• Men of the World: Please Condemn Sexism and Sexual Assault On the Basis They’re Morally Wrong – and Not Primarily Or Only Because You Have Daughters or Sisters

Men of the World: Please Condemn Sexism and Sexual Assault On the Basis They’re Morally Wrong – and Not Primarily Or Only Because You Have Daughters or Sisters

I’ll admit this has become a minor pet peeve of mine over the last few years: men who don’t or won’t speak up to condemn sexism unless they frame it in terms of their daughters, sisters, or grandmothers.

If you are a man, it really should not take you having a daughter (or other woman relative or woman friend in your life) to condemn sexism or sexual assault.

Just acknowledge and realize that women are fully human and deserving of respect and dignity just as much as any man. That’s all it should take.

Viewing women through a prism of male relation or being ‘owned’ by a man (father, brother, or husband, whomever) and condemning rape or sexual harassment on that basis is itself troubling and sexist.

Here are some links about this phenomenon (and related):

Stop Mentioning Your Daughters When You Denounce Harvey Weinstein

Snippets:

by Hunter Harris

Something happens when a dude has a daughter: Women, once mystifying, vexing creatures with shoe racks, eyelash curlers, and vagina holes become fully formed three-dimensional human beings.

The mere and sudden fact of fatherhood pushes men into a new realm of cognizance: They have to care about what happens to women — but only some, and only if they’re of a certain race, class, or status — and maybe even take misconduct against them a little personally.

A daughter gives them skin in the patriarchal, sexist game they once could look past.

I know this because every time a man is accused of something bad, or when someone he knows is accused of something bad, the same quote surfaces: “As a father of daughters, I …”

Continue reading

Advertisements

• Why Arguments Against Women in Ministry Aren’t Biblical by Ben Witherington

Why Arguments Against Women in Ministry Aren’t Biblical by Ben Witherington

I would ask that you visit the Patheos blog post I am linking you to. It’s very long but a good read. I am only providing some excerpts from that page here on my blog.

Why Arguments Against Women in Ministry Aren’t Biblical by Ben Witherington, June 2015, on Patheos

….Never mind that the Bible does not have categories like ‘senior pastor’ or ‘pulpit minister’, the NT has been used over and over again to justify the suppression of women in ministry— and as I was to discover through years of research and study, without Biblical justification.

…So in this post I am going to deal with the usual objections to women in ministry, one by one.

….1) Women can’t be ministers, because only males can be priests offering the sacrifice of the Mass etc.

The root problem with this argument is that the NT is perfectly clear that apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, elders, deacons ARE NOT PRIESTS IN THE NT.

There is no need for a separate order of priests in the NT because Christ’s sacrifice made obsolete the entire OT sacerdotal system of priests, temples and sacrifices.

Continue reading

• The Semantic Games of Gender Complementarians

The Semantic Games of Gender Complementarians

The following post relates with another topic that shows how flawed gender complementarianism is.

I may in the future do a separate post about that other, closely related topic, which is: complementarians cannot agree with each other on exactly what complementarianism is, or how it should be lived, so there ends up all sorts of inconsistencies and contradictions among complementarians.

Complementarianism exists on a scale or contiuum from “soft complementarianism” all the way to a more “hard core” version that borders on patriarchy, and there are stops between those two points.

I think what I write about in this post may be more common place among soft or moderate complementarians than among the patriarchal variety.

Continue reading

• Gender Complementarianism Does Not Adequately Address, or Address At All, Incompetent, Loser, Or Incapacitated Men

Gender Complementarianism Does Not Adequately Address, or Address At All, Incompetent, Loser, Or Incapacitated Men

That gender complementarianism plays a role in domestic violence and cannot effectively deal with it should be beyond dispute at this point, but arguing on those grounds would require another post or two all on its own (or visit A Cry For Justice blog to see numerous examples, and at least one former post of mine for more).

