Confused by women and the feminism movement

[seeker2122]

The traditional view was the man is the breadwinner. Therefore he should be the gentleman and take the lady out, pay for her meal, etc.
If the man has money, a good job/career, and is able to show he can provide security for the lady, then people approve.

The modern view is actually quite the same. It hasn't changed much at all. Men still need to be the gentleman and provide for the lady
and show that he can take good care of her, including finances. But here's the huge twist: due to the feminism movement, women are
now experiencing unprecedented success and riches than they ever have (at least in modern history as we know it). That's a great thing I guess, why not? But this adds huge confusion for men like me now. If they are making more money than I am, and have more power in terms of career and security, than I can provide, then why do women still want men to be the gentleman in the relationship? It seems like men now get screwed in this transaction because if we were to reverse it, men would be pitied.

Here's what I mean: women used to be dependant on men. Part of getting married is so that they would be taken care of and secured by the man. A woman living alone would have a hard life and struggle to do anything. Today, women are so successful and rich, they don't NEED a man or depend on him anymore for that kind of support. She can easily support and provide for herself. But if a man now needs to depend on a woman for his needs and future security, how come that is not seen as attractive to powerful women? Women would look at men like that as pitiable and unattractive. So if the woman makes double or triple income as her man does, why is it shameful that the man doesn't pay for her meals and pays for things like gifts and outings when he's clearly not able to provide, but the lady is and she is able to pay for the meals and other expenses?

Let me paint a picture:

Date scenario: the woman has an 80,000 dollar car, lives in a mansion size residence, makes hella more money. The man drives a cheap economy car, has nothing luxurious to offer, and is barely making enough money to break even. They go on a date. Who should pay for the $200 dinner and show? The man should (traditionally) because he has to be the gentleman, but the woman has the means to provide for everything the man does not. So is the woman cheap? Shouldn't she be seen as the shameful one holding back all her wealth and power knowing the man can barely feed himself but expects him to pay. Why? Because he's a man.

It's like saying because she's a woman, she should stay in the kitchen, cook, clean, and raise the kids. I don't get where society is right now. We empowered women which is a great thing but men are still expected then to play the traditional role of being the gentleman? Isn't that supposed to be thrown out of the window now since the roles have been reversed for the most part? Are there women actually out there who are looking for a man to support and provide for in exchange for his handsomeness and loving company? I think very few.

 

[timf]

Feminism is only one element of a broad attack Satan has made on the institution of the family. these attacks are part of his larger plan to collectivize the world so that he can leverage his influence. Here is a link to explain some of Satans work. The bible says that we are not unaware of his plans (2 Cor 2:11).

pdf

http://christianpioneer.com/videos/ebooks/Satanic_history_of_the_world_v1.pdf

web pages

Christian Pioneer - The Satanic History of the World

Christian Pioneer - Ebook for cellphone - The Satanic History of the World

christianpioneer.com

If you can find a more traditional Christian gal who agrees with your more traditional perspective, it might be more productive than dealing with those who are convinced to follow the "modern" path.

The definition of love (1 Cor 13:4-7) is essentially selflessness. Feminism (as most modern issues) is oriented toward selfishness. Once you can understand that many men as well as women have been decieved to accept foolish ideas of Satan, you will be less annoyed with what seems unfair.

 

[Freth]

How should it be? How God designed it to be.

I've been watching a lot of podcasts lately on the state of younger men and women concerning relationships. From what I've seen, pride and selfishness are first and foremost on their minds, to the point where all they think about is themselves, who they are perceived to be, and what they can get from someone. The whole generation seems to be broken because of how they've been shaped into narcissistic selfish and prideful people.

This is how we know we're in the last generation. It's really bad. Sodom and Gomorrah bad. My own life experiences since the late 80's (as an adult) are that people are untrustworthy and incapable of being loyal. It's why I don't date. I've also noticed an increase in mental illness. Everyone has anxiety, OCD and ADHD. People are broken. It's so bad it even affects Christians too.

The sheer ignorance found in society is astounding. They repeat what they've been taught to be true without researching it themselves. The ideas in their heads were planted in them; they live according to the indoctrination they have received through TV shows, movies, music, social media and the internet. There is a great delusion upon this world.

I think we're past the point of recovery. Jesus is coming soon.

