Religion Oppresses Women by Heather Koerner on 01/14/2010 at 9:02 AM

At least that's what Nicholas Kristof writes in a recent New York Times article. Specifically, he asks: "[W]hy do so many faiths help perpetuate something that most of us regard as profoundly unethical: the oppression of women?"

Kristof acknowledges that no religion advocates mass rapes in Congo, bride burnings in India or men throwing acid in the face of schoolgirls in Afghanistan. But, he warns,

... these kinds of abuses — along with more banal injustices, like slapping a girlfriend or paying women less for their work — arise out of a social context in which women are, often, second-class citizens. That’s a context that religions have helped shape, and not pushed hard to change.

"Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths, creating an environment in which violations against women are justified," former President Jimmy Carter noted in a speech last month to the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Australia.

“The belief that women are inferior human beings in the eyes of God,” Mr. Carter continued, “gives excuses to the brutal husband who beats his wife, the soldier who rapes a woman, the employer who has a lower pay scale for women employees, or parents who decide to abort a female embryo.”

Reading an article like Kristof's always presents a bit of a challenge to me -- in part, because we have some real points of agreement.

There are atrocities committed upon women every day. Some religions have promoted or, at the least, tolerated them. The belief that women are inferior human beings does, I believe, contribute to those atrocities.

But when Kristof concludes that, "Today, when religious institutions exclude women from their hierarchies and rituals, the inevitable implication is that females are inferior," I have to call a "Whoa, Nellie!"

You see, while Kristof is comfortable with throwing all religious belief into the stockpile of "religion," I am not. The question for me isn't "Does religion encourage the abuse of women?" but rather "Does a particular religion encourage the abuse of women?" And, more specifically, does mine?

I cannot speak knowledgably about other world religions. I admit that I am baffled by how they treat women. Some would see a woman as so inferior that she may not walk alone or be educated while simultaneously saying that she is such a powerful force that her actions can bring disgrace upon an entire family of males and she must be killed. Truly sickening.

But I have had to question my own belief system, and I have come to understand that accepting leadership structures in the home and church does not give the "inevitable implication" that I am inferior. I am an equally worthy child of God, a fellow heir of grace with my brothers in Christ. Simply because I acknowledge that I was created for different roles than my brothers does not mean that I am a lesser than.

Even Kristof admits what he calls a paradox about Christianity:

[T]he churches in Africa that have done the most to empower women have been conservative ones led by evangelicals and especially Pentecostals.

Perhaps, Kristof writes, churches are the problem but can also be the solution. But what Kristof doesn't see is that those evangelical churches are doing the same thing in Africa that they are called by the Word to do anywhere in the world: teaching men and women to love the Lord their God with all their heart, soul and mind.

When that happens, all women -- young and old, single, married or widowed -- are honored and protected.

Religion Oppresses Women by Heather Koerner on 01/14/2010 at 9:02 AM

At least that's what Nicholas Kristof writes in a recent New York Times article. Specifically, he asks: "[W]hy do so many faiths help perpetuate something that most of us regard as profoundly unethical: the oppression of women?"

Kristof acknowledges that no religion advocates mass rapes in Congo, bride burnings in India or men throwing acid in the face of schoolgirls in Afghanistan. But, he warns,

... these kinds of abuses — along with more banal injustices, like slapping a girlfriend or paying women less for their work — arise out of a social context in which women are, often, second-class citizens. That’s a context that religions have helped shape, and not pushed hard to change.

"Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths, creating an environment in which violations against women are justified," former President Jimmy Carter noted in a speech last month to the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Australia.

“The belief that women are inferior human beings in the eyes of God,” Mr. Carter continued, “gives excuses to the brutal husband who beats his wife, the soldier who rapes a woman, the employer who has a lower pay scale for women employees, or parents who decide to abort a female embryo.”

Reading an article like Kristof's always presents a bit of a challenge to me -- in part, because we have some real points of agreement.

There are atrocities committed upon women every day. Some religions have promoted or, at the least, tolerated them. The belief that women are inferior human beings does, I believe, contribute to those atrocities.

But when Kristof concludes that, "Today, when religious institutions exclude women from their hierarchies and rituals, the inevitable implication is that females are inferior," I have to call a "Whoa, Nellie!"

You see, while Kristof is comfortable with throwing all religious belief into the stockpile of "religion," I am not. The question for me isn't "Does religion encourage the abuse of women?" but rather "Does a particular religion encourage the abuse of women?" And, more specifically, does mine?

I cannot speak knowledgably about other world religions. I admit that I am baffled by how they treat women. Some would see a woman as so inferior that she may not walk alone or be educated while simultaneously saying that she is such a powerful force that her actions can bring disgrace upon an entire family of males and she must be killed. Truly sickening.

But I have had to question my own belief system, and I have come to understand that accepting leadership structures in the home and church does not give the "inevitable implication" that I am inferior. I am an equally worthy child of God, a fellow heir of grace with my brothers in Christ. Simply because I acknowledge that I was created for different roles than my brothers does not mean that I am a lesser than.

Even Kristof admits what he calls a paradox about Christianity:

[T]he churches in Africa that have done the most to empower women have been conservative ones led by evangelicals and especially Pentecostals.

Perhaps, Kristof writes, churches are the problem but can also be the solution. But what Kristof doesn't see is that those evangelical churches are doing the same thing in Africa that they are called by the Word to do anywhere in the world: teaching men and women to love the Lord their God with all their heart, soul and mind.

When that happens, all women -- young and old, single, married or widowed -- are honored and protected.

Comments

[1. Louise from Chicago said the following at 9:10 AM on Jan 14:]

1

I personally do not feel that I need to be "protected."

And all human beings should be honored.

[2. Kellie said the following at 9:19 AM on Jan 14:]

2

There are certain sects of Christianity that seem to oppress women (ie. the quiver full movement, those that feel it is wrong for any woman to work outside the home, discourage higher education, etc.), but these are extremes and I think this is more of human thinking and not God.

[3. Chris said the following at 9:47 AM on Jan 14:]

3

But I have had to question my own belief system, and I have come to understand that accepting leadership structures in the home and church does not give the "inevitable implication" that I am inferior. I am an equally worthy child of God, a fellow heir of grace with my brothers in Christ. Simply because I acknowledge that I was created for different roles than my brothers does not mean that I am a lesser than.

So you're separate but equal......

[4. Tara (not the other Tara) said the following at 9:49 AM on Jan 14:]

4

Comment #1:

Being protected doesn't have to signify weakness and even then not all weaknessess are necessarily shameful. It's part of the human experience. We all have areas where we need protection whether it be physical, emotional, mental or spiritual. I actually see protection and honouring others as going hand in hand.

I see honouring my husband as a form of protecting him. For example, by not cutting him down in front of others I am both honouring him (showing him respect) and protecting his dignity.

I would agree with you that a woman is not in need of protection in the sense of being coddled. I am not my husband's child or student. I am his wife. That means partner.

:)

[5. DannieA said the following at 9:56 AM on Jan 14:]

5

My denomination treats women with respect. I have no qualms.

Sometimes people need to differentiate Christianity and what some people inside Christianity interpret things according to 'their' way of thinking instead of God's.

[6. Robert Hall said the following at 9:56 AM on Jan 14:]

6

Comment #1 is the whole problem in a nutshell when it comes to relationships between men and women in the 21st century.

[7. Saidah said the following at 10:02 AM on Jan 14:]

7

Amen!How it became oppressive to accept honor and protection, make your home your priority, like children, and submit to designated leadership, I have no idea! What a travesty that we as Christians have brought others to believe that our faith oppresses! If only they knew that only in complete submission to Christ could they ever experience true "freedom," it would probably warp their brains! lol.

On a side note, wouldn't you say that all the powerful women in Washiongton (ie Napolitano, Clinton, the First Lady) are submissive to President Obama? Don't they defer to his leadership? Doesn't he have the final word? Aren't they putting aside their personal ambitions and prerogatives in order to use their skills to advance and build the goals the President has for his administration? Now isn't that what people are always complaining about Christian women doing for their husbands? You would think these brilliant women would know they're being oppressed! I mean, they know WE are! What a shame! lol

[8. Beth said the following at 10:13 AM on Jan 14:]

8

Louise, I applaud your willingness to continue to read Boundless, since you seem to disagree so often with its writers. It's refreshing, since so many people read only articles with which they agree. I don't think Heather meant to exclude other human beings from being honored; this article simply focuses on women because that was the subject of Kristof's article.

Like Heather, I'm unwilling to throw all religions or sects into one pile, but I'll definitely look at the results of their actions. We know a tree by its fruit.

[9. Carrie D said the following at 10:31 AM on Jan 14:]

9

I agree with Kellie #2; religious sects that oppress women draw more from power-hungry humans than from religious texts.

For example, in my anthropology course we discussed the origin of the Islamic tradition of veiling women. What I thought was an oppressive practice actually began as a mark of honor for Muhammad's own wives. When one of them was mistaken for a temple slave, Muhammad's wives began wearing veils to indicate their elevated status. Of course, the wealthiest women soon followed and the veil became a widespread practice.

Power-hungry sects like the Taliban are the ones who have begun twisting tradition to suit their own purposes. They warp the veil tradition and portray women as temptresses, claiming that women are untrustworthy, corrupt, and up to no good. From there it's an easy jump to barring women from education (wouldn't want to put MORE ideas in her head) and not letting them outside alone (who knows what she's up to?).

I'm not familiar with sects of Christianity that put similar limitations on women, but perhaps I should look into it...

[10. Esther said the following at 10:57 AM on Jan 14:]

10

I think it is silly for women to stand up and say, "I don't need protection!" Of course we do, we all need protection, men and women, but probably especially women. Isn't the point of the article under discussion that women are being mistreated, and thus need efforts to protect them from that (either by changes in action, legislation or attitudes)?
I am not ashamed to ask for an attitude of protection from men in my acquaintance. The reality is that I am small (5'2") and weak (at least in comparison to those who might want to hurt me). I appreciate it when the guys (and girls) in my running club come looking for me when I get lost, or call me when I don't show up for a run as planned. Do they think I'm helpless? Of course not, we're marathoners! But they understand, as do I, that there are forces of evil out there that an individual may not be able to stand up to, and so we should protect one another. Certainly, oppression has occurred in the name of protection, but that's where we need to be discerning of intent and purpose.

[11. Texas Craig said the following at 11:02 AM on Jan 14:]

11

Chris (#3): Clever. :-)

Of course, to the extent that you were intending that as a genuine shot at the idea expressed by Heather, you will need to expand more. There are many things that are "separate but equal" and the mere idea (although connected to the improper treatment of African-Americans) is, by itself, not necessarily wrong.

I have two children. One is a boy, one is a girl. Their personalities are different. Accordingly, I disciplione them differently. Separate, but equal.

I may have two good friends. One likes sports, another doesn't. One I never invite to sporting events, while the other I do. The other I invite to movies. Separate, but equal.

I am firmly convinced that men and women are designed differently by God, and have different giftings. I am firm in discipline, while my wife has difficulty being firm. My wife is very compassionate and gentle, while I can find it difficult to not say "get over it, it's just a scratch" when my children suffer minor injuries. We have separate roles in parenting our children. We are very separate, but very equal.

[12. Texas Craig said the following at 11:11 AM on Jan 14:]

12

The fact of the matter is that the concept of different roles does not just apply to women/men. Rather, it applies to the whole body of believers. Scripture tells us that all of the parts of the body have equal worth and work together, even though they have different roles. Hands, feet, etc. carry out different functions, but it is one body.

Any time we demand our rights, we usually are falling into the devil's trap and engaging in sin. Some might take issue with that statement by me and argue that this idea is a tool used by those in power to maintain their power. But, that mistakenly assumes that God cares at all about worldly power. I submit He cares very little about it.

Go back and read Philippians chapter 2. Anyone that gets worked up over "their rights" needs to remember that, if they are a Christian, they have no rights. They are a bondservant for Christ. That means they no longer demand anything for themselves, but rather seek to live only for the will of God. That is why in scripture, God can tell slaves to obey their masters, or spouses to live with unbelieving spouses. Ultimately, true godliness shows itself in submission and service, not leadership or authority. But, God's ways are not man's ways, so we continue to think that we need to fight for "our rights."

[13. BDB said the following at 11:43 AM on Jan 14:]

13

One of the interesting things I heard from the leader of an Evangelical seminary is how many Catholic laywomen they had applying and attending so they could get training - and go back to their Catholic churches.

At the same time, the Catholic religious orders give tremendous lattitude to women. It's amazing when you realize groups of nuns are running multi-billion-dollar hostpial systems. But those hospitals are non-profit, so they don't "count" in the Fortune 500 - even though their hospitals are bigger than many of the companies in the Fortune 500.

[14. Emily said the following at 12:10 PM on Jan 14:]

14

#1, Louise - For a long time, I thought the same as you. I abhorred religion (Christianity in particular) because I hated the whole "be quiet, calm, gentle, submissive to your husband thing". I was strong, independent, and I didn't need a religion that was going to keep me down and treat me disrespectfully.

What happened to me while I was in that stage of my life? I was beaten, abused, belittled, and hurt by one man, while all the other men in my life stood back and "let me handle it on my own" - after all, I was an independent woman who was absolutely no different from men, right?

I agree that I am equal with man, in that I am a human being created by God. However, I am different. I am NOT a man. I am a woman. My physical body is different - I have different thoughts, feelings, needs, and dreams. I am fundamentally different.

Since I have come to accept the idea of Biblical womanhood, and all that that entails, I have made friends with men who believe in that concept also. And I have to say, I have never felt more loved, more accepted, more cherished, and more *respected* than by these men. It's beautiful, really.

(And before anyone tries to stereotype me, I want to say that I am a 19 year old woman, living on my own, in college working on earning 2 degrees while working a job.)

[15. em said the following at 12:15 PM on Jan 14:]

15

Perhaps the place to start is to admit that a male Christian hierarchy has been oppressive to many women historically and some Christian sects still are so. I would contend that they are decidely not Christ-like in doing so, but it does happen and all too often.

No, Heather, authority structures need not be oppressive (as comment #7 points out) - but they may be and sometimes are. Some beliefs reinforce that oppression - particularly when authority is seen as a RIGHT based on color/sex/lineage/IQ or some special characteristic.

Today I was reading of how Jesus' disciples were amazed that he was talking to a woman. He shared deep spiritual truths with her, transforming her life. She became one of history's first Christian evangelists - pointing others to Jesus. We have the privilege of showing what it looks like to live in harmony as sons and daughters of God, joint heirs of eternal life - without a hint of strife or disprespect or oppression among us. Can we rise to that challenge and image God to / with our brothers and sisters - unlike religions that enable the oppression of women?

[16. Louise from Chicago said the following at 12:27 PM on Jan 14:]

16

Comment 4, I never said that the need for protection is a "weakness."

I just don't feel that I myself need protection.

People are different of course.

[17. Louise from Chicago said the following at 12:31 PM on Jan 14:]

17

Comment 6, well after I die maybe the twenty-first century will be redeemed and all the "nutshell problems" solved.

And comment 7, again I never said anything derogatory about the concept of protection or those who feel a need for it.

I just don't feel that I myself need anyone to protect me.

[18. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:53 PM on Jan 14:]

18

Looking at merely the end-results, Kristoff has no concept of what he is talking about. In fact, I would turn the tables on him and suggest that feminism is one of the leading oppressors of women.

It has (a) encouraged women to eschew relationships with men, (b) promoted lesbianism, (c) promoted the killing of tens of millions of children in utero--at least half of whom are female.

Its embracement by clergy, has left a large sector of the Church impotent in its presentation of the Gospel, which has been watered-down in metrosexuality.

If every man on earth decided that feminism would end today, it would be over by sundown.

And as soon as women figured out how much they would stand to enjoy the evenings, most would be cheering its demise. And the men would be worn out by sunrise.

I will drink Guinness--extra stout--to the demise of feminism.

[19. Sarah P. said the following at 1:39 PM on Jan 14:]

19

Yikes, Louise! For real? I know I for one sure need at least God's protection, what with the seeming millions of ways I could perish in the next instant.

The only reason we women possess the freedom we do to live so independently in America is that a significant number of men here have/had a strong moral sense that we should be equal in value. I would like to see how the American women's lib movement would go over in Afghanistan, for example.

[20. Peter said the following at 1:44 PM on Jan 14:]

20

I am larger, stronger, and better armed than most, yet I am "protected".

I am protected from invasion and enslavement by soldiers.
I am protected from criminals by police and the judicial system.
I am protected from sickness by medical professionals.
I am protected from fire by firefighters.

This is part of living in a community, not as an isolated individual. It does not lessen my value as a man.

Do not confuse function with value.

Peter

[21. Liz said the following at 2:37 PM on Jan 14:]

21

This is an interesting article, and I really like Heather's thoughtful take on it. Personally, I believe men and women are absolutely equal in the eyes of God, and that God is much less concerned about whether a woman works outside the home or not than He is about whether both men and women are leading honest, good lives (with Him in their hearts) to the best of their ability.

I think the problem arises in Christianity (especially in some Christian movements, and other religions too I'm sure) when people take what Heather described as men and women having different roles that are no less important or deserving of respect than the other and abuse that dynamic. Sadly, this abuse of power seems mostly skewed against women--it's the churchgoing husband who feels, as the biblical head of the household, that it's his job to "discipline" his wife through physical abuse, emotional manipulation, or simply by lording it over her and not "allowing" her to have any voice, input or autonomy.

