Feminism

[S.O.J.I.A.]

On a level playing field I would agree.

I’ve provided evidence consistent with the idea that it’s not.

I shall leave it there.

If what you provided is what you steak your case on then you have no case.

She got what unproven commodities get for her initial contract. If she maintains her performance unto the end of her contract she will have leverage to demand higher pay and they'll give it to her if they desire to keep her.

A business is always going to favor their bottom line and if they can figure out how to not pay someone they will, and that's for men and women. My WWE example illustrates that.

That's business, and business is cutthroat. You gotta be your own advocate.

 

[Silmarien]

Hmm. Maybe Paul was actually somewhat progressive for his time, even as some of his prescriptions havent "aged well".

Anyway, always interesting to hear your take on things. And welcome back. Werent you at religious festivals in Seville or something? Did you post about that here?

Yeah, I spent the months of April and May there, which meant Holy Week a la española. Honestly, Spanish Catholicism is an odd beast, since there's a such a strong element of cultural Catholicism going on that I'm not sure just how religious some of these festivals actually are. Holy Week in Seville ultimately ends up being more a celebration of the various different parts of the city, represented by their sacred icons.

I've become Trianera hasta la muerte, so here is the Esperanza de Triana taking her midnight march on Holy Thursday:

..."yes" to all of that, Silmarien. But I might add that part of the problem people may be having with some of those really "teethy" remarks that Paul seems to make about the place of women in church and society come about because when reading and often interpreted these passages in the Bible, people do so by reading nothing but the Bible alone. (Of course.....you knew this already, I know. But not everyone else seems to...)

Sometimes, particularly with passages such as the one's Paul seems to have written about "women's place(s)," it would help immensely if we could all apply at least a little bit of Hermeneutical acumen (and the effort that actually goes with that) and learn to see how these books and letters were written in, and against at times, the surrounding culture in which they were, in real time and space, written.

Yeah, I think people also forget that these were letters, that they dealt with concrete rather than abstract issues, and that we're only seeing one side of the conversation. Who knows what was going on in some of these cities that led Paul to make the recommendations he made?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So then how is the change of the social order from the one you describe to the current one a bad thing?

We valued propriety, and pride of country.

 

[ChicanaRose]

As a believer, I know a secular agenda that was not born of God will have issues. Spiritually speaking, we can propose its aim is to liberate Eve by undermining Adam and leaving him to bear the brunt of both curses.

Feminism didn’t free men from their responsibilities. They’re still expected to provide. It places her in the drivers seat with full autonomy and no requirement for subjection except on her terms.

Well said, LaBèlla (as always )! It seems like feminism started out with women standing up for their rights (at least in the first wave) and then evolved into a revolt.

And that takes away from our femininity. Women feel like they have to become louder, rougher, and more masculine (wear pants suits instead of skirts to blend into male corporate culture) to be heard or respected.

Feminism tells us that if we have "gentle and quiet" spirit (1 Pet. 3:4), we would be walked all over. But the Bible says that husbands could be "won over without words by the behavior of their wives" (v.1).

We find this modelled by Esther who stood up for her people and changed the course of history without ever losing her femininity--inside and out (Esther 2:12; 5:2). Perhaps the secret that the feminist have not yet discovered, is that being respected requires not to move away from, but towards our femininity.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

I don’t have that information.

That's information that those who want to claim gender inequality will need, especially when talking about lawsuits.

 

[Silmarien]

But that shouldn’t bring either grief if they understand themselves and the necessity for grace. Just because a bar is high doesn’t mean we refuse to leap. A holy standard is better than none.

All of this comes back to the wisdom of our choice in companion. If you’ve selected someone who fears the Lord with a teachable spirit you’ll fare better than the one with the know-it-all who refuses to listen. Our submission to God is a foreshadowing of how we’ll respond to relational challenges. If flesh wins with Him it will always win with others.

Well, the problem is that even being able to select someone who fears the Lord with a teachable spirit is something relatively new in society. As women, we did not always have the economic freedom to be selective about husbands, or to be able to walk away when they did turn out to be unteachable. And we were told that the holy standard was to not resist an abusive husband. (I do not see that in Paul, but I do in Augustine.)

I do think the notion of authority and obedience in the marital context are tied directly to economic concerns. It has never been uncommon to find men who resent the economic burden that their wives present, so a fully hierarchical relationship could at least in theory cut down on the tensions that arise just because the concrete inequalities in play. In practice, though, I don't think it's ever worked.

