women and their unfortunate relationship with numbers

"Women & Numbers" cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

“Women & Numbers” cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

Like this cartoon? Get a nice reproduction print in my art shop for just $16!
In my online community The Lasting Supper, a woman posted this:

“A woman’s worth goes down the higher numbers go…any of her numbers ( except bra size of course). The world wants women to be as small as possible and I am ashamed for taking up space. My early morning thoughts are often bleak, time to eat because I’m hungry and because I eat in defiance of all that other bullshit.”

The conversation that ensued is fascinating!

We saw a cartoon opportunity. We agreed I should pursue it. This is what I got.

Related to this, I read some of Grace Jones’ excerpts from her book, I’ll Never Write My Memoirs. The struggle she’s had to gain and maintain her independence as a woman in a misogynist industry… music… is phenomenal!

I want to personally thank the people who send me cartoon ideas. Like this one, for example.

I personally welcome you to join us at The Lasting Supper. We talk about everything!


You may also like...

11 Responses

  1. Ducatihero says:

    The cartoon portrays a woman who is upset about factors determining the value she perceives others having of her and of a man not listening but instead being focused on her breasts.

    I get the hyperbole. I hear that some have the view that in order to address sexism, the pendulum has to swing the other way. I take the view that sexism is sexism in any form and that the pendulum need to be central, while recognising that it is still to large part, a man’s world And therefor a need for men to be listening to women.

    In the UK there recently has been the twitter storm with Charlotte Proudman. A young barrister, she has accused an older man of alleged misogyny for calling her picture picture on LinkedIn “stunning” and making comment about it being the best he had seen.

    Comments I have read from newspaper columnists:

    “we women are not pathetic creatures who can’t take a mildly strange comment” Carol McGiffin of the Daily Mail.

    “A young woman should be able to post an advert… without having to suffer the unwanted attentions of men commenting on her appearance. However… With her public shaming of an over-enthusiastic flatterer, Charlotte Proudman put it out there on the internet… Here is the thing that everyone knows — and even Charlotte Proudman knows deep in her heart, too… Fortune favours the pretty. That’s why she put it [her photo] there in the first place.” Jan Moir of the Daily Mail

    “Er, he said he liked her picture… If that is what counts as ‘objectification’ and ‘misogyny’ these days, then the human race is in deep trouble.” Sarah Vine of the Daily Mail

    So, are these women supporting misogyny? Or is there anything valid in their comments?

  2. Ducatihero says:

    Correction, Carol McGiffin is of the Daily Mirror.

  3. Bernardo says:

    And many of the problems faced by women start with the writings of Paul:

    Anti-female comments in “Pauls” epistles.

    8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
    9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
    10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
    11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
    12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
    13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
    14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
    15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
    ( Timothy 2:8-15 KJV)”

    “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)”

    “He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women’s voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin….. At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any angels/ “pretty wingie talking fictional thingies” in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). (from Professor Chilton’s book Rabbi Paul).

  4. Bernardo says:

    And Mohammed and his mythical Allah and Gabriel also wreaked havoc for Muslim women:

    To wit:

    o Islam gives women almost no rights and treats them like fodder for the male species as so bluntly noted by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her autobiography, Infidel.

    some excerpts:

    “Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. “No! Please! By Allah!”
    “The Pakistanis were Muslims but they too had castes. The Untouchable girls, both Indian and Pakistani were darker skin. The others would not play with them because they were untouchable. We thought that was funny because of course they were touchable: we touched them see? but also horrifying to think of yourself as untouchable, despicable to the human race.”

    “Between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls were ki-lled by their families in just two regions (there are 20 regions in Holland). After that, people stopped telling me I was exa-ggerating.”
    “The kind on thinking I saw in Saudi Arabia and among the Brotherhood of Kenya and Som-alia, is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves the feu-dal mind-set based on tr-ibal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hypocrisy, and double standards. It relies on the technologial advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam”.

  5. Ducatihero says:

    Bernardo, you commented “”when you realize that maybe you’re the problem” – only when you fail to peruse all the information before coming to a conclusion.”

    So you have given the information in biblical texts that are attributed to Paul. First of all, congratulations on being willing to quote form the bible.

    Please don’t take any offense to what is coming – there is none intended.

    To what extent have you critically engaged with the biblical texts and considered the sociological, historical, and textual contexts of before coming to your “anti-female” conclusion of Paul. And to what extent, with all due respect, are you the problem in your own words with failure to “peruse all the information before coming to a conclusion?”

    I don’t think Paul was misogynistic and I would be happy to give my reasons why I thin that based on the texts you have quoted on evidence of you having engaged critically with the texts.

  6. Bernardo says:


    Get back to me when you have finished perusing the studies of Professor Crossan and Reed in their book, In Search of Paul and Professor Bruce Chilton in his book, Rabbi Paul.

    From Chilton’s studies:

    Professor Chilton pulls no punches in criticizing one of the founders of Christianity. Basically Paul was a “prude”. An excerpt for Chilton’s book,

    “He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women’s voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin….. At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any “pretty wingie talking fictional thingies” in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). Simply add Paul’s thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity.

    Professor Chilton btw is a Professor of Religion at Bard College and a priest at the Free Church of St. John in Barrytown, NY.

