I am seeking to meet a Christian Woman to Marry... (USA)

[JimJimmers]

You must've misunderstood me. To clarify, I'm not attempting to imply that exceptions shouldn't be made toward women that voluntarily pursue an occupation and have the qualifications to do so -- I'm really only pointing out that equality to its denoted logical extreme is arguably unjustifiable, specifically in reference to being forcibly pressed into a given scenario in light of discrepancies between genders that would drastically influence, or would otherwise be heavily contingent upon, a given circumstance.

You're right, my analogy was somewhat sloppy. A better one would be, "While women are capable of intelligence, and can voluntarily pursue jobs as a judge or lawyer, overall they score lower on IQ test than men. Therefore they should not be eligible for jury duty."

I am not opposed to females serving on juries, btw. It just seems monstrously self-serving for your equality to stop where you might have to be forced into a dangerous job that you might be fully capable of.

 

[Rachel20]

I think the term "feminism" is a pretty loaded one, much like "Liberal", "Conservative", "environmental", and of course "evolution".

Your posts are very interesting. I have never met any woman who wanted straight-up, 100% equality and nothing else. Is that what you want? (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I am just trying to see if I've met someone I've never met before.)

I am not opposed to females serving on juries, btw. It just seems monstrously self-serving for your equality to stop where you might have to be forced into a dangerous job that you might be fully capable of.

You bring up really good points Jim.

Equality should be equality all the way. Some people are just all talk and no walk.

To be honest, I think this is one of the reasons why feminism usually falls flat on its face.

I really don't get the self righteous, noble spiel of equality from an atheistic perspective. Equality just seems to be a comfortable excuse to be over someone else.
Also posts that are full of pseudo intellectualized, esoteric loquaciousness isn't going to convince anyone about anything. If there was anything to be convinced.

Feminism isn't going to gain any credibility from any of this, especially by coming on a Christian forum and having no base from a Biblical standpoint.

Aside from that - to the OP, I think a wedding might take some time.
He has every right to want such a wife. In his own obnoxious way.

 

[Raine]

I found this to be one of the more amusing I-am-seeking... Threads . Thanks for the laughs everyone.

 

[28Man_Seeking_Wife]

You must've misunderstood me. To clarify, I'm not attempting to imply that exceptions shouldn't be made toward women that voluntarily pursue an occupation and have the qualifications to do so -- I'm really only pointing out that equality to its denoted logical extreme is arguably unjustifiable, specifically in reference to being forcibly pressed into a given scenario in light of discrepancies between genders that would drastically influence, or would otherwise be heavily contingent upon, a given circumstance.

Liza I know I said I would not extend my debate with the feminists (and I stand by that) but I just wanted to point out that I meticulously refuted the premise of your claims point by point on a completely philosophical basis (without using 'faith'). Yet you still are on here reiterating your secular-humanist conclusions. You fail at rational-debate.

 

[cinder]

So far the OP has been mocked, and criticized over his own personal preference in what he wants in a mate. How on earth is that even a Christian attitude?
Then there is the horde of feminists that wanted to take personal offense over one person's view on how he wants his future marriage to work. He doesn't want some insane man hating feminist. Why is that so bad? He didn't say he wanted to oppress his wife. He didn't say he wanted her to be a baby factory, but that is how he is treated.

Anyway, I'm sorry you have been treated badly too. Seems to happen quite often. What a shame.

It isn't the OP's preferences we have a huge problem with (everyone is entitled to their own preference) so much as his adversarial and arrogant attitude. When someone writes that they are seeking a wife " who hasn't bought into the lie of secular feminism which has destroyed marriage and family life in America" they are asking for a philosophical debate and reaction. He could have phrased this in another way such as his ideal is a woman who finds great satisfaction in being a homemaker and caregiver. Many of us would still know we aren't that woman and aren't interested, but he would not have come across as saying that we are all outside of God's will and buying into a lie if we don't want that.

He also started his post by saying that he doesn't care about the ridicule he will face, but then has felt the need to argue with and in many cases insult those who have disagreed with him. Look at his response to my interpretation of his post. He had a choice in how to respond and could have responded by saying "cinder is right about one thing, her "clarifications" do not at all reflect my true heart or intent. This is what I want to be for my future wife:" and gone on to talk about his hopes and desires instead of pretty much attempting a character assassination on me. Most of his post is letting me know that a brainwashed feminist like me who would just shack up with a guy could never possibly understand his desire for a real commitment or a Christian marriage (just read some of my other posts if you want to know to what extent the cinder he describes exists only in his head).

