This Is My Fireproof Thread

[JanniGirl]

Luther ... where's Melissa?

I miss her reasoned postings ....

 

[Luther073082]

Luther ... where's Melissa?

I miss her reasoned postings ....

She avoids debate threads when she can.

 

[JaneFW]

LOL! LOL! LOL! Women are so sensitive to each other! From what I've seen it's more often like a replay of the A-list behavior in high school. Total pecking order contest 24/7. If they aren't living Christ's life they are every bit as vicious as men, only they often use emotion as a weapon.

The idea that women are the less sinful or that there sin is is not as damaging is flatly laughable. That is the consistent meme that is being broadcast throughout our society and most people (including Christian men and women) are lapping it up. (The wrongs women do aren't as bad as the wrongs of men).

Where does vilifying men in general get you? I suspect that if you scrape a hair deeper then it will be a small step to vilifying Patriarchy and then blaming God. Patriarchy is the pattern, not the problem.

Guess how it's going to be in God's kingdom?? (BTW men won't be running things then either).

If you don't like authority and being under it, you're not going to like eternity.

What on earth are you responding to? You see, we have one guy saying that certain people are making up responses to posts that haven't been made and then I see this - wow. Amazing.

If you can't show me where I "vilified" men then you need to edit your post.

 

[I Art Laughing]

What on earth are you responding to? You see, we have one guy saying that certain people are making up responses to posts that haven't been made and then I see this - wow. Amazing.

If you can't show me where I "vilified" men then you need to edit your post.

JaneFW, you were not one of the worst apologists for this movie. My statements were based on others in this thread that were only mildly reflected in your statement.

You posited the notion that women aren't "that way with each other" and that they don't act confrontationally. The subtext of which is that they know how to better relate with one another. Furthermore, you seem indignant over criticism of the emotional affair suggesting that it is off base. You also suggested that the sub-text is in the eye of the beholder, that the movie is even handed in dealing with gender, I think that is inaccurate.

Apologia of this movie is a vilification of men on the basis of their gender. Misandry.

If I came in here and suggested that Julia Roberts character should have been a better wife to her wonderful husband on "Sleeping with the Enemy" and started holding that film up as an example of how women aren't submissive enough to their husband, I'm sure many here wouldn't have any problems calling me a misogynist, would they? Wouldn't I be vilifying "un-submissive" women?

The problem for all of us is that we are swimming in an ocean of man-bashing. It's like a fish in water asking, "What's water?".

Men and women are villains because of the sin that we all bear. We are not more or less villainous based on our gender. Women are every bit as bad as men, to suggest otherwise is to flirt with a lie. By suggesting that women are more virtuous is connoting that men are less. I used to think females were generally nicer than males, then I became a Youth Pastor with a group consisting of all girls. Did I get my eyes opened....

Also, I wasn't referring to YOU specifically when I asked "Where does vilifying men get you?" It was a rhetorical point about the larger meme in society. I'll edit to better reflect that point.

 

[JaneFW]

JaneFW, you were not one of the worst apologists for this movie. My statements were based on others in this thread that were only mildly reflected in your statement.

You posited the notion that women aren't "that way with each other" and that they don't act confrontationally. The subtext of which is that they know how to better relate with one another. Furthermore, you seem indignant over criticism of the emotional affair suggesting that it is off base. You also suggested that the sub-text is in the eye of the beholder, that the movie is even handed in dealing with gender, I think that is inaccurate.

Apologia of this movie is a vilification men on the basis of their gender. Misandry.

If I came in here and suggested that Julia Roberts character should have been a better wife to her wonderful husband on "Sleeping with the Enemy" and started holding that film up as an example of how women aren't submissive enough to their husband, I'm sure many here wouldn't have any problems calling me a misogynist, would they? Wouldn't I be vilifying "un-submissive" women?

The problem for all of us is that we are swimming in an ocean of man-bashing. It's like a fish in water asking, "What's water?".

Men and women are villains because of the sin that we all bear. We are not more or less villainous based on our gender. Women are every bit as bad as men, to suggest otherwise is to flirt with a lie. By suggesting that women are more virtuous is connoting that men are less. I used to think females were generally nicer than males, then I became a Youth Pastor with a group consisting of all girls. Did I get my eyes opened....

