Welcome to Gaia! ::

Phallic Wonderland's avatar

Distinct Browser

10,150 Points
  • Grunny Rainbow 100
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Forum Regular 100
rmcdra
Phallic Wonderland
I don't know how many people actually watched the video, but he is not advocating for the domination of women. Complementary relationship like he describes happens outside religion too, and frankly I don't see anything misogynistic about that video. He advocates for a partnership where each has their role that forwards the family dynamic. He is not advocating for a silent woman who does whatever she is told, nor is he advocating in this video that men have godly control over their wives, or that all women have to listen to all men in their lives. It is a partnership based on humbleness (that both partners obey God and earthly law) and hard work from both of them. The only thing he said that people would actually have a reason to be upset about is that in major decisions, the final say is up to the husband.

While the clothing thing seems ridiculous, he was not abusing her by telling her to go shopping. He was not telling her to go shopping because she is ugly, or wearing rags. He was telling her to go shopping because she was unwilling to treat herself and is a hard-working mother who deserves nice things. The give and take dynamic does not have to ascribe to a biblical point of view, it is simply about being the best and most thoughtful and sacrificing partner you can be.

Also, is another video he says he would talk about the assholes who think that these words contribute godly authority, which he actually sounded very upset about mentioning.

Even if he is a douchebag, this video does not show it. He was very descriptive about what it is talking about and what it is NOT talking about, and it was certainly NOT talking about lording over his wife, nor having complete control over what she does.
His argument is that the roles of husbands and wives fixed in gender. In some relationships, the woman has to be the role of husband and the man has to be the role of the wife. Not for Mr. Driscoll. These roles are divinely ordained and fixed in what parts a person has. He then uses a literalistic interpretation of Genesis to justify why these fixed roles have to be this way. Women are not able to be the head in the relationship in this world view. This is what makes him sexist. It's what is referred to as "positive" sexism which is more damaging psychologically than "negative" sexism.

He then adds the extra stab by saying that those that aren't going with his world view aren't being "true bible believing Christians". His argument is flawed.

Edit: Clarification and addium


I figured in the big picture it was just basically that both husband and wife, not necessarily men and women before marriage, have equal dominion in different aspects of family life.

Yes, listening to the last updated thing he does say some things that are completely generalizing to both genders. I don't see a problem with how he describes the usefulness and respect that comes with working as a team to cover both aspects of family life. That is the only thing I'm arguing for.
rmcdra's avatar

Loved Seeker

11,700 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Partygoer 500
  • Contributor 150
Phallic Wonderland

I figured in the big picture it was just basically that both husband and wife, not necessarily men and women before marriage, have equal dominion in different aspects of family life.
I agree with this but Discoll limits these roles to specific genders, not because one partner is better suited for these than the other but merely because one has a d**k and the other has v****a. That is what he advocates in the first video and makes a false comparison of the types of relationships.

Quote:
Yes, listening to the last updated thing he does say some things that are completely generalizing to both genders. I don't see a problem with how he describes the usefulness and respect that comes with working as a team to cover both aspects of family life. That is the only thing I'm arguing for.
Haven't seen the second video but from what I know of his attitudes concerning women in leadership roles in the Church, I'm sure there is a lot of baseless generalizations he makes concerning one's gender and will use literalistic interpretations to justify his stances as the way how it has to be. Then he'll subtly bluntly bully/slam other Christians who don't agree with him 100%

Edit: Correction
Phallic Wonderland's avatar

Distinct Browser

10,150 Points
  • Grunny Rainbow 100
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Forum Regular 100
rmcdra
Phallic Wonderland

I figured in the big picture it was just basically that both husband and wife, not necessarily men and women before marriage, have equal dominion in different aspects of family life.
I agree with this but Discoll limits these roles to specific genders, not because one partner is better suited for these than the other but merely because one has a d**k and the other has v****a. That is what he advocates in the first video and makes a false comparison of the types of relationships.

