Root of Conservative View of Women

[bigmac]

When people like our dear friend Rush go off on anti-women tirades many of us liberals are perplexed and ask ourselves "where does this stuff come from"?

Well fundamentalist conservatives tend to believe everything in the Bible -- which has some interesting things to say about women. So maybe this hate of women has its roots in the Old Testament. That's the premise of the authors of the following linked articles.


http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/154466


http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/...es/women-bible


A Bible verse I found most interesting (and related to the metaphorical stoning of Ms. Fluke) is Deuteronomy 22:20-21 which directs men to stone unchaste brides to death.

[DELIMAN092262]

Don't Christian schools teach science? Blows that theory out of the water.

[penguin]

Are you talking about those schools that teach creationism as a valid concept?

[Mack27]

Catholic schools teach evolution better than the public ones. And the thread title should have said "religious right" instead of "conservative."

[EtobicokeFA]

Originally Posted by Mack27

Catholic schools teach evolution better than the public ones. And the thread title should have said "religious right" instead of "conservative."

I would think that would depend on the school district.

While I agree that this is more "religious right" instead of "conservative." There are parts of the conservative tent where the you do not know where conservativism stop and the religious right begins.

[Dromond]

Unless the Christ specifically reiterated something from the OT in the New Testament, it doesn't apply to Christians. He was the fulfillment of the old law.

So yeah, that stuff doesn't apply to real Christians.

[BBWHearts]

This is not news to women.

[Rickgm]

Originally Posted by bigmac

When people like our dear friend Rush go off on anti-women tirades many of us liberals are perplexed and ask ourselves "where does this stuff come from"?

Well fundamentalist conservatives tend to believe everything in the Bible -- which has some interesting things to say about women. So maybe this hate of women has its roots in the Old Testament. That's the premise of the authors of the following linked articles.


http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/154466


http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/...es/women-bible


A Bible verse I found most interesting (and related to the metaphorical stoning of Ms. Fluke) is Deuteronomy 22:20-21 which directs men to stone unchaste brides to death.

Ya that's the conservative view of women...

[bigmac]

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

Don't Christian schools teach science? Blows that theory out of the water.

Maybe I'm missing something -- but I'm not seeing how your argument works. What does teaching science have to do with how some conservatives view women?

[Dromond]

Originally Posted by bigmac

Maybe I'm missing something -- but I'm not seeing how your argument works. What does teaching science have to do with how some conservatives view women?

It has zero to do with anything, he's just deflecting again.

[tonynyc]

Originally Posted by bigmac

Maybe I'm missing something -- but I'm not seeing how your argument works. What does teaching science have to do with how some conservatives view women?

Well if we are consider assholes like rush - Wanda Sykes sums it up quite well...



Political question alert: "Do you have an opinion on Rush Limbaugh's latest jackassy stunt over Sandra Fluke and birth control?"


Jackass...ya know, you just answered the question in your question. Jackass


Source:

Denver Westword- Wanda Sykes on limbaugh

[DELIMAN092262]

Originally Posted by bigmac

Maybe I'm missing something -- but I'm not seeing how your argument works. What does teaching science have to do with how some conservatives view women?

Now it is some conservatives? From your OP I assumed your were on some anti-religious rant against all conservatives. The Bible made them do it!

The point. While the Bible maybe part of some conservatives lives … most conservatives, that I know, are not slaves to what is written there. So yes, there are scientifically literate people that call themselves good Christians.

So conservatives and women? While it is true some conservatives are jerks about dealing with woman, but that failing can also apply non-conservatives as well. Anyone care to defend the words of Bill Maher?

BTW: Some will say Bill Maher is only a comic. Yet I recall how people reacted to Andrew Dice Clay? He was only a comic too.

Originally Posted by tonynyc

Well if we are consider assholes like rush - Wanda Sykes sums it up quite well...

Does that opinion apply to Bill Maher?

Originally Posted by Dromond

It has zero to do with anything, he's just deflecting again.

And you are wrong ... again!

[bigmac]

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

...

The point. While the Bible maybe part of some conservatives lives … most conservatives, that I know, are not slaves to what is written there.

...

The GOP hopefuls (and not just Presidential hopefuls) are falling all over themselves to convince their base that they too believe the bible is the inerrant world of god. A base that includes many many people who are more than willing to tell anyone who'll listen that they believe and are guided by the literal words of the bible (for them the literal word of god). So yes there are many people who, to use your words, are "slaves to what is written."

Given the words they choose to live by its not surprising that many of these folks have rather odd ideas regarding how women are to be treated.

[DELIMAN092262]

Originally Posted by bigmac

The GOP hopefuls (and not just Presidential hopefuls) are falling all over themselves to convince their base that they too believe the bible is the inerrant world of god. A base that includes many many people who are more than willing to tell anyone who'll listen that they believe and are guided by the literal words of the bible (for them the literal word of god). So yes there are many people who, to use your words, are "slaves to what is written."

