TonioTimeDaily

There exists an issue of demonizing (by way of claiming not to be like) “other” women – which exemplifies internalized sexism.

The problem with lumping virtually all women into a specific group identity is that it traditionally calls upon all of patriarchal society’s most harmful stereotypes.

One assumes that most girls are… what, exactly?

That very phrase – “most girls” – calls forth connotations of catty, shallow, vain, fake, hyper-emotional, and hyper-feminine, particularly when used in this context.

When I began to deconstruct “bitch” as a cultural and linguistic phenomenon, it became apparent that many aspects hinge on female competition. And female competition is frequently instigated by internalized messages of sexism.

This phrase constructs a hierarchy with traditional images of femininity at the bottom, the stand-out, masculinized exception of a woman (or two) sort of straddling the line of androgyny like Wonder Woman, and then traditional masculine stereotypes at the top.

Beyond the assumption that masculinity is superior to femininity, it also sets different categories of femaleness against each other.

I guess, with all of the struggles to communicate amongst female identifying individuals already, innate and dismissive language such as “Other women are such bitches!” adds another layer of struggle on top of all our unique journeys, and it is historically proven that the most effective way to drain power from any group is to divide and conquer.

So saying that other women are bitches can also be igniting a firestorm of sexist connotations we just don’t think about on a daily basis that is harmful both to other women and the speaker.

The first step to empowering individual women is to stop playing into grand schemes of misogyny."

"People from all walks of life recognized that when resources were exhausted, the black church was a place where needs were met and issues addressed. The black minister preached a transformative message of salvation, but also served as a community representative and social activist, preaching a message of social change, equality, and unconditional love.

While black ministers were not as formally educated in the pre-civil rights era, the message of the Declaration of Independence presented a complex challenge for the black church, reading, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

It is the word, liberty, which describes the essence of the black church and its role in the politics of equality. Considering the liberty of the children of Israel, and the liberty of African slaves, liberty has been the crux of the black church. Consider the words of a familiar black spiritual: “And before I’ll be a slave, I’ll be buried in my grave, and go home to my Lord and be free.”

Now, in our contemporary society that the black church has become so focused on preaching messages regarding the attainment of economic success and personal prosperity, has it begun to lose sight of its foundational calling, rooted in a message of salvation, with the promotion of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

The calling of the black church, using the honored text of the Christian tradition is best summarized by Jesus’ reading of the prophecy of Isaiah, “…to bring Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the oppressed will be set free...” (Luke 4:18-19).

The black church in the days of the civil-rights agenda fulfilled this prophetic mandate in the words of Malcolm X [how fascinating, the use of a minister of Islam in an exposition of the black church] “by any means necessary.” The black minister proclaimed a message of hope and change that all persons—regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, educational level, or family background—could find solace,; and the people of the church served the direct human needs of the public, from meals to medicine and from housing to hope.

The black church once connected to the ills of society, and developed a sense of responsibility in fighting those troubles. Whether it required a Sunday morning message or civil disobedience, the black church accepted its role in genuine social change and community transformation. Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., an eminent prophetic voice in the reform of American society once wrote in his 1963 letter from a Birmingham jail,

“In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies.”

Yet, in this post-modern culture, it is no longer exclusively white churches on the sideline of truth and justice, allowing the struggles of underrepresented and oppressed groups to perpetuate, but it is also the churches filled with those underrepresented groups allowing the perpetuation of injustice and inequality.

The message of the cross as the changing force of all aspects in life has become silenced by the message of the dollar. The black church, a place where people came to receive whole life empowerment, has now become a wealth workshop and capital-industry. Accepting that financial opulence is a component, and some would contend a derivative of the gospel message, it should not serve as the nucleus of the message."

"1. The idol of celebrity preachers. There are believers who run all over the country attending conferences of well-known preachers. Often, when they meet them in person, they fawn all over them and almost faint. Some well-known ministers cannot even go out in public without constantly being stopped by admirers so they can take "selfies" with them. (Since I know and have worked with many of them, I have seen this firsthand.)

Although I am a proponent of having a culture of honor and respect for those leaders who labor among us (Heb. 13:7-17), some people have stepped over the edge into idolatry. They follow everything they say without question and irrespective of scandal, and do not search the Scriptures themselves to see if what is preached aligns with God's Word.

When Cornelius met the Apostle Peter and bowed down before him, Peter rightly told him to get up, that he was only a man like himself (Acts 10). There is nothing wrong with emulating or following a leader, but there is something wrong with idolizing a Christian leader.

