A strong and independent woman VS a weak and dependent woman

  • 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.

Shawn2516

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2013
154
1
0
#21
The feminism movement isn't in and of itself a bad thing. When feminism as a movement started it was so women could vote in the US and worldwide, (see suffragettes Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony for example). Those women (in the example) were pro-life by the way and many early feminists were married and supported causes like the abolitionist movement. They were women who believed that things weren't right and should be changed and so they campaigned and suffered for their beliefs. "Feminists" now are just a segment of the whiny, entitled liberal faction who have reduced the causes of their ancestors into nothing more than posturing and pedantic/academic arguments on why anything traditional is essentially evil. I consider myself a feminist, but I also let people know that that word comes on my terms. No one can tell me how to define myself and so I do it as I see fit. I respect the legacy of the brave women back in the day who went to jail because they wanted a voice and the ability to go to college (Marie Curie being an example of a brilliant woman who had limited educational options at the time). That's my two cents anyway.

I believe "dependence" or "independence" are subjective terms and that if a man and a woman are equally yoked they will find a way to make things work. I am considered dependent because I live with my parents and have relied on them for much of my life. I also struggle with severe panic disorder and depression, something that has made my life a lot harder than that of my friends. They understand this about me but I'm always concerned a future partner would not accept this. I actually had a guy I met on ChristianMingle.com essentially dump me because of my dependence. Now, to be fair, I think he didn't like that I was overly shy and wouldn't even look at him so he made up an excuse. However, this is something that I worry about. I feel most men say they want a woman to rely on them but then dislike it if she struggles with emotional stability. The US and other parts of the western world demonize certain types of dependence (a woman living with her parents until she marries, for example) and all it does is cause insecurity and self-hate. I hope, someday, someone will love me for me, with all my flaws included.

Sorry for the long post. TL;DR
Thanks for the post, it was a enjoyable read. Your one of the few women who I can talk openly about anti-feminism with and not get snarky back-biting comments.

To be honest, I don't think your a feminist. I think you have traditional values and want fairness and genuine equality, which no one with a sane mind would object to. I also think men in that time also had no problem with this, which is why first wave feminism basically went unchallenged all those years in its progression.

However, that feminism has long since disappeared and has gone so overboard that it is no longer what it once represented. Now feminism has basically declared war on men and that any new rights women get are done by taking away rights from men, who had to go to war and die for them. Although I wouldn't call the new rights women get, rights. I would call them future privileges that are paid for and put on the labor and backs of men.

I really wish women understood men's point of view on this because in the future if not already, men are pretty much going to avoid any woman who declares herself to be a feminist, because men feel that they are the target of women's hatred. If you go up to a man and tell him he is going to get married, then divorced, have his house, family, and financially security robbed of him, and its all going to be done for a virtuous noble cause.. well don't be surprised when you see a decline in marriage rates.

Everyone knows that marriage is what makes the family, but feminism has broken the family. It has split women and men as 2 warring factions against each other and not to mention the push for "women's rights" to murder their own children in the womb.

I know why women support feminism, but it has progressed to me, into something ungodly and satanic, and I think any woman who calls herself a christian should really consider in supporting such a destructive movement.
 
Nov 25, 2014
942
44
0
#22
T I don't need her to need me, I need her to need Christ. And she needs the same from me.
BOOM!

You did it again! Got that nail right on the head.

As my own personal addition: Isn't the need to be needed a bit self-serving? If I marry a man and he doesn't NEED me to cook or clean for him because he can do those things, does that make me unnecessary? If I stomp my foot and insist that he OUGHT to need me like that, wouldn't I be the selfish one?

Additionally, it's impossible to find a person who has NO needs...so then being unneeded is rather moot. Instead of me prescribing what someone's needs ought to be, shouldn't I simply observe their ACTUAL needs and meet those?
 
G

GaryA

Guest
#23
In a good, healthy, and 'proper' relationship ( the way God wants it to be ) -- 'dependent' is not defined in the sense of 'needy'; rather, it is defined in the sense of 'sharing' - in the manner of 'collaboration'. And, 'independent' is not defined in the sense of 'detached'; rather, it is defined in the sense of 'capable' - in the manner of 'beneficial'.

i.e. - the man and woman are 'interdependent' and 'balanced'...

