Wouldn't gender equality be a positive thing for all?

tall73 · Jul 17, 2014

Hetta said:
Women are always busy at home - ime. However, she's no longer pinned to the house any more from the perspective that this is all she can achieve in her life.

Since I am again referring to Biblical statements, that was never the case that it was all she could achieve. Proverbs 31 shows a land-owning money making woman, you have the example of Lydia, a dealer in purple which was quite costly, Deborah, a leader, etc.

However, there is still a greater role for them at home according to what the counsel in Titus points out. And the notion that women bear and nurse children makes this more natural for them to have greater involvement in the earliest years.

I would never teach my daughters solely that they should be busy at home, I would teach both genders that. If you think my sons aren't doing their own laundry, helping to clean the house, and cooking meals, you'd be mistaken. We don't have women waiting on men in my home. We all serve each other. Which is biblical.

Serving each other is biblical. That is done in many ways. The role of women being busy at home is also biblical. I am not sure why you use the phrase "waiting on men" in quite that way. If a woman chooses to put her focus on the home why would we characterize that as "waiting on men"?

If removal of these stereotypes through equality means broader categories, then why refer to a woman who decides to take on a mostly domestic role with a phrase that sounds derogatory?

This is what others have hinted at. It is often not enough for folks to say that people should have more freedom to define themselves. Some wish to define those who live the way that was previously more common in a negative light.

When you refer to housewives "waiting" on men, or when you refer to men supporting the old system because they have it "really really" good, that is just downplaying the legitimacy of those who choose that. That is not allowing more options.

In fact sometimes a family that decides to only have one person working full time so that their spouse can be with the children more and be home when the kids get home, etc. are not having it "really, really" good in some ways. They take less money for something they think is worthwhile. They make their life more about time together than time at work or chasing other goals.

mkgal1 · Jul 17, 2014

Imaginary said:
Your OP has been rebutted a few times now

This isn't a debate, though.....it's a discussion.....so, yes, there *are* differing opinions (rebuttals to my opinions). Are you expecting that once two "sides" are expressed that the thread ought to stop or what? This forum isn't a debate forum....so I'm kind of confused by this comment.

mkgal1 · Jul 17, 2014

Avniel said:
What's wrong with recognizing the tradition of being a fan of a certain team, enjoying watching a certain sport, bonding with friends and often times fathers?

Nothing is wrong with enjoying sports.

My point is---embrace differences and variety....diversity within each gender group instead of expecting a set standard.

mkgal1 · Jul 17, 2014

Avniel said:
Yes when that equality is the denial that differences exist and states that we are all the same which is not true. Their are differences due to the fact that their are differences in experiences, differences in physical make up....ect.

Now if we are talking about equal protection and due process, voting rights, equal pay......those sort of civil rights then I will support anybody who is fighting for that. However those fighting so that differences are ignored and not celebrated I am not part of that movement.

Nope.....the point isn't about denying differences---the point is to accept *more* differences---more diversity....instead of a set standard.

***maybe if that's repeated a few times more times it won't be heard as the opposite?

mkgal1 · Jul 17, 2014

For a different look at the magical 50's.....there's this book:

The Way We Never Were: American Families And The Nostalgia Trap: Stephanie Coontz: 9780465090976: Amazon.com: Books

The golden age of the American family never existed, asserts Coontz ( The Social Origns of Private Life ) in a wonderfully perceptive, myth-debunking report. The "Leave It to Beaver" ideal of breadwinner father, full-time homemaker mother and dependent children was a fiction of the 1950s, she shows. Real families of that period were rife with conflict, repression and anxiety, frequently poor and much less idyllic than many assume; teen pregnancy rates in the '50s were higher than today. Further, Coontz contends, the nuclear family was elevated to a central source of personal satisfaction only in the late 19th century, thereby weakening people's community ties and sense of civic obligation. Coontz disputes the idea that children can be raised properly only in traditional families. Viewing modern domestic problems as symptoms of a much larger socioeconomic crisis, she demonstrates that no single type of household has ever protected Americans from social disruption or poverty. An important contribution to the current debate on family values.

mkgal1 · Jul 17, 2014

Any guesses what famous person from history is pictured here?

LBF can't answer----I think she knows.

ImaginaryDay · Jul 17, 2014

mkgal1 said:
Any guesses what famous person from history is pictured here?

LBF can't answer----I think she knows.

Teddy Roosevelt. Just more evidence that cultures change, and with cultural change comes acceptance of cultural norms as well as those that operate outside the norms. These days the 'outsiders' are those that hold to traditional models.
I agree with tall73 that it's wrong to view women who accept a traditional role of being more domestic (i.e. homemaker and raising children as opposed to working to help support the family) as "waiting on men", instead of recognizing a conscious choice they've made. That suggests to me what I've been saying all along - that the march toward gender equality will leave those that operate outside the new 'norms' excluded.

Avniel · Jul 17, 2014

mkgal1 said:
Nothing is wrong with enjoying sports.

My point is---embrace differences and variety....diversity within each gender group instead of expecting a set standard.

If I was raised in tradition that when basketball and football season starts it's a time to bond with my homeboys then I am not going to embrace nothing other then that in friendship. I don't have to accept that and I don't have to want that around me. If I enjoy my traditions within a group I identify myself with why should I want to accept different then that if that's not what I like to be around.

mkgal1 · Jul 17, 2014

Avniel said:
If I was raised in tradition that when basketball and football season starts it's a time to bond with my homeboys then I am not going to embrace nothing other then that in friendship. I don't have to accept that and I don't have to want that around me. If I enjoy my traditions within a group I identify myself with why should I want to accept different then that if that's not what I like to be around.

Pardon? You don't have to accept what and don't have to want what around you? Diversity? You'd posted this, and that's what this is in response to:

Avniel said:
In one sense you bring age old gender identified stimuli like sports(which a ton of my friends love and a ton of my friends couldn't careless and nooooo one would say they are anything less but real men) it can be very confusing. Now if you are stating that men are identified as sports watchers, which is so 1970s and I don't even think that's a thing but for argument sake lets say it is.

My point was---on a greater scale (not necessarily your close circle of friends) accepting differences.....diversity....not just a set standard as to what each gender *should* be (and....yes....that would include "traditional"....if that's their style and it's not relevant to how they conduct their relationships with the opposite gender).

LovebirdsFlying · Jul 17, 2014

mkgal1 said:
Any guesses what famous person from history is pictured here?

LBF can't answer----I think she knows.

I do. LOL.

On the topic of housewives waiting on the men, the way I figure it is, anything I do that makes it easier for my husband to earn a living benefits me too. So I'll do the laundry if I'm physically up to it, and I'll sew buttons on his shirts and hem his pants. I'm better at those things than he is anyway. Household chores, we both do, because we both live in this house. I'm glad to outright serve him sometimes too--bring him a drink or a snack while he's watching TV, sure. He'd do the same for me. I hear it all the time. "Can I get you anything while I'm up?" It works both ways.

Avniel · Jul 18, 2014

LovebirdsFlying said:
I do. LOL.

On the topic of housewives waiting on the men, the way I figure it is, anything I