[22. Celeste said the following at 3:19 PM on Jan 14:]

22

You know....I think it's a lot like dancing. When a woman finds a man who is a strong leader, she is more then happy to fall in step. And a good leader will listen and adjust to meet her needs/desires. Both people are more successful this way.

[23. Kristina M. said the following at 3:58 PM on Jan 14:]

23

This may be off the subject, but I just love how these people try to counsel us "oppressed" women not accepting the way that "religion" tells us to live, as they themselves proceed to tell us how to live. If someone's going to be telling me how to live, I'd rather it be my Creator than some other human being who is just as flawed as I am and who isn't even 100% sure they have all the right answers.

[24. Louise from Chicago said the following at 4:01 PM on Jan 14:]

24

Comment 10 I am not silly and I think I know myself better than you do ma'am.

I don't need protection.

If everyone other person in the world feels he/she needs protection, that is just fine.

But I assure you ma'am, I do not need it and I would appreciate if in the future you would kindly refrain from referring to my statements as "silly!"

Thank you.

[25. Chris said the following at 4:11 PM on Jan 14:]

25

Texas Craig writes (#11):

We are very separate, but very equal.

True. But when "leadership structures in the home and church " are based on broad generalizations or writings from another time and culture, then the connotation applies.

[26. rachel said the following at 4:25 PM on Jan 14:]

26

Suffrage is pretty awesome. I'll take feminism's burdens over those of my great-great-great-grandmother any day.

[27. Lia said the following at 4:25 PM on Jan 14:]

27

Amir Larijani, if you have that to say about feminism, I'm pretty sure that you know nothing about it.

If every man on earth decided that feminism would end today, it would be over by sundown.

I assume you mean that men could drive it out by force-- what a horrific thing to say. You know, that scenario has already been a topic of a novel-- a little book called The Handmaid's Tale. You should read it sometime.

[28. Louise from Chicago said the following at 4:44 PM on Jan 14:]

28

Comment 14, now the mere fact that I don't feel I need to be protected now means I "abhor religion."

Am I still silly, everyone?

And comment 14, I am the veteran of an emotionally abusive marriage, which I ended entirely on my own.

I didn't need to be protected then and I don't need to be protected now.

[29. Dan Lilledahl from Newnan, GA said the following at 4:44 PM on Jan 14:]

29

Esther (post 10): Let's try to address people directly whether we agree with them or not, and let's try to refrain from condescension.

Louise (post 24): Good for you. I am really annoyed when people are afraid to address people directly here and elsewhere on the Internet, but instead use insults and passive-aggressive language. I am guilty of this too, and I am trying to make changes. I think most of us would like to be treated with respect, regardless of how anonymous we are on the Internet.

[30. Chris said the following at 6:01 PM on Jan 14:]

30

Amir writes (#18):

If every man on earth decided that feminism would end today, it would be over by sundown.

Heh, heh, heh. Keep on telling that to yourself, buddy. Keep on telling that to yourself.....

[31. Jen said the following at 6:10 PM on Jan 14:]

31

I have to admit I felt oppressed by the complementarian view of gender roles. I tried very hard to embrace it, but in the end I just couldn't reconcile the "separate but equal roles." I now go to a church which believes in egalitarianism and I do not feel oppressed.

[32. Eve said the following at 6:14 PM on Jan 14:]

32

I read this article in the NYT and I wouldn't have come to this conclusion at all. He is just commenting on religion in general. In fact, he goes out of his way to point out the good that evangelical and Pentecostal churches have done. Honestly, when I read his book about women in the world (it's called 'Half the Sky', I was surprised to see that he points out the good that Christian missionaries have done overseas. Most political science-y people prefer to criticize and blame missionaries.

"But what Kristof doesn't see is that those evangelical churches are doing the same thing in Africa that they are called by the Word to do anywhere in the world"

As far as I know, Kristof is not a Christian. How would he see this or know it? As a non-Christian, it is unlikely that he would be as familiar with scripture as a Christian.

[33. Eve said the following at 6:36 PM on Jan 14:]

33

Kristina M. (comment #23),

You said, "I just love how these people try to counsel us "oppressed" women not accepting the way that "religion" tells us to live, as they themselves proceed to tell us how to live."

However, Kristof is not telling "oppressed" women how to live. In fact, he is calling religious leaders to step up speak out against traditions that actually oppress (as in: rape, denial of medical care, etc)

He says, "In Africa, it would help enormously if religious figures spoke up for widows disenfranchised by unjust inheritance traditions — or for rape victims, or for schoolgirls facing sexual demands from their teachers. Instead, in Uganda, the influence of conservative Christians is found in a grotesque push to execute gays."

He is addressing religious leaders, not just Christians. He includes the call to Muslims. Kristof is not criticizing the American Christian culture.

The truth is, Kristof, if anything, is asking American Christian leaders to step up and hold fellow Christians accountable for their actions.

When the Bible is being misused to support sinful actions (rape or murder), shouldn't we, as Christians, speak out for the poor, widowed, and oppressed?

His article wasn't about us, it was about them.

[34. Kelly-1 said the following at 7:06 PM on Jan 14:]

34

Re: Protection. I have been fiercely independant in the past and often walk alone at night. I'm not big, and rely on my wits rather than a physical weapon, but I have faith that God protects me. And He ALWAYS has.

However. I've spent significant time in Muslim countries and THAT is when I've been scared just because I am a woman. I wasn't respected; I was treated as a lesser citizen. It really opened my eyes to how lucky most women in Western cultures are.

[35. Kathryn (Perth, Aust) said the following at 7:28 PM on Jan 14:]

35

I was thinking about this topic just yesterday, Heather! I was thinking about how in the past, women have been oppressed and was wondering how that came about.

Broad finger pointing brings us to the patriarchal society that we've supposedly inherited from Christian morals and ethics, thus it's Christianity's fault. Whilst I can understand where that reasoning is coming from, it seems to me that "male and female he created them" and the honour and protection a men is to have for his wife, combined with women's roles in the church (Lydia, Priscilla etc) seems to indicate a deeper and more complex relationship between men and women.

It is my firm belief that genuine Christian men will be changed by the Spirit to see women as equally valued and useful. And in marriage, where the man is called to love his wife as Christ loved the church (self sacrificially), surely his priority is for her well being. This oppressive patriarchal model, therefore, comes from the abuse of the husband's leadership role. It is an excuse for sin. Surely we can see this same principle applied in other areas of life too - and not just with Christianity. Whenever the heart is sinful, it will seek to justify it's sin. Distorted, Biblical male leadership is an excuse to justify female suppression.

But this is just me postulating :)

Louise, your comment has attracted a fair bit of attention. I'm glad that you don't need protection. Have you done something self-defense-y? I don't feel very safe walking some streets at night around my city and very much appreciate the offers of my bloke friends to walk me to my car. It shows their care and respect towards me, that they are concerned enough for my safety. :)

[36. rachel said the following at 7:48 PM on Jan 14:]

36

Chris #30--LOL

"If every man on earth decided that feminism would end today, it would be over by sundown."

This made me giggle all afternoon, and think of Aristophanes' "Lysistrata".

[37. Lis said the following at 7:56 PM on Jan 14:]

37

regarding protection, i am 5 foot 2, weigh a whopping 90 pounds soaking wet, but have two years of experience in martial arts. i feel very confident to protect myself, but at the same time, i do still want a guy to take care of me. it does mean a lot to me to know that the men in my life are watching out for me, but still know that i can protect myself too.

i am comfortable to be alone, but still feel safer having a guy i trust with me if i am out somewhere at night. what i like about my close guy friends is that they are very protective of me when i am with them, yet at the same time they trust me and encourage my ability to take care of myself when i am alone.

[38. Texas Craig said the following at 8:54 PM on Jan 14:]

38

Chris (#25):

If you are referring to scripture, then I submit it may make no difference when or where they were written, if the truth stated therein is broad and general itself.

Namely, I believe scripture is God-inspired. Thus, I do not find it to be relevant only to a time period. Having said that, I do agree that there are portions that have limited relevance now because they had specific cultural implications and were tied to a specific situation that no longer may exist.

So, a reasoned debate can be had about scripture and what portions reflect timeless principles versus those portions that were intended for a specific audience (such as dietary laws for the Jews, for example). But, if you are saying that all of scripture is irrelevant because of when and where it was written, then I disagree.

[39. JB said the following at 10:24 PM on Jan 14:]

39

I'm confused. If one believes, as some conservative Christians do, that women may not lead a church, should keep silent during services, and must submit to their husbands, how can you view that as anything other than oppression? It's all very well to say that men and women have complementary but equally valuable roles, and I get that equality doesn't require identity, but be serious. If you tell someone to sit down, shut up, and submit, you cannot possibly be treating them as an equal. It just doesn't work.

[40. Louise from Chicago said the following at 11:10 PM on Jan 14:]

40

Comment 35, I have been taking care of myself my entire adult life.

And I have never failed myself.

Hey, everyone if it isn't broken...don't fix it!

[41. Tara (not the other Tara) said the following at 11:14 PM on Jan 14:]

41

Louise,

I didn't mean to construe that you were weak or were a simpleton. I am sorry if I made you feel I was saying that. What I was trying to convey was the idea that, in an ideal world, we look out for one another...that people need community. The Bible uses the analogy that we're all one body with many parts--all need to come together for the body to be able to function. The eye can't tell the ear, "I don't need you". Once again, I'm being rather idealistic, but I think the idea could be applied to humanity as a whole.

I understand if you disagree with me, however.

:)

[42. Peter said the following at 12:03 AM on Jan 15:]

42

Amir (#18) is correct.

Whether you like it or not, the majority of those who have shaped the societies in which we live - the churchmen and philosophers who created its moral basis, the statemen who created its institutions, the scientists, engineers and businessmen who made us wealthy, healthy and comfortable,,, and the warriors who defended it - were and are men.

There is a kind of short-sighted arrogance that imagines that our generation is responsible for all the benefits which we experience.

Women who refuse to appreciate what they have been given by men of past generations, should not expect to marry similarly good, courageous and committed men of this generation.

Peter

[43. jack said the following at 12:06 AM on Jan 15:]

43

Hey Chris-

Amir is correct. IF, IF, IF men collectively decided that they had enough of feminism, it would be all over. Never happen quite that fast, of course.

It IS true, though, that the harmful ideology of feminism exists with the collusion and cooperation of men. That cooperation was necessary to birth feminism, and remains necessary to sustain it. Why else would feminists need to so harshly deride anyone who even desires to engage the topic in honest debate?

The fragility of feminism is evident from that fact alone, since it apparently can't handle the slightest challenge to its orthodoxy. Challenges are met with childish retorts, and discourse that is more akin to tantrum than dispassionate debate.

Very slowly, men are beginning to see that a large part of the abdication of their leadership role was the nurturing of feminism. Many men sought to avoid duty and accountability by embracing it.

Feminism is anti-God, and ironically, more anti-woman that the so-called patriarchy it replaced.

Feminism has already peaked, it is only a question of time until it is much, much weaker than it is today. Feminism is against God's design, therefore its failure is inevitable.

This is not a debate, it is a Biblical forecast.

[44. Kathleen said the following at 12:12 AM on Jan 15:]

44

Amir Lajani writes: "In fact, I would turn the tables on him and suggest that feminism is one of the leading oppressors of women."

Indeed, it's just so oppressive to have the right to vote and own property; to be able to divorce an abusive husband; to have the right to attend state universities; to have equal access to educational and employment opportunities; to have choices other than wife, homemaker, or secretary.

[45. jack said the following at 12:21 AM on Jan 15:]

45

Jen (31)

What if I feel oppressed by a religious doctrine that demands that I honor my parents? Is my feeling any less valid than yours?

Should I seek a church that works around that in some way?

People also often mistake being offended for being oppressed. Truthfully, the word oppression has been so overused by the victim-oriented pop culture we live in that it has little meaning any more.

Personally, I feel oppressed by the commandment to avoid premarital sex. I SUBMIT to it nonetheless.

I wonder how many Christians feel that submitting themselves to the Lord's will is "oppression"?

[46. Tiffany said the following at 5:45 AM on Jan 15:]

46

Nick Kristof is writing and drawing attention to urgent issues, particularly facing women around the world. If you haven't read his book "Half the Sky", I strongly recommend it. Beyond the complementarian/egalitarian debate we've had ad naseum here on Boundless, millions of women are being killed, neglected, and abused around the world and THAT is Kristof's main point.

In his book, he cites research that finds that more women have been killed in the last 50 years, merely because they are women, than all the men killed in the wars of the 20th century. Please, please, please don't miss this fact.

And his point that religion is often culpable in the oppression of women is hard to find fault with. Nick Kristof is a non-believer who is often fairly generous to Christians (especially Christian aid work) in his writings. He just doesn't share your complementarian view of men and women (something not surprising for most Western people who do not subscribe to a conservative religious perspective).

So instead of finding fault with Kristof for disagreeing with you on this particular (highly controversial) issue, let's be people who stand up beside these "whistle-blowers" and affirm that our God values women and we do too.

So instead of fighting again about women submitting to their husbands or not speaking in church, let's get angry about the devastating consequence oppression (whatever its cause) is having on our sisters around the world.

[47. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:47 AM on Jan 15:]

47

Lia writes:

Amir Larijani, if you have that to say about feminism, I'm pretty sure that you know nothing about it.

I know quite a bit about it. Both in terms of its cultural roots and implications, as well as its roots and implications in theology.

Society is worse off for it.

Feminism has left a much higher body count than the collective exploits of the Christian fundamentalists.

To suggest otherwise, reflects either ignorance of failure to look at the big picture.

I assume you mean that men could drive [feminism] out by force-- what a horrific thing to say. You know, that scenario has already been a topic of a novel-- a little book called The Handmaid's Tale. You should read it sometime.

You should read your Bible sometime. Feminism has no Biblical basis for promotion. Zero.

Moreover, it is far more oppressive than anything Kristof cites.

And driving its ranks from the Church, would indeed be a matter of men deciding it would happen. The results would be immediate.

Protest all you wish, but it would be over. You want to know why? The Church is not democratic institution. God did not get elected. God did not ordain feminism. Jesus did not make the Church egalitarian. Nor did Paul suggest any such framework for the Church or for home life.

Personally, I would cheer the feminist exit from the Church, just as I cheered their exit from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Feminism is as good for the Body as gangrene.

As for government, the effects of such a decision by the men would be immediate, but it would take a few special elections--and regular election cycles--to complete the job.

What would the feminists going to do, that they have not already done? Start an armed insurrection against the men? (That would end in about 20 proverbial seconds.)

Challenge the men in hand-to-hand combat? (That would be a rout for the men.)

Try to start a petition to vote out the men? (You would need to get all women on your side, but a large percentage of them would want nothing to do with feminism.)

Feminism only has a place in Church and civil affairs, because men allow it.

As I said before, if every man decided it would end, it would be over for the feminists.

[48. Leigh said the following at 7:00 AM on Jan 15:]

48

JB, I go to a church where women are not allowed to teach adult men. But a man can teach a woman. I don't feel opressed. Maybe this way of thought is accepted a little better in the south. I want to be protected and I want a man who will lead.

[49. Amir Larijani said the following at 7:11 AM on Jan 15:]

49

Kathleen says:

Indeed, it's just so oppressive to have the right to vote and own property; to be able to divorce an abusive husband; to have the right to attend state universities; to have equal access to educational and employment opportunities; to have choices other than wife, homemaker, or secretary.

and don't forget the rest: (1) to kill children in utero--for any or no reason--on demand, (2) to undermine the nuclear family through subverting the court systems, (3) to impose oppressive tax burdens on families, (4) to impose indoctrination on children in public schools, (5) to hijack academia with federal government winking and nodding....

None of the "freedoms" you cite--most of which were in play long before Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem were rallying their stormtroopers--are worth the cost we have paid in human life alone.

[50. Trevor Dolby said the following at 7:11 AM on Jan 15:]

50

Celeste (22): You beat me to it! The concept of "servant leadership" (a classic Christian idea) makes much more sense now I've learned to dance.

As a man, I have to lead moves that the lady can do well (if at all possible), and create sets of moves that show her off to her best advantage; I'm there to make her look good :) I don't know how it feels to be a woman, but from observation it seems that not having to worry about what to do next frees them to look beautiful in a relaxed way.

It's certainly true that when you see a couple dancing socially together, it's normally the lady who is the centre of attention: the movement, the clothes, hair, everything. Nobody cares about who has "power" at that point :)

[51. Trevor Dolby said the following at 7:12 AM on Jan 15:]

51

Kelly-1 (34): The original Christianity doesn't really accept that women are "lesser" - weaker, yes, but not lesser. For example, girls who refused to marry the husband chosen for them by parents were more likely to be canonized (made into official "saints") than condemned!

It seems your experiences in those Muslim countries show the effect to which Kristof refers . . .

[52. Trevor Dolby said the following at 7:13 AM on Jan 15:]

52

JB (39): It does depend on how you view things, and what is considered "good".

For example, if you see a servant laying a table for a queen, do you think that the queen is "oppressed" because she can't do the table-laying herself? Or do you think the servant is being oppressed by being forced to make this queen's life easier so she can simply sit around?

