Women should keep silent in the assembly?

[1213]

For what reason would a woman not have the same right as a man to speak in a religious assembly? ....

Bible tells this is the reason:

But I don't permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;
1 Tim. 2:12-14

But, that is what Paul says. And perhaps it is not the same as God’s words. However, for me the main issue is in, why one wants to speak. Often it seems the goal is to get glory and high position for the speaker. And I think that is wrong. Person who is truly a disciple of Jesus (=”Christians”) should not seek high position for her/himself but instead serve others the best way he/she can. It seems to me that the reason why women want to get high position is that they could:

… bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men…
Mat. 23:4-12

But that is not good. disciples of Jesus should not seek high positions so that they could be served. Instead they should:

But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat. 23:4-12

This is why, if the only reason why women wants to speak in Church is that men also speak, it is not good. If women want to serve others and tell what Jesus said, I don’t see any problem with that. But, I think this same is with men also.

It is interesting that women often seem to seek to become leaders so that they would be served and praised. It is about themselves and I think it is not good. The job of a leader is to serve others, to do good to others, improve the situation of other people. Selfish, vain and arrogant people are not very good at that. But, I think both men and women can be that and not good to be leaders. But, often it seems the reason women want to be leaders is not to serve others, but because men are or something as bad.

I wouldn’t deny anyone to speak, but, if someone speaks, I hope there is a good reason for it and it is serving the others, not for selfish reasons.

Do women really want to be servants, like leaders should be?

 

[Viker]

For what reason would a woman not have the same right as a man to speak in a religious assembly? Other than sheer sexism of course. I'm not speaking of women chatting and gossiping. No one should be rude--men cannot do this either. I'm speaking of the contribution to the learning and worship.

The most well known religious prohibition is from 1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak," and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

Be aware, of course, that this sort of thing doesn't just exist in Christianity, but other religions as well. Thus, I hope we get responses from multiple religions.

In Orthodox Judaism, for example, the tradition is not to have women rabbis. Now it is controversial there because some women are pushing the envelope and gaining semikha (ordination). That causes a lot of anxiety and hard feelings among those who are opposed. For example, I was reading just the other day about a woman who taught in a Jewish school in the UK. When she received her ordination, she was let go from her job.

BTW, this post is not meant to be a slam of any religion or sect. I think that all of them have made a lot of progress compared to how things were in the past.

Anyhow, this post was inspired by visiting a website outlining the beliefs of Messianic Israelism (I was hoping to better understand one of the writers in this forum). So while some may try to claim that this is a thing of the past, trust me, in some groups it is still very much alive.

Okay, let the discussion begin.

What I like about my religious assemblies is that they are often lead by women. The great thing about covens is they're democratic and gender neutral.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I don’t know a whole lot about shamanism or other belief systems involving a “mother earth” or Gaia figure, so I’m not sure how to comment on it.

Of course we don't - in our culture, nature is subservient to us, and we name it, and decide for it, and it is there to be plowed over. We think it doesn't have a voice, we think it doesn't have power, or skill. It is a taboo to even sit neath its tree, and speak to it. Adam's task it to build sprawling suburbs, and clear out patches of biosphere with their thousand layers of flora and fauna for the purpose. However, what if by connecting with it, it told us its qualities, and gave us the ideas about how it is in balance with other things, and what kind of a link you are, in it. Then, it is the thing gazing into you, and projecting qualities into you. Should we then take this 'non-human advice.' Or did it cut us free of itself so that we may grow and decide on our own for time, and decide what we are. And then we come back one day to place the computer chip into the tree, and blast off into the new horizon. I feel that it is trying to connect again to us, in any case

 

[URAVIP2ME]

For what reason would a woman not have the same right as a man to speak in a religious assembly? Other than sheer sexism of course. I'm not speaking of women chatting and gossiping. No one should be rude--men cannot do this either. I'm speaking of the contribution to the learning and worship.
The most well known religious prohibition is from 1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak," and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.".......

