The Role of the Woman

[jamie26301]

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.

Perhaps what he meant by "all in your head" is reading into what he wrote something that wasn't there? Not denying these things actually exist?

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?

Perhaps he simply means not allowing anyone, men or women, to unfairly benefit over another by loopholes in the law?

Perhaps comprehension like this is what he meant by lack of critical thinking?

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.

Well, women are favored in court concerning children, quite so usually. Some men have limited visiting, simply for not being married to the woman, and it hurts them so to only see their own children twice a month - because the mother wants it that way. I have a real it I've whose mother of a teen daughter of his, and she tries to take him to court for not allowing her to see his daughter (he has custody)... and nothing is further from the truth. She just wants to cause him misery.

Of course there are plenty of women who do not get justice in court - but this sword cuts both ways.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

What I want Jamie, first and foremost, is to reform the body of law driving men away from forming moral nuclear families and then educate them that it's safe for them to do so again and encourage them to.

The number one reason why this is so important is to protect children and their parents when the rapidly mounting socio-economic problems finally begin to crash like a wave on the nation. Families weather bad economy's in environments of government spending reductions far better than single mothers and fatherless children do. But it's too late here for me to go into the details like I normally do other than to say it begins with debt related federal spending reductions that affect both federal programs and the state programs federal spending presently supports.

Of course, I would love to reform the economy, trade, financial sector, etc... too but if I have to choose between reforming the rapid decline of the family or reforming the economic decline; I would elect to reform the decline of the family first for reasons I won't go into because it's too late here and I need to sleep.

So zzzzzzzzzz. God bless you all (including you out-group members who constantly personally attack me in the name of the Lord lolol for upsetting your rapidly failing status quo). Oh, and you too Jamie . Peace.

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]

P.S. It's kind of amazing, when you stop and think about it, that Christian women are vehemently opposed to reforming marriage and divorce law to reverse the decline of the family and encourage men to form moral nuclear families again in percentages their grandparents once did.

But that's how well the modern liberal/progressive feminist platform of public education and cultural indoctrination has been. Now you have Christian women consolidated with non-Christian women in a status quo that spells the material destruction of the moral nuclear family in Western Civilization in the lifespan of the millennial's generation and actively opposed against anyone that wants to reform to save the moral nuclear family which God Himself instituted in Genesis 1.

Think about that.

 

[ChristianUk13]

Perhaps he simply means not allowing anyone, men or women, to unfairly benefit over another by loopholes in the law?

No, Ageofknowledge, by the comments he has made towards women in his very derogatory manner, in my view is a bit of a misogynist. A legal provision to benefit diversity and therein effectively improve the economy is not a loophole. A loophole is that a legal body of law (i.e. statute or judge-made law, or both) has a certain legal effect; but a loophole, what lawyers would call 'limited exceptions' for instance may protect women from dangerous men perhaps (such as interstate laws allowing a different US state, from the US state the women and children live in, to have jurisdiction) permits alternative situations.

Well, women are favored in court concerning children, quite so usually.

No, law does not work like that. In family law relating to matters pertaining to custody, the court will decide which of the parents is equally suited to "the best interests of the children." I think the person who says some stuff about critical thinking ought to have some critical thinking of their own.

Some men have limited visiting, simply for not being married to the woman, and it hurts them so to only see their own children twice a month - because the mother wants it that way.

The court will decide which parent is suited to meet "the best interests of the child/children" and will therefore make a court order to that effect. The party whom the court chooses after listening to both lawyers, or self-represented parents, or court appoint staff such as guardian ad litem (children's reps), will get custody whilst the other is given 'contact time', usually via every other weekend and holidays.


I have a real it I've whose mother of a teen daughter of his, and she tries to take him to court for not allowing her to see his daughter (he has custody)... and nothing is further from the truth. She just wants to cause him misery.

Of course there are plenty of women who do not get justice in court - but this sword cuts both ways.

These are facts.

 

[ChristianUk13]

1 Timothy 4:12English Standard Version (ESV)

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.