In Christian terms, teaching, leading churches, having to speak up on various things, and so on, are all actually seen as work (vocation, really). Having authority over people is also an extremely tiring form of work, as you have to pour energy into thinking through every consequence of everything you do; you can't simply say "I'll do what's right for me, and let everybody else do whatever they want" if you're the example to which they're all looking!

Is it possible we can modify your argument? To tell someone to "sit down", "shut up", and "submit" might actually be treating them as greater, not lesser. (Technically, of course, your argument still stands, in that "greater" is still not "equal").

[53. Loris said the following at 7:44 AM on Jan 15:]

53

Lis #37, I'm 5'10 and double your weight, but I am also thankful for my husband's presence to diffuse the occasional touchy situation. The only time I've really been uneasy, verging on scared, was after my first TKD class. Isn't that odd? We were emerging in our uniforms, and some drunk in the parking lot accosted me. My husband helped me into the car, told me to lock the doors, and stood firmly in front of my door until the bum moved away. I have no doubt that it was my husband's size (6'2, 210 lbs) and the black belt around his waist that convinced the man to move along. Could I have handled the situation if I'd had to? Probably. Did I want to? Absolutely not. Could I have gotten rid of the drunk that easily, just by my sheer presence? Definitely not.

[54. Louise from Chicago said the following at 7:50 AM on Jan 15:]

54

Comment 41, where did I ever state that we do not need community?

I need community of course, but I don't need protection.

[55. Louise from Chicago said the following at 7:54 AM on Jan 15:]

55

Comment 47, it will never be "over" for us secular humanists.

You better get used to having us around!

[56. James UK said the following at 8:02 AM on Jan 15:]

56

I think that the first thing we must do is to accept that, as many others have said, religious traditions born in generally patriarchal societies do tend to favour men over women. In extreme cases, this does lead to women being treated little better than cattle and on that point, it’s interesting to me that we still use the term meat market when referring to the odious way that some men view woman.

Personally, I have found the passages dealing with husbands and wives to be some of the most difficult in the Bible. It’s not that I don’t accept that there are people singled out for certain roles, such as the Levites in their service of the temple. But there does seem to be something just inherently wrong about saying that, because of someone’s sex, they cannot do certain things and frankly it’s not the only occasion in scripture where this happens. Why, for example, is a woman giving birth to a girl more unclean than one giving birth to a boy? Why was a woman’s testimony not to be considered equal to a man’s? These are just a few examples, but I have always found it quite difficult to reconcile the equal in the eyes of God line with some of the opinions I have encountered.

On the topic of feminism, I accept that there are some areas in which it is at fault, but it has also done a great deal of good. For example, the UK government is about to introduce legislation to force companies to reveal how much they pay there staff, with an aim to end the phenomenon that a man will be paid more for doing exactly the same job as a female colleague. That is wholly unfair and needs to be rectified and the better conditions for maternity leave and parental rights have come about mainly due to the feminist ideology. It’s also been instrumental in getting women into universities and good jobs and has almost completely removed the “woman don’t need an education to have kids” mentality from the public consciousness. Like most things, it was born of a genuine concern and I don’t think we should write all of it off just yet. Pictures of girls in the fifties being trained as housewives make me cringe and I’m glad that such finishing schools no longer exist. Whatever some may say about the ordered nature of church and family life, it’s just far too easy, in my opinion, to abuse.

[57. Louise from Chicago said the following at 8:13 AM on Jan 15:]

57

Actually, Heather K. didn't include divorced women in her last paragraph.

The question of whether or not I need protection may well be moot!

:)

[58. Leah C said the following at 8:41 AM on Jan 15:]

58

I was say many religions are oppressive to women. The worst is Islam but the second is Christianity.
My father is a retired pastor and I was beaten frequently growing up to I would learn 'submission'. I guess I am one of those women Christians hate with a deep passion. I beleive in equal right and equal pay. I believe women can have as much authority as a man. I am far more educated than any pastor I ever met and I can out fight any man. Of course Christian men who know me say I need 'to be broken in' as if I am some animal to be 'tamed' for their purposes.
At the same time I have no problem with women who willingly give up their natural authority and intellect to Christian men. They just need to understand I will never respect them but I do aknowledge their right to follow what ever religion they choose to.

[59. Ted Slater said the following at 8:46 AM on Jan 15:]

59

Some of you may be interested to know that we published an article on Boundless just last week that:

• references this New York Times author, Nicholas Kristof
• explores the issue of the oppression of women
• mentions his book, Half the Sky
• affirms some of Kristof's findings

Check it out: "Feminine Poverty"

[60. murder1 said the following at 8:47 AM on Jan 15:]

60

Being specific about which (faiths), is a problem that needs to be clarified. Kristof could have done that. I would argue that as for Christianity, the bible's declaration of a man being the head and the woman being the second was not in anyway to demean women. A Godly man who strives to honor God would never abuse any woman nor demand her to become the inferior partner. We always have to study what the bible says and apply that, with a right heart.

[61. Befuddled said the following at 8:56 AM on Jan 15:]

61

Re: 5

My denomination treats women with respect, too. I'm thankful for our female ministers.

Re: 47

What was the death toll of the Crusades? (Also, if you want to talk about innocent deaths via abortion, don't forget the Children's Crusade.)

[62. The Other Amy said the following at 8:59 AM on Jan 15:]

62

I've never felt like a second-class citizen as a woman of faith. If anything, I feel more special and honored that God would set me apart to be honored, cherished, and protected. Doesn't it make sense that God would want what He treasures to be protected? Woman was also the answer when Adam himself was not enough. (Don't read this as men being inferior. Read it as men and women are meant to complement each other.) So, do I feel lesser or weaker because the Lord wants me to be taken care of by my brothers in Christ? No. I feel like a treasure that's being guarded by princes that are fighting for their King to take care of His daughter.

[63. Ted Slater said the following at 9:05 AM on Jan 15:]

63

Leah C (#58) -- you wrote, "I guess I am one of those women Christians hate with a deep passion... Of course Christian men who know me say I need 'to be broken in' as if I am some animal to be 'tamed' for their purposes."

As others have said, it hurts me to hear you write these things. I'm sorry that those who claim to follow Christ have hurt you so deeply.

That said, I do have to wonder why you keep bringing this up, and refuse to acknowledge the love and grace expressed by both men and women toward you here on Boundless.

Consider, for example, how people responded when you've told us of your abuse here and here (and elsewhere).

Honestly and sincerely, Leah, I do feel for you. But you need to acknowledge that you have received not abuse from the Christians here, but expressions of care and concern.

[64. Chris said the following at 9:14 AM on Jan 15:]

64

Amir writes (#49):

and don't forget the rest: (1) to kill children in utero--for any or no reason--on demand, (2) to undermine the nuclear family through subverting the court systems, (3) to impose oppressive tax burdens on families, (4) to impose indoctrination on children in public schools, (5) to hijack academia with federal government winking and nodding....

You forgot to add the Star Wars Christmas Special, Tom Brady, and 9/11 to your list.

[65. rachel said the following at 9:21 AM on Jan 15:]

65

#47: I can imagine hypothetical situations too. If all the men in the world decided feminism would end, those with some integrity would realize in a matter of hours that the categorical placement of power in the hands of men based on gender alone was a violation of justice, and in practice created such political, civil, and relational chaos, that they would try to reverse the decision immediately.

There are real evils in feminism, but there were real evils in the more patriarchal model that prevailed in Western Civ. before it. I firmly believe 20th century feminism is, in part, a response to the failure of the church to effect a robust and Biblical culture--one where women and men lived Galatians 3 in the fullness of its promises.

[66. Jo said the following at 9:31 AM on Jan 15:]

66

Amir, 49:

I have no disagreement with the negatives that you cite (although I'm not sure all of them are due entirely to feminism - still, I'm not an expert so I'll defer to you on that), but the positives that Kathleen mentioned are equally valid.

As James (56) said, feminism was born out of a genuine concern - women were genuinely being oppressed. While I completely oppose some things that have arisen from feminism (mainly things connected to the sexual revolution - abortion etc), I can separate the good from the bad and acknowledge that a) something had to happen to bring equal rights to women, and b) I am hugely indebted to the efforts of many of those early feminists for the equality I enjoy today.

The resulting culture shift and sexual revolution are oppressive in a sense, but I can as a woman choose not to buy into society's view of what women should want. And the reason I can do that is partly BECAUSE of feminism. I would not have had the same freedom to shun society's view of women and choose my own path back in the 1900s.

All this just to ask that you recognise that while 'feminism' is an easy label to use, a lot of the advances in gender equality have been good, even great. A lot of them line up much better with scripture than the appalling treatment of women that gone before. They protect women from abuse and afford them their own rights as human beings. None of this is anti-biblical.

Those things which you (rightly) oppose are linked with feminism, but feminism has changed a lot over the years and has never been some kind of club with every member believing and fighting for exactly the same things. 'Feminism' means so many different things to different people. Rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, can't you be more specific about exactly what you have problem with? Otherwise you alienate people, particularly women, who in fact might agree with you on much of what you say.

[67. Tara (not the other Tara) said the following at 9:42 AM on Jan 15:]

67

Louise,

We must be misunderstanding each other. Part of me thinks we're saying the same thing but in different ways because I totally get where you're coming from. I'm fairly independent myself. Perhaps where we do disagree is that I see protection as a form of community--as helping one another out. Though we could also see the word protection as meaning different things. I'm not sure. But I want to validate your stance that a woman is perfectly capbable of taking care of herself. That's where I agree 100%. I guess what I'm saying is sometimes it's OK to let others feel like they are protecting us even if we don't actually need it.

I just don't know where the defensive tone is coming from. I'm not trying to attack your position. I'm not trying to tell you what you're thinking or feeling. I just didn't know what you meant and I responded with the information I had. I mean, I don't know you or how you live (nor do I need to so please don't accuse me of being nosey) so obviously I can't discern where you are coming from. Truly, I meant no offense and was trying to show I simply wanted a friendly dialogue. I know tone can get lost over the internet, that is why I resorted to ending my posts with a smiley. My life won't end if you disagree with me. If you find this particular response offensive, then I am sorry as I am totally clueless as to what I'm saying wrong. I'm not interested in picking a fight nor finishing one.

[68. A.M.C. said the following at 9:56 AM on Jan 15:]

68

Re: Jo (#66)

Regarding the feminism issue: I guess you could argue that most of its ills came during the third wave rather than the previous two?

[69. Christina B said the following at 10:01 AM on Jan 15:]

69

Great that you put this on here. I have faced similar questions and also questioned my own beliefs. It's been revealed to me by God and also from Boundless that we DO need protection and when I say "we," I don't mean women, I mean people.
We have to let go of this fear and pride inside of us that leads us to beleive that we are lesser people simply because we need/deserve some love and caring from each other. Honestly, us ladies should take it as a complimenet from our heavenly Father, who knows us best. We go through so much, why not have a man take on hard labors we're not willing to as we chase the dreams God has placed in our hearts, whether that be law or science or teaching or being a stay-at-home mother!! We can do whatever we so choose but God who has created us knows where we lack. Women bend and are flexible to the needs of others, always. He knows our nature. If we're going to want to be there for who we are in a relationship with in such a powerful way, we are definitely going to need a man who is capable of handling his position by being respectful and stepping up in his leadership role. There is nothing shameful about following an honorable leader. We all do it anyway. Why do everything your president wants or your state patrol wants or your boss wants but have an issue when it comes to the home??
All-in-all, God never makes someone a servant to belittle them!! He always sees the lesser or "weaker" one as having more anyway, because of their spirit. A lot of men can't (don't know how to) protect a woman but we should never have a problem with our heavenly Father wanting to, and that's all the more important if we never had an earthly father do so because we need that restored in us..
I dn't know about you but I'm tired of SOCIETY chopping my gender down, not my FAITH.

[70. Tami said the following at 10:03 AM on Jan 15:]

70

jack (45) wrote, "I wonder how many Christians feel that submitting themselves to the Lord's will is 'oppression'?"

Quite a few, I imagine... or more of us would do so more frequently.

The sad thing is, disobedience is a lot like tar ... the more someone rebels, and seeks freedom in rebellion from God's Word, the more he or she gets stuck in bondage.

[71. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:04 AM on Jan 15:]

71

Jo says:

I have no disagreement with the negatives that you cite (although I'm not sure all of them are due entirely to feminism - still, I'm not an expert so I'll defer to you on that), but the positives that Kathleen mentioned are equally valid.

and hardly worth the death toll.

Chris says:

You forgot to add the Star Wars Christmas Special, Tom Brady, and 9/11 to your list.

:::setting sarcasm mode to ON:::

LOL! I've always had my suspicions about Tom Brady and Star Wars. Thank you for adding those to the list. . .

:::setting sarcasm mode to OFF:::

Feminists--in particular those in government--make America more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Janet Reno and her deputy, Jamie Gorelick, created the bureaucratic culture that made 9/11 possible.

And don't forget Janet "the system worked" Napolitano. . .

[72. Louise from Chicago said the following at 10:15 AM on Jan 15:]

72

Comment 71, I know this isn't a very nice thing to say to someone but I seriously think you are delusional.

Comment 67, the way I read your comment you were putting words in my mouth.

[73. Eve said the following at 10:20 AM on Jan 15:]

73

Tiffany (#46)

Thank you for seeing the point of his article!

Ted (#59)
I was excited to see that post. Half the Sky is a great book.

I am frustrated that this debate is focused on American feminism when the intent of the article was to make people look out at the world. He wasn't talking about whether women need "protection" or equal pay. He was saying it is wrong for women to be burned alive in the name of religion and for the practitioners to stand idly by (perhaps, arguing about the role of women?).

Kristof is doing a better job at advocating for the weak and needy than we are. Seriously, why is he the one calling Christian leaders to rebuke people who are misusing Jesus' name?

[74. Zusanne said the following at 10:21 AM on Jan 15:]

74

I've never really felt that I've needed protection, either. I'm comfortable being out at night by myself or with a a man--doesn't really matter to me in that sense. I'm accustomed to "taking care of myself" and really haven't been able to understand why so many women looked to their man for that level of protection. I've been okay taking care of myself--but I don't (generally) make any foolish risks, even though some of my friends who are part of couples are often surprised at some of my "adventures."

One time I was out with a group and a panhandler started mouthing off to one of my shyer friends. When I stepped in to help her, he turned on me. I made sure she was okay and ignored him and figured that that would be the end of it--really, the situation was okay. No one was in danger of anything except the man's mouth, and I was ignoring him. Then one of my friend's husbands stepped in and defended me. It was really unnecessary, but it was rather sweet. I can understand how someone could get accustomed to that "protection"--it's nice knowing someone cares that way--but I'm fine without it, too.

I have to say that, having worked sometimes with some ministries, that I've had to "earn" my place with some of the men. My "skills" are not in traditional roles--I'm better at buying than baking and at computers and instruments than in the nursery--so often I am planning with the "boy" stuff more than the "girl" stuff. I think the silliest example was when a number of ministries got together for some larger events and the "men" got together to plan games for an event--seriously, there's no scriptural mandate against a woman planning a game for a youth group event!

I am committed to following Scripture. The "bonus rules" that people often add are generally the ones that are so oppressive.

[75. Christina B said the following at 10:24 AM on Jan 15:]

75

Neede to add: I personally have had an early father but I just added that statement in the previous post to make a point, knowing all too well that many women have not.
When you read the parts of the Bible that relate to women, you can see that God sees our beauty in && out, thru && thru and wants us appreciated and treated well.
We do what we do best; guys will do what they do best, whatever these things are. A partnership or role in life, society or relationship doesn't mean one person is ever lesser because each one is needed in order for it to work and for it to be whole.

Also, I may debate that it is society that has conflicted w/ religion, which a previous poster brought up in a way ((Kellie @ #2))

[76. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:26 AM on Jan 15:]

76

Jo says:

All this just to ask that you recognise that while 'feminism' is an easy label to use, a lot of the advances in gender equality have been good, even great. A lot of them line up much better with scripture than the appalling treatment of women that gone before. They protect women from abuse and afford them their own rights as human beings. None of this is anti-biblical.

While there were some inequities that existed in America--some jobs were not open to women, there was no universal suffrage, more companies discriminated against hiring and promoting women, divorce from abusive spouses was more difficult--the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the benefits exceed the costs.

You may call "no-fault divorce" a marker of progress in "gender equality". Now please tell me--given that this has led directly to the divorce culture--that the benefits justify the costs.

Oh, and many Christian women now suffer from the unintended consequences of this "advancement", as men are eschewing marriage in greater numbers, due to the increased risk of divorce.

You may call universal suffrage an "advancement" in gender equity. Unfortunately, the U.S. is now bankrupt due to the nanny state apparatus that has emerged since the advent of universal suffrage.

Equal opportunity in the job market has now turned free markets on their heads. This is because of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The regulatory mechanisms--and the taxpayer money wasted in their enforcement--have overwhelmed the benefit of undoing the inequities that you cite.

In America alone, we have slaughtered over 50 million children in utero.

This is the telos of feminism.

To deny this, is to attempt to argue that "Sure, Stalin killed millions of Russians, but he was only seeking to right the wrongs foisted on them by the rich people who were oppressing the poor."