:)
 
C

Chris516

Guest
#24
A strong n' independent woman is not the problem. It is when they don't take time to care about others. Not those that need ongoing care like the elderly and those in the hospital. But those that are in the least bit needing to be cared about. Not like the commercial where the elderly woman says, "I've fallen and I can't get up!". But having emotional room within that strong confidence to care about others around them. Because, We are all dependent on others to an extent. If we are out in public, and something happens to us where we can't call 911. We are dependent on others around us, to administer First Aid/CPR and call 911. There is a time to be dependent, and a time to be independent. Neither more or less than the other.
 

garet82

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2011
679
85
28
#25
I can be very dependent n weak too coz thats normal in woman.
I think man can be same too. But most if all, in a relationship thats not big deal but how each others to support n cover the weaknesses n make his/her strange as possitive things to keep the ralationship strong.
real love is covering the weaknesses of others n being patient.
So, idk i cant said if strong indeoendent woman vs weak dependent woman is bad things coz it depends on the couple see it n acceptence of the ine their love.
Thats what i think :)
GBU
 
S

setapartgirl

Guest
#26
They said, i have a strong personality that makes men intimidated, the way i look and my aura, it is just i am too used of being independent, self sufficient, but sometimes i get tired too, women...no matter how strong and independent they are, even how much they will tell the people around them they are strong and independent enough to need a man, believe me as a woman...that there are times we also wish and hope there is someone who we can rely on when we need to rest for a while, some women were used being independent because they have to, we have to.
 
S

skylove7

Guest
#27
To me, no matter if a woman is indepependant...or dependent in life.
What matters most is her spiritual walk with God.
True success....is how much you love others inside.
Care for others. To not take advantage or use someone, to gain material things for your own self satisfactions.
To not use love as a weapon.
I am proud of women....regardless what their status is in life.

Again succesfullness to God...is not your walk on Wall Street.

But your walk on the street of His righteousness inside yourself.

Basically just not using people.
 

Calmador

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2011
949
43
28
#28
So, my friend (a girl) and I were talking about Sandra Bullock and the characters she played in The Blind Side and in The Proposal. Now, don't get me wrong - I love both movies, but I disliked her characters. To me, both characters came across as being too independent and head-strong. This led us to the topic of how strong and independent a woman should be, both, when in a relationship and when not in one.

My friend thought that it was good if a woman was strong and did not need a man to help her in her professional or personal life. I, on the other hand, thought that such a woman was not an ideal partner in a relationship because, for me, if my partner did not need me occasionally, then she was better off without me. Now, there is a fine line between needing someone occasionally and needed them all the time (in my opinion, that would be clingy).

So here are my questions -
1. To the ladies - how do you think women should be, with or without a relationship, if they must be successful in their professional and personal lives?
2. To the men - how would you feel about a partner who was as headstrong as Sandra Bullock? Would that make you feel threatened or would that add to your confidence?

(Please note - I am not trying to bash women here; in fact, I am trying to find out what both genders think about this issue.)
I think we should talk about what really matters.

Marriage.

In a relationship between husband and wife. God is clear about what a relationship between husband and wife should look like. The picture of Jesus Christ and the church. Husbands are to love and lead their wives as Jesus did for the church. Husbands are to lead their wives and families. If a woman being independent and head-strong is problematic to this then her behavior is problematic with God's word.

Also, I think as Christians, men or women, nobody is independent or should be head-strong by him or herself. We are all to be dependent on the Lord and be head-strong about HIS abilities, not our own.

So, about boyfriend/girlfriend relationships, I'd think when in such relationships men and women should already try to practice husband and wife roles to some extent. I'd think it would be wise to do so in preparation for marriage. To an extent men and women tend to act out these roles... who makes the first move? Who pays for the dates? Who is expected to be in charge? I think all of these questions have the same answer, men. So, to answer your question. I don't know who Sandra Bullock is, but if she has a problem with men taking the lead role in relationships then she's in the wrong. I wouldn't feel threatened or have a confidence boost but instead I'd be repulsed by her.
 

Shawn2516

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2013
154
1
0
#29
I think we should talk about what really matters.

Marriage.

In a relationship between husband and wife. God is clear about what a relationship between husband and wife should look like. The picture of Jesus Christ and the church. Husbands are to love and lead their wives as Jesus did for the church. Husbands are to lead their wives and families. If a woman being independent and head-strong is problematic to this then her behavior is problematic with God's word.
Husbands can't lead their wives when they refuse to be submissive to their husband. Every woman will agree that a man should lead, but no woman would agree that she should be submissive to his leadership. They equate submissive with that of slavery, and quickly tell men that they are going to lead their own lives because they don't need a man.

