Ladies and Gentlemen,
In another thread, the point was brought up that men in today's society are often seen as second-class citizens.
A long-time, highly respected member made this very thought-provoking post as to why certain double-standards exist:
"Or maybe it's because we, as a society, accept and devalue men (in a completely different way than we devalue women). Case in point: a news reporter will say: "Seven died in the apartment fire this morning, among the victims: three women" as if that is more tragic than all seven victims being men. Actually, in the media, "man" or "men" are seldom used terms. They tend to only use "man" when he is the perpetrator of a crime. If he is the victim, he is a military "troop" or "officer." The gender of the soldier or the cop is only newsworthy if female."
In response, I wrote the following post in reply (slightly edited):
"I recently read about a civil rights group (comprised of both men and women) that is fighting to "win back" men's rights, such as during child custody cases or even when a woman is considering an abortion and the father has a right to say no.
Interestingly, this group also brought up the point that in the case of an emergency, men should have a right to be saved first, just as much as the women and children.
I found that fascinating. For instance, in the case of the Titanic--presumably, women and children (first class, of course) were to be escorted into the lifeboats first.
Who made the social "rule" that women and children should go first? (I'm not saying this to argue, but rather, I found myself thinking, "Who made up this rule? Humans or God, and why?") I don't know of a Bible passage that says, "If a building doth catcheth on fire, thou shalt save the women and childfolk first." But is it possible that humans "adopted" this social custom in obedience to God? ("For Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her.")
In my childhood home, my father always made sure that my mother and his kids filled their plates first before he took anything. Even though his children are well-past the age of grown adults, he does that still to this day. I remember when I was a kid and the hottest topic around was the Cold War. One night at dinner, my dad told us all that if a war did break out and we had only one piece of bread in the house, he would divide it between us and my mom and he would go without.
The modernists would argue that my Dad should have just as much right to that piece of bread as the rest of us. I definitely believe that the "right" is there, but know that my Dad would simply choose to waive it.
In the modern world, if the ship is sinking, who should be allowed to board the lifeboats first? Should it still be the women and children?
I'm guessing that not a single person here is going to say that adults should be saved before children (but just in case you do feel that way, the poll is anonymous). But after the children, which adults should be saved next, and why?
With all the talk in the church about gender roles in leadership and women's submission to those roles, this question should also be raised: Does being a man and taking the lead also mean that he should be willing to let others go ahead of him in a life-or-death situation?
Or does he have a right to preserve his own life, just as much as the woman who's sitting right next to him? If food supplies are limited, should the men be required to go without in order to let the women and children have their fill first? Why or why not? If I am a single woman who is expecting to be a in marriage with a man as the head of that household, is it reasonable to expect that he would waive his "right" to be saved ahead of his wife and children?
Please note: this thread is NOT meant to start arguments as to what men and women's roles are or what they should be, but rather, consider the question, do you still believe in the generalized social rule of "women and children" first?
There may not be any unanimous "right" or "wrong" answers--but I sure do think it's an interesting question. (Give me a few minutes to write a poll--and yes, long-time CC'ers are going to comment that this just might be my shortest poll ever.
)
In another thread, the point was brought up that men in today's society are often seen as second-class citizens.
A long-time, highly respected member made this very thought-provoking post as to why certain double-standards exist:
"Or maybe it's because we, as a society, accept and devalue men (in a completely different way than we devalue women). Case in point: a news reporter will say: "Seven died in the apartment fire this morning, among the victims: three women" as if that is more tragic than all seven victims being men. Actually, in the media, "man" or "men" are seldom used terms. They tend to only use "man" when he is the perpetrator of a crime. If he is the victim, he is a military "troop" or "officer." The gender of the soldier or the cop is only newsworthy if female."
In response, I wrote the following post in reply (slightly edited):
"I recently read about a civil rights group (comprised of both men and women) that is fighting to "win back" men's rights, such as during child custody cases or even when a woman is considering an abortion and the father has a right to say no.
Interestingly, this group also brought up the point that in the case of an emergency, men should have a right to be saved first, just as much as the women and children.
I found that fascinating. For instance, in the case of the Titanic--presumably, women and children (first class, of course) were to be escorted into the lifeboats first.
Who made the social "rule" that women and children should go first? (I'm not saying this to argue, but rather, I found myself thinking, "Who made up this rule? Humans or God, and why?") I don't know of a Bible passage that says, "If a building doth catcheth on fire, thou shalt save the women and childfolk first." But is it possible that humans "adopted" this social custom in obedience to God? ("For Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her.")
In my childhood home, my father always made sure that my mother and his kids filled their plates first before he took anything. Even though his children are well-past the age of grown adults, he does that still to this day. I remember when I was a kid and the hottest topic around was the Cold War. One night at dinner, my dad told us all that if a war did break out and we had only one piece of bread in the house, he would divide it between us and my mom and he would go without.
The modernists would argue that my Dad should have just as much right to that piece of bread as the rest of us. I definitely believe that the "right" is there, but know that my Dad would simply choose to waive it.
In the modern world, if the ship is sinking, who should be allowed to board the lifeboats first? Should it still be the women and children?
I'm guessing that not a single person here is going to say that adults should be saved before children (but just in case you do feel that way, the poll is anonymous). But after the children, which adults should be saved next, and why?
With all the talk in the church about gender roles in leadership and women's submission to those roles, this question should also be raised: Does being a man and taking the lead also mean that he should be willing to let others go ahead of him in a life-or-death situation?
Or does he have a right to preserve his own life, just as much as the woman who's sitting right next to him? If food supplies are limited, should the men be required to go without in order to let the women and children have their fill first? Why or why not? If I am a single woman who is expecting to be a in marriage with a man as the head of that household, is it reasonable to expect that he would waive his "right" to be saved ahead of his wife and children?
Please note: this thread is NOT meant to start arguments as to what men and women's roles are or what they should be, but rather, consider the question, do you still believe in the generalized social rule of "women and children" first?
There may not be any unanimous "right" or "wrong" answers--but I sure do think it's an interesting question. (Give me a few minutes to write a poll--and yes, long-time CC'ers are going to comment that this just might be my shortest poll ever.
)