    Hmmm, do you think maybe that Mo’s scribes simply enhanced Paul’s thinking about women when they wrote the koran??? Absolutely!!!

  7. Ducatihero says:

    Bernardo you wrote,

    “Get back to me when you have finished perusing the studies of Professor Crossan and Reed in their book, In Search of Paul and Professor Bruce Chilton in his book, Rabbi Paul.”

    I mentioned that I would consider Crossan’s book, I didn’t mention that I would look at Chilton’s book. I also commented that I was more likely to engage in discussion with you if you show evidence of critical engagement with a range of authors but not if you use quotes from selected authors to support your own assumptions.

    I’m under no obligation to do what you want me to do. There is no compulsion to agree with your comments having “pizzazz”, “putting the kybosh” on anything or “absolutely” asserting any proposition. I am inclined to go with what David has said about propaganda an repetition being a torture tactic.

    That’s a shame – as I thought at one point there might be potential for some interesting discussion of ideas rather than what happens in the comments section of blogs with adversarial rhetoric.

    If you wish to “educate”, may I suggest a consideration of your audience, showing respect for ideas that you disagree with along with reasons for why you disagree and evidence of critical engagement?

  8. Caryn LeMur says:

    Bernardo: Paul the Apostle also wrote, ” There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” [Galatians 3]

    We can go in different directions: (1) asking ourselves why did Paul the Apostle say one thing to the believers in Corinth and quite another to the believers in Galatia?

    And/Or, (2) why did the Western Euro-based church institution gravitate towards the constraints given to the Corinthians versus the freedom given to the Galatians?

    For (1), audience analysis provides a theory that Paul gave one set of instructions to the immature believers (“babes in Christ” of Corinth) versus another set of freedoms to the mature believers in Galatia (“you were running a good race…”).

    For (2), an ingrained prejudice towards women, found in many cultures (Christian or not), probably provides the best answer.

    Humans gravitate to any scripture (Bible or Otherwise) to support their ingrained prejudices.

    The prejudice comes first; the writings of Paul can support either view.

  9. Ducatihero says:

    I like your point Caryn “The prejudice comes first; the writings of Paul can support either view”. Given that we all have prejudices, it therefore make sense that the way forward is to be open to being challenged and being challenging, that having this happen to one’s beliefs is normal, natural and how our horizons are expanded.

    So, it’s possible s some have. to look at the 1Tim2 passages and conclude that Paul was misogynistic. However to make strong argument for that, one must consider the context, which make things more difficult. As you have mentioned the Gal 3:28 verse, this would seem to further give a different picture emerging.

    It becomes more difficult to argue that Paul was misogynistic when reading more widely than the controversial 1Tim2 text. It can appear that he promoted equality with describing women as “co-workers”. “I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to be of the same mind… these women… have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel,.. along with the rest of my co-workers” Phil 4:2.

    On that same theme he describes Priscilla as a co-worker, someone who gave teaching to a man
    “Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers” Rom 16:3 “when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him [Appolus] unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” Acts 18:26

    He also could appear to have had a close relationship with Priscilla. “Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly” 1 Cor 16:19 “Greet Priscilla and Aquila” 2Tim 4:19

    Are these the words of misogynist?

  10. Caryn LeMur says:

    Ducati: good points.

    I lean towards the Hauptbriefe (German for Principle Letters) being penned by Paul the Apostle. This would be Romans, I and II Corinthians, and Galatians. I base this on my review of critical literature, to include those by atheistic historians.

    That said, I lean towards a different school of authors for the other “Pauline Letters”. I tend to believe they are pseudographical, and place much less weight upon them.

    [Apparently, Pseudographical works were considered quite OK in the first century among believers… perhaps even a way to honor a deceased Apostle. ]

    A good intro is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha

    All that to say, the dilemma for me has been the dichotomy between Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians vs his instructions to the Galatians. [I actually sort of dismiss the writings of I and II Timothy… some great thoughts there; some very non-Galatian thoughts there… so, I have trouble accepting I and II Tim.]

    So, the words of the misogynist are real…but, imo, those words in I and II Timothy belong to someone other than Paul the Apostle.

  11. Ducatihero says:

    I see, yes that’s interesting with what you comment about pseudographical works and yes that’s my understanding too, a “ghost writer” with work attributed to Paul is interesting to ponder as is what you say about difference between 1st Cor and Gal.

    Much could be discussed I am sure! 🙂

    At the same time it’s difficult to argue for a “misogynist ” being involved given the Gal 3:28 verse you quoted and mention of women “co-workers” and what appears to be fond greetings quoted.

    I’m inclined to look for consistency of values being communicated. So in the case of 1tim a theme in the wider textual context of the book being of Paul coming against false teaching. Perhaps the women involved in this sociological context had fallen under the influence of false teachers or were false teachers. Perhaps they had partaken in pagan Diana worship of an exotic nature that they were introducing into the church. Perhaps they were filling the church with marketplace gossip and being disruptive.

    With Priscilla being his co-worker and teaching Apollus and there being prophetesses elsewhere, I can’t see how this can be undwrstood as other than a local issue.

    Also, it’s never a good idea to base a doctrine on one or two verses of Scripture that can be understood different ways?