Also, I wasn't referring to YOU specifically when I asked "Where does vilifying men get you?" It was a rhetorical point about the larger meme in society. I'll edit to better reflect that point.

I quite clearly said "what if" women don't interact with each other the way that men interact with each other. You can create your own subtext, but your subtext is in your head, not mine. FTR, women do NOT interact with each other the way that men interact with each other. They just don't. I'm not saying that their interactions are better, they are just different.

And btw, I am not any kind of apologist for this movie. I didn't like it. I don't ever want to see it again. I just don't think it's absolutely terrible, that's all.

 

[Conservativation]

JaneFW, you were not one of the worst apologists for this movie. My statements were based on others in this thread that were only mildly reflected in your statement.

You posited the notion that women aren't "that way with each other" and that they don't act confrontationally. The subtext of which is that they know how to better relate with one another. Furthermore, you seem indignant over criticism of the emotional affair suggesting that it is off base. You also suggested that the sub-text is in the eye of the beholder, that the movie is even handed in dealing with gender, I think that is inaccurate.

Apologia of this movie is a vilification men on the basis of their gender. Misandry.

If I came in here and suggested that Julia Roberts character should have been a better wife to her wonderful husband on "Sleeping with the Enemy" and started holding that film up as an example of how women aren't submissive enough to their husband, I'm sure many here wouldn't have any problems calling me a misogynist, would they? Wouldn't I be vilifying "un-submissive" women?

The problem for all of us is that we are swimming in an ocean of man-bashing. It's like a fish in water asking, "What's water?".

Men and women are villains because of the sin that we all bear. We are not more or less villainous based on our gender. Women are every bit as bad as men, to suggest otherwise is to flirt with a lie. By suggesting that women are more virtuous is connoting that men are less. I used to think females were generally nicer than males, then I became a Youth Pastor with a group consisting of all girls. Did I get my eyes opened....

Also, I wasn't referring to YOU specifically when I asked "Where does vilifying men get you?" It was a rhetorical point about the larger meme in society. I'll edit to better reflect that point.

The "whats water?" metaphor is brilliant, simple and brilliant

 

[I Art Laughing]

And btw, I am not any kind of apologist for this movie. I didn't like it. I don't ever want to see it again. I just don't think it's absolutely terrible, that's all.

I will admit I had a visceral reaction when you suggested that 'it would never be enough', as if men on here were being unreasonable in their problems with this film. I may have misunderstood, or read it out of context. But, then again, I'm a man.

I raise ducks (my wife's ducks to be exact). Drakes (males) are more confrontational than ducks. I've had 5 drakes survive until they were fully fledged and 7 ducks (females). Between the foxes, hawks, dogs, owls, lynx and whatever fanged clawed thing passing by that want's a duck dinner I have lost all five of my drakes in the course of the last 3 years. The last two died last week due to a lynx racing them in their run until they panicked into the fence where it killed them.

I didn't lose one duck, not one, until all my drakes where dead. Not one. The night my last drake died, I lost two ducks. My roosters also tend to be the first to die as well, and it's not because they are slow and inattentive. It's because they stand up to predators and predators are bigger and it isn't a fair fight. The hens are generally okay.

That aspect was portrayed by the movie, Caleb risked his life to save women and children, which was good. The sad thing is how discounted and reviled this behavior in men is. From staying on sinking ships, running into burning buildings, crawling under houses to work on "plumbing", lifting back injuring things to provide for our families or doing manual labor in dirty, hot and noxious conditions to inventing modern technologies so that their families are NOT exposed to discomfort or dangers, it should be obvious that men can be very self-sacrificing. Then the tendency of society is to slam them for being 'masculine', just being male opens us up for derision, they get criticized for their self-sacrifice. The get belittled for not doing it with style, with empathy, while communicating, or for coming home "grouchy". Why is that? Why aren't the worst features of "femininity" similarly used for plot points in cheesy movies?

I have a clue. Men don't want to complain. Most would rather go out and stare the predator in the face than let their women down. Most will worry themselves sick that they aren't able to provide what their families deserve. Most would fight for their families dragging their guts behind them before they would put their women in the front lines. The enemy wants to change that, how do you suppose he's going about doing that?