" Don't interrupt the meeting."
Considering the counsel given, Paul was relating to matters discussed at congregation meetings.
How meetings should be conducted - 1 Corinthians 14:1-6; 1 Corinthians 14:26-34.
The purpose or objective of such meetings was to uplift the congregation - 1 Corinthians 14:4-5,12,26.
So, if a woman has a question, if married first ask her husband, then if need be, go to the spiritually older men.
In all three times Paul addressed a different congregation group, but all for the same reason so that all things will take place with decently and by arrangement.
Thus, it was Not that a woman should never speak at meetings but that there is a time to keep silent.
After all, women are to be teachers according to Titus 2:3-4.
However, because of the headship principle, she would be Not taking the lead in congregation meetings.
( Kind of like the order we see in schools: Teacher over Pupil, Principal over Teacher, Super over Principal )

 

[epronovost]

You are speaking about the abuse of headship, which is clearly demonstrated in some cultures and religions. Not at all what God put in place as I have explained already.

Except oppression of women was the consequences of ALL society that instated and defended male headship. That's not subject to opinion and personal belief.

It's a fact that women living in cultures where male headship is the cultural norm and the law of the land are poorer, more subject to violence, have little to no political power and liberty, are less educated, have less legal representation, less economical freedom and less cultural influence and exposure than women in where equality is the law of the land and the desired objective of society. That's simply impossible to deny.

Your cultural model isn't something that has never been applied. It was the norm for centuries. We know how a society built upon male headship within a Christian culture produce as results for women and it was terrible.

It should not be a surprise either. If you give power and authority to one person over an other, there will be abuse and those abuse will be harder if not even impossible to counter or stop. Can you have happy couples under a male headship scenario and culture? Absolutely, but you can have happy couples in pretty much all arrangements.

The absolutist nature of male headship makes it inherently abusive as it prevents women to forge their own fate and exploit and express their talent.

This is God’s arrangement. Since it is God who designates the ‘driver’, the safety and well being of all ‘passengers’ in his vehicle is his responsibility. How is that difficult to understand. It was not to be a position of power at all.

Of course, responsibility and authority over others is the very definition of power. A general is the ultimate responsible for the success or failure of his troops. A general has power; a simple soldier, very little. Neither do the same thing, but they are not in an equalitarian relationship.

He is accountable to God for how he fulfills his responsibility.

That has never been a guaranty of good or better behavior at any point of history. On the contrary. Relying on fear of punishment to motivate behavior has proven to be one of the worst method to mold behavior. That's why "fear of God" has little impact on the behavior of faithful people who still commit crimes and bad actions at the same rate than non-believers.

Jesus was the model.

A unmarried, childless man who largely rejected his own family's responsibility (he never took care of his mother who was a widow when he became an adult) is the role model of fathers and husbands in your religion? No wonder you are so blind to the issue

 

[Meow Mix]

This acceptance I'm seeing of this notion that women are a special class of inexorable chatterboxes keen to interrupt and gossip is also concerning to me.

That women accept this characterization is a form of internalized misogyny.

The characterization itself follows a long pattern upheld by social ignorance that attempts to infantilize women: women need "protectors," need "correction," need to be silent and listen to the adults (men), women are mercurial slaves to their emotions, so on and so forth: in these sorts of social paradigms, women aren't adults. They're an extra step between actual children and adults, reduced in stature to people that are to be tolerated and to be proud of (like one would a child), but not to be truly respected.

Aside from the infantilization of women, there is also the notion that all women are nurturers by nature of being women. While not necessarily a negative stereotype, it is a stereotype. Nurturing is a learned behavior, not a sexually dimorphic behavior.

I guess this message will probably fall on a lot of deaf ears, so perhaps it's for women and girls reading as lurkers. Don't let anyone infantilize you if that's not what you're into. Don't let your family, spouse, community, and culture bully you into being less of a person.

 

[epronovost]

This acceptance I'm seeing of this notion that women are a special class of inexorable chatterboxes keen to interrupt and gossip is also concerning to me.

