Wouldn't gender equality be a positive thing for all?

[mkgal1]

I think we're all on board with the idea that equal and identical are two separate concepts.

 

[WolfGate]

This isn't quite what I'm meaning by "gender equality" (not that I have anything against an androgynous female).....but is that what comes to people's mind when they hear that term gender equality?

Does a woman choosing the profession of chemical engineer or a building contractor mean she has to appear androgynous? Isn't that an outward appearance? Isn't there *much* more than the external?



Exactly....and we are talking about the former.

Are we? Your original post said "it seems like knocking down the typical stereotypes (like the narrow definitions of what it means to be "feminine" and "masculine") would be a *good* thing".

When I read that, I didn't read roles, jobs, value but rather traits that we tend to view as masculine or feminine. From the OP it seemed to me like we were mixing to two - and they are separate.

Perhaps you were only thinking about things like jobs that are viewed by some as a man's job or a woman's job - but I didn't read your OP that way.

On your engineer question, for example - nope - I think it perfectly fine if a female chemical engineer or building contractor dresses in whatever is her preference. If she chooses to wear dresses and makeup and it doesn't pose a problem doing the job, that is great. Actually that would fit in with my thoughts very well. If she chooses to dress like the men do, fine as well.

 

[mkgal1]

I think that link from the California attorney's site describes well what I mean by gender equality:

Fortunately, in most cases in California, the court’s custody decisions are no longer based upon biased preferences for mothers, but are based solely on the best interest of the child, which could result in any number of varying timeshare schedules.

In making custody decisions, the courts take many issues into consideration as they are evaluating each parent individually.

 

[mkgal1]

Are we? Your original post said "it seems like knocking down the typical stereotypes (like the narrow definitions of what it means to be "feminine" and "masculine") would be a *good* thing".

When I read that, I didn't read roles, jobs, value but rather traits that we tend to view as masculine or feminine. From the OP it seemed to me like we were mixing to two - and they are separate.

Perhaps you were only thinking about things like jobs that are viewed by some as a man's job or a woman's job - but I didn't read your OP that way.

On your engineer question, for example - nope - I think it perfectly fine if a female chemical engineer or building contractor dresses in whatever is her preference. If she chooses to wear dresses and makeup and it doesn't pose a problem doing the job, that is great. Actually that would fit in with my thoughts very well.

Right.....and I gave a few examples off the top of my head (some were external....some had to do with interests). Those all make up a person (their interests.....their natural body size...their character traits...their occupation, etc). For example.....a typical stereotype related to occupations: men are the chemical engineers and general contractors; women are nurses or elementary school teachers. I don't consider those separate from appearance.

Can't a woman be feminine w/o wearing a dress and makeup? What I asked was this: "Does a woman choosing the profession of chemical engineer or a building contractor mean she has to appear androgynous?" I don't mean only external appearance---I mean as a whole. People are more than their external. Does wearing jeans and work boots....sans makeup cause her to be perceived as androgynous?

You said a woman wearing a dress and makeup would fit in with your thoughts very well. Are you saying you expect women to wear dresses and makeup or what are you suggesting?

 

[WolfGate]

Right.....and I gave a few examples off the top of my head (some were external....some had to do with interests). Those all make up a person (their interests.....their natural body size...their character traits...their occupation, etc). For example.....a typical stereotype related to occupations: men are the chemical engineers and general contractors; women are nurses or elementary school teachers. I don't consider those separate.

Can't a woman be feminine w/o wearing a dress and makeup? What I asked was this: "Does a woman choosing the profession of chemical engineer or a building contractor mean she has to appear androgynous?" Does wearing jeans and work boots....sans makeup cause her to be perceived as androgynous?

Sure a woman can be feminine in jeans and boots. It's a bigger picture - mannerisms, grooming, dress, actions, attitude - that determine what I'm referring to as masculine or feminine. Even then it's a range and a mix of characteristics that can be different for different people, but there are tendencies for each sex. And none of it has anything to do with the ability to do a job.