The time has come to suggest that, as serious as the inequities were--and they were bad--the "cure" (feminism) is far worse than the disease ever was.

And don't even get me started on feminist theology. That is a whole different discussion.

[77. Jeanmarie said the following at 10:46 AM on Jan 15:]

77

Peter, #42, it is true that the majority of people who have shaped our society are men. I do appreciate what the have done for society.

What I don't appreciate: for hundreds - no, thousands of years, women have been oppressed and many of the same men who you say shaped society did nothing. It scares me to think that women in this country didn't even have the right to even vote until the 20th century. The men who shaped society for thousands of years ignored women. And I am not thankful for, nor do I appreciate that.

It is absolutely true that modern feminism (at least the way I define it) has, unfortunately, made it possible for people to do a lot of evil things.

I think feminism has also encouraged our culture to belittle men and their roles. However, this doesn't compare to the centuries of oppresion and belittlement that women have experineced and still experience in most of the world.

I fully believe in the Biblical roles of male and female - submitting to authority, etc. Submitting to your husband is not oppresion. Your husband lawfully being allowed to beat you into submission is oppression. We have it easy in this country. I truly hope and pray that someday soon, women all over the world will be able to, not only experience the freedom and equality we have here in the U.S., but also experience the freedom that Jesus Christ brings to the hurt and oppressed.

[78. Jo said the following at 10:47 AM on Jan 15:]

78

AMC,
Yeah I think you could say that - like I said I'm really not an expert at all, but it's the more recent feminist causes that I tend to take issue with.

Amir,
"and hardly worth the death toll."

It's a shame you ignored the rest of my post. The death toll you're referring to is presumably from abortion and as I already said, I agree with you on that. My point is that abortion was not a necessary conclusion of early feminism. It is COMPLETELY possible to support a lot of what feminism has helped to accomplish, which being adamantly opposed to some of its other 'victories'. I am not trivialising the death toll when I say that. I'm separating abortion from the right to vote and the right to equal pay, because the issues are connected by very little other than the word feminism. Many of the women who campaigned from those other things would be HORRIFIED to see what is done in the name of feminism today. Just as people like Fred Phelps can't discredit Christianity, today's feminists can't discredit the achievements of feminists who have gone before them.

[79. Jason said the following at 10:51 AM on Jan 15:]

79

#42: Yeah, most of the people who did these things were men. Most people who have committed the worst atrocities in the world are men too (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc...). It's a little disingenuous to show one side without the other.

[80. JB said the following at 10:51 AM on Jan 15:]

80

Leigh #48,

As it happens, my fiancee (a woman) is a minister and we're both from the South. Let me assure you that it's better for her to teach me in church than the other way around. And if I or anyone else were to tell her she couldn't, that would constitute oppression.

[81. JB said the following at 10:56 AM on Jan 15:]

81

Trevor #52,

That's an interesting argument, but I think it fails because you don't account for freedom of action. The queen in your story can, at a whim, decide who will be serving dinner and who will be served that evening. The servant cannot do so. The queen, therefore, is in a position of superior power. The servant is opporessed because of her lack of choice.

Similarly, a man in conservative church may choose to teach or he may not. A woman does not have this choice, regardless of her abilities, and is therefore in an inferior position.

It's one thing to say that women ought to play a certain role in church and society and defend that biblically. But let's not pretend that the role conservatives give to women is equal to that of men. It's transparently inferior, if only because of a lack of freedom.

[82. Lia said the following at 10:58 AM on Jan 15:]

82

Amir Larijani,

If your mother, sisters and wife:
-were able to go to school
-were not killed at birth for being girls
-were able to chose their spouses
-vote
-can have a job outside the home

they have benefited from feminism, end of story. I read my Bible. I haven't found anything to suggest that God wants his women to be oppressed.

Feminism was born and flourished in a completely inhospitable environment-- it is ridiculous and illogical to suggest that it could be removed by force when faced immediate opposition.

I find your suggestions of a violent removal of feminism really quite disturbing and upsetting, and I'm shocked that such a comment passed the screening. Literally, I am shaking, because never in my life, have I felt as threatened as I am because of my political belief.

[83. Laura said the following at 11:09 AM on Jan 15:]

83

I wonder if we are not guilty of engaging in a little cultural snobbery when it comes to how we discuss gender roles and patriarchy. I think it is very interesting that some equate distinct gender roles and patriarchy with oppression towards women when in many cultures gender roles have helped to ensure stability and keep the family unit intact. For instance, there are many isolated people groups scattered from Africa to the Pacific islands that have distinct gender roles and patriarchy within their societies. The men still hunt and protect the family from threats such as wild animals or exploitation from outsiders, and the women help to feed their families and those in their community and care for the children, livestock, and gardens (if the climate permits gardening). These people have very few if any Western conveniences or influences, most are not Christian nor do they identify with any organized religion. And yet there are distinct gender roles within their societies that have enabled them to survive in relative isolation and sometimes harsh conditions for centuries (at least harsh from our American standards). Without the technological advances of our present day, it is not too far-fetched to say that we too could have such a societal arrangement in North America (it was that way for the Native American tribes and even the early settlers).

Of course, just like in every other society there are sometimes things which are done that simply cannot be defended, but my main objective was to point out that gender roles and patriarchy are not uniquely religious. Even many respected historians are in agreement that gender roles and patriarchy seem to be a part of our human DNA. How else can you explain the composition of whole societies around these two concepts, even in cases where they live on remote islands and are considered a recently "discovered" people group?

In short, gender roles can and have developed without any discernible influence of religion. It is not a legitimate argument to peg religion as the pantheon from which gender roles and patriarchy sprung forth.

[84. Courtney P. said the following at 11:26 AM on Jan 15:]

84

Comment #7 I second that :)

[85. Kathleen said the following at 11:52 AM on Jan 15:]

85

Amir, you've offered little proof for your rather outlandish allegations about feminism. Honestly, bizarre insinuations like '9/11 is the fault of Janet Reno' -- well that kind of stuff just makes you sound bitter and a tad deranged.

The fact is that the advances that feminism achieved are in little danger of being reversed because -- as the saying goes -- the arc of history bends toward justice.
Women are not going to give up hard-won rights, and certainly not because a few individuals like yourself appear to be so threatened
that they resort to distortion and mischaracterization.

[86. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:04 PM on Jan 15:]

86

Lia says:

If your mother, sisters and wife:
-were able to go to school
-were not killed at birth for being girls
-were able to chose their spouses
-vote
-can have a job outside the home

they have benefited from feminism, end of story.

If you were born after 1973, then you survived in spite of feminism.

I read my Bible. I haven't found anything to suggest that God wants his women to be oppressed.

Who is saying that women should be oppressed?

On the other hand, I challenge you to show me how Ephesians 5 is egalitarian. No intellectually honest reading of Colossians or Ephesians, with respect to marriage, presents an egalitarian framework.

Moreover, the larger point here is that feminism has been more oppressive to women than anything Kristof cites about Christians who restrict women from the pulpits.

Over 50 million dead children--at least half of them female--testify to what I am saying.

Feminism was born and flourished in a completely inhospitable environment-- it is ridiculous and illogical to suggest that it could be removed by force when faced immediate opposition.

Depends on the theater. Like I said, if every man decided it would end today, it would be done.

I find your suggestions of a violent removal of feminism really quite disturbing and upsetting, and I'm shocked that such a comment passed the screening. Literally, I am shaking, because never in my life, have I felt as threatened as I am because of my political belief.

You can get over your paranoia. Who said anything about overthrowing feminism by force?

All I said was that if every man decided that feminism would end now, it would be done. I said that rhetorically, but it is true nonetheless. This is because there is a large number of women who already oppose feminism--even the mild variety. So if every man decided to end it, it would be over.

Still, I'm going to call you for being disingenuous with me. It would be short of any reasonable standard of intellectual honesty to suggest that the opposite of feminism is the oppression of women.

It is, however, quite logical--and necessary--to call feminists to account for their ideology that has led to mass murder of proportions rivaling the worst of Communism.

Moroever, I would also submit that it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that the Scriptures are egalitarian with respect to marriage and church leadership.

[87. Sarah P. said the following at 12:11 PM on Jan 15:]

87

Wow, this is a tricky one! I unfortunately agree that Amir has overstated his argument. Yes, women are just as depraved as men, and so have utilized our freedom at times in ways just as horrific as some men have used theirs. That doesn't mean that we women should lack the freedom to choose between the wide range of options available to us morally, however. We are not the same as men, still, and killing our babies will never eliminate the fact that we alone were able to have them in the first place.

Linking back to the original topic, there is a fact of life... men are bigger and stronger. When men get nasty, yes, women need men to protect them... from other men! I am very grateful to the good, strong, moral men who are willing to stand up and do that.

[88. Tara (not the other Tara) said the following at 12:14 PM on Jan 15:]

88

Louise,

Ah, I see. I was starting to wonder if that was what you were reacting to. Once again, I'm sorry for misunderstanding what you meant. I'm glad things have been cleared up. :)

As to the original topic--sometimes it is difficult to see past thousands of years of Church Tradition and societal norms to understand what the Bible really says about women. And I think looking at Jesus is the clearest way of seeing God's intent--to get past the confusion of gender roles, personal opinion and politics, etc.... Jesus simply treated women as humans with dignity. He wasn't afraid to call out their sins but there was no double standard, no condemnation--only love and forgiveness. He was interested in their hearts and their relationship with God. I've always loved the story of Mary neglecting her chores to listen to Jesus while Martha, who was trying to be the perfect hostess, got upset. Jesus' prime concern wasn't to see that women be good little homemakers but that they knew their Father in heaven. Stories of the Samaritan woman by the well, the woman caught in adultury and women as the first witnesses to Christ's resurrection--missionaries, if you will--that resonated with me as a girl growing up in the Church.

The Bible shows women to have courage, integrity and strength inspite of the restrictions put upon them by their patriarchal society. We don't need society to validate our worth, intelligence, strength or our importance to God. But I am grateful to have social and political equality to men. I would say that in its basic form this would align with the Biblical viewpoint.

[89. Jo said the following at 12:14 PM on Jan 15:]

89

Amir,
Your comment 76 wasn't published when I wrote my comment 78. Apologies for accusing you of ignoring what I said.

For the record, I don't consider no-fault divorce 'progress'. I do consider it progress that a woman can obtain a divorce when the husband *is* seriously at fault (abusive, unfaithful etc).

I do consider universal suffrage and equal pay and work opportunities progress. Something is either right or it is wrong. Negative consequences or problems with implementation don't negate basic rightness.

I don't entirely see how women having the vote has exclusively and directly led to the 'nanny state', but even if it has - does that make it wrong for women to vote, or is it simply right that women should have a say in the running of society, even if you don't like what they vote for?

And perhaps the blame for ways the job market has suffered from equal pay should be laid at the door of a society that set itself up to favour men in the first place. Overturning an established way of doing things will always be messy, and the methods used might not always be well thought out. Does that mean it's okay to leave wrong systems in place for the sake of convenience?

For the record (again), I don't agree with everything that's campaigned for in the workplace. For example I don't think we need to encourage more women into professions where they're 'under-represented', and it doesn't bother me one bit that women earn less than men on average - as long as the reason for that is the type of work they're doing, and not unequal pay for the same jobs. So again, I am not an advocate of all feminist causes. I simply don't accept that feminism in its entirety is bad, or that it's singularly responsible for all the problems you're talking about.

[90. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:17 PM on Jan 15:]

90

Kathleen says:

Amir, you've offered little proof for your rather outlandish allegations about feminism.

Where have you been for the last 40 years? The abortion culture in America is the work of the feminist.

The death toll alone make feminism worse than any evil Kristof cites about "religion" in general, or that which precludes women from the pulpit.

Honestly, bizarre insinuations like '9/11 is the fault of Janet Reno' -- well that kind of stuff just makes you sound bitter and a tad deranged.

All I said was that the Janet Reno-led Justice Department made America more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Reno and Gorelick were responsible for "The Wall", which undermined the sharing of data between CIA and FBI.

The tragedy here is that Reno was hired specifically because she was a woman. The first two picks, both women--Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood--were derailed due to "nannygate" issues.

So yes, a bean-counting culture, fomented by feminism, led to the selection of inept leaders who made us more vulnerable to attack.

The fact is that the advances that feminism achieved are in little danger of being reversed because -- as the saying goes -- the arc of history bends toward justice. Women are not going to give up hard-won rights, and certainly not because a few individuals like yourself appear to be so threatened that they resort to distortion and mischaracterization.

Hard-won rights? Like in-utero infanticide?

[91. BDB said the following at 12:19 PM on Jan 15:]

91

Yes, it's interesting to see what happens when American feminism runs into other cultures.

Some American feminists active in the human rights community go around demanding that pregnant women not face any limitations in their work. The women in those countries respond that they don't want to be forced to work in the chemical plant while they are pregnant.

American feminists do tend to see abortion as necessary to liberate women from their biology. Sadly, as China and India have embraced abortion and ultrasound technology, they've used it to abort girls, leaving an imbalance of tens of millions more men than women. In those societies, girls are a liability, so some just get rid of them.

[92. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:23 PM on Jan 15:]

92

Sara P says:

That doesn't mean that we women should lack the freedom to choose between the wide range of options available to us morally, however. We are not the same as men, still, and killing our babies will never eliminate the fact that we alone were able to have them in the first place.

The larger issue is that some "freedoms" ought not be allowed at all. The "freedom" to murder one's child is deplorable, and if you call that an advancement of human nights, then you undermine your own legitimacy to speak about "oppression".

The point I made was that feminism has been more oppressive to women than any religious inequity Kristof cites among the "fundamentalists".

Even the most abusive fundamentalists, in sheer volume, do not approach the genocide that we have suffered at the hands of the feminist. The latter has handed us a death toll exceeding 50 million children, at least half of them girls.

[93. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:29 PM on Jan 15:]

93

Sara P says:

When men get nasty, yes, women need men to protect them... from other men!

THANK YOU! That was part of another point I was trying to make, but couldn't quite get it out.

On the other hand, a very large number of those same men who would protect you from those "other men", also oppose women having the right to pay a hit man doctor to kill a child in utero.

[94. Elaine said the following at 12:47 PM on Jan 15:]

94

Christianity if practiced according to the Bible show love, care, kindness to female (women and girl). However, I don’t like when men used the Bible as a means to abuse women. I read the Bible through more than once and also participate in Bible Study at church and some of the things I heard raised by Christian male leaders have no bearing on Christianity and the Bible. They are as follows:

a. Women should always cover their head or hair in church.
b. Women should never cut their hair.
c. Women are not as bright as men and thus should not be encouraged to pursue higher education in science subjects.
d. In the Quiverfull Movement- A woman should leave her womb open to the Lord and if he wants her to conceive, he will open her womb if not he’ll closed it. Therefore women in that movement are always pregnant. Her body does not rest or replenish after giving birth. Also, along with giving birth every year and looking after children and toddlers (they should be able to home school these children). Someone explain to me how this is done. I believe the girls in these homes must always be kept busy looking after young sibling . When I was pregnant and have morning sickness, I wonder how these women do this every year . Even Leah in Genesis 30:9 took a rest from bearing children.

e. Although mentioned in the Bible, a lot of Christian men used the text on submission to undermine women.

f. Also the text that women should not speak in church to keep women quiet in church and to indoctrinate them in things that are not in the Bible I have been a leader in my church from I was 15 years and serve in various capacity. Women in my Church are Bible Study Teachers, Elders, even First Elders and serve in every leader capacity. I have never seen any of them over the last 20 years used it as a platform for raising feminism awareness. If they do they are not welcome.

g. There is no where in the Bible that said women should be solely responsible for Child rearing and men should only be provider. I believe some men used this to avoiding doing house work.

h. I have been a Christian since 8 years old and I never understand how the very religious men in the church families are unhappy. How, their children left the church and their wives left them. If they have a good relationship with God , it would reflect in their family life.

i. Feminism is not all bad. It is reason which allows all you women who said it was bad to vote, attend school and has an education.

j. The verse whistling woman and crowing hen is a abomination to the Lord is not in the Bible.

[95. Rebekah in SoCal said the following at 1:55 PM on Jan 15:]

95

I used to feel slightly oppressed by the idea of submission, although at that time I would still acknowledge that it was in the Bible.

But, after years of study, I've learned that submission is not related to worth or value. Within the relationship of the Trinity we see that Jesus submits to the Father and the Holy Spirit submits to the Son. BUT, each has the same worth w/in the Trinity.

Therefore, a wife's submission to her husband is not a matter of unequal worth but that of different roles. (I would also argue that since, the husband/wife relationship is the primary model of Christ's love for the church, that submission is not bound to a certain culture or time).

So, submission should not equal oppression, but unfortunately sin does enter into the equation. But, it doesn't follow that Chrisitanity necessarily oppresses women or that b/c men sin wives are "off the hook".

QUite frankly, I would rather have my role (submission) than his. My future husband will be responsible before God for how he leads our family and I feel like that is a much harder task.

[96. Louise from Chicago said the following at 1:56 PM on Jan 15:]

96

Comment 88, when I say "I don't need protection" I MEAN (gasp) that I don't need protection!

Why would you or anyone else misunderstand that?

[97. Leah C said the following at 2:09 PM on Jan 15:]

97

Thank you Ted (# 63) for your response. I suppose some responses to some of my comments have been not unkind. I do aknowledge that.

