Actually all mainstream definitions for misogyny include "dislike" of or "contempt" for women as the primary qualifiers.
It doesn't matter... I'm talking about sexism, which as a basic idea simply means treating women unequally...treating them wrong. This does not have to be complicated. You're going off topic.
And by the way, if you treat women as if they're sub human, I think it's safe to say that you "dislike" them... and treating women in that way is the exact the definition of contempt.
How are you determining what is universally sexist or what could be felt by the women at the time as oppressive instead of normality to them?
Even if being held as property of one's father or husband felt normal to women in the past (because it's all they ever knew), that doesn't change the fact that considering women to be property is completely sexist. It will never not be sexist to adopt the idea that men are worthier than women. That's what sexism is, any manifestation of the idea of superiority of males and inferiority of females is sexism against women regardless of the time period.
This quote describes some of the ways in which women were treated as inferior with a lesser status according to the bible:
"The social and legal position of an Israelite wife was inferior to the position a wife occupied in the great countries round about... all the texts show that Israelites wanted mainly sons to perpetuate the family line and fortune, and to preserve the ancestral inheritance... A husband could divorce his wife; women on the other hand could not ask for divorce... the wife called her husband Ba'al or master; she also called him adon or lord; she addressed him, in fact, as a slave addressed his master or subject, his king. The Decalogue includes a man's wife among his possessions... all her life she remains a minor. The wife does not inherit from her husband, nor daughters from their father, except when there is no male heir. A vow made by a girl or married woman needs, to be valid, the consent of the father or husband and if this consent is withheld, the vow is null and void. A man had a right to sell his daughter. Women were excluded from the succession."
-Roland de Vaux, archaeologist and priest
These are clear examples of the sexism that they built in to their society and religion. Just because it was seen as acceptable by many people in that culture and time, doesn't mean that it's not sexist. It's clearly placing women into a second class status with greatly diminished autonomy and humanity. Their society was historically deeply patriarchal which naturally translates to women not being afforded the same level of status and power as men. They were physically seen as worth less than men and did not have the same rights to property or even their own body and autonomy. And according to the quote, they treated women much worse than the other countries and cultures in their own time period.
Eve was not the only one to be held responsible for what happened, all parties present were punished.
Yeah... but as I pointed out, in the story of genesis, god cursed all women so that men will "rule over them". This means that god is allowing men to subjugate women. This gives men a convenient "justification" for the way they mistreat women. The fact that other characters were also held responsible is not relevant to this specific idea. I don't believe god to be sexist and I recognize that human men were the people who wrote the bible, so this is an example of sexist men writing sexist ideas into the bible. A just and moral god would not curse all human females for eternity with being forced to undergo sexism, especially not as a punishment for the actions of one person. What makes more sense is that the people who wrote the bible could see that they mistreated women in their society so they incorporated an origin for why they did these things into the bible. And they also wanted an excuse for the way they mistreat women.
Impurity in this context is not intended to imply sinfulness or inferiority; rather, it emphasizes the tremendous importance of holiness within a woman’s body and the power to create a new life through union with her husband.
That's not correct. They considered menstruation and a woman's body after childbirth to be ritually unclean which meant that the woman had to be separated and could not enter into holy places of worship. And the word "unclean" does not hold a positive connotation or meaning in any way. It's not possible for the idea of uncleanliness to be translated into holiness. Holiness is associated with purity which is associated specifically with cleanliness... certainly not uncleanliness. And they associated the blood from menstruation and pregnancy with death and associated death with the fall of humanity... it did not have a positive connotation.
this period is twice as long to account for the purity of both the mother and the daughter. Therefore, the time period is twice as long as when a mother gives birth to a son.
No, the only reason why giving birth to a female baby resulted in a longer span of "uncleanliness" was specifically because females were seen as lesser... female babies caused more uncleanliness. Since female babies rendered the mother more "unclean" than male babies, this required more time for ritual purification before the "uncleanliness" of the female baby was removed. The male baby required less time for purification because it was considered less unclean... i.e. more clean, therefore better.
And even if this held some kind of spiritual significance due to the Fall, how is that sexist?
It's sexist to value female babies less than male babies. Many societies have had this problem in the past and present (due to sexism) it was also obviously a problem in biblical times.
Try this in South East Asian countries where birth rates were plummeting because baby girls were aborted as families wanted sons -that's sexism at play in childbirth.
They're both examples of sexism... but we are not talking about Asia or the modern day, we're specifically talking about ancient societies that followed the bible. They unfortunately also had this problem of devaluing women and female babies in ancient biblical societies.
You're throwing a lot of conjecture into why that time period existed and what people's thought processes were around it.
As you just did.
A wife is to submit to one man (her husband), not to every man.
So? Just because it's not every man, doesn't mean it's the right thing. Husbands are said to have inherent "authority" over wives simply because they're male... this is an example of sexism. The only reason ideas like this have found their way into religion is because they are a reflection of the sexist beliefs of the men who create these religions. They want to have more power over their wives and they want to feel superior, so they proclaim that god has given them more authority and they require that their wives submit to them and follow their every whim or else they'd be disobeying god. This is not moral. Either both submit or neither do, otherwise it's inherently unjust.
Submit is not a bad word. Submission is not a reflection of inferiority or lesser worth.
That's just plain wrong. Submit is defined as "yield to a superior force or authority". This explicitly means that by definition if you are submitting to someone, you
are inferior to them and you obviously have less authority. If men are granted more authority and women have less to none, what does that say?... It says that women are less, women cannot be at the same level as men.
The bible has commands for slave-owners as well on how to treat their slaves within the ALREADY-EXISTING slave system, but of course that won't matter to you.
Shouldn't the existence of slavery have mattered to god enough for him to at least
ask people not to do it? This is just another example that flawed humans wrote the bible... Of course there are rules for slaves and slave owners in the bible, because the bible was written by people who lived in a society that condoned slavery, therefore the bible also allows for slavery. If a moral god wrote or dictated the bible then I would expect there to be absolutely no condoning or allowing of slavery whatsoever... but there is which shows me that people who probably owned slaves had a hand in writing the bible. They had a vested interest in getting their slaves to submit to them... why not proclaim it as a command from god. This allowed them to use god as a justification for slavery, but in reality god had no hand in it... it was simply people's own horrible practices that they
claimed were allowed by their god.
Paul actually does differentiate between when he quotes from divine scripture and when he gives his own opinion or advice about something.
Oh, good for him then... it's still in the bible and people still follow it as the divinely inspired word of god. Also as I said, the rest of the bible is written in the same way that Paul's writings are... people wrote in their own ideas and traditions. Men wrote the entirety of scripture... sure they claimed to be divinely inspired but that's literally an unverifiable claim and if you read some of the things they wrote, there is a lot of immoral stuff that's promoted such as the things we've already discussed. If the holy books were truly and completely divine and perfect, then there would be no moral corruption... but unfortunately there does seem to be some. And this is due to the fact that the books were written by humans and humans can be immoral.
The modern versions we have are corrupted.
Right... so why are you defending a corruption? lmao Specifically the corrupt parts too.
They do not. It's lazy to just assume that because evil and flawed people manipulated scripture to fit their own agendas, that scripture itself must be evil and that these men were truthful and genuine in their use of it.
I never said scripture was evil... my entire point this whole time since I first commented was that the people who wrote the bible were the ones who were flawed and they incorporated their majorly flawed beliefs into their religions and their ideas of god. I think you're agreeing with me here now.