family life come mainly from St. Paul, the CEO of Christianity but not the founder and President. Jesus had little to say on such matters, being more concered with spiritual aspects. Paul was primarily concerned with establishing a viable church. There's much evidence to show that the early Christians were polygamous like their Jewish brothers. (see letters to Timothy). The motive was not primarily sexual but a moral question of how to deal with widows and orphans. Paul did not confront it directly but there are many suggestions for a system of 'group welfare' rather than patriarchal adoption. 'Sacrifice' in that context probably meant 'to spend on behalf of another, or in a good cause' as it still does today in the Far East, a 'Holy Act'.

Islam used similar tactics to establish itself but in reverse order. The Prophet concentrated on building a strong social system (in the name of Allah, of course - see Surah IV 'Women', one of the longest in the Q'uran). Only then could his followers go out into the world and be listened to. Only then could the philosophy flower.

The Asian who takes care of his wife and children plus any other family members that are in dire need also makes a 'sacrifice'. It may be for the sake of his Karma, his Redemption or whatever you want to call it.

Women were not generally called upon to sacrifice publicly. Their roll as mothers accorded them an automatic exemption. Now that western women have assumed the role of men, what will they 'sacrifice'? What will they do to show that the well-being of society is now part of their responsibility? Working in aid agencies for fat salaries doesn't count. What will they do for the vulnerable members of their own families -  the old, the weak and the unborn? Or is that still the responsibility of the hated Patriarchy?

Religion is about men sacrificing for the greater good. Feminism is about greed.

[bluedye]

If those politicians had been in a patriarchal culture they would have been actively against women gaining any power.

The politicians saw this as something that seemed fair.  If they realized that it would spawn radical feminism & the tables would turn against men and society, they may not have done that.

The point is... they had the power to.

[typhonblue]

If those politicians had been in a patriarchal culture they would have been actively against women gaining any power.

The politicians saw this as something that seemed fair.  If they realized that it would spawn radical feminism & the tables would turn against men and society, they may not have done that.

The point is... they had the power to.

Or, alternatively, women had the power to determine social mores and, by extension, legal issues and they *decided* that they wanted the "privilages" of men.

And then they got them.

Being fair to women is not a quality I would ascribe to any true patriarchy I've studied or lived in. Saudis don't care about being "fair to women", the Ancient Greeks didn't care about being "fair to women", Romans actively warned men against being "fair to women."

Only our "patriarchy" cares about being "fair to women". Why?

[bluedye]

Or, alternatively, women had the power to determine social mores and, by extension, legal issues and they *decided* that they wanted the "privilages" of men.

And then they got them.

If they were already in power, why did they have to *fight* to get these privileges?  The privileges didn't just fall out of the air when they *decided* they wanted them.  Those rights were granted by those in power... men.

Being fair to women is not a quality I would ascribe to any true patriarchy I've studied or lived in. Saudis don't care about being "fair to women", the Ancient Greeks didn't care about being "fair to women", Romans actively warned men against being "fair to women."

Only our "patriarchy" cares about being "fair to women". Why?

What causes patriarchies to fall?  Answer... Things  like the decision to include women in politics.  That's how it happens.  Times change... societies evolve & things that were once accepted are accepted no more.

It's like slavery.  Do you think the whites were in power back when they owned slaves?  Did they decide to give rights to blacks & stop slavery?

...Well there you go.

[the sad geek]

How do women manage this? What is this mysterious power that women have to force politicians (prior to attaining the vote), corperate heads, college deans, news editors... to do what they want?

They nag. Till their balls drop off.

[typhonblue]

Or, alternatively, women had the power to determine social mores and, by extension, legal issues and they *decided* that they wanted the "privilages" of men.

And then they got them.

If they were already in power, why did they have to *fight* to get these privileges?  The privileges didn't just fall out of the air when they *decided* they wanted them.  Those rights were granted by those in power... men.

Many women at the time felt that these privilages were not appropriate for a woman to have. Take a look at what Queen Victoria had to say on the subject.

No doubt suffragettes had to convince a critical mass of women before anything could happen.

