Pathologizing Masculinity

[Paidiske]

The days of men controlling tbe finances and setting the course are behind us, thankfully. It’s clear that women are just as likely to be good leaders and visionaries as men are, when they are given the same opportunities.

And that having one person control things leaves the whole situation very open to abuse.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You seem to be saying two different t things here. Taking turns leading or male leadership?

The days of men controlling tbe finances and setting the course are behind us, thankfully. It’s clear that women are just as likely to be good leaders and visionaries as men are, when they are given the same opportunities.

I can't look into the finances of others but my wife (and my sister in her marriage) were financially irresponsible. After we split she remarried, and her husband confided to me that she was spending him into bankruptcy. My brother's wife almost spent them into bankruptcy. My best friend's wife the same. That said I have known some wives to be better managers than their husbands. Sadly my own son and daughter are not very good money managers (guess where they get that). It must be noted that most marital problems revolve around money; either the lack of it or how it's spent. That's why spending should be dictated by agreed upon family goals.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't think this is very realistic.

For example: I married when I was twenty-six. At that point in time, the two biggest goals in our household (one for each of us) were to have a child and for me to pursue ministry. Okay; it's twelve years later; we have a child and I'm a priest. What's next? We both have some ideas, but to have asked us to know, before marriage, what would look like appealing goals at this point in our lives, is not really reasonable.

Also, taking into account the needs and wants of both spouses isn't about time and resources. It's about how you prioritise what time and resources you have.

But you both made decisions based on the original framework of predetermined goals. Good for you. That makes my case.

 

[Paidiske]

But you both made decisions based on the original framework of predetermined goals. Good for you. That makes my case.

I don't understand how it makes your case, when you're arguing for patriarchy, and my example is the opposite of patriarchy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't understand how it makes your case, when you're arguing for patriarchy, and my example is the opposite of patriarchy.

My 'case' is the common goal, not patriarchy. Recall that I picked up my marbles and left. (See post #38.)

 

[Paidiske]

So this:

In my experience women, especially mothers, were the "core" (center) of family life. Men were the core providers, focusing more on work than on family. An important role of mothers was to point their sons to the (hopefully good) example of their fathers. Sadly this was in the past. Today there are no such roles for either men or women, thus the confusion and uncertainty that plagues our young people, both boys and girls.

Wasn't a plea for a return to more robust patriarchy?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't understand how it makes your case, when you're arguing for patriarchy, and my example is the opposite of patriarchy.

I'm suggesting a close look at spiritual reality, such as 1 Peter 3:6-7;

6 "Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

I don't believe the spiritual nature of women has changed, or their ordained role in the marriage union. I suggest studying Proverbs 31 as well.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It’s clear that women are just as likely to be good leaders and visionaries as men are, when they are given the same opportunities.

It's not at all clear to me that this is true.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm suggesting a close look at spiritual reality, such as 1 Peter 3:6-7;

6 "Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

I don't believe the spiritual nature of women has changed, or their ordained role in the marriage union. I suggest studying Proverbs 31 as well.

Oh... I think what you call our "ordained role" I call a result of the fall and a sinful reality (that men dominate/lord it over their wives).

And thank you, but I'm more than familiar with Proverbs 31. Here's the last sermon I preached on it: A woman of valour

 

[dms1972]

Therefore god must have the qualities of both genders, and cannot be “masculine.”

When scripture speaks of God as Father, or Lord, its speaking analogically, not metaphorically. To speak of God as a rock, or fortress is however to speak metaphorically.

"A metaphor connotes a suggested likeness between two things that are manifestly dissimiliar, whereas a analogy presupposes an underlying similiarity or congruity in the midst of real difference." Donald Bloesch

Scripture speaks primarily of God in the masculine gender: Father and Son. Nevertheless Jesus could speak of wanting to take Jerusalem under his wing as a hen gathers her chicks under her wing, showing that God could also have motherly qualities. This also found at least once in the old testament I think Isaiah 66:13.

What are we to say, that God transcends gender, but can also be spoken of and act in both fatherly and motherly ways? Or that masculine and feminine are attributes of God?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Oh... I think what you call our "ordained role" I call a result of the fall and a sinful reality (that men dominate/lord it over their wives).

And thank you, but I'm more than familiar with Proverbs 31. Here's the last sermon I preached on it: A woman of valour

I like your take on Proverbs 31. But it doesn't address the point that the roles in that marriage, although different, were complementary. I don't see two different individual enterprises taking place in that family dynamic. She is, as are the wives and mothers of our recent traditional past, virtually fully in charge of the 'household' business, and especially the care of children; something sadly lacking today as evidenced by the very serious moral, social, and physical problems that plague our youth.