Harmful behaviors should be discussed and rooted out. But they shouldn’t be replaced with the same in a different guise. Domestic abuse is wrong. But so is a destructive tongue. A woman may not raise her fists but our words can be cutting and very inflammatory. Both should treat the other with respect.

Yes, but feminists do not often say that women ought to go around abusing their husbands verbally. I would consider that to be domestic abuse as well, and point out that there's no rule that only men can be the abusive partner in a relationship.

But the more we come to the conclusion that respect should be mutual, that understanding and being willing to be teachable should be mutual, the more I wonder where authority is playing a role at all.

No it isn’t. I see the convergence between the two. I’m comfortable with my sexuality because it came from Him. But the subject is difficult for many in the church. There’s a lot of repression, confusion, and misinformation. Some view it as a means of conception and others don’t believe it should be enjoyed. We have a long way to go on that subject.

Yes, so it would seem. I've been lucky, since there is a bit of an odd little gender studies niche in the Anglican world, and my first priest immediately introduced me to that. I've never really felt like this was the sort of thing that couldn't be discussed, but I suspect that I'm the exception rather than the rule when it comes to that.

 

[Strathos]

It's a cyclical thing down through history. If such behavior in Socrates day had continued society would have destroyed itself centuries ago. In fact such behavior (as we are seeing now in some places) is indicative of a society on the edge. The social order of the poor has largely broken down.

Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, the problem is that even being able to select someone who fears the Lord with a teachable spirit is something relatively new in society. As women, we did not always have the economic freedom to be selective about husbands, or to be able to walk away when they did turn out to be unteachable. And we were told that the holy standard was to not resist an abusive husband. (I do not see that in Paul, but I do in Augustine.)

We can also see that godly women--specifically godly wives--were not supposed to be trampled over in the O.T., either really. Hence, the strange ways and the reasons that the narratives in the Bible take some of the literary shape they do: in this case, I'm alluding to (in my best imitation of an ancient Jewish author) the story surrounding godly Abigail and her lunk-headed husband, Nabal. Here, we find that some of what transpires provides a 'moral' within the frame of the story, with the moral expressed where we read about what eventually falls upon guys like Nabal, or other, similar guys (or husbands). [1 Samuel, chapter 25].

Understandably, the point of many ancient biblical narratives, with their disturbing elements, are lost on the average American reader today. Sad, but true.

 

[durangodawood]

Yeah, I spent the months of April and May there, which meant Holy Week a la española. Honestly, Spanish Catholicism is an odd beast, since there's a such a strong element of cultural Catholicism going on that I'm not sure just how religious some of these festivals actually are. Holy Week in Seville ultimately ends up being more a celebration of the various different parts of the city, represented by their sacred icons.

I've become Trianera hasta la muerte, so here is the Esperanza de Triana taking her midnight march on Holy Thursday:

...

Wow that is so neat. The way it moves it looks like some kind of shuffling creature.

 

[durangodawood]

Well said, LaBèlla (as always )! It seems like feminism started out with women standing up for their rights (at least in the first wave) and then evolved into a revolt...

Maybe. But I'm also struck by how conservatives only ever seem to acknowledge to value of progressive change when its in the rear view mirror. Womens suffrage? Anti slavery? All good in hindsight, but, at the time, conservatives were dead set against change. Makes me wonder what conservatives are getting wrong today.

(to be fair, conservatives have certainly gotten some things right in hindsight too, imo)

...And that takes away from our femininity. Women feel like they have to become louder, rougher, and more masculine (wear pants suits instead of skirts to blend into male corporate culture) to be heard or respected.

Feminism tells us that if we have "gentle and quiet" spirit (1 Pet. 3:4), we would be walked all over. But the Bible says that husbands could be "won over without words by the behavior of their wives" (v.1).

I'm dismayed by feminist thinking that rejects femininity in principle. But I fully support the notion that a woman should not have to be feminine. I know some women who's real nature is somewhere to the "masculine" side of center. Its natural to them and there's no good reason they should be bent into a shape that doesn't (pants)suit them.

 

[Larniavc]

We valued propriety, and pride of country.

Can you give an example where those values have been beneficial to your country?

 

[ChicanaRose]

Its natural to them and there's no good reason they should be bent into a shape that doesn't (pants)suit them.

That's a witty line and fair to say. Extremes in either end of the spectrum can be risky.

 

[bèlla]

Well said, LaBèlla (as always )! It seems like feminism started out with women standing up for their rights (at least in the first wave) and then evolved into a revolt.

Thank you for the compliment.

