Gender Equality. Who Should Be Submissive?

[Skybringr]

For the record: As a woman, I would follow a man who is willing to lay down his life for me to the far side of hell.

There's a shortage of women who would do the same for a man. For us it's to be expected.

It's sort of ironic really. At the end of the day, men really are the harbingers of mankind.

*and there goes feminism, right back down the fiery depths it rose from*

 

[seeingeyes]

There's a shortage of women who would do the same for a man. For us it's to be expected.

It's sort of ironic really. At the end of the day, men really are the harbingers of mankind.

*and there goes feminism, right back down the fiery depths it rose from*

How would you know? You clearly fall into the second category.

 

[Skybringr]

How would you know? You clearly fall into the second category.

How would you know? You clearly fall into the third category- follow whoever gives what you wouldn't give unless it's first given to you *and maybe you'll consider it*

 

[seeingeyes]

How would you know? You clearly fall into the third category- follow whoever gives what you wouldn't give unless it's first given to you *and maybe you'll consider it*

The very definition of a Christian.

 

[Skybringr]

The very definition of a Christian.

What? To leapfrog over men until you find the one that that has more respect for you then themselves?

Do you even know that women divorce twice as much as men, and that it's least common among those who make more then the man, because it's a risk to do so? They have no problem divorcing a man who makes more, and splitting all the assets that aren't theirs, but take careful inventory when the man makes less, as it may impede on them.

Of course you don't. Feminist philosophy doesn't reveal any such truths.

 

[seeingeyes]

What? To leapfrog over men until you find the one that that has more respect for you then themselves?

To follow the One who has given his life. And no one else.

Do you even know that women divorce twice as much as men, and that it's least common among those who make more then the man, because it's a risk to do so? They have no problem divorcing a man who makes more, and splitting all the assets that aren't theirs, but take careful inventory when the man makes less, as it may impede on them.

Of course you don't. Feminist philosophy doesn't reveal any such truths.

I'm not a feminist...or maybe I am, I'm quite apolitical at this point so I can't say for sure.

At any rate, I am a connoisseur of fine men. I was raised by a good man, I married one, and I've been surrounded by love from kind and strong men my whole life.

One thing these men have in common is that they do not wait for others to do what they want before they do the right thing. They do what is right regardless of what feminists are doing or what the government is doing or what the neighbors are doing.

And while I've certainly been brusk here, it was not my intention to be insulting, but rather to challenge you. Jesus didn't sit around crying in his beer over politics. He walked. And others followed.

So walk. Quit worrying about what those other people are doing wrong. Work on yourself (if you don't know how, ask for help from your strong brothers who have already done a lot of that kind of work).

Don't wait for the world to fall in line at your demands..it will burn down around your ears before that happens. Lead by example, the way the Lord said and demonstrated.

 

[Skybringr]

It is utterly irresponsible for a person who knows the problem with women today to sit idly by while thread after thread, talk after talk, discussing how men can be better to women and how men are supposed to submit.

No_
If nobody wants to bring up the issues with women, then I'm going to follow up. I'm frankly tired of witnessing this conflict of interest- it's okay to talk about this old rag of a subject over and over again, but saying anything contrary to women basically being perfection is 'whining'.

It's nonsense, through and through. People even go as far as to outright twist and thump the Bible to ignore the actual dilemma. It's painful to watch, especially from the lips of men.

When I see a man lose his own house, so his wife can bring another man inside of it, it makes me cringe. Why aren't these things talked about? A woman has never had to feel this, and men are not men anymore_
Screw this conversation, I say until you take these things into account, don't even approach the subject.

 

[seeingeyes]

It is utterly irresponsible for a person who knows the problem with women today to sit idly by while thread after thread, talk after talk, discussing how men can be better to women and how men are supposed to submit.

Is it a problem "with women"?

