A Woman's Place...
By DocMike
One of my employees, who happens to be a young Christian woman, said today that she would never vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman and the Bible says that women should not be leaders.
"That's a man's job," she said.
I asked her where it says that in the Bible and she didn't know. She just knows that it's in there and she knows that God intended women to be submissive to men.
I wanted to rant and rave and fire her ass for being so fucking stupid! But I realized that it's not her fault. I pity her because she is a young, attractive, intelligent woman who has been indoctrinated all of her life and accepts that she could never be equal to a man. It's really sad!
And the fact is she's right about the Bible. It does say that:
1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
It's a shame that, in this day and age, young women are still limiting themselves because of this horrible, antiquated book that was obviously written by men! Makes me fucking sick!!!
Here’s some more female denigration from the Bible:
Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1 Corinthians 11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
1 Corinthians 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
1 Corinthians 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
Also see Women in the Bible from The Skeptics Annotated Bible for many more examples.
Technorati Tags:
humor Atheist Bible Christian Comics humor Bible Denigrates Women Hillary Clinton
One of my employees, who happens to be a young Christian woman, said today that she would never vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman and the Bible says that women should not be leaders."That's a man's job," she said.
I asked her where it says that in the Bible and she didn't know. She just knows that it's in there and she knows that God intended women to be submissive to men.
I wanted to rant and rave and fire her ass for being so fucking stupid! But I realized that it's not her fault. I pity her because she is a young, attractive, intelligent woman who has been indoctrinated all of her life and accepts that she could never be equal to a man. It's really sad!
And the fact is she's right about the Bible. It does say that:
1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
It's a shame that, in this day and age, young women are still limiting themselves because of this horrible, antiquated book that was obviously written by men! Makes me fucking sick!!!
Here’s some more female denigration from the Bible:
Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1 Corinthians 11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
1 Corinthians 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
1 Corinthians 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
Also see Women in the Bible from The Skeptics Annotated Bible for many more examples.
Technorati Tags:
humor Atheist Bible Christian Comics humor Bible Denigrates Women Hillary Clinton
Comments
Now, this is a somewhat different question, and somewhat unrelated to the general theme of this website, but what do you say when someone says they wouldn't vote for Hillary b/c "Middle Eastern nations don't respect women"?
I agree, many (though not all) Middle Eastern nations don't respect their female citizens. But many countries have had female leaders, particularly in Latin America and Europe. Asia has had some, too: The Phillipine and Indian presidents are women. Sri Lanka has had a female president. For crying out loud, Golda Meir was Israel's prime minister- now that's a woman who had to deal with the Middle East. And lest we forget, Benazir Bhutto was the prime minister of Pakistan- officially known as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Does the US have any bigger need than these countries to have an effective leader who garners respect in the world? Furthermore, would having a woman in charge really further damage our relations with said unspecified Middle Eastern nations?
I think many people genuinely believe she's qualified but they don't want her in charge simply for that reason. I don't think they've examinend the evidence very carefully, though. In your eyes, dear readers, is there any truth or logic to what they're saying? Or are they woefully ignorant? Are their priorities out of whack?
(Oh, and for full disclosure, I'm an ObamaMANIAC- not a Hillary fan.)
whateverlolawants, I don't know if it would make any difference to our image or not to have a woman president (my guess is no), but I can't imagine anyone being as bad as the asshole we've had representing us for the last two terms...
"They're cultural" was a nice safe out, except if that part of the Bible is cultural, then probably all of it is. Which was my eventual conclusion.
I just hate how xian women try to say that christianity is the least sexist religion, when the bible has such obviously sexist things to say.
I'm with Margaret Sanger - No gods, no masters!
While it's obvious, that no leader is going to make everyone/group happy, no matter what political party the leader represents - I don't see some national "actions", that require immediate responses, conducive to popular vote.
The Democratic Party is presenting a clinic, on why latency and inaction exists when their leaders hold office, based on Hillary & Obama campaigns. I don't find it comforting, that my national leader(s) finds it necessary to cogitate on responses from popular opinion polls, while military members are in life and death situations.
To be fair however, there is the alternative, where we get someone who has the republic philosophy, and can make deliberate decisions; but... as some have said, perhaps we don't have a scholar in that current seat. Deliberate, yet inappropriate actions made promptly, can be just as destructive to human life, as impotent/latent action.
Still, I side with immediate action in terms of national security and themes where human life is endangered… and measured deliberation via democratic channels when it comes to themes like social issues, medical care, citizen welfare, environment, etc. Do we have one of those candidates?
Regarding, the Christian Bible and holding back equality; misogyny and slavery are both endorsed. And, teaching the infallible bible only does more to reinforce such bigotry.
While I believe a statement can be made to the evangelicals by voting against their sacred beliefs, per their bible, which are revolting in many ways; I vote on philosophy first, experience second and potential lastly. To vote solely based on sex or race, etc., no matter what sex or race one supports, is racist/sexist.
It is sad, that many are deprived from opportunities, because of their religious beliefs, that they have been indoctrinated with. Deprived, because I'll never vote for someone with a racist or sexist philosophy/theology, and I don't believe in voting someone into office to "get them exposure", in the driver's seat, per se.
