I have feminist/misandry fatigue,
If that even makes sense.
I'm so done with the idea and media that portrays every man to be a villain that women should hate.
I'm so tired of ; man=bad, man=evil.
It's also just bad writing honestly.
Sad.

seen from T1

seen from Malaysia
seen from T1

seen from Malaysia
seen from T1

seen from Kazakhstan
seen from United States
seen from T1
seen from Romania
seen from Germany
seen from Qatar
seen from Qatar

seen from Italy

seen from Italy
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Italy

seen from Italy
seen from United States

seen from Italy

seen from New Zealand
I have feminist/misandry fatigue,
If that even makes sense.
I'm so done with the idea and media that portrays every man to be a villain that women should hate.
I'm so tired of ; man=bad, man=evil.
It's also just bad writing honestly.
Sad.
Everytime I hear about the problem of men’s passivity or some masculinity crisis in the context of women empowerment, I balk at Christian leaders who claim that the solution is for women to push men to lead.
Men’s proclivity towards extremes (domineering vs passivity) is not a problem of lack of leadership. It’s a problem of patriarchy. What needs to be addressed is the societal expectations around what makes a man a man. What needs to be addressed is the lack of confidence in men’s more “feminine” side. Men need to build that foundation that it’s ok for men to be nurturers and submissive like women are told to be submissive, the same way we as women, have become breadwinners and leaders.
Women shouldn’t have to keep bearing the burden of either playing mother to men or be subject to oppression.
Complementarians, it’s still possible to be complementarian without emphasizing “headship” or “leadership” in men all the time. Find a different angle.
hey do y’all have advice for me about egalitarianism/complementarianism? and before you get too excited here’s what I mean:
I think Scripture clearly shows that God intends specific and different roles for men and women in particular contexts. I think that Scripture also says men and women are inherently different. I do not, however, think it says that the differences in nature and the differences in role can be directly mapped onto each other.
For instance, I believe Scripture says a man should be the head and leader of his household. But I don’t think that therefore leadership is not in a woman’s nature. I believe men should exclusively pastor churches. But I don’t think that therefore women should not teach Scripture.
I don’t know if I’m expressing this correctly. As this is a nonessential issue of doctrine to me, I’m okay with not knowing exactly where I stand in all cases. But I’m wondering, do any of y’all also fall kind of in the middle on these things, and do you have theological resources you’d recommend?
"The Creation of Patriarchy" by Gerda Lerner
Is it possible to trace the origins of the patriarchal systems that have been practiced worldwide for thousands of years? #CreationofPatriarchy #GerdaLerner
The Creation of Patriarchy, By Gerda Lerner, Oxford University Press, 1986. 318 pages. Is it possible to trace the origins of the patriarchal systems that have been practiced worldwide for thousands of years? Gerda Lerner (1920–2013), a professor of Women’s History, defined patriarchy as “the manifestation and institutionalization of male dominance over women and children in the family and the…
View On WordPress
Should Women Preach in Church?
By Author Eli Kittim 🎓
During a time when *women* were considered second-class citizens, Christianity held some of them in the utmost esteem and regard. As a case in point, the very first person to ever see Jesus alive after his purported resurrection was a *woman* named Mary Magdalene! In the Old Testament, Miriam prophesied and addressed the nation, Deborah was the chief prophetess who commanded armies and was the 4th Judge of Israel, while Huldah was an advisor to the King, as well as a principal prophetess in the Nevi'im (Prophets) portion of the Hebrew Bible. Does that sound like women who were NOT permitted to *speak* out loud or to teach? Of course not!
In the New Testament, Paul permitted Phoebe, a female deacon, to recite scripture to a house church. Moreover, in Romans 16.7, Paul refers to a certain *woman* named Junia (Ἰουνίαν) as being “highly respected among the apostles.” Paul uses the Greek term ἐπίσημοι, which means “notable,” to refer to both Andronicus and Junia. The general scholarly presumption has been that Junia was Andronicus’ wife, although they may have been siblings, father and daughter, friends or acquaintances, and they could have been Paul’s kinsmen biologically, spiritually, or even metaphorically. The word that Paul employs to refer to Andronicus and Junia is ἐπίσημοι, which means “notable,” “illustrious,” “outstanding,” relating to office or position. So, a *woman* in first-century Palestine is given the highest honor by being referred to as a notable or outstanding apostle! This suggests that she can certainly hold her own in any discursive argument or Biblical debate.
There are certain precepts in the Old Testament that continue to be observed today, while there are others that are not. For example, the ceremonial law is no longer applicable. It once related to Israel's worship (see Lev 1.1-13). However, following the purported death and resurrection of Jesus these laws were no longer necessary.
