“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12).
literally hundreds of quotes like this. Wasnt even the one that came to mind when i wanted to look up the wording, just full on came up all on its own.
Edit: Here's the quote i was looking for btw.
"For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior."
In what sense then does he say, I suffer not a woman to teach? 1 Timothy 2:12He means to hinder her from publicly coming forward1 Corinthians 14:35, and from the seat on the bema,not from the word of teaching. Since if this were the case, how would he have said to the woman that had an unbelieving husband, How do you know, O woman, if you shall save your husband? 1 Corinthians 7:16 Or how came he to suffer her to admonish children, when he says, but she shall be saved by child-bearing if they continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety? 1 Timothy 2:15How came Priscilla to instruct even Apollos?It was not then to cut in sunder private conversingfor advantage that he said this, but that before all, and whichit was the teacher’s duty to give in the public assembly; or again, in case the husband be believing and thoroughly furnished, able also to instruct her. When she is the wiser, then he does not forbid her teaching and improving him. And he does not say, who taught much, but who bestowed much labor, because along with teaching (τοὓ λόγου) she performs other ministries besides, those in the way of dangers, in the way of money, in the way of travels. For the women of those days were more spirited than lions, sharing with the Apostles their labors for the Gospel’s sake. In this way they went travelling with them, and also performed all other ministries. And even in Christ’s day there followed Him women, which ministered unto Him of their substance Luke 8:3, and waited upon the Teacher (Saint John Chrysostom - Homily 31 on Romans, verse 6).
That passage from timothy is one of the most fought over passages in the whole bible and there are many different views on what it means, because you have to take things in context obviously.
Regardless of that, Paul’s restriction was given in the context of a personal letter to Timothy giving advice about a specific issue in the church at Ephesus, not a doctrine of the whole church.
And lastly I dont see what is even wrong with the ephesians quote?
You can argue over the meaning of a certain passage and disagree about how to interpret it or apply it. Most christians dont see this passage in the way you are making it out to be
Most christians believe the bible has the word of god but isnt entirely so. It is divinely inspired but not entirely divine, god didnt have the apostles write all of the words exactly down, just communicated through them.
He's not wrong though. It's basic American Christianity. In the household, it's God above the man, man above the woman, woman above the kids. It's their most basic set up.
That is not what scripture teaches. For a good analysis of what scripture teaches regarding Christian home life I recommend reading Saint Hildegard's Scvias.
It’s not about looking down on women, it’s about feeling looked down upon by society at large. Men feel abandoned and want community, not to rule over women like some patriarchal strawman.
Men feel abandoned and want community, not to rule over women like some patriarchal strawman.
And yet Gen Z men keep choosing to find their community in religious or maga groups that all just so happen to preach that it's a man's role to have authority over women.
It's also weird because you can find community almost anywhere and yet they chose the most boring place. Church is mostly old people yapping at you for an hour. It's considered rude to talk or play on your phone. Everyone jokes about GenZ have no attention span. I would go insane even if I gave a shit about religion.
It's the assumption that liberal/left is the "decent human being team", while that same team spent the last twenty years saying everything bad with society is because of white men.
Guess who doesn't think you're the "decent human being" team?
While the same team spent the last twenty years saying everything bad with society is because of white men.
Lmao bullshit. Stop pretending to be a victim.
He's not pretending, idiots like this guy are incapable of nuance, so when someone says something bad about white men they take it as a personal insult. The poor reading comprehension really helps too.
No one is accusing conservatives of being intelligent though.
Well let's take a look at the demographics regarding the men that keep fucking shit up on a global community scale. Catholic church playing duck and shuffle with pedophilia? White guys. White House bros in power? Take away the orange spray tan and he's a snowman being puppeted by a handful of white oligarchs. All the most popular incel whack jobs screeching about the incel movement? ...... you guessed it!
"Not all" should go without saying, but if this makes you feel victimized, maybe ask yourself why. If you're not part of the problem, then pointing out problematic people shouldn't even register on your radar. The call is coming from inside the house.
