Men Step Up

[Conservativation]

I really struggle when people stereotype and say, "Women need love; men need respect."

I am a woman, and I need BOTH.
My husband is a man, and he needs BOTH.
We BOTH need BOTH.

For people (and some Christian authors I've read) to say that women would rather be loved and men would rather be respected is, imo, stereotypical, inaccurate, and detrimental to marriages.

Its not inaccurate at all. Why rush so fast to reject VALID statistical generalities? I notice this is the majority position of young women, and i guess because of the mantra we've heard the past 50 years....that there are NO differences. Why FEAR the differences? Why not view GENERAL differences as the first layer of a diagnostician. Do you realize that almost all of medicine is based upon "stereotypes" ...not really, thats just the bad word for what is actually valid statistical generalities.

As a stranger, say a pastor, how can he preach to a thousand people if what you say is true....yea yea we are all unique blah blah, I know, but that's sold TOO hard to children, where every high school and uni graduate now walks out saying HEY IM UNIQUE, and adults a few years removed from that propaganda jostle past saying "uh huh" under their breaths. Without ANY guidance from general truths, its a mess. The Bible is FULL of general truths about gender differences. Its actually your rejection of these that has become the cliche and stereotype.

Its simple, as an analogy, that some folks smoke a lot and never die from smoking related illness is a fact. So, when faced with the statistically derived fact that smoking is bad, would you immediately head for "no no no we are all unique and thats harmful to peoples free choices"? OF COURSE NOT. To claim as you have "I need both love and respect, my husband too, and my sister and cousin too"....its like latching onto the uncle how died at 98 of a car accident, and smoked his whole life, and claiming there is no validity to smoking warnings.

To say that women are GENERALLY more this way (characteristic A), has nothing to say that they cannot ALSO be somewhat the OTHER way (characteristic B).....you read absolutes when none are there. Its a common reaction. Someone says men/women do X.......then someone says "but not ALL men/women do X"......why say that, it wasn't stated that ALL anything. If you can see my point, it will save you a lifetime of easier communication with men....I promise....BECAUSE of the valid generalities regarding communication. Somehow you FELT an "all" statement, but there was never one. Its a micro example of a huge disconnect. Its ironic to do that in a post claiming the differences in genders are invalid.

In the aggregate of population, men ARE less emotional, men DO need respect more....and the things about women are also true. This doesn't say YOU are ONLY about love (even if it SEEMS that way, its NOT that), and that your neighbors husband is ONLY about respect....its a general tendency spectrum starting point when attempting to address societal matters. Its a kind of sociology in a way, and its 100% perfectly accurate, and you shouldn't and needn't be threatened by it. This is being taught, to kneejerk reject these facts. It needs to be explained because its not demeaning to either gender to BE either gender, nor is it anything bad or less to actually share common traits. The whole "you are special, unique" thing starts in Kindergarten now, and it yields a perception of sameness as an insult. You are Special...as Max Lucados clever book rightly illustrates, the similarities to gender coexist with your special-ness.

Young women....stop thinking that the general truths about gender make you less. There is a crisis of self esteem among women in the church, and no one can fix it but YOU....men cannot fix it, God can, and you...and this issue about rejecting and being threatened by God given gender differences whether is a basic misunderstanding of whats meant by generality, or a pure fear of being painted a "normal women"....please stop. You will NOT feel better by redefining things...you will feel better by ACCEPTING things. TRY and read discussions about generalities in gender dispassionately, try, Im saying, to read them more as the stereotypical man would read them....realizing that another problem is what I just said seems scandalous.....what! telling a women to try and think like a man!....but bit but woman speak is the language of marriage we are taught...and men are simple buffoons who don't GET it. AND, dont forget, women ARE logical and men ARE emotional communicators TOO (I suspect that was a reaction you'd have, meanwhile i said nothing to the contrary). im USING the stereotype to explain how to un derstand and not be disturbed by this stuff. if the church would give a nudge to stereotypical man speak as the best way to discuss SOME things....it would bridge gaps unbridgable by stereotypical woman speak.

