Damsel in Distress (mouhaha)


Status
Not open for further replies.
As I said above, Anita is saying the conception of Jesus is an example of a story which describes an event of

" terror by invading, violating and exploiting women’s reproductive capabilities."

Has nothing to do with immaculate conception.

Can I ask you Moxie, are you seriously supporting her view above. I mean do you really not see that at best as an example of sensationalism or shoe horning sexism?
I could see how a supernatural impregnation could be viewed this way.

I don't think it's especially sexist though, just because only a female could be impregnated. The Bible is also full of men being "blessed" (or not) in various ways without their express consent.
 
Lets not forget the classic she says in one of her videos where she talks about the worst sexist story in history, then shows a video depiction of it.

Yes folks , she calls out the immaculate conception of Jesus the most sexist mystical conception trope in history. Followed by the famous Anita rolling of the eyes to say how sexist was that. 

That's who your defending people, it's best you do your research on someone before commenting.

She doesn't say that that is "the most sexist mystical conception trope" (you misquoted that), she calls it "the original mystical pregnancy narrative"  I don't see what is wrong with that statement. Maybe you are offended by the implication that the bible contains fictional stories?

Anyway, even if she would be saying outrageously crazy stuff somewhere (I haven't found an example of that yet) .... Arguments and ideas have an inherent value, regardless of who utters them.

In my opinion, all this reactionary backlash against Sarkeesian proves one important point: sexism is still an issue in 2013.
The problem is it is not original. At the temple of luxor the immaculate conception of Amenhotep III, (personifying Horus) is carved into the walls. And it predates christianity. The level of research grinds my gears at a primate level, i don't care for her gender.
 
If you read the bible you will know that Mary wasn't just impregnated, she was visited by the Angel Gabriel and consented to what Gabriel had said to her.


“Let it be done to me according to your word.”


There was no violation as Anita said, just another example of no research on her behalf
 
To qualify as consent she'd have to have actually been asked if this is what she wanted.

29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”

38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.
Sure she didn't protest it and showed complete submission but who is seriously going to protest God?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It depends on the bible texts/Translations you have read, the ones I read , read differently. Ie have more context. In any event , she said yes.


"Who is going to protest god". Lol, yep, good point
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You read a Bible version where she was asked if she wanted to do it? Whether or not she said yes doesn't really matter, she clearly had no choice. Although I suppose you could argue that if she didn't want to God would have found someone else, if that were even possible..

There's probably some deeper argument about Christianity's view on free will somewhere in here.
 
If she said no and still got impregnated, god wouldn't be the god you know. That's another way of looking at it.


In any event, it's a far cry from what Anita said regarding being violated isn't it
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure she didn't protest it and showed complete submission but who is seriously going to protest God?
I do, because such a being can not and does not exist. ;)

Mary was a Sissy. :p

No really: She was the mother of a supposedly great guy in history, who really cares for the rest?

Regarding theology in general, I stand besides comradekingu, as it seems.

Christianity is just one of many branches of evolved religion and has recycled a bloody lot,

like the Gilgamesh-epos, holy trinity (Kadesch, Min and Reschef etc... you can find a godly family of three more than one time in history),

Christmas/Jul, the old egyptian calendar with 365days etc...).

JHWH/Jahwe (who became the christian god later on) wasn't even the only god in the older forms of Jewish beliefs.

If she said no and still got impregnated, god wouldn't be the god you know. That's another way of looking at it.
The original god of the old testament/tora wasn't a nice guy at all,

that is why Jesus reformed him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If she said no and still got impregnated, god wouldn't be the god you know. That's another way of looking at it.

In any event, it's a far cry from what Anita said regarding being violated isn't it
The god I know huh? Don't you remember what happened to Jonah when he said "no"?

No I don't think it's a far cry from being violated, at best it's ambiguous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If she said no, then yes it could be deemed as a violation, but she said yes. We will never no what would have happened if she said no. The point is it can't be a violation if she said yes as she did. And that's the point , Anita just says by the the context of the video, that she was violated, not maybe/perhaps, but that she was. You cannot say that. We could argue semantics all day, but the facts of the story don't directly say a violation occurred when she was impregnated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If she said no, then yes it could be deemed as a violation, but she said yes. We will never no what would have happened if she said no. The point is it can't be a violation if she said yes as she did.
So if I rape someone at gunpoint it's okay if they don't protest? Is it okay if you take away the gun but give me a position of extreme authority over them? She didn't say yes because she wasn't asked, she said "okay."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^ this is getting ridiculous, she wasn't held at gunpoint. Lets not go down the path of God pressured her shall we.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
She was talking to someone who was known for dropping people dead instantly (like those poor guys who dropped the Ark of the Covenant) and even wiping out virtually the entire human population when things were going badly, and was informed of a role in something that sounded awfully important. But you know, no pressure.