It's also concerning when studies have shown that in meetings and classrooms, men and boys talk more than girls and women and are more likely to interrupt others, especially women and girls. It's sort of a case of psychological projection. The same sort of thing happened when it came down to other, stereotypically feminine faux-pas like nagging and lying where it was shown that men and women lie and nag about as often (though men and women tend to tell different kinds of lies).

 

[Meow Mix]

It's also concerning when studies have shown that in meetings and classrooms, men and boys talk more than girls and women and are more likely to interrupt others, especially women and girls. It's sort of a case of psychological projection. The same sort of thing happened when it came down to other, stereotypically feminine faux-pas like nagging and lying where it was shown that men and women lie and nag about as often (though men and women tend to tell different kinds of lies).

Yes! And this is a good time to point out that we would be wrong to consider men inexorable chatterboxes by fiat of their sex as well: these are learned behaviors.

Good post.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I didn't call men the more practical sex, but it isn't that men are unable to do it, it's just that they tend to do it much less.

Also,
Should Men Do Housework? | The Modern Man

https://www.themodernman.com/dating/relationships/should-men-do-housework.html I like this quote from your dource:

"Sometimes, it’s absolutely necessary to help out. For example: She is very busy with work and working overtime, while you work a normal job and have plenty of time at home, but can’t afford to hire a cleaner to help out.

If that’s the case, it is fine. However, if you have just as much free time as she does and do the housework for her because you don’t want her getting angry, then she’s going to lose respect for you as a man. She will let you do the housework, but she won’t look at you in the same way as she would a man who made her feel like she had to do the lion’s share of the housework."

I especially agree with the highlighted bits. It is a matter of why you as a man are doing the housework.

Do you have evidence for that because it sounds like bs?

Here you go: Why Women Are Better Managers Than Men (businessinsider.com)

That does not reflect well on you.

Responsibility should be equally shared in my opinion. Topo much conflict results if there is one bread winner because in many cases the one who isn't earning money becomes resentful. Also if a person is reliant on another for support then they have less freedom. So it is a matter of principle. A woman must also pull her weight, especially in these bad economic times.

Which could be useful since you're not exactly optimistic about it.

This goes back to the independence. If both are independent then both are free to leave if they choose. Thing is that you only truly know a persons dark side when you get married to them and in many cases the person you marry becomes abusive (men being prone to the emotion of anger and all) or you two are incompatable. I am being realistic based on reality.

Is that what a housewife is? How many do you know?

I know quite a lot. They tend to be aimless. Even many women that work tend to be aimless and stereotypical. The most interesting conversations with women I have ever had was with women who were preachers or doctors because they had a profession that they were passionate about. Could talk to them for hours. Not so with housewives because in general they have no drive.

 

[Samael_Khan]

It's also concerning when studies have shown that in meetings and classrooms, men and boys talk more than girls and women and are more likely to interrupt others, especially women and girls. It's sort of a case of psychological projection. The same sort of thing happened when it came down to other, stereotypically feminine faux-pas like nagging and lying where it was shown that men and women lie and nag about as often (though men and women tend to tell different kinds of lies).

Men tend to gossip just as much as women too.

 

[epronovost]

Men tend to gossip just as much as women too.

Is saying that gossip in and on itself?

 

[rational experiences]

Bible tells this is the reason:

But I don't permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience;
1 Tim. 2:12-14

But, that is what Paul says. And perhaps it is not the same as God’s words. However, for me the main issue is in, why one wants to speak. Often it seems the goal is to get glory and high position for the speaker. And I think that is wrong. Person who is truly a disciple of Jesus (=”Christians”) should not seek high position for her/himself but instead serve others the best way he/she can. It seems to me that the reason why women want to get high position is that they could:

… bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men…
Mat. 23:4-12

But that is not good. disciples of Jesus should not seek high positions so that they could be served. Instead they should:

But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat. 23:4-12

This is why, if the only reason why women wants to speak in Church is that men also speak, it is not good. If women want to serve others and tell what Jesus said, I don’t see any problem with that. But, I think this same is with men also.