It takes 2 people to make a marriage and if 1 person fails in their role, it effects both partners and the children. I think men should honestly give up trying to lead, because women don't want to be lead in this generation. They want to be the leaders, so step aside and let the ladies work.
 
G

GaryA

Guest
#30
Every woman will agree that a man should lead, but no woman would agree that she should be submissive to his leadership.
"Oh, there are still a few around --- but, very precious few..." :(

There are a few on CC that I think may be such a woman / wife. :cool:

( "I wont mention any names --- I do not want to put any of them on the spot..." )

:)
 

TriviaGirl86

Senior Member
Nov 2, 2011
139
3
18
#31
Thanks for the post, it was a enjoyable read. Your one of the few women who I can talk openly about anti-feminism with and not get snarky back-biting comments.

To be honest, I don't think your a feminist. I think you have traditional values and want fairness and genuine equality, which no one with a sane mind would object to. I also think men in that time also had no problem with this, which is why first wave feminism basically went unchallenged all those years in its progression.

However, that feminism has long since disappeared and has gone so overboard that it is no longer what it once represented. Now feminism has basically declared war on men and that any new rights women get are done by taking away rights from men, who had to go to war and die for them. Although I wouldn't call the new rights women get, rights. I would call them future privileges that are paid for and put on the labor and backs of men.

I really wish women understood men's point of view on this because in the future if not already, men are pretty much going to avoid any woman who declares herself to be a feminist, because men feel that they are the target of women's hatred. If you go up to a man and tell him he is going to get married, then divorced, have his house, family, and financially security robbed of him, and its all going to be done for a virtuous noble cause.. well don't be surprised when you see a decline in marriage rates.

Everyone knows that marriage is what makes the family, but feminism has broken the family. It has split women and men as 2 warring factions against each other and not to mention the push for "women's rights" to murder their own children in the womb.

I know why women support feminism, but it has progressed to me, into something ungodly and satanic, and I think any woman who calls herself a christian should really consider in supporting such a destructive movement.
Where do I start? On a side-note...I do appreciate that you think I'm not snarky, I'm just trying to be logical in my arguments if possible. First of all, if you saw my original post I said I call myself a "feminist" regardless of what other people want that word to mean. It's like loving rainbows but not supporting gay marriage, no one really has a right to trademark a rainbow. Also, I don't know why you think men had no problem with women's suffrage when it was being pushed in the 18th and 19th centuries because women's suffrage was basically the radical feminism of its time. Even most women were either indifferent or opposed to suffrage, probably because they didn't want to cause trouble. Suffrage in the 19th century came about because while many men were anti-slavery, many didn't think to include women in their campaign for rights to vote, own property, have an education, etc. Now abolition was obviously a more pressing issue but many women were angry that acts like the Emancipation Proclamation, while freeing everyone from slavery only included men's rights elsewhere. So first wave feminism, as you call it, did not go unchallenged, not by a long shot. It took over 100 years for women to vote and up until the early 20th century, women had to submit sexually to their husbands or go to jail. Don't even get me started on strange laws like jail time for women who opened their husband's mail or that a man owned his wife's hair.

Now I agree that feminism as it is called now has been hijacked by people we consider radicals, but unfortunately that is the way of the world (look at unions for example). That doesn't make every idea inherently bad or without merit, just like most ideologies have some point however small. Also, most radical feminists could care less if a man wanted to be with them and would hold their beliefs above a relationship with a man. I'll be honest, I don't want to be with a man who doesn't respect my beliefs and opinions on things, I'd much rather be alone. A relationship with God is the most important relationship there is.

Also, I don't mean to start anything or be rude, but it seems you are rather bitter toward women because you blame them for everything. No group should be blamed 100% but you are forgetting men's roles in a lot of what you talk about. For example you say "men, who had to go to war and die for them." It's rather crass but I say if you start the war you should finish it. Women were usually passive pawns in war and ended up suffering for whatever side lost (and in cases like the Vietnam war, being terrorized even when they technically won) so putting it back on us like we had much to do with the decision making seems unfair.