Quote:
Yes, listening to the last updated thing he does say some things that are completely generalizing to both genders. I don't see a problem with how he describes the usefulness and respect that comes with working as a team to cover both aspects of family life. That is the only thing I'm arguing for.
Haven't seen the second video but from what I know of his attitudes concerning women in leadership roles in the Church, I'm sure there is a lot of baseless generalizations he makes concerning one's gender and will use literalistic interpretations to justify his stances as the way how it has to be. Then he'll subtly bluntly bully/slam other Christians who don't agree with him 100%

Edit: Correction


I take the slams as a given with any sort of televangelist. People have strong opinions. He is like most people, a buffet Christian. In the Bible they had women running churches, something he probably leaves out. But I heard he does have his wife come up and help him on occasion, which would contradict even though I guess back in the days the Jews thought they were progressive enough even letting women into the same temple, much less allowing them to ask questions in it.
rmcdra's avatar

Loved Seeker

11,700 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Partygoer 500
  • Contributor 150
Phallic Wonderland

I take the slams as a given with any sort of televangelist. People have strong opinions.
Yeah.

Quote:
He is like most people, a buffet Christian.
Depends on what you mean by that. If one is a Christian and says that the Bible is a unified work and everything they do is "biblical" then I agree with you. If one acknowledges that the Bible is an anthology of Christian literature and doesn't try to stake claim at being "biblical" or "true Christian", I'd disagree with such a person being a buffet Christian.

Quote:
In the Bible they had women running churches, something he probably leaves out.
It doesn't help him pull in the "young men" demographic that he brags about being able to attract. But yes you are spot on about that.

Quote:
But I heard he does have his wife come up and help him on occasion, which would contradict even though I guess back in the days the Jews thought they were progressive enough even letting women into the same temple, much less allowing them to ask questions in it.
Helps him out yes, but she'd never be allowed to run his Church. He's on record saying that women leading other Churches is why the other Churches have gone down the shitter and lost members.
Phallic Wonderland's avatar

Distinct Browser

10,150 Points
  • Grunny Rainbow 100
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Forum Regular 100
rmcdra
Phallic Wonderland

I take the slams as a given with any sort of televangelist. People have strong opinions.
Yeah.

Quote:
He is like most people, a buffet Christian.
Depends on what you mean by that. If one is a Christian and says that the Bible is a unified work and everything they do is "biblical" then I agree with you. If one acknowledges that the Bible is an anthology of Christian literature and doesn't try to stake claim at being "biblical" or "true Christian", I'd disagree with such a person being a buffet Christian.

Quote:
In the Bible they had women running churches, something he probably leaves out.
It doesn't help him pull in the "young men" demographic that he brags about being able to attract. But yes you are spot on about that.

Quote:
But I heard he does have his wife come up and help him on occasion, which would contradict even though I guess back in the days the Jews thought they were progressive enough even letting women into the same temple, much less allowing them to ask questions in it.
Helps him out yes, but she'd never be allowed to run his Church. He's on record saying that women leading other Churches is why the other Churches have gone down the shitter and lost members.


Some people's interpretations of some things are really screwy, I always take it with a grain of salt. I agree that it's distasteful to attract young men by making it sound like men are more than spiritual leaders and providers and that women are not worthy of religious leadership, I was just agreeing to his ability to make understood the unification of complementary marriages and how they work best in Christianity.

It did annoy me when he tried to say that men and women are like cats and dogs... Cats and dogs aren't even the same species... >.>

o.o I keep forgetting that not a lot of Christians I've met or talked to see the Bible as a compilation of testimonies, not something that has to necessarily be read cover-to-cover. Each one is a separate book, completed at totally different times, some never even to be published or kept in original format due to Catholic agenda and biased translators.
rmcdra's avatar

Loved Seeker

11,700 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Partygoer 500
  • Contributor 150
Phallic Wonderland

Some people's interpretations of some things are really screwy, I always take it with a grain of salt. I agree that it's distasteful to attract young men by making it sound like men are more than spiritual leaders and providers and that women are not worthy of religious leadership, I was just agreeing to his ability to make understood the unification of complementary marriages and how they work best in Christianity.

It did annoy me when he tried to say that men and women are like cats and dogs... Cats and dogs aren't even the same species... >.>
I hear ya on that. Some interpretations can be really screwy. Wow I'll have to hear that take just for shits and giggles though I'm not sure if I can sit through another of that hour long mess.