 

[PloverWing]

I can think of two factors at play here.

1) I think we're stuck between two cultural models at the moment. In the dating rituals that we're taught, the man still asks the woman out and still pays for stuff, a model based on the time when (in general) men had more economic power than women. But at the same time, a large portion of our society now believes in gender equality, both in marriage and in the workplace. So these are two sets of values, both circulating in the culture, and often conflicting with each other. Presumably, in a hundred years or so, we'll have worked it out.

2) "Women" is a large, diverse group. So is "men". Some people like the traditional roles of male breadwinner, female homemaker. Some people do well with the reverse of this, a female breadwinner married to a stay-at-home dad. Many people like an egalitarian setup, with both people sharing household duties and both people earning an income. The well-paid woman that you mention may not be looking for a partner who provides her with financial necessities and luxuries, because she has that already. She may be looking for other qualities, such as companionship, or someone to help in the maintaining of a household, or someone who can help her form a family and raise children. People look for different things in a partner, depending on what's important to them.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The traditional view was the man is the breadwinner. Therefore he should be the gentleman and take the lady out, pay for her meal, etc.
If the man has money, a good job/career, and is able to show he can provide security for the lady, then people approve.

The modern view is actually quite the same. It hasn't changed much at all. Men still need to be the gentleman and provide for the lady
and show that he can take good care of her, including finances. But here's the huge twist: due to the feminism movement, women are
now experiencing unprecedented success and riches than they ever have (at least in modern history as we know it). That's a great thing I guess, why not? But this adds huge confusion for men like me now. If they are making more money than I am, and have more power in terms of career and security, than I can provide, then why do women still want men to be the gentleman in the relationship? It seems like men now get screwed in this transaction because if we were to reverse it, men would be pitied.

Here's what I mean: women used to be dependant on men. Part of getting married is so that they would be taken care of and secured by the man. A woman living alone would have a hard life and struggle to do anything. Today, women are so successful and rich, they don't NEED a man or depend on him anymore for that kind of support. She can easily support and provide for herself. But if a man now needs to depend on a woman for his needs and future security, how come that is not seen as attractive to powerful women? Women would look at men like that as pitiable and unattractive. So if the woman makes double or triple income as her man does, why is it shameful that the man doesn't pay for her meals and pays for things like gifts and outings when he's clearly not able to provide, but the lady is and she is able to pay for the meals and other expenses?

Let me paint a picture:

Date scenario: the woman has an 80,000 dollar car, lives in a mansion size residence, makes hella more money. The man drives a cheap economy car, has nothing luxurious to offer, and is barely making enough money to break even. They go on a date. Who should pay for the $200 dinner and show? The man should (traditionally) because he has to be the gentleman, but the woman has the means to provide for everything the man does not. So is the woman cheap? Shouldn't she be seen as the shameful one holding back all her wealth and power knowing the man can barely feed himself but expects him to pay. Why? Because he's a man.

It's like saying because she's a woman, she should stay in the kitchen, cook, clean, and raise the kids. I don't get where society is right now. We empowered women which is a great thing but men are still expected then to play the traditional role of being the gentleman? Isn't that supposed to be thrown out of the window now since the roles have been reversed for the most part? Are there women actually out there who are looking for a man to support and provide for in exchange for his handsomeness and loving company? I think very few.

Knowlege has increased and so has the antiquated practice of female suppression. I'm sorry successful women pose a problem. BTW the person who arranged the date typically pays. Blessings.

 

[DragonFox91]

As someone single & looking, I’ve definitely noticed how feminism has destroyed dating & marriage. That’s always been the goal of feminism when you look back to early ‘pioneers’ of the movement.

For now I’ll just say another thing I’ve noticed w/ it is that: these career women are burdened w/ debt & struggling financially. Instead of looking as a man to provide, they’re actually envious the man can provide. They won’t date down b/c what can a poor man provide her? & they won’t date up b/c the man is better off than she is & she’s been taught that men (& people in general) better financially than she is are the problem in society.

Men are best dating w/in their own 'class.' Dating down & the girls envious. Dating up & the man can't provide anything. Unfortunately, women, you're just going to have to settle w/ a guy who makes as much as you, or lose your bitterness to men (& people in general) who are better off financially than you.

