The Role of the Woman

[Olerica]

You are my brother in Christ and for that I love you, but I truly despise the tone of your messages, especially those in reference to Zo. I have read many of your posts on other topics before. I am aware of your high education, experience, the capabilities to use complex syntax coupled with a vast lexicon, and I'm not going to be thwarted by such jargon or argumentative styles.

When you return, I hope it is in humility, and not with the tone of arrogance above. I hope we can come together and reason, because I must tell you that your overall message reads as this: women are to behave as inferior to men and the desire for equality threatens what should be a "natural balance".

Far better said that I did. Thank you.

 

[proverbs35]

The Role of the Woman


The Woman Is a Helper

1. God made it a man’s world, and Eve was created to be his helping companion (Gen 2:18-25).
2. Therefore, a woman should not be looking for her glory in life, but rather for her husband’s.
3. She should not be looking to find her own fulfillment apart from her husband’s, but in his!
4. There is no such thing as a helpmeet – God made a helper appropriate, fit, meet, or suitable
5. for Adam. This distinction is important, so women cannot escape the obvious – be a helper!

I do not compare men and women. I read the bible take out what the bible says a role of a woman is and try to apply it to my life. II Corinthians 10:12, "For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and COMPARING THEMSELVES AMONG THEMSELVES, ARE NOT WISE."

God did not make Eve from one of Adam’s foot bones, for Adam to trample over; nor did He make Eve from a bone of Adam’s head, for her to rule over the man. God made Eve from a bone right out of man’s side a help meet at his side

No men and women are not equal (being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value) and they are not meant to be men and women each have different qualities that make them needed and important. That does not mean the should not be equal in the work force or in the eyes of the law.

See Post 71.

I do not compare men and women. I read the bible take out what the bible says a role of a woman is and try to apply it to my life. II Corinthians 10:12, "For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and COMPARING THEMSELVES AMONG THEMSELVES, ARE NOT WISE."


God did not make Eve from one of Adam’s foot bones, for Adam to trample over; nor did He make Eve from a bone of Adam’s head, for her to rule over the man. God made Eve from a bone right out of man’s side a help meet at his side


No men and women are not equal (being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value) and they are not meant to be men and women each have different qualities that make them needed and important. That does not mean the should not be equal in the work force or in the eyes of the law.

See post 552.

This OP is very inconsistent and demonstrates a lack of critical thinking. Considering these posts, the OP doesn't even know what he or she believes.

In Post #1, the OP states "there is no such thing as a helpmeet." Then, later the OP posts two identical comments (#71, 552) stating that "God made Eve from a bone right out of man’s side a help meet at his side."

This makes no sense and indicates that the OP doesn't have a clear understanding of what he or she believes. I say he or she because we can't be sure who is sitting behind these computer screens or what that particular person's agenda is. Whatever the case may be, these posts are very inconsistent.

 

[proverbs35]

Actually, these statements are not scientifically provable. It's important for us to separate FACT from IDEOLOGY.

The idea that men are more logical and women are more emotional is false. The truth is that most humans are very emotional and make a lot of decisions based on their feelings and impulses. Women are more emotionally EXPRESSIVE in western society (in some ways--not with anger or sexual interest usually) because we are *acculturated* to be that way. This means that society says it's okay for us to say, cry in public, warmly embrace people of any gender, freely speak about our current emotional state, etc. Society, however disallows this for men. Our society tends only to approve of anger and sexual interest as acceptable expressions of emotions for men. They can freely yell, curse, etc., and they can freely discuss their sexual drives. However, they can't cry (unless someone has died..and then it probably should be a few silent "thug tears"), they can't freely embrace other men (fistbumps all around), etc. Emotional expression is a MINEFIELD for western men. Nearly everything is perceived as WEAKNESS. Even too much enthusiasm for something can be seen as impugning his manhood. This gives some people the impression that men are less emotional. However, men are very emotional creatures given to making decisions based on these emotions. (There's a reason why 85% of violent offenders are men...and it's not because they were thinking *logically*). I also think it is insulting to imply that women are more "caring" than men are. While society may imply that a man is weak if he EXPRESSES too much emotion, the capacity to feel deep emotion exists in both genders.

