The Barbie movie has been heralded not only as a blockbuster success but also as a culturally relevant film for our time. It is now the highest grossing film of the year and Warner Bros.’s highest grossing film ever. It owes its popularity to unashamedly addressing issues of female agency, representation, and anti-discrimination. One critique from viewers has been that the core theme, “patriarchy is bad,” was redundantly delivered throughout the 114-minute runtime. In his Pitch Meeting sketch devoted to critiquing Barbie and Oppenheimer, comedian Ryan George joked that the movie’s writers “hit me across the head with the message.” Indeed, the core moral was hammered home in multiple ways. You couldn’t miss it even if you tried.
Really?? The main incident cited here is going to result in the shaming and firing of Rubiales. How is that not showing how this issue is being handled today?
And the idea that there are folk in Sabbath school and in sermons promoting the idea that men have “unfettered free rein” over women’s bodies is ridiculous. What church are you attending?
The Barbie movie quoted is a world wide best seller, and as the author notes, the message of female agency hits you across the head. And I understand Ken is just an accessory. is that such a good view of what men are?
Is there a misogynist under every rock? Are all men evil and only after women’s bodies? And is the church subtly reinforcing this idea?
Thank you, Dr. Ray. There is a great and continuing need for your remarks. As one example, those leaders in our denomination who promote LGT and headship debase the status of women, so yes, it exists today in verity, in our church and the world at large.
In my experience of working with women business owners for many years, almost every one one of them has endured inappropriate, unwanted and unsolicited actions by men, whether bosses, colleagues or clients. The women often need to talk about how to deal with these intrusions without putting their business relationships at risk. Quite frankly, it is tiresome to have to be reminded of the necessity, but we continue to see examples of leaders and pastors in churches who groom and abuse women and young girls.
i think this article is correct and it is appropriately captioned too. I would go further and say that not only should it be repeated , but it must be enforced. All women should be respected for who they are and certainly should not be disrespected or abused by any man, or rather by anyone for that matter. The sad reality is that it happens all too frequently and it should and must not be accepted or tolerated.
At the same time, I/m not sure that the church is promoting that idea especially of men having free rein over women’s bodies. That is certainly not acceptable and very reprehensible.
I think it is high time that men and women come together and demand better for women or for any other group who may be marginalised and understand that is respect is due to all people regardless of their gender. It needs to be enforced in the society and it needs to be enforced in the church also.
Respect for one, respect for all!
In Sabbath School today, we were discussing WO, and I noted that the main opponents I have found of this idea are third world women! And this was confirmed by members of the class from the third world. They want to have men leading. Why?
There were various opinions, but mine is that they have seen the destruction of manhood by the west (toxic masculinity etc.) and do not want it to happen in their lands.
Second, LGBTQA+ promote genital mutilation. That is what transgender endorsement leads to… When East Africans did it, it was condemned. I am condemning it now.
And such ideas do not demean women.
These actions should be dealt with, as the Spanish are with Rubiales. But these actions are a far cry from promoting unfettered access to women’s bodies. You discredit your reputation by saying such a thing.
I am curious, what do you ladies think about transgenders in female sports?
Here we go again…‘destruction of manhood’,what exactly does that mean?? ‘LGBTQA+ promote genital mutilation…’ again a red herring by a poor misunderstood male who does not have clue as to what he is talking about. Mix and mismash issues!
The MANhandling of the Bible to justify male domination of women is a painful repetition of the humiliating Bible interpretation error in the past to justify slavery. Full stop. How do I know? It’s simple: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. That is: You men, do unto women as you would have women do unto you…
It may be important to accept that much of the bible is, at some core level, quite misogynistic. It was written by and for people who lived in cultures dominated by men, where women had little agency, if any.
However, that does not mean that today, 2000 - 3000 years later, we are to take it as prescribing such attitudes and behaviors for us. It bears remembering that it wasn’t written for us.
