Harbour04Raven Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Hey How many people have heard of Slutwalk? I have been following Slutwalk Vancouver's facebook page: https://www.facebook...191681940868720 And Slutwalk Vancouver's twitter page: @slutwalkvan Last year was "The March" to end victim-blaming and slut-shaming. This year they "opted out" of the walk and in its place held a "Film night" on Tuesday May 15th, 2012 at the RIO. I did attend, and the show up was relatively low. But many of those who did attend, contributed to the discussions with a high level of passion. This Saturday Slutwalk Vancouver are hosting an (UN)Conference at the WISE HALL. And have hopes of facilitating discussions whether to change the name, and they have much more on the board. https://www.facebook...25545024222776/ I just wanted to know what are thoughts of the movement to end slut-shaming and victim-blaming. Here is an article about the "Clip-Hop" with some criticisms that were had. I do plan on attending the (Un)conference. I think these girls are very articulate and have many messages to pass on. I did not participate in march last year. I actually do not know whether I support this movement, but I am captivated to learn. http://www.vancouver...e-talk?page=0,0 Below is some of the statements from Slutwalk Organizers, and also facts and background about the movement. SlutTalk Vancouver Presented by SlutWalk Vancouver SlutWalk Vancouver Background SlutWalk Vancouver emerged last year as the West Coast chapter of SlutWalk Toronto, a march for women’s rights which garnered nearly 2000 participants. On May 15th, 2011, SlutWalk Vancouver facilitated a similar march in response to comments in the media concerning victims of sexual assault. We identified these comments as a trend in sexual assault coverage that implied victims were to blame for placing themselves in vulnerable situations, either through their choice of dress, consumption of alcohol, and/or association with men. Last year we held a rally and a march, which included speakers from Women Against Violence Against Women, Battered Women’s Support Services, Pivot Legal Society, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, and YouthCo, as well as City Councillor Ellen Woodsworth and other individuals who wanted to speak out against rape culture. We started thousands of conversations about sexual assault, victim-blaming and “slut-shaming”. slutTALK 2012: Conversations One Year After the March One year later, our concerns are still ever-present as victim-blaming continues in the media, the criminal justice system, and in many other interconnected institutions that affect communities on a daily basis. The rape culture persists, and so SlutWalk Vancouver sees a need to continue organizing. This year, instead of a walk, we are planning two events to facilitate conversations one year after the march, including a film screening night the evening of May 15th, and an unconference the afternoon of Saturday, May 26th. Part One – slutTALK Clip-Hop: An Evening of Film Clips and Discussions Join us in watching an array of excerpts from various films and YouTube videos about rape culture, victim-blaming and sex-shaming. Group discussions will be facilitated between clips. There will be informative and inspiring clips from NO!: The Rape Documentary, Sluts: The Documentary, and YouTube. Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:00 pm | Rio Theatre | 1660 East Broadway Doors open at 5:30pm. SlutWalk T-shirts, buttons and baked goods on sale before the show. Admission by donation. This is a 19+ event; no minors allowed, although minors are welcome to attend the unconference event. Part Two – slutTALK: The (Un)Conference In an open, participant-driven conference, we will facilitate panels, discussions and workshops on rape culture, victim-blaming and sexual stigma, and the term “slut”. We will invite discussion surrounding the SlutWalk name and whether it should be changed. Speakers will include representatives from Women Against Violence Against Women, the BC Coalition of People with Disabilities, and the Elizabeth Fry Society of Greater Vancouver. Saturday, May 26, 2012 1:00pm – 5:00pm | WISE Hall | 1882 Adanac Street Admission by donation. Comments? Critiques? Thoughts.. etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Women: The very image of motherly love and yes, the very object of lust which generations upon generations of pious, stupid old priests had ceaselessly reminded us. The images of bikini-clad babes sashaying down the beaches in insipid Baywatch episodes, nude, lewd naked women in porn magazines..... in whatever shape or form, the archaic Judaic-inspired monotheisms love to treat women as some kind of a wicked taboo. In The Beginning.......... Paradise Gone Wrong: Eve Persuades Adam to Eat the Darn Fruit & no wonder: Right off the bat, in the first few Chapters of Genesis, Adam and Eve, the first human creatures ever to be created by Adam's alter-ego, God, the role of the temptress became the indelible curse of women: Tempted by the talking serpent, who was actually the Devil in disguise, Eve persuaded Adam to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. While both were to bear the curse of their disobedience, Eve faired worst: To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." -Genesis 3:16 In essence, God had, in his infinite grace, instigated what seems to be a mass-orgy of sorts: Instead of restricting the error