As for LOGICAL THINKING, this is largely a skill set. You can train a person to think logically. You can train a person to make decisions based on logic. There is nothing about it that is inherently greater in one gender or another. Some may have a greater capacity for logical thought based on their IQ, their willingness to engage in thought experiments, etc., however, a person of average intelligence can exercise their brain to engage with logic.

As an aside, I hate this kind of emotion/logic bologna. Not only is it not true, but it gives everyone a license to kiss the butt of culture instead of being like Jesus. Women can claim their emotional outbursts are simply "because I'm a woman" and feel no need to engage with self-control, and men can claim their lack of expression is "because I'm a man" and feel no compunction to meet the emotional needs of their wives and children. The reality is that the bible calls us ALL to lovingly sacrifice for the sake of others. This means I might need to suck it up and not give into my emotions in order to focus on someone else, or it might mean that I need to open up and share my emotions to create a connection. Emotional regulation applies to both genders and it is part of the Fruit of the Spirit generally referenced as "self-control."

Additionally, "leadership" (whatever that means...it's not like it's a well-defined term) is not limited to gender. There are plenty of women that are natural leaders...and plenty of men that are natural followers. If you run the numbers, sheer statistics will dictate that MOST people are followers and not leaders. The idea of leadership as being inherently male is again based on acculturation.

There is no scientific evidence that men are more logical than women. There is some evidence that men are more visual-spatial (i.e. map reading). There is no evidence that women are more emotional than men. There is lots of evidence that societies train us on what is appropriate and inappropriate emotional expression. There is no evidence that men are inherent "leaders" and women are inherent "followers." There is lots of evidence that historically men were given access to things that allowed them to emerge as leaders. (There's also, btw, historical evidence of women who would reject society and be leaders anyway).

Clap! Clap! Applause. I hate that "emotion/logic bologna" too. I was going to respond to that comment when I had time, but you beat me to it and did an excellent job. I could not have said it any better my self. Thanks.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You obviously lack critical thinking skills to misinterpret my message that the body of law driving males away from forming moral nuclear families with women needs to be reformed to reverse the trend to instead mean (in your bizarre false interpretation) that "women are to behave as inferior to men and the desire for equality threatens what should be a "natural balance'."

Instead of making up lies about what I'm saying and then engaging in name calling, ad hominem, and character assassination based on those lies; why not just ask me what I mean if you don't understand it?

That's what a reasonable person would do. But you don't care about the message. That's obvious by how badly you misinterpreted it. All your energy is focused on attacking me.

Meanwhile, the society around you is undergoing rapid systemic deterioration. If you really cared about that, as I do, you'd be listening to what I'm telling you and seriously considering it instead of making stuff up and falsely assigning it to me and then launching personal attacks at me. That's completely counter productive.

Only two decades left before real social upheaval begins due to the severe socio-economic problems that continue to build. And when that happens, the backbone of moral nuclear families will be greatly diminished. It's sad you people do not understand the ramifications of this and are so juvenile all you can do is attack me for pointing it out.

No good will come from that. None. It's denial and it's failing to understand the times and acting to reform the problem. You're enablers of a problem that is escalating toward a place you'll be sorry that it got to. But since you're completely focused on attacking me and will be continuing your attack, forgive me for interrupting you. *rolls eyes*.

You are my brother in Christ and for that I love you, but I truly despise the tone of your messages, especially those in reference to Zo. I have read many of your posts on other topics before. I am aware of your high education, experience, the capabilities to use complex syntax coupled with a vast lexicon, and I'm not going to be thwarted by such jargon or argumentative styles.

When you return, I hope it is in humility, and not with the tone of arrogance above. I hope we can come together and reason, because I must tell you that your overall message reads as this: women are to behave as inferior to men and the desire for equality threatens what should be a "natural balance".