 

[Hazelelponi]

The traditional view was the man is the breadwinner. Therefore he should be the gentleman and take the lady out, pay for her meal, etc.
If the man has money, a good job/career, and is able to show he can provide security for the lady, then people approve.

The modern view is actually quite the same. It hasn't changed much at all. Men still need to be the gentleman and provide for the lady
and show that he can take good care of her, including finances. But here's the huge twist: due to the feminism movement, women are
now experiencing unprecedented success and riches than they ever have (at least in modern history as we know it). That's a great thing I guess, why not? But this adds huge confusion for men like me now. If they are making more money than I am, and have more power in terms of career and security, than I can provide, then why do women still want men to be the gentleman in the relationship? It seems like men now get screwed in this transaction because if we were to reverse it, men would be pitied.

Here's what I mean: women used to be dependant on men. Part of getting married is so that they would be taken care of and secured by the man. A woman living alone would have a hard life and struggle to do anything. Today, women are so successful and rich, they don't NEED a man or depend on him anymore for that kind of support. She can easily support and provide for herself. But if a man now needs to depend on a woman for his needs and future security, how come that is not seen as attractive to powerful women? Women would look at men like that as pitiable and unattractive. So if the woman makes double or triple income as her man does, why is it shameful that the man doesn't pay for her meals and pays for things like gifts and outings when he's clearly not able to provide, but the lady is and she is able to pay for the meals and other expenses?

Let me paint a picture:

Date scenario: the woman has an 80,000 dollar car, lives in a mansion size residence, makes hella more money. The man drives a cheap economy car, has nothing luxurious to offer, and is barely making enough money to break even. They go on a date. Who should pay for the $200 dinner and show? The man should (traditionally) because he has to be the gentleman, but the woman has the means to provide for everything the man does not. So is the woman cheap? Shouldn't she be seen as the shameful one holding back all her wealth and power knowing the man can barely feed himself but expects him to pay. Why? Because he's a man.

It's like saying because she's a woman, she should stay in the kitchen, cook, clean, and raise the kids. I don't get where society is right now. We empowered women which is a great thing but men are still expected then to play the traditional role of being the gentleman? Isn't that supposed to be thrown out of the window now since the roles have been reversed for the most part? Are there women actually out there who are looking for a man to support and provide for in exchange for his handsomeness and loving company? I think very few.

A successful woman doesn't need a man - but there's something called wanting someone to share your life with. I can be more successful financially than a man and still want a family with him and to share the rest of my life with him at my side.

If a man who scrapes by with little is dating a woman of means - the date will depend on who is the one asking out.

If you ask her out - you can't then also expect her to pay for it.

This is where you get crafty with the date itself. Ask her to a picnic and cook the food - but make it kinda nice. It's not fancy, but it's from the heart and is cherished more (in her mind) because of that fact.

If she asks you out, and herself makes reservations at the French Laundry (for example) without any hinting from you as to where you wanted to eat, she also expects to pay for the date - though in dating it's polite when someone else pays that you pick up the tip unless the offer to tip is refused - so always be prepared for the tip.

A successful woman is not a stupid one. If she asks a man out to something fancy she will expect to pick up the tab if they aren't on equal footing financially. She may also see that as her gift to him.

Is a man pitiable if he's not the main provider?

Of course not. He's still a man.. and she will definitely see him as such.

The only potential trap in a financially disparate relationship, is the man could fall into the trap of being seen as "one of the kids". It's to him to make sure his attitudes don't put him in that black hole.

However, that can happen even in relationships without financial disparity.

I will say I bought my husband tons of gifts when we were first together. But I did that because I loved him and wanted him to have some cool things I knew he liked but would never buy for himself. It wasn't because I expected reciprocity.

However, like with getting crafty in creating affordable dates, you can also get crafty with gifts. A man that will go in the wood shop and make a beautiful table or or or or or... Is a dream indeed!

 

[Isilwen]

maintaining of a household

This is my fiance. She is not a woman that cleans unless she absolutely has to. So, on one of our first dates she said that if we got married if she could afford for me to stay home, she would be the one working so I can stay home and take care of the house. I'm good with this.

To the OP, a girl that I dated before my fiance insisted on paying for her part of the date. Like above, I had no issues with this. Then again I look at things from a more egalitarian view.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Tragically, they have twisted our economy and culture to the point where it is virtually impossible for a single wage earner to support a family.

