args

The feminism movement should not be impeded by Bronze Age texts

Gentle voter, when Con repeats "Feminism is not irreproachable", I think it is only fair to ask that he go into more specific detail: Con, we'd like to know (we shouldn't really have to ask) what you find reproachable about feminism. I do not claim that it is above scrutiny or criticism, I just think that you waving a stick around poking me with "feminism isn't perfect" doesn't serve to achieve much; were you to tell us exactly what was so reproachable about feminism, we'd be able to decide whether we agreed with you or not. Con said "However, the referenced segment of my argument, which he deemed to be a straw-man, was simply evidence for feminism not being infallible"; wow; you're going to go with that, are you? Do you honestly believe that feminism is responsible for causing society to become deluded into believing that women are as strong as men? Because, I have to say, if that's what feminism was (or, rather, what it did) then I'd be the first person to want to rid society of any delusions; right now, though, it's you that seems to be delusional and I'd like to help you rid yourself of your own delusions! Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. (a Feminist is one who supports this overall movement). Feminism is not an attempt to persuade right-thinking rational people that women are as strong as men. Con says the following: "My opponent asks me this question, of whether or not I think that the existence of modern medicine would have made a difference to Bronze Age philosophy, spiritualism and morality, to which all I can say is, most probably. However, I do not believe that modern medicine would have made a difference to the philosophy, spirituality or morality of the Bible. This is because I believe in the that the Bible is from God [link to bible quotation], and as such do not believe that the societal factors would change the core truths within the texts." One may believe that the Bible is from God if one likes, but citing the Bible as justification for this belief seems as farcical to me as the image of somebody pulling themselves out of quicksand by tugging on their own hair! If I was guilty of imagining without providing sufficient evidence of the gender inequalities of the times (here are some links about gender inequality over the ages [1],[2],[3]), how much more is Con guilty of taking an idea on faith without providing evidence to support it. The claim being made is that the Bible is from God; different Christians believe that idea with different levels of force... most theologians allow for a very less-than-literal interpretation of much of what the bible says; I suggest that for Con's argument (that the philosophy, spirituality and morality of the Bible is independent of the state of science and culture at the time of its writing) is to take the idea of God as a literal writer of the Bible quite seriously. In the light of Con's belief and because it seems that this belief is critical to Con's argument, I'd like to take a little bit of time to understand how Con manages to explain away some of the worse moral ideas contained in the Bible: Leviticus 25:44-46 [4] Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life. Exodus 21:20-21 [5] Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. 1 Peter 2:18-20 [6] Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. So, Con, are these the words of a perfect moral being or must we sometimes assume that ideas in the bible may come from the minds of men living in the Middle East during the Bronze Age? Do you not allow for any element at all in the Bible to be not directly from God? Might the state of culture, science and medicine at the time have had some effect on what we find today in the Bible? Because I think that the cultural realities at the time informed the writings in the Bible and I hope that the gentle reader will agree with me at least that there is some element of truth in this. "Judaism in the first century had emerged from the oriental patriarchal tradition in which women were considered the property of men with no rights, no role in society except childbearing, and no education." [1] Even if the bible spoke directly about abortion (which it doesn't, thank goodness) I propose that it would behove us to consider the issue to a greater depth than simply "the bible says this"; otherwise, I suggest, we'd be left in the unenviable position of having to adopt a pro-slavery stance. Con suggests that we should think that "thou shalt not kill" should apply to abortion - but this is patently false, since this commandment only ever meant "thou shalt not murder" and has arguably been mistranslated [7]. Thus we find ourselves in a worse position than women's rights today being limited by Bronze Age texts - we find that women's rights are potentially being affected by mistranslations of Bronze Age texts! [1] http://www.womenpriests.org... [2] https://www.psychologytoday.com... [3] http://www.adva.org... [4] https://www.biblegateway.com... [5] https://www.biblegateway.com... [6] https://www.biblegateway.com... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org...