Anyway, I overreacted to you (slightly). But I can still see that you can't see it.

 

[I Art Laughing]

For the record, after watching several of Janette Oke's "Love Comes Softly Saga" movies with my wife, they suck too. Full of ridiculous feminist revisionism, misandry, and outright man-bashing I told her I wouldn't be watching any more of that "Christian" trash.

Women are getting their ears tickled, that should worry them. The siren songs will put us all on the rocks.

Here is a pointer, if the movie has an abandoned single mother, a "controlling" husband, a "glass ceiling", a completely man butt kicking female protagonist,a cheating husband, or a rape/stalking victim (ie. any program that appears on WE, Oxygen or Lifetime), then your guard should be up. Chances are it is a man-bashing pile of stinking feces. When these plot points are used it isn't an automatic stinker, but given the poor writing these days, and the nature of the itchy ears out and about these days, it usually is a stinker.

 

[livingword26]

I will admit I had a visceral reaction when you suggested that 'it would never be enough', as if men on here were being unreasonable in their problems with this film. I may have misunderstood, or read it out of context. But, then again, I'm a man.

I raise ducks (my wife's ducks to be exact). Drakes (males) are more confrontational than ducks. I've had 5 drakes survive until they were fully fledged and 7 ducks (females). Between the foxes, hawks, dogs, owls, lynx and whatever fanged clawed thing passing by that want's a duck dinner I have lost all five of my drakes in the course of the last 3 years. The last two died last week due to a lynx racing them in their run until they panicked into the fence where it killed them.

I didn't lose one duck, not one, until all my drakes where dead. Not one. The night my last drake died, I lost two ducks. My roosters also tend to be the first to die as well, and it's not because they are slow and inattentive. It's because they stand up to predators and predators are bigger and it isn't a fair fight. The hens are generally okay.

That aspect was portrayed by the movie, Caleb risked his life to save women and children, which was good. The sad thing is how discounted and reviled this behavior in men is. From staying on sinking ships, running into burning buildings, crawling under houses to work on "plumbing", lifting back injuring things to provide for our families or doing manual labor in dirty, hot and noxious conditions to inventing modern technologies so that their families are NOT exposed to discomfort or dangers, it should be obvious that men can be very self-sacrificing. Then the tendency of society is to slam them for being 'masculine', just being male opens us up for derision, they get criticized for their self-sacrifice. The get belittled for not doing it with style, with empathy, while communicating, or for coming home "grouchy". Why is that? Why aren't the worst features of "femininity" similarly used for plot points in cheesy movies?

I have a clue. Men don't want to complain. Most would rather go out and stare the predator in the face than let their women down. Most will worry themselves sick that they aren't able to provide what their families deserve. Most would fight for their families dragging their guts behind them before they would put their women in the front lines. The enemy wants to change that, how do you suppose he's going about doing that?

Anyway, I overreacted to you (slightly). But I can still see that you can't see it.

I think you missed the point the movie was trying to make with his heroism. It did show him to be a hero out in the world, but made the point that he had responsibilities in the home as well. In no way was his heroism as a firefighter looked upon as something bad. That is really reading something in there that just isn't there. In fact, I have seen interviews with the writers, and they specifically wanted to portray firefighters because they are heroes, abd they have seen the stats that show that these heroes have a larger divorce rate than the rest of the population.

Whatever else you want to say or think about the movie, you can't say that being a fireman was looked down upon. In fact if anything, they showed it to be more heroic than being a doctor. They made a clear point that while Caleb was out fighting fires, this slime dog man was hitting on his wife, and she was eating it up. That doesn't make the doctor, or her look good. Caleb was the one who shined.

 

[I Art Laughing]

I think you missed the point the movie was trying to make with his heroism. It did show him to be a hero out in the world, but made the point that he had responsibilities in the home as well. In no way was his heroism as a firefighter looked upon as something bad. That is really reading something in there that just isn't there. In fact, I have seen interviews with the writers, and they specifically wanted to portray firefighters because they are heroes, abd they have seen the stats that show that these heroes have a larger divorce rate than the rest of the population.