 

[Paidiske]

If they are making more money than I am, and have more power in terms of career and security, than I can provide, then why do women still want men to be the gentleman in the relationship?

My experience is that what women want, or expect, is very varied. Personally, as someone who has a degree of financial security, if I were to date today (completely hypothetical, but assuming I was suddenly unexpectedly single) I'd expect to share expenses. I would actually be wary of a guy who insisted on paying for everything, as that would communicate a possible tendency to be controlling.

But if a man now needs to depend on a woman for his needs and future security, how come that is not seen as attractive to powerful women?

Again, what people want, or find attractive, is very varied. I'm very comfortable in a situation where I'm the breadwinner, and I respect my husband's willingness to contribute to our family life by doing the bulk of childcare and taking care of the domestic stuff. His willingness to support me, and our family, in that way is very attractive to me.

So if the woman makes double or triple income as her man does, why is it shameful that the man doesn't pay for her meals and pays for things like gifts and outings when he's clearly not able to provide, but the lady is and she is able to pay for the meals and other expenses?

I think there are two separate issues. Does he demonstrate thoughtfulness, care and generosity? And, what budget does he have for that?
One of the things, for example, that won me over with my husband, was that I had a period of being very, very sick when we were first dating. And he did my grocery shopping for me. Not paid for the groceries, but physically went around the supermarket and delivered what I needed to my home. It cost him time and effort, but it meant the world when I was too sick to get out of bed (this was before the era of online grocery shopping!)

Date scenario: the woman has an 80,000 dollar car, lives in a mansion size residence, makes hella more money. The man drives a cheap economy car, has nothing luxurious to offer, and is barely making enough money to break even. They go on a date. Who should pay for the $200 dinner and show? The man should (traditionally) because he has to be the gentleman, but the woman has the means to provide for everything the man does not. So is the woman cheap? Shouldn't she be seen as the shameful one holding back all her wealth and power knowing the man can barely feed himself but expects him to pay. Why? Because he's a man.

If he doesn't have the means to pay for a $200 night out, he shouldn't propose it. If she proposes it, she should be prepared to pay, especially if she realises their wealth disparity.

Are there women actually out there who are looking for a man to support and provide for in exchange for his handsomeness and loving company?

In those precise terms? Perhaps not. But I think a lot of younger women are looking for men who want to work together, as equals, as a team, to accomplish their goals in life; whether those goals are financial or familial or whatever else. Those women expect to contribute financially, and expect their husbands to support them to do so.

In general, I think the key is communication. What are his needs, what are her needs? What do they each want out of life, and out of a relationship? What are their expectations, and how have their families of origin shaped that? The days of expecting everyone to basically be reading the same script are gone; each couple is co-writing their own script. That takes more work, but is potentially more rewarding, too.

 

[Zandy12]

I'm going to try to write a fair post here, in an attempt to represent both sides:

The feminist movement was an important one in history that helped the public's recognition of women's rights, like the right to vote or hold public office. Worldwide, I think feminism is still an important topic to discuss; especially in countries where it's political system is still predominantly patriarchal, like Saudi Arabia. I believe, in the bigger scope of things, that feminism has advanced civilization and helped paved the way for other under-represented groups in society to have a voice and to be tolerated.

I believe our society is heading in a direction where it's becoming increasingly more isolated, because of technological advances. This is resulting in a polarization, both international and domestic, where people are only receiving information that they'd prefer to hear, which is causing the fast spread of misinformation before the truth can even be heard. I don't think the majority of women support third-wave feminism, despite the heavy corporate and government influence affecting our public view on the state of feminism nationwide. Decades of liberal social engineering has led men and women to believe that the traditional hierarchical view of marriage is outdated and oppressive. It is not (Galatians 3:28). As time passed and secularism became more popular, people have been fed false notions of what their gender roles are and how they should think and feel. I think this general confusion can clearly be seen, given how most teens are now identifying as part of the LGBT community than compared to previous generations.[1] There's a vast pool of men AND women in modern-day society that don't have any guidance or community. This is leading to the rising trend we're seeing in the statistics of suicide, homelessness, crime, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, generational poverty, etc.