There are many many layers to us....the closer to the middle, the more we are all unique, the closer to the surface and more general, the more gender differences ARE GENERALLY valid starting points, FROM them we peel more layers and find where the specifics are. If counselors didnt have these tools, they would be lost for weeks, yet, they study these things...sadly the studies have now been corrupted too, as self esteem has generated fear among women, and anger too.

We are all just fine as we are. We cannot by fiat make it go away, in the general....and you should be GLAD about it, not offended by it.

I daresay its exactly the opposite, that rejecting our natures, and getting all screwed up in over defining things and not just resting in the simple things God said about gender....THAT is a danger to gender relations.

Its a long answer, not directed at just you at all....its directed at your post being a VERY VERY common one I see among new young women posting, and not a small number of mid aged women. Several generations have been sold somehow the dischotomy that
A: to be a stereotypical women is somehow insulting, and must be rejected, characteristic by characteristic
B: women can do anything men can same or better

There is a huge conflicting disconnect in A and B

 

[dorig59]

I think a large part of the problem is that in recent decades, the Scriptures, the Bible, the Word of God has been taught in a pitifully weak, watered down way. It's pablum, it's milk, it's lets-make-sure-we-don't-offend-anybody. I also think a lot of churches focus on the salvation message, where I think there ought to be more teaching on how to live the Christian life, how to grow & mature in our spirituality.

As far as a specific solution to the specific problem, I think it would be great if older, more Spiritually & maritally mature couples could teach & be an example to the younger ones. Oh, how I always wish(ed) for a godly woman to be a real living example to me as a first generation Christian. I did have some of that in the '90s, but we had moved away from that area a long time ago.

Anyway, how this would be structured is another issue. It has to start with a pastor not being afraid to teach the Scriptures without watering them down. Perhaps there could be small groups or cell groups that meet throughtout the week that were led by the most godly couples who fit the older man/woman teaching the younger.

 

[Robinsegg]

I really struggle when people stereotype and say, "Women need love; men need respect."

I am a woman, and I need BOTH.
My husband is a man, and he needs BOTH.
We BOTH need BOTH.

For people (and some Christian authors I've read) to say that women would rather be loved and men would rather be respected is, imo, stereotypical, inaccurate, and detrimental to marriages.

I never said men don't need love or that women don't need respect.
What I *said* was that
When something goes badly, men *see it* as disrespect, and then don't show love.
When something goes badly, women *see it* as unlove, and then don't show respect.

You see, the 2 go hand-in-hand, but the sexes tend to see things differently. If something is going badly or I have to say something difficult to hubby, I can make sure to do everything in my power that he doesn't feel I'm disrespecting him. If he knows I'm making the effort, he's less likely to *feel* disrespected. The same goes the opposite direction for women and love. The man can make effort to help the wife not feel unloved.

Does that mean he should never show his wife respect or she should never show her husband love? Absolutely not! But when something difficult is going on, doing some fairly simple things *can* make a huge difference in this area.

Rachel

 

[Lyndie]

I also think that if the church stopped reinforcing the stereotype that men 'aren't emotional, need sex to be happy neanderthals' we'd see a huge improvement. The way we view men, even in the church, is so far from Christ likeness is makes my head hurt, and the fact that the church reinforces it makes my head hurt more. If we want them to step up, let's stop making excuses and have some expectations of them. The difference of what we expect from women in the church and what we expect from men is really mind boggling.

 

[chaz345]

I went back and reviewed your posts and I think I understand a bit more. Are you saying that your post below is the negative attitudes about genuine masculinity?

No, the whole "men step up" isn't an example of negative attitudes towards real masculinity, it's a result. Men don't feel that it's ok to be a man so they stop doing it and then need to be told to step up.

The negative attitudes I'm talking about are deeply ingrained and so much the norm that it's hard to point out and hard to see sometimes so forgive me if I can't provide you with something really clear.

It's in the fact that when it comes to teching about Christ's lifr and character, the "soft" side is emphasized and the "hard" side is downplayed or even denied. It's in the fact that when teaching about spouses needs, women's needs are spoken of as if they just are what they are and men's needs are almost appologized for. It's in the fact that a man stepping up and leading, no matter the context, is so often accompanied by warnings of the possibility of him becoming self serving in that leadership.

