Confused by women and the feminism movement

[trophy33]

There are lots of things I don't "need" that are great blessings in life. My argument is that framing a man's role in a marriage around the premise of women's disempowerment/dependence is really, really unhealthy.

Fortunately, there are many men who value capable women as life partners without needing to reduce them to chattel.

Disempowerment? Is that even a word?

We cannot ignore hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and force some social experiment upon society with weird words. The majority will follow their basic programming, so you can either force them to do what they do not want to do or leave them be.

As women do not prefer short or poor men, so men do not prefer independent or old women. Thats the game. Changing it "from the top down" to something else is a tyranny or a social reprogramming without knowing the result.

 

[Paidiske]

Disempowerment? Is that even a word?

Dating back to 1745, according to an online search of its etymology.

We cannot ignore hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and force some social experiment upon society with weird words. The majority will follow their basic programming, so you can either force them to do what they do not want to do or leave them be.

This is a very dangerous line of argument. Insisting on treating women as full persons in their own right, including valuing our autonomy, ability to support ourselves, dignity, gifts, vocations, and so on, is not a "social experiment." I would argue rather that it is at the heart of the gospel.

It's not a question of forcing anyone to do anything, but pointing out some of the attitudes which underlie abusive dynamics.

As women do not prefer short or poor men, so men do not prefer independent or old women.

Think about what you are saying with your argument about not preferring independence. It amounts to "I want a woman I can control due to her lack of financial means and social capital." That's not the same as an aesthetic preference, or even fertility; it's about expecting to be able to domineer. Not exactly the picture of a godly husband which the New Testament holds up for us!

 

[ThisIsMe123]

Any man who needs to keep a woman dependent in order to fulfil his psychological needs, is not looking like a healthy (or safe) life partner. The point of being in a relationship is not to disempower the other, but to be more together than either of you could be alone.

Yes, I think this is a very...southern cultural thing pretty much.

 

[trophy33]

Dating back to 1745, according to an online search of its etymology.

This is a very dangerous line of argument. Insisting on treating women as full persons in their own right, including valuing our autonomy, ability to support ourselves, dignity, gifts, vocations, and so on, is not a "social experiment." I would argue rather that it is at the heart of the gospel.

It's not a question of forcing anyone to do anything, but pointing out some of the attitudes which underlie abusive dynamics.

Think about what you are saying with your argument about not preferring independence. It amounts to "I want a woman I can control due to her lack of financial means and social capital." That's not the same as an aesthetic preference, or even fertility; it's about expecting to be able to domineer. Not exactly the picture of a godly husband which the New Testament holds up for us!

Generally, as women are not attracted to short, feminine or poor men, men are not attracted to fat, old or emancipated women.

Its not "dangerous". Being single is fine. Everybody has a freedom to seek a relationship/marriage with a specific individual or not.

More and more men are single, by choice, because its better for them than to deal with a modern woman. Until you will make it forced by a law that men must marry unattractive women. Maybe it will be the next wave of English culture madness.

 

[Paidiske]

Its not "dangerous".

Yes it is. It is one of the attitudes which has been shown to drive domestic violence.

 

[trophy33]

Yes it is. It is one of the attitudes which has been shown to drive domestic violence.

(Domestic) violence is driven by many things and exists in all kinds of relationships arrangements. In some "progressive ones" even more than in the traditional ones.

Its not an argument for complaining that people do not want to be with somebody they do not find attractive or in a relationships they do not find fulfilling. And what people find attractive or fulfilling is shaped by our long past. You cannot change that.

Its possible to brainwash a young generation, sure - to lie to them that competing in some corporate business against others for 8 hours a day is "empowering", that children can come later, that women have a lot of time so "school, fun and career first", that there is no shame in promiscuity or divorce, that being obese is healthy and beautiful etc.
But after a while, it stops working as the generation gets older and starts to see that the so called freedom is actually slavery and that what is being shamed by few activists is in fact better for the majority and more sustainable as a whole.

If there is some woman that finds her fulfillment in something men do not find attractive, thats fine - go girl, do whatever makes you happy. But do not complain that men do not want you, later. The same applies to men, of course.

 

[Paidiske]

(Domestic) violence is driven by many things and exists in all kinds of relationships arrangements.

And yet research has shown three key attitudes which drive men who commit domestic violence; acceptance of violence, strict gender roles and gender hierarchy. These are, therefore, dangerous attitudes, and should not be promoted.