There are millions of voters that proclaim faith is part of their lives. Of that total many also claim to be Christians. Are you really saying words like “Love thy neighbor” have no place in the 21st century? Do most people follow every word in their bibles? Clearly the answer is no. I suspect most people use the parts that give their life meaning. And the ignore those parts that don't.

Originally Posted by bigmac

Given the words they choose to live by its not surprising that many of these folks have rather odd ideas regarding how women are to be treated.

These beliefs are odd ...why? Some may see your ideas as odd, but that does little to change your right to them. Perhaps you should be less judgmental of others. Endless you want them to judge you.

[penguin]

You don't need religion to have morals and to live life like a decent person. If you need the threat of hell or the promise of heaven to do the right thing, instead of doing it because it's right, then you're probably not a very nice person.

When your religion infringes on the rights of others, you're doing it wrong. When your religion focuses on telling others what they're doing wrong, instead of fixing the wrong that's going on within its walls or reaching out to help without preaching or converting, you're doing it wrong.

When your religion tells you that women should be subservient and have less rights than men, and you want to force those beliefs on everyone else around you, then you're doing it wrong. If someone chooses to live that lifestyle, that's their choice, but they have no right to force those beliefs on others.

[hal84]

Bigmac as a liberal you really stereotype alot of people, I always thought that was something that you were against. But thanks for saying that I don't view woman as equals and all that sort of stuff. I'm a conservative and proud of it. I think that woman and men have there good qualitites and bad qualitites but are equal none the less. But it's always good to have a good stereotyping of myself. Oh I'm also n the military so feel free to call me a baby killer too so you can just make it a full spectrum of intolerance!

[fatluvinguy]

lets be honest here. the extremists in the Muslim, Christian and orthodox jewish communities all share this desire to control women. in fact if you put these people together at a table without knowing who each other was, they'd probably get along famously if women were the discussion. in my opinion the root of their belief system is fear of a womens sexuality. women have always had the power to sway a man's thinking even in times when women had no rights. why do many cultures demand women cover themselves from head to toe. simple, it keeps men on the correct path and not led astray by a womens allure. religious leaders understood long ago that men were easily controlled, until sexual attraction was thrown in the mix. thats what women were to them, temptress's that weaken a man's resolve. in their mind women were needed to give birth and raise children, and nothing more. thank goodness that most enlightened cultures have abandoned such primitive thinking but the extremists still preach their pitiful brand of fear.

[Big Beautiful Dreamer]

In Pre-Vatican II Catholic seminaries, priests-to-be were actively taught, "Every woman is a womb waiting to be fecundated." Conversing with an unrelated female was an infraction for those students. At the same time, female students in Catholic schools were taught, beginning about age 13 or 14, that boys were unable to control their urges and it was incumbent upon the girls not to sit on their laps or otherwise engage in petting, because of boys' inability to control their urges.

Similar teaching has existed and continues to exist in orthodox and fundamentalist branches of the major religions.

Orthodox Judaism calls for women to wear elbow-length or longer sleeves, necklines that cover the collarbone, and skirts that cover the knee; never trousers; and to cut their hair very short and to wear a sheitel, or wig. The reason given for the clothing is "modesty" and for the hair is the monthly mikvah, or ritual cleansing bath. Another reason given is that it is part of marital intimacy that only a woman's spouse -- and only in the privacy of the bedroom -- should be invited to view his wife's hair and parts of her body.

Orthodox Islam teaches that women should be covered for reasons of "modesty and purity" and that women disgrace themselves and their fathers, brothers, husbands, and other male relatives when they dress "like prostitutes."

Some denominations of Christianity, and some congregations within denominations, encourage/require women never to wear "men's clothing," keep their hair long because it is a woman's crowning glory and also because women should not dress like men; and to dress modestly.

Usually the reasons given are pegged to "modesty" and some are worded to encourage the idea that it's because women are meant to be revered or helded in higher regard than are men.

In every instance, however, if you read more deeply among laws, norms, and practices among the religious groups, it becomes clear that a fundamental part of the reasoning for calling for modest dress is because the religious group in question believes that men are physivally incapable of controlling their urges -- or that it's too much effort for men to do so -- and the solution is to put the burden of the effort on women by prescribing their dress, activities or movements.

[Fat Brian]

It is important to note that common the teachings that "men just can't help it" and placing the blame for arousal solely on women do not have a scriptural basis. In 1Thess 3-5 the writer states, "For this is what God wills...that each one of you should know how to get possession of his own vessel in sanctification...not in covetous sexual appetite such as also those nations have which do not know God." Clearly we are each responsible for controlling our own sexual reactions to each other.