As a male, of course my opinion will be biased in the favor of men. Men today don't have the same opportunity to advance economically compared to before when there weren't government policies, like affirmative action, put in place. However, I do think generally that men are doing better off in countries that embrace feminism compared to those that are more conservative.[2] It's obvious now though that western countries are at an inflection point where the culture has become so decadent that it's preventing high-rate economic development compared to the last century, mainly because of corruption and corporatism.[3]

It's unfair to blame all the current issues that men are facing primarily because of feminism. Yes it's true, women have biased support and representation in western governments, in some cases; but men also have better representation in western governments as well compared to both men and women in the global south or other authoritarian governments. The way we can solve the issue of directionless men and women in modern-day society is to bring back traditional and communal values, including religion (John 18:4–6). Of course, not everyone is going to agree with that statement. There are men and women who exist that don't want to be married, and it should be their right if they don't want to. At the same time, there are men and women that exist who do want to be married, and want their relationship to work. I think it's a good sign not to be romantically involved with a woman who is too occupied with her career. Her focus or interests may not even revolve around that desire, anyways. It makes more sense to interact with a woman who is actively participating in cultural values and practices that deem her a more dedicated partner to marry and have children with. Statistically speaking, you won't find a lot of successful marriages where the partners are competing with each-other financially.[4]

References:
1. J. Jones. U.S. LGBT Identification Steady at 7.2%. Gallup (2019). U.S. LGBT Identification Steady at 7.2%

2. Audette, A.P., Lam, S., O’Connor, H. et al. (E)Quality of Life: A Cross-National Analysis of the Effect of Gender Equality on Life Satisfaction. J Happiness Stud 20, 2173–2188 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0042-8

3. R. Douthat. The Decadent Society: How We Became Victims Of Our Own Success (2019). The Decadent Society: How We Became the Victims of Our Own Success: Douthat, Ross: 9781476785240: Amazon.com: Books

4. S. Palmer, B. Palmer. 5 Reasons Why Money Is The #1 Cause of Divorce. Crosswalk.com (2023). 5 Reasons Why Money Is The #1 Cause of Divorce

 

[seeker2122]

A lot of good points made by both of you above.
I am aware that we are living in times where we have to try and appease everyone and not say anything that is going to be deemed
offensive or even "hate speech". But this is the issue Christians have to deal with. If society is drifting so far from God's values, then
at some point and even now, Christian speech can be considered hate speech.

If we take a look at societies that are shrinking in population, to sum and generalize it in one sentence, it's happening because we are drifting further and further away from God's values and what he created us for. That's the bottomline. I do not believe no matter how great, civilized, prosperous, advanced, efficient a nation is.....if they are failing to produce children, families and married couples, then that nation as a whole
is not in line with God's values.

As a man, I want to be able to provide and take care of my wife and family. If I fail to do so, then I fail as my calling and position of being
the man. If God's Word is saying that women should actually be the head of the family, earn more money, support her husband as the wife who needs to be cared for and provided for, then I think we drifting into strange interpretations of God's Word.

There is a reason why no matter how powerful a woman is, she still feels the need for the man to care for her as if he was richer and more powerful. That is what seems unfair and unjust. Why can't women be the men now? Why aren't males who have little to no money and no career attractive and desirable to women? The women make all the money and have the careers, and the man can just be loving and supportive to her and raise the kids at home? Why not?

 

[Paidiske]

As a man, I want to be able to provide and take care of my wife and family. If I fail to do so, then I fail as my calling and position of being
the man.

I would suggest that the calling and position of a husband is to love and serve his wife. That means, among other things, taking her seriously as a person, and being willing to take her goals and desires as seriously as your own. You may need to be willing to adjust your expectations around things like "providing" in order to do so.

There is a reason why no matter how powerful a woman is, she still feels the need for the man to care for her as if he was richer and more powerful.

Okay, as a woman who's both a bit older than you, and now happily married for getting on towards twenty years, and since you're asking for advice... this is just flat-out wrong. Making dating or relationship decisions based on such completely wrong-headed ideas is not going to help you.

That is what seems unfair and unjust. Why can't women be the men now? Why aren't males who have little to no money and no career attractive and desirable to women? The women make all the money and have the careers, and the man can just be loving and supportive to her and raise the kids at home? Why not?

Some couples do work this way, or at least with the wife being the breadwinner and the husband being the primary carer to children. It can work well if it suits both spouses. (It doesn't mean women are "being the men," though). Although I'm not sure why you find it unjust that it's less common, if you want to be the "provider"?