 

[chaz345]

I also think that if the church stopped reinforcing the stereotype that men 'aren't emotional, need sex to be happy neanderthals' we'd see a huge improvement. The way we view men, even in the church, is so far from Christ likeness is makes my head hurt, and the fact that the church reinforces it makes my head hurt more. If we want them to step up, let's stop making excuses and have some expectations of them. The difference of what we expect from women in the church and what we expect from men is really mind boggling.

Well you are sort of right and completely wrong at the same time. If the church stopped reinforcing the idea that wanting sex makes men neanderthals we'd see a huge improvement.

 

[Lyndie]

I prob didn't word it right. What I meant was when the church reinforces the fact that is ALL they are, it lowers our expectations greatly.

 

[chaz345]

I really struggle when people stereotype and say, "Women need love; men need respect."

I am a woman, and I need BOTH.
My husband is a man, and he needs BOTH.
We BOTH need BOTH.

For people (and some Christian authors I've read) to say that women would rather be loved and men would rather be respected is, imo, stereotypical, inaccurate, and detrimental to marriages.

Yes both genders need both. But let me ask this. Why does God emphasize to men the need to love their wives and emphasize to women to respect their husbands?

It would be a dangerous stereotype IF the statement were "Women need ONLY love and men need ONLY respect." but that's not at all what is said or meant. But it is generally true, and yes there are exceptions, that for most women their number one relational need is love and for most men their number one relational need is respect. Nothing at all dangerous or damaging in that at all.

I suspect that in some cases the objection to the whole circular cycle thing is that it comes against the idea that if he would just do what he's supposed to everything will be fine. It has the audacity to actually come out and say that women can be the initiatior of the problems too, and that doesn't fit with how many want to see the world.

It rarely even helps to point out that the author that came up with the crazy cycle concept says that in situations where things have gone downhill, "going first" and starting to initiate the changes is part of what men are called to as leaders. The reason that doesn't help most people accept the idea is because of what he doesn't say, which is that IF the man doesn't that the woman can and should. IOW he actually comes out with the insane idea that either partner is capable of and called to do their own part regardless of what the other does.

 

[Lyndie]

I really struggle when people stereotype and say, "Women need love; men need respect."

I am a woman, and I need BOTH.
My husband is a man, and he needs BOTH.
We BOTH need BOTH.

For people (and some Christian authors I've read) to say that women would rather be loved and men would rather be respected is, imo, stereotypical, inaccurate, and detrimental to marriages.

Isn't the type of love between a husband and wife supposed to contain both love and respect? Respect, imo, for your spouse, whether husband or wife, is common sense I would think.
(cross posted with chaz)

 

[chaz345]

I prob didn't word it right. What I meant was when the church reinforces the fact that is ALL they are, it lowers our expectations greatly.

Maybe we agree. I'd absolutely agree if what you are saying is that the Church reinforces that many male characteristics are inherently bad and must be controlled or tolerated.

See I don't think its as simple as having low expectations. I think it's a matter of getting what you said you wanted. People didn't realize that all of the "bad" male characteristics had good sides to them. It's the good side that is being looked for when men are told to "step up" but they can't or more accurately don't know how or if they should because it involves exercising traits and characteristics that they've been told are bad their whole lives.

 

[Lyndie]

Maybe we agree. I'd absolutely agree if what you are saying is that the Church reinforces that many male characteristics are inherently bad and must be controlled or tolerated.

See I don't think its as simple as having low expectations. I think it's a matter of getting what you said you wanted. People didn't realize that all of the "bad" male characteristics had good sides to them. It's the good side that is being looked for when men are told to "step up" but they can't or more accurately don't know how or if they should because it involves exercising traits and characteristics that they've been told are bad their whole lives.

