Do gender roles still apply today?

[returnn23]

Did feminists place themselves there or did women, for whom they resonated, invite them in? Once I became an adult, my parents no longer had sway over my decisions.

The way it “should “ be is going to be different for different people. You don’t speak for all.

Well, I do speak for tradition and the natural desire for marriage and children for most. A stable home. A stable community.

My mother's father threw a party. It got late and a little rowdy. His mother appeared and quietly told everyone it was time to leave. She told her son, "As long as I have breath in my body, I'm still your mother." So, again, a reference to the continuity in families. Mothers have children who have children and they become grandparents. That is the right way.

Yes, I remember the radical and stupid idea of "emancipation" for teenagers from their parents some years ago. Some people will try anything to ruin families and family relationships. The radical feminists were loud but their ideas were rejected by most of my contemporaries.

 

[comana]

A gun was never put to their head as far as marriage went. Tradition is not created one day and abandoned the next. Tradition represents a long line of doing things the right way. If the other gender offends you, don't marry one.

No woman or man is required to marry. They also can participate in relationships as works best for them. Children are optional. Career, marriage, children or any combination is fine. Traditional roles make one happy? Go for it.

The point is that women (obviously not all) felt what should be acceptable was different from what was then currently acceptable.

 

[returnn23]

No woman or man is required to marry. They also can participate in relationships as works best for them. Children are optional. Career, marriage, children or any combination is fine. Traditional roles make one happy? Go for it.

The point is that women (obviously not all) felt what should be acceptable was different from what was then currently acceptable.

"... was then currently acceptable"?

"The point is that women (obviously not all) felt what should be acceptable was different from what was then currently acceptable."

So the old acceptable was not as good as the new, or proposed, acceptable? And who decides what "should be acceptable"? Radical feminist strangers or individual women?

 

[comana]

"... was then currently acceptable"?

"The point is that women (obviously not all) felt what should be acceptable was different from what was then currently acceptable."

So the old acceptable was not as good as the new, or proposed, acceptable? And who decides what "should be acceptable"? Radical feminist strangers or individual women?

Society decides what is acceptable., but in order for change to happen, some must challenge acceptable norms.

 

[returnn23]

Society decides what is acceptable., but in order for change to happen, some must challenge acceptable norms.

Change? Why? What I lived through was a well-ordered community. When I was 12, I could look back and forward. I saw how teens and young adults lived. They got jobs, they got married and life continued on.

For those who think they "must challenge" what is normal, I saw the wreckage afterward. It did not help.

 

[Isilwen]

Change? Why?

Because whether you want to believe it or not, the human race changes with time. The way it was 200 years ago isn't how it is today. How it was 50 years ago isn't how it is today.

You may think that change isn't a good thing, but many of us do. I for one am glad that it isn't like the 50s. I enjoy that my other half will be working, just as I am. She enjoys that I am working just like she is. At 48 and 43, we aren't looking at having any more kids when we get married. She has one and I have seven. All, but three of mine are over eighteen. Her son is sixteen. She doesn't need to stay home and take care of the kids. I am happy that she is happy in a career.

I think what others have been trying to get you to understand is that just because you would be happy with things like they were in the 50s, it doesn't mean that all will.

 

[comana]

Change? Why? What I lived through was a well-ordered community. When I was 12, I could look back and forward. I saw how teens and young adults lived. They got jobs, they got married and life continued on.

For those who think they "must challenge" what is normal, I saw the wreckage afterward. It did not help.

I get it, your life was idyllic. This was not everyone‘s experience and clearly enough needed/wanted change to challenge the norms and make it happen.

 

[returnn23]

I get it, your life was idyllic. This was not everyone‘s experience and clearly enough needed/wanted change to challenge the norms and make it happen.

My life was not "idyllic." Please don't describe something you did not live through. I lived through most of the Cold War. I was told Russian missiles were just minutes away. Do you understand? One nice Summer day I watched a B-52 pass overhead. I knew my odds of survival were zero. But you know what? I had a great time during the late 1950s and most of the 60s. A great time. Until radicals and anarchists appeared in our neighborhoods.

"challenge the norms" and make what happen? Dope sales in our neighborhoods? Casual sex? Strip clubs? Again - Make what happen? Because starting in the early 1970s, I saw perversion creeping in and dope...

 

[comana]

My life was not "idyllic." Please don't describe something you did not live through. I lived through most of the Cold War. I was told Russian missiles were just minutes away. Do you understand? One nice Summer day I watched a B-52 pass overhead. I knew my odds of survival were zero. But you know what? I had a great time during the late 1950s and most of the 60s. A great time. Until radicals and anarchists appeared in our neighborhoods.

"challenge the norms" and make what happen? Dope sales in our neighborhoods? Casual sex? Strip clubs? Again - Make what happen? Because starting in the early 1970s, I saw perversion creeping in and dope...