That is, I think, a little different to "why aren't males who have little to no money and no career attractive and desirable to women?" I would argue that men who have little drive, and little accomplishment, are not attractive or desirable. That drive and accomplishment might take a variety of forms, but without it, he's not going to look like a strong potential teammate in life. (Even if you're looking for someone who might end up being the stay-at-home parent, a slob who plays video games all day - to pick on a stereotype - isn't going to look like stellar parenting material, you know?) And what many, many women don't want - and if they're paying attention they've seen it in their social circles - is a man who doesn't step up, but in some ways behaves more like another child she has to carry the thoughtload for, and manage, than an equal partner.

Women who've worked hard to build their own lives - get an education, build a career, whatever else - are unlikely to see a fairly passive person who isn't striving for something as having much maturity of character. So okay, he might be the stay-at-home dad one day; what is he doing with his life in the meantime?

The other thing worth bearing in mind is that the period of time where you have small children is a relatively small part of a lifetime of marriage. Let's say you're married for forty years; the average couple probably have young children at home for less than half of that time. So what are you going to invest your time, your energy, your gifts into, individually and as a couple, for the rest?

 

[Andrewn]

There is a reason why no matter how powerful a woman is, she still feels the need for the man to care for her as if he was richer and more powerful. That is what seems unfair and unjust. Why can't women be the men now? Why aren't males who have little to no money and no career attractive and desirable to women? The women make all the money and have the careers, and the man can just be loving and supportive to her and raise the kids at home? Why not?

Actually, a lot of women do fall for losers.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I'm not sympathetic to extreme feminism, but I don't think we can blame feminism for what is a apparently a growing selfishness in the community.

In the west we live as guinea pigs for the marketeers - we're inundated with advertisements for the good life, on the internet, on TV, on billboards, on the sides of buses and trucks, in flashing signs, in junk mail ...

I believe this constant promotion of "success", however it's portrayed, has a detrimental effect.

As Christ said "A man's life is not measured by his possessions...".

 

[seeker2122]

Actually, a lot of women do fall for losers.

That's exactly my point. Why do those men have to be viewed as "losers"? Why couldn't those men be viewed as attractive and beautiful?
If women are going to be the power bearers and hold all the money and careers over men, then shouldn't men who are needing security and protection from a woman be seen as precious and a bride to protect? This is what I mean. The Bible never seems to mention that women should be in the roles of men and men in the roles of women. Men are to be the head, men are the ones who have to have the strength to sacrifice for their bride like Jesus did. Women have to be obedient to their husbands as the church is to Christ.

So if a powerful, rich, well-accomplished man goes out of his way to marry some poor innocent young village girl because she's pure and physically beautiful, why do we call those women beautiful and innocent and not call them "losers"? Clearly there are tons of rich men from wealthy nations who cannot find a wife in their own wealthy culture (high maintenance, higher standards, difficult to please etc) go to poorer nations to pluck out a nice innocent wife (low maintenance, agreeable, easy to please/impress)....but we don't call those women losers. They are seen as simple, innocent, naive even....but very beautiful, very traditional, and good at cooking, taking care of the house and raising the kids, being submissive and obedient to the husband who usually is busy with his sophisticated career.

 

[kdm1984]

I'm a SAHM and my husband is the breadwinner.

So many male problems I see on this forum and elsewhere could be alleviated if men simply went to churches and followed Biblical doctrine of how men and women are ideally supposed to function. Then you'd never have to worry about rich powerful women or feminism or what-have-you.

 

[seeker2122]

I'm not sympathetic to extreme feminism, but I don't think we can blame feminism for what is a apparently a growing selfishness in the community.

In the west we live as guinea pigs for the marketeers - we're inundated with advertisements for the good life, on the internet, on TV, on billboards, on the sides of buses and trucks, in flashing signs, in junk mail ...

I believe this constant promotion of "success", however it's portrayed, has a detrimental effect.

As Christ said "A man's life is not measured by his possessions...".

Agreed. Which makes me beg to ask the question, why so many Christian women out there DO MEASURE a man by his possessions. If Christ doesn't measure us by this standard, then we should also not measure one another by these standards correct? (Christians that is).

