Women's roles: How men from differerent backgrounds (Christian and non) view things

[FireDragon76]

I'd doubt that, given what we know about neuroplasticity.

That's a good point. Much of the idea that this is all "hard wired" is due to medical models of the brain that are relatively old and date from a time when society valued conformity alot more.

I have observed that many people go through life and never have much reason to change, or innate desire to do so. My dad is that type, he was in the military, an environment that only values a certain amount of thinking outside the box. And as he ages, I notice him becoming more and more a concrete thinker and simply incapable of engaging in perspective-taking. Most people aren't extremely introspective or self-reflective, or they may have limited opportunities to expend that kind of effort.

 

[Paidiske]

Hhmm. I was trained to think that simply going through various life changes would itself force people to change; that each time people go from one state of life to another, their sense of identity has to adjust to their new reality, and so on. You can resist that process, but it often leads to immaturity and maladjustment. (I did a whole unit on pastoral care over these life transitions, as they're seen as a time when people often need particular support and resourcing).

Particular environments - such as the military - will form you in particular ways, though.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

I think I identify with Seven more because of her experience being alien, than necessarily because of her personality.

Kess was never a strong enough personality. I think that's one reason I liked Picard or Q. I like colorful characters like that.

Actually, I really liked Kes' personality. She was always filled with such wonder. Jennifer Lien basically fell victim to the same as most of the Trek actresses did - writers who weren't able to write well for female regular characters.

 

[FireDragon76]

Hhmm. I was trained to think that simply going through various life changes would itself force people to change; that each time people go from one state of life to another, their sense of identity has to adjust to their new reality, and so on. You can resist that process, but it often leads to immaturity and maladjustment. (I did a whole unit on pastoral care over these life transitions, as they're seen as a time when people often need particular support and resourcing).

I appreciate that bit of information, it's helpful. I was raised with a very static view of selfhood and personality, and I've found that to be mostly illusory in my own life. Adaptability is more important than having a rigid personality.

I suspect alot of western spirituality is shaped by this sort of view of an atomistic, unchanging self and it can make certain aspects harder to grapple with at times, because I experience the self through relationships. If anything, my experience has been having to try to have a healthy sense of boundaries and learning to say "no" to peoples demands, in the past decade or so.

 

[kdm1984]

Adaptability is more important than having a rigid personality.

One of Niednagel's boldest extrapolations was that the Perceiving functions, as described in Myers-Briggs, were correlated with the right hemisphere, and adaptability, whereas the Judging functions were correlated with the left hemisphere, and rigidity. Niednagel preferred rigidity; he himself claimed one of the Judging types, ISTJ. ISTJ is a common test result on Myers-Briggs, but Niednagel insisted his type was actually one of the rarest ("real" ISTJs were said to be only around 3% of the populace, per his observations and methodology), and the only type consistently good at analyzing truth and reality in proper contexts (he developed quite the ego over the years, sad to say). He even got to the point where he believed the Judging types were more moral than the Perceiving ones, for Judgers were able to stand up for what is right without taking on a mealy-mouthed, adaptable, changing, "morphed" view of reality, which he said was a major moral error the Perceiving types are prone to make (ENTP especially).

Nonetheless Niednagel typed Biblical David as his polar opposite, ENFP. I found this interesting. I suppose David committed a lot of terrible sins, yes, but God also said David was a man after his own heart, and so much of Scripture revolves around things David said and did. God doesn't appear to show favoritism to types the way Niednagel came to; indeed the Bible is silent on brain or personality categories, and people who think they are better than others based on some standard of morality are unjustified (the famous parable of Luke 18 and the Pharisee).

I also know that some people have tried to tie Paul's gifts and the church body passage to these sorts of things (Enneagram, etc., too), but that's tenuous at best. I'd hardly rely on those assessments as dogma or gospel. People seldom view themselves or others realistically, and even if the assessments do have degrees of truth, again it's not something that can be exactly deduced from any Scripture passages.

 

[FireDragon76]

One of Niednagel's boldest extrapolations was that the Perceiving functions, as described in Myers-Briggs, were correlated with the right hemisphere, and adaptability, whereas the Judging functions were correlated with the left hemisphere, and rigidity. Niednagel preferred rigidity; he himself claimed one of the Judging types, ISTJ. ISTJ is a common test result on Myers-Briggs, but Niednagel insisted his type was actually one of the rarest ("real" ISTJs were said to be only around 3% of the populace, per his observations and methodology), and the only type consistently good at analyzing truth and reality in proper contexts (he developed quite the ego over the years, sad to say).

Trying to equate moral actions with a certain personality type sounds like a dubious idea.

There have been plenty of people that did heinous things certain of the righteousness of their cause, so I don't see how being "wishy washy", or seeing nuance is all that bad of a thing.

Nonetheless Niednagel typed Biblical David as his polar opposite, ENFP. I found this interesting. I suppose David committed a lot of terrible sins, yes, but God also said David was a man after his own heart, and so much of Scripture revolves around things David said and did. God doesn't appear to show favoritism to types the way Niednagel came to; indeed the Bible is silent on brain or personality categories, and people who think they are better than others based on some standard of morality are unjustified (the famous parable of Luke 18 and the Pharisee).

Well, the accounts in the Bible aren't terribly moralistic the way we moderns often expect them to be. David has probably been raked over the coals so many times in sermons, in the name of assuaging the guilty consciences of the faithful, that I think he's almost a dead horse in that regard.

