It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: deignostian
originally posted by: Dfairlite
Misogyny is the one of the most incorrectly used words in the english language. Misogyny is the hatred of women or extreme prejudice against women. How do any of those things you listed show a hatred of women? Sure, it shows gender roles but not hatred or prejudice. In those times that was what women were expected to do. Men had roles they were expected to fulfill as well.
Do I hate the garbage man for thinking he ought to take my garbage to the dump? Do I hate my children for thinking they ought to help keep the house clean?
I think it not a stretch to say subjecting your wife or making her be subservient because Paul says to is, if you follow his "teachings" to the letter, hate.
If you can make your wife subservient and NOT hate her you are a sociopath with no conscience.
I used misogyny because it was appropriate and not by mistake or misuse.
Common sense really.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: deignostian
originally posted by: Dfairlite
Misogyny is the one of the most incorrectly used words in the english language. Misogyny is the hatred of women or extreme prejudice against women. How do any of those things you listed show a hatred of women? Sure, it shows gender roles but not hatred or prejudice. In those times that was what women were expected to do. Men had roles they were expected to fulfill as well.
Do I hate the garbage man for thinking he ought to take my garbage to the dump? Do I hate my children for thinking they ought to help keep the house clean?
I think it not a stretch to say subjecting your wife or making her be subservient because Paul says to is, if you follow his "teachings" to the letter, hate.
If you can make your wife subservient and NOT hate her you are a sociopath with no conscience.
I used misogyny because it was appropriate and not by mistake or misuse.
Common sense really.
Submission and dominance are part of human social and sexual behaviour. Some choose submission as a preference in relationship. In extreme cases, it can be warped to bondage and sexual slavery but this is hardly the norm. It also does not indicate hatred, even in those extreme cases.
Neither submission nor dominance roles in human relationships have anything to do with hate. A man who loves his wife, though he may take a dominant role, expecting her to take the submissive one, isn't mysogenist.
Mysogeny = hatred.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: chr0naut
but, warping the laws so that they force all women into a state of dependency so that they have to accept this submissive role is Mysogeny. and in christian dominated western countries this was done using those biblical verses as a justification for it.
just as a man who tries to force his wife into that submissive role is.
you are conveniently leaving out that other meaning of the word... EXTREME PREJUDICE.
when you warp the laws to force any group of people into an submissive role...
how can you not call that extreme prejudice?
originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: deignostian
So you hate your garbage man?
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: deignostian and a pampered slave is just a slave...
and women were the first to be enslaved, as wives...
I have a question for everyone who has tried the old "out of context" argument. In what context is it that makes subservience and subjection not disgusting for a man to do to his wife? Is there a magical verse that alters the definition of subservience? I have previously given the definition of and synonyms for subjection and subservience. Please read them before telling me how a person, never mind a self appointed "apostle", claiming that this is what God wants, could do that to someone they love. Or find this acceptable today or ever. No context is going to change what was said and meant. No cryptic or difficult to understand message is behind the doctrine of the inferiority of women. It's plain and simple and is its own context. There is no justifying inequality, and trying to use other verses to make it not misogynistic doesn't work because you still have the fact that what was said was said and was meant how it was said.
This is just my limited understanding. But no man or woman would ever be willing to follow any of the commandments of Christ if their not changed of God through a spiritual transformation/sanctification.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: deignostian
any women who is forced into a submissive role, either by laws or through belief systems, in my opinion just a slave (if a women chooses that lifestyle, then well, I don't know, I think she chooses to be a slave but maybe I am just being too harsh).. changing the title to wife, doesn't change that.
the men can claim how much they love their wives, how well they are treating them all they want....
a pampered slave is still just a slave!