But even a lot of Christian women are difficult to please because they have a long list of expectations and preferences that must be met and most of it is "worldly". Some examples:
-must be tall
-have head full of hair
-nice skin
-thick eye brows
-make a good earning/living or reputable/respectable career/job (ie. doctor, lawyer, engineer, architect vs cashier, delivery man, janitor,
taxi driver, etc.). All jobs are respectable!
-dress well (fashion)
-have good personal hygiene
-the list goes on and on.....of course there are the wholesome values in the list too like loves God, loves family, understanding,
compassionate, patient, caring for others etc but these almost always take a backseat to the worldy list that comes first.

If a woman or man has those kinds of worldly preferences in their list....does that mean they are not really a Christian then? lol it just seems
so odd that we live as Christians, profess our love for Christ, but then when it comes to things like marriage, dating, etc, we go by the worldly standards...physical appearances and how much money they make.

 

[trophy33]

Agreed. Which makes me beg to ask the question, why so many Christian women out there DO MEASURE a man by his possessions. If Christ doesn't measure us by this standard, then we should also not measure one another by these standards correct? (Christians that is).

But even a lot of Christian women are difficult to please because they have a long list of expectations and preferences that must be met and most of it is "worldly". Some examples:
-must be tall
-have head full of hair
-nice skin
-thick eye brows
-make a good earning/living or reputable/respectable career/job (ie. doctor, lawyer, engineer, architect vs cashier, delivery man, janitor,
taxi driver, etc.). All jobs are respectable!
-dress well (fashion)
-have good personal hygiene
-the list goes on and on.....of course there are the wholesome values in the list too like loves God, loves family, understanding,
compassionate, patient, caring for others etc but these almost always take a backseat to the worldy list that comes first.

If a woman or man has those kinds of worldly preferences in their list....does that mean they are not really a Christian then? lol it just seems
so odd that we live as Christians, profess our love for Christ, but then when it comes to things like marriage, dating, etc, we go by the worldly standards...physical appearances and how much money they make.

Because they want to have healthy children with good genes and with father who can take care of them.

And Christian men prefer young, healthy looking and easy to live with girls, from very similar reasons.

 

[Hazelelponi]

A lot of good points made by both of you above.
I am aware that we are living in times where we have to try and appease everyone and not say anything that is going to be deemed
offensive or even "hate speech". But this is the issue Christians have to deal with. If society is drifting so far from God's values, then
at some point and even now, Christian speech can be considered hate speech.

If we take a look at societies that are shrinking in population, to sum and generalize it in one sentence, it's happening because we are drifting further and further away from God's values and what he created us for. That's the bottomline. I do not believe no matter how great, civilized, prosperous, advanced, efficient a nation is.....if they are failing to produce children, families and married couples, then that nation as a whole
is not in line with God's values.

As a man, I want to be able to provide and take care of my wife and family. If I fail to do so, then I fail as my calling and position of being
the man. If God's Word is saying that women should actually be the head of the family, earn more money, support her husband as the wife who needs to be cared for and provided for, then I think we drifting into strange interpretations of God's Word.

There is a reason why no matter how powerful a woman is, she still feels the need for the man to care for her as if he was richer and more powerful. That is what seems unfair and unjust. Why can't women be the men now? Why aren't males who have little to no money and no career attractive and desirable to women? The women make all the money and have the careers, and the man can just be loving and supportive to her and raise the kids at home? Why not?

I'm ignoring most of your post and am just focusing on one point you keep making - that of a woman making an earning being somehow offensive to you.

Let me say, the picture of the ideal wife in Scriptures, is found by reading Proverbs 31:10-31

The picture here is of a woman who works hard and earns her own money through that work, makes investments with the money she earned in order to earn more, and contributes to her household by what she does and earns and buys - as well as her overall Godliness and character and charitable nature.

What the husband earns is meaningless in this scenario - unlike others in her society, the husband doesn't have to worry about not making ends meet because his wife works hard to make sure they are met no matter how much or little her husband might make.

This doesn't mean women should marry bums, however, it does mean a woman having her own income and contributing to the household finances is a Biblical concept.

A woman having an income - even one that's more than what you make - isn't a bad thing, and it's not anti Christian and it in no way lessens a man's manhood if his wife works.

Idol hands are the devils work, as the saying goes.