I will say that ALL of nasty and violent behavior I've experienced from men where ALL Christian men and I refuse to accept the pathetic excuse they were not 'real' Christian men.

I have over 22 years training in self defense that includes hand-to-hand, weapons (ranged and close-quaters). My feeling in dealing with professing Christian men I meet in person is to have a weapon ready at all times.

That of course makes me a dispicable evil person in the views of 'valiant' Christian men but I no longer care.

I also get tired of Christians assuming that since I dare to have the outragous belief that women deserve equal respect, pay, and authroity among other things that I for some reason support abortion. I am opposed to abortion because it is murder. Not because of any religious belief.

Thank you all for your time.

[98. Zusanne said the following at 2:13 PM on Jan 15:]

98

Elaine (#94): Oh, and please, don't forget the no pants for women rule. I've never understood that one!

[99. Zusanne said the following at 2:17 PM on Jan 15:]

99

Actually, when it comes to abortion, I would guess that MORE than half of the babies killed would be female--simply because of the nations that prefer male children to female.

And then when you hear about what happens sometimes when a girl is accidentally born . . .

At the same time, when discussing feminism, I think we're painting with a pretty broad brush. There is a difference between classical feminism (voting, equal pay) and contemporary feminism (abortion, lesbianism) that needs to be distinguished. While it is true that the first movement paved the way for the second, not everyone who embraces classical feminism would support what is now being called by the same name.

[100. MrsLarijani said the following at 2:27 PM on Jan 15:]

100

Well, well, well. My husband seems to have hit a nerve or two, no?

While my husband needs no one to come to his aid, I just can't help but wonder what - exactly - other people are thinking. . .

So far I am seeing "delusional", forceful (not the exact word, of course, but I'm paraphrasing), "short-sighted", and "violent". Now, people, you just need to take a step back.

Amir married a woman with a college education. So, clearly, he isn't opposed to women with brains. We are even knocking the idea around of going to seminary. He would be returning and I would possibly take classes if my schedule allows.

Oh and to point out the obvious: he is married. How does he treat his wife?

Allow me to bend your ear and tell you how he treats the primary woman in his life . . .

He is the most kind and generous man I have ever known. He strives everyday to live out his role as a godly husband. He works hard. He lays down his life for me. If I'm upset, his world stops.

Am I oppressed? Hardly.

I can actually choose whether or not I want to work outside of the home. I have chosen to get a job this side of the altar.

In fact, marrying him liberated me in more than a couple of ways. I won't get into all that here, though.

So, before any of you go on and continue hurling ill-thought comments towards my husband, just know that he loves his wife in ways most women wish they were loved.

I would hope that all women would as thrilled with their husbands/husbands-to-be as I am with mine.

[1. Louise from Chicago said the following at 9:10 AM on Jan 14:]

1

I personally do not feel that I need to be "protected."

And all human beings should be honored.

[2. Kellie said the following at 9:19 AM on Jan 14:]

2

There are certain sects of Christianity that seem to oppress women (ie. the quiver full movement, those that feel it is wrong for any woman to work outside the home, discourage higher education, etc.), but these are extremes and I think this is more of human thinking and not God.

[3. Chris said the following at 9:47 AM on Jan 14:]

3

But I have had to question my own belief system, and I have come to understand that accepting leadership structures in the home and church does not give the "inevitable implication" that I am inferior. I am an equally worthy child of God, a fellow heir of grace with my brothers in Christ. Simply because I acknowledge that I was created for different roles than my brothers does not mean that I am a lesser than.

So you're separate but equal......

[4. Tara (not the other Tara) said the following at 9:49 AM on Jan 14:]

4

Comment #1:

Being protected doesn't have to signify weakness and even then not all weaknessess are necessarily shameful. It's part of the human experience. We all have areas where we need protection whether it be physical, emotional, mental or spiritual. I actually see protection and honouring others as going hand in hand.

I see honouring my husband as a form of protecting him. For example, by not cutting him down in front of others I am both honouring him (showing him respect) and protecting his dignity.

I would agree with you that a woman is not in need of protection in the sense of being coddled. I am not my husband's child or student. I am his wife. That means partner.

:)

[5. DannieA said the following at 9:56 AM on Jan 14:]

5

My denomination treats women with respect. I have no qualms.

Sometimes people need to differentiate Christianity and what some people inside Christianity interpret things according to 'their' way of thinking instead of God's.

[6. Robert Hall said the following at 9:56 AM on Jan 14:]

6

Comment #1 is the whole problem in a nutshell when it comes to relationships between men and women in the 21st century.

[7. Saidah said the following at 10:02 AM on Jan 14:]

7

Amen!How it became oppressive to accept honor and protection, make your home your priority, like children, and submit to designated leadership, I have no idea! What a travesty that we as Christians have brought others to believe that our faith oppresses! If only they knew that only in complete submission to Christ could they ever experience true "freedom," it would probably warp their brains! lol.

On a side note, wouldn't you say that all the powerful women in Washiongton (ie Napolitano, Clinton, the First Lady) are submissive to President Obama? Don't they defer to his leadership? Doesn't he have the final word? Aren't they putting aside their personal ambitions and prerogatives in order to use their skills to advance and build the goals the President has for his administration? Now isn't that what people are always complaining about Christian women doing for their husbands? You would think these brilliant women would know they're being oppressed! I mean, they know WE are! What a shame! lol

[8. Beth said the following at 10:13 AM on Jan 14:]

8

Louise, I applaud your willingness to continue to read Boundless, since you seem to disagree so often with its writers. It's refreshing, since so many people read only articles with which they agree. I don't think Heather meant to exclude other human beings from being honored; this article simply focuses on women because that was the subject of Kristof's article.

Like Heather, I'm unwilling to throw all religions or sects into one pile, but I'll definitely look at the results of their actions. We know a tree by its fruit.

[9. Carrie D said the following at 10:31 AM on Jan 14:]

9

I agree with Kellie #2; religious sects that oppress women draw more from power-hungry humans than from religious texts.

For example, in my anthropology course we discussed the origin of the Islamic tradition of veiling women. What I thought was an oppressive practice actually began as a mark of honor for Muhammad's own wives. When one of them was mistaken for a temple slave, Muhammad's wives began wearing veils to indicate their elevated status. Of course, the wealthiest women soon followed and the veil became a widespread practice.

Power-hungry sects like the Taliban are the ones who have begun twisting tradition to suit their own purposes. They warp the veil tradition and portray women as temptresses, claiming that women are untrustworthy, corrupt, and up to no good. From there it's an easy jump to barring women from education (wouldn't want to put MORE ideas in her head) and not letting them outside alone (who knows what she's up to?).

I'm not familiar with sects of Christianity that put similar limitations on women, but perhaps I should look into it...

[10. Esther said the following at 10:57 AM on Jan 14:]

10

I think it is silly for women to stand up and say, "I don't need protection!" Of course we do, we all need protection, men and women, but probably especially women. Isn't the point of the article under discussion that women are being mistreated, and thus need efforts to protect them from that (either by changes in action, legislation or attitudes)?
I am not ashamed to ask for an attitude of protection from men in my acquaintance. The reality is that I am small (5'2") and weak (at least in comparison to those who might want to hurt me). I appreciate it when the guys (and girls) in my running club come looking for me when I get lost, or call me when I don't show up for a run as planned. Do they think I'm helpless? Of course not, we're marathoners! But they understand, as do I, that there are forces of evil out there that an individual may not be able to stand up to, and so we should protect one another. Certainly, oppression has occurred in the name of protection, but that's where we need to be discerning of intent and purpose.

[11. Texas Craig said the following at 11:02 AM on Jan 14:]

11

Chris (#3): Clever. :-)

Of course, to the extent that you were intending that as a genuine shot at the idea expressed by Heather, you will need to expand more. There are many things that are "separate but equal" and the mere idea (although connected to the improper treatment of African-Americans) is, by itself, not necessarily wrong.

I have two children. One is a boy, one is a girl. Their personalities are different. Accordingly, I disciplione them differently. Separate, but equal.

I may have two good friends. One likes sports, another doesn't. One I never invite to sporting events, while the other I do. The other I invite to movies. Separate, but equal.

I am firmly convinced that men and women are designed differently by God, and have different giftings. I am firm in discipline, while my wife has difficulty being firm. My wife is very compassionate and gentle, while I can find it difficult to not say "get over it, it's just a scratch" when my children suffer minor injuries. We have separate roles in parenting our children. We are very separate, but very equal.

[12. Texas Craig said the following at 11:11 AM on Jan 14:]

12

The fact of the matter is that the concept of different roles does not just apply to women/men. Rather, it applies to the whole body of believers. Scripture tells us that all of the parts of the body have equal worth and work together, even though they have different roles. Hands, feet, etc. carry out different functions, but it is one body.

Any time we demand our rights, we usually are falling into the devil's trap and engaging in sin. Some might take issue with that statement by me and argue that this idea is a tool used by those in power to maintain their power. But, that mistakenly assumes that God cares at all about worldly power. I submit He cares very little about it.

Go back and read Philippians chapter 2. Anyone that gets worked up over "their rights" needs to remember that, if they are a Christian, they have no rights. They are a bondservant for Christ. That means they no longer demand anything for themselves, but rather seek to live only for the will of God. That is why in scripture, God can tell slaves to obey their masters, or spouses to live with unbelieving spouses. Ultimately, true godliness shows itself in submission and service, not leadership or authority. But, God's ways are not man's ways, so we continue to think that we need to fight for "our rights."

[13. BDB said the following at 11:43 AM on Jan 14:]

13

One of the interesting things I heard from the leader of an Evangelical seminary is how many Catholic laywomen they had applying and attending so they could get training - and go back to their Catholic churches.

At the same time, the Catholic religious orders give tremendous lattitude to women. It's amazing when you realize groups of nuns are running multi-billion-dollar hostpial systems. But those hospitals are non-profit, so they don't "count" in the Fortune 500 - even though their hospitals are bigger than many of the companies in the Fortune 500.

[14. Emily said the following at 12:10 PM on Jan 14:]

14

#1, Louise - For a long time, I thought the same as you. I abhorred religion (Christianity in particular) because I hated the whole "be quiet, calm, gentle, submissive to your husband thing". I was strong, independent, and I didn't need a religion that was going to keep me down and treat me disrespectfully.

What happened to me while I was in that stage of my life? I was beaten, abused, belittled, and hurt by one man, while all the other men in my life stood back and "let me handle it on my own" - after all, I was an independent woman who was absolutely no different from men, right?

I agree that I am equal with man, in that I am a human being created by God. However, I am different. I am NOT a man. I am a woman. My physical body is different - I have different thoughts, feelings, needs, and dreams. I am fundamentally different.

Since I have come to accept the idea of Biblical womanhood, and all that that entails, I have made friends with men who believe in that concept also. And I have to say, I have never felt more loved, more accepted, more cherished, and more *respected* than by these men. It's beautiful, really.

(And before anyone tries to stereotype me, I want to say that I am a 19 year old woman, living on my own, in college working on earning 2 degrees while working a job.)

[15. em said the following at 12:15 PM on Jan 14:]

15

Perhaps the place to start is to admit that a male Christian hierarchy has been oppressive to many women historically and some Christian sects still are so. I would contend that they are decidely not Christ-like in doing so, but it does happen and all too often.

No, Heather, authority structures need not be oppressive (as comment #7 points out) - but they may be and sometimes are. Some beliefs reinforce that oppression - particularly when authority is seen as a RIGHT based on color/sex/lineage/IQ or some special characteristic.

Today I was reading of how Jesus' disciples were amazed that he was talking to a woman. He shared deep spiritual truths with her, transforming her life. She became one of history's first Christian evangelists - pointing others to Jesus. We have the privilege of showing what it looks like to live in harmony as sons and daughters of God, joint heirs of eternal life - without a hint of strife or disprespect or oppression among us. Can we rise to that challenge and image God to / with our brothers and sisters - unlike religions that enable the oppression of women?

[16. Louise from Chicago said the following at 12:27 PM on Jan 14:]

16

Comment 4, I never said that the need for protection is a "weakness."

I just don't feel that I myself need protection.

People are different of course.

[17. Louise from Chicago said the following at 12:31 PM on Jan 14:]

17

Comment 6, well after I die maybe the twenty-first century will be redeemed and all the "nutshell problems" solved.

And comment 7, again I never said anything derogatory about the concept of protection or those who feel a need for it.

I just don't feel that I myself need anyone to protect me.

[18. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:53 PM on Jan 14:]

18

Looking at merely the end-results, Kristoff has no concept of what he is talking about. In fact, I would turn the tables on him and suggest that feminism is one of the leading oppressors of women.

It has (a) encouraged women to eschew relationships with men, (b) promoted lesbianism, (c) promoted the killing of tens of millions of children in utero--at least half of whom are female.

Its embracement by clergy, has left a large sector of the Church impotent in its presentation of the Gospel, which has been watered-down in metrosexuality.

If every man on earth decided that feminism would end today, it would be over by sundown.

And as soon as women figured out how much they would stand to enjoy the evenings, most would be cheering its demise. And the men would be worn out by sunrise.

I will drink Guinness--extra stout--to the demise of feminism.

[19. Sarah P. said the following at 1:39 PM on Jan 14:]

19

Yikes, Louise! For real? I know I for one sure need at least God's protection, what with the seeming millions of ways I could perish in the next instant.

The only reason we women possess the freedom we do to live so independently in America is that a significant number of men here have/had a strong moral sense that we should be equal in value. I would like to see how the American women's lib movement would go over in Afghanistan, for example.

[20. Peter said the following at 1:44 PM on Jan 14:]

20

I am larger, stronger, and better armed than most, yet I am "protected".

I am protected from invasion and enslavement by soldiers.
I am protected from criminals by police and the judicial system.
I am protected from sickness by medical professionals.
I am protected from fire by firefighters.

This is part of living in a community, not as an isolated individual. It does not lessen my value as a man.

Do not confuse function with value.

Peter

[21. Liz said the following at 2:37 PM on Jan 14:]

21

This is an interesting article, and I really like Heather's thoughtful take on it. Personally, I believe men and women are absolutely equal in the eyes of God, and that God is much less concerned about whether a woman works outside the home or not than He is about whether both men and women are leading honest, good lives (with Him in their hearts) to the best of their ability.

I think the problem arises in Christianity (especially in some Christian movements, and other religions too I'm sure) when people take what Heather described as men and women having different roles that are no less important or deserving of respect than the other and abuse that dynamic. Sadly, this abuse of power seems mostly skewed against women--it's the churchgoing husband who feels, as the biblical head of the household, that it's his job to "discipline" his wife through physical abuse, emotional manipulation, or simply by lording it over her and not "allowing" her to have any voice, input or autonomy.

[22. Celeste said the following at 3:19 PM on Jan 14:]

22

You know....I think it's a lot like dancing. When a woman finds a man who is a strong leader, she is more then happy to fall in step. And a good leader will listen and adjust to meet her needs/desires. Both people are more successful this way.

[23. Kristina M. said the following at 3:58 PM on Jan 14:]

23

This may be off the subject, but I just love how these people try to counsel us "oppressed" women not accepting the way that "religion" tells us to live, as they themselves proceed to tell us how to live. If someone's going to be telling me how to live, I'd rather it be my Creator than some other human being who is just as flawed as I am and who isn't even 100% sure they have all the right answers.

[24. Louise from Chicago said the following at 4:01 PM on Jan 14:]

24

Comment 10 I am not silly and I think I know myself better than you do ma'am.

I don't need protection.

If everyone other person in the world feels he/she needs protection, that is just fine.

But I assure you ma'am, I do not need it and I would appreciate if in the future you would kindly refrain from referring to my statements as "silly!"

Thank you.

[25. Chris said the following at 4:11 PM on Jan 14:]

25

Texas Craig writes (#11):

We are very separate, but very equal.

True. But when "leadership structures in the home and church " are based on broad generalizations or writings from another time and culture, then the connotation applies.

[26. rachel said the following at 4:25 PM on Jan 14:]

26

Suffrage is pretty awesome. I'll take feminism's burdens over those of my great-great-great-grandmother any day.

[27. Lia said the following at 4:25 PM on Jan 14:]

27

Amir Larijani, if you have that to say about feminism, I'm pretty sure that you know nothing about it.

If every man on earth decided that feminism would end today, it would be over by sundown.

I assume you mean that men could drive it out by force-- what a horrific thing to say. You know, that scenario has already been a topic of a novel-- a little book called The Handmaid's Tale. You should read it sometime.

[28. Louise from Chicago said the following at 4:44 PM on Jan 14:]

28

Comment 14, now the mere fact that I don't feel I need to be protected now means I "abhor religion."

Am I still silly, everyone?

And comment 14, I am the veteran of an emotionally abusive marriage, which I ended entirely on my own.

I didn't need to be protected then and I don't need to be protected now.

[29. Dan Lilledahl from Newnan, GA said the following at 4:44 PM on Jan 14:]

29

Esther (post 10): Let's try to address people directly whether we agree with them or not, and let's try to refrain from condescension.

Louise (post 24): Good for you. I am really annoyed when people are afraid to address people directly here and elsewhere on the Internet, but instead use insults and passive-aggressive language. I am guilty of this too, and I am trying to make changes. I think most of us would like to be treated with respect, regardless of how anonymous we are on the Internet.