No we have not been overly kind to the OP, but as I said in a previous post this is his second "if you want to be my wife please contact me" thread in less than a month and he comes across as so puffed up with knowledge that it is hard to take him seriously. For most of us this is either sad ( because he really has no clue how off-putting his attitude is), ridiculous, or trollish (he knows exactly how he is coming across and just wants to have a go at self confident women because he's bitter that no woman wants to be with him). If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to learn to engage with people in humility and on a relational level not just on an intellectual and argumentative level. All that said if you think he sounds like a wonderful guy and you want to be with him, all the best to both of you.

 

[Lizathrose]

Liza I know I said I would not extend my debate with the feminists (and I stand by that) but I just wanted to point out that I meticulously refuted the premise of your claims point by point on a completely philosophical basis (without using 'faith'). Yet you still are on here reiterating your secular-humanist conclusions. You fail at rational-debate.

What? You've specifically stated that you've apparently no interest in pursuing a discussion with "feminatzi taunters" here, and you've even bothered to emphasize the point. Naturally, I didn't bother to respond -- it'd be a waste of time to reply to a post without the possibility of being acknowledged, correct?

If anything, your infantile, laughably spiteful appeal to immunity is indicative of your own argumentative mediocrity, although your misconstrued, pointlessly convoluted gish gallop of a response to my post wouldn't stand up in any credible, formal debate. You haven't "refuted" anything -- in fact, you didn't even bother to directly address my primary thesis concerning the lack of evidence regarding contemporary feminist sentiments in particular as being the sole or primary destructive agent in marriages and families, and you have in fact clearly alluded to faith-based and incredulously outmoded argumentation in spite of claiming otherwise while opting to espouse some estranged, spiritually metaphysical line of thought with no credible empirical basis whatsoever. You've even lamented its demise in the latter part of your post. You're free to label it as legitimate philosophy all you'd like, but it's nevertheless based in one particular manifestation of religious faith.

With that, I'll ask whether you'd actually like me to respond to you, and whether you truly "mean it" this time around -- that is, unless you're only about to pathetically reiterate that you've "already schooled me" and that there's "no reason for me to respond" as a result while simultaneously proclaiming that you're not going to respond further to "feminatzis." Because, clearly, you "mean it" this time around.

You should also probably consider spelling "feminazis" correctly in the future, Jethro. Just a little friendly advice.

 

[just_monicat]

And that is really sad. While this isn't a dating site there have been people who have met from here and are now happily married. The owner of this site does not condemn anyone looking for someone, but people like to poke fun and harass those who do.

So far the OP has been mocked, and criticized over his own personal preference in what he wants in a mate. How on earth is that even a Christian attitude?
Then there is the horde of feminists that wanted to take personal offense over one person's view on how he wants his future marriage to work. He doesn't want some insane man hating feminist. Why is that so bad? He didn't say he wanted to oppress his wife. He didn't say he wanted her to be a baby factory, but that is how he is treated.

Anyway, I'm sorry you have been treated badly too. Seems to happen quite often. What a shame.

you have succeeded in making one of my points. most women (not all) won't respond well to such a "drive by" personal ad.

frankly, i see nothing wrong with his using CC to find a woman. but i do object to his approach and obvious lack of concern in the fact that he is subjugating and perverting these forums to turn them into a "christian mingle" style dating web site.

while you don't seem to have a problem with this, let me ask you this? how would you like it if this site became overrun with such ads? what if they outnumbered the "other threads"?

also, you seem to speak on behalf of the site owner as if this is acceptable, and i've been informed that such overt, dating website behavior isn't acceptable.

i personally couldn't care less what his "wish list" is for a woman. but the virtuous woman he's seeking probably isn't going to be found this way.

by the way, be careful who you're labeling in this "horde" of feminists. the careless use and application of labels can certainly go both ways. : )

 

[Gary]

What strikes me most about his wish list for a woman is the absence of a sammich-making requirement. Was this just an oversight?