There is such a pervasive "celebrity preacher" culture in the body of Christ today that some megachurches and enterprises have literally closed down when their celebrity preacher stepped down. If churches and ministries would build according to the New Testament pattern, in which the whole body exists to minister and to edify one another in love, then we would not depend merely upon one leader for the congregation to function (Eph. 4:16; 1 Cor. 12).

2. The idol of worship/entertainment. There are many believers who flock to churches that have skilled singers and music primarily to be entertained. Consequently, many believers don't realize they are putting self-gratification and entertainment before true worship.

Years ago, many churches would not even have musical instruments and people would flock to churches anyway, even though the congregation only used hymnals and sang a cappella for worship. Now, it is very common for pastors to budget large amounts of money to pay for professional singers and musicians in order to fill their church services with people.

In my opinion, even though we are called to worship with excellence and skill, we have gone too far in the church and have mingled as a core value the entertainment culture of the world. At the end of the day, whether we have worship performed by professionals, use merely a recording, or sing a cappella, congregations should worship and adore Him just the same, in spirit and truth, which is the only kind of worship God seeks (John 4:23-24).

Those who leave their local churches to attend other churches with better "worship" in my opinion are often guilty of idolatry since they cannot worship God from their hearts without being entertained by professionals.

3. The idol of personal prosperity. There are believers whose main motive is to use their faith to leverage influence with God for personal gain. Although God delights in blessing all of his children (3 John 2), Jesus told us to seek first His kingdom and righteousness for our material needs to be added to us (Matt. 6:33).

Many attempt to use the benevolent character of God to live a myopic life in which Christianity orbits around the universe of self. God has given us power to get wealth so we can spread his covenant to the whole earth, not merely so we can live a life of ease. Using our faith to put our own needs first is a form of idolatry, in my opinion."

"I am unchurched, I am not belonging to or connected with a Church, I don't go to church, I don't go to any houses of worship, I do not attend worship services."

- Antonio Myers

"Why do some churches and Christian organizations seem to struggle with encouraging members to report the suspected abuse of a child?   At the heart of the struggle is a fear that is rooted in the need to self-protect. It is a fear of losing the “good reputation” of a ministry, it is a fear of losing ministry donors, it is the fear of losing congregation members, it is a fear of losing a ministry altogether.  All such “fears” are usually masked by a rationale that the reporting of such abuse may “damage the reputation of Christ”.  Do you see the great tragedy?  It is a fear fueled by protecting self. This has nothing to do with Jesus.

The Gospel tells Christians that our identity is in Christ alone, and that our reputation and all that we possess belongs to Him.  Another way of putting it is that apart from Christ’s accomplishment, we have no reputation and we possess nothing.    This Gospel-centered perspective gives us great freedom to confess, confront and expose sin without fear of earthly consequences.   This Gospel-centered perspective liberates us to sacrifice personal and institutional reputations if doing so protects and preserves the lives of His little ones. Isn’t that what God did for us?  He sacrificed His reputation, His supporters, His ministry, and even His very own life in order to protect and redeem.  This Gospel centered perspective should drive us to expend ourselves in protecting children, regardless of the consequences to our church, ministry, or our very own lives.

The next time someone tells you that reporting suspected abuse of children may “hurt the reputation of Christ”, tell them to stop protecting themselves. Tell them that the reputation of Jesus is reflected in how we love and protect children.  Tell them that the reputation of Jesus is only damaged when we turn away and leave grievous sin alone in the darkness of silence."

"Admittedly, when a woman uses the word to refer to herself or her friends in an empowering way, it’s a lot easier to swallow then when a man flings it in our direction. Does that make it right? That’s up to the individual — there are a myriad of traumatic events, generational conditionings and socio-economic issues that can influence how one interprets it. Whatever the case, there’s an overwhelming sense (most) women are fed up with the constant disrespect — and pressing fast-forward.

On July 3, Janelle Monáe used her Twitter platform to speak out against Hip Hop’s torrid love affair with misogyny and called for men to become accountable.

“I really only ever wanna hear women rapping,” she wrote. “The amount of misogyny from most of men in rap and music is infuriating. We need to abolish that shit too. Y’all can’t wait to call women every bitch, hoe, discuss violent acts against women, etc. for clout in rap, rock, and through out music history.

“Misogyny has NEVER been okay yet it has become normalized. Women didn’t create misogyny, y’all did. SO YOU DO THE WORK to ABOLISH IT. The only gas lighting I accept is the gas we lighting to burn down the misogyny.”