No_
If nobody wants to bring up the issues with women, then I'm going to follow up. I'm frankly tired of witnessing this conflict of interest- it's okay to talk about this old rag of a subject over and over again, but saying anything contrary to women basically being perfection is 'whining'.

I never said that women are perfection. I never even said that women are better than men. What I said is that men who whine about women should certainly never be followed by women.

It's nonsense, through and through. People even go as far as to outright twist and thump the Bible to ignore the actual dilemma. It's painful to watch, especially from the lips of men.

What is the dilemma? That women make out well financially from divorce? Well, all the studies point to ex-wives being worse off financially than their ex-husbands on the whole (examples to the contrary notwithstanding). So now what?

When I see a man lose his own house, so his wife can bring another man inside of it, it makes me cringe. Why aren't these things talked about? A woman has never had to feel this, and men are not men anymore_
Screw this conversation, I say until you take these things into account, don't even approach the subject.

If men are not men, it is not because of women, and it is certainly not because of money.

If women are money-grubbing gold diggers, it is not the fault of men, and it is certainly not the fault of money.

 

[NorrinRadd]

For the record: As a woman, I would follow a man who is willing to lay down his life for me to the far side of hell.

But for a man who whines about how nobody wants to follow him - I wouldn't follow him to the end of the block.

There's a shortage of women who would do the same for a man. For us it's to be expected.

...

No, as Christians, it is not "expected" of either sex more than the other. It is the highest expression of "Love your neighbor" to which we all aspire and few attain. This is an important feature of the Egalitarian mindset.

 

[NorrinRadd]

...

Do you even know that women divorce twice as much as men, and that it's least common among those who make more then the man, because it's a risk to do so? They have no problem divorcing a man who makes more, and splitting all the assets that aren't theirs, but take careful inventory when the man makes less, as it may impede on them.

Of course you don't. Feminist philosophy doesn't reveal any such truths.

That's interesting. What are the stats on...

Which spouse is more likely to commit adultery?

Which spouse is more likely to be a batterer?

Which is more likely to apply the carnal version of the "Golden Rule," i.e. "He who earns the gold makes the rules"?

 

[NorrinRadd]

...

I'm not a feminist...

This is a good point for me to note that I don't care for the term "feminist," because to me it perpetuates the idea of competition between the sexes, and I despise this.

Of course, "Complementarians" will continue to label my side as "feminists," just as I will continue to refer to them as "patriarchalists."

 

[Skybringr]

That's interesting. What are the stats on...

Which spouse is more likely to commit adultery?

The technical majority are men, but 60/40? That's not something to consider.

Which spouse is more likely to be a batterer?

I don't know, what counts as 'battering' these days? I know a guy right now who literally shrugged his wife out the way to get out of the house and was charged with assault.
And he'll probably be found guilty to- if one has any knowledge of the embarrassment that domestic courts are, one would know this.

This is a whole other issue in and of itself- a man gets punched in the face and because he goes and pushes her on her rear end, it's wrong and he's guilty.

You're simply barking up the wrong tree in this regard. If you don't see it from my angle, you are really part of the problem rather then the solution.

Which is more likely to apply the carnal version of the "Golden Rule," i.e. "He who earns the gold makes the rules"?

The Bible dictates that men are the kings of their household. You all utterly disregard this, and trump a notion of men submitting such as what this thread is, to deny the inevitable.
A man deserves his title. It is a holy title- an ordinance given to him from God.

 

[Johnnz]

The Bible dictates that men are the kings of their household. You all utterly disregard this, and trump a notion of men submitting such as what this thread is, to deny the inevitable.
A man deserves his title. It is a holy title- an ordinance given to him from God.

Nonsense. No such thing is taught in the NT.

John
NZ

 

[Skybringr]

Nonsense. No such thing is taught in the NT.

John
NZ

Tell Abraham that

 

[Johnnz]

Tell Abraham that

Why, when Jesus is now our reference point? Here is what He taught about any kind of leadership. I'm not sure you can fit kingly authority as of right into these verses.