Quote:
o.o I keep forgetting that not a lot of Christians I've met or talked to see the Bible as a compilation of testimonies, not something that has to necessarily be read cover-to-cover. Each one is a separate book, completed at totally different times, some never even to be published or kept in original format due to Catholic agenda and biased translators.
I'm impressed that you know your stuff. You can't forget about the psuedographia included in too for the above reasons. wink
Phallic Wonderland's avatar

Distinct Browser

10,150 Points
  • Grunny Rainbow 100
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Forum Regular 100
rmcdra
Phallic Wonderland

Some people's interpretations of some things are really screwy, I always take it with a grain of salt. I agree that it's distasteful to attract young men by making it sound like men are more than spiritual leaders and providers and that women are not worthy of religious leadership, I was just agreeing to his ability to make understood the unification of complementary marriages and how they work best in Christianity.

It did annoy me when he tried to say that men and women are like cats and dogs... Cats and dogs aren't even the same species... >.>
I hear ya on that. Some interpretations can be really screwy. Wow I'll have to hear that take just for shits and giggles though I'm not sure if I can sit through another of that hour long mess.

Quote:
o.o I keep forgetting that not a lot of Christians I've met or talked to see the Bible as a compilation of testimonies, not something that has to necessarily be read cover-to-cover. Each one is a separate book, completed at totally different times, some never even to be published or kept in original format due to Catholic agenda and biased translators.
I'm impressed that you know your stuff. You can't forget about the psuedographia included in too for the above reasons. wink


Thank you. I grew up your "normal" what-everyone-sees Christian, became Agnostic for a good while, and then decided I could be a Christian without all the usual accompanying stupidity. Jesus was a cool guy, he challenged current norms and perspectives and really help set some sort of structure that wasn't revolving around how different everyone is, but how we are all the same (sinners) and that we need to love each other and love ourselves.
Phallic Wonderland
Lucky~9~Lives
GunsmithKitten
When did money make someone more or less inferior to you, Gun?


Since she lived under a capitalistic society, whereby money determines social influence and hence position in the social hierarchy.


Simply because it's a social construct doesn't make it logical or correct. I'm sure she knows this.


I'm pretty sure her point is that said social constructs aren't logical or correct, but they still happen.
Phallic Wonderland's avatar

Distinct Browser

10,150 Points
  • Grunny Rainbow 100
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Forum Regular 100
Lucky~9~Lives
Phallic Wonderland
Lucky~9~Lives
GunsmithKitten
When did money make someone more or less inferior to you, Gun?


Since she lived under a capitalistic society, whereby money determines social influence and hence position in the social hierarchy.


Simply because it's a social construct doesn't make it logical or correct. I'm sure she knows this.


I'm pretty sure her point is that said social constructs aren't logical or correct, but they still happen.


But does that mean we have to follow? Does that mean it is only right to go with the flow of an obviously flawed perspective? I am slightly overweight, is it not a social pressure to be thin, and why aren't I starving myself (well, I'm pregnant, but you get the meaning)? Why isn't every girl I know getting plastic implants and going on Girls Gone Wild (since slutty is popular)?
Phallic Wonderland
Lucky~9~Lives
Phallic Wonderland
Lucky~9~Lives
GunsmithKitten
When did money make someone more or less inferior to you, Gun?


Since she lived under a capitalistic society, whereby money determines social influence and hence position in the social hierarchy.


Simply because it's a social construct doesn't make it logical or correct. I'm sure she knows this.


I'm pretty sure her point is that said social constructs aren't logical or correct, but they still happen.


But does that mean we have to follow?


No - but unless a significant number of people don't follow them, the aforementioned inferiority is in effect.
Phallic Wonderland's avatar

Distinct Browser

10,150 Points
  • Grunny Rainbow 100
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Forum Regular 100
Lucky~9~Lives
Phallic Wonderland
Lucky~9~Lives
Phallic Wonderland
Lucky~9~Lives
GunsmithKitten
When did money make someone more or less inferior to you, Gun?


Since she lived under a capitalistic society, whereby money determines social influence and hence position in the social hierarchy.


Simply because it's a social construct doesn't make it logical or correct. I'm sure she knows this.


I'm pretty sure her point is that said social constructs aren't logical or correct, but they still happen.


But does that mean we have to follow?