"Furthermore, WAVAW itself did a comprehensive blog piece on Rape Culture just several months ago, titled “Rape Culture is Real—And Yes, We’ve Had Enough“, which included citing recent current events that exemplified Rape Culture:

“Rape culture is…

"Rape culture is a culture in which sexual violence is treated as the norm and victims are blamed for their own assaults. It's not just about sexual violence itself, but about cultural norms and institutions that protect rapists, promote impunity, shame victims, and demand that women make unreasonable sacrifices to avoid sexual assault. Rape culture pressures women to sacrifice their freedoms and opportunities in order to stay safe, because it puts the burden of safety on women's shoulders, and blames them when they don't succeed. As a result, certain opportunities are left unavailable to women, and still others are restricted by expensive safety precautions, such as not traveling for professional networking unless you can afford your own hotel room. That amounts, essentially, to a tax that is levied exclusively on women. Over time, the cost of that tax adds up to opportunities lost and progress not achieved. When women give up social and economic opportunities in order to stay safe, that affects their progress overall, which in turn affects society's progress overall.

And although rape culture has its roots in long-standing patriarchal power structures that were designed to benefit men, today's rape culture burdens men too — for instance, by ignoring the fact that men can be victims of rape and sexual assault, and women can be perpetrators of it. That means that male victims are also left without legal protection and social support. The goal of talking about rape culture is about much more than just reducing the frequency with which sexual assault occurs or the impunity that allows it to flourish, because the problems at the root of rape culture are much bigger than that.

The term "rape culture" was originally coined in the 1970s. The term appeared in Rape: The First Sourcebook for Women, published by the New York Radical Feminists Collective in 1974, and was explored in depth in the 1975 documentary Rape Culture.

In more recent years, however, the idea of rape culture has received much more attention, including from mainstream outlets: This is due in large part to the rise of feminist and female-focused online media and activism. Sites such as Feministing, Shakesville, Colorlines, Racialicious, and Feministe published essays identifying and analyzing different aspects of rape culture.

Their success amplified the voices of feminist writers covering the subject and eventually attracted the attention of mainstream publications as well. At the same time, awareness campaigns run by groups like Know Your IX and Hollaback have compounded that effect, bringing the issue to greater prominence.

First, rape culture treats rape as a problem to be solved through improving the behavior of potential rape victims (who are presumed, in this logic, to be women), rather than improving the behavior of potential rapists (who are presumed to be men)."

"Examples of rape culture.

Note: This list focuses on rape committed by men against women because it is the most prevalent kind. Though we only look at one, very specific type of sexual assault in this story, rape is also often committed against men, women rape, and trans people experience disproportionately high rates of sexual assault.

Sure, jokes are jokes. But when the butt of our jokes are victims of unspeakable trauma, we're unnecessarily reopening people's wounds—and subtly sending the message that what they experienced is not that big a deal. Moreover, when we make rape into a punchline to be laughed at, it makes it harder to take real rape accusations seriously. And when we don't take rape accusations seriously, it makes rape more permissible.

When we criticize or shame people for having sex, we're validating people who say that women "ask for it" (aka deserve to be raped) by wearing revealing clothing or having a lot of sexual partners. We might think we're a sex-positive, progressive person, but we've all contributed to rape culture by calling someone else's dress "a little slutty."

Victim-blaming means blaming the victim for what was done to them. For example, some people claim that if a person gets raped while drunk or while wearing revealing clothing, it's their own fault. The underlying belief here is that rape is a normal part of life, and if you don't protect yourself from it, then you deserve it. This issue falls directly in line with slut-shaming.

When people ask questions like “What was she doing there?” or “How drunk was she?”, they imply that rape is expected in certain situations. Again, these questions normalize rape and blame the victims for the actions of their perpetrators. When we don't hold perpetrators accountable for their actions, we allow rape to continue unrestricted.

Jacquelyn White, Ph.D., emerita professor of psychology and senior research scientist at the Center for Women’s Health and Wellness at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, explains why we do this: “It’s hard to accept that men we think we know, who seem like nice guys, could do something so horrific as rape, so society tries to come up with excuses.” It then becomes easy to blame the victim when “women are already devalued across the board.”

Instead of delving into deeply rooted societal issues, it’s easier to say, “She was fair game” rather than dethrone the captain of the football team. (“He couldn’t have!”)

Critical social psychologist Christin Bowman, Ph.D., says we contribute to rape culture “when we create school dress codes for teenagers because apparently the natural female form is ‘distracting’ for male students and teachers.”

This reinforces the idea that women must present themselves in a way that caters to the male gaze. Women must act as if men are looking for reasons to take advantage of them, and we assume that men "can't help themselves" around a woman showing skin."

"The whorearchy is the hierarchal system by which sex workers too often order themselves from “elite” to “inferior.” The woman who walks the streets is always at the bottom of this hierarchy. Who’s on top, though, is contested.