I guess I have to repeat that your experience was your own. Society and what is considered traditional has and will continue to change with or without your approval.

 

[returnn23]

I guess I have to repeat that your experience was your own. Society and what is considered traditional has and will continue to change with or without your approval.

I guess I will continue to make my disapproval known for the reasons I've already stated.

 

[Paidiske]

I see, so what was "constraining" any woman?

When we're talking about the 50s and 60s, we're talking about my grandmothers. I had the privilege to know one of my grandmothers; she married at 16, not because she wanted to be married, or to have children, but to escape her father's expectation that she would run his household after her mother died. Because marriage was the only way out for her. That marriage turned out to be a disaster; her husband beat her and abused her; and when she left, with four daughters and no financial support at all, her community ostracised her.

In reflecting on all this, my grandmother was delighted and grateful to see her granddaughters growing up in a world which meant we had access to education, to employment, and to options which meant we'd never face the constrained choices she'd had to make.

Fixed gender roles are a requirement in society. Society ends the moment stable relationships which lead to marriage and a stable home for the children disappear.

Goodness. That's rather over-dramatic, don't you think?
I think marriage and a stable home for children are good, but I don't think they're the only good way to live, or that society "ends" if not everyone chooses that path. Good grief.

Thank goodness your disapproval doesn't actually stop women being able to make their own choices in life.

 

[returnn23]

When we're talking about the 50s and 60s, we're talking about my grandmothers. I had the privilege to know one of my grandmothers; she married at 16, not because she wanted to be married, or to have children, but to escape her father's expectation that she would run his household after her mother died. Because marriage was the only way out for her. That marriage turned out to be a disaster; her husband beat her and abused her; and when she left, with four daughters and no financial support at all, her community ostracised her.

In reflecting on all this, my grandmother was delighted and grateful to see her granddaughters growing up in a world which meant we had access to education, to employment, and to options which meant we'd never face the constrained choices she'd had to make.

Goodness. That's rather over-dramatic, don't you think?
I think marriage and a stable home for children are good, but I don't think they're the only good way to live, or that society "ends" if not everyone chooses that path. Good grief.

Thank goodness your disapproval doesn't actually stop women being able to make their own choices in life.

I am glad that I did not follow the New Dictatorship. Let's go back to the 1970s for a moment. Instead of calm, rational engagement, I heard the following:

"Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!"

Talk about overly dramatic.

 

[Paidiske]

Oh, I don't know... threads like this can certainly demonstrate the appeal of that kind of rhetoric.

 

[returnn23]

I don't do rhetoric. Thankfully, many of my contemporaries actually followed the footsteps of their parents, got married, had kids and are grandparents. That's life.

 

[rjs330]

When we're talking about the 50s and 60s, we're talking about my grandmothers. I had the privilege to know one of my grandmothers; she married at 16, not because she wanted to be married, or to have children, but to escape her father's expectation that she would run his household after her mother died. Because marriage was the only way out for her. That marriage turned out to be a disaster; her husband beat her and abused her; and when she left, with four daughters and no financial support at all, her community ostracised her.

In reflecting on all this, my grandmother was delighted and grateful to see her granddaughters growing up in a world which meant we had access to education, to employment, and to options which meant we'd never face the constrained choices she'd had to make.

Goodness. That's rather over-dramatic, don't you think?
I think marriage and a stable home for children are good, but I don't think they're the only good way to live, or that society "ends" if not everyone chooses that path. Good grief.

Thank goodness your disapproval doesn't actually stop women being able to make their own choices in life.

While I don't think gender "roles" are set in stone as who should do what I think some roles are more likely to be done by each sex. I mean who cares who does the laundry, cooks dinner or mows the yard. Each family gets to choose those things based on preference on skills and desires.

There's nothing sacred about men mowing the lawn or women doing the cooking.

Biblically there are only two things that I can think of that are assigned by God to a sex regarding family roles. The husband is the head of the house as Christ is the head of the Church. And please don't get all worked up about how that is subjugating women. Because if you know anything about scripture that was NEVER the intent not the command. Scripture has always been used for wrong purposes of wrong headed people.

And the other thing is husbands are supposed to provide for their families. And again it doesn't say anything about men have to be the only provider and women are not allowed to help or have a job. But it does say it's the mans role. So he should really be trying to do so.

But it's not the woman's job to clean the bathroom, mop the floors and vacuum the rugs while the man puts his feet up. Each couple is free to work out whatever roles they want to.

The lack of family structure is the real problem of society today. Particularly as women CHOOSE to become single mothers and men abdicate their responsibilities as fathers. Also there is an upward trend of more and more men and women choosing to be single and not having marriages and families.

 

[PloverWing]

And the other thing is husbands are supposed to provide for their families. And again it doesn't say anything about men have to be the only provider and women are not allowed to help or have a job. But it does say it's the mans role. So he should really be trying to do so.

What passage do you have in mind here?