 

[Tintin]

What strikes me most about his wish list for a woman is the absence of a sammich-making requirement. Was this just an oversight?

Not everyone likes sammiches.

 

[Elizabeth619]

you have succeeded in making one of my points. most women (not all) won't respond well to such a "drive by" personal ad.

frankly, i see nothing wrong with his using CC to find a woman. but i do object to his approach and obvious lack of concern in the fact that he is subjugating and perverting these forums to turn them into a "christian mingle" style dating web site.

while you don't seem to have a problem with this, let me ask you this? how would you like it if this site became overrun with such ads? what if they outnumbered the "other threads"?

also, you seem to speak on behalf of the site owner as if this is acceptable, and i've been informed that such overt, dating website behavior isn't acceptable.

i personally couldn't care less what his "wish list" is for a woman. but the virtuous woman he's seeking probably isn't going to be found this way.

by the way, be careful who you're labeling in this "horde" of feminists. the careless use and application of labels can certainly go both ways. : )

I have seen the site owner state in threads that he is ok with people searching for companionship. I used to tell others "this isn't a dating site", and Robo made it clear in a thread a while back that it is ok with him. If a person is "trolling" then that is another story, and if people are that disruptive they can always be reported.


I also don't encourage online dating, but if that is what someone wants then so be it. As far as saying hordes or feminists I meant what I said. BTW, that didn't necessarily mean YOU. As a matter of fact I paid little attention to your posts, but I have seen a few other ladies make posts in other threads and make it clear their view of feminism. So yes, I do feel that "hordes" was appropriate for some ladies here. Any you can label me however you want. I am sure I will not lose sleep over it.

 

[Lizathrose]

You're right, my analogy was somewhat sloppy. A better one would be, "While women are capable of intelligence, and can voluntarily pursue jobs as a judge or lawyer, overall they score lower on IQ test than men. Therefore they should not be eligible for jury duty."

I am not opposed to females serving on juries, btw. It just seems monstrously self-serving for your equality to stop where you might have to be forced into a dangerous job that you might be fully capable of.

That's a flatly false analogy, and it's one of the better demonstrations of why analogies in general make extremely poor points for debate. Let's clear a few things up.

There's a clear distinction to be made between purely intellectual or social issues in which women don't substantially differ from men (if at all) and those involving very real issues that are heavily contingent upon discrepancies between genders where applicable. You're free to assert that I'm advocating "la carte" feminism as much as you'd like, but the notion that equality must either be absolute or completely relegated to traditional societal gender roles is a false dichotomy that utterly fails to acknowledge the practical ramifications of the matter. It costs a given nation's military far more to train women for direct combat than it does for men, for instance, since women demonstrably fail qualifications more often and subsequently must retake qualification courses at the State's expense. Furthermore, and irrespective of exceptions, women and men differ substantially in terms of endurance and physical prowess -- which is potentially disastrous. What if a large contingent of women had been involved in the battle of Chosin Reservoir, for instance?

If you're capable of seeing past the notion that I'm "self-serving" in espousing social, economic and political equality for all practical intents and purposes while disputing the pragmatically unjustifiable notion that equality should somehow arbitrarily extend to its logical extreme, you'll find that there's a considerable amount of rationale that's arguably for the objective, common good.

 

[Elizabeth619]

It isn't the OP's preferences we have a huge problem with (everyone is entitled to their own preference) so much as his adversarial and arrogant attitude. When someone writes that they are seeking a wife " who hasn't bought into the lie of secular feminism which has destroyed marriage and family life in America" they are asking for a philosophical debate and reaction. He could have phrased this in another way such as his ideal is a woman who finds great satisfaction in being a homemaker and caregiver. Many of us would still know we aren't that woman and aren't interested, but he would not have come across as saying that we are all outside of God's will and buying into a lie if we don't want that.

He also started his post by saying that he doesn't care about the ridicule he will face, but then has felt the need to argue with and in many cases insult those who have disagreed with him. Look at his response to my interpretation of his post. He had a choice in how to respond and could have responded by saying "cinder is right about one thing, her "clarifications" do not at all reflect my true heart or intent. This is what I want to be for my future wife:" and gone on to talk about his hopes and desires instead of pretty much attempting a character assassination on me. Most of his post is letting me know that a brainwashed feminist like me who would just shack up with a guy could never possibly understand his desire for a real commitment or a Christian marriage (just read some of my other posts if you want to know to what extent the cinder he describes exists only in his head).