Anything that’s undertaken without the Lord’s involvement will eventually snowball. The initial wave attracted many and promised good results. But if its root was pure you wouldn’t have the monstrosity we see today. Evil always appears in a pleasing form. You don’t see its true face until you’re stuck. Good trees bear good fruit.

And that takes away from our femininity. Women feel like they have to become louder, rougher, and more masculine (wear pants suits instead of skirts to blend into male corporate culture) to be heard or respected.

Women were told that they needed to behave like men to move up the corporate ladder. Smashing the glass ceiling and gaining a seat at the table become a central theme.

Feminism tells us that if we have "gentle and quiet" spirit (1 Pet. 3:4), we would be walked all over. But the Bible says that husbands could be "won over without words by the behavior of their wives" (v.1).

This is true. But the fallout has made the sexes more demanding which results in unrealistic expectations on both sides.

We find this modelled by Esther who stood up for her people and changed the course of history without ever losing her femininity--inside and out (Esther 2:12; 5:2). Perhaps the secret that the feminist have not yet discovered, is that being respected requires not to move away from, but towards our femininity.

Esther is a wonderful example of grace and eloquence. I don’t think they’re oblivious of the truth. They covet the king’s crown not his consort’s.

 

[JackRT]

How long have the lower paid people been there in comparison to those with top pay?

That would be almost forever right back into Biblical times and likely before.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I 'inquire' wisely, as I was there.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well said, LaBèlla (as always )! It seems like feminism started out with women standing up for their rights (at least in the first wave) and then evolved into a revolt.

And that takes away from our femininity. Women feel like they have to become louder, rougher, and more masculine (wear pants suits instead of skirts to blend into male corporate culture) to be heard or respected.

Feminism tells us that if we have "gentle and quiet" spirit (1 Pet. 3:4), we would be walked all over. But the Bible says that husbands could be "won over without words by the behavior of their wives" (v.1).

We find this modelled by Esther who stood up for her people and changed the course of history without ever losing her femininity--inside and out (Esther 2:12; 5:2). Perhaps the secret that the feminist have not yet discovered, is that being respected requires not to move away from, but towards our femininity.

View attachment 264055

Great points. Feminism attempts to replace the efficacy of virtue with that of force; the virtue of chastity having been rendered unnecessary by the pill, leaving women without their most powerful relationship tool regarding men.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That would be almost forever right back into Biblical times and likely before.

If a person doesn't like what they're paid they can get a different job, or get a second job. I did. Worked out great. $$

 

[A_Thinker]

Spiritually speaking, we can propose its aim is to liberate Eve by undermining Adam and leaving him to bear the brunt of both curses.

One of those curses being ... "having pain in childbirth" ?

 

[bèlla]

Well, the problem is that even being able to select someone who fears the Lord with a teachable spirit is something relatively new in society. As women, we did not always have the economic freedom to be selective about husbands, or to be able to walk away when they did turn out to be unteachable.

That is no longer our fate. God has brought us into existence during a time when we have the ability to exercise discernment in our choice of mate.

And we were told that the holy standard was to not resist an abusive husband. (I do not see that in Paul, but I do in Augustine.)

I have never given great weight to those writings. I appreciate their perspective. But my banner is the Word.

I do think the notion of authority and obedience in the marital context are tied directly to economic concerns.

Are you dismissing the spiritual associations of marriage? Hierarchy is a fact of life. The same holds true in the heavenly and demonic realms. God’s orderliness is manifest throughout creation. You can’t escape it. Even the animal kingdom demonstrates the same.

Yes, but feminists do not often say that women ought to go around abusing their husbands verbally. I would consider that to be domestic abuse as well, and point out that there's no rule that only men can be the abusive partner in a relationship.

Reinforcing a man’s worthlessness and toxicity does the dirty work on their behalf. If you keep hearing someone’s useless and have bought the rhetoric you’ll eventually feel the same in time. The bible tells us that bad company corrupts good morals for a reason.

But the more we come to the conclusion that respect should be mutual, that understanding and being willing to be teachable should be mutual, the more I wonder where authority is playing a role at all.

A good marriage is akin to good pilots. I board a plane with little concern for my welfare. I fly airlines with great safety records and customer service. I’m placing my life in their hands on every flight.

If the notion of doing the same with my spouse causes concern or leaves me quaking I need to have a heart to heart with God. I would expect my well-being would be a greater concern for him than the man flying the plane.

We encounter authority figures everyday and yield without complaint. But when it comes to marriage its another matter. I’d rather follow the man who loves me than a stranger who’s doing his job.

 

[bèlla]

One of those curses being ... "having pain in childbirth" ?

Not yet. But we’re getting closer. This one is up at bat:

Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.