of Adam and Eve well within one single episode of disobedience, he chooses Eve to harbor the first pregnancy on the planet, and thus ensuring that generations of generations of so-called sinners were spawned to carry on the debt of sin. Meanwhile, Eve becomes the archetypal figure of womanhood: The evil temptress who ruined her husband's good fortune in Paradise. It is on account of such archaic nonsense that Catholics and other religious bigots are so adamant in their opposition against birth control and contraception: Sex, if anything else, is solely meant for reproductive purposes, so that women have no choice but to be punished for the sins of the first Mother, Eve. The Unclean Woman? If one is to study the insipidity of the bible, it is hard to miss out the fact that women bear the worst blunt of irrational prejudice: Women, if anything else, are anything but "clean": 1 The LORD said to Moses,2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. '3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. 6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. [ 7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean." -Leviticus Chapter 12: 1-8 It is quite difficult for us, in this time and age, to fathom how such erroneous, pious stupidity can have any place in our secular setting. Yet, if anything else, such biblical nonsense remind us that we have progressed a hell lot, even from a moralistic point of view, than the authors of such breath-taking stupidity. As we can glean from Leviticus, the sight of bleeding virginals, be it from menstruation or child birth, is considered a disgusting act, not fit for Gawd's divine, ceremonial functions. The idea that a woman has to wait for 66 god-damned days after giving birth to a girl, compared to 33 days, gives us an indicator of the lowly, filthy status of women in the minds of religious morons. The idea that women must be "clean" after menstruating or giving birth in order to be considered fit to enter Gawd's opulent churches is nothing short of bigotry; the extraordinary sacrifices of lambs, pigeons and what-nots merely amplifies the sheer ludicrousness of biblical-inspired misogyny. Death Via Stoning The hymen: a innocuous membrane in a woman's virginal, which really serves no other function than being a social indicator; a woman with an intact virginal is, categorically speaking, a virgin. Since the dawn of human civilization, Man seems to harbor a deep fixation with virginity: Screwing a virgin on the wedding night is akin to animals spraying (with urine) on virgin territory. There is a sense of territorial ownership, no matter how bizarre and absurd that sounds, and religious dogmas (clearly, such chauvinistic nonsense can only be the work of sick, depraved men) merely reinforce what is already a male-ego issue: Women must invariably be the equivalent of vestal virgins on their nuptial nights. Failure to be one, it seems, may incur the wrath of religious authorities, as mandated by the good book: If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you. -Deuteronomy 22:20-21: Quite unfortunately for women, the hymen is not a indicator of sexual experience. The hymen is a notoriously weak membrane: Women who engage in sports, or have suffered from some physical trauma, are likely to suffer hymen tears that have little or nothing to do with engaging in actual sex. The Submissive Woman Now, you would think that the holy babble has something good to say about women.......well, you guessed it wrong. Mandatory stoning of non-virgins and other stigmas aside, the role of women is unceremoniously spelled out in the bible: They must be submissive to their husbands, or any other male alter-ego in the family: Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. -1 Corinthians 14:34 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. -1 Timothy 2:11 Biblical Misogyny and the Everyday Christian Judging by what is written in the bible, it is quite easy to understand why most Christian households are such oppressive environments for women: Women have no status in a heinously religious environment: Short of become an auto-bot version of a child bearing and child raising android, the average religious housewife has to submit to the every will and whim of a patriarchal husband. Surely, in this time and age, we cannot depend on the holy babble to teach us what to do with regards to our attitude towards women. After all, stoning non-virgins to death isn't a very pretty sight (or anyone else for the matter, except maybe Falwell?). "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom." -Susan B.Anthony I do not wish women to have power over men; but over themselves. Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Women: The very image of motherly love and yes, the very object of lust which generations upon generations of pious, stupid old priests had ceaselessly reminded us. The images of bikini-clad babes sashaying down the beaches in insipid Baywatch episodes, nude, lewd naked women in porn magazines..... in whatever shape or form, the archaic Judaic-inspired monotheisms love to treat women as some kind of a wicked taboo. In The Beginning.......... Paradise Gone Wrong: Eve Persuades Adam to Eat the Darn Fruit & no wonder: Right off the bat, in the first few Chapters of Genesis, Adam and Eve, the first human creatures ever to be created by Adam's alter-ego, God, the role of the temptress became the indelible curse of women: Tempted by the talking serpent, who was actually the Devil in disguise, Eve persuaded Adam to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. While both were to bear the curse of their disobedience, Eve faired worst: To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." -Genesis 3:16 In essence, God had, in his infinite grace, instigated what seems to be a mass-orgy of sorts: Instead of restricting the error of Adam and Eve well within one single episode of disobedience, he chooses Eve to harbor the first pregnancy on the planet, and thus ensuring that generations of generations of so-called sinners were spawned to carry on the debt of sin. Meanwhile, Eve becomes the archetypal figure of womanhood: The evil temptress who ruined her husband's good fortune in Paradise. It is on account of such archaic nonsense that Catholics and other religious bigots are so adamant in their opposition against birth control and contraception: Sex, if anything else, is solely meant for reproductive purposes, so that women have no choice but to be punished for the sins of the first Mother, Eve. The Unclean Woman? If one is to study the insipidity of the bible, it is hard to miss out the fact that women bear the worst blunt of irrational prejudice: Women, if anything else, are anything but "clean": 1 The LORD said to Moses,2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. '3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. 6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. [ 7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean." -Leviticus Chapter 12: 1-8 It is quite difficult for us, in this time and age, to fathom how such erroneous, pious stupidity can have any place in our secular setting. Yet, if anything else, such biblical nonsense remind us that we have progressed a hell lot, even from a moralistic point of view, than the authors of such breath-taking stupidity. As we can glean from Leviticus, the sight of bleeding virginals, be it from menstruation or child birth, is considered a disgusting act, not fit for Gawd's divine, ceremonial functions. The idea that a woman has to wait for 66 god-damned days after giving birth to a girl, compared to 33 days, gives us an indicator of the lowly, filthy status of women in the minds of religious morons. The idea that women must be "clean" after menstruating or giving birth in order to be considered fit to enter Gawd's opulent churches is nothing short of bigotry; the extraordinary sacrifices of lambs, pigeons and what-nots merely amplifies the sheer ludicrousness of biblical-inspired misogyny. Death Via Stoning The hymen: a innocuous membrane in a woman's virginal, which really serves no other function than being a social indicator; a woman with an intact virginal is, categorically speaking, a virgin. Since the dawn of human civilization, Man seems to harbor a deep fixation with virginity: Screwing a virgin on the wedding night is akin to animals spraying (with urine) on virgin territory. There is a sense of territorial ownership, no matter how bizarre and absurd that sounds, and religious dogmas (clearly, such chauvinistic nonsense can only be the work of sick, depraved men) merely reinforce what is already a male-ego issue: Women must invariably be the equivalent of vestal virgins on their nuptial nights. Failure to be one, it seems, may incur the wrath of religious authorities, as mandated by the good book: If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you. -Deuteronomy 22:20-21: Quite unfortunately for women, the hymen is not a indicator of sexual experience. The hymen is a notoriously weak membrane: Women who engage in sports, or have suffered from some physical trauma, are likely to suffer hymen tears that have little or nothing to do with engaging in actual sex. The Submissive Woman Now, you would think that the holy babble has something good to say about women.......well, you guessed it wrong. Mandatory stoning of non-virgins and other stigmas aside, the role of women is unceremoniously spelled out in the bible: They must be submissive to their husbands, or any other male alter-ego in the family: Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. -1 Corinthians 14:34 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. -1 Timothy 2:11 Biblical Misogyny and the Everyday Christian Judging by what is written in the bible, it is quite easy to understand why most Christian households are such oppressive environments for women: Women have no status in a heinously religious environment: Short of become an auto-bot version of a child bearing and child raising android, the average religious housewife has to submit to the every will and whim of a patriarchal husband. Surely, in this time and age, we cannot depend on the holy babble to teach us what to do with regards to our attitude towards women. After all, stoning non-virgins to death isn't a very pretty sight (or anyone else for the matter, except maybe Falwell?). "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom." -Susan B.Anthony I do not wish women to have power over men; but over themselves. Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offensive Threat Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Women: The very image of motherly love and yes, the very object of lust which generations upon generations of pious, stupid old priests had ceaselessly reminded us. The images of bikini-clad babes sashaying down the beaches in insipid Baywatch episodes, nude, lewd naked women in porn magazines..... in whatever shape or form, the archaic Judaic-inspired monotheisms love to treat women as some kind of a wicked taboo. In The Beginning.......... Paradise Gone Wrong: Eve Persuades Adam to Eat the Darn Fruit & no wonder: Right off the bat, in the first few Chapters of Genesis, Adam and Eve, the first human creatures ever to be created by Adam's alter-ego, God, the role of the temptress became the indelible curse of women: Tempted by the talking serpent, who was actually the Devil in disguise, Eve persuaded Adam to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. While both were to bear the curse of their disobedience, Eve faired worst: To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." -Genesis 3:16 In essence, God had, in his infinite grace, instigated what seems to be a mass-orgy of sorts: Instead of restricting the error of Adam and Eve well within one single episode of disobedience, he chooses Eve to harbor the first pregnancy on the planet, and thus ensuring that generations of generations of so-called sinners were spawned to carry on the debt of sin. Meanwhile, Eve becomes the archetypal figure of womanhood: The evil temptress who ruined her husband's good fortune in Paradise. It is on account of such archaic nonsense that Catholics and other religious bigots are so adamant in their opposition against birth control and contraception: Sex, if anything else, is solely meant for reproductive purposes, so that women have no choice but to be punished for the sins of the first Mother, Eve. The Unclean Woman? If one is to study the insipidity of the bible, it is hard to miss out the fact that women bear the worst blunt of irrational prejudice: Women, if anything else, are anything but "clean": 1 The LORD said to Moses,2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. '3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. 6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. [ 7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean." -Leviticus Chapter 12: 1-8 It is quite difficult for us, in this time and age, to fathom how such erroneous, pious stupidity can have any place in our secular setting. Yet, if anything else, such biblical nonsense remind us that we have progressed a hell lot, even from a moralistic point of view, than the authors of such breath-taking stupidity. As we can glean from Leviticus, the sight of bleeding virginals, be it from menstruation or child birth, is considered a disgusting act, not fit for Gawd's divine, ceremonial functions. The idea that a woman has to wait for 66 god-damned days after giving birth to a girl, compared to 33 days, gives us an indicator of the lowly, filthy status of women in the minds of religious morons. The idea that women must be "clean" after menstruating or giving birth in order to be considered fit to enter Gawd's opulent churches is nothing short of bigotry; the extraordinary sacrifices of lambs, pigeons and what-nots merely amplifies the sheer ludicrousness of biblical-inspired misogyny. Death Via Stoning The hymen: a innocuous membrane in a woman's virginal, which really serves no other function than being a social indicator; a woman with an intact virginal is, categorically speaking, a virgin. Since the dawn of human civilization, Man seems to harbor a deep fixation with virginity: Screwing a virgin on the wedding night is akin to animals spraying (with urine) on virgin territory. There is a sense of territorial ownership, no matter how bizarre and absurd that sounds, and religious dogmas (clearly, such chauvinistic nonsense can only be the work of sick, depraved men) merely reinforce what is already a male-ego issue: Women must invariably be the equivalent of vestal virgins on their nuptial nights. Failure to be one, it seems, may incur the wrath of religious authorities, as mandated by the good book: If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you. -Deuteronomy 22:20-21: Quite unfortunately for women, the hymen is not a indicator of sexual experience. The hymen is a notoriously weak membrane: Women who engage in sports, or have suffered from some physical trauma, are likely to suffer hymen tears that have little or nothing to do with engaging in actual sex. The Submissive Woman Now, you would think that the holy babble has something good to say about women.......well, you guessed it wrong. Mandatory stoning of non-virgins and other stigmas aside, the role of women is unceremoniously spelled out in the bible: They must be submissive to their husbands, or any other male alter-ego in the family: Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. -1 Corinthians 14:34 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. -1 Timothy 2:11 Biblical Misogyny and the Everyday Christian Judging by what is written in the bible, it is quite easy to understand why most Christian households are such oppressive environments for women: Women have no status in a heinously religious environment: Short of become an auto-bot version of a child bearing and child raising android, the average religious housewife has to submit to the every will and whim of a patriarchal husband. Surely, in this time and age, we cannot depend on the holy babble to teach us what to do with regards to our attitude towards women. After all, stoning non-virgins to death isn't a very pretty sight (or anyone else for the matter, except maybe Falwell?). "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom." -Susan B.Anthony I do not wish women to have power over men; but over themselves. Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianoman13 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Women: The very image of motherly love and yes, the very object of lust which generations upon generations of pious, stupid old priests had ceaselessly reminded us. The images of bikini-clad babes sashaying down the beaches in insipid Baywatch episodes, nude, lewd naked women in porn magazines..... in whatever shape or form, the archaic Judaic-inspired monotheisms love to treat women as some kind of a wicked taboo. In The Beginning.......... Paradise Gone Wrong: Eve Persuades Adam to Eat the Darn Fruit & no wonder: Right off the bat, in the first few Chapters of Genesis, Adam and Eve, the first human creatures ever to be created by Adam's alter-ego, God, the role of the temptress became the indelible curse of women: Tempted by the talking serpent, who was actually the Devil in disguise, Eve persuaded Adam to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. While both were to bear the curse of their disobedience, Eve faired worst: To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." -Genesis 3:16 In essence, God had, in his infinite grace, instigated what seems to be a mass-orgy of sorts: Instead of restricting the error of Adam and Eve well within one single episode of disobedience, he chooses Eve to harbor the first pregnancy on the planet, and thus ensuring that generations of generations of so-called sinners were spawned to carry on the debt of sin. Meanwhile, Eve becomes the archetypal figure of womanhood: The evil temptress who ruined her husband's good fortune in Paradise. It is on account of such archaic nonsense that Catholics and other religious bigots are so adamant in their opposition against birth control and contraception: Sex, if anything else, is solely meant for reproductive purposes, so that women have no choice but to be punished for the sins of the first Mother, Eve. The Unclean Woman? If one is to study the insipidity of the bible, it is hard to miss out the fact that women bear the worst blunt of irrational prejudice: Women, if anything else, are anything but "clean": 1 The LORD said to Moses,2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. '3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. 6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. [ 7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean." -Leviticus Chapter 12: 1-8 It is quite difficult for us, in this time and age, to fathom how such erroneous, pious stupidity can have any place in our secular setting. Yet, if anything else, such biblical nonsense remind us that we have progressed a hell lot, even from a moralistic point of view, than the authors of such breath-taking stupidity. As we can glean from Leviticus, the sight of bleeding virginals, be it from menstruation or child birth, is considered a disgusting act, not fit for Gawd's divine, ceremonial functions. The idea that a woman has to wait for 66 god-damned days after giving birth to a girl, compared to 33 days, gives us an indicator of the lowly, filthy status of women in the minds of religious morons. The idea that women must be "clean" after menstruating or giving birth in order to be considered fit to enter Gawd's opulent churches is nothing short of bigotry; the extraordinary sacrifices of lambs, pigeons and what-nots merely amplifies the sheer ludicrousness of biblical-inspired misogyny. Death Via Stoning The hymen: a innocuous membrane in a woman's virginal, which really serves no other function than being a social indicator; a woman with an intact virginal is, categorically speaking, a virgin. Since the dawn of human civilization, Man seems to harbor a deep fixation with virginity: Screwing a virgin on the wedding night is akin to animals spraying (with urine) on virgin territory. There is a sense of territorial ownership, no matter how bizarre and absurd that sounds, and religious dogmas (clearly, such chauvinistic nonsense can only be the work of sick, depraved men) merely reinforce what is already a male-ego issue: Women must invariably be the equivalent of vestal virgins on their nuptial nights. Failure to be one, it seems, may incur the wrath of religious authorities, as mandated by the good book: If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you. -Deuteronomy 22:20-21: Quite unfortunately for women, the hymen is not a indicator of sexual experience. The hymen is a notoriously weak membrane: Women who engage in sports, or have suffered from some physical trauma, are likely to suffer hymen tears that have little or nothing to do with engaging in actual sex. The Submissive Woman Now, you would think that the holy babble has something good to say about women.......well, you guessed it wrong. Mandatory stoning of non-virgins and other stigmas aside, the role of women is unceremoniously spelled out in the bible: They must be submissive to their husbands, or any other male alter-ego in the family: Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. -1 Corinthians 14:34 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. -1 Timothy 2:11 Biblical Misogyny and the Everyday Christian Judging by what is written in the bible, it is quite easy to understand why most Christian households are such oppressive environments for women: Women have no status in a heinously religious environment: Short of become an auto-bot version of a child bearing and child raising android, the average religious housewife has to submit to the every will and whim of a patriarchal husband. Surely, in this time and age, we cannot depend on the holy babble to teach us what to do with regards to our attitude towards women. After all, stoning non-virgins to death isn't a very pretty sight (or anyone else for the matter, except maybe Falwell?). "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom." -Susan B.Anthony I do not wish women to have power over men; but over themselves. Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masutheakita Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Women: The very image of motherly love and yes, the very object of lust which generations upon generations of pious, stupid old priests had ceaselessly reminded us. The images of bikini-clad babes sashaying down the beaches in insipid Baywatch episodes, nude, lewd naked women in porn magazines..... in whatever shape or form, the archaic Judaic-inspired monotheisms love to treat women as some kind of a wicked taboo. In The Beginning.......... Paradise Gone Wrong: Eve Persuades Adam to Eat the Darn Fruit & no wonder: Right off the bat, in the first few Chapters of Genesis, Adam and Eve, the first human creatures ever to be created by Adam's alter-ego, God, the role of the temptress became the indelible curse of women: Tempted by the talking serpent, who was actually the Devil in disguise, Eve persuaded Adam to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. While both were to bear the curse of their disobedience, Eve faired worst: To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." -Genesis 3:16 In essence, God had, in his infinite grace, instigated what seems to be a mass-orgy of sorts: Instead of restricting the error of Adam and Eve well within one single episode of disobedience, he chooses Eve to harbor the first pregnancy on the planet, and thus ensuring that generations of generations of so-called sinners were spawned to carry on the debt of sin. Meanwhile, Eve becomes the archetypal figure of womanhood: The evil temptress who ruined her husband's good fortune in Paradise. It is on account of such archaic nonsense that Catholics and other religious bigots are so adamant in their opposition against birth control and contraception: Sex, if anything else, is solely meant for reproductive purposes, so that women have no choice but to be punished for the sins of the first Mother, Eve. The Unclean Woman? If one is to study the insipidity of the bible, it is hard to miss out the fact that women bear the worst blunt of irrational prejudice: Women, if anything else, are anything but "clean": 1 The LORD said to Moses,2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. '3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. 6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. [ 7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean." -Leviticus Chapter 12: 1-8 It is quite difficult for us, in this time and age, to fathom how such erroneous, pious stupidity can have any place in our secular setting. Yet, if anything else, such biblical nonsense remind us that we have progressed a hell lot, even from a moralistic point of view, than the authors of such breath-taking stupidity. As we can glean from Leviticus, the sight of bleeding virginals, be it from menstruation or child birth, is considered a disgusting act, not fit for Gawd's divine, ceremonial functions. The idea that a woman has to wait for 66 god-damned days after giving birth to a girl, compared to 33 days, gives us an indicator of the lowly, filthy status of women in the minds of religious morons. The idea that women must be "clean" after menstruating or giving birth in order to be considered fit to enter Gawd's opulent churches is nothing short of bigotry; the extraordinary sacrifices of lambs, pigeons and what-nots merely amplifies the sheer ludicrousness of biblical-inspired misogyny. Death Via Stoning The hymen: a innocuous membrane in a woman's virginal, which really serves no other function than being a social indicator; a woman with an intact virginal is, categorically speaking, a virgin. Since the dawn of human civilization, Man seems to harbor a deep fixation with virginity: Screwing a virgin on the wedding night is akin to animals spraying (with urine) on virgin territory. There is a sense of territorial ownership, no matter how bizarre and absurd that sounds, and religious dogmas (clearly, such chauvinistic nonsense can only be the work of sick, depraved men) merely reinforce what is already a male-ego issue: Women must invariably be the equivalent of vestal virgins on their nuptial nights. Failure to be one, it seems, may incur the wrath of religious authorities, as mandated by the good book: If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you. -Deuteronomy 22:20-21: Quite unfortunately for women, the hymen is not a indicator of sexual experience. The hymen is a notoriously weak membrane: Women who engage in sports, or have suffered from some physical trauma, are likely to suffer hymen tears that have little or nothing to do with engaging in actual sex. The Submissive Woman Now, you would think that the holy babble has something good to say about women.......well, you guessed it wrong. Mandatory stoning of non-virgins and other stigmas aside, the role of women is unceremoniously spelled out in the bible: They must be submissive to their husbands, or any other male alter-ego in