That gender complementarianism is meaningless to divorced, never married, and widowed women, as well as to childless and child-free women (and perhaps to single men as well), should be quite obvious, but is, also, I feel, deserving of a post all on its own, possibly some day.

For now, I want to direct your attention to cases that don’t pertain to domestic violence.

IRRESPONSIBLE, STUPID, OR PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY INCAPACITATED MEN

I, Daisy, was engaged to a few years to a guy I shall call “Burt” (which was not his real name).

Burt managed to get a high school diploma but never went on to college.

In the first few months when we first began dating, Burt did tell me that he had been tested in school and it was determined that he could not read past a junior high school level.

At the time, I didn’t quite know what that meant, or did not fully appreciate what it meant.

I had gone to college once with a guy who had dyslexia, and though that guy was a slower reader than I was, he was of average intellect. So, I thought, my ex was maybe just telling me he was slower at reading than most people. Did I ever under-estimate things.

Turns out that my ex, Burt, was as dumb as a box of rocks and pretty laissez faire about paying bills on time.

Continue reading

• ‘Submit to Your Husbands’: Women Told To Endure Domestic Violence In The Name of God (via ABC Aussie news)

‘Submit to Your Husbands’: Women Told To Endure Domestic Violence In The Name of God (via ABC Aussie news)

The article in question:

‘Submit to your husbands’: Women told to endure domestic violence in the name of God by Julia Baird,  Hayley Gleeson, via Aussie ABC news

My introductory comments:

Complementarians like to insist that their gender theology has nothing to do with domestic violence, but funny, isn’t it, how so many Christian wives who divorced their abusive Christian husbands remark how their husband would sometimes cite male headship or “wife submit” type Bible verses or complementarian concepts to justify their abuse?

I think it’s very deceitful for complementarians, on the one hand, to prop up this view that says it’s God’s (God’s! – talk about taking God’s name in vein) design for a husband to be in a boss-like or deity-like position of authority over a wife, but then feign ignorance at being able to connect the dots at seeing how such a sexist view could of course be used and misused by a husband to abuse his wife physically, emotionally, financially, or by some other means.

Most of the complementarian husbands who are not abusing their wives are not living out complementarianism proper, or taking to its logical conclusions or abusing its inherent unfairness to women, but are living out egalitarian marriages in practice (their marriages are complementarian in name only, which even complementarian Russell Moore pretty much recognized).

For complementarians who like to proclaim the “no true complementarian” fallacy (“no true complementarian husband would ever abuse his wife”), especially in regards to the correlation between domestic violence and complementarianism, I point you to this page on another blog:

John Piper and the No True Complementarian Fallacy

For those complementarians who like to say complementarianism properly carried out and practiced is acceptable and not violent or sexist, I point you to this post on my blog:

Even Warm and Fuzzy, True, Correctly-Implemented Gender Complementarianism is Harmful to Women, and It’s Still Sexism – Yes All Comps (Refuting “Not All Comps”)

Here again is a link to the Aussie ABC news article, with portions of the article reproduced below (in my view, all of this, or about all of this, is applicable to American complementarianism and American Christianity):

‘Submit to your husbands’: Women told to endure domestic violence in the name of God by Julia Baird,  Hayley Gleeson

Snippets:

Research shows that the men most likely to abuse their wives are evangelical Christians who attend church sporadically. Church leaders in Australia say they abhor abuse of any kind. But advocates say the church is not just failing to sufficiently address domestic violence, it is both enabling and concealing it.

This is the second instalment of an ABC News and 7.30 investigation into domestic violence and religion. You can read part one in the series — on domestic violence and Islamhere.

….”Your problem is you won’t obey me. The Bible says you must obey me and you refuse,” he [Peter] yelled [at his wife Sally]. “You are a failure as a wife, as a Christian, as a mother. You are an insubordinate piece of s**t.”