Its not an argument for complaining that people do not want to be with somebody they do not find attractive or in a relationships they do not find fulfilling.

This is not my issue. Nobody is required to be with someone they don't find attractive or in an unfulfilling relationship. My issue is with telling women to make themselves dependent in order to appeal to men; that is dangerous advice; the relationship equivalent of telling kids to play on train tracks.

And what people find attractive or fulfilling is shaped by our long past.

When it comes to biology, maybe. When it comes to social behaviours, I am less convinced. We are more likely to be shaped by what we have experienced and had modelled within our lifetimes.

Its possible to brainwash a young generation, sure - to lie to them that competing in some corporate business against others for 8 hours a day is "empowering", that children can come later, that women have a lot of time so "school, fun and career first", that there is no shame in promiscuity or divorce, that being obese is healthy and beautiful etc.

Most of this is completely irrelevant to my point. I am only concerned with issues which underlie abuse and violence. How people handle work-life balance or family planning or whatever else is a completely separate discussion.

But after a while, it stops working as the generation gets older and starts to see that the so called freedom is actually slavery and that what is being shamed by few activists is in fact better for the majority and more sustainable as a whole.

What I observe is that as women get older, even the ones who, as young women, thought all our issues were resolved, start to see that in fact, they are still deeply entrenched.

But do not complain that men do not want you, later.

I don't think that's what anyone is doing. The issue is not that women are complaining men don't want them; it's women pointing out that men wanting skewed power dynamics in the relationship is deeply problematic, and even unsafe.

 

[trophy33]

This is not my issue. Nobody is required to be with someone they don't find attractive or in an unfulfilling relationship.

Great!

My issue is with telling women to make themselves dependent in order to appeal to men;

The majority is always dependent. Be it on state, employer or family. Thats not the issue.

The question is which dependence will make the majority happier in the long run. I argue its the one compatible with our nature, which for women means the family.

 

[Paidiske]

The majority is always dependent. Be it on state, employer or family. Thats not the issue.

I'm not even arguing against being dependent. All of us may do that from time to time, or in different ways, as you point out (although I'd argue that being in paid employment is very different than being dependent on a spouse's paid employment). I am arguing against dependence as a chosen permanent relationship dynamic, or a dating strategy.

Deliberately making oneself less than one might be, in order to appeal to a man, is a dangerous game; expecting a woman to deny her potential in order to make yourself feel good is an abusive one.

 

[trophy33]

I'm not even arguing against being dependent. All of us may do that from time to time, or in different ways, as you point out (although I'd argue that being in paid employment is very different than being dependent on a spouse's paid employment). I am arguing against dependence as a chosen permanent relationship dynamic, or a dating strategy.

Deliberately making oneself less than one might be, in order to appeal to a man, is a dangerous game; expecting a woman to deny her potential in order to make yourself feel good is an abusive one.

I think there is a problem with the feminist vocabulary.

Most women are chasing the top, rich men so that they do not need to work. What you call dependence is freedom for them. And what you call independence is a tiring 8-16 job dependence for them.

And most top men do not want a woman that is away for the whole day or entitled because of that.

 

[Paidiske]

Most women are chasing the top, rich men so that they do not need to work.

Not most women in my world. And research shows that most women want to work.

And what you call independence is a weary 8-16 job dependence for them.

I am not making any argument about what work, how much work, or the like, anyone should undertake. I am arguing that deliberately limiting your potential and not pursuing your own goals - whether in terms of study, employment, social involvement, or the like - in order to be attractive to a man, is a very damaging and dangerous approach to life.

 

[trophy33]

I am arguing that deliberately limiting your potential and not pursuing your own goals - whether in terms of study, employment, social involvement, or the like - in order to be attractive to a man, is a very damaging and dangerous approach to life.

Its really a very modern western thinking that working for somebody else in a workplace is your potential, but working for your own family and children is not.

I would argue that its a very damaging and dangerous approach to life and many women find out when its too late.

 

[Paidiske]

Its really a very modern western thinking that working for somebody else in a workplace is your potential, but working for your own family and children is not.

Yet I made no such argument.

 

[trophy33]

Yet I made no such argument.

Its my statement, reacting to your statement.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread was moved from Requests for Christian Advice, which is not a debate forum, to Christian Philosophy & Ethics which is a debate forum.

Review the Statement of Purpose for both forums.
​

 

[rambot]

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.

