The Role of the Woman
- Thread starter Mary96
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
Feminism is the political, social, and economic equality of the sexes. Period.
New-wave feminism has successfully convinced most that Feminism=Pro-choice. Actually, the majority of feminists from the late nineteenth century were pro-life. Feminists for Life carries on that tradition by stating, "Abortion isn't proof that women are free; it's proof that women are desperate."
Man-haters are a category all to themselves. I respect them about as much as the sorority girl who claims feminism along with her treasure hoard of fads like veganism or horn-rimmed glasses.
And by the way, Jesus was a feminist in that He was radical in His treatment of women and elevated them to a status they had not previously held.
New-wave feminism has successfully convinced most that Feminism=Pro-choice. Actually, the majority of feminists from the late nineteenth century were pro-life. Feminists for Life carries on that tradition by stating, "Abortion isn't proof that women are free; it's proof that women are desperate."
Man-haters are a category all to themselves. I respect them about as much as the sorority girl who claims feminism along with her treasure hoard of fads like veganism or horn-rimmed glasses.
And by the way, Jesus was a feminist in that He was radical in His treatment of women and elevated them to a status they had not previously held.
E
honey...don't you know a lotta noise when you hear it?
those posts are all about noise
save yourself...there is nothing to understand
and remember I have quit this thread, so I am making an exception for you
no matter how hard you try to firm up a genuine response, it will not be coming from certain individuals and aok is one such person
statistically speaking, he a statistic of his own making
I have spent enough time in my little life spinning my wheels trying to understand why some people are the way they are, to know I will not ever have satisfaction
some folks go to a lot of trouble poo-pooing certain things because they have no hope in the hot place, of ever actually GETTING someone like they dis...so they hate it instead...haters gonna hate, right?
Really...it is their problem...not yours...many men cannot actually tolerate a woman that is intelligent, faithful and looks good on top of all that
it's just how it is
C
[h=1]1 Timothy 4:12English Standard Version (ESV)[/h]12 Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.
I find dismissing someone's thoughts because they are young fairly abhorrent. In fact, I feel so passionately about this that I literally wrote a fiction novel about the idea. My only regret is that I was not here earlier to stand up for Zo.
I find dismissing someone's thoughts because they are young fairly abhorrent. In fact, I feel so passionately about this that I literally wrote a fiction novel about the idea. My only regret is that I was not here earlier to stand up for Zo.
A
I very much love women. I love my mother, my sister, my female friends all very much. I have zero hatred for women. You've internalized a false belief about me by engaging in faulty correlation. My sharing the truth does not equate to me hating women. It doesn't, it's not true, and I'm not responsible for you doing that.
Of course, the truth can be scary. Any good historian will explain to you that human history is full of very scary events. Believe me when I say that I don't like them anymore than you and would like to see the problems that lead to such events corrected and reformed ahead of time. And that's primarily why I engage in these discussions. It's because I care.
Usually I engage in straight talk but I also utilize various argumentation techniques such as the Socratic method (e.g. defense of one point of view is questioned) or techniques designed to turn things around and place one group in the other's position (such as I did in post 579 and elsewhere in this thread).
You shouldn't ignorantly miscorrelate my doing this as me hating anyone but rather understand that I'm very interested in understanding and correcting real life problems that are rapidly trending toward very undesirable and ungodly consequences that primarily will affect the next generation and generations which follow.
All I see is a lot of people in denial stumbling around in ignorance effecting no real change while vilifying anyone who dares to oppose the status quo (opposing the status quo was an activity that Jesus constantly engaged in throughout his ministry here on earth).
Respectfully Ma'am, is the rapidly worsening socio-political reality something you want to pass on to your progeny and their progeny as a Christian mother?
The right answer is "No!"
Since that's the right answer, other than falsely accusing me of hating women because you think that doing so somehow helps you make sense of it all, what are you going to do about it?
That's really the question each of you needs to ask. I already have.
Of course, the truth can be scary. Any good historian will explain to you that human history is full of very scary events. Believe me when I say that I don't like them anymore than you and would like to see the problems that lead to such events corrected and reformed ahead of time. And that's primarily why I engage in these discussions. It's because I care.
Usually I engage in straight talk but I also utilize various argumentation techniques such as the Socratic method (e.g. defense of one point of view is questioned) or techniques designed to turn things around and place one group in the other's position (such as I did in post 579 and elsewhere in this thread).
You shouldn't ignorantly miscorrelate my doing this as me hating anyone but rather understand that I'm very interested in understanding and correcting real life problems that are rapidly trending toward very undesirable and ungodly consequences that primarily will affect the next generation and generations which follow.
All I see is a lot of people in denial stumbling around in ignorance effecting no real change while vilifying anyone who dares to oppose the status quo (opposing the status quo was an activity that Jesus constantly engaged in throughout his ministry here on earth).
Respectfully Ma'am, is the rapidly worsening socio-political reality something you want to pass on to your progeny and their progeny as a Christian mother?
The right answer is "No!"