The underlying point here is that in the narrative she was given no choice, there was a clear expectation of obedience. But like I said before, I don't see it as sexist just because it happens to be a task that only a woman could fulfill, since God did this to lots of men (and other women) too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't disagree with your points but it easily works both ways. Consider in counter to each of what you said:


- As a male you're expected to take 100% of the initiative in asking women out and showing interest (and things like proposing for marriage), more of the pressure of rejection lies on males and you can be prepared to be called a creep or a loser and get laughed at if women don't like you. This is exemplified on dating sites.


- When you shout at someone because they're irritating, you're typified as an aggressive and competitive pig who lacks the delicate patience of a female


- When you say that you like typically feminine things (I could rattle a long list here) prepare to be ostracized or called gay


- As an aside to the "fake geek" thing, women are much less likely to be made fun of for being geeks or nerds, males often find that attractive, the biggest reason why the "fake geek" backlash goes around is precisely because women wear it as a badge of honor and receive positive attention over it, while men are more likely to receive it as an insult


- When you try to bring up any instances of misandry in society you get looks like you're crazy, because everyone knows only misogyny exists (as an interesting point, guess which of these two words my web browser didn't recognize)


- If a woman keeps talking in irritation, no one is going to for a second suspect them of being a violent rapist


Here's some extra stuff that doesn't really parallel your points:


- If a man reports a woman for domestic violence it's happened that HE goes to jail because the police doesn't believe his story and thinks he's the perpetrator instead


- Women have full rights to do whatever they want with the child, but if the child is born the man must pay child support no matter what


- Men are more subject to involuntary military conscription


I think that gender issues are a real problem but you really have to look at it from a greater perspective and see how it impacts all people, not just about providing more privilege to women.
I agree with most of what you said : it's a two sided problem ^^ 


In our current society, the male image is as fucked up as the women one*. (all my feminist friends have the same opinion. From what they told me, it's the really base of their feminism)


So we need to do something.

*But I stand my point of view. It's FAR easier to be a man in our patriarchal society, than being a women. Even considering male bullying, various social pressures, etc.
 
She was talking to someone who was known for dropping people dead instantly (like those poor guys who dropped the Ark of the Covenant) and even wiping out virtually the entire human population when things were going badly, and was informed of a role in something that sounded awfully important. But you know, no pressure.


The underlying point here is that in the narrative she was given no choice, there was a clear expectation of obedience. But like I said before, I don't see it as sexist just because it happens to be a task that only a woman could fulfill, since God did this to lots of men (and other women) too.
No, you are mistaken, it is a hoax. It is a stolen myth. Much the same way christ mass is. The original and proud european tradition is called Yule. Do not fall victim to justifying judeo-christian ideas with judeo-christian worldview, that is full retard.

If you want to know where the sexist views came from, look to the ancient scandinavian democracy and ask yourself what happened to that. Our problem isnt our culture, its theirs.
 
No, you are mistaken, it is a hoax. It is a stolen myth. Much the same way christ mass is. The original and proud european tradition is called Yule. Do not fall victim to justifying judeo-christian ideas with judeo-christian worldview, that is full retard.

If you want to know where the sexist views came from, look to the ancient scandinavian democracy and ask yourself what happened to that. Our problem isnt our culture, its theirs.
What am I mistaken about? What does the authenticity or the originality of the story have anything to do with anything I said? I think you're the one who is mistaken in thinking that I'm promoting a belief in Christianity.

But I doubt you'll find any ancient culture that had no element of sexism, so not sure what you're really getting at here..
 
But I doubt you'll find any ancient culture that had no element of sexism, so not sure what you're really getting at here..
You can find sexism anywhere if you search for it, because there are differences, regardless how much they are ignored.

Women are physically weak. Period. Therefore if you are talking about great warriors, you will be talking about men.

If you are talking about humans, that gave life to these warriors, you refer to women.

That is the very nature of things, but it does not mean, that every culture on the planet treated their women as underbeings,

in fact it IS a problem widely spread by christianity and islam.

Just look at their holy scriptures and what they have done regarding the enforcement of sexism in the middle ages AND today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While there's plenty of sexism in the Bible I would argue that the role Christianity has in perpetuating sexism, particularly institutional sexism in the world today is relatively small. Especially compared to the role it has in perpetuating homophobia or poor science education. Islam is another story.
 
While there's plenty of sexism in the Bible I would argue that the role Christianity has in perpetuating sexism, particularly institutional sexism in the world today is relatively small. Especially compared to the role it has in perpetuating homophobia or poor science education. Islam is another story.
That has to be my favorite post of the day. Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top