It is interesting that women often seem to seek to become leaders so that they would be served and praised. It is about themselves and I think it is not good. The job of a leader is to serve others, to do good to others, improve the situation of other people. Selfish, vain and arrogant people are not very good at that. But, I think both men and women can be that and not good to be leaders. But, often it seems the reason women want to be leaders is not to serve others, but because men are or something as bad.

I wouldn’t deny anyone to speak, but, if someone speaks, I hope there is a good reason for it and it is serving the others, not for selfish reasons.

Do women really want to be servants, like leaders should be?

You cannot be a male unless you own a penis animal or human to be male.

Said in all thinking theorising as humans telling God theories. Notice lying is always involved as science is chosen.

God never talked. O mass.

Man penis human owner said God mass was formed by assemblage in the space womb.

Space womb silent owned no sound.
O God mass was sound until it sealed as stone. Silent. Ain he said zero silent in the assembly of man science maths status ,0.

To talk about numbers you have to speak explain. Your own preaching about fake mother womb versus satanic maths theism.

Science man talking non stop egotists Mr know it all made this status.

I know it all and I own it all. Yet the gods as sun and planets owned it all.

So his thesis said I am criminal as I must steal it from God.

What lying is. Not normal. Not reality.

Female human not the first scientist man theist is.

In reality equal life man said I don't care for your opinions I will do and behave however I want. I have group brothers agreed support.

Reality of human life.

Then they decided to teach the female by their choice. Notice how men express I own and control everything.

Now my vagina got burnt nearly as badly as my brain irradiation prickling.

Reason why....father told me the answers. As I nearly died.

Your brother studying God studied NDE tunnel of man as a seen believed god image. He wants God contacts so is researching.

He is a baby born out of a female vagina he suggested was his tunnel as a man adult. I got attacked by burning human adult images.

Father said as he is in belief the cloud image is the tunnel seen at death with man Jesus image.

Yet sex is life continuance.

Man in cloud owns no penis. Was told that advice. Jesus not sexual image.
Father says the eternal had sung GOD out of its body first.

So when the heavens filled in the flat plane space GOD opened its sound. No God left however into heavens. Spirit eternal had sung God owned pre formed bodies Multi bodies crossed through. A tunnel.

Mother came after father.

Both instantly converted were given instant death. De materialised from eternal self.

Father had sung father out. His brother first scientist.

Mother was sung out by eternal.

Both died instantly yet owned life until death.

Father's image remained in the tunnel as he owns beginning death cause and at the end of human life when it occurs will die again. He stays imaged in the tunnel until it occurs.

Mother now just an eternal being.

Beginngs science cause and end science cause a human man choice. Why he is left in the tunnel.

That record truly messes with what you brother in science think are fact.

In my human attack AI man voice said it had taken my life as close to father God death as possible.

Death did not begin life by God in other words lying satanist theist. We see father in the tunnel as he died first.

G O D is just movement by caused change. Just as taught. Totally ignored as you want God to be everything.

The eternal owned change first and God was lost from its body.

So father is recorded dead in the tunnel of God opened channel who greets us all. Owns no sound in other words as sound is in transmission.

The heavens pre owned formed just swirled.

As a speck cell of their bodies is all that we live as. Hence to gain a parent memory is rare and takes a long many lived human life to cause it.

Virtually we live a human experience of natural causes that Satan the scientist never owned. Nor will he.

His idea is that he goes to hell with Satan.

So you ask him does science memories affect your brain?

You personally a human cannot suddenly convert into a cloud mass.

Instead you bodily decompose.

Methane comes out of a human body at death.

Does a cloud have methane in it theist alive human brother?

So now you should realise science lied.

 

[Meow Mix]

I like this quote from your dource:

"Sometimes, it’s absolutely necessary to help out. For example: She is very busy with work and working overtime, while you work a normal job and have plenty of time at home, but can’t afford to hire a cleaner to help out.