Whatever else you want to say or think about the movie, you can't say that being a fireman was looked down upon. In fact if anything, they showed it to be more heroic than being a doctor. They made a clear point that while Caleb was out fighting fires, this slime dog man was hitting on his wife, and she was eating it up. That doesn't make the doctor, or her look good. Caleb was the one who shined.

The guys that sell soft porn "make" women look good too. His heroism WAS discounted which is an accurate portrayal. It is the most masculine men that participate in the military, police and firefighting. I'm an EMT and I've had some bad days as well. It is the males ability to forge ahead in the face of danger (which is quite often an admirable trait) that is OFTEN discounted, unappreciated, and reviled. When women don't appreciate their husbands it opens the door to the enemy. They won't respect them, they won't be thankful for the sacrifices being made on their behalf, they won't support them and like society they will begin to be disgusted by them. I've seen it in this thread.

Yes, Caleb "shined". Here is my problem with that. If men are expected (like Caleb) by their wives to sacrifice all in order to win their wives heart then an unrealistic expectation is being formed in the hearts of MANY MANY women. Much like the unrealistic expectations formed in the hearts of MANY men when they peruse "soft" porn. Both make spouses unthankful for what the Lord has provided them, both break relationship. Maybe men should withhold "love" unless their wives fit in a size 4 dress and are completely submissive, that is the paradigm being established (in reverse) by this film.

The fact that they portrayed the doctor as a slime ball doesn't make me feel better about the misandry in this movie. As I told my wife, I could see being mildly inspired to be a better husband by this movie. I could see showing this film at a men's retreat (with discussion). On the other hand, I see couples or women watching this film as being DESTRUCTIVE.

Watch this movie if you want to be dissatisfied with your husband and you want him to feel guilty for not being more self-sacrificing. Watch this movie if you need yet another avenue to bash your husband for things he already is feeling condemned about.

 

[HisBlood2011]

For the record, after watching several of Janette Oke's "Love Comes Softly Saga" movies with my wife, they suck too. Full of ridiculous feminist revisionism, misandry, and outright man-bashing I told her I wouldn't be watching any more of that "Christian" trash.

Women are getting their ears tickled, that should worry them. The siren songs will put us all on the rocks.

Here is a pointer, if the movie has an abandoned single mother, a "controlling" husband, a "glass ceiling", a completely man butt kicking female protagonist,a cheating husband, or a rape/stalking victim (ie. any program that appears on WE, Oxygen or Lifetime), then your guard should be up. Chances are it is a man-bashing pile of stinking feces. When these plot points are used it isn't an automatic stinker, but given the poor writing these days, and the nature of the itchy ears out and about these days, it usually is a stinker.

So any time I see a movie with a controlling wife, or an abusive wife, should I also throw away all value the movie has, and sum it up to female bashing?

Let me tell you something. In every movie I have ever seen, where a man is crazy or abusive, there are at least 10 men who are kind or courageous. And yes, the kind and courageous men aren't lacking in their ability to kick some ...., either. Also, in those movies, (I am thinking of one in particular, right now) there are also women who are deceitful, or lacking in moral values. Iow, just because a movie has a bad man in it, doesn't make it a man bashing film.

 

[JaneFW]

The guys that sell soft porn "make" women look good too. His heroism WAS discounted which is an accurate portrayal. It is the most masculine men that participate in the military, police and firefighting. I'm an EMT and I've had some bad days as well. It is the males ability to forge ahead in the face of danger (which is quite often an admirable trait) that is OFTEN discounted, unappreciated, and reviled. When women don't appreciate their husbands it opens the door to the enemy. They won't respect them, they won't be thankful for the sacrifices being made on their behalf, they won't support them and like society they will begin to be disgusted by them. I've seen it in this thread.

Yes, Caleb "shined". Here is my problem with that. If men are expected (like Caleb) by their wives to sacrifice all in order to win their wives heart then an unrealistic expectation is being formed in the hearts of MANY MANY women. Much like the unrealistic expectations formed in the hearts of MANY men when they peruse "soft" porn. Both make spouses unthankful for what the Lord has provided them, both break relationship. Maybe men should withhold "love" unless their wives fit in a size 4 dress and are completely submissive, that is the paradigm being established (in reverse) by this film.

