To think the Nativity story is more worrying in terms of consent issues than sleeping beauty etc?

[grobagsforever]

Inspired by the sleeping beauty discussion (but not a TAT). I agree that the message of men kissing women who can't consent is a damaging message for young girls but I'm baffled as to why more people aren't concerned about children being exposed to the nativity.

Mary is impregnated by a male God. In the biblical version she is 'asked' (although how she'd have the courageous to refuse I don't know) but in the children's Christmas version the line is usually something like 'The (male) angel appeared and told Mary she was to have a baby'

Then a mute Mary is transported by donkey at the request of another man, made to give birth in a stable and then visited postpartum by a series of men! All without her explicit consent or consultation.

Am I the only person who thinks this story should not be taught to young children??

I thought she did agree to it? At great personal risk to herself (the consequences for pregnant Mary had Joseph refused to marry her would have been severe in biblical times, I think.)

Christmas is but a high-hacked festival adapted into the Pagan Winter Solstice by long dead leaders (aka thugs, bullies and thieves) who didn't have the opposition of educated, united, informed people with smart phones.

Banned from the Daily Fail? Gawd, your comment must have been bad

how do we know Mary was under 16?

18 surely, the god is in a position of trust?

FanciedAChange

This thread wasn't a joke. I have a real objection to children (often year on year if at a non secular school) being exposed to a story where:

a) The women have NO LINES
b) Even if Mary gives consent in the original scripture, this is rarely made clear in a nativity because SHE HAS NO LINES
c) Mary is supposed to be grateful FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE BIRTH IN A STABLE

Also - it IS more damaging than other fairy stories because it is told as if it actually happened.

She wasn't impregnated by god . She became pregnant without the need for a man . Pretty powerful as far as I'm concerned .

sagamartha the sixth month is elizabeth's pregnancy with John the Baptist I think - about to go back and check but I think so. It's confusing because Luke starts off talking about that, and then begins the next verse "and in the 6th month.." which is the verse the reading usually starts with so the listener may think '6th month of what?'

Yes mary consents but I don't think she is actually asked unless the usual translations are not accurate.

@flapjackfairy - just as an aside, God DIDN'T sacrifice his only son. Jesus was reincarnated four days later. He sacrificed him for a weekend.

And I repeat this thread isn't a joke. I don't consider consent and the messages we give young girls about it to joke worthy.

Ah yes, Luke 1 24-26 makes clear the sixth month is Elisabeth's pregnancy.

@moonmaker - Er. God is the father. He was the man in that equation. She didn't become pregnant on her own. The mechanics are irrelevant.

He sacrificed him for a weekend

A long weekend though.....

But that's an interesting take on the word 'sacrifice'

I didn't read your op as a joke either grobag! - I think it's an interesting issue.

VanillaSugar, they ran an article about children not being taught the story of Easter at school. Cue lots of commenters bewailing the lack of Christian values and insisting it was the fault of other religions. So, I just pointed out all the torture, murder and rising from the dead, which are things that happen in the Walking Dead, yet the Walking Dead is not something any sane person would let small children watch. I thought that was a perfectly reasonable comment, but apparently not.

Have a little peruse of this link and see if you really care anymore...

www.rickrichards.com/Bible_Frame.htm

@SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed - I told DD's teacher I thought teaching the Easter story to five year olds was inappropriate due to the torture content. She didn't get it.

The decision to choose Mary was made by an omniscient God who therefore already knew she would give her joyous consent.

Mary was already chosen before she was conceived. Mary herself, who was the result of the immaculate conception, was conceived without sin (which is what immaculate conception actually means, without sin, not magical) and her whole existence had been building up to being the mother of Jesus.

Saga - it was the conception of Mary that was immaculate, not the conception of Jesus.

Flapjack - the reason people aren’t making jokes about Islam is that they don’t have an in depth knowledge of the Qu’ran and the stories are not an integral part of our culture being performed as plays in most schools in the country.

my childrens school nativity makes quite a big deal about the annunciation as part of the nativity story. Its generally the most moving bit - with a solitary female contemplating in silence before standing tall and saying her one line very clearly.

Cant help it if other schools don't bother to do it properly.

grobagsforever You give me faith (excuse the pun) that our society is rapidly changing for the better for our daughters. I believe the centuries of repression are crumbling when we are beginning to question the validity and messages behind our folk lore. These do leave an indelible mark on young minds.

You might prefer the Nativity as shown in early Christian/Byzantine/Renaissance art.

Mary is in a stable (but it often looks rather house like), her female midwives are prominently featured and Joseph is hanging about at the back as an afterthought.

The Annunciation is also a big deal with a lot of thought about the emotions Mary goes through, she's a very powerful figure as it's emphasized she had a free choice.

Actually Joseph is an odd character in art - he's either not there, pictures are of Mary, St Anne and Jesus, poss John the Baptist and he's been cut out altogether, or he's a spare part mucking up the whole composition. Definitely a victim of the patriarchy.

Interesting how the story used to involve more female figures but now is all about Joseph's angst and Mary just sits about mute on a donkey.

grobags, it really isn't appropriate! I find it so odd that people who advocate for children being taught it can't see that.

"Mary is supposed to be grateful FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE BIRTH IN A STABLE"

Tbf I think most nativity plays do make clear that is a bit of a last resort - not really that Mary is supposed to be grateful for a super opportunity, but that there's no room anywhere else! (Although obviously they are grateful to the innkeeper - though now I come to think of it I suppose he could have offered to give up own his room and spent the night in the stable, in the circs?)

Why are people assuming that the age of consent was 16 back in those days in.. erm, whatever that area was called then? Bizarre.

Christmas is supposed to be about the birth of Jesus.
How should the story of the conception of Jesus (the son of God) be taught in a child appropriate way?

It's like people are running out of genuine things to concern themselves with so scrape the barrel with stuff like this.

How about Home Alone - we should probably ban that as the parents were neglectful and it doesn't send out the right message.
Beaty and the Beast - not ok for a woman to indebt herself to a beast, a violent one at that. And what about the gender stereotypes types of the teapot and broom being female - not on!