No - but unless a significant number of people don't follow them, the aforementioned inferiority is in effect.


I'm sure there are a lot of people that claim "counter-culture", but in reality I think the only people who get a say in what todays social constructs are are the people in control of media content.
Phallic Wonderland
Lucky~9~Lives
Phallic Wonderland
Lucky~9~Lives
Phallic Wonderland
Simply because it's a social construct doesn't make it logical or correct. I'm sure she knows this.


I'm pretty sure her point is that said social constructs aren't logical or correct, but they still happen.


But does that mean we have to follow?


No - but unless a significant number of people don't follow them, the aforementioned inferiority is in effect.


I'm sure there are a lot of people that claim "counter-culture", but in reality I think the only people who get a say in what todays social constructs are are the people in control of media content.


The people with the money, you mean?
Phallic Wonderland's avatar

Distinct Browser

10,150 Points
  • Grunny Rainbow 100
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Forum Regular 100
Lucky~9~Lives
Phallic Wonderland
Lucky~9~Lives
Phallic Wonderland
Lucky~9~Lives
Phallic Wonderland
Simply because it's a social construct doesn't make it logical or correct. I'm sure she knows this.


I'm pretty sure her point is that said social constructs aren't logical or correct, but they still happen.


But does that mean we have to follow?


No - but unless a significant number of people don't follow them, the aforementioned inferiority is in effect.


I'm sure there are a lot of people that claim "counter-culture", but in reality I think the only people who get a say in what todays social constructs are are the people in control of media content.


The people with the money, you mean?


I'm sure it could stretch that far. Producers and editors get "raises" to put out specific agendas. That and, well... they have the gall to cancel Fire Fly, while Jersey Shore just keeps going... and going... and going...

Money does garner weight in society, I won't lie. But I won't say it's right or that we should judge someone as inferior because of it. Rich people are the most likely to get money in dirty ways, and that can be considered inferior to working hard, right?
Phallic Wonderland
Lucky~9~Lives
Phallic Wonderland
I'm sure there are a lot of people that claim "counter-culture", but in reality I think the only people who get a say in what todays social constructs are are the people in control of media content.


The people with the money, you mean?


I'm sure it could stretch that far. Producers and editors get "raises" to put out specific agendas. That and, well... they have the gall to cancel Fire Fly, while Jersey Shore just keeps going... and going... and going...

Money does garner weight in society, I won't lie. But I won't say it's right or that we should judge someone as inferior because of it. Rich people are the most likely to get money in dirty ways, and that can be considered inferior to working hard, right?


It's not about judging people inferior; it's the fact that money garners weight that creates the inferiority. You can judge rich people as inferior as you like, but as long as money equates to social influence then said people are superior in the social hierarchy.
Speedy Yellow's avatar

Beloved Lunatic

7,750 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Wall Street 200
I stumbled across a website on one of my surfing trips through the world wide web; where several American pastors and laymen of the very Conservative and Fundamentalist kind had published article upon artice upon article on the "ideal, truly feminine" woman. Haha, of course these were small potatoes when put next to those on "Baby-killing feminists", "Homosexual lesbians", and of course "The tramps". Names like "pervert sluts", "whores" and "harlots" are actually used to describe my fellow sisters who do not abide by the four tenets God supposedly intended for young women: "Get married, have kids, play house and shut up". According to this website women are breaking these rules by being pro-choice, divorcing violent and abusive husbands, and wearing pants. The reason why a "godly woman" couldn't wear pants was because people's eyes "would be drawn to the crotch area". If their minds works like that, then they're the ones who are perverts. (Incidentally, the same people had no problem with women wearing make-up.)

I read through some of the articles and when I felt my brain blistering. At first I was amused; as I thought this website was a joke; at best a very determined band of trolls, but soon I realized from all the advertising it couldn't be all trolls; I sincerely hoped that the authors were writing these articles during computer priviliges at their respective mental institutions. However, all the authors were the real deal, and the Wicked Witch herself; Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly supports this site. I was not personally offended by anything on the site, but I now worry because these authors may have wives and daughters of their own, as well as sons they teach their claptrap to; claptrap being a euphemism for "unfathomable hatred of women".

Hatred of women among Christians? Rife. In the Bible? Not so much.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games