Also many feminist women I have met don't hate men, they actively love men because they have males in their lives who they truly care about. I don't think many women I've met hate men because you can't have intimate, close relationships and not feel something other than hate, in my opinion. However, openly misogynist woman-hating men were very common in all aspects of life, especially documented throughout the 18th and early 20th centuries...
I think it's interesting that a lot of what women are angry about is the mistreatment they received at the hands of a patriarchal society and now men are upset about this, but not because women have been mistreated but because they feel they are facing the same treatment. Where is the anger at the double-standards, at the restrictions women had imposed on them, on the way women have been made to hate themselves? I find the blindness fascinating to be honest. Also abortions aren't just a woman's decision, many women have been coerced into having abortions by their parents, their male partners, or even clergymen/women. Throughout history a woman pregnant out of wedlock was the biggest shame and a woman was forced into that decision, so no women aren't the only bad guys here either.

Before I get called snarky, as I was not considered before, I just want you to know that...no, I don't hate men. I have many male friends that I care about tremendously. I have cried for and loved men more than I care to admit, but I also realize when something is misrepresented and I try to respect even little aspects of others' opinions and see them for the truth, as much as possible.
 
Last edited:
G

GaryA

Guest
#33
..., women had to submit sexually to their husbands or go to jail.
Jail notwithstanding, the idea that women have to submit sexually to their husbands is actually biblical. However, it is "balanced" in two ways:

~ The husband also must submit sexually to his wife.


1 Corinthians 7:

[SUP]3[/SUP] Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
[SUP]4[/SUP] The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. [SUP]5[/SUP] Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.


~ The husband must love his wife.


Ephesians 5:

[SUP]25[/SUP] Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;



A man who truly loves his wife will not "use and abuse" her sexually ( or otherwise ). However, it is perfectly sound reasoning that the marriage relationship is not complete without sexual activity between a husband and his wife. For either one of them to deny the other [ sexually ] is 'unbiblical' and "runs against" the whole of what marriage is all about...

( The two are "made one" for some very important reasons! )


I think it's interesting that a lot of what women are angry about is the mistreatment they received at the hands of a patriarchal society and now men are upset about this, but not because women have been mistreated but because they feel they are facing the same treatment.
"Do two wrongs make a right?"

I personally cannot do anything about the past ( "before my time" ); however, all-my-life, I have been opposed to the mis-treatment of women. Never once ever-in-my-life have I [ knowingly and willingly ] mistreated a woman.


Where is the anger at the double-standards, at the restrictions women had imposed on them, on the way women have been made to hate themselves?
There are men who oppose the mis-treatment of women. They may be few, but they ( we :D ) are "out there" nevertheless...

:)
 
G

GaryA

Guest
#34
TriviaGirl86:

Always remember that, at the core of these types of issues - especially with regard to history - is Satan - the author of confusion and treachery everywhere -- "messing up" everything...

All men are sinners. ( 'men' => 'mankind'; "men, women, boys, and girls" )

Some men - enabled by the Holy Spirit ( "not of themselves" ) - are "Real Men" - and they would never [ knowingly and willingly ] do anything to hurt a woman.

These are "the good guys"; the rest may certainly be questionable.

"Don't forget to always look at 'the big picture' --- it makes a whole lot more sense that way..."

:)
 

TriviaGirl86

Senior Member
Nov 2, 2011
139
3
18
#35
Jail notwithstanding, the idea that women have to submit sexually to their husbands is actually biblical. However, it is "balanced" in two ways:

~ The husband also must submit sexually to his wife.


1 Corinthians 7:

[SUP]3[/SUP] Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
[SUP]4[/SUP] The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. [SUP]5[/SUP] Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.


~ The husband must love his wife.


Ephesians 5:

[SUP]25[/SUP] Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;



A man who truly loves his wife will not "use and abuse" her sexually ( or otherwise ). However, it is perfectly sound reasoning that the marriage relationship is not complete without sexual activity between a husband and his wife. For either one of them to deny the other [ sexually ] is 'unbiblical' and "runs against" the whole of what marriage is all about...

( The two are "made one" for some very important reasons! )



"Do two wrongs make a right?"

I personally cannot do anything about the past ( "before my time" ); however, all-my-life, I have been opposed to the mis-treatment of women. Never once ever-in-my-life have I [ knowingly and willingly ] mistreated a woman.



There are men who oppose the mis-treatment of women. They may be few, but they ( we :D ) are "out there" nevertheless...

:)
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was responding directly to Shawn2516's post and never in my post did I say that each individual man has to feel bad for anything and/or everything. That is where most comments on gender equality get derailed because most people can't help but be offended by what was meant to be a thought-provoking, generally innocuous statement.