I also know that some people have tried to tie Paul's gifts and the church body passage to these sorts of things (Enneagram, etc., too), but that's tenuous at best. I'd hardly rely on those assessments as dogma or gospel. People seldom view themselves or others realistically, and even if the assessments do have degrees of truth, again it's not something that can be exactly deduced from any Scripture passages.

I'm sure those things can be useful but they belong perhaps in a religious studies class, not being preached from the pulpit so much.

 

[Paidiske]

I suspect alot of western spirituality is shaped by this sort of view of an atomistic, unchanging self and it can make certain aspects harder to grapple with at times, because I experience the self through relationships.

My sense is that - for want of a better word - mainstream western spirituality has tended to be very "one-size-fits-all." Whether that's particular devotions in Catholicism, or particular Bible-reading practices in more evangelical circles, or whatever; there tends to be this idea that as long as you do spirituality "right," everything else will fall into place.

In reality it's a lot more complex than that. One of my most pastorally useful books is called 50 Ways to Pray, because it collates all sorts of different Christian practices, and I can lend that to people suggesting that they try this or that thing that's new to them, but might suit where they are.

 

[FireDragon76]

My sense is that - for want of a better word - mainstream western spirituality has tended to be very "one-size-fits-all." Whether that's particular devotions in Catholicism, or particular Bible-reading practices in more evangelical circles, or whatever; there tends to be this idea that as long as you do spirituality "right," everything else will fall into place.

In reality it's a lot more complex than that. One of my most pastorally useful books is called 50 Ways to Pray, because it collates all sorts of different Christian practices, and I can lend that to people suggesting that they try this or that thing that's new to them, but might suit where they are.

In Orthodoxy, prayers for the dead and intercession of saints just made sense to me, but the average Protestant doesn't understand it, because their view of the self is more atomistic, I think. All they can see is idolatry or something that is unnecessary and superflous.

Also, western people experience more guilt, and their theology tends to overlook shame and honor as moral categories. Parts of the Bible, particularly Jesus' teachings or interactions, can be harder to understand (Parable of the Shrewd Manager, the Syrophoenician Woman, etc.).

 

[kdm1984]

My sense is that - for want of a better word - mainstream western spirituality has tended to be very "one-size-fits-all."

I think I understand what you are getting at, and this can be a major problem for those whose 'size' doesn't 'fit,' metaphorically speaking.

For example, I've ranted quite a bit here about how sexuality is approached in most Western circles, whether conservative Christian or secular liberal feminist. Women's sexual desires, urges, and struggles are simply not acknowledged or discussed in any depth whatsoever, or even presumed to exist a lot of the time. This has been a major issue for me, spiritually and morally. Everything tends to be reduced to stereotypes -- "women aren't visually stimulated, they need love and words of affection more than the physicality of sex, they don't view inappropriate contentography and sex the way men do and would rather read erotica than look at men, they are constantly victimized and harassed, they need to worry constantly about their modesty," yada yada yada. I'm sorry, but these things aren't universal truths that apply to every single woman, but they are presented in this very manner in most pulpits, online resources, blogs, and the like. The same holds true for Western secular liberal feminism. Everything is always from the victim angle when it comes to women's sexuality. Where are the discussions, resources, etc. for women who salivate over handsome men and have high nymphomaniacal sex drives? Are we really such a minority that we have no outlets or help for this thing?

Because of these observations, I'm quite nervous about a Bible class I plan on attending at the local LCMS church in two weeks, where the sex topic will be addressed. I really love this church and think they have great balance of teaching Scriptural truths and applying them, but I wonder if it will be the same-old, same-old that I've seen from every other conservative church before. Husband said, "this is where they might lose you," and when I asked him for advice on how to conduct myself in the class, he just advised me to listen first and see where the conversations lead, and then bring in my views and experiences when appropriate.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think I understand what you are getting at, and this can be a major problem for those whose 'size' doesn't 'fit,' metaphorically speaking.

For example, I've ranted quite a bit here about how sexuality is approached in most Western circles, whether conservative Christian or secular liberal feminist. Women's sexual desires, urges, and struggles are simply not acknowledged or discussed in any depth whatsoever, or even presumed to exist a lot of the time. This has been a major issue for me, spiritually and morally. Everything tends to be reduced to stereotypes -- "women aren't visually stimulated, they need love and words of affection more than the physicality of sex, they don't view inappropriate contentography and sex the way men do and would rather read erotica than look at men, they are constantly victimized and harassed, they need to worry constantly about their modesty," yada yada yada. I'm sorry, but these things aren't universal truths that apply to every single woman, but they are presented in this very manner in most pulpits, online resources, blogs, and the like. The same holds true for Western secular liberal feminism. Everything is always from the victim angle when it comes to women's sexuality. Where are the discussions, resources, etc. for women who salivate over handsome men and have high nymphomaniacal sex drives? Are we really such a minority that we have no outlets or help for this thing?

Because of these observations, I'm quite nervous about a Bible class I plan on attending at the local LCMS church in two weeks, where the sex topic will be addressed. I really love this church and think they have great balance of teaching Scriptural truths and applying them, but I wonder if it will be the same-old, same-old that I've seen from every other conservative church before. Husband said, "this is where they might lose you," and when I asked him for advice on how to conduct myself in the class, he just advised me to listen first and see where the conversations lead, and then bring in my views and experiences when appropriate.

Give it a go and see how it goes. I'd be curious too because I know little about that side of the LCMS. I think it varies a great deal how culturally conservative they are.