My only point was that I don't want to throw out the things that make men and women unique (beyond the simple biology) as part or trying to achieve equality.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Are you talking about 1st Corinthians 16:13, Link?

I can't say I am on board with the idea that's directly from God. Sorry. Paul may have penned it....and people of that time (and today) may "get it", because it will probably always be the standard to believe it's masculine to be strong.....but I just can't buy that's God's standard (to make that distinction). I don't know.....maybe it is a translation thing....I am not sure either way.


I believe Christ encouraged *all* of us to "stand firm in the faith" and praised a woman (and rebuked the men who were criticizing her) who was doing just that ("standing firm in her faith").

1 Corinthians 16:13 Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong.

Perhaps other versions would help to see the distinction here. It was directed to men:

Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong (NASB).

Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong (ESV).

Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong (NIV, '84).

This is specific to men. Gender equality does not equal gender neutral as much as we would like to have it that way. It's wrong to re-write something (i.e. an encouragement specific to men) that we can look to during trying times so that it is taken from us in an effort to become inclusive of everyone.

Personally, that verse is very meaningful to me as a man - as someone who is challenged every day to be the type of man that God wants me to be. I'm strengthened by it, and am personally grateful that God used Paul to speak to me. Much like the Proverbs 31 woman inspires many women to be godly, so do many passages inspire men to be strong and godly in their character.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

So women can't "stand firm"? Are we weak and can't stand up?

That's the problem when people take a single line and interpret it literally.

I guess I'd better go and lie down because I stood in the line for Starbucks for 5 minutes and as I'm not a man, that was far too exhausting.

Link made the quote in context.

 

[Hetta]

Link made the quote in context.

And I made the response in context.

 

[Hetta]

Nobody wants to take away encouragements to men or scripture that mentions men - *sigh* - IMO, all that MKGal is pointing out (I could be wrong) is that courage isn't specific to men only. In fact, there are men who are not courageous, just as there are women who are courageous and women who are not.

At the end of the day we're all people and we have many traits and abilities in common because we're human. We are all modeled after God. Not just men.

 

[Hetta]

Sure a woman can be feminine in jeans and boots. It's a bigger picture - mannerisms, grooming, dress, actions, attitude - that determine what I'm referring to as masculine or feminine. Even then it's a range and a mix of characteristics that can be different for different people, but there are tendencies for each sex. And none of it has anything to do with the ability to do a job.

Different for different people, yes, and not every man or woman wants the same mix of characteristics in their spouse. My dh does love sports, but I don't consider that to be a masculine characteristic because I know many, many women who love football and basketball and follow teams and watch games with just as much passion as do men. It wasn't a requirement for my man that he be passionate about sports, in fact I would prefer him not to be so crazy about sport, but that's how he is. He wouldn't be less manly if he didn't like sport, that's for sure. His masculinity/manliness is present in many more, far more important aspects of his behaviors. I think I may have a far wider spectrum when it comes to masculinity/femininity although generally it's not something I think about too much. I just am a woman, he is just a man. Nothing we wear makes us any more or any less than that.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

Nobody wants to take away encouragements to men or scripture that mentions men - *sigh* - IMO, all that MKGal is pointing out (I could be wrong) is that courage isn't specific to men only. In fact, there are men who are not courageous, just as there are women who are courageous and women who are not.

At the end of the day we're all people and we have many traits and abilities in common because we're human. We are all modeled after God. Not just men.

I don't disagree with this. And I don't disagree that there are Christian women who display much more courage than I do in the world. And they get that courage (or 'encouragement', if you like) from scripture. I guess I'm just one of the ones that still sees some of the gender separation (at times) along with the move toward gender inclusiveness (when the context indicates it). And I know that puts me behind the times a bit - scripturally (i.e., 'NIV') and culturally.

 

[Hetta]

.. there are Christian women who display much more courage than I do in the world

I really was not making it personal in such a way. I was not comparing you to women nor women to you nor women to men at all really, just saying that courage can be found in both genders, and not found at all in both genders.