Yes I realize sex is part of a relationship. I'm not suggesting women become female sitcom stereotypes who are always "too tired" to make love with their husbands. However, jail time was a harsh punishment for someone and usually meant men could force themselves on their wives at anytime because there was no fear of retaliation. What kind of relationship is that? I think what you were saying implies not a very Godly one. And therein lies the problem.
 
G

GaryA

Guest
#36
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was responding directly to Shawn2516's post and never in my post did I say that each individual man has to feel bad for anything and/or everything. That is where most comments on gender equality get derailed because most people can't help but be offended by what was meant to be a thought-provoking, generally innocuous statement.
Yet, I am not offended by anything you said... ;)


Yes I realize sex is part of a relationship. I'm not suggesting women become female sitcom stereotypes who are always "too tired" to make love with their husbands. However, jail time was a harsh punishment for someone and usually meant men could force themselves on their wives at anytime because there was no fear of retaliation. What kind of relationship is that? I think what you were saying implies not a very Godly one. And therein lies the problem.
I agree, jail time is harsh. How did you miss the fact that I am against it? How did you miss the fact that I am also against men "forcing themselves on their wives at any time"...???

Godly is what God prescribed in His Word.

I am not sure you are "getting the message" in the appropriate 'balanced' God-intended manner?


Please keep in mind that my posts are a response to specific statements you made, and not to everything you said as a whole. This is why I sometimes "extract" out of a post only the part to which I am addressing ( or, sometimes, highlight in some way the part to which I am addressing, in light of the entire post ) -- so that others will understand that I am addressing "that part" very specifically. Don't extrapolate what I say in one of these type posts out across everything you have said. Instead, keep it focused on the particular statement that it is addressing...

Does this make sense?

:)
 

Shawn2516

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2013
154
1
0
#37
Where do I start? On a side-note...I do appreciate that you think I'm not snarky, I'm just trying to be logical in my arguments if possible. First of all, if you saw my original post I said I call myself a "feminist" regardless of what other people want that word to mean. It's like loving rainbows but not supporting gay marriage, no one really has a right to trademark a rainbow.
You don't have a argument from me here. I support that view, but my only word of advice is that you should still be cautious. I could go around calling myself a Nazi, and then use the same line you used, but people's view of me would not be different. They would still think of me as some evil holocaust supporter.

Also, I don't know why you think men had no problem with women's suffrage when it was being pushed in the 18th and 19th centuries because women's suffrage was basically the radical feminism of its time. Even most women were either indifferent or opposed to suffrage, probably because they didn't want to cause trouble. Suffrage in the 19th century came about because while many men were anti-slavery, many didn't think to include women in their campaign for rights to vote, own property, have an education, etc. Now abolition was obviously a more pressing issue but many women were angry that acts like the Emancipation Proclamation, while freeing everyone from slavery only included men's rights elsewhere. So first wave feminism, as you call it, did not go unchallenged, not by a long shot. It took over 100 years for women to vote and up until the early 20th century, women had to submit sexually to their husbands or go to jail. Don't even get me started on strange laws like jail time for women who opened their husband's mail or that a man owned his wife's hair.
You're right and women of that time had every right to defend themselves. That is not this time. This time, its men who are trying to defend themselves from the oppression's of our current day Matriarchy. It reminds me of black people who cry about the oppression from 200 years ago as if it was happening today. Even though today they aren't picking cotton, being called Tobi, or getting slashes on their backs, they still have a mindset that is in the past. Today we have a black president, which would of been unthinkable 200 years ago.

Now I agree that feminism as it is called now has been hijacked by people we consider radicals, but unfortunately that is the way of the world (look at unions for example). That doesn't make every idea inherently bad or without merit, just like most ideologies have some point however small. Also, most radical feminists could care less if a man wanted to be with them and would hold their beliefs above a relationship with a man. I'll be honest, I don't want to be with a man who doesn't respect my beliefs and opinions on things, I'd much rather be alone. A relationship with God is the most important relationship there is.
But feminism has already achieved its goals. Women can vote, women can own property, women can be the president of the United States. The new feminism is just now a morphed version of a new Nazi Regime that supports the oppression and hatred of men. The past is over and already dealt with, but what is not over is the time of our day, in which women have more rights than men, not less. Women have 100% of all reproduction rights, and men in college don't even have due process for false rape allegations. Men are pretty much being mocked, ridiculed and snuffed out under this new "women's equality" movement that excludes men completely. I'm not pulling you in and claiming your one of these feminists, but this is the general movement as a whole, that women support. It has ended in the death of over 50 million unborn children (more deaths than WW2), it has helped produce more single women and fatherlerss homes than any Dictator could ever hope for. It also, claims men are responsible for all the ills of the world.

