If Christianity is anti-woman...

[ATTC]

Originally Posted by TroutDude

Of course society isn't perfect. Never has been, unlikely ever to be.

But education often means having to relinquish ideas-previously-thought-to-be-true. For instance: Earth is the center of the universe, god fashioned Adam from dust, Noah had dinosaurs on board and oh yeah - women should be silent and keep their legs crossed (unless hubby demanded his rights, of course).

Most of the Abrahamic religions of which I am aware, demean women by assigning them subservient roles - both within the ceremonies used to practice those religions and outside them, within society. For the most part, women are to nurture and support - to be leaned upon - not to lead. (Props to the Israelis and Indians though, for Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi. And yes, I am aware that Hinduism is not Abrahamic-based.)

For much too long, girls have been held hostage by the roles demanded of them by entrenched, male-dominated, patriarchal religions.

Only education will set them free - most definitely including sex education - perhaps above all. If a girl grows into womanhood believing she is in control of her body, mind, and soul, then she is also in control of her destiny.

That kind of freedom for women is anathema to fundamentalists. They've got it pretty good as long as their women stay quiet and submissive.

Women need to understand and re-take the power they once held, and still deserve, as creators and innovators. They should shrug off the shackles of a 2,000 year-old, patriarchal system designed over centuries to ease men's lives.

ATTC, I understand your fear and unease.

And I celebrate it.

Want to compare the strength of the family and community and level of political awareness in this country before and after the movements of "liberation"?

The true shackles are put on a society that becomes a hypersexualized one with moral relativism especially towards sex. The family unit is the first casualty . It makes it so much easier to sell the public on bread and circuses

Women weren't materialistic, antagonistic and the nurturing role of women created a society where children weren't brainwashed by systems of academia that told children to worship the government

[TroutDude]

Originally Posted by ATTC

So an outright evasion? Don't blame you.

This is again one of the several Achilles heel for anti-theists

They paint theism as anti-women, yet it's the anti-theists who promote the promiscuity, pornography, and superficiality that damages women physically and psychologically more than anything.

I'm not an atheist.

But it's sure not the first time you've been wrong.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by ATTC

Again none of the anti-theists can answer the fact that the world pushes system of values that are far more damaging for women with the promotion of pornography, unrealistic standards of beauty leading to insecurity and in many cases bulimia and anorexia, a society that uses sexualization as a marketing tool on pre-teenage girls at younger and younger ages.

And now a "sex education" agenda that is encouraging children as young as grade school to explore their sexuality

You're pretty crafty yourself. I'd say you are wrong on two counts.

(1) it was not a golden age for women before the present pushing of values (of which you disapprove) You think Church child abuse is recent? It is only recent attitudes have allowed it to be exposed. Pornography, sex - industry sexual use of minors, trafficking of women, use of women as sexual Things rather than as people while at the same time expecting them to be chaste and then blaming then when men use them in unchaste ways, is not new. It is centuries old. Rape for heavens' sake has only relatively recently been taken seriously as anything other than the woman's fault. It is religion that has encouraged this attitude.

It is bringing these issues out into the open that has changed. Why should women not celebrate what they are? Why should they not rejoice in their beauty and allure rather than swathe themselves from head to foot as though they were something shameful - in case a glimpse of shapely fingertip or pert nose should inflame the poor male so much that he cannot help but rape the seductix on the spot...the minx!!

Sin doctrine is not the answer but the golden rule, and we still don't have it right. No woman should be forced into sexual acts if she doesn't want to be. No woman should be prevented from it if that is her choice - not an obligation to make a living, but a choice. True, relatively few might choose to do it. Fine. The sex thing is grossly overcrowded already.

(2) and a lot shorter. Even if your objections to the modern pushing of values that liberate women were valid, that is irrelevant to where society is going and wants to go and utterly irrelevant as any sort of argument appropriate to a religion forum.