No we have not been overly kind to the OP, but as I said in a previous post this is his second "if you want to be my wife please contact me" thread in less than a month and he comes across as so puffed up with knowledge that it is hard to take him seriously. For most of us this is either sad ( because he really has no clue how off-putting his attitude is), ridiculous, or trollish (he knows exactly how he is coming across and just wants to have a go at self confident women because he's bitter that no woman wants to be with him). If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to learn to engage with people in humility and on a relational level not just on an intellectual and argumentative level. All that said if you think he sounds like a wonderful guy and you want to be with him, all the best to both of you.

IF he is trolling then why continue to feed into it? Wouldn't that make you or others just as guilty? If you don't respond to a troll they usually go away. I also never stated i had an interest in him whatsoever. I happen to be in a relationship. All I said was the behavior in this thread was a little bothersome

 

[Lizathrose]

Equality should be equality all the way.

I'm going to make this very, very simple, Rachel.

Why?

 

[just_monicat]

I have seen the site owner state in threads that he is ok with people searching for companionship. I used to tell others "this isn't a dating site", and Robo made it clear in a thread a while back that it is ok with him. If a person is "trolling" then that is another story, and if people are that disruptive they can always be reported.

well, you are the first to say such a thing, when i have heard nothing but the opposite from several others, including a mod. by the way, i'd consider the OP borderline troll behavior.

I also don't encourage online dating, but if that is what someone wants then so be it. As far as saying hordes or feminists I meant what I said. BTW, that didn't necessarily mean YOU. As a matter of fact I paid little attention to your posts...

normally, i wouldn't assume you're making that label specific to me, but you did reply to someone's reply to my post, so that was the reason i made such a conclusion.

by the way, reading back, i didn't mean to infer that i was threatening to use a "label" on you (though i realize that's how it sounded), i simply meant that lots of people have done such a thing (even in this thread) and that we all ought to be careful in labelling, scolding and making unilateral assumptions on such little information. : )

 

[Elizabeth619]

well, you are the first to say such a thing, when i have heard nothing but the opposite from several others, including a mod. by the way, i'd consider the OP borderline troll behavior.



normally, i wouldn't assume you're making that label specific to me, but you did reply to someone's reply to my post, so that was the reason i made such a conclusion.

by the way, reading back, i didn't mean to infer that i was threatening to use a "label" on you (though i realize that's how it sounded), i simply meant that lots of people have done such a thing (even in this thread) and that we all ought to be careful in labelling, scolding and making unilateral assumptions on such little information. : )

Im not known in this forum for being politically correct. I am normally blunt no matter how compassionate I try to be. It is a blessing and a curse. WE are all guilty of making false assumptions at times. Maybe my assumption is wrong. Maybe it isn't, but at that present time I meant what I said. IF someone doesn't like it they are free to disagree.

 

[JimJimmers]

That's a flatly false analogy, and it's one of the better demonstrations of why analogies in general make extremely poor points for debate. Let's clear a few things up.

There's a clear distinction to be made between purely intellectual or social issues in which women don't substantially differ from men (if at all) and those involving very real issues that are heavily contingent upon discrepancies between genders where applicable. You're free to assert that I'm advocating "la carte" feminism as much as you'd like, but the notion that equality must either be absolute or completely relegated to traditional societal gender roles is a false dichotomy that utterly fails to acknowledge the practical ramifications of the matter.

I didn't say I was for traditional gender roles, I merely objected to where you drew the line.

It costs a given nation's military far more to train women for direct combat than it does for men, for instance, since women demonstrably fail qualifications more often and subsequently must retake qualification courses at the State's expense. Furthermore, and irrespective of exceptions, women and men differ substantially in terms of endurance and physical prowess -- which is potentially disastrous. What if a large contingent of women had been involved in the battle of Chosin Reservoir, for instance?

Economic and performance-related ramifications of females in combat is a legitimate point, but if you're talking those points you should forbid women from joining the army at all, not merely exclude them from the draft.