Kudos to you, Call4Christ, and very aptly cited for that matter if i may say so.

 

[ChristianUk13]

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.

Without even accessing these alleged sources, one thing that I am sure of is that you have likely twisted the sources' content to benefit your own twisted brand of politics; and or those statistics to which you allude, as you have not cited anything per se, are either based on ignorant populations like you; and or there are problems with sample error for instance the sample size is too small to perfect a useful correlation. When you make reference to any idea this same person is supposed to make specific reference too so the other interested person or audience may trace what has been said and decide for their self whether the statements are indeed valid or whether they're prejudiced owning to bias or other subjective matter.

 

[ChristianUk13]

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."

Besides from a random posting of subject matter, there is no adequate representation of this information save randomly cited statistical content albeit omitting the point of these citations, notwithstanding there is no balance, no context, no useful thing in fact for respondents (that is, us) to make further commentary. You say you work with statistics, in that case I suggest your competence is not particularly sound in this area, as statistics' professionals actually have a point in citing their stats other than arbitrary citations.

 

[ChristianUk13]

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.

Originally Posted by AgeofKnowledge

Agreed. I've placed her on my ignore list permanently as I have zero interest in discussing such issues with a 14 year old. Legal adults only please. Thank you.

"1 Timothy 4:12English Standard Version (ESV)

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."

Ageofknowledge? More like age of pseudo knowledge. But anyway, please make a statement in relation to Called4Christ very useful biblical content about respecting the views of young people.

 

[ChristianUk13]

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.

The context was about you and your personal relationships with women, as you will note if you look back at the context that you wrote.

 

[ChristianUk13]

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".

Would we call a stranger in the middle of the street, or the person whilst shopping at the mall, our brother? Indeed, why do we use the label of 'brother' or 'sister' when we know not this person? Jesus said you are my mother, my brother if you if have Jesus' love and honour each other. If a Christian is not known to me, whether a female or male, their neither my brother or sister unless I know them and they have the love of Christ. As Jesus said, you will know them by their fruit.

 

[kaylagrl]

Perhaps what he meant by "all in your head" is reading into what he wrote something that wasn't there? Not denying these things actually exist?


Perhaps he simply means not allowing anyone, men or women, to unfairly benefit over another by loopholes in the law?

Perhaps comprehension like this is what he meant by lack of critical thinking?


Well, women are favored in court concerning children, quite so usually. Some men have limited visiting, simply for not being married to the woman, and it hurts them so to only see their own children twice a month - because the mother wants it that way. I have a real it I've whose mother of a teen daughter of his, and she tries to take him to court for not allowing her to see his daughter (he has custody)... and nothing is further from the truth. She just wants to cause him misery.

Of course there are plenty of women who do not get justice in court - but this sword cuts both ways.

All of which could be avoided if people carefully and prayerfully chose a spouse.If you believe God sends the right person into your life, and Im sure Age of Knowledge would agree,you would not have issues with the courts and divorce. God does not look favorably upon divorce in the first place. It should be a very last resort. This is what I am not understanding about AofK upset and ranting about divorce and the courts,on and on.If you believe God guides you,you will find the right women for marriage and you wont have to worry about courts and divorce. All things work together for good,right? So what is the ranting about? He talks about so called Christians,like anyone who disagrees with his opinion is a false Christian.But if he is a true Christian,I assume he is,none of these issues should be of worry to him.Pray for guidance,wait on the Lord and the right woman/man will come into your life.What is there to stress and rant about? Is God not in control of all? No worries then.

 

[Dan_473]

Yes but since women want equality let's turn the radical feminist script around on them.

lots of great things in your post, so I'm gonna break it down into parts...

Radical manism demands a radical reordering of society in which female supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts.

I can't think of too many places in society that I would call Female Supremacy, but ok, I'm reading on...