Being fair to women is not a quality I would ascribe to any true patriarchy I've studied or lived in. Saudis don't care about being "fair to women", the Ancient Greeks didn't care about being "fair to women", Romans actively warned men against being "fair to women."

Only our "patriarchy" cares about being "fair to women". Why?

What causes patriarchies to fall?  Answer... Things  like the decision to include women in politics.  That's how it happens.  Times change... societies evolve & things that were once accepted are accepted no more.[/quote]

Do you have an example of a patriarchy that fell because it included women in the political process? Throughout Rome's history women were not included in the political process (except obliquely). Yet it fell.

It's like slavery.  Do you think the whites were in power back when they owned slaves?  Did they decide to give rights to blacks & stop slavery?

...Well there you go.

The end of slavery was brought about by white abolitionists seeking justice. Or, alternatively, it was a quasi-fuedal system competing with a industrial-based system and it failed.

Incidentally, I wonder how much the civil rights movements *did* for blacks, particularly black men.

[MrsShades]

Since feministic theosophies predate Christianity, no.

As to sacrificing "for her benefit" her "benefit" isn't to have whatever she damn well pleases, any more than the best interest of a child is to have whatever they damn well please.  It is to her benefit to have her desire to rule (as per Genesis) curbed, and to live a life submitted to and obedient to Christ.   Her "benefit" is not an easy life but one marked by the suffering all Christians are warned they will experience.  Her "benefit" is to improve spiritually and stay away from sin.

That feminism (and the homosexual movement and every other heretical advocacy) has twisted Christianity to their own ends there is no doubt.   But I can't very well do much about that except dispel heresies as they arise.

"Your desire (indicating a wish to usurp and rule) shall be for your husband but he shall rule over you."

[woof]

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.

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

Chirstians ask mothers to be obeadiant, and subservant of their husbands, I guess you could call this "parallel". I was thinking that it may be more than what is being asked of the husband.

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.

Yea ok, but it's up to the husband wether she can to that or not, and her family comes first, not second.

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.

I know.
Feminism has no honor, it has no set of principals that holds it together. It uses whatever it can from were ever it can find it to attack whatever opposes it. Feminism hurts as many woman as it does men, it's a disease that feeds off whatever it can find.
Feminist have used a lot elements from many different areas to futher their cause.
Shame is a powerful tool, but most religons use this to shape the flock.
And this is found in home, and social circles as well.

[typhonblue]

To belabor the point about Paul's admonitions...

If a man must sacrifice to his wife as Christ sacrificed for the Church in order to be saved(by being one with Christ), and a wife must submit to her husband's sacrifice...

Letsay person A is instructed to sacrifice for the benefit of person B and person B is instructed to submit to person A's decisions.

In what situation *wouldn't* person B submit to person A's decisions? If A is abiding by it's duty, there should be no situation where B has a desire *not* to submit. Not submitting would be going *against* B's own interests'!

Perhaps this explains Christian Feminists like Hugo who sacrifice and sacrifice to women hoping, at some point, women will see that there is not one iota of his being that has not been sacrificed to women. And symbolically submit to his decisions by saying "atta boy, you done good."

Peter admonishes wives of non-believers to submit anyway so that their husbands would come to know Christ through their behavior. This could contradict what I've said, however these women are submitting to their heathen husbands knowing that their husbands are behaving in a way that will send them to hell(or purgatory). It turns marriage from a partnership into a stage for Christian martyrship.

[typhonblue]

Since feministic theosophies predate Christianity, no.

But a balance of feminist power does *not* predate Christianity. Unless you believe in prehistoric matriarchies.

As to sacrificing "for her benefit" her "benefit" isn't to have whatever she damn well pleases, any more than the best interest of a child is to have whatever they damn well please.

Notice that none of the legal protections put in place by our society for women are about women "doing what they damn well please" (Except, maybe, abortion) but about "saving women from evil men."

"Your desire (indicating a wish to usurp and rule) shall be for your husband but he shall rule over you."

Er... doesn't desire mean desire?

[Fidelbogen]

The question "Does feminism have anything to do with Christianity"
is unanswerable.

Frankly, I don't care.

A person could argue that question until the cows came home frozen over
from hell. It's futile.