Well, I don’t have a lot of enthusiasm for politics in general, and am still undecided on whom I will vote for, regardless of the political party. However, this is a good article that shows how one's belief can close doors in life. I believe a woman's place, is where they want to be.
That argument has no basis whatsoever. As you said, plenty of developed countries have managed to elect a female to office without major complications.
Though Middle-Eastern nations may disrespect women, in the context of world politics, they are forced to deal with other cultures constantly. There is absolutely no excuse for changing our culture for the sake of accomodating our enemies.
I would argue that this objection actually results from people trying to rationalize their own problems with a woman leader.
There's plenty to criticize about Hillary's politics, but she's a respectable senator and an excellent example of how society has progressed. Don't take that from her by voting based on her sex.
(McCain man myself, though I doubt I'll find many friends here on that one)
Refering to the middle-east as the ennemy is a broad generalisation you must not juge a entire region based solely on their extremists. If we looked at the U.S. and considering the rate of crime perhaps you would refer to Americans as "Criminals". Leave generalisations to the religious gustapo and look at the bigger pictue.
Think about it.
You're right and I apologize.
Every time I've heard this argument, it's been in the context of "Terrorists are more likely to attack us if there's a woman president" so I immediately jumped to that point of view.
I realize that we have lots of allies in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, and that even in the countries whose governments support terrorism, the people probably don't.
Still, my point was simply that we should not completely rearrange our views just to make other cultures more comfortable. A woman president can perform as well in the international arena as a man.
That was my point, and I'm afraid it got lost because of that careless statement.
Thanks for giving me the chance to explain,
The_walruss
It took me years after I ditched Fundamentalism to realize my politics given to me from birth were equally destructive and irrational.
It is high tide to put away the image of the WWII United States - the savior and defender of the world outlook you know - that is long gone, and the bottomline is that it is U.S. foreign policy, aggression, hegemony and corporate greed that is directly responsible for terrorism and global outrage toward us - especially in the Middle East.
As "the-walruss" points out, our "allies in the middle east" being Israel and Saudi Arabia are perfect examples of this. Israel is a puppet state half-created and controlled by the U.S., and that means supporting their 50 year occupation of and brutality toward the Palestinians - what is going on there at this very moment are the grossest sort of human rights violations - paid for, defended and supported by you the U.S. tax payer.
And Saudi Arabia is classic hypocrisy - anyone who imagines the U.S. is out to "spread democracy" forgets this ol' nation. Here is an absolute monarchy, one of the most cruel and oppressive regimes in the world, but that petty little king and his tyrant government are untouchable. Why? because they play by the rules the U.S. gives them in exchange for splitting the Oil revenue with U.S. corporations. The people of Saudi Arabia don't see a DIME of it. Not to mention, allowing our military presence in Mecca and Medina (which happens to be an unimaginable offense for Muslims) - or for anyone actually, how would we react if Russia set up shop in LA or NY? Any wonder 15 of the 19 highjackers were Saudis? Any wonder why the Arab world hates the United States?
Thank you for clarifying, I strongly agree with your views and by clarifying I feel as though what you are saying will be more readily embraced.
Think about it
"Cynthia McKinney"? YOu must be on drugs. She can't even show her badge to a guard in DC. She pulled the race card like it was nobodies business. BTW, her hair sucks.
I never said I liked her hair, lol, just that she isn't bought off like Clinton. Whatever be her faults, I'd much rather prefer someone with a quick race-card trigger than someone who will sell out the American public to make a buck.
As for a woman's place, I could never reconcile that attitude with, "there is no respect of persons with God." It was depressing to have to think of myself as below men. I was extremely happy to get rid of that belief. SCREW THE VIRTUOUS WOMAN!!! What about the virtuous man? Where's the long list of his responsibilities to his wife and family?
"I guess I'm kinda rare in that I'm a moderate Republican and an Agnostic. I hate war but am glad to see Sadam gone. No one should have to live under such a tyrant."
RH, I hate war too, especially wars of agression and occupation like in Iraq. As for Saddam, I am unable to fairly assess the amount of good or evil this man did, but it is worth our while to read a little about him in the late 70's and 80's when he revolutionized Iraq's health care system, education and infrastructure through the nationalization of Iraq's energy resources (i.e., Oil).
Further, it is worth remembering that not only did the U.S. help bring him to power to begin with, but were loyal supporters of his against Iran. In any regard, it seems safe to say that Saddam was indeed cruel and militant, and given the amount of cultural and religious tension that exists in the country, we can see why.
So I'm not exactly WHAT the solution is, but I know what it is not - U.S. intervention to impose a government by brute force. If there is one thing the Iraqi people dislike more than Saddam, it is the West occupying their country and telling them they will run it this way and that.
I suspect, the Kurds, the Sunni and the Shi'a all need a separate state of some sort, and that International efforts and diplomacy are the true means to bring about a real democracy in Iraq. But again, U.S. Officials, for economic reasons, do not want "real democracy" in Iraq anymore than they want it in Saudi Arabia.
Wrong. 1st Tim and Colossians were post-Paul pseudonymous writings.
Nevertheless, Paul DID speak about specifics more than the other authors and thus makes himself a target but do you think he is not representative of the genre? hehehe Hardly.
Tim
Bless me Holy Farter
Post a Comment