Every instance where a female enjoys an unequal advantage in society from easier treatment by the judicial system

yes, I'll agree with that... though, I think guys usually do more violent crimes (with bodies and minds geared towards violent conflict)... so the stats can probably be played out different ways...

and more humanitarian prisons

right, and again, put a bunch of violent guys together in a small place... the prison needs to be different... but sure, fairness, yes...

to eliminating maternity leave in the workplace

my impression was that maternity leave was to benefit the children as well as save society on higher healthcare costs... but again, yes, when a man is at the same level of physical vulnerablity, then yes, the same "leave" treatment...

to ensuring a 50/50 ratio on the battlefield

I'm interested in learning how much physical strength makes a difference on the battlefield... anybody here know? to the extent that it requires carrying a heavy pack over demanding terrain for long periods, then yes, males are gonna have an advantage, so one would expect to find more of them...

this is true even from one guy to the next, though... not every guy can become a Marine... because of the physical tests... so you don't see a proper cross-section of guys in the Marine Corps...

all must be eliminated in order to achieve true equality.

this may be the crux... equal treatment or identical treatment? because, imo, comparing men's and women's bodies and minds is kind of like apples and oranges... so there may be a difference between 'fair' and 'identical'...

I used to think of males and females as virtually the same... just some differences in plumbing... but as I've gotten older I've come to think there are great differences below the surface...

The government must begin balancing the imbalance of fewer men than women in college

an excellent example... who's to say that men and women are equally good at college?

and the workplace

not following here... there are fewer men in the workplace?

by depriving women to assist men until a 50/50 ratio is accomplished in college and the workplace.

depriving women of what? dollars? would giving more money to men increase their college success? I don't think so, but I'll consider it, if you have details...

 

[Hepzibah]

As it is men who start wars, why expect women to get themselves kiiled as well? Women should deny thier men sex until all wars cease.

 

[CeileDe]

As it is men who start wars, why expect women to get themselves kiiled as well? Women should deny thier men sex until all wars cease.

Well then you will be waiting until after the Lord comes because He is going to wage war on the world.

 

[ChristianUk13]

No-one in their right mind wants equality. We are all different and not equal. I agree with you. Men and women are different, we were created differently and our roles are different. Feminists want to beat down men and say they want to be equal but it is nonsense. Men cannot give birth and will not carry a baby in their tummy. Men cannot breastfeed. Why do some people always want to reject their nature? Men are more logical, more decisive, physically stronger and are leaders. Women are more caring, and more emotional.

Equal Pay Act 1970; Equality Act 2006; Equality Act 2010. The idea of equality in terms of higher education, in terms of employment, in terms of 'reasonable adjustments' for the disabled to access and perform in jobs, in terms of direct discrimination and indirect discrimination, is about producing a fair and diversity society so that society is equally represented. Women in England and Wales have been enjoying the right to equal pay for equal work. Moreover, where a man has a benefit for doing similar types of work (in terms of manual labour etc) for the same employer, there is an equality clause implied into the employment contract. Is it right that men in 2015 receive more pay than women for doing similar type jobs because women have breasts? Maternity and paternity rights also now exist in the UK for women and men, so men therefore have equal treatment.

Equality does not mean anything to do personal characteristics of woman such as having babies, equality has to do with making life fair, including for women, the disabled, and those elderly aged persons in the UK anyway. In the US, there is alternatively the "Americans with Disabilities Act" for persons with disabilities. As of yet there is no equivalent statute for equal pay like in England and Wales that I am aware of.

 

[kaylagrl]

Equal Pay Act 1970; Equality Act 2006; Equality Act 2010. The idea of equality in terms of higher education, in terms of employment, in terms of 'reasonable adjustments' for the disabled to access and perform in jobs, in terms of direct discrimination and indirect discrimination, is about producing a fair and diversity society so that society is equally represented. Women in England and Wales have been enjoying the right to equal pay for equal work. Moreover, where a man has a benefit for doing similar types of work (in terms of manual labour etc) for the same employer, there is an equality clause implied into the employment contract. Is it right that men in 2015 receive more pay than women for doing similar type jobs because women have breasts? Maternity and paternity rights also now exist in the UK for women and men, so men therefore have equal treatment.