If that’s the case, it is fine. However, if you have just as much free time as she does and do the housework for her because you don’t want her getting angry, then she’s going to lose respect for you as a man. She will let you do the housework, but she won’t look at you in the same way as she would a man who made her feel like she had to do the lion’s share of the housework."

I especially agree with the highlighted bits. It is a matter of why you as a man are doing the housework.

This source is toxic misinformation.

At no point does it suggest simply sharing the housework based on availability. No, instead it assumes that the woman will be "angry" to coax the man into doing it if the man doesn't "make" her do it. So women are capricious creatures that have to be "tamed" in order to be a man (and put her in her place). It's frankly disgusting, aside from being fractally wrong.

The scenario literally postulates a hypothetical where each partner has the same amount of time; but it suggests "making her feel like she has to do the lion's share." What constitutes "making her feel" this way? I probably don't want to know: this is already describing abuse.

 

[Shakeel]

No, instead it assumes that the woman will be "angry" if the man doesn't "make" her do it.

Here you're demonstrating the way women think emotionally which can lead them to misunderstand and get upset over something that hasn't been said?

It doesn't say that.

 

[Meow Mix]

Here you're demonstrating the way women think emotionally which can lead them to misunderstand and get upset over something that hasn't been said?

It doesn't say that.

I had already edited before this post, you may not have caught it in time if you hit "quote" before I did.

 

[rational experiences]

Sex. Life died first satanic snake like cloud human on earth death by science memory.

Ice age.

New animal spirits by two emerged into new life so did parents.

Man self moving through tunnel sung self out animals before him. Mother came out second.

Animals copulating first.

Father dies first. Mother dies. Now owns life to live. Both naked.

Told by father in tunnel to cover over human nakedness so not aroused by observing nakedness.

The claim is they covered their sexual parts.

Animals as beasts having sex.

Lots of animals.

Sex is said to be animalistic instinctive.

Why it is recorded memory that states we were told to cover ourselves.

Now men have to own an erect penis to have sex. Penis flaccid is owned.

Who owns the body penis?

Man does.

Female a vagina.

Your penis erects because of what stimulus?

You look observe. You feel and think.

Owner.

So please no longer blame any female for what your man body did.

 

[Meow Mix]

What does bother me a bit is this catch-22 of accusing women of being too emotional. Any defense she puts up is just used as more evidence of the stereotype. Any strong language she might use is used as the same; while meanwhile, men are not under the same obligation to defend their emotional state when they get heated or angry. This is not an okay accusation to make.

(To be clear, I did not misinterpret the source; I had only initially typed a summation in an unclear way which was edited).

 

[Shakeel]

The surest sign that your worldview doesn’t line up with reality is when you say something as demonstrably wrong as this.

Then demonstrate how it's wrong.Every romantic relationship has a power imbalance, but the stakes are higher for women

 

[Meow Mix]

Then demonstrate how it's wrong.Every romantic relationship has a power imbalance, but the stakes are higher for women

The article's behind a paywall, I'm checking to see if I have access through the university to see the figures, methods, and so on. Give me a moment.

 

[Shakeel]

I had already edited before this post, you may not have caught it in time if you hit "quote" before I did.

Now I no longer understand it, but never mind.

What does bother me a bit is this catch-22 of accusing women of being too emotional. Any defense she puts up is just used as more evidence of the stereotype. Any strong language she might use is used as the same; while meanwhile, men are not under the same obligation to defend their emotional state when they get heated or angry. This is not an okay accusation to make.

I certainly didn't accuse you of being too emotional. Strong language? Swearing is awfully unbecoming for anyone, but even more so for women. It's masculine.

I don't think either is automatically under the obligation to defend how they feel or act due to how they feel, but women probably feel the need to defend themselves more often regarding this issue, ironically due to the fact that they are being emotional. How often are they actually asked to explain or defend?