Since that's the right answer, other than falsely accusing me of hating women because you think that doing so somehow helps you make sense of it all, what are you going to do about it?
That's really the question each of you needs to ask. I already have.
A
The bible is clear that a just rule of law can assist societies toward engaging in behaviors that align with God's normative morality just as a corrupt rule of law can accomplish the exact opposite. This is a biblical, statistically supported, and observable reality. Historical examples of the truth of this include God's instituting the Mosaic Law and Ten Commandments to help accomplish exactly that in the ancient nation of Israel.
So while you can't legislate salvation, you certainly can follow God's own example and structure society in ways that encourages members to conform their behavior to God's normative morality rather than driving them away from it with punishing bodies of law concocted by anti-Christ social movements.
So while you can't legislate salvation, you certainly can follow God's own example and structure society in ways that encourages members to conform their behavior to God's normative morality rather than driving them away from it with punishing bodies of law concocted by anti-Christ social movements.
C
Well, I've got things to do so sayonara. I'll be back to straighten you out later. May God bless you by correcting you in the meantime.
Lol...
Lol...
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".
The idea that women in the military deliberately take "safer" positions so they can gain rank and boss around the men is slanted, progandistic, pejorative, and irrational. The numbers don't bear that out since only about 7% of the top ranks in the military are staffed by women. The implication that women are not desiring full access in the military is also false. The Equal Rights Amendment of the 70s included military access...and was not ratified by the (largely) male legislature of the 70s.
You either read what I wrote incorrectly, or you missed my sarcasm font.
I'm afraid that you are the one who is using language in an idiosyncratic way. Radical feminism refers to a particular branch of feminism. It's often defined by a philosophy of female superiority over males, AS WELL AS ideas like those I mentioned. But I think it's cute that you attribute my mentioning of all-sex-is-rape, and lesbian separatism as something "in my head." It's actually not. These are ideas that are tied to radical feminism.
First-wave feminism was largely concerned with voting rights for women. Second-wave feminism largely concerned itself with access and leveling playing fields. Third-wave has been "finishing up" areas left behind in the second wave and also presenting/tackling a variety of ideological issues. Including androcentrism.
Right, so you want to limit the access of women so that their trajectories cannot hurt men. So, if fewer men go to college because more women qualify, are being accepted, and filling up those slots, we should stop allowing women access to colleges because men are being hurt by it? I honestly don't get how governmental institutions are being used by women to abuse men. Certainly, there are individual women who abuse men in a variety of ways, but how has this become institutionalized to the degree that men as an entire gender are being harmed. Please provide statistical evidence to back up your claim.
There are plenty of places in the world where girl-children are killed or ill-treated because they are females and a "burden," where women are denied access to education, healthcare, physical protection, the ability to decide their own fates, and where women are under constant threat of losing their children if they aren't perfectly obedient. These are JUSTICE issues.
All of this is fear-based propaganda that neither reflects reality or a Christian world-view. Engaging with fear to garner our own sense of power actually seems very worldly to me. Jesus never demonstrated a demand for personal power (though He clearly had much power). Part of the leadership demonstrated by Jesus is that he was the FIRST to sacrifice. It doesn't seem particularly Godly to imply that an entire gender is at fault for the sins of a few. It also doesn't seem particularly rational to just eat fear up like ice-cream and yet claim to belong to Jesus. He has not given us a spirit of fear, but of LOVE and of a sound mind.
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).
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).
Last edited:
Zoii,
I apologize for the way many of the men here have addressed you.
You are a wonderful young lady. When you meet the man that God has chosen for you to spend the rest of your life with, you will know it. Meanwhile take the time to grow in Christ. Prepare to become the heart of your family. Pray that the man that God sends you will understand his role as the head of your family. Remember that without a heart the head doesn't work, and without a head the heart won't work. Together, the head and heart will make up a true family in Christ.
For everyone. If you really want to know the rolls of men and women in the family, take the time to observe those in your church that have been together for forty or more years.
I apologize for the way many of the men here have addressed you.
You are a wonderful young lady. When you meet the man that God has chosen for you to spend the rest of your life with, you will know it. Meanwhile take the time to grow in Christ. Prepare to become the heart of your family. Pray that the man that God sends you will understand his role as the head of your family. Remember that without a heart the head doesn't work, and without a head the heart won't work. Together, the head and heart will make up a true family in Christ.
For everyone. If you really want to know the rolls of men and women in the family, take the time to observe those in your church that have been together for forty or more years.
A
Back and I can that you've learned nothing.
You're still engaging in ad hominem with respect to the messenger, gushing forth feeling based responses, and demonstrating a recalcitrant stubbornness to reform the existing body of law so that men will return to forming moral nuclear families with women.
And because they're so many of you across our society, reform will not occur and the decline will continue.
So,
You're still engaging in ad hominem with respect to the messenger, gushing forth feeling based responses, and demonstrating a recalcitrant stubbornness to reform the existing body of law so that men will return to forming moral nuclear families with women.
And because they're so many of you across our society, reform will not occur and the decline will continue.
So,
- Status