From what I have read and seen, its the other way around. I read a book once that said (paraphrase)
"Men are visual, they keep a rolodex of all the pretty woman they have seen and its perfectly okay for them to think about these woman." Um, no, that's lust imo. I've seen the 'keep them fed and give them sex whenever they want it and they will be happy' mantra. IMO, that lowers our idea of what a christian man should be. Funny though, we want our men to step up and be Christ like but I've never seen Christ described that way.
The church has made it ok to see men the way the world does, however, when it comes to women its a whole other story.

 

[dorig59]

Isn't the type of love between a husband and wife supposed to contain both love and respect? Respect, imo, for your spouse, whether husband or wife, is common sense I would think.
(cross posted with chaz)

See, this is a great example of what happens around here. Because we are saying that men in general need the emphasis on respect, and women in general need the emphasis more on love, then people start acting like it's only one or the other. Of course both spouses need love and respect, but in general respect is what's most important to the husband, and love is what's most important to the wife.

 

[dorig59]

From what I have read and seen, its the other way around. I read a book once that said (paraphrase)
"Men are visual, they keep a rolodex of all the pretty woman they have seen and its perfectly okay for them to think about these woman." Um, no, that's lust imo. I've seen the 'keep them fed and give them sex whenever they want it and they will be happy' mantra. IMO, that lowers our idea of what a christian man should be. Funny though, we want our men to step up and be Christ like but I've never seen Christ described that way.

OF COURSE we don't see Christ described that way. He was not a sexual being. In that sense, the sexual sense, we can't compare ourselves to Christ.

The church has made it ok to see men the way the world does, however, when it comes to women its a whole other story.

What do you mean about the women being a whole other story. Ya lost me there.

 

[Robinsegg]

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Christ was asexual. While there's no evidence He had a sexual relationship (he was not married, as far as I know; thus would *not* have had a sexual relationship), Scripture is *clear* that He was faced with all the same temptations we are.

Rachel

 

[janman345]

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Christ was asexual. While there's no evidence He had a sexual relationship (he was not married, as far as I know; thus would *not* have had a sexual relationship), Scripture is *clear* that He was faced with all the same temptations we are.

Rachel

It simply states he was faced with all the same temptations as we are but sexual temptations are never called out specificly (maybe he had some woman rub up against him or Satan manifested a woman in the desert or whatever but he obviously had no reaction to what ever it was that happend, not to mention all the random women he would have encountered in his journeys none caught his eye, that sounds like someone who is asexual). The complete lack of any specific sexual situations appling to Jesus could easily lead one to believe he was in fact asexual. The fact that he never married and not one specific sexual temptation is in the bible says alot.

 

[Robinsegg]

It simply states he was faced with all the same temptations as we are but sexual temptations are never called out specificly (maybe he had some woman rub up against him or Satan manifested a woman in the desert or whatever but he obviously had no reaction to what ever it was that happend, not to mention all the random women he would have encountered in his journeys none caught his eye, that sounds like someone who is asexual). The complete lack of any specific sexual situations appling to Jesus could easily lead one to believe he was in fact asexual. The fact that he never married and not one specific sexual temptation is in the bible says alot.

So, you're trying to say Jesus would not have had *any* physical or psychological reaction to women who were already in the midst of sexual sin (the woman caught in adultery, the woman at the well come to mind)? If so, then how is the temptation the same? Personally, I believe He had all the same emotions and natural desires of all humans (men, in particular) and still managed to not sin. After all, if he wasn't *actually tempted* by these things, then how could He possibly really understand us?

That would be like trying to go to a Roman Catholic priest (no offense intended) for marriage counseling. Since he's never been there, how can he possibly understand the emotions, the temptations, the hurts that can be caused when you allow someone that close into your life? My sister had a similar experience with counseling: if the person hadn't faced the same particular issue, she wouldn't have trusted her.

Rachel

 

[janman345]

So, you're trying to say Jesus would not have had *any* physical or psychological reaction to women who were already in the midst of sexual sin (the woman caught in adultery, the woman at the well come to mind)? If so, then how is the temptation the same? Personally, I believe He had all the same emotions and natural desires of all humans (men, in particular) and still managed to not sin. After all, if he wasn't *actually tempted* by these things, then how could He possibly really understand us?