[30. Chris said the following at 6:01 PM on Jan 14:]

30

Amir writes (#18):

If every man on earth decided that feminism would end today, it would be over by sundown.

Heh, heh, heh. Keep on telling that to yourself, buddy. Keep on telling that to yourself.....

[31. Jen said the following at 6:10 PM on Jan 14:]

31

I have to admit I felt oppressed by the complementarian view of gender roles. I tried very hard to embrace it, but in the end I just couldn't reconcile the "separate but equal roles." I now go to a church which believes in egalitarianism and I do not feel oppressed.

[32. Eve said the following at 6:14 PM on Jan 14:]

32

I read this article in the NYT and I wouldn't have come to this conclusion at all. He is just commenting on religion in general. In fact, he goes out of his way to point out the good that evangelical and Pentecostal churches have done. Honestly, when I read his book about women in the world (it's called 'Half the Sky', I was surprised to see that he points out the good that Christian missionaries have done overseas. Most political science-y people prefer to criticize and blame missionaries.

"But what Kristof doesn't see is that those evangelical churches are doing the same thing in Africa that they are called by the Word to do anywhere in the world"

As far as I know, Kristof is not a Christian. How would he see this or know it? As a non-Christian, it is unlikely that he would be as familiar with scripture as a Christian.

[33. Eve said the following at 6:36 PM on Jan 14:]

33

Kristina M. (comment #23),

You said, "I just love how these people try to counsel us "oppressed" women not accepting the way that "religion" tells us to live, as they themselves proceed to tell us how to live."

However, Kristof is not telling "oppressed" women how to live. In fact, he is calling religious leaders to step up speak out against traditions that actually oppress (as in: rape, denial of medical care, etc)

He says, "In Africa, it would help enormously if religious figures spoke up for widows disenfranchised by unjust inheritance traditions — or for rape victims, or for schoolgirls facing sexual demands from their teachers. Instead, in Uganda, the influence of conservative Christians is found in a grotesque push to execute gays."

He is addressing religious leaders, not just Christians. He includes the call to Muslims. Kristof is not criticizing the American Christian culture.

The truth is, Kristof, if anything, is asking American Christian leaders to step up and hold fellow Christians accountable for their actions.

When the Bible is being misused to support sinful actions (rape or murder), shouldn't we, as Christians, speak out for the poor, widowed, and oppressed?

His article wasn't about us, it was about them.

[34. Kelly-1 said the following at 7:06 PM on Jan 14:]

34

Re: Protection. I have been fiercely independant in the past and often walk alone at night. I'm not big, and rely on my wits rather than a physical weapon, but I have faith that God protects me. And He ALWAYS has.

However. I've spent significant time in Muslim countries and THAT is when I've been scared just because I am a woman. I wasn't respected; I was treated as a lesser citizen. It really opened my eyes to how lucky most women in Western cultures are.

[35. Kathryn (Perth, Aust) said the following at 7:28 PM on Jan 14:]

35

I was thinking about this topic just yesterday, Heather! I was thinking about how in the past, women have been oppressed and was wondering how that came about.

Broad finger pointing brings us to the patriarchal society that we've supposedly inherited from Christian morals and ethics, thus it's Christianity's fault. Whilst I can understand where that reasoning is coming from, it seems to me that "male and female he created them" and the honour and protection a men is to have for his wife, combined with women's roles in the church (Lydia, Priscilla etc) seems to indicate a deeper and more complex relationship between men and women.

It is my firm belief that genuine Christian men will be changed by the Spirit to see women as equally valued and useful. And in marriage, where the man is called to love his wife as Christ loved the church (self sacrificially), surely his priority is for her well being. This oppressive patriarchal model, therefore, comes from the abuse of the husband's leadership role. It is an excuse for sin. Surely we can see this same principle applied in other areas of life too - and not just with Christianity. Whenever the heart is sinful, it will seek to justify it's sin. Distorted, Biblical male leadership is an excuse to justify female suppression.

But this is just me postulating :)

Louise, your comment has attracted a fair bit of attention. I'm glad that you don't need protection. Have you done something self-defense-y? I don't feel very safe walking some streets at night around my city and very much appreciate the offers of my bloke friends to walk me to my car. It shows their care and respect towards me, that they are concerned enough for my safety. :)

[36. rachel said the following at 7:48 PM on Jan 14:]

36

Chris #30--LOL

"If every man on earth decided that feminism would end today, it would be over by sundown."

This made me giggle all afternoon, and think of Aristophanes' "Lysistrata".

[37. Lis said the following at 7:56 PM on Jan 14:]

37

regarding protection, i am 5 foot 2, weigh a whopping 90 pounds soaking wet, but have two years of experience in martial arts. i feel very confident to protect myself, but at the same time, i do still want a guy to take care of me. it does mean a lot to me to know that the men in my life are watching out for me, but still know that i can protect myself too.

i am comfortable to be alone, but still feel safer having a guy i trust with me if i am out somewhere at night. what i like about my close guy friends is that they are very protective of me when i am with them, yet at the same time they trust me and encourage my ability to take care of myself when i am alone.

[38. Texas Craig said the following at 8:54 PM on Jan 14:]

38

Chris (#25):

If you are referring to scripture, then I submit it may make no difference when or where they were written, if the truth stated therein is broad and general itself.

Namely, I believe scripture is God-inspired. Thus, I do not find it to be relevant only to a time period. Having said that, I do agree that there are portions that have limited relevance now because they had specific cultural implications and were tied to a specific situation that no longer may exist.

So, a reasoned debate can be had about scripture and what portions reflect timeless principles versus those portions that were intended for a specific audience (such as dietary laws for the Jews, for example). But, if you are saying that all of scripture is irrelevant because of when and where it was written, then I disagree.

[39. JB said the following at 10:24 PM on Jan 14:]

39

I'm confused. If one believes, as some conservative Christians do, that women may not lead a church, should keep silent during services, and must submit to their husbands, how can you view that as anything other than oppression? It's all very well to say that men and women have complementary but equally valuable roles, and I get that equality doesn't require identity, but be serious. If you tell someone to sit down, shut up, and submit, you cannot possibly be treating them as an equal. It just doesn't work.

[40. Louise from Chicago said the following at 11:10 PM on Jan 14:]

40

Comment 35, I have been taking care of myself my entire adult life.

And I have never failed myself.

Hey, everyone if it isn't broken...don't fix it!

[41. Tara (not the other Tara) said the following at 11:14 PM on Jan 14:]

41

Louise,

I didn't mean to construe that you were weak or were a simpleton. I am sorry if I made you feel I was saying that. What I was trying to convey was the idea that, in an ideal world, we look out for one another...that people need community. The Bible uses the analogy that we're all one body with many parts--all need to come together for the body to be able to function. The eye can't tell the ear, "I don't need you". Once again, I'm being rather idealistic, but I think the idea could be applied to humanity as a whole.

I understand if you disagree with me, however.

:)

[42. Peter said the following at 12:03 AM on Jan 15:]

42

Amir (#18) is correct.

Whether you like it or not, the majority of those who have shaped the societies in which we live - the churchmen and philosophers who created its moral basis, the statemen who created its institutions, the scientists, engineers and businessmen who made us wealthy, healthy and comfortable,,, and the warriors who defended it - were and are men.

There is a kind of short-sighted arrogance that imagines that our generation is responsible for all the benefits which we experience.

Women who refuse to appreciate what they have been given by men of past generations, should not expect to marry similarly good, courageous and committed men of this generation.

Peter

[43. jack said the following at 12:06 AM on Jan 15:]

43

Hey Chris-

Amir is correct. IF, IF, IF men collectively decided that they had enough of feminism, it would be all over. Never happen quite that fast, of course.

It IS true, though, that the harmful ideology of feminism exists with the collusion and cooperation of men. That cooperation was necessary to birth feminism, and remains necessary to sustain it. Why else would feminists need to so harshly deride anyone who even desires to engage the topic in honest debate?

The fragility of feminism is evident from that fact alone, since it apparently can't handle the slightest challenge to its orthodoxy. Challenges are met with childish retorts, and discourse that is more akin to tantrum than dispassionate debate.

Very slowly, men are beginning to see that a large part of the abdication of their leadership role was the nurturing of feminism. Many men sought to avoid duty and accountability by embracing it.

Feminism is anti-God, and ironically, more anti-woman that the so-called patriarchy it replaced.

Feminism has already peaked, it is only a question of time until it is much, much weaker than it is today. Feminism is against God's design, therefore its failure is inevitable.

This is not a debate, it is a Biblical forecast.

[44. Kathleen said the following at 12:12 AM on Jan 15:]

44

Amir Lajani writes: "In fact, I would turn the tables on him and suggest that feminism is one of the leading oppressors of women."

Indeed, it's just so oppressive to have the right to vote and own property; to be able to divorce an abusive husband; to have the right to attend state universities; to have equal access to educational and employment opportunities; to have choices other than wife, homemaker, or secretary.

[45. jack said the following at 12:21 AM on Jan 15:]

45

Jen (31)

What if I feel oppressed by a religious doctrine that demands that I honor my parents? Is my feeling any less valid than yours?

Should I seek a church that works around that in some way?

People also often mistake being offended for being oppressed. Truthfully, the word oppression has been so overused by the victim-oriented pop culture we live in that it has little meaning any more.

Personally, I feel oppressed by the commandment to avoid premarital sex. I SUBMIT to it nonetheless.

I wonder how many Christians feel that submitting themselves to the Lord's will is "oppression"?

[46. Tiffany said the following at 5:45 AM on Jan 15:]

46

Nick Kristof is writing and drawing attention to urgent issues, particularly facing women around the world. If you haven't read his book "Half the Sky", I strongly recommend it. Beyond the complementarian/egalitarian debate we've had ad naseum here on Boundless, millions of women are being killed, neglected, and abused around the world and THAT is Kristof's main point.

In his book, he cites research that finds that more women have been killed in the last 50 years, merely because they are women, than all the men killed in the wars of the 20th century. Please, please, please don't miss this fact.

And his point that religion is often culpable in the oppression of women is hard to find fault with. Nick Kristof is a non-believer who is often fairly generous to Christians (especially Christian aid work) in his writings. He just doesn't share your complementarian view of men and women (something not surprising for most Western people who do not subscribe to a conservative religious perspective).

So instead of finding fault with Kristof for disagreeing with you on this particular (highly controversial) issue, let's be people who stand up beside these "whistle-blowers" and affirm that our God values women and we do too.

So instead of fighting again about women submitting to their husbands or not speaking in church, let's get angry about the devastating consequence oppression (whatever its cause) is having on our sisters around the world.

[47. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:47 AM on Jan 15:]

47

Lia writes:

Amir Larijani, if you have that to say about feminism, I'm pretty sure that you know nothing about it.

I know quite a bit about it. Both in terms of its cultural roots and implications, as well as its roots and implications in theology.

Society is worse off for it.

Feminism has left a much higher body count than the collective exploits of the Christian fundamentalists.

To suggest otherwise, reflects either ignorance of failure to look at the big picture.

I assume you mean that men could drive [feminism] out by force-- what a horrific thing to say. You know, that scenario has already been a topic of a novel-- a little book called The Handmaid's Tale. You should read it sometime.

You should read your Bible sometime. Feminism has no Biblical basis for promotion. Zero.

Moreover, it is far more oppressive than anything Kristof cites.

And driving its ranks from the Church, would indeed be a matter of men deciding it would happen. The results would be immediate.

Protest all you wish, but it would be over. You want to know why? The Church is not democratic institution. God did not get elected. God did not ordain feminism. Jesus did not make the Church egalitarian. Nor did Paul suggest any such framework for the Church or for home life.

Personally, I would cheer the feminist exit from the Church, just as I cheered their exit from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Feminism is as good for the Body as gangrene.

As for government, the effects of such a decision by the men would be immediate, but it would take a few special elections--and regular election cycles--to complete the job.

What would the feminists going to do, that they have not already done? Start an armed insurrection against the men? (That would end in about 20 proverbial seconds.)

Challenge the men in hand-to-hand combat? (That would be a rout for the men.)

Try to start a petition to vote out the men? (You would need to get all women on your side, but a large percentage of them would want nothing to do with feminism.)

Feminism only has a place in Church and civil affairs, because men allow it.

As I said before, if every man decided it would end, it would be over for the feminists.

[48. Leigh said the following at 7:00 AM on Jan 15:]

48

JB, I go to a church where women are not allowed to teach adult men. But a man can teach a woman. I don't feel opressed. Maybe this way of thought is accepted a little better in the south. I want to be protected and I want a man who will lead.

[49. Amir Larijani said the following at 7:11 AM on Jan 15:]

49

Kathleen says:

Indeed, it's just so oppressive to have the right to vote and own property; to be able to divorce an abusive husband; to have the right to attend state universities; to have equal access to educational and employment opportunities; to have choices other than wife, homemaker, or secretary.

and don't forget the rest: (1) to kill children in utero--for any or no reason--on demand, (2) to undermine the nuclear family through subverting the court systems, (3) to impose oppressive tax burdens on families, (4) to impose indoctrination on children in public schools, (5) to hijack academia with federal government winking and nodding....

None of the "freedoms" you cite--most of which were in play long before Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem were rallying their stormtroopers--are worth the cost we have paid in human life alone.

[50. Trevor Dolby said the following at 7:11 AM on Jan 15:]

50

Celeste (22): You beat me to it! The concept of "servant leadership" (a classic Christian idea) makes much more sense now I've learned to dance.

As a man, I have to lead moves that the lady can do well (if at all possible), and create sets of moves that show her off to her best advantage; I'm there to make her look good :) I don't know how it feels to be a woman, but from observation it seems that not having to worry about what to do next frees them to look beautiful in a relaxed way.

It's certainly true that when you see a couple dancing socially together, it's normally the lady who is the centre of attention: the movement, the clothes, hair, everything. Nobody cares about who has "power" at that point :)

[51. Trevor Dolby said the following at 7:12 AM on Jan 15:]

51

Kelly-1 (34): The original Christianity doesn't really accept that women are "lesser" - weaker, yes, but not lesser. For example, girls who refused to marry the husband chosen for them by parents were more likely to be canonized (made into official "saints") than condemned!

It seems your experiences in those Muslim countries show the effect to which Kristof refers . . .

[52. Trevor Dolby said the following at 7:13 AM on Jan 15:]

52

JB (39): It does depend on how you view things, and what is considered "good".

For example, if you see a servant laying a table for a queen, do you think that the queen is "oppressed" because she can't do the table-laying herself? Or do you think the servant is being oppressed by being forced to make this queen's life easier so she can simply sit around?

In Christian terms, teaching, leading churches, having to speak up on various things, and so on, are all actually seen as work (vocation, really). Having authority over people is also an extremely tiring form of work, as you have to pour energy into thinking through every consequence of everything you do; you can't simply say "I'll do what's right for me, and let everybody else do whatever they want" if you're the example to which they're all looking!

Is it possible we can modify your argument? To tell someone to "sit down", "shut up", and "submit" might actually be treating them as greater, not lesser. (Technically, of course, your argument still stands, in that "greater" is still not "equal").

[53. Loris said the following at 7:44 AM on Jan 15:]

53

Lis #37, I'm 5'10 and double your weight, but I am also thankful for my husband's presence to diffuse the occasional touchy situation. The only time I've really been uneasy, verging on scared, was after my first TKD class. Isn't that odd? We were emerging in our uniforms, and some drunk in the parking lot accosted me. My husband helped me into the car, told me to lock the doors, and stood firmly in front of my door until the bum moved away. I have no doubt that it was my husband's size (6'2, 210 lbs) and the black belt around his waist that convinced the man to move along. Could I have handled the situation if I'd had to? Probably. Did I want to? Absolutely not. Could I have gotten rid of the drunk that easily, just by my sheer presence? Definitely not.

[54. Louise from Chicago said the following at 7:50 AM on Jan 15:]

54

Comment 41, where did I ever state that we do not need community?

I need community of course, but I don't need protection.

[55. Louise from Chicago said the following at 7:54 AM on Jan 15:]

55

Comment 47, it will never be "over" for us secular humanists.

You better get used to having us around!

[56. James UK said the following at 8:02 AM on Jan 15:]

56

I think that the first thing we must do is to accept that, as many others have said, religious traditions born in generally patriarchal societies do tend to favour men over women. In extreme cases, this does lead to women being treated little better than cattle and on that point, it’s interesting to me that we still use the term meat market when referring to the odious way that some men view woman.

Personally, I have found the passages dealing with husbands and wives to be some of the most difficult in the Bible. It’s not that I don’t accept that there are people singled out for certain roles, such as the Levites in their service of the temple. But there does seem to be something just inherently wrong about saying that, because of someone’s sex, they cannot do certain things and frankly it’s not the only occasion in scripture where this happens. Why, for example, is a woman giving birth to a girl more unclean than one giving birth to a boy? Why was a woman’s testimony not to be considered equal to a man’s? These are just a few examples, but I have always found it quite difficult to reconcile the equal in the eyes of God line with some of the opinions I have encountered.