Matt 18:1-4 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. NIV

Mark 9:33-35 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." NIV

Luke 22:24-28 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. NIV

Or in the Message: Luke 22:24-28 Within minutes they were bickering over who of them would end up the greatest. But Jesus intervened: "Kings like to throw their weight around and people in authority like to give themselves fancy titles. It's not going to be that way with you. Let the senior among you become like the junior; let the leader act the part of the servant.

"Who would you rather be: the one who eats the dinner or the one who serves the dinner? You'd rather eat and be served, right? But I've taken my place among you as the one who serves. (from THE MESSAGE: The Bible in Contemporary Language © 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson. All rights reserved.)

John
NZ

 

[NorrinRadd]

The technical majority are men, but 60/40? That's not something to consider.



I don't know, what counts as 'battering' these days? I know a guy right now who literally shrugged his wife out the way to get out of the house and was charged with assault.
And he'll probably be found guilty to- if one has any knowledge of the embarrassment that domestic courts are, one would know this.

This is a whole other issue in and of itself- a man gets punched in the face and because he goes and pushes her on her rear end, it's wrong and he's guilty.

You're simply barking up the wrong tree in this regard. If you don't see it from my angle, you are really part of the problem rather then the solution.

I have no desire to spend the necessary hours in yoga and Pilates training to stick my head far enough up there to see things from the suggested angle.

As for the facts you state, I agree those cases are deplorable. That is not an argument to put women into a greater state of subordination to men. It is an argument to pursue genuine equal treatment, and to treat each case on its own merits (as opposed to starting with the assumption that, e.g., one sex is always the aggressor).

The Bible dictates that men are the kings of their household. You all utterly disregard this, ...

No, FTR I don't "disregard" it, I flatly reject it as the unbiblical excrement it is.

Fairly early in my Xian life, I was taught that the husband and father is "prophet, priest, and king" of the household. I believed that for years, but eventually realized Scripture itself does not teach that.

ALL Christians are royal priests (1 Pet. 2:9). ALL Christians are "kings and priests" (Rev. 1:6; 5:10). ALL Christians have the prophetic Spirit (Acts 2). ALL Christians -- men and women -- are prophets, priests, and KINGS. And ALL Christians, not just women, constitute the "BRIDE of Christ." There is no basis for the "man is the king of the household" in Scripture.

...and trump a notion of men submitting such as what this thread is, to deny the inevitable.
A man deserves his title. It is a holy title- an ordinance given to him from God.

What "title" is that?

 

[NorrinRadd]

Tell Abraham that

I presume you allude to 1 Pet. 3:6, where Peter cites Sarah as an example of wifely submission, and claims she went so far as to call Abraham "lord." Several things are of interest:

-- In that verse, some of Peter's advice is framed in terms of doing things that would win over an unbelieving husband to the Lord; so it is not the behavior that should characterize a healthy Christian marriage, but is the sort a non-Christian Roman male would find proper.

-- In the next verse, Peter gives advice to husbands who ARE Christians. He tells them to treat wives with understanding, since they are "weaker," but also tells them to "honor" their wives as "fellow/equal heirs" of the grace of life.

-- Most interesting is that the entire passage flows out of what came before. In chapter 2, he urged them to behave in ways the Gentiles would find good. He told them to "submit" to "every human institution," and specifically cites emperors and governors. Then from that flow the "household codes" beginning in 2:18.

Peter teaches to live the Christian virtue of self-sacrifice in ways that would be non-threatening to the hostile culture, and winsome to an unsaved husband.

One must wonder, then, if he would say the same things here and now. If he had told his readers to "submit to every human institution," which include laws specifying the equality of all humans, and explicitly treating men and women as equal, would he then go on to tell only one sex to "submit" and to call the other "lord"?