That would be like trying to go to a Roman Catholic priest (no offense intended) for marriage counseling. Since he's never been there, how can he possibly understand the emotions, the temptations, the hurts that can be caused when you allow someone that close into your life? My sister had a similar experience with counseling: if the person hadn't faced the same particular issue, she wouldn't have trusted her.

Rachel

If he would have seen a woman like that and thoes emotions would have started to happen would that not have been lusting. None of that is ever stated, all a temptation is is a situation where there is a high likely hood someone might fall into sin. I have a personal friend who is asexual so its not impossible that Jesus was asexual and since Jesus never married he really does not know what its like because that was not his mission.

There is only one scripture that states he was tempted in all things beyond that there is no mention of any sexual situations, he must have been tempted in it but there was obvoiusly no reaction from him so that would indicated to me that he very well could ahve been asexual. At the very least his labido and/or sexual interest was very low. Sex is one of thoes dicy areas because its ok in certian circumstances and not in others no other sins are like it.

From reading the NT Jesus seemed to have the most sympathy for sexual issues than any others (such as the samerian woman at the well, he did not even tell her she was sinning). However for the pharisies that were brow beating everyone he refered to them as a brood of vipers.

 

[Conservativation]

From what I have read and seen, its the other way around. I read a book once that said (paraphrase)
"Men are visual, they keep a rolodex of all the pretty woman they have seen and its perfectly okay for them to think about these woman." Um, no, that's lust imo. I've seen the 'keep them fed and give them sex whenever they want it and they will be happy' mantra. IMO, that lowers our idea of what a christian man should be. Funny though, we want our men to step up and be Christ like but I've never seen Christ described that way.
The church has made it ok to see men the way the world does, however, when it comes to women its a whole other story.

Please share some of that reading....links or something. If I was a betting man Id say it doesnt say what you say it does at all. Seems anytime a sentence starts with "men are visual" lots of womens minds turn off and they create the rest of what you say it said. Thats ABSURD and is NOT being said at all....that you are SEEING it doesnt mean its there. I offer this forum in evidence....men have tried desperately to explain "visual" and all that, and we get back what you say here as the interpretation of our words.

I really dont understand this tendency to read everything through a lens that is ground out of the rough feelings a phrase creates, rather than just the actual definitions of the words on the page. Its defensive reading at its best.

The "keep em fed and givem sex"...well yea, thats said....with tongue in cheek and a rye smile, ruefully painting men as simpletons....thats exactly what we are saying happens

 

[Lyndie]

"visual Rolodex" > For Women and Men > Shaunti.com

Visual husband=hurt wife...what to do? > For Women and Men > Shaunti.com

This is a forum discussion about the book I was talking about and the visual Rolodex.Some of the comments make me sick to think that guys in the church think this is ok. I read half way through this book and gave it back to my former pastor's wife. If you read through the posts, you will also find that it becomes a wife's problem if she gets upset that he is checking out women. They tell HER to step it up(respecting him more, looking nicer, etc). I'm sorry but that's just wrong.

 

[Conservativation]

"visual Rolodex" > For Women and Men > Shaunti.com

Visual husband=hurt wife...what to do? > For Women and Men > Shaunti.com

This is a forum discussion about the book I was talking about and the visual Rolodex.Some of the comments make me sick to think that guys in the church think this is ok. I read half way through this book and gave it back to my former pastor's wife. If you read through the posts, you will also find that it becomes a wife's problem if she gets upset that he is checking out women. They tell HER to step it up(respecting him more, looking nicer, etc). I'm sorry but that's just wrong.

Yes its wrong. But its NOT widely taught. Its weird TBH

Ive never heard of that writer. I didnt spend time to dig into her, but i will, is she advocating this, or kooks posting on her forum?


Uh, I read the thread an it in NO WAY advocates these things....men and women rushed in to condemn them. You are, as i suspected, seeing things based on the mere MENTION of it. Read the posts that clarify the meaning intended by the authors words in her book, not someone (maybe the poster is YOU?) reading INTO it.

Id need to see the actual book text, and Im sure its not as you think