Quote a bit of scripture! Quote another bit of scripture!

Flibberty-jibberty-jibberty!

Feminists themselves will do what they have always done: Answer the
question to their advantage, and then shift their position somewhere
else when the advantage shifts somewhere else!

[typhonblue]

Let's face it - once women grabbed the wheel, all manner of ills decended on society.

But they didn't grab the wheel. They just told men where to steer it. Or, rather, they implied men were steering it for the benefit of themselves, not women.

Even now women are a minority of politicians, CEOs, deans, editors... yet they have a disproportionate amount of influence.

OK, so what do you propose to do about it?   Quotas?   I can cite the success of that, lol....    

What would make you happy on this score,tb?

What would make *me* happy?

I think we should reconsider women's sufferage, at least until the question of what women can sacrifice *equal* to men's sacrifice for the state is resolved. And, also the question of why women have such a disproportionate influence on all hierarchical power structures.

Either that or a reverse-Christianity should be founded that asks *women* to sacrifice their greater power for the benefit of men in return for men submitting to women as children.

[bluedye]

Many women at the time felt that these privilages were not appropriate for a woman to have. Take a look at what Queen Victoria had to say on the subject.
No doubt suffragettes had to convince a critical mass of women before anything could happen.

They convinced the men by protests, chaining themselves to things & causing a "stir."  They had an uphill climb on both sides.  They were granted rights by "the powers that be" ...which was the men.

Do you have an example of a patriarchy that fell because it included women in the political process?

The United States.  That was the start of it.  It wasn't the end-all-be-all reason, but then again... I never claimed it was.

Throughout Rome's history women were not included in the political process (except obliquely). Yet it fell.

Well likening the "fall of Rome" to the fall of the patriarchy in the US might be a bit of a stretch.  I'm pretty sure given the massive time lapse between the two events coupled with the fact that it was Italy vs. America, these things aren't exactly comparable.   (I wonder if women also were in power in ancient Rome according to you... Maybe THEY made it fall.   )

The end of slavery was brought about by white abolitionists seeking justice. Or, alternatively, it was a quasi-fuedal system competing with a industrial-based system and it failed.

The point is... that it was once accepted & times changed.   Whites had power over the blacks in the US & that relationship was oppressive.

...Just like the patriarchal system in the US.  The men once had the power... the situation was oppressive to women, but that changed, too.

Societal power structures are never fixed.  Some time, some way, they will shift & change.  To say that it's always been a matriarchy seems like nothing but a way to ignore history in favor of a woman-centric fantasy.  Are you SURE you're not a feminist?

[Christiane]

To belabor the point about Paul's admonitions...

If a man must sacrifice to his wife as Christ sacrificed for the Church in order to be saved(by being one with Christ), and a wife must submit to her husband's sacrifice...

That's not what the Bible says.   The husband is told to sacrifice HIMSELF for his wife, just as Christ sacrificed Himself for the church.   The husband does not sacrifice TO his wife - big difference.   Your paraphasing here twists the meaning.   Paul doesn't put the wife in a godlike position over her husband for him to sacrifice to.  

And the wife does not submit to her husband's SACRIFICE - she is to submit to him in general - to his authority as the one who is the head of her, as Christ is the head of the church.   Again, big difference.   And she has this obligation whether or not he fulfills his.  Actually they both do.

The word "obey" is reserved for children and slaves.  

There is a unique relationship in Christianity between husband and wife, and no, he doesn't serve her, or sacrifice to her.   He is her head, but also her protector and nurturer, as when Paul admonishes women to keep silent in church and learn from their husbands at home.   This isn't the slap in the face modern feminism has painted it to be.   It's an acknowledgement that she looks up to her husband to guide her - that she should do so.    The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, in the Christian view.

Some of the most virulent anti-feminists are conservative Christians, for this reason.   Feminism is the exact opposite of the Biblical view of marriage.   Trying to twist what the Bible actually says, in an attempt to claim it elevates women over men, or wives over husbands, is a feminist line of argument.

[Christiane]

Feminists themselves will do what they have always done: Answer the
question to their advantage, and then shift their position somewhere
else when the advantage shifts somewhere else!

Amen.