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

That's good you're leaving it at that because you're wrong.

See, "my ideas" are nothing more than a repeat of the government, academic, and institutional empirical data (e.g. studies and statistics) which are all published online.

If you were familiar with that body of empirical data, then you wouldn't have made such an ignorant remark revealing how truly out of touch you are with the trends occurring in the very society that you live in which obviously is not a good thing.

Hmm, your ideas are so out of touch, so paranoid, so nonsensical, so wild, so 'out of this world' in not a good way. I think i'll leave it at that.

 

[ArtsieSteph]

Personally I hope that God helps me to be a good future wife and help-mate, maybe mom, church member, and singer. Other than that I feel like my role is just as a person. That being said submission is still a thing, not just to my future husband but to the Lord and my pastor.

 

[PoetMary]

That's good you're leaving it at that because you're wrong.

See, "my ideas" are nothing more than a repeat of the government, academic, and institutional empirical data (e.g. studies and statistics) which are all published online.

If you were familiar with that body of empirical data, then you wouldn't have made such an ignorant remark revealing how truly out of touch you are with the trends occurring in the very society that you live in which obviously is not a good thing.

If there's such a well of empirical data available to support your claims, I challenge you to post some examples of it.

 

[cmarieh]

I have been really thinking about this today and I believe I found a perfect example to the way I believe the roles of a husband and wife and I apologize as my brain is still in business class.
God is the CEO of a marriage
Husband is the manager who answers to the CEO.
The wife is the co manager who if the manager is unable to take care of something the wife comes and deals with the situation, but she is still under the submission of her husband.

 

[ArtsieSteph]

I have been really thinking about this today and I believe I found a perfect example to the way I believe the roles of a husband and wife and I apologize as my brain is still in business class.
God is the CEO of a marriage
Husband is the manager who answers to the CEO.
The wife is the co manager who if the manager is unable to take care of something the wife comes and deals with the situation, but she is still under the submission of her husband.

Perfect. Absolutely spot on

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I have been. In fact, that's something I'm well known for doing on CC. My previous assertions were not "an idea" but rather a statistical reality.

Unlike you, I know where to go to find statistics and am trained to work with them. Go to the DMDC website which is the organization responsible for collating all personal, manpower, training, financial, and other data for the Department of Defense (DOD): https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/dmdc_overview.jsp

Fact number one: The U.S. military is an all-volunteer military which no one presently is compelled by law to join.
Fact number two: A far greater number of men join the U.S. military than women and presently compose a far greater percentage of the U.S. military than women. As of April, 2015 there were a total of 1,312,429 officers, enlisted, and cadets/midshipmen in the U.S. military. 201,315 of them were women (15.34%) and 1,111,114 were men (84.66%).
Fact number three: The number of women joining the U.S. military has been steadily increasing and the percentage of women in the U.S. military has increased for this reason.
Fact number four: The number of women being promoted through the ranks of the U.S. military, PER CAPITA, has increased at a rapid rate while the nation was involved in the Iraq War.

View the 'Table of Active Duty Females by Rank/Grade and Service' for April 2015 (it's a downloadable pdf). Notice that the very top Rank/Grades of the U.S. military are: 010 = 8.1% females and 009 = 9.3% females. In the year 2000 it was 0 and 1 respectively. The lone female in the 009 position was the highest ranking female in the U.S. military. In fact, every officer Rank/Grade has dramatically increased over the past decade and a half and did so during war time when the vast majority of women in the U.S. women were NOT in combat roles (e.g. fact number five).

Among the enlisted ranks, women were most represented in the medical (30.5%) and administrative (30.1%) specialties. They made up about 17% of supply units, 14% of communications staff and 10% of electronics technicians. Health care was the top field for female officers, at 39%. They made up nearly 28% of administrative officers, 19% of intelligence officers and 18% of supply officers. In the Navy, 46% of all female officers were in the medical field.

Again, these gender percentages have a context and that context is to the aggregate population of all U.S. military personnel first and foremost and then by officer or enlisted and then by Rank/Grade. And this is all in the context of other contexts.