Continue reading

• Children Inherit Their Intelligence From Their Mother Not Their Father, Say Scientists 

Children Inherit Their Intelligence From Their Mother Not Their Father, Say Scientists 

This possibly has interesting implications for the sexist assumptions held by Christian gender complementarians:

Children Inherit Their Intelligence From Their Mother Not Their Father, Say Scientists 

Genes for cleverness are carried on the X chromosome and may be deactivated if they come from the father

by Charlotte England

A mother’s genetics determines how clever her children are, according to researchers, and the father makes no difference.

Women are more likely to transmit intelligence genes to their children because they are carried on the X chromosome and women have two of these, while men only have one.

But in addition to this, scientists now believe genes for advanced cognitive functions which are inherited from the father may be automatically deactivated.

Continue reading

• Examples of Girls and Women Being Assertive at Work, in Life, Women as Rescuers and Heroines

Examples of Girls and Women Being Assertive at Work, in Life, Women as Rescuers and Heroines

Complementarians such as John Piper do not feel that women should work as police officers. Some complementarians do not believe women should work in combat positions in the military.

So bizarre and unbiblical has contemporary complementarianism become in the last few years (they have a never-ending list of mishnah-like rules they believe women should follow), that even other complementarians started to sit up and take notice, such as in this post: An Accidental Feminist.

The occasional complementarian troll shows up at spiritual abuse blogs to insist all women are weaker or more inept than men and should therefore not be in positions of control, combat, or assertiveness.

These complementarians feel they are basing their beliefs on the Bible, but the Bible does not limit women in the fashion they do, or insist that all women every where for all time, are delicate flowers who cannot be rugged, tough, or assertive.

Deborah and Jael in the Old Testament were warriors – Deborah was a judge who also led Israel’s military, and Jael killed an enemy combatant.

For more on that, please see these off-site posts:

Deborah – Israel’s Only Female Judge Was Both Wise and Courageous

Deborah and the “No Available Men” Argument

Who Was the Judge of Israel, Deborah or Barak?

What About Deborah? 

Searching for Deborah

None of this is to say that men and women are completely identical or to deny that some biological differences do exist between the sexes. Most men have more upper body strength than most women, for example, but it does not follow from this that it is appropriate, fair, or right to prohibit women from working in certain capacities in secular careers or in the church.

As I told one complementarian troll, the world has moved on, no matter how much complementarians wish it were not so – women are permitted by secular society in nations such as the United States to serve in combat positions in the military or to work as police officers, regardless of what he or John Piper or other complementarians think.

I have never understood the complementarian push back regarding women serving in the military: “But are you really prepared to see caskets come back with American flags on them, knowing there is dead female military personnel inside?”

This question implies several sexist and disturbing things, one of them being, that somehow a female life is more valuable than that of a male, so I object to it on that ground, among others. I would not be more alarmed or more weepy seeing a flag-draped coffin knowing there is a female body inside vs. knowing there is a male body inside.

If a woman is qualified and interested in serving in some role (police, military, whatever it may be), she should be permitted to do so and encouraged by friends, family, community, and church to do so. There is no “biblical” reason which states or even implies that women should not work in “assertive” type roles, such as military or police.

What I see from complementarians on this point – their objection to women serving in combat – usually derives from cultural conditioning, their personal convictions, and is, I suspect, due to sheer sentimentality – not due to what the Bible actually says.

This is a post that I may add to in the future. If or when I come across new links pertaining to the topics at hand, I may edit this post to add new links.

The post is divided into these categories:

-WOMEN IN LAW ENFORCEMENT

-WOMEN WARRIORS / WOMEN IN THE MILITARY

-WOMEN PROTECTORS, HEROINES, RESCUERS

-WOMEN IN SPORTS

-OFF-SITE RESOURCES ADDRESSING THE ISSUES ADDRESSED ON THIS PAGE

ON YOU TUBE (watch videos of or about some of the women mentioned in this post)

Continue reading