 

[Unix]

I agree with SwordFall. Over here in Sweden, women win the parental rights by just claiming the rights - nothing whatsoever is required and as a man You have to pay up to $5,000 (after Your low incomes have been taken into account) to get to see Your children a few hours once a month for a year and after that perhaps never again, after not having been allowed to see the children for years. Can it be worse? I have done nothing to deserve this:

women are treated better, they get off easier in court, win parental rights, get the house in divorce, have preeminence over the unborn, are more applicable for social aid, make up a fraction of the homeless, often usurp heads of households, enact the majority of divorces, can beat the crap out of you and if you lay a finger on them you're a wife beater, etc. etc.

 

[GeorgiaGuyinAtlanta]

I do find it quite sad that people choose not to see the wrongfulness of the current situation that men find themselves in as it relates to the court system, etc.

This is not a trivial matter.

Some of you are treating this as a trivial matter, and that is wrong, in my opinion. It seems to me, at least looking from this forum, though there have only been relatively few posters, that it is the older men who grew up in a time that better respected men and who haven't had to deal with the ridiculousness of it all who are trivializing it the most.

Ladies, you're also in the wrong for making light of these issues. How about a little sympathy and compassion for your brothers in Christ? How about not expecting a man to do his Biblical role, while at the same time ignoring your own role?

A woman is supposed to be submissive, not combative or argumentative. She is to respect her husband. A man is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. This doesn't mean that the wife is to forfeit her role in respecting her husband if he doesn't do his role first, or in the manner of which feels matches up to her definition of the man fulfilling his God-given role.

Feminism is the primary reason, a tool of satan, for why we have such a high divorce rate, and it's sad that men have enabled it for financial gain or "brownie points" with women (lawyers, judges, law enforcement).

 

[NorrinRadd]

I do find it quite sad that people choose not to see the wrongfulness of the current situation that men find themselves in as it relates to the court system, etc.

This is not a trivial matter.

No, it isn't.

But many of the posts decrying the apparent preference given to women in various cases jump to the moronic conclusion that seeking equal and just treatment will make this worse. In fact it is at least as likely that the "traditional" view that women are weaker, less capable, more in need of protection, more in need of provision, better suited to raising children is a major contributing factor to their being granted child custody, child support, housing, etc.

Some of you are treating this as a trivial matter, and that is wrong, in my opinion. It seems to me, at least looking from this forum, though there have only been relatively few posters, that it is the older men who grew up in a time that better respected men and who haven't had to deal with the ridiculousness of it all who are trivializing it the most.

I am from a family with many strong, smart, highly capable women.

Ladies, you're also in the wrong for making light of these issues. How about a little sympathy and compassion for your brothers in Christ? How about not expecting a man to do his Biblical role, while at the same time ignoring your own role?

Of course some of us -- both men and women -- see in Scripture no such things as "roles" open to only one sex or the other, apart from those that directly depend on certain bits of anatomy.

A woman is supposed to be submissive, not combative or argumentative. She is to respect her husband. A man is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. This doesn't mean that the wife is to forfeit her role in respecting her husband if he doesn't do his role first, or in the manner of which feels matches up to her definition of the man fulfilling his God-given role.

Yes, and slaves are to be obedient, too. Don't forget them. If you're going to advocate for present-day Domestic Codes that are patriarchal, have the guts to go all-in and advocate for reviving the institution of slavery.

Feminism ...

The main problem with "feminism" is that it inherently focuses on women and on improving their lot. Intentional or not, that creates a competition with men, and quite reasonably engenders push-back. The focus should not be on "women" but on "people," and the goal should be liberation and advancement for *both* men and women.

...is the primary reason, a spawn of ...

Could it Be..... - YouTube

...satan, for why we have such a high divorce rate, and it's sad that men have enabled it for financial gain or "brownie points" with women (lawyers, judges, law enforcement).

I don't like the biased treatment men sometimes get by the courts, but your characterization makes it hard -- impossible in my own case -- to give the respect and seriousness you seek.