My assertions were all valid and supported by the published empirical data of the DMDC. But when you said "only 7% of the top ranks in the military are staffed by women" what you omitted was that is a substantial increase over what it was about a decade and a half ago (e.g. 1998) and that the number of women being promoted through the middle ranks has been fast tracked resulting in a radical increase in a short period of time and some of these women are on their way to the top positions which will further balance out the present situation even as it has already in a time of war not peace in which women were greatly restricted from serving in combat roles.

As I stated, let's get a 50/50 ratio on the battlefield and not just in the rear with the gear. It's time to force women into combat at the same rate as men. We want real equality, after all.

P.S. I went ahead and took the liberty of not quoting your post of #614 due to the disgusting ad hominem, screed, and unrelated false assertions that you interjected into it because your character is flawed. I chose not to include it, of course, in the hopes of encouraging you to take your own advice and develop a "sound mind."

If there's such a well of empirical data available to support your claims, I challenge you to post some examples of it.

 

[Kaycie]

Some people take it too far one way, and others too far the other way. I think your conclusions of the scriptures are that a wife is a slave of her husband and has no say so in the marriage. This is not correct. When Sarah wanted to send Ishmael away, and Abraham did not because he was his son, God told Abraham to listen to his wife. A wife may be a weaker partner, but a partner all the same. She helps make even the big decisions in the family. Woman sinned first and her punishment was that man would lead. But it is mankind that concluded that women are less important because of what her punishment is, but that's not so. Both of them were punished, but both are just as important to God as His children.

The bible makes it clear that there are no male or female in Christ, and no favoritism. Gender is just a role we play on the earth. We are all called to serve and help one another. Jesus washed "His wife's" feet, He fed and clothed her, He died a torturous death to save her. Never did He force her into submission. Yes, we have roles to play- a man's body is better equipped for hard labor, a woman is equipped to mother and look after her household. The bible says faithful instruction is on her tongue.

At the same time she has a gentle and quiet spirit. The bible tells men it is better to live on the corner of the roof than to share a house with a quarrelsome wife. A husband must not be a drunk or a sluggard. Neither of them are to abuse each other- verbal abuse, physical abuse, financial abuse, or any other kind of abuse. I have no problem accepting the role God has chosen for me on this earth, but we must take all scripture into consideration to get the best understanding of what that entails.

 

[Sirk]

I have been. In fact, that's something I'm well known for doing on CC. My previous assertions were not "an idea" but rather a statistical reality.

Unlike you, I know where to go to find statistics and am trained to work with them. Go to the DMDC website which is the organization responsible for collating all personal, manpower, training, financial, and other data for the Department of Defense (DOD): https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/dmdc_overview.jsp

Fact number one: The U.S. military is an all-volunteer military which no one presently is compelled by law to join.
Fact number two: A far greater number of men join the U.S. military than women and presently compose a far greater percentage of the U.S. military than women. As of April, 2015 there were a total of 1,312,429 officers, enlisted, and cadets/midshipmen in the U.S. military. 201,315 of them were women (15.34%) and 1,111,114 were men (84.66%).
Fact number three: The number of women joining the U.S. military has been steadily increasing and the percentage of women in the U.S. military has increased for this reason.
Fact number four: The number of women being promoted through the ranks of the U.S. military, PER CAPITA, has increased at a rapid rate while the nation was involved in the Iraq War.

View the 'Table of Active Duty Females by Rank/Grade and Service' for April 2015 (it's a downloadable pdf). Notice that the very top Rank/Grades of the U.S. military are: 010 = 8.1% females and 009 = 9.3% females. In the year 2000 it was 0 and 1 respectively. The lone female in the 009 position was the highest ranking female in the U.S. military. In fact, every officer Rank/Grade has dramatically increased over the past decade and a half and did so during war time when the vast majority of women in the U.S. women were NOT in combat roles (e.g. fact number five).