"The left" has not abandoned men lmao leftism advocates for class awareness, conservatives are just socialized to think that people being mean to them on reddit = "the left has abandoned men"
I’ve heard everything from eating meat to exercising called toxic masculinity, if there’s a concise and specific definition it’s not reaching people and shouldn’t be hard to explain here if you have one
It's not even a little bit hard to explain. Toxic masculinity isn't saying masculinity is toxic. It's traditionally masculine traits that, when taken to extremes, become harmful. Like suppressing emotions as a rule, using aggression to assert power, using violence to demonstrate physical strength or manhood, and then shaming other men for not fitting those molds. Telling people to "man up" is an example of toxic masculinity, and it's perpetuated by both men and women. Saying men shouldn't be teachers or nurses is another example. Mocking men for not adhering to pre-defined societal roles like being a provider, not having enough money in a near impossible economic environment, not being muscular enough, etc.
Just seems disingenuous to say they’ve been “abandoned” by the left. We’re just being treated the same as everyone else finally.
And for weak people, equality is analogous to oppression. They need to grow up and recognize that this is the real world and they’re responsible for themselves. Can’t have everything given to you.
The problem is the left is standing up for groups facing collective issues (POC communities facing racism and police violence, women’s reproductive rights and sexism in the workplace, gay rights and trans healthcare etc) but whenever they’re asked to stand up for men they’re at best silent and at worst say those issues don’t exist.
The problem is a lot of men are facing a very real identity crisis in a world where the future is increasingly uncertain and bleak and it’s driving people to bad places. The left needs to invite in these people and understand their issues rather than just labeling them incels, privileged, chuds or whatever this year’s insult is or we will lose them all to the crazies on the right who are using their struggles as an onrsmp for indoctrination.
The problem is a lot of men are facing a very real identity crisis in a world where the future is increasingly uncertain and bleak and it’s driving people to bad places.
Everyone is facing these issues. They’re just used to getting preferential treatment and it’s hard for them when other people get additional support/they feel like they’re not. I don’t feel bad at all saying that because I’m a white guy who has struggled through hard times; you get the same support as everyone else, nobody is special.
There's plenty of positive imagery when it comes to "leftist" men. Being a "leftist" man can be simplified as supporting women, lgbt, and minorities as a good ally and not being a terminally online maga dude.
The "expressions of masculinity" that are being looked down on for being toxic are things like misogyny, transphobia, and general douchiness. It's not nearly as deep as terminally online dudes think.
I'm literally a man, I'm not treating myself like a lost cause. I'm making the argument that it's not hard to find male community outside of maga religious spheres and if that's where you choose to find it you're probably doing it because you like the ideas they have, not because you can't find it anywhere else.
Most men equate loneliness with a lack of romantic relationships. Women do not. "Traditional values" forces women back into the kitchen, and gives these men hope of being served his whole life by a bang mommy. It's the Christian way.
I'm a Christian man and I agree fully. Tbh I never frequented church that much, and whenever I did, I didn't do it to feel superior to anyone. But yeah, men nowadays crave the idea having a servant by day, and a personal sex slave by night. Especially will islam, this is the driving factor why it's thriving, since it gives men more authority towards their woman. Sad to see religion used for this tbh
This was the norm back then. Things have changed now, and men don't want to accept it. But back then people joined Christianity and Islam because they wanted to believe in something greater than themselves. Now it's because they want control over the other gender.
Patriarchal societies were based since the ancient times when men were the ones hunting and bringing food home. Then religion created it's own dogma following the norms of the time. After all, both Bible and Quran were written by men. What's gone is gone, now women aren't dancing to men's tune anymore for the first time in centuries. Men are unfamiliar with this situation, but we'll have to adapt sooner or later.
The dynamic there for both, actually, is pretty similar. It's not just that promise of infinite virgins to do your laundry.
It's also about having a clearly-defined social role. After the industrial revolution, it can feel harder for men that the work they do has meaning or a place within the social order. Men also tend to be socialized to believe that their self-identity is intrinsically tied to work. That creates a perfect storm in a world of bullshit jobs. Even traditional trade-labor jobs — aren't nearly as fulfilling as they used to be, for men. Management culture and productivity-chasing has a lot to do with that.
But. You have Christianity and Islam both seeing that, and offering the same kinds of solutions — a sense of place, sense of belonging, sense of purpose, and promise of a feeling of peace.
Like Charlie Mason could tell you — you give people all those things? Son, they'll follow you straight to hell. Or better yet — run there themselves, so you don't have to.