the family: Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. -1 Corinthians 14:34 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. -1 Timothy 2:11 Biblical Misogyny and the Everyday Christian Judging by what is written in the bible, it is quite easy to understand why most Christian households are such oppressive environments for women: Women have no status in a heinously religious environment: Short of become an auto-bot version of a child bearing and child raising android, the average religious housewife has to submit to the every will and whim of a patriarchal husband. Surely, in this time and age, we cannot depend on the holy babble to teach us what to do with regards to our attitude towards women. After all, stoning non-virgins to death isn't a very pretty sight (or anyone else for the matter, except maybe Falwell?). "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom." -Susan B.Anthony I do not wish women to have power over men; but over themselves. Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 So you dont give credit or are you are trying to pass this off as your own work .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckerbird Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 i do things the way i want to buddy and i thought it was obvious from the format that this was a cut and paste .it gives an insight into the way you think and the level of your cynicism that you infer that i am claiming this work as my own work . but if all you want to do is take a shot at me here is where i got the article from ATHEIST HAVEN Propagating Reason, Rationality and Common Sense in the face of Religious Dogmatism are you happy now ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 You are really out to lunch or just full of hate.... most of what you say is completely ridiculous, I'm not even going to bother trying to comment on it because its clear your mind is made up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 I don't think he was trying to offend or attack you. For all you know he might agree with every word. It's just good manners to give credit where credit is due. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 the thing i hate is the way men have treated women , and even though there is a veneer of equality in todays society women are far from achieving an equal status with men . and it is my opinion that religion has disenfranchised women all through history , and is continuing to do it to this very day . the article i posted up points out passages in the bible and the treatment of women which i believe are morally wrong and indefensible, and in a christian society promote the idea that a woman who is sexually active is a slut . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 the thing i hate is the way men have treated women , and even though there is a veneer of equality in todays society women are far from achieving an equal status with men . and it is my opinion that religion has disenfranchised women all through history , and is continuing to do it to this very day . the article i posted up points out passages in the bible and the treatment of women which i believe are morally wrong and indefensible, and in a christian society promote the idea that a woman who is sexually active is a slut . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 i do things the way i want to buddy and i thought it was obvious from the format that this was a cut and paste .it gives an insight into the way you think and the level of your cynicism that you infer that i am claiming this work as my own work . but if all you want to do is take a shot at me here is where i got the article from ATHEIST HAVEN Propagating Reason, Rationality and Common Sense in the face of Religious Dogmatism are you happy now ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trelane42 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 How did the OP topic change from sluts to the bible? The Bible is a compilation of oral and written histories, likely originating in Sumeria, Egypt, and who knows where else, mixed with nonsensical Semitic tales, and makes for a puzzling reading at the best of times. Still, it should be required material for any man fancying himself “educated,” if only for the historic content and understanding of a good chunk of the belief system underpinning Western Civilization -- you know, the one that outstripped all others and, for better or worse, became a model for the world. Beyond that there is some valuable religious instruction there, if you know where to look, which finds congruence with other world faiths. Of course, that requires certain maturity, level of education (not to be confused with schooling/conditioning), and experiences, most likely to be in short supply among the denizens of CDC. But that's OK, I’ll do what I can. To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." -Genesis 3:16 Not a very nice thing for God (or nature for that matter) to do such a thing to women in perpetuity, but the fact remains they have it harder than other mammals when it comes to giving birth. I prefer the rapid cranial development and less than accommodating, evolutionary lagging birth canal myself, but I’m only 99% certain. Imperfect genetic engineering by the Sumerian deities should be afforded a smidgeon of possibility. The Leviticus stuff is a good example of the Torah regurgitated nonsense that’s best read once and then avoided, and I’m at a loss why it