There are many women who I have no doubt would have outfought me at the Chosin Reservoir. In fact, doubling the draft pool would allow an increase in the minimum requirements to make it into the army, benefiting everyone.

Furthermore, women as a gender make better snipers than men, and have many other advantages such as requiring less food. Surely you can see from my point of view, that your "pragmatic equality" sounds like, "Equality when I want it, special treatment when I don't"?

If you're capable of seeing past the notion that I'm "self-serving" in espousing social, economic and political equality for all practical intents and purposes while disputing the pragmatically unjustifiable notion that equality should somehow arbitrarily extend to its logical extreme, you'll find that there's a considerable amount of rationale that's arguably for the objective, common good.

I looked past the notion that your position is not self-serving, but I didn't see anything. The phrase "arguably for the objective, common good" doesn't really mean anything. "Practical" can be used by anyone at any time as well.


Anyway, this has been interesting. I don't want to further derail this thread with another subject, but would you like to share with us your religious views? I'll make a new thread in that case, so this one can become something or die a peaceful death.

 

[Atwood]

Theology has nothing to do with the intrinsically social nature of the status of contemporary marriage and family structure. Theologians deal predominantly in spiritual matters pertaining to God and the nature of religious beliefs, not extrapolations from religious beliefs. Theology may offer an opinion on a given social matter, but it can't markedly associate anything without alluding to political science, demographics, or the like.

Lizathrose, posted some bold assertions.

How do you know that

1) theology has nothing to do with this?
2) this nature is intrinsically social?
3) the instrinsically social nature belongs to the status or is an attribute of the status?
4) the Bible doesn't prescribe culture?
5) the Bible (source of theology) does not have much to do prescriptively and descriptively with marriage and family structure?
6) theologians don't deal with extrapolations?
7) marriage and family structure are extrapolations instead of direct teaching?
8) Theology can't associate anything without such allusions, including allusions to "the like"?
9) Theology can't markedly associate anything without alluding to political science, demographics, or the like?

Do you have proof of the above?

 

[Atwood]

The Declaration of Independence doesn't contain the phrase "liberty and justice for all," love. Just a little Civics recap.

As for my original post in response to the OP, the notion of contemporary feminism as a "lie" that's "responsible for X, Y, and Z" is an assertion that ultimately begets a sentiment espousing more traditionally conservative roles for women, which in and of itself is explicitly antithetical to the social and correspondingly political equality between genders that's now deeply rooted in most of western civilization. How one can argue in favor of gender equality from a social perspective while simultaneously advocating restrictive, traditional roles for women, regardless of the institution in question, and on the basis of a traditional Biblical interpretation of gender roles, is comically ridiculous.

What if my potential husband decides to vote for X political candidate and instructs me to do the same one day, regardless of my personal beliefs? What if he decides to purchase a new vehicle against my wishes? What if he instructs my children not to pursue relationships with those of different religious preferences within the context of Christianity in spite of my own personal stance on the matter? Really -- if you're to "commend" feminists for striving toward equality, and if such equality were to exist in a "perfect world," how is it possible to coherently reconcile a textual reference along the lines of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 in any favorable light? Social, economic, and political equality inherently denotes the capacity for women to engage equally in matters pertaining to society or family.

As an aside, asserting that "secular feminism" is a "lie" that's responsible for the purported destruction of marriages and families is hardly speculation. It's a flatly unsubstantiated, positive assertion that attests directly to a belief concerning contemporary feminism's influence on the aforementioned institutions.

Do you have any proof for all that?
For starters, how do you know that it is
"an assertion that ultimately begets a sentiment"?

And for finals, what is the proof that
it is unsubstantiated?
And how do you know it is flatly unsubstantiated?
And how do you know it attests directly instead of indirectly?
And how do you know it is a belief about contemporary instead of stale feminism?