White, “high-class” escorts like myself often see ourselves at the apex of this hierarchy. But wait, it’s the sugar babies, who have relationships with their sugar daddies and don’t charge an hourly rate — they’re at the top of the heap. Hold up — phone-sex operators don’t even have to have sex to make money, so they’re the “best.” But no, cam girls don’t meet up with their clients either but earn even more money than phone-sex operators — so they’re at the head of the pack.

“The whorearchy is arranged according to intimacy of contact with clients and police,” writes Belle Knox, a porn star and sex-work advocate, in Jezebel. “The closer to both you are, the closer you are to the bottom.”

This is why the streetwalker is always on the lower rungs of this hierarchy and sex workers like cam girls and phone-sex operators often see themselves as being at the top. (Phone sex and cam work are legal and don’t require physical contact with the client.)

However, I’ve met quite a few dominatrixes who believe they’re at the pinnacle of this pyramid. Instead of pleasing men, they torture and humiliate them, and still earn a lot of money for the service. They’re “top dog.”

So you can see why this is a problem. The whorearchy is entirely arbitrary. Maggie McNeill, an escort, author, and sex-work advocate, jokes that while all sex workers agree that the whorearchy exists, “nobody agrees on anything about that system.”

Besides, this hierarchical way of viewing sex work presumes that a sex worker’s job is fixed. A stripper never does escort work and a streetwalker never works for an agency.

his simply is not the case.

Rachel Moran, the author of Paid For, a memoir about her time working as a prostitute in Dublin, Ireland, explains how she witnessed many women occupy multiple sectors of the sex industry simultaneously. Moran did this herself.

She worked for an online escort agency while also doing street work and describes how the men who slept with her through the agency “were paying me several times more than I’d been paid for the same service the day before” (while streetwalking).

In Moran’s opinion, the “high-class” escort is nothing more than an image. She has seen brothel owners repackage their businesses as “high-class” agencies to cater to a wealthier clientele. But that’s all it is: packaging.

But as Moran’s experience shows, the difference between high-class escorts and streetwalkers is often a question of semantics."

"Men and women submit to each other, not Women only submit to men.

Another one that deserves an entire article. Relationships are partnerships. Both have to give and take. It should be an agreed mutual benefit. No one should have a mandatory assigned role.

It is okay to learn about other religions.

I have studied different religions. I wanted to understand what other cultures do. It is okay to expand your mindset and learn about other cultures, you may learn something.

It is okay for people to be LBGTQ. They are not “sinning.” God/The Universe loves them too.

This has been a LONG standing “sin” in the church, which I never understood, but went along with it because that is what I was taught. Again, we all deserve a chance at the life we want to live, not a life someone says we should live.

It is okay to live with someone and not be married. It is only called “shacking” in the church. You will not be “less” fortunate.

And another one I can write an entire article on.

Look people, do you.

Have sex and be with whom you want.

Whatever you believe will manifest in your life. So drink the Moscato and live with your boo.

Being a wife is a title, the relationship/commitment is what matters.

Being married is the pinnacle in the church, therefore so many women want a husband. Having “husband” or a “wife” is a title and a legal contract. The commitment between the two is what matters. People say they will seal the commitment with marriage, which is great, however, many are sealing for insurance and stimulus packages. Yep, I said it.

How someone treats you as a girlfriend or boyfriend is how they will treat you as a spouse, just because it adds you to their insurance after marriage doesn’t mean their behavior towards you will change.

All people deserve to be treated fairly, not just Christians.

I was taught Christians are the best thing since sliced bread. All cultures are the best thing since sliced bread (well, to them at least). The point is, treat everyone with respect, don’t look down on them because they don’t believe in the same things you believe in.

When you have to ask permission from your pastor for anything you are in bondage.

I will let this one sit. If you are doing this, please think about what are you asking a grown person permission to do?

Serving does not get you a bigger house in heaven.

I used to serve ALL THE TIME, the more I served the more blessed I was.

Wrong.

It exhausted me.

Now, I serve with causes that mean something to me and not to be seen or for a reward in heaven.

Pastors are human too, and will make mistakes, there is no need to worship them.

Does this one need an explanation?

Women can be in the pulpit. But many churches don’t allow it, but they love God though. Hmmm.

I learned women are considered “help” in the church, they are not valued as much as men. If this is you, learn to value yourself, you don’t need validation."

"Relationship dynamics, living arrangements, sexual practices, and convictions are all embraced (faith-based and secular) in the human rights universe. There may be times that I may attend virtual worship services and in-person worship services to lovingly engage the faith communities as a human rights movement member."

- Antonio Myers