should be brought up. Nobody apart from certain religious Jews and Muslims seems to pay any attention to it and it can’t be said to have influenced attitudes among the general Christian population, outside of the lunatic few, of course, who can be found in all sizable groups. I realize that it’s the “cool” thing nowadays when faced with an apparent injustice to point to the bible as a source of all that’s wrong with the so-called “intolerant” segment of the world, but almost always it’s avoiding the issue, which in this case is proper usage of “discrimination.” Side 1: Slutty dressed women demand respect and equal standing with non slutty dressed women. Side 2: Everybody else (except some educators, entertainers and media) laugh at them and are said to discriminate against Side 2. This is as it should be since discrimination is just another word for thinking critically--taking all relevant information at hand and making a decision. In the "real" world people have different worth depending on their talent and contribution to society. If a mature, slutty dressed woman can’t understand that the choice of her provocative attire subtracts from her inherent worth and increases the chances of her being treated poorly in most situations then she can’t be helped. It is the hallmark of a viable society to leave alone its Darwin award winners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustJokinen! Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 So would this be a good place to meet some sluts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi Babe Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 This is as it should be since discrimination is just another word for thinking critically--taking all relevant information at hand and making a decision. In the "real" world people have different worth depending on their talent and contribution to society. If a mature, slutty dressed woman can’t understand that the choice of her provocative attire subtracts from her inherent worth and increases the chances of her being treated poorly in most situations then she can’t be helped. It is the hallmark of a viable society to leave alone its Darwin award winners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 So it's ok to treat a guy dressed in flannel and blue jeans with a John Deere tractor cap on as an illiterate hillbilly regardless of the fact he has an MBA?...... Gotcha. So it's ok to treat a guy dressed in pink shirt and skinny jeans with gelled hair like he is gay (oh no!!! ) when maybe all he has is an eclectic taste in fashion?....... Gotcha. So it's ok to treat a guy with an 18-inch purple mohawk, piercings in his nose, lip and eyebrow, chains hanging off his jeans and two full tattooed sleeves like a brainless punk regardless of the fact that he is working on his doctorate in cancer research?...Gotcha. So it's ok to treat a leather-clad bearded biker riding a Harley as a Hells Angel thug despite the fact that he is a well-respected lawyer working for the civil liberties of others?.....Gotcha. So it's ok to treat a guy with purple-black hair, dark eyeshadow, black-painted fingernails like a mindless moron despite the fact that he is a piano prodigy?.......Gotcha. Yeah, of course women should know better than to dress provocatively so they aren't deemed a 'slut' by moronic little boys who would give anything to get in her pants anyway....... the hypocrisy is mindboggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skolozsy2 Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 More often than not, a man refers to a woman as a slut for the mere reason of her having sex with any guy who isn't him. Almost as if they think that all women should be celebate unless they're spreading thier legs for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*vInTaGe* Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 This page reminded me of this piece of stand-up: The girl says "Oh uh-uh, wait a minute! Wait a minute! Just because I'm dressed this way does not make me a whore!" Which is true. Gentlemen, that is true. Just because they dress a certain way doesn't mean they are a certain way. Don't ever forget it. But ladies, you must understand that is confusing. It just is. Now that would be like me walking down the street in a cop uniform. Somebody might run up on me, saying, "Oh, thank God. Officer, help us! Come on. They're over here. Help us!" "Oh-hoh! Just because I'm dressed this way does not make me a police officer!" See what I mean? All right, ladies, fine. You are not a whore. But you are wearing a whore's uniform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi Babe Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 This page reminded me of this piece of stand-up: The girl says "Oh uh-uh, wait a minute! Wait a minute! Just because I'm dressed this way does not make me a whore!" Which is true. Gentlemen, that is true. Just because they dress a certain way doesn't mean they are a certain way. Don't ever forget it. But ladies, you must understand that is confusing. It just is. Now that would be like me walking down the street in a cop uniform. Somebody might run up on me, saying, "Oh, thank God. Officer, help us! Come on. They're over here. Help us!" "Oh-hoh! Just because I'm dressed this way does not make me a police officer!" See what I mean? All right, ladies, fine. You are not a whore. But you are wearing a whore's uniform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.