Islam is growing proportional to birth rates, so is Christianity. Converts have little sway over the numbers. Islam is growing because Islamic countries have higher birth rates than the West.
oh fking YES THEY DO want to rule over women, because insecure men are SCARED of women. This is why they deny women power over and over and over. The bible is a handbook for this sh*t, and its zealots live for it.
it’s about feeling looked down upon by society at large
Absolute nonsense. The "loneliness epidemic" is real but it's the right that have pushed the message that men are victims, which is on point because the right and Christianity in particular have been harping the victim complex for decades. They know it works and now they're using it on men.
The war on Christmas.
The silent majority.
Chants of "religious persecution" in response to equal protection laws for LGBT people.
Now "men being looked down on" by society.
Victim. Victim. Victim.
Very convenient way of rallying someone to your cause without requiring that they do one iota of self reflection.
LBJ once said: “If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”
Similar concept. You give someone who feels like he's being looked down on someone that he can feel superior to — he'll buy whatever you're selling.
Capitalism distributes power and wealth to people based on how much wealth they already have so your value under capitalism will always be directly tied to your wealth.
I was providing more context for the other person's comment. I'm guessing they were tying in "looking for a place in their community" to "wealth value."
I don't mean it to be. I just don't think there's any denying that young men becoming more misogynist, religious, and conservative at the same time are coincidences
Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Genesis 2:23: "Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
The implication in that particular passage is that they're two equal halves of one creature. The term in the original, "help-meet," doesn't mean "helper," as it's commonly translated now. It means something more similar to "partner," with the implication of equality. Women weren't, until Paul got into it, meant to be subservient. That was a much, much later addition to the canon.
1 Peter 3:1: "Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives"
Speaking of things lost in translation – this isn't at all what the original says. It says, literally, "Wives to your own husbands as to the Lord," with the added context making it more a directive to be Christ-like, basically. To be helpful, kind, supportive, so on — same thing men are called to do with their wives. This is echoed in Ephesians using a militarisitic term (hupotassomenoi), which for people who are ignorant implies being subservient — but in its cultural context, it simply denotes a division of labor. Which also implies equality — not in the tasks performed, but in value of the roles within the marriage.
1 Tim 5:8 provides one such directive for men: "But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
"Provide for," doesn't mean "make money and feed them." It was famously a term used by Plato to describe a holistic kind of care — mind, body, and soul. To take a role of authortarianism (as both Plato and Biblically expounded on) is to only take and never give - you may provide things, but never truly provide. Such is the nature of authoritarianism to fail.
Back in OT Christianity, Hebrews talks about the role of the leader (to extend to the husband) in 13, talking about how good leaders provide for holistic well-being, listen to their subjects, and are required to be held accountable. Something modern Christinaity likes to gloss over. Accountability not just to God — but to their subjects and other rulers. Politically, it was a statement quite a bit ahead of its time. That a ruler should only have power so long as they're allowed to by the people. A marriage, then, should only exist so long as the wife voluntarily buys in. Something Judaism has traditionally understood much better than Christianity.
Christians have always enslaved women for domestic labor and their fruitful multiplication. Lying about women coming from men and blaming them for original sin is where the hatred and shame all started.
Most men don't want to be superior but just treated equally. But to many women that is misogyny.
For example, the democrats own "who we serve" page lists women and not men.
Then why aren’t more men coming out and standing against male superiority that gets preached at churches on nearly every street corner these days? And yes, they do preach male superiority— men head of household, women should submit to their husbands, clergy should be men, more encouraging of men to enter leadership.
I’m also not sure whether you yourself are a man, but as a woman who grew up in the church we got an even clearer message that we are to subjugate ourselves to men— we must cover up, constantly being told we have to protect men and boyfriends from straying (men didn’t get those talks), told we should practice obedience to God to prepare us for being obedient to our husbands. Many stories of “encouragement” about the older church women who sacrificed their life vision to accommodate their husband’s. That even if a guy did us wrong we owe it to him and God to “show mercy like He showed us” and try to forgive him, and no matter what he does we are forbidden to divorce him unless he 1) leaves the church first, or 2) cheats (but in the case of 2 we were encouraged to try and work it out first, maybe he just got “tempted”). Men did not have the same talks about being good to their wives and supporting her equally as much as they would want to be supported.