Among the enlisted ranks, women were most represented in the medical (30.5%) and administrative (30.1%) specialties. They made up about 17% of supply units, 14% of communications staff and 10% of electronics technicians. Health care was the top field for female officers, at 39%. They made up nearly 28% of administrative officers, 19% of intelligence officers and 18% of supply officers. In the Navy, 46% of all female officers were in the medical field.

Again, these gender percentages have a context and that context is to the aggregate population of all U.S. military personnel first and foremost and then by officer or enlisted and then by Rank/Grade. And this is all in the context of other contexts.

My assertions were all valid and supported by the published empirical data of the DMDC. But when you said "only 7% of the top ranks in the military are staffed by women" what you omitted was that is a substantial increase over what it was about a decade and a half ago (e.g. 1998) and that the number of women being promoted through the middle ranks has been fast tracked resulting in a radical increase in a short period of time and some of these women are on their way to the top positions which will further balance out the present situation even as it has already in a time of war not peace in which women were greatly restricted from serving in combat roles.

As I stated, let's get a 50/50 ratio on the battlefield and not just in the rear with the gear. It's time to force women into combat at the same rate as men. We want real equality, after all.

P.S. I went ahead and took the liberty of not quoting your post of #614 due to the disgusting ad hominem, screed, and unrelated false assertions that you interjected into it because your character is flawed. I chose not to include it, of course, in the hopes of encouraging you to take your own advice and develop a "sound mind."

But haven't you heard....statistics are like a lamppost to a drunken man....more for leaning on than illumination.

 

[Called4Christ]

You obviously lack critical thinking skills to misinterpret my message---

You have said that I insist on attacking you. I have done my best to not attack you personally, rather to voice a disapproval of your behavior and tone. I have no doubt that you have wonderful qualities, but I am telling you that your behavior towards Zo has put you in quite a terrible light. Your refusal to apologize only tells me you are likely prideful. You aren't giving me many opportunities or reasons to compliment you, brother. Therefore, I primarily feel I must rebuke you in an effort to stand up for Zo. Your comment above, however, is pure insult. I acknowledge that I alluded to arrogance on your part, but have you given me reason to think you anything other than that?

---message that the body of law driving males away from forming moral nuclear families with women needs to be reformed to reverse the trend to instead mean
b]needless insult removed[/b]) that "women are to behave as inferior to men and the desire for equality threatens what should be a "natural balance'."

You ask for a reformation of current laws so that we are reverted to what was once. Am I incorrect? If I am, please do correct me. (But without insult, please. It would be most appreciated). Reformation of current laws would revert women to a place of inferiority in comparison to men.



Inferiority:
1.
lower in station, rank, degree, or grade (often followed by to):
a rank inferior to colonel.
2.
lower in place or position; closer to the bottom or base:
descending into the inferior regions of the earth.
3.
of comparatively low grade; poor in quality; substandard:
an inferior product.
4.
less important, valuable, or worthy:
B+ bonds are inferior to AAA bonds.


The desire for equality is equivalent to the laws that provide women with equal educational and occupational opportunities. If you feel these things are a threat to what "should be", then my statement stands.

Instead of making up lies about what I'm saying and then engaging in name calling, ad hominem, and character assassination based on those lies; why not just ask me what I mean if you don't understand it?

Where did I lie? Even if I misinterpreted the heart of your message, this is not a lie.
Where did I name call?
Character assassination? Well, I did say you are arrogant, and at this time I'm not able to take it back, though I would happily if I believed I could. It doesn't bring me joy to call anyone arrogant.


If I felt I did not understand what you said or meant, I would have asked.

That's what a reasonable person would do. But you don't care about the message. That's obvious by how badly you misinterpreted it. All your energy is focused on attacking me.

If I did not care about the message, I would not have wasted my time replying. My energy is focused on defending Zo, not attacking you. I have done my best to refrain from direct insults, but I must tell you that I'm not getting that same impression from you.