 

[Atwood]

With the disclaimer that I am in one of those moods and this post is for entertainment purposes only and in no way do I believe it to reflect the true heart or intent of the OP:

My clarifications are in blue:

If you are a woman in the United States seeking the same, private message me! I am a philosophy/theology grad student (I've spent a lot of time getting my head filled with theories of how everything should be) aiming to be a teacher (you would therefore be the learner and I'll teach you everything you need to know about how things are supposed to be). I am old fashioned (and if I had any PR skills or tact at all I would have changed this to traditional), willing to be assertive and be the pursuer.(that's why I asked any interested female to pm ME rather than finding ones I might be interested in) As far as the type of person I am seeking, perhaps someone who hasn't bought into the lie of secular feminism which has destroyed marriage and family life in America (I want a woman who wants to stay home, make babies, cook and clean)? Someone witty (make me laugh), athletic (chubby, unattractive ladies need not apply), non-prudish (I say I'm old fashioned but I want to go pretty far before the wedding)... a folky-guitar singer? Okay I shouldn't be so specific (but I'm still looking for my perfect match and I really am this picky), but the first for sure! I am not seeking an internet quickie-bride (I won't marry you just because you pm me), I desire to get to know and befriend a young woman in real life (that's why I'm looking on the internet) to see if the Lord might bless the relationship with a lifelong vocation (being married to me will be a lot of work) mirroring the nuptial (UNBREAKABLE) union between Christ and the Church (I'm a theology major, I'm going to overspiritualize everything, use big words you can't understand, and oh I don't believe in divorce).

ROFL.
He sure posted in vain:
"I really could care less for the ridicule this post may elicit, and I am not asking for anyone's advice on making this post either..."

Doth the lady protest too much? Are you going to invite me to the wedding?

 

[Lizathrose]

I didn't say I was for traditional gender roles, I merely objected to where you drew the line.



Economic and performance-related ramifications of females in combat is a legitimate point, but if you're talking those points you should forbid women from joining the army at all, not merely exclude them from the draft.

There are many women who I have no doubt would have outfought me at the Chosin Reservoir. In fact, doubling the draft pool would allow an increase in the minimum requirements to make it into the army, benefiting everyone.

Furthermore, women as a gender make better snipers than men, and have many other advantages such as requiring less food. Surely you can see from my point of view, that your "pragmatic equality" sounds like, "Equality when I want it, special treatment when I don't"?




I looked past the notion that your position is not self-serving, but I didn't see anything. The phrase "arguably for the objective, common good" doesn't really mean anything. "Practical" can be used by anyone at any time as well.


Anyway, this has been interesting. I don't want to further derail this thread with another subject, but would you like to share with us your religious views? I'll make a new thread in that case, so this one can become something or die a peaceful death.

Your clarified analogy suggests that I'm being illogical by drawing an allegedly arbitrary line between X issue and Y issue, and that really isn't the case at all. Again, there's a clear distinction to be made between domestic issues in which women usually perform on the roughly same par as men and issues involving direct combat roles for women, or any other issue in which gender, again, has a compelling and legitimate influence on the issue in question. I never implied that you advocated traditional gender roles -- I'm only attempting to demonstrate why your analogy is too shallow to offer any serious, credible objections to my stance.

I don't believe women should be excluded from the draft, either -- but that's not to imply that we should automatically be potentially subject for direct infantry combat roles within the draft. Female tankers and airmen would be fine (assuming they don't have to face the same qualifications as infantry, but I have no clue whether they do or not), or even female snipers, but front-line infantry combat is another world entirely. Doubling the draft pool and increasing qualification standards would be fine for indirect combat or non-direct-infantry roles, but if they were applied to direct combat roles for infantry or infantry-oriented combat, women would clearly fall even further behind men at the expense of the State in the absence of an efficient, rigorous screening process that would only end up dumping boatloads upon boatloads of women into other areas of the military, anyway. What would be the point, especially given the fact that there's an ample amount of qualified, capable men that could handle hypothetically higher qualification and fitness standards better than women?

I wholeheartedly stand by the belief that purely elective participation in direct combat roles, especially those involving direct infantry combat, is the most sensible discourse. A draft for women with respect to indirect combat or support roles is fine, and increasing qualification standards for these roles is also fine -- but again, there's a clear distinction to be made between the genders in terms of physical endurance and prowess. Dealing with the masses of women that would inevitably struggle in direct infantry combat training places a superfluous burden on the State; screening out most, or at least a large fraction, of women for these roles would be little more than a headache for those responsible for transferring draftees to other candidacies within the military while simultaneously only negligibly boosting the overall force of capable, trained female infantry at the economic expense of the State.