Here's the thing. Women no longer have to suffer through terrible men. THAT is the biggest change to our society. For a long time, women who were treated poorly by their partners had to suffer through that; regardless of what that looked like. Slowly, over the last few decades woman have realized, they don't actually need men. Or, to put it more precisely they don't need ANY man. Most of them are looking for a partner they share common interests with, that sparks something, and that is fun for them.

The antiquated baggage of "who pays for what" is really not important so much as the quality of the relationship between people. It's been a long time since I've dated but as I understand it, there are plenty of people who don't ascribe to the "man must pay for everything"; moreso when she's doing so much better than he.

The reason why a "weak" man is not seen as attractive to powerful women is because the imbalance is not what it once was in society. You are talking about a role reversal, but infact the roles have not been reverse: They have been equalized and that difference is important.


100 years ago, a woman needed a man in a very different way. Often times, literally needing them. Putting up with abuse terrible treatment or men with poor behaviours was de rigour in the day. Nowadays, women don't suffer that. Is your expectation that they should?

Nowadays, the expectation is nobody "needs" anyone anymore. Now, we get the partners we want because we want them. Not because we need them. And isn't that a better and more healthy society?


If it was a TRUE role reversal, men would NEED a woman. And they don't either.

 

[Stephen3141]

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.

I don't think that you HAVE TO make an argument from "tradition".

In a lot of ancient societies, culturally, women cared for the home. In part, this was the law of the jungle (women were not the warriors, and could not defend a family unit). There is no need to explain this as due to tradition.

In both Judaism and Christianity, women and children were protected. That is, men were commanded to take care of women and children. And the roles of women and men, as presented in the Bible, is not based on "tradition", but on the plan of God for men and women.

In many societies, women had very little opportunity to enter in business, and earn money. There was more freedom for women, in Jewish and Christian communities. But in Jewish and Christian culture, God lays down the moral imperative for men to take care of women and children. This was a clear improvement, over many cultures.

Independently, Christian social order gives authority over a wife, to the husband. And this is not for "traditional" reasons, but on the argument that the woman sinned first, and brought sin into humanity. It is a global, theological argument, not an argument from tradition.

In Christian congregations, money has never be equated with authority. There are clear requirements for a leader in the congregation, that are independent of how much money the man makes. Although modern feminism may be attracted to the rule of the richest, this was never the Christian way.

That's the beginning of an answer.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

The Proverbs 31 husband "sits in the gate." That means he's one of the most important men of the city...in the running for king of the city. He would own houses, fields, and people. He's not depending on his wife for support.

 

[RDKirk]

I prefer women who are smart enough to see through the charade. Truly smart, perceptive, and shrewd women. Not naive. Naive women are more likely to be seduced by such social movements. Not less. A foreign woman who is naive is vulnerable to radicalization. A western woman who knows what she's up against and is able to resist it is a better bet. I prefer a significant other who thinks. Not an ideologue. Not the kind of woman who parrots the radical feminist ideology that she encounters in contemporary culture.

I think we have to be careful how Western viewpoints paint "foreign" (let's be honest...we're talking about Asian) women as "naive" or "taken advantage of by a man who uses his wealth to buy affection from someone whose circumstances are desperate."

I've watched hundreds of those situations. Those women are generally educated and middle-class, if not well-to-do in their own societies. They're usually just socialized to desire to be homemakers rather than career women, and don't see being homemaker and mother as being demeaning. That attitude is increasingly hard to find in the West.

 

[RDKirk]

I really don't know how often that comes up. I don't know how many women would willingly date men who are poorer when dating only to find a husband.

Generally, women don't marry economically "down." Not even arranged marriages (especially not arranged marriages) go economically down.

Most cultures over the centuries developed structures that kept marriages with a socio-economic class that allowed women to marry slightly upward, because mothers didn't want their sons marrying too far down.

We very often overlook that older women had a great deal of agency in marriages over the centuries. Older men wanted a valid legacy, older women needed a reliable legacy. Remember: The retired generation always depends on the successful economic activity of the working generation, and in older times that dependency was on one's own children. Societies and individuals depended on successful marriages.

The older women stratified the mating pools. They were the ones who knew which children were respectable and which were not, which young women were lazy and which young men were brutes. Older women were the matchmakers, created the invitation lists to the debutante balls, the coming-out parties, the Quinceaneras, the Sweet-16 parties. Even when a husband approved the final choice, it was from a pool created by the older women.

And that worked because young people, frankly, are unintelligent in such matters.