Meanwhile, the society around you is undergoing rapid systemic deterioration. If you really cared about that, as I do, you'd be listening to what I'm telling you and seriously considering it instead of making stuff up and falsely assigning it to me and then launching personal attacks at me. That's completely counter productive.

I agree that society is in rapid decline. If I didn't care, once again, I would not have bothered replying.

Only two decades left before real social upheaval begins due to the severe socio-economic problems that continue to build. And when that happens, the backbone of moral nuclear families will be greatly diminished. It's sad you people do not understand the ramifications of this and are so juvenile all you can do is attack me for pointing it out.

If I had a reply to this, it would be insulting. As in, I'd like to break out some Shakespeare right about now... Truly. I'd rather refrain. This isn't doing either of us any good.

No good will come from that. None. It's denial and it's failing to understand the times and acting to reform the problem. You're enablers of a problem that is escalating toward a place you'll be sorry that it got to. But since you're completely focused on attacking me and will be continuing your attack, forgive me for interrupting you. *rolls eyes*.

No good will come of attacking and behaving in a juvenile fashion; I'm glad we can agree on this.

 

[PoetMary]

P.S. I went ahead and took the liberty of not quoting your post of #614 due to the disgusting ad hominem, screed, and unrelated false assertions that you interjected into it because your character is flawed. I chose not to include it, of course, in the hopes of encouraging you to take your own advice and develop a "sound mind."

You engage in consistent ad hominem. Particularly when addressing people who present a viewpoint that is different than yours.

Additionally, your references to military statistics do not prove that "radical feminists" are taking over governmental institutions and deliberately using them to harm men. That is interpretive.

However, I love the implication of superiority. It reminds me a lot of Jesus.

 

[jamie26301]

I've just come to the conclusion that one of two things have happened. Either you were married and she left and thus you blame feminism and everything else under the sun to resolve yourself of not making said marriage work or thta you are just impossible for women to stay with in the first place.

Why can't someone be passionately against something, just for the sake of principle? I agree with every single word he has said about radical (not classical, you see) feminists - and I am not a feminist, but I have seen plenty of these said independent women, I heard all about it in college, knew male friends who are in both emotional and financial misery over these types. Their brains washed so clean, it's hard to imagine anything resides in them.

Why wouldn't that enrage any Christian woman, for fellow women (esp claiming to be Christian) to step all over men, act like they have sole authority over their unborn/born children, demand to be treated with respect and then demean him when he shows this respect thought to be insulting?

It's really sad this is what our line of dialogue is coming to. Someone is passionate about a vice, go on and on about it (like say, the OT prophets, for example), and if the listener is indifferent or opposed to it, well, that person is just bitter and all this. Truly sad.

 

[Sirk]

Here's a little critical thinking for you AOK. Just think of how many women in our mothers generation were raised under the ruthless thumb of tyrant. This is the other side of that coin that your statistics don't illuminate for you. In that sense...no wonder the feminism movement has swung as far as it has. None wants to be lorded over. Not saying it's right but it is the way the cookie crumbles. There are always consequences felt by succeeding generations. Let's just be honest and say that the blame is at least evenly distributed.

 

[jamie26301]

Here's a little critical thinking for you AOK. Just think of how many women in our mothers generation were raised under the ruthless thumb of tyrant. This is the other side of that coin that your statistics don't illuminate for you. In that sense...no wonder the feminism movement has swung as far as it has. None wants to be lorded over. Not saying it's right but it is the way the cookie crumbles. There are always consequences felt by succeeding generations. Let's just be honest and say that the blame is at least evenly distributed.

That is certainly true, and there's still a fair share of chauvinist types around.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that inequality historically existed.

What I'm asserting is that two wrongs haven't made it right and now we have a serious problem (e.g. men refusing to accept a body of law that rapidly escalated in harshness over the past four decades to posit devastating and potentially life-long consequences to their lives) which will reach a point of severity just about the time the ability of the government to continue financially supporting the consequences of it (e.g. the socio-economic liability of unmarried single mothers; the socio-economic and often penal consequences of so many undisciplined and unmonitored fatherless children; the societal loss of normative morality; the societal loss of productivity, invention, innovation, idea creation; etc... etc.... etc...) is dramatically reduced due to escalating government debt and the skyrocketing annual interest payments that government must pay from their budgets to avoid a draconian default at a time when the socio-economic and domestic labor market has further declined (assuming trends continue as they are and no reforms are implemented).