You don't have to believe a word i'm saying, and you can just chalk it all up to me being bitter, but I am telling you, a backlash against feminism from men has already been building. You can choose to ignore it, but I would say in the next 10-20 years, a woman who calls herself a feminist is going to be guaranteeing herself not to ever have a future husband. Men are going to be avoiding them like the plague. Infact, a lot of men already are.

Also, I don't mean to start anything or be rude, but it seems you are rather bitter toward women because you blame them for everything. No group should be blamed 100% but you are forgetting men's roles in a lot of what you talk about. For example you say "men, who had to go to war and die for them." It's rather crass but I say if you start the war you should finish it. Women were usually passive pawns in war and ended up suffering for whatever side lost (and in cases like the Vietnam war, being terrorized even when they technically won) so putting it back on us like we had much to do with the decision making seems unfair.
I am talking about women, but i'm not blaming women 100% for anything. I know men have their own part to play in the misery in this world, but I also know women love to play victims and escape being responsible for their choices. You can take a regular mother who kills her children and watch the media and women in the comment section chalk up the deaths of those children to the mothers mental state, not the actual mother herself. The mother is a victim of her state. Let a man kill his kids and chalk it up him being a victim for his mental state, and you already know what type of responses he would get. He's a monster, he is this, that, hang him from a tree. When a woman does it, everyone looks for some external source for a reason why she cannot truly be a killer, because I guess that would go against the whole mothers can't be murderers and every girls deserves X, Y, Z non-sense.

Also many feminist women I have met don't hate men, they actively love men because they have males in their lives who they truly care about. I don't think many women I've met hate men because you can't have intimate, close relationships and not feel something other than hate, in my opinion. However, openly misogynist woman-hating men were very common in all aspects of life, especially documented throughout the 18th and early 20th centuries...
Feminists love men? Since when? Men certainly don't feel the love from feminists. I hate to say this but I have to.. another typical response of men just hating women. Do you really think when a boy grows up, he just goes "wow, I can't WAIT to hate women!". That's why men get married and play the provider. You just gotta give women you hate money you know, and make sure their well fed, because heck, if they starve to death, how can you keep on hating them? Do you get my point? Men don't hate women, they love them. Yes, you get your typical criminals, and we got a special place called prison reserved for them, but the majority of men do not hate women. How many christian men on this forum do you see blasting and bombarding women about how much they hate them and can't stand them? I do not see this woman-bashing but I also think girls are pretty sensitive to anything critical of them, so they take it that way.

I would write more but I have to go now to a meeting with my start-up company. I'll come back and respond to whatever you have written later.
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
#38
Husbands can't lead their wives when they refuse to be submissive to their husband. Every woman will agree that a man should lead, but no woman would agree that she should be submissive to his leadership. They equate submissive with that of slavery, and quickly tell men that they are going to lead their own lives because they don't need a man.

It takes 2 people to make a marriage and if 1 person fails in their role, it effects both partners and the children. I think men should honestly give up trying to lead, because women don't want to be lead in this generation. They want to be the leaders, so step aside and let the ladies work.

The word "submission" has been misused and abused. Ive seen it in two marriages in my family and in marriages as I traveled in ministry. Young men need to be taught correctly exactly what submission means. Some men have used that simple word to lord their authority over their wife. Submission is taught so poorly in the church.Then on top of that its almost impossible to find Godly marriage councilors. I saw so much abuse that was defended as "women should submit" that I promised myself I would never get married. Im married today because I found a mature partner that shares their life with me. We make decisions together,he doesnt tell me what we're going to do. We dont have "roles" we do what needs to be done around the house "together".Im allowed to have an opinion,as is he.We make the best decision or we compromise. We need each other,we rely on each other. The church needs to have far better teaching on marriage and submission then it does. You say women refuse to submit,I'd have to ask what your idea of submission is?
 
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
252
0
#40
The more that the women embrace feminism, the more likely their chances of finding a man drop closer to zero.

You're absolutely right, and yet, in the Northeast, the more that men embrace metro-sexual-ism, the more likely they will find a woman. Puke!