 

[Paidiske]

Biblically there are only two things that I can think of that are assigned by God to a sex regarding family roles. The husband is the head of the house as Christ is the head of the Church. And please don't get all worked up about how that is subjugating women. Because if you know anything about scripture that was NEVER the intent not the command. Scripture has always been used for wrong purposes of wrong headed people.

I don't have any problem with any interpretation of this that involves no subjugation of women. As long as "headship" isn't seen as being about power and control, fine.

FWIW, I understand that phrase as the husband/father being the source of the familial identity, just as Christ is the source of the church's identity.

And the other thing is husbands are supposed to provide for their families.

Like Ploverwing, I'd like to know where you find this in Scripture as a command specifically to men and/or husbands.

My observation is that life is unpredictable and it is good if a couple are flexible and able to work together in whatever circumstances arise.

The lack of family structure is the real problem of society today. Particularly as women CHOOSE to become single mothers and men abdicate their responsibilities as fathers. Also there is an upward trend of more and more men and women choosing to be single and not having marriages and families.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "lack of family structure" here. Are you talking about people not marrying? Because that's not really quite the same thing. Nor do I really think that's necessarily a problem, in and of itself.

 

[returnn23]

While I don't think gender "roles" are set in stone as who should do what I think some roles are more likely to be done by each sex. I mean who cares who does the laundry, cooks dinner or mows the yard. Each family gets to choose those things based on preference on skills and desires.

There's nothing sacred about men mowing the lawn or women doing the cooking.

Biblically there are only two things that I can think of that are assigned by God to a sex regarding family roles. The husband is the head of the house as Christ is the head of the Church. And please don't get all worked up about how that is subjugating women. Because if you know anything about scripture that was NEVER the intent not the command. Scripture has always been used for wrong purposes of wrong headed people.

And the other thing is husbands are supposed to provide for their families. And again it doesn't say anything about men have to be the only provider and women are not allowed to help or have a job. But it does say it's the mans role. So he should really be trying to do so.

But it's not the woman's job to clean the bathroom, mop the floors and vacuum the rugs while the man puts his feet up. Each couple is free to work out whatever roles they want to.

The lack of family structure is the real problem of society today. Particularly as women CHOOSE to become single mothers and men abdicate their responsibilities as fathers. Also there is an upward trend of more and more men and women choosing to be single and not having marriages and families.

Do you know any men who abdicated anything? Since radical feminists issued their commands, abortion was a woman's choice only. It's as if the man and woman were not in the same room when she got pregnant.

A lack of family structure IS THE problem. So if women want to be the dictators today, that's fine as long as they tell the men they know.

A lot of boys have become men but with no father in their lives, it's easier for them to behave badly in life. Children need direction from both parents.


So, if women want to give men a list of things only they will do so that the roles are evenly divided - fine. Do it. Be honest about it. That applies to both.


Here is what Christian men are told:


Ephesians 5:25

"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,"

 

[didactics]

What passage do you have in mind here?

“But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” 1 Timothy 5:8 (NKJV)





“If any provide not for his own, etc. If any men or women do not maintain their own poor relations who belong to them, they do in effect deny the faith; for the design of Christ was to confirm the law of Moses, and particularly the law of the fifth commandment, which is, Honour thy father and mother; so that those deny the faith who disobey that law, much more if they provide not for their wives and children, who are parts of themselves; if they spend that upon their lusts which should maintain their families, they have denied the faith and are worse than infidels.” Matthew Henry's Commentary (bolded text, emphasis added)





This interpretation supports the idea that men are primarily to be the providers or to have an orientation to work outside the home.



As a side note it is possible that a small business exists as the place of residence but you get what I mean (to be the breadwinner).

 

[Paidiske]

“But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” 1 Timothy 5:8 (NKJV)

That's really not gendered in the Greek. "Anyone" is not gender specific; "his" is added to make sense in English but is not in the Greek. The term apistou (unbeliever) is in the masculine singular, but probably only because a plural would be clumsy there. This is not setting out a male role, but an expectation for everyone. (This is also evident from the fact that in verse 4, he doesn't say "if a widow has sons," but, "descendants" in a non-gender-specific way).

This interpretation supports the idea that men are primarily to be the providers or to have an orientation to work outside the home.

As a side note it is possible that a small business exists as the place of residence but you get what I mean (to be the breadwinner).

I get what you mean, but I don't think it's what Paul means. Paul is saying that we all have an obligation to support our households before expecting support from the church.

Edited to add: also, the word translated "provide for" there isn't specifically about breadwinning as such. It's a general term meaning something like "to take thought for." And that might apply in senses other than direct financial provision. (For example, I know of one couple where the husband is often out doing practical helping tasks for other people, but neglects to do those tasks at home; you could just as easily say that that kind of neglect of one's own household fits within what Paul's talking about here, especially if the other spouse then needs to look for outside help!)