Of course, every Christian I've ever seen care enough to point out this gaping problem is immediately personally attacked by non-Christians and Christians alike and subjected to every form of character assassination.

But it's not unexpected. The process of change is well documented by historians and often includes great resistance by the status quo before change occurs. In fact, change is often accompanied by revolution of all sorts (e.g. sociological, demographic, cultural, economic, political, military, scientific, etc...) before societies are transformed (sometimes even quite abruptly) for either better or worse.

You'll have to spend some time learning social identity theory to understand why people behave like this but if you do you'll learn why people so easily turn on another for opposing the status quo. Pointing out that perhaps society should reform their status quo to get better results by looking at why men are actually walking away from forming moral nuclear families in enormous and ever increasing numbers rather than continuing to project their failing worldview answer which represents the status quo certainly qualifies.

The one who does this, of course, is opposing that status quo which is the worldview of the in-group making them part of the out-group and psychologically it's very easy for people in an in-group to attack a member of an out-group. Hence the personal attacks, ad hominem, name-calling, character assassinations, etc... and all by people who profess to be genuine Christians. But that's human nature. Lol...

Here's a little critical thinking for you AOK. Just think of how many women in our mothers generation were raised under the ruthless thumb of tyrant. This is the other side of that coin that your statistics don't illuminate for you. In that sense...no wonder the feminism movement has swung as far as it has. None wants to be lorded over. Not saying it's right but it is the way the cookie crumbles. There are always consequences felt by succeeding generations. Let's just be honest and say that the blame is at least evenly distributed.

 

[jamie26301]

Of course, every Christian I've ever seen care enough to point out this gaping problem is immediately personally attacked by non-Christians and Christians alike and subjected to every form of character assassination.

Of course. Who wants to talk about solutions? Solutions include action upon planning, and that just may disrupt our delicate lives by demanding something of US as individuals. It's far easier to just throw the same bombs at each other, that we heard refuted time and time again, and demand this law and that law be passed or overturned, than to say "Could *I* be part of the problem? Is there something *I* could do?" Heaven forbid.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Primarily the behavior is explained by social identity theory Jamie which has to do with behavior arising from self-concept, worldview, and membership in a population.

The in-group versus out-group dynamic is very powerful. This is why you see people who are spiritually regenerated genuine Christians engage exactly as non-Christians on this topic. They share an identity, portions of a worldview, and group membership (e.g. based on gender in this case), etc... and have a vested interest in the status quo and seeing it progress to meet their in-group's objectives.

So here I come along and assert their status quo is trending toward systemic failure and that social upheaval is two decades away and it's not a message they want to hear. I'm obviously a member of an out-group threatening their in-group identity, worldview, and membership. The natural human reaction to that is to attempt to convert me to their in-group. When that fails, as it must because I'm right and they are wrong about this issue, then:

Attack the out-group messenger in an attempt to destroy the message. It's all explained in sociology 201.

Why can't someone be passionately against something, just for the sake of principle? I agree with every single word he has said about radical (not classical, you see) feminists - and I am not a feminist, but I have seen plenty of these said independent women, I heard all about it in college, knew male friends who are in both emotional and financial misery over these types. Their brains washed so clean, it's hard to imagine anything resides in them.

Why wouldn't that enrage any Christian woman, for fellow women (esp claiming to be Christian) to step all over men, act like they have sole authority over their unborn/born children, demand to be treated with respect and then demean him when he shows this respect thought to be insulting?

It's really sad this is what our line of dialogue is coming to. Someone is passionate about a vice, go on and on about it (like say, the OT prophets, for example), and if the listener is indifferent or opposed to it, well, that person is just bitter and all this. Truly sad.