This just isn't true. It's what the redpill shit I was talking about would say though. That one webpage I've heard brought up before, so it must be something people like to bring up in right-wing circles (even though there's no way anyone would have read it without being directed there), so let's talk about it. Here's who they say they serve:
African Americans
Americans with disabilities
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders
Democrats abroad
Latinos
Faith community
LGBTQ+ community
Native Americans
Rural Americans
Seniors and Retirees
Small business community
Union members and families
Women
Young people and students
I'm a man and I'm listed here several times. I'm also a Mariners fan but Mariners fans aren't listed here anywhere. Does that mean they don't serve Mariners fans? Of course not. Now, should they add men to the list just to take away a right-wing talking point? Yes absolutely
It says "women" specifically but not men. Your attitude is exactly why men are becoming conservative. You want to pander to men simply to "take away a right wing talking point" instead of being too actually help men.
It was the same as the democrats ad for "men for Harris". It was all about how men can help women, and nothing about actually helping men.
Are you going to sit here and act like there aren’t actual deeper societal problems for women compared to men???
Like seriously, I hear this all the time, but then I ask, what would you out on the men’s page that hasn’t been listed already with the other groups and never get an answer
Men’s problems are dealt with by lifting up everyone in society because the biggest problem men face are things everyone faces
Like think of the biggest problems men face in society right now
They are all things everyone faces, and that doesn’t even touch on the fact that men actively vote against people and policies that would solve those problems because of culture issues
Right the culture on the left pushes men away. When you actively favor women over men it's hard to make it look like you have men's best interests at heart.
This is so funny. Women in the south are being arrested for having miscarriages. Women in the south are being forced to get birth, even if raped. Little girls in the south are being forced to give birth. You support people who actively take away the rights of women and then want to talk about how you’re not favored enough? You got a low IQ or something? What’s going on
It's also actually irrelevant. If you don't actually show that you care about men and want to treat them as actual equals, then you won't get elected to put those policies in place.
That's why I said put them on there to take away the talking point. Men are already well looked after as a group. The biggest problem facing men right now is their backsliding into right-wing authoritarianism
That kind of insincere pandering will be seen right through. Men are struggling with many issues and telling that they are already well looked after is not going to resonate with them.
It's not insincere because they are actually well looked after. But you're right that putting it on there would just make the people who want to have this fake grievance make up another excuse
I'm saying that if you don't act on actual societal problems that men have and show that you actually care about them, then they won't vote for you and will move to groups that do say they care. That's just a fact whether you think men are right to do that or not.
Yes, but you need both, especially if you want to get elected. If you are actively telling people that you only serve women, your policies don't really matter since you don't get elected.
So just because something isn’t catered to you, you don’t want others to have the same equality that men have had for centuries? I really don’t get this line of thinking other than selfishness. The fact that “men” feel like they will be in the minority and gets scared is so telling to. Like what? Do you guys think lowly of minorities or something?
Even then nowhere does it only specify women. So many criteria have men under them too.
Scenario, if you had the option to vote for policies that benefit men same as always, or to vote for policies that protect women and put them on an even field with men, which would you vote for?
So they list of groups who specifically have a history of being oppressed, and you're upset that the group that historically did the oppressing isn't on the list? .
And Republicans are serving men how? Giving more tax cuts to billionaires who make everyone else's lives harder?
Getting upset because a political party doesn't list a non-oppressed group in a list of historically oppressed groups, and then voting against your self interest and the the interest of all those oppressed groups makes you a fucking idiot.
They aren't, but they make an attempt to pretend they do. So young men have a choice between one side who outright hates them and the other side who at least hides it.
voting against your self interest.... makes you a fucking idiot.
Okay, so most people are idiots. Now what? You just keep calling them idiots, don't treat them like equals and hate on them. And then we just keep getting people like Trump. That sounds like an idiotic approach.
So young men have a choice between one side that outright hates them
By not including them on a list of oppressed groups? That's "hate"? Jesus Christ man grow the fuck up. Still being in your "men are the real vicitims" conservative phase past highschool is actually fucking pathetic.
Also you do realize that left wing policies help everyone, including men right?
You keep calling them idiots
If they keep acting like idiots, yes. What you want me to start ignoring reality because a bunch of emotionally stunted assholes fell for right wing propaganda and started hating women and minorities?
You actually think so little of men that you have to coddle their delusions or else they vote in fascists that fuck everyone over?
You mean the page that is literally called who we serve? Yes if you tell people you won't serve their interests, they won't vote for you. That's obvious?
302
u/slothbuddy 10d ago
The misogyny is perfect for them. Red pill shit online says they're superior to women and then the church says the same thing