The fact that they portrayed the doctor as a slime ball doesn't make me feel better about the misandry in this movie. As I told my wife, I could see being mildly inspired to be a better husband by this movie. I could see showing this film at a men's retreat (with discussion). On the other hand, I see couples or women watching this film as being DESTRUCTIVE.

Watch this movie if you want to be dissatisfied with your husband and you want him to feel guilty for not being more self-sacrificing. Watch this movie if you need yet another avenue to bash your husband for things he already is feeling condemned about.

If a man is "feeling" condemned about the things shown in the movie, then he needs to do more than "feel" he needs to act.

I didn't see the movie as destructive, it just doesn't interest me.

You say that I can't "see" things your way and that just makes me laugh. Why do I need to see things your way? You're not my husband and I have no idea who you actually are other than some guy that just started posting here.

You may think that women are getting their ears tickled, as a woman I can tell you otherwise. You have no idea how many messages we are hearing constantly that let us know how unsatisfying we are to our husbands, and how we aren't good moms unless we are fulfilling our children's every needs - while not spoiling them at the same time, and fulfilling our husband's wildest fantasies, whilst still being holy and pure. I certainly personally don't need any more messages than the ones I am trying to deal with at the moment.

 

[Romanseight2005]

If a man is "feeling" condemned about the things shown in the movie, then he needs to do more than "feel" he needs to act.

I didn't see the movie as destructive, it just doesn't interest me.

You say that I can't "see" things your way and that just makes me laugh. Why do I need to see things your way? You're not my husband and I have no idea who you actually are other than some guy that just started posting here.

You may think that women are getting their ears tickled, as a woman I can tell you otherwise. You have no idea how many messages we are hearing constantly that let us know how unsatisfying we are to our husbands, and how we aren't good moms unless we are fulfilling our children's every needs - while not spoiling them at the same time, and fulfilling our husband's wildest fantasies, whilst still being holy and pure. I certainly personally don't need any more messages than the ones I am trying to deal with at the moment.

Let's not forget the pressure on women to not age, or else expect our men to stop being attracted to us when we do.

 

[JaneFW]

Let's not forget the pressure on women to not age, or else expect our men to stop being attracted to us when we do.

Oh exactly. As a woman who will be 50 in 8 months, I am very leery of what that means to my husband when he is so attracted to very young woman. I was about ready to have botox! The pressure is very big on us to be a chick as well as all the other things.

 

[Romanseight2005]

The guys that sell soft porn "make" women look good too.


Really? They don't make women look like a word I won't say on here? There is nothing good about being trashy.


His heroism WAS discounted which is an accurate portrayal. It is the most masculine men that participate in the military, police and firefighting. I'm an EMT and I've had some bad days as well. It is the males ability to forge ahead in the face of danger (which is quite often an admirable trait) that is OFTEN discounted, unappreciated, and reviled. When women don't appreciate their husbands it opens the door to the enemy. They won't respect them, they won't be thankful for the sacrifices being made on their behalf, they won't support them and like society they will begin to be disgusted by them. I've seen it in this thread.



So what are you saying, that his job should be enough and nothing should be expected of his on the homefront? What I hear you saying, is that his job should be elevated to the place, of replacing his responsibility to his family, is that right? If he's a hero at work, he should only be served at home?


Yes, Caleb "shined". Here is my problem with that. If men are expected (like Caleb) by their wives to sacrifice all in order to win their wives heart then an unrealistic expectation is being formed in the hearts of MANY MANY women. Much like the unrealistic expectations formed in the hearts of MANY men when they peruse "soft" porn.

It's not that soft porn makes them pursue unrealistic, yet good standards. It is pursuing the wrong things, all the way around.

Both make spouses unthankful for what the Lord has provided them, both break relationship. Maybe men should withhold "love" unless their wives fit in a size 4 dress and are completely submissive, that is the paradigm being established (in reverse) by this film.

But here's the problem with that logic. I could fix my mind on the attributes of Christ, and think lower of my husband, but actually, I see the traits that my husband has that are Christlike, so it makes me appreciate him instead.