It's also important to note that the admonitions for women to be modest found in 1 Peter 3 and 1 Timothy 2 are in regards to certain hair styles and jewelry worn by pagan women of the time and not in regards to stimulating men. Here modest dress is equated with having proper priorities and conducting oneself in humility.

[Rojodi]

Originally Posted by Dromond

Unless the Christ specifically reiterated something from the OT in the New Testament, it doesn't apply to Christians. He was the fulfillment of the old law.

So yeah, that stuff doesn't apply to real Christians.

Some "Christians" use the Old Testament as the source of why they oppose same sex marriage. Christ NEVER spoke of homosexuality. OT and St Paul did, but we can't take what Paul said, since he was opposed to EVERYONE having sex.

Rush's views on women are "dittoed" by his followers who are mostly conservative, right wing, call themselves Christian, and white.

[Dromond]

The instances in the OT where homosexuality is spoken of, isn't really speaking about homosexuality as we think of it. In the context of the times, the culture was Hellenistic. Greek! According to Greek conceptions of sexuality, male - male sex was not bad. In some ways it was seen as purer love than male - female sex. The passages talking about what we think of as homosexuality was really an admonition against pagan religious rights involving sex. Some translations do a really poor job of putting across the original intent of scripture.

A for instance: The reason the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was not because of buggery. It was because they broke the laws of hospitality, and the whole business of raping strangers didn't help their case. Lot himself was no prize, offering his daughters to the mob to distract them.

So, yeah. Context matters.

[bigmac]

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

There are millions of voters that proclaim faith is part of their lives. Of that total many also claim to be Christians. Are you really saying words like “Love thy neighbor” have no place in the 21st century? ...

Funny, when people like Santorum and Gingrich address their conservative "Christian" base phrases like "love thy neighbor" are seldom uttered.

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

These beliefs are odd ...why?

You find the buying and selling of women OK?

You find taking virgins as the spoils of war OK?

You find stoning young women to death OK?

Perhaps your definition of odd is itself somewhat odd.

Originally Posted by DELIMAN092262

... Perhaps you should be less judgmental of others. Endless you want them to judge you.

They can judge me all they want. I don't subscribe to the irrational notion that a persons religious beliefs are somehow sacrosanct. If people advocate and/or participate in hate and medieval thinking I'm going to call them on it.

[Fat Brian]

Originally Posted by Dromond

Unless the Christ specifically reiterated something from the OT in the New Testament, it doesn't apply to Christians. He was the fulfillment of the old law.

So yeah, that stuff doesn't apply to real Christians.

Originally Posted by Dromond

The instances in the OT where homosexuality is spoken of, isn't really speaking about homosexuality as we think of it. In the context of the times, the culture was Hellenistic. Greek! According to Greek conceptions of sexuality, male - male sex was not bad. In some ways it was seen as purer love than male - female sex. The passages talking about what we think of as homosexuality was really an admonition against pagan religious rights involving sex. Some translations do a really poor job of putting across the original intent of scripture.

A for instance: The reason the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was not because of buggery. It was because they broke the laws of hospitality, and the whole business of raping strangers didn't help their case. Lot himself was no prize, offering his daughters to the mob to distract them.

So, yeah. Context matters.

I don't know why I can't rep you but both of these comments are highly deserving.

[DELIMAN092262]

Originally Posted by bigmac

Funny, when people like Santorum and Gingrich address their conservative "Christian" base phrases like "love thy neighbor" are seldom uttered.

The question was are conservative Christians slaves to the words of their bibles. Just because you have a dislike of faith, doesn't mean others find can't find enlightenment in their religion.

As to Santorum and Gingrich? They see the Christians they address as kindred spirits. As a candidate for president, I bet they ask for the support, the money and the votes from people they address.

Originally Posted by bigmac

You find the buying and selling of women OK?

You find taking virgins as the spoils of war OK?

You find stoning young women to death OK?

Perhaps your definition of odd is itself somewhat odd.

Except you don't need a religious faith to do these crimes. I recall some of the worst mass murders of the last century were carried out by governments hostile to religion. The purges and man-made famines of Stalin of the Soviet Union. Or the millions that died on the orders of Chairman Mao of China or Pol Pot of Cambodia.

The truth is some people do bad horrible things. When people of faith do such things it is generally considered a perversion of religion.

Originally Posted by bigmac

They can judge me all they want. I don't subscribe to the irrational notion that a persons religious beliefs are somehow sacrosanct. If people advocate and/or participate in hate and medieval thinking I'm going to call them on it.

So you are claiming you have no principles? That you don't follow a core belief in right and wrong that works for you? Beliefs that are sacrosanct to you???

Would the godless Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot meet your definition of hate and medieval thinking?

[Dromond]

Originally Posted by Fat Brian

I don't know why I can't rep you but both of these comments are highly deserving.

So many can quote the words, but are utterly clueless as to what they mean.