On the topic of feminism, I accept that there are some areas in which it is at fault, but it has also done a great deal of good. For example, the UK government is about to introduce legislation to force companies to reveal how much they pay there staff, with an aim to end the phenomenon that a man will be paid more for doing exactly the same job as a female colleague. That is wholly unfair and needs to be rectified and the better conditions for maternity leave and parental rights have come about mainly due to the feminist ideology. It’s also been instrumental in getting women into universities and good jobs and has almost completely removed the “woman don’t need an education to have kids” mentality from the public consciousness. Like most things, it was born of a genuine concern and I don’t think we should write all of it off just yet. Pictures of girls in the fifties being trained as housewives make me cringe and I’m glad that such finishing schools no longer exist. Whatever some may say about the ordered nature of church and family life, it’s just far too easy, in my opinion, to abuse.

[57. Louise from Chicago said the following at 8:13 AM on Jan 15:]

57

Actually, Heather K. didn't include divorced women in her last paragraph.

The question of whether or not I need protection may well be moot!

:)

[58. Leah C said the following at 8:41 AM on Jan 15:]

58

I was say many religions are oppressive to women. The worst is Islam but the second is Christianity.
My father is a retired pastor and I was beaten frequently growing up to I would learn 'submission'. I guess I am one of those women Christians hate with a deep passion. I beleive in equal right and equal pay. I believe women can have as much authority as a man. I am far more educated than any pastor I ever met and I can out fight any man. Of course Christian men who know me say I need 'to be broken in' as if I am some animal to be 'tamed' for their purposes.
At the same time I have no problem with women who willingly give up their natural authority and intellect to Christian men. They just need to understand I will never respect them but I do aknowledge their right to follow what ever religion they choose to.

[59. Ted Slater said the following at 8:46 AM on Jan 15:]

59

Some of you may be interested to know that we published an article on Boundless just last week that:

• references this New York Times author, Nicholas Kristof
• explores the issue of the oppression of women
• mentions his book, Half the Sky
• affirms some of Kristof's findings

Check it out: "Feminine Poverty"

[60. murder1 said the following at 8:47 AM on Jan 15:]

60

Being specific about which (faiths), is a problem that needs to be clarified. Kristof could have done that. I would argue that as for Christianity, the bible's declaration of a man being the head and the woman being the second was not in anyway to demean women. A Godly man who strives to honor God would never abuse any woman nor demand her to become the inferior partner. We always have to study what the bible says and apply that, with a right heart.

[61. Befuddled said the following at 8:56 AM on Jan 15:]

61

Re: 5

My denomination treats women with respect, too. I'm thankful for our female ministers.

Re: 47

What was the death toll of the Crusades? (Also, if you want to talk about innocent deaths via abortion, don't forget the Children's Crusade.)

[62. The Other Amy said the following at 8:59 AM on Jan 15:]

62

I've never felt like a second-class citizen as a woman of faith. If anything, I feel more special and honored that God would set me apart to be honored, cherished, and protected. Doesn't it make sense that God would want what He treasures to be protected? Woman was also the answer when Adam himself was not enough. (Don't read this as men being inferior. Read it as men and women are meant to complement each other.) So, do I feel lesser or weaker because the Lord wants me to be taken care of by my brothers in Christ? No. I feel like a treasure that's being guarded by princes that are fighting for their King to take care of His daughter.

[63. Ted Slater said the following at 9:05 AM on Jan 15:]

63

Leah C (#58) -- you wrote, "I guess I am one of those women Christians hate with a deep passion... Of course Christian men who know me say I need 'to be broken in' as if I am some animal to be 'tamed' for their purposes."

As others have said, it hurts me to hear you write these things. I'm sorry that those who claim to follow Christ have hurt you so deeply.

That said, I do have to wonder why you keep bringing this up, and refuse to acknowledge the love and grace expressed by both men and women toward you here on Boundless.

Consider, for example, how people responded when you've told us of your abuse here and here (and elsewhere).

Honestly and sincerely, Leah, I do feel for you. But you need to acknowledge that you have received not abuse from the Christians here, but expressions of care and concern.

[64. Chris said the following at 9:14 AM on Jan 15:]

64

Amir writes (#49):

and don't forget the rest: (1) to kill children in utero--for any or no reason--on demand, (2) to undermine the nuclear family through subverting the court systems, (3) to impose oppressive tax burdens on families, (4) to impose indoctrination on children in public schools, (5) to hijack academia with federal government winking and nodding....

You forgot to add the Star Wars Christmas Special, Tom Brady, and 9/11 to your list.

[65. rachel said the following at 9:21 AM on Jan 15:]

65

#47: I can imagine hypothetical situations too. If all the men in the world decided feminism would end, those with some integrity would realize in a matter of hours that the categorical placement of power in the hands of men based on gender alone was a violation of justice, and in practice created such political, civil, and relational chaos, that they would try to reverse the decision immediately.

There are real evils in feminism, but there were real evils in the more patriarchal model that prevailed in Western Civ. before it. I firmly believe 20th century feminism is, in part, a response to the failure of the church to effect a robust and Biblical culture--one where women and men lived Galatians 3 in the fullness of its promises.

[66. Jo said the following at 9:31 AM on Jan 15:]

66

Amir, 49:

I have no disagreement with the negatives that you cite (although I'm not sure all of them are due entirely to feminism - still, I'm not an expert so I'll defer to you on that), but the positives that Kathleen mentioned are equally valid.

As James (56) said, feminism was born out of a genuine concern - women were genuinely being oppressed. While I completely oppose some things that have arisen from feminism (mainly things connected to the sexual revolution - abortion etc), I can separate the good from the bad and acknowledge that a) something had to happen to bring equal rights to women, and b) I am hugely indebted to the efforts of many of those early feminists for the equality I enjoy today.

The resulting culture shift and sexual revolution are oppressive in a sense, but I can as a woman choose not to buy into society's view of what women should want. And the reason I can do that is partly BECAUSE of feminism. I would not have had the same freedom to shun society's view of women and choose my own path back in the 1900s.

All this just to ask that you recognise that while 'feminism' is an easy label to use, a lot of the advances in gender equality have been good, even great. A lot of them line up much better with scripture than the appalling treatment of women that gone before. They protect women from abuse and afford them their own rights as human beings. None of this is anti-biblical.

Those things which you (rightly) oppose are linked with feminism, but feminism has changed a lot over the years and has never been some kind of club with every member believing and fighting for exactly the same things. 'Feminism' means so many different things to different people. Rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, can't you be more specific about exactly what you have problem with? Otherwise you alienate people, particularly women, who in fact might agree with you on much of what you say.

[67. Tara (not the other Tara) said the following at 9:42 AM on Jan 15:]

67

Louise,

We must be misunderstanding each other. Part of me thinks we're saying the same thing but in different ways because I totally get where you're coming from. I'm fairly independent myself. Perhaps where we do disagree is that I see protection as a form of community--as helping one another out. Though we could also see the word protection as meaning different things. I'm not sure. But I want to validate your stance that a woman is perfectly capbable of taking care of herself. That's where I agree 100%. I guess what I'm saying is sometimes it's OK to let others feel like they are protecting us even if we don't actually need it.

I just don't know where the defensive tone is coming from. I'm not trying to attack your position. I'm not trying to tell you what you're thinking or feeling. I just didn't know what you meant and I responded with the information I had. I mean, I don't know you or how you live (nor do I need to so please don't accuse me of being nosey) so obviously I can't discern where you are coming from. Truly, I meant no offense and was trying to show I simply wanted a friendly dialogue. I know tone can get lost over the internet, that is why I resorted to ending my posts with a smiley. My life won't end if you disagree with me. If you find this particular response offensive, then I am sorry as I am totally clueless as to what I'm saying wrong. I'm not interested in picking a fight nor finishing one.

[68. A.M.C. said the following at 9:56 AM on Jan 15:]

68

Re: Jo (#66)

Regarding the feminism issue: I guess you could argue that most of its ills came during the third wave rather than the previous two?

[69. Christina B said the following at 10:01 AM on Jan 15:]

69

Great that you put this on here. I have faced similar questions and also questioned my own beliefs. It's been revealed to me by God and also from Boundless that we DO need protection and when I say "we," I don't mean women, I mean people.
We have to let go of this fear and pride inside of us that leads us to beleive that we are lesser people simply because we need/deserve some love and caring from each other. Honestly, us ladies should take it as a complimenet from our heavenly Father, who knows us best. We go through so much, why not have a man take on hard labors we're not willing to as we chase the dreams God has placed in our hearts, whether that be law or science or teaching or being a stay-at-home mother!! We can do whatever we so choose but God who has created us knows where we lack. Women bend and are flexible to the needs of others, always. He knows our nature. If we're going to want to be there for who we are in a relationship with in such a powerful way, we are definitely going to need a man who is capable of handling his position by being respectful and stepping up in his leadership role. There is nothing shameful about following an honorable leader. We all do it anyway. Why do everything your president wants or your state patrol wants or your boss wants but have an issue when it comes to the home??
All-in-all, God never makes someone a servant to belittle them!! He always sees the lesser or "weaker" one as having more anyway, because of their spirit. A lot of men can't (don't know how to) protect a woman but we should never have a problem with our heavenly Father wanting to, and that's all the more important if we never had an earthly father do so because we need that restored in us..
I dn't know about you but I'm tired of SOCIETY chopping my gender down, not my FAITH.

[70. Tami said the following at 10:03 AM on Jan 15:]

70

jack (45) wrote, "I wonder how many Christians feel that submitting themselves to the Lord's will is 'oppression'?"

Quite a few, I imagine... or more of us would do so more frequently.

The sad thing is, disobedience is a lot like tar ... the more someone rebels, and seeks freedom in rebellion from God's Word, the more he or she gets stuck in bondage.

[71. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:04 AM on Jan 15:]

71

Jo says:

I have no disagreement with the negatives that you cite (although I'm not sure all of them are due entirely to feminism - still, I'm not an expert so I'll defer to you on that), but the positives that Kathleen mentioned are equally valid.

and hardly worth the death toll.

Chris says:

You forgot to add the Star Wars Christmas Special, Tom Brady, and 9/11 to your list.

:::setting sarcasm mode to ON:::

LOL! I've always had my suspicions about Tom Brady and Star Wars. Thank you for adding those to the list. . .

:::setting sarcasm mode to OFF:::

Feminists--in particular those in government--make America more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Janet Reno and her deputy, Jamie Gorelick, created the bureaucratic culture that made 9/11 possible.

And don't forget Janet "the system worked" Napolitano. . .

[72. Louise from Chicago said the following at 10:15 AM on Jan 15:]

72

Comment 71, I know this isn't a very nice thing to say to someone but I seriously think you are delusional.

Comment 67, the way I read your comment you were putting words in my mouth.

[73. Eve said the following at 10:20 AM on Jan 15:]

73

Tiffany (#46)

Thank you for seeing the point of his article!

Ted (#59)
I was excited to see that post. Half the Sky is a great book.

I am frustrated that this debate is focused on American feminism when the intent of the article was to make people look out at the world. He wasn't talking about whether women need "protection" or equal pay. He was saying it is wrong for women to be burned alive in the name of religion and for the practitioners to stand idly by (perhaps, arguing about the role of women?).

Kristof is doing a better job at advocating for the weak and needy than we are. Seriously, why is he the one calling Christian leaders to rebuke people who are misusing Jesus' name?

[74. Zusanne said the following at 10:21 AM on Jan 15:]

74

I've never really felt that I've needed protection, either. I'm comfortable being out at night by myself or with a a man--doesn't really matter to me in that sense. I'm accustomed to "taking care of myself" and really haven't been able to understand why so many women looked to their man for that level of protection. I've been okay taking care of myself--but I don't (generally) make any foolish risks, even though some of my friends who are part of couples are often surprised at some of my "adventures."

One time I was out with a group and a panhandler started mouthing off to one of my shyer friends. When I stepped in to help her, he turned on me. I made sure she was okay and ignored him and figured that that would be the end of it--really, the situation was okay. No one was in danger of anything except the man's mouth, and I was ignoring him. Then one of my friend's husbands stepped in and defended me. It was really unnecessary, but it was rather sweet. I can understand how someone could get accustomed to that "protection"--it's nice knowing someone cares that way--but I'm fine without it, too.

I have to say that, having worked sometimes with some ministries, that I've had to "earn" my place with some of the men. My "skills" are not in traditional roles--I'm better at buying than baking and at computers and instruments than in the nursery--so often I am planning with the "boy" stuff more than the "girl" stuff. I think the silliest example was when a number of ministries got together for some larger events and the "men" got together to plan games for an event--seriously, there's no scriptural mandate against a woman planning a game for a youth group event!

I am committed to following Scripture. The "bonus rules" that people often add are generally the ones that are so oppressive.

[75. Christina B said the following at 10:24 AM on Jan 15:]

75

Neede to add: I personally have had an early father but I just added that statement in the previous post to make a point, knowing all too well that many women have not.
When you read the parts of the Bible that relate to women, you can see that God sees our beauty in && out, thru && thru and wants us appreciated and treated well.
We do what we do best; guys will do what they do best, whatever these things are. A partnership or role in life, society or relationship doesn't mean one person is ever lesser because each one is needed in order for it to work and for it to be whole.

Also, I may debate that it is society that has conflicted w/ religion, which a previous poster brought up in a way ((Kellie @ #2))

[76. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:26 AM on Jan 15:]

76

Jo says:

All this just to ask that you recognise that while 'feminism' is an easy label to use, a lot of the advances in gender equality have been good, even great. A lot of them line up much better with scripture than the appalling treatment of women that gone before. They protect women from abuse and afford them their own rights as human beings. None of this is anti-biblical.

While there were some inequities that existed in America--some jobs were not open to women, there was no universal suffrage, more companies discriminated against hiring and promoting women, divorce from abusive spouses was more difficult--the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the benefits exceed the costs.

You may call "no-fault divorce" a marker of progress in "gender equality". Now please tell me--given that this has led directly to the divorce culture--that the benefits justify the costs.

Oh, and many Christian women now suffer from the unintended consequences of this "advancement", as men are eschewing marriage in greater numbers, due to the increased risk of divorce.

You may call universal suffrage an "advancement" in gender equity. Unfortunately, the U.S. is now bankrupt due to the nanny state apparatus that has emerged since the advent of universal suffrage.

Equal opportunity in the job market has now turned free markets on their heads. This is because of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The regulatory mechanisms--and the taxpayer money wasted in their enforcement--have overwhelmed the benefit of undoing the inequities that you cite.

In America alone, we have slaughtered over 50 million children in utero.

This is the telos of feminism.

To deny this, is to attempt to argue that "Sure, Stalin killed millions of Russians, but he was only seeking to right the wrongs foisted on them by the rich people who were oppressing the poor."

The time has come to suggest that, as serious as the inequities were--and they were bad--the "cure" (feminism) is far worse than the disease ever was.

And don't even get me started on feminist theology. That is a whole different discussion.

[77. Jeanmarie said the following at 10:46 AM on Jan 15:]

77

Peter, #42, it is true that the majority of people who have shaped our society are men. I do appreciate what the have done for society.

What I don't appreciate: for hundreds - no, thousands of years, women have been oppressed and many of the same men who you say shaped society did nothing. It scares me to think that women in this country didn't even have the right to even vote until the 20th century. The men who shaped society for thousands of years ignored women. And I am not thankful for, nor do I appreciate that.

It is absolutely true that modern feminism (at least the way I define it) has, unfortunately, made it possible for people to do a lot of evil things.

I think feminism has also encouraged our culture to belittle men and their roles. However, this doesn't compare to the centuries of oppresion and belittlement that women have experineced and still experience in most of the world.

I fully believe in the Biblical roles of male and female - submitting to authority, etc. Submitting to your husband is not oppresion. Your husband lawfully being allowed to beat you into submission is oppression. We have it easy in this country. I truly hope and pray that someday soon, women all over the world will be able to, not only experience the freedom and equality we have here in the U.S., but also experience the freedom that Jesus Christ brings to the hurt and oppressed.

[78. Jo said the following at 10:47 AM on Jan 15:]

78

AMC,
Yeah I think you could say that - like I said I'm really not an expert at all, but it's the more recent feminist causes that I tend to take issue with.

Amir,
"and hardly worth the death toll."

It's a shame you ignored the rest of my post. The death toll you're referring to is presumably from abortion and as I already said, I agree with you on that. My point is that abortion was not a necessary conclusion of early feminism. It is COMPLETELY possible to support a lot of what feminism has helped to accomplish, which being adamantly opposed to some of its other 'victories'. I am not trivialising the death toll when I say that. I'm separating abortion from the right to vote and the right to equal pay, because the issues are connected by very little other than the word feminism. Many of the women who campaigned from those other things would be HORRIFIED to see what is done in the name of feminism today. Just as people like Fred Phelps can't discredit Christianity, today's feminists can't discredit the achievements of feminists who have gone before them.

[79. Jason said the following at 10:51 AM on Jan 15:]

79

#42: Yeah, most of the people who did these things were men. Most people who have committed the worst atrocities in the world are men too (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc...). It's a little disingenuous to show one side without the other.

[80. JB said the following at 10:51 AM on Jan 15:]

80

Leigh #48,

As it happens, my fiancee (a woman) is a minister and we're both from the South. Let me assure you that it's better for her to teach me in church than the other way around. And if I or anyone else were to tell her she couldn't, that would constitute oppression.

