You know, I think there's a word for both this and the image in the post, and I'm pretty sure it starts with a "p" and ends with "archy". Not "plutarchy" or "polyarchy" though
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
You know, being banished from the village if you're having your period because that's icky, being forced to have an abortion if a magic potion detects you cheated, being silent and subservient to men, etc
Makes sense, women need proper guidance by bearded men in jeans.
I am not sure why the two men in khakis were even allowed on the stage?
The sorry beardless specimen to the left must only count as half a man, but only when wearing jeans.
Bouncing off of this I think it's necessary to point out that it is, "The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood." You can still bash on them for not having a single woman on the board, but in my eyes, phrasing DOES matter when it comes to something like this. The title would have you believe something different than what the organization is actually called and stands for.
The mission of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is to set forth the teachings of the Bible about the complementary differences between men and women, created equally in the image of God, because these teachings are essential for obedience to Scripture and for the health of the family and the church.
These are the people who created The Danvers Statement, which is an odious screed explaining how women are meant to be married, barefoot, and pregnant. Their idea of the man's role is to be lovingly in charge of their women, and run the world.
My point is that although the subject is a disgrace, the title is misleading and spotlighting a portion of the truth instead of the whole thing. If someone is going to report, it should be the full story, not just the bad half.
And I'm just assuming here, but going off what I've seen about bright lights like these guys, wr can assume that at least 2 out of 5 will sexually abuse women, one will abuse girls, 3 will beat their wives, 2 to 3 will cheat on their wives and 2 of them will be gay.
Panel on Girls Rights in Saudi Arabia.
It’s the same picture!
Indeed it is.
You know, I think there's a word for both this and the image in the post, and I'm pretty sure it starts with a "p" and ends with "archy". Not "plutarchy" or "polyarchy" though
Theofascist dictatorship?
The fuck is biblical womanhood
It's when you get turned into salt for watching god nuke a sleazy city
I hear she's still salty about it.
Not speaking in church, and asking your husband to explain it to you later, because you are somewhere between a child and a servant to impregnate.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
To spare you having to search...
I honestly thought this was a joke. And that's despite knowing a lot of the other wild shit the Bible says.
You know, being banished from the village if you're having your period because that's icky, being forced to have an abortion if a magic potion detects you cheated, being silent and subservient to men, etc
off with you to your shame hut.
I thought the magic potion was to give you an abortion if you cheated
True, that might be a better way to phrase it. It detects and then aborts (possibly also causing sterility by the wording? )
Whatever they want it to be...
:(
I was thinking the same .... And what is this council about? Doubt the Vatican gave a thumbs up to this.
To be fair they do have good diversity with respect to both beard and non beard representation and kahki vs Jean representation.
And they've even got one that leaves his shirt untucked! Definitely a wide range of experience and viewpoints in this squad.
That guy's the maverick who struggles to get the others to understand his comparatively far-out ideas.
They look like if you combine them all together you get Matt Walsh
Truth in advertising and dinosaurs with skateboards have much in common.
For real. That's a photo of five Daily Wire subscriptions.
What's the over/under on volume of child porn across these five men's computers?
Yes.
900 petabyte each, double for the one on the left
*pedobytes
that dude pedos.
Why does an ad hominem attack have anything to do with the real problem?
Because you can't reason with people like that, so making fun of them often works better.
Makes sense, women need proper guidance by bearded men in jeans.
I am not sure why the two men in khakis were even allowed on the stage? The sorry beardless specimen to the left must only count as half a man, but only when wearing jeans.
/s
The one guy with the untucked shirt is the ally.
He will fight to the death for women's right to be individual humans.
He sets off my gaydar and I do not know why. I might be getting interference from a gay weather balloon.
I get pure Pacific Northwest Dad vibes.
Also, apparently Zach Galifianakis turned evil when he is doing his community service time.
Well bearded khakis is wearing a more rugged pair, which implies that they could be more like something sold by Carhartt, which would give him a pass.
I thought it was a joke but they are real: https://cbmw.org/about/board-of-directors/
Of course it's real.
Christianity is a religion of dudes.
Bouncing off of this I think it's necessary to point out that it is, "The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood." You can still bash on them for not having a single woman on the board, but in my eyes, phrasing DOES matter when it comes to something like this. The title would have you believe something different than what the organization is actually called and stands for.
I'm not sure what your point is.
These are the people who created The Danvers Statement, which is an odious screed explaining how women are meant to be married, barefoot, and pregnant. Their idea of the man's role is to be lovingly in charge of their women, and run the world.
My point is that although the subject is a disgrace, the title is misleading and spotlighting a portion of the truth instead of the whole thing. If someone is going to report, it should be the full story, not just the bad half.
their heads are all just slightly the wrong shape required for them to look trustworthy with the hairstyles they have.
"Should we go ahead and call ourselves Gilead, or is it too soon for that?"
They read The Handmaids Tale & thought it was instructions on to create Gilead.
They all look like they live in a van down by the river
They look like when they finish, they tell you it's your fault because of what you were wearing.
Southern Baptists I'm guessing??
Any truth to the rumor that Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro got turned down for panel positions for being too effete?
And I'm just assuming here, but going off what I've seen about bright lights like these guys, wr can assume that at least 2 out of 5 will sexually abuse women, one will abuse girls, 3 will beat their wives, 2 to 3 will cheat on their wives and 2 of them will be gay.
I want to bully the guy on the left.
Ah yes, the panel of experts