Being jobless doesn't mean not contributing. Many men (not just Westerners) search for partners who will be good wives and mothers. Being a good wife and mother requires more effort and diligence than any job I know of. Hence Proverbs 31.I think financial security has become a enormous factor to both genders. Having been in the dating pool for a while, I haven't met many men who want a woman who is jobless and can't contribute to expenses.
I understand. The same people who denigrate women who expect their men to provide are usually the same who denigrate stay-at-home moms as lazy, and who denigrate the men who seek a feminine woman as chauvinist. There are two systems at play - God's and the world's. It is extra sad when many Christians take the world's view of things. But from my perspective, the man's role is to provide, the woman's role is to support him (to be his lifesaver, I think, it how Genesis roughly translates). I don't see it as gold-digging for a woman to look for a man who will provide for and protect her. He gives her physical support - she gives him herself and bears his children.If a man wants a woman to look up to him as the breadwinner, it's easy to see that there are plenty of women out there (usually in other countries) who have less money than them and can comparatively be seen as good providers. But on the flip side, if a woman is looking for a provider, she is then labeled as being a materialistic gold-digger, or, if she goes out and seeks a career from which she gains provision, she is then seen as an evil, God-hating feminist. I'm certainly not trying to make this a battle of the sexes at all -- it's just that from my own experiences, I often feel like I just can't win.
You can't please all the people all the time. It's not heartless for a woman to search for a provider. It's not chauvinist for a man to search for a woman who will love him and bear his children.It's interesting that you mentioned the inversion of God-given roles -- I was always more of a provider in the few relationships I was in (but usually due to responsible choices, not the amount of money made.) But if I were to look for a provider, which I've never had, I would be seen as heartless and "looking for money." If I decided to try to work my way towards financial independence, I am then seen as a godless pagan female who is trying to usurp my God-given family role.
Yours sounds like a sad situation, and not one brought about by you. God does change us and provide for us, and our inheritance in Him is worth more than family. Indeed, as you point out, God gives us family through Him.I honestly don't know what the answers are, or should be. And I am having the personal experience that God changes our hearts along with our situations. Right now I'm on a trajectory of being single and never having children, and while part of me is sad about it, I think God has also changed me along the way.
My comment about the ones whose lives were destroyed was about those women who go through their lives trying to compete with and be equal to men, only to miss out on what they were created for. From your words, you are not one of these people.Being adopted, I have learned that family does not have to be by birth or biology -- trying to be a good auntie has filled any desires I might have had for kids -- and if I find myself alone for the rest of my life, God has blessed me with family and friends to help fill the void.
Not that I don't feel lonely, and not that I don't wish things were different at times.
But I certainly don't feel as if my life is destroyed, and in fact, feel that part of my current calling is to help other singles (and those who didn't expect to be single but now are, whether through death or divorce,) realize just that -- no matter what our social/relationship status, God still has a calling and a purpose for each of us in every individual circumstance.
Likewise, and God bless you too.God bless you and thank you for your input!![]()
Not really. I think most would agree that females in Western countries enjoy more privileges than males from a legal perspective (e.g. the job advertisements that encourage females to apply, and the laws that make this legal, but illegal to advertise in an identical way for the opposite gender). No man particularly wants to compete with a woman. If he wanted competition, he would find more challenge from another man. Many Western women don't really get that, and try to compete with men, yet wonder why men look elsewhere for wives.I think what you meant to say is women in western countries finally have the option to choose not to marry a bad guy at all rather than have to make the least bad choice of husband or be struggling and destitute and rarely given a fair chance.
It wasn't that her boyfriend wasn't an Israelite...Dinah finding a boyfriend who did not meet with her brothers approval.....cos he wsnt an Israelite....
all male Israelite had to be circumcised, thats what God had commanded. But yea I wasnt about to be explicit....!It wasn't that her boyfriend wasn't an Israelite...
Genesis 34:14 - 15
And they said unto them, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us:
But in this will we consent unto you: If ye will be as we be, that every male of you be circumcised;
Ha, ha. I didn't think it was explicit - it's just trimming proud flesh, and it is all through the bible, afterall....all male Israelite had to be circumcised, thats what God had commanded. But yea I wasnt about to be explicit....!
Yeah, true. I guess the truth is that the brothers killed Shechem because he had raped their sister. If Shechem had been honourable and asked to marry her, at worst they'd probably have said no. He might have lived happily ever after with Dinah if he just proposed first.in the story the boyfriend actually did go ahead with circumcision for Dinah..its even stated that he loved her and treated her kindly, but her brothers killed him anyway.
?!
Lol. Poor Filipino men.As to foreign women, I know only few married Filipino men. Maybe the reason is foreign women are intimidating for Filipino men. American women for example are much taller and earn a lot more than a typical Filipino. Even Americans themselves get intimidated by their own women that they look elsewhere, how much more for a Filipino.
hold on they SAID Dinah had been raped but he hadnt actually raped her. They THOUGHT she had been raped and lied about it but she wasnt actually raped.Ha, ha. I didn't think it was explicit - it's just trimming proud flesh, and it is all through the bible, afterall....It shouldn't be skin off anyone's nose, either way!
Yeah, true. I guess the truth is that the brothers killed Shechem because he had raped their sister. If Shechem had been honourable and asked to marry her, at worst they'd probably have said no. He might have lived happily ever after with Dinah if he just proposed first.
Genesis 34:13 And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father deceitfully, and said, because he had defiled Dinah their sister:
I'm not sure, but I think you're right. Some bible versions (or at least one) do say she was raped, but I trust the KJV the most, and that doesn't. The other language about speaking tenderly and love doesn't seem consistent with rape, either.hold on they SAID Dinah had been raped but he hadnt actually raped her. They THOUGHT she had been raped and lied about it but she wasnt actually raped.
I'm not sure, but I think you're right. Some bible versions (or at least one) do say she was raped, but I trust the KJV the most, and that doesn't. The other language about speaking tenderly and love doesn't seem consistent with rape, either.
The NIV says:
Now Dinah, the daughter Leah had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the women of the land. When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and raped her. His heart was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob; he loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her.
But the KJV says:
And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.
And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.
And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.
I guess the words "And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel" don't really seem to fit with rape (what rapist cares about his victim?) To take a wife doesn't imply the rape of the wife, and defilement can come from an unholy union, not just a rape (e.g. as in this case of an Israelite virgin and an uncircumcised heathen). But perhaps like you say, he didn't even realise he had done her wrong.Not sure how else you would interpret took and defile in the KJV. Using the translation comparison feature on Blue letter Bible the words used in various translations include violated, defiled, raped, sexually assaulted, by force, and humbled her. Interestingly the Spanish version they have (which I think is the older version like the KJV equivalent) would translate to dishonored her and the Latin Vulgate says opprimens virginem which I can't claim any great latin skills but sounds like it would mean something along the lines of oppressing or obtaining her virginty.
Much more interesting to talk about is this a story of love at first sight (gone wrong)? Because of the male dominated culture and focus in the story, we have absolutely no clue what Dinah's feelings were throughout this whole episode. All we know is she went out to meet the women of the land and met an overzealous suitor instead who desperately wanted her. We're not even sure if he ever realized that he had done her wrong.