Then there was the Civil Law. This law dictated and governed Israel's daily living (see e.g. Deut 24.10-11). However, our modern culture and society are so different that these outdated guidelines no longer apply. Even if we believe in the inspiration of scripture, we still have to consider some of these guidelines as cultural codes of conduct that were specific for that particular historical period. They had a historical significance but are no longer appropriate. For example, the prescriptions on beards (Lev. 19.27), or on hair (Lev. 21.5), the types of fabrics or clothes that were permissible, as well as the dietary laws were all part of the Sitz im Leben, namely, that particular historical period which has very little to do with our own. And that’s why they have been discarded.
Similarly, Paul’s suggestions about how *women* should dress or behave in church were part of the patriarchal social norms and have more to do with first-century Palestinian culture than with *women’s* ultimate purpose in pastoral care (see 1 Cor. 11.5; 1 Tim. 3.11). Some of these requirements are historically-specific and are therefore no longer applicable in today’s society in which independent *women* have become notable scholars, CEOs, and very successful in society at large.
Since the Holy Spirit came upon both men and women during the Pentecost (Acts 1.14-15), scripture therefore implies that *women* are equal in terms of spiritual discernment. And since Paul says in Galatians 3.28 that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” then there can’t be any discussion about gender inequality concerning the sexes. According to Romans 2.11, “God does not show favoritism” (cf. Eph. 5.21). This means that there should not be any prejudice or discrimination against female scholars when it comes to pastoral care. Thus, *women* can certainly preach in the church! The basic qualifications for being a pastor are conversion and integrity. Just like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said: people should “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” In the same way, *women* should not be judged by their gender but by the content of their character! If *women* can earn a Doctor of Theology degree (ThD), then that means they are certainly qualified to teach. In the final analysis, there’s no Biblical precedent which explicitly forbids women from assuming a role of spiritual authority.
As somebody who studies Christian fundamentalism, I think it should be more widely understood just how much TERF bioessentialist ideology supports and takes ideas directly from Christian complementarianism and specifically the Catholic New Feminism. The Rad to Trad pipeline exists for a reason.
Complementarians: "Male headship does not mean that the wife is a passive doormat who has no will or agency of her own."
This guy:
"I love my wife SOOOO MUCH that I impose my political/electoral decisions upon her and force my household to operate like a cult where all dissent is practically verboten! That's the TRULY complementarian and Christian course of action!"
the original chain was getting veeeeery long, so making a new version of this in case ppl want to save themselves the wall of text, but this is in response to this incredibly long but very good chain of conversations started by this post by @star-anise
....
i mentioned in a earlier re-blog responding to @intersex-ionality, i’ve seen bits and excerpts from Stone Butch Blues passed around, but always snipped out so that HUGE bits of important context are missing.
so you’ve got
- bits from a historically significant and powerful book taken out of context to support an ideology, so that huge bits of important context are missing.
- the missing pieces are often ones that talk about transgressing the established proper categories, androgyny, equality and mutuality in relationships, and the diversity of human experience. and treating people with respect and dignity.
- groups of young people involved who have been very isolated and who have little or no sex ed, and who are discouraged from seeking out sex ed or materials on a wide variety of relationships because the ideology says those are morally suspicious.
- the ideology has two distinct roles in relationship that are all encompassing and shape your whole life, that only really exist in relationship with eachother. without that particular type of relationship, neither are complete. one has some possibility for independence, while the other one is wholly dependent on the other.
- those who don’t fit the particular sexual mold in their desires are pitiful in comparison, and not comparable to us in any way. and incapable of understanding.
- femmes who are having relationships with other femmes (or substitute women for femmes here for comparison) or who have their own sexual desires that don’t fit in with what their butch wants, are losing their proper femme-ness and become monsters and threats to the proper order of the system.
this is looking a lot, A LOT, like Quiverfull, a “complementarian” christian fundamentalist movement.
one of the blogs i read when i have some spare time is called Defeating the Dragons by Samantha Fields who is a woman loving woman who escaped christian fundamentalism she grew up with. and this is all looking very familiar.