Granted, I don't think criticizing the church for policies that hurt families and even get people killed is a "sin", but my letter writers do. But I thought I'd bring up this story for two reasons. One, I've always been impressed by the subtext of the story. I suspect, strongly, that this story is part of the reason that Christianity was so attractive to women in its early days, because this sort of random misogynist scapegoating is all too real in a patriarchy, and this story must have touched a lot of women at the time, who would be impressed with Jesus' unwillingness to play into such misogyny. In fact, from everything I understand, much of the history of Christian misogyny is one 2,000 year long backlash against early female power in the church.
Oh yeah... the link above that she references? It's referring to Iran.
Update: After complaints, I decided to remove the name-calling, it doesn't accomplish anything. I still feel my original point is valid.
8 comments:
The fact that you think "dumb bitch" is a useful critism speaks volumes about you.
As opposed to the wonderful epithets used by Amanda.
Baring the fact that it wouldn't matter who did it, it's still wrong, I'd like you to demonstrate evidence of an epitath equal to "bitch". She doesn't call females that she disagrees with bitch, she doesn't use sexual or racial slurs. Perhaps you think "priveleged white boy" is equal to "bitch"? Or "misgynist" or "racist" or "homophobic/ heterocenterist"? Since I'm fairly sure that constitute "critism" and not "insults" you have no ground from which to sling mud.
So, you think Amanda is being unfair to Iran by calling it a "patriarchy" in which "random misogynist scapegoating" occurs? Or, if that isn't your point, what the heck IS your point?
--rea
Anonymous, re-read her comment:
"I suspect, strongly, that this story is part of the reason that Christianity was so attractive to women in its early days, because this sort of random misogynist scapegoating is all too real in a patriarchy, "
She's talking about Christianity being attractive to women in the early days, then uses a post about Iran to make her point.
Cassandra, do you really think a slur against Christians like
What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?
is any less offensive than a racial or sexual slur?
Why can't Amanda get her point across without trying to denigrate Christianity?
Thank you for removing the insult.
I am not an unbiased observer in whether or not that is equally offensive as "bitch" because I am not Christian and do not give a great goddamn. I laughed, and thought it was amusing.
It's vulgar, to be sure. But I don't see how it's offensive. Is it because it's comparing the Holy Spirt to sperm? Perhaps you could explain it better.
Oh, and the link to Iran is because Iran is a very obvious patriarchy. Duh.
Further explaination: the same type of scapegoating happened in pre-Christian middle east, and happened after Christianity became powerful.
Post a Comment