[81. JB said the following at 10:56 AM on Jan 15:]

81

Trevor #52,

That's an interesting argument, but I think it fails because you don't account for freedom of action. The queen in your story can, at a whim, decide who will be serving dinner and who will be served that evening. The servant cannot do so. The queen, therefore, is in a position of superior power. The servant is opporessed because of her lack of choice.

Similarly, a man in conservative church may choose to teach or he may not. A woman does not have this choice, regardless of her abilities, and is therefore in an inferior position.

It's one thing to say that women ought to play a certain role in church and society and defend that biblically. But let's not pretend that the role conservatives give to women is equal to that of men. It's transparently inferior, if only because of a lack of freedom.

[82. Lia said the following at 10:58 AM on Jan 15:]

82

Amir Larijani,

If your mother, sisters and wife:
-were able to go to school
-were not killed at birth for being girls
-were able to chose their spouses
-vote
-can have a job outside the home

they have benefited from feminism, end of story. I read my Bible. I haven't found anything to suggest that God wants his women to be oppressed.

Feminism was born and flourished in a completely inhospitable environment-- it is ridiculous and illogical to suggest that it could be removed by force when faced immediate opposition.

I find your suggestions of a violent removal of feminism really quite disturbing and upsetting, and I'm shocked that such a comment passed the screening. Literally, I am shaking, because never in my life, have I felt as threatened as I am because of my political belief.

[83. Laura said the following at 11:09 AM on Jan 15:]

83

I wonder if we are not guilty of engaging in a little cultural snobbery when it comes to how we discuss gender roles and patriarchy. I think it is very interesting that some equate distinct gender roles and patriarchy with oppression towards women when in many cultures gender roles have helped to ensure stability and keep the family unit intact. For instance, there are many isolated people groups scattered from Africa to the Pacific islands that have distinct gender roles and patriarchy within their societies. The men still hunt and protect the family from threats such as wild animals or exploitation from outsiders, and the women help to feed their families and those in their community and care for the children, livestock, and gardens (if the climate permits gardening). These people have very few if any Western conveniences or influences, most are not Christian nor do they identify with any organized religion. And yet there are distinct gender roles within their societies that have enabled them to survive in relative isolation and sometimes harsh conditions for centuries (at least harsh from our American standards). Without the technological advances of our present day, it is not too far-fetched to say that we too could have such a societal arrangement in North America (it was that way for the Native American tribes and even the early settlers).

Of course, just like in every other society there are sometimes things which are done that simply cannot be defended, but my main objective was to point out that gender roles and patriarchy are not uniquely religious. Even many respected historians are in agreement that gender roles and patriarchy seem to be a part of our human DNA. How else can you explain the composition of whole societies around these two concepts, even in cases where they live on remote islands and are considered a recently "discovered" people group?

In short, gender roles can and have developed without any discernible influence of religion. It is not a legitimate argument to peg religion as the pantheon from which gender roles and patriarchy sprung forth.

[84. Courtney P. said the following at 11:26 AM on Jan 15:]

84

Comment #7 I second that :)

[85. Kathleen said the following at 11:52 AM on Jan 15:]

85

Amir, you've offered little proof for your rather outlandish allegations about feminism. Honestly, bizarre insinuations like '9/11 is the fault of Janet Reno' -- well that kind of stuff just makes you sound bitter and a tad deranged.

The fact is that the advances that feminism achieved are in little danger of being reversed because -- as the saying goes -- the arc of history bends toward justice.
Women are not going to give up hard-won rights, and certainly not because a few individuals like yourself appear to be so threatened
that they resort to distortion and mischaracterization.

[86. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:04 PM on Jan 15:]

86

Lia says:

If your mother, sisters and wife:
-were able to go to school
-were not killed at birth for being girls
-were able to chose their spouses
-vote
-can have a job outside the home

they have benefited from feminism, end of story.

If you were born after 1973, then you survived in spite of feminism.

I read my Bible. I haven't found anything to suggest that God wants his women to be oppressed.

Who is saying that women should be oppressed?

On the other hand, I challenge you to show me how Ephesians 5 is egalitarian. No intellectually honest reading of Colossians or Ephesians, with respect to marriage, presents an egalitarian framework.

Moreover, the larger point here is that feminism has been more oppressive to women than anything Kristof cites about Christians who restrict women from the pulpits.

Over 50 million dead children--at least half of them female--testify to what I am saying.

Feminism was born and flourished in a completely inhospitable environment-- it is ridiculous and illogical to suggest that it could be removed by force when faced immediate opposition.

Depends on the theater. Like I said, if every man decided it would end today, it would be done.

I find your suggestions of a violent removal of feminism really quite disturbing and upsetting, and I'm shocked that such a comment passed the screening. Literally, I am shaking, because never in my life, have I felt as threatened as I am because of my political belief.

You can get over your paranoia. Who said anything about overthrowing feminism by force?

All I said was that if every man decided that feminism would end now, it would be done. I said that rhetorically, but it is true nonetheless. This is because there is a large number of women who already oppose feminism--even the mild variety. So if every man decided to end it, it would be over.

Still, I'm going to call you for being disingenuous with me. It would be short of any reasonable standard of intellectual honesty to suggest that the opposite of feminism is the oppression of women.

It is, however, quite logical--and necessary--to call feminists to account for their ideology that has led to mass murder of proportions rivaling the worst of Communism.

Moroever, I would also submit that it is intellectually dishonest to suggest that the Scriptures are egalitarian with respect to marriage and church leadership.

[87. Sarah P. said the following at 12:11 PM on Jan 15:]

87

Wow, this is a tricky one! I unfortunately agree that Amir has overstated his argument. Yes, women are just as depraved as men, and so have utilized our freedom at times in ways just as horrific as some men have used theirs. That doesn't mean that we women should lack the freedom to choose between the wide range of options available to us morally, however. We are not the same as men, still, and killing our babies will never eliminate the fact that we alone were able to have them in the first place.

Linking back to the original topic, there is a fact of life... men are bigger and stronger. When men get nasty, yes, women need men to protect them... from other men! I am very grateful to the good, strong, moral men who are willing to stand up and do that.

[88. Tara (not the other Tara) said the following at 12:14 PM on Jan 15:]

88

Louise,

Ah, I see. I was starting to wonder if that was what you were reacting to. Once again, I'm sorry for misunderstanding what you meant. I'm glad things have been cleared up. :)

As to the original topic--sometimes it is difficult to see past thousands of years of Church Tradition and societal norms to understand what the Bible really says about women. And I think looking at Jesus is the clearest way of seeing God's intent--to get past the confusion of gender roles, personal opinion and politics, etc.... Jesus simply treated women as humans with dignity. He wasn't afraid to call out their sins but there was no double standard, no condemnation--only love and forgiveness. He was interested in their hearts and their relationship with God. I've always loved the story of Mary neglecting her chores to listen to Jesus while Martha, who was trying to be the perfect hostess, got upset. Jesus' prime concern wasn't to see that women be good little homemakers but that they knew their Father in heaven. Stories of the Samaritan woman by the well, the woman caught in adultury and women as the first witnesses to Christ's resurrection--missionaries, if you will--that resonated with me as a girl growing up in the Church.

The Bible shows women to have courage, integrity and strength inspite of the restrictions put upon them by their patriarchal society. We don't need society to validate our worth, intelligence, strength or our importance to God. But I am grateful to have social and political equality to men. I would say that in its basic form this would align with the Biblical viewpoint.

[89. Jo said the following at 12:14 PM on Jan 15:]

89

Amir,
Your comment 76 wasn't published when I wrote my comment 78. Apologies for accusing you of ignoring what I said.

For the record, I don't consider no-fault divorce 'progress'. I do consider it progress that a woman can obtain a divorce when the husband *is* seriously at fault (abusive, unfaithful etc).

I do consider universal suffrage and equal pay and work opportunities progress. Something is either right or it is wrong. Negative consequences or problems with implementation don't negate basic rightness.

I don't entirely see how women having the vote has exclusively and directly led to the 'nanny state', but even if it has - does that make it wrong for women to vote, or is it simply right that women should have a say in the running of society, even if you don't like what they vote for?

And perhaps the blame for ways the job market has suffered from equal pay should be laid at the door of a society that set itself up to favour men in the first place. Overturning an established way of doing things will always be messy, and the methods used might not always be well thought out. Does that mean it's okay to leave wrong systems in place for the sake of convenience?

For the record (again), I don't agree with everything that's campaigned for in the workplace. For example I don't think we need to encourage more women into professions where they're 'under-represented', and it doesn't bother me one bit that women earn less than men on average - as long as the reason for that is the type of work they're doing, and not unequal pay for the same jobs. So again, I am not an advocate of all feminist causes. I simply don't accept that feminism in its entirety is bad, or that it's singularly responsible for all the problems you're talking about.

[90. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:17 PM on Jan 15:]

90

Kathleen says:

Amir, you've offered little proof for your rather outlandish allegations about feminism.

Where have you been for the last 40 years? The abortion culture in America is the work of the feminist.

The death toll alone make feminism worse than any evil Kristof cites about "religion" in general, or that which precludes women from the pulpit.

Honestly, bizarre insinuations like '9/11 is the fault of Janet Reno' -- well that kind of stuff just makes you sound bitter and a tad deranged.

All I said was that the Janet Reno-led Justice Department made America more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Reno and Gorelick were responsible for "The Wall", which undermined the sharing of data between CIA and FBI.

The tragedy here is that Reno was hired specifically because she was a woman. The first two picks, both women--Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood--were derailed due to "nannygate" issues.

So yes, a bean-counting culture, fomented by feminism, led to the selection of inept leaders who made us more vulnerable to attack.

The fact is that the advances that feminism achieved are in little danger of being reversed because -- as the saying goes -- the arc of history bends toward justice. Women are not going to give up hard-won rights, and certainly not because a few individuals like yourself appear to be so threatened that they resort to distortion and mischaracterization.

Hard-won rights? Like in-utero infanticide?

[91. BDB said the following at 12:19 PM on Jan 15:]

91

Yes, it's interesting to see what happens when American feminism runs into other cultures.

Some American feminists active in the human rights community go around demanding that pregnant women not face any limitations in their work. The women in those countries respond that they don't want to be forced to work in the chemical plant while they are pregnant.

American feminists do tend to see abortion as necessary to liberate women from their biology. Sadly, as China and India have embraced abortion and ultrasound technology, they've used it to abort girls, leaving an imbalance of tens of millions more men than women. In those societies, girls are a liability, so some just get rid of them.

[92. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:23 PM on Jan 15:]

92

Sara P says:

That doesn't mean that we women should lack the freedom to choose between the wide range of options available to us morally, however. We are not the same as men, still, and killing our babies will never eliminate the fact that we alone were able to have them in the first place.

The larger issue is that some "freedoms" ought not be allowed at all. The "freedom" to murder one's child is deplorable, and if you call that an advancement of human nights, then you undermine your own legitimacy to speak about "oppression".

The point I made was that feminism has been more oppressive to women than any religious inequity Kristof cites among the "fundamentalists".

Even the most abusive fundamentalists, in sheer volume, do not approach the genocide that we have suffered at the hands of the feminist. The latter has handed us a death toll exceeding 50 million children, at least half of them girls.

[93. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:29 PM on Jan 15:]

93

Sara P says:

When men get nasty, yes, women need men to protect them... from other men!

THANK YOU! That was part of another point I was trying to make, but couldn't quite get it out.

On the other hand, a very large number of those same men who would protect you from those "other men", also oppose women having the right to pay a hit man doctor to kill a child in utero.

[94. Elaine said the following at 12:47 PM on Jan 15:]

94

Christianity if practiced according to the Bible show love, care, kindness to female (women and girl). However, I don’t like when men used the Bible as a means to abuse women. I read the Bible through more than once and also participate in Bible Study at church and some of the things I heard raised by Christian male leaders have no bearing on Christianity and the Bible. They are as follows:

a. Women should always cover their head or hair in church.
b. Women should never cut their hair.
c. Women are not as bright as men and thus should not be encouraged to pursue higher education in science subjects.
d. In the Quiverfull Movement- A woman should leave her womb open to the Lord and if he wants her to conceive, he will open her womb if not he’ll closed it. Therefore women in that movement are always pregnant. Her body does not rest or replenish after giving birth. Also, along with giving birth every year and looking after children and toddlers (they should be able to home school these children). Someone explain to me how this is done. I believe the girls in these homes must always be kept busy looking after young sibling . When I was pregnant and have morning sickness, I wonder how these women do this every year . Even Leah in Genesis 30:9 took a rest from bearing children.

e. Although mentioned in the Bible, a lot of Christian men used the text on submission to undermine women.

f. Also the text that women should not speak in church to keep women quiet in church and to indoctrinate them in things that are not in the Bible I have been a leader in my church from I was 15 years and serve in various capacity. Women in my Church are Bible Study Teachers, Elders, even First Elders and serve in every leader capacity. I have never seen any of them over the last 20 years used it as a platform for raising feminism awareness. If they do they are not welcome.

g. There is no where in the Bible that said women should be solely responsible for Child rearing and men should only be provider. I believe some men used this to avoiding doing house work.

h. I have been a Christian since 8 years old and I never understand how the very religious men in the church families are unhappy. How, their children left the church and their wives left them. If they have a good relationship with God , it would reflect in their family life.

i. Feminism is not all bad. It is reason which allows all you women who said it was bad to vote, attend school and has an education.

j. The verse whistling woman and crowing hen is a abomination to the Lord is not in the Bible.

[95. Rebekah in SoCal said the following at 1:55 PM on Jan 15:]

95

I used to feel slightly oppressed by the idea of submission, although at that time I would still acknowledge that it was in the Bible.

But, after years of study, I've learned that submission is not related to worth or value. Within the relationship of the Trinity we see that Jesus submits to the Father and the Holy Spirit submits to the Son. BUT, each has the same worth w/in the Trinity.

Therefore, a wife's submission to her husband is not a matter of unequal worth but that of different roles. (I would also argue that since, the husband/wife relationship is the primary model of Christ's love for the church, that submission is not bound to a certain culture or time).

So, submission should not equal oppression, but unfortunately sin does enter into the equation. But, it doesn't follow that Chrisitanity necessarily oppresses women or that b/c men sin wives are "off the hook".

QUite frankly, I would rather have my role (submission) than his. My future husband will be responsible before God for how he leads our family and I feel like that is a much harder task.

[96. Louise from Chicago said the following at 1:56 PM on Jan 15:]

96

Comment 88, when I say "I don't need protection" I MEAN (gasp) that I don't need protection!

Why would you or anyone else misunderstand that?

[97. Leah C said the following at 2:09 PM on Jan 15:]

97

Thank you Ted (# 63) for your response. I suppose some responses to some of my comments have been not unkind. I do aknowledge that.

I will say that ALL of nasty and violent behavior I've experienced from men where ALL Christian men and I refuse to accept the pathetic excuse they were not 'real' Christian men.

I have over 22 years training in self defense that includes hand-to-hand, weapons (ranged and close-quaters). My feeling in dealing with professing Christian men I meet in person is to have a weapon ready at all times.

That of course makes me a dispicable evil person in the views of 'valiant' Christian men but I no longer care.

I also get tired of Christians assuming that since I dare to have the outragous belief that women deserve equal respect, pay, and authroity among other things that I for some reason support abortion. I am opposed to abortion because it is murder. Not because of any religious belief.

Thank you all for your time.

[98. Zusanne said the following at 2:13 PM on Jan 15:]

98

Elaine (#94): Oh, and please, don't forget the no pants for women rule. I've never understood that one!

[99. Zusanne said the following at 2:17 PM on Jan 15:]

99

Actually, when it comes to abortion, I would guess that MORE than half of the babies killed would be female--simply because of the nations that prefer male children to female.

And then when you hear about what happens sometimes when a girl is accidentally born . . .

At the same time, when discussing feminism, I think we're painting with a pretty broad brush. There is a difference between classical feminism (voting, equal pay) and contemporary feminism (abortion, lesbianism) that needs to be distinguished. While it is true that the first movement paved the way for the second, not everyone who embraces classical feminism would support what is now being called by the same name.

[100. MrsLarijani said the following at 2:27 PM on Jan 15:]

100

Well, well, well. My husband seems to have hit a nerve or two, no?

While my husband needs no one to come to his aid, I just can't help but wonder what - exactly - other people are thinking. . .

So far I am seeing "delusional", forceful (not the exact word, of course, but I'm paraphrasing), "short-sighted", and "violent". Now, people, you just need to take a step back.

Amir married a woman with a college education. So, clearly, he isn't opposed to women with brains. We are even knocking the idea around of going to seminary. He would be returning and I would possibly take classes if my schedule allows.

Oh and to point out the obvious: he is married. How does he treat his wife?

Allow me to bend your ear and tell you how he treats the primary woman in his life . . .

He is the most kind and generous man I have ever known. He strives everyday to live out his role as a godly husband. He works hard. He lays down his life for me. If I'm upset, his world stops.

Am I oppressed? Hardly.

I can actually choose whether or not I want to work outside of the home. I have chosen to get a job this side of the altar.

In fact, marrying him liberated me in more than a couple of ways. I won't get into all that here, though.

So, before any of you go on and continue hurling ill-thought comments towards my husband, just know that he loves his wife in ways most women wish they were loved.

I would hope that all women would as thrilled with their husbands/husbands-to-be as I am with mine.