The bible is a collection of works of different genres including legend, story, poetry, songs, theological claims, and legal contracts between Yahweh and the Israelites. Some parts have material useful for us in this day and age. Others, probably not so much. Do you need to know how and when to sell your daughters into slavery? No, probably not. When do stone your family members for breaking Yahweh’s law? Also, not so much.
I like Dr Joel S Baden. I highly recommend taking an hour to listen to him talk about how the Bible is taught at Yale Divinity School - and why. It’s a bit of an eye opener, and he’s sort of funny too:
Hmmm…. Address the issues rather than doing ad hominems
Paul advocates different actions by husbands and wives. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. Wives are to respect their husbands. Both are to submit to one another.
The golden rule is a general principle, Paul’s admonition is the practical application in marriage.
I listened to part of the Yale Divinity School presentation. Every one has a view point. I would differ with him in several ways, but he is entitled just as i am.
I think the Bible was written for us, as Paul says, good for doctrine, correction, etc. So, we have a differing view. You seem to like to bring up of the stoning of transgressors etc., but the NT teaches that those things are not applicable.
Anyways, you have said before that the Bible can teach anything. I would differ.
“……‘destruction of manhood’,what exactly does that mean?? ‘LGBTQA+ promote genital mutilation…’ again a red herring…”
I should have made it a generic statement! Apologies!! But I did address the issue and it has not been answered. Those statements are a ‘red herring’ by trying to switch from the gender under discussion to the other looking for sympathy. This is a common tactic among those against feminism, women’s ordination and equality of the LGBTQ+ community with in the church. Been hearing it repeated over and over for many years. The statements are false!!
" -it was written by and for people who lived in cultures dominated by men - - -
Really ? Ananias and Saphira were a team, at least acting with the same policy. Aquila and Prisicilla ? Andronicus and jJunica ? Lydia- : “Stain your robes, taky my purple” Wholesale, export - - And the legendary Pyrrhamus and Thisbe ? And Homers Hektor and Andromache ?
Well, I did not mean the comment personally, and I think that is irrelevant. The point is that our culture is not one to respect husbands. I was reading a Bernstein Bear book yesterday at the school. A reading book for the 1 or 2nd graders. And the father there depicted was made out to be a buffoon. And such has been the narrative for some time. I do not speak to this issue because of personal disrespect, although that is there, but because disrespect of husbands is universal. You both think it has to be earned. But that is not the command.
Your audacity is amazing. Paul stated it as I have said, (Pretty specific actually as opposed to it could go either way). But you have the gall to reverse the two as if your opinion is the standard!!. Seems a bit arrogant to me.
Paul has been studied for 2 millennia now, and libraries have been written about his works. But you can just reverse his advice, and all is well? I guess you, too, have not learned the first lesson in what respect means. And you do not know human nature very well either.
A quick research of scientific literature does not give truth to the above statement. The statement is rather prominent in religious literature that decries feminism, LBGTQ+ persons, equality of women in every aspect of life, etc, etc.
So, one would have to assume the statement is an opinion not fact.
I have felt that respect was to hold in high regard, but there are apparently three ways to look at it. Here is a small quote
This suggests that respect for and between persons is structured along three distinctive aspects: human recognition respect, status recognition respect and appraisal respect. These same aspects (or dimensions) of respect are at play in the construction of self-respect.
One person said that earned respect (I would call that appraisal type respect) was most satisfying or something to that effect. However, that type of respect is based on behavior, and I to not think that is what God requires of wives. More at status as husband, but also as a human, one made in God’s image, a son of God. To respect someone for who that are rather than their behavior is I think the basis of God’s command to wives
When you ask whose culture, and then make a statement about the science of the idea, I am confused. Whose culture was your science base on?
Then you go on to mention some issues that do not have anything to do with husbands and respect. I see where you are coming from, but are you saying that husbands should not receive respect? How should wives relate to their husbands?
I just do not see that respect is taught as a way to deal with husbands by their wives.
My ideas are mainly based on a book, Love and Respect by Eggersrich, from 2004. I read it some years ago, and thought it was insightful. It was a NYT best seller, and has a 4.7/5 rating.