It's not a competition! Really it's not. Women can be courageous without taking away anything from men, and men can be nurturing without taking anything away from women.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

OK, here is my gender equality rant. My 30-year-old daughter points out, correctly in my opinion, that nowadays a woman is free to choose any profession she wishes, but she is still under pressure to look sexy while working at that profession. Men can have a huge beer gut and just make jokes. "It's my wife's fault for being such a good cook, har-dee har har." Women can't gain an ounce without being called fat. The fact that the media dubbed Ashley Olsen "the fat twin" when her sister Mary-Kate developed an eating disorder pretty much tells me all I need to know about society's expectations when you're female. Nothing else you do matters. You just have to look good doing it.

 

[Inkachu]

I think that along with abolishing stereotypes, that makes room for allowing people to be individuals. IOW....no two people are the same (let alone *all* people).

By "God-given" capacities....I am hoping you mean individual strengths and talents? For instance....one has a natural strength to be organized and they are allowed to make use of that "gift"?

I mean that I believe God created men with unique gifts and abilities and tendencies, and the same for women. I think that the lines can be crossed (ie, a father being the main caretaker of the children), but I think those are exceptions and not rules. I think God designed us to function a certain way, and the world works best when we acknowledge and celebrate our roles, instead of feeling trapped and intimidated. I also think we need to look to God and the Bible for our purpose, and not secular society or flawed human thinking. So I believe that God made me inherently "feminine" and that is a beautiful and miraculous thing, but He didn't make me to wear high heels or makeup; those are cultural expectations, not God's

 

[WolfGate]

OK, here is my gender equality rant. My 30-year-old daughter points out, correctly in my opinion, that nowadays a woman is free to choose any profession she wishes, but she is still under pressure to look sexy while working at that profession. Men can have a huge beer gut and just make jokes. "It's my wife's fault for being such a good cook, har-dee har har." Women can't gain an ounce without being called fat. The fact that the media dubbed Ashley Olsen "the fat twin" when her sister Mary-Kate developed an eating disorder pretty much tells me all I need to know about society's expectations when you're female. Nothing else you do matters. You just have to look good doing it.

Men with more weight have it worse than slimmer looking ones as well, at least in some industries. I work in a male dominated industry (high tech microelectronics) and I see it frequently when promotions or layoffs come around. Not disagreeing with your daughter's perception of how women are impacted - just saying it covers both sexes.

 

[tall73]

An example of differentiation as to practice (selection of clothes) among genders, as enforced by Mosaic law:


Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.


Now it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the "pants" debate, as both would assumedly be wearing some type of robe-like garment.

Nonetheless the two types of clothing were distinct.

 

[tall73]

Some other examples of biblical stereotypes (some would call them principles!) following up on Autumnleaf's post:

1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Peter acknowledges that both are heirs together of the grace of life. In this respect they are certainly both of equal value, as they are both recipients of the benefits of Christ's death. However, he notes that women are the weaker vessel.

1Pe 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

 

[tall73]

Man and woman received different curses after sin.


Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
Gen 3:18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.
Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

 

[tall73]

Older women were to teach younger women some specific things, including working/beingbusy/keeping (depends on the translation) at home:


Tit 2:2 Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness.
Tit 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good,
Tit 2:4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children,
Tit 2:5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
Tit 2:6 Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled.

Now of course Proverbs shows women also involved in land purchasing and commercial ventures, and Moses showed that a women could inherit land. And for some older women the busy at home may not apply. But for those with children it seems to give a role at home for the wife.

 

[mkgal1]

Perhaps other versions would help to see the distinction here. It was directed to men:


This is specific to men.

Are you saying 1st Corinthians is directed to men (because....doesn't the whole letter go together) or just that one line? If it's directed to only men (which I don't believe it is)....then that wouldn't be a stereotype.

The introduction to Paul's letter said,

To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ~1st Corinthians

I don't understand where you're getting that it's only to men (except by reading those specific versions).