I agree with you that the question of character is still really important, but I don't think it's inherently gendered. A person who has integrity, who honours their commitments, who strives to do good, who is loving, faithful, hopeful, joyful, peaceful... these are all parts of what might be an answer to "what kind of man do I want to be?" but would not be any less an answer to "what kind of woman do I want to be?" Virtue isn't really a gendered reality.
I don't really believe that God created men (as a group) and women (as a group) to have different roles or purposes, beyond what is necessitated by biology. Mostly that argument seems to be deployed to deny women opportunities (to keep us disempowered, at home, busy with children), so I view it with more than a bit of suspicion. I do believe that God creates each person, and gifts us for particular roles or purposes, that the question of vocation for each person ought to be taken seriously, but I don't believe that's split on gender lines.
Could possibly just be the bubble that I live in, to be fair. I haven't looked at it at an academic level.
I'm really sorry to hear that. Australia's far from perfect in that regard, but I think on the whole the ideal of marriage here is still a vibrant reality.
A good principle in general, I find.
It's funny you should mention that; I'm livestreaming morning prayer each morning while we're in shut down, and just this morning I was reflecting as part of that on the importance of not falling into "us vs. them" thinking.
I think it's tricky because although we might believe that, if we could actually achieve a feminist utopia, it would be better for everyone, of course the folks who are the powerbrokers and the gatekeepers now would lose that kind of power, and feel threatened by that. So there is an unavoidable element of battle, as there is whenever you confront any systemic injustice; but I think the challenge is not to make it personal. The enemy is the system, not the people who inhabit it.