Equality does not mean anything to do personal characteristics of woman such as having babies, equality has to do with making life fair, including for women, the disabled, and those elderly aged persons in the UK anyway. In the US, there is alternatively the "Americans with Disabilities Act" for persons with disabilities. As of yet there is no equivalent statute for equal pay like in England and Wales that I am aware of.

This is going to be a far out idea but hey that hasnt stopped anyone on CC before.lol It has become increasingly hard for families to survive based on pay. Many women who would rather stay home are forced to work,that is why there are so many "work from home" type sites out there these days. If a stay at home mom was paid for all the work she does a lot more women would be able to afford to stay home and that would allow for a lot more jobs in the market place.They were considering that in Canada years ago. Just a thought. But I do agree with equal pay for equal work if the women is actually able to do the same work.For instance my husband is 6'4 and 220 pounds,the work he can do compared to what I could do is vastly different. But definitely there should be equal pay.

 

[Rosesrock]

This is going to be a far out idea but hey that hasnt stopped anyone on CC before.lol It has become increasingly hard for families to survive based on pay. Many women who would rather stay home are forced to work,that is why there are so many "work from home" type sites out there these days. If a stay at home mom was paid for all the work she does a lot more women would be able to afford to stay home and that would allow for a lot more jobs in the market place.They were considering that in Canada years ago. Just a thought. But I do agree with equal pay for equal work if the women is actually able to do the same work.For instance my husband is 6'4 and 220 pounds,the work he can do compared to what I could do is vastly different. But definitely there should be equal pay.

Amen.........

 

[jamie26301]

All of which could be avoided if people carefully and prayerfully chose a spouse.If you believe God sends the right person into your life, and Im sure Age of Knowledge would agree,you would not have issues with the courts and divorce. God does not look favorably upon divorce in the first place. It should be a very last resort. This is what I am not understanding about AofK upset and ranting about divorce and the courts,on and on.If you believe God guides you,you will find the right women for marriage and you wont have to worry about courts and divorce. All things work together for good,right? So what is the ranting about? He talks about so called Christians,like anyone who disagrees with his opinion is a false Christian.But if he is a true Christian,I assume he is,none of these issues should be of worry to him.Pray for guidance,wait on the Lord and the right woman/man will come into your life.What is there to stress and rant about? Is God not in control of all? No worries then.

You can pick and isolate verses to say God always blesses obedience, but there is no guarantee of such in the whole context. Carful consideration will increase your probability of marrying a good match - it doesn't mean that God is obligated to bless and preserve it, and it doesn't mean that you haven't caught a real good actor who ditches the script after a while.

 

[jamie26301]

Without even accessing these alleged sources, one thing that I am sure of is

Is that fair? Now, I believe AoK has made a few passive-agressive assertions, and was very presumptuous and rude... but I'm sorry, agreeing with the personal attacks on him (and dismissing a source on his attitude rather than examining the source on its own merit) doesn't mean they were warranted and returning insults doesn't make them any better.

Assuming someone just can't keep a woman, (a stranger whom the person and circumstances they don't truthfully/fully know, mind you) because he appears to have a chip on his shoulder is a presumptuous insult as well, and a great way to altogether dismiss ANY assertions. Because truth is entirely dependant on the way the person presents it, right?

I see unChrist like behavior on both sides, to be honest.

 

[kaylagrl]

You can pick and isolate verses to say God always blesses obedience, but there is no guarantee of such in the whole context. Carful consideration will increase your probability of marrying a good match - it doesn't mean that God is obligated to bless and preserve it, and it doesn't mean that you haven't caught a real good actor who ditches the script after a while.

Humm not sure of that...God doesnt bless obedience? I think he does, does he not? God blesses marriage,there is no question of that,the family is the foundation of society,along with it goes marriage. Yes we have to work at marriage there is no doubt and we have free will and can walk away but God blesses marriage.Its not a matter of obligation,its fact. As far as catching an actor that is why God gave us discernment. If we listen to Him,pray and carefully make a choice,using God given discernment we should choose the right person.