However, no matter how physically alluring a woman is, she will age, and lose her youthful beauty.

In short, we are supposed to be Christlike, and nowhere are we told to be held to any kind of standard by appearance.


Watch this movie if you want to be dissatisfied with your husband and you want him to feel guilty for not being more self-sacrificing. Watch this movie if you need yet another avenue to bash your husband for things he already is feeling condemned about.

Well, it didn't cause me to be dissatisfied with my husband,anymore than reading about Christ does, but then again, my husband doesn't think his only responsibility is to go to work.

 

[hijklmnop]

Here is a pointer, if the movie has an abandoned single mother, a "controlling" husband, a "glass ceiling", a completely man butt kicking female protagonist,a cheating husband, or a rape/stalking victim (ie. any program that appears on WE, Oxygen or Lifetime), then your guard should be up. Chances are it is a man-bashing pile of stinking feces. When these plot points are used it isn't an automatic stinker, but given the poor writing these days, and the nature of the itchy ears out and about these days, it usually is a stinker.

This is laughably OTT IMO; now any movie with a male villain of any kind is man-bashing? Like abandoned single mothers, controlling husbands, glass ceilings, adulterers, rapists and stalkers don't exist? And if they do we can't acknowledge it by chance that other men might get offended because they feel they're being bashed just because they share that character's gender? And like movies don't ever show the "bad" sides of women too? Don't kid yourself into thinking that women aren't largely used and abused in the media in their own ways, picked for their attractiveness/sexuality, dumped when they're past their prime (30's), portrayed as highly sexualized, conniving, manipulative shrews, etc. If you can't handle any man being some kind of a villain in a movie without taking it personally then you can't watch anything; and the same goes for women! The truth is, humans, regardless of gender, are complex creatures; we all have bad and we all have good. Movies would be pretty boring and dishonest if they only showed the good wouldn't they?

 

[McScribe]

Let me ask this: if feminists don't care about the male point of view, why should men care about their point of view? It always seems very one sided--woman as splendid victim, man as jerk. Like seriously--why should we care? I wonder if feminists realize how contemptuous their words sound. But wait--why would they care? If it is about women's liberation it doesn't matter what you do as long as women benefit, right? Isn't that the basic trickle down effect of marxism anyway?

 

[hijklmnop]

Let me ask this: if feminists don't care about the male point of view, why should men care about their point of view? It always seems very one sided--woman as splendid victim, man as jerk. Like seriously--why should we care? I wonder if feminists realize how contemptuous their words sound. But wait--why would they care? If it is about women's liberation it doesn't matter what you do as long as women benefit, right? Isn't that the basic trickle down effect of marxism anyway?

What post in this thread does this have to do with? Seems out of the blue.

Anyways, speaking for myself, I care about men as much as I care for any person, but I don't care to entertain views held by men that I disagree with. I'm not obligated to. I care about men, but I don't care for patriarchy or rudeness towards women. There's a big difference. IMO you're only seeing what you're sensitized to look for with this woman-as-splendid-victim-man-as-jerk perspective. Have you not noticed how many women have objected to how women are portrayed and treated in the media as well?

 

[I Art Laughing]

Let's not forget the pressure on women to not age, or else expect our men to stop being attracted to us when we do.

As opposed to being replaced by women at their work and losing their place being a provider to the family? I'm not attracted to my wife because of her youth, I'm attracted to her because of her. She is MY wife, the relationship is the basis of the attraction. My lust doesn't have anything to do with relationship, it's divorced from all reality and results in an emotional void.

 

[McScribe]

What post in this thread does this have to do with? Seems out of the blue.

Anyways, speaking for myself, I care about men as much as I care for any person, but I don't care to entertain views held by men that I disagree with. I'm not obligated to. I care about men, but I don't care for patriarchy or rudeness towards women. There's a big difference. IMO you're only seeing what you're sensitized to look for with this woman-as-splendid-victim-man-as-jerk perspective. Have you not noticed how many women have objected to how women are portrayed and treated in the media as well?

I don't see the slightest evidence of what you are professing to be true here. The mention of how women are depicted is presented as a rebuttal to any concern.