Proverbs 31 is also very much about the responsible use of that woman's talents and abilities, that they are channeled to the welfare and benefit of her family, and not the corporate world.

 

[Paidiske]

I like your take on Proverbs 31. But it doesn't address the point that the roles in that marriage, although different, were complementary. I don't see two different individual enterprises taking place in that family dynamic. She is, as are the wives and mothers of our recent traditional past, virtually fully in charge of the 'household' business, and especially the care of children; something sadly lacking today as evidenced by the very serious moral, social, and physical problems that plague our youth.

Proverbs 31 is also very much about the responsible use of that woman's talents and abilities, that they are channeled to the welfare and benefit of her family, and not the corporate world.

One of the problems I find happens very often when people today read this passage, is that they read it through the lens of a post-industrial-revolution society.

When this was written, the "household" business was the only business; people either were subsistence farmers or ran cottage industries, but work and home were in the same place. This point is not trivial; it means husband and wife were literally home together, and working side by side - either on chores, or caring for children, or in for-profit activities - all day long.

So there wasn't this sharp dichotomoy of "he goes to work and she looks after the home." There was no corporate world, for men or women. Instead there was a much more shared sphere of labour.

Whether that was better or worse than what we have today could be a really interesting discussion, but what is not in doubt is that it was very very different to what we have today; and can't easily be held up to say this is how we should live now. (Unless you want to set up a separatist community that's self-supporting and opts out of all the consequences of modern life). The point of this passage is not to tell women to stay home and opt out of the modern workforce.

(I'd also question whether our youth today are really so much worse off than they were 50, 100 or 150 years ago).

 

[The Barbarian]

Sparagmos said: ↑
It’s clear that women are just as likely to be good leaders and visionaries as men are, when they are given the same opportunities.

It's not at all clear to me that this is true.

It's pretty simple, really. Strong men love strong women.

Weak men fear them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's pretty simple, really. Strong men love strong women.

Weak men fear them.

I plead that there is a difference between opportunity and responsibility.

 

[mkgal1]

Manhood has been virtually destroyed. Men are killing themselves because they don't know who they are anymore or what they're supposed to do. The church has gone a long way to ruin men. It seems being a Christian comes easier for a woman since the church pushes woman characteristics.

I don't disagree that the statistics show that men are struggling (in general) - but I DO disagree with the cause.

When we assign characteristics such as compassion; sympathy; patience; and kindness as "woman characteristics", we've cut off a part of men that is their humanity and disallowed them to sincerely express themselves (usually in difficult times, when it's needed the most). Instead, we expect them to remain in a narrowly-defined mode all.the.time (IOW....you can only be this, if you want to be considered a "man"). No one does well when they're squeezed into a box that cuts off a large part of their humanity.

 

[bekkilyn]

Isn't it interesting that the most perfect "masculine" man and the most perfect "feminine" woman have the *exact* same strength-of-character traits?

Genesis states that God created male and female (which is biologically necessary for producing children), but Genesis does *not* state that he created gender.

Isn't it also interesting that not one single person in this thread, on any other thread I've read on this forum or any other forum, or even when speaking to the transgendered, has ever been able to adequately define what a "gender" is? What makes someone "masculine" or "feminine"? Oddly, no one seems to know.

Perhaps it is because we are really all the same on the inside with our differences based on the spiritual gifts and abilities that God has given to each of us individually without this made-up and imaginary and especially undefinable idea of "gender" that we have created to use as weapons against each other.

This is why I don't really understand the whole concept of transgender in the first place, because the problem doesn't seem to be with how people are on the inside because any person can represent any character trait, but only with how people are treated culturally based on *perceived* (and usually stereotypical) traits, which is a human construct.

 

[Sparagmos]

It's not at all clear to me that this is true.

It’s pretty surreal to see some posters here insult 50% of the population this way.

 

[Sparagmos]

Oh... I think what you call our "ordained role" I call a result of the fall and a sinful reality (that men dominate/lord it over their wives).

And thank you, but I'm more than familiar with Proverbs 31. Here's the last sermon I preached on it: A woman of valour

Thanks so much for sharing your sermon! Good stuff

 

[Ringo84]

Masculinity that's toxic should be pathologized.
Ringo

 

[redleghunter]

It seems the Babylon Bee picked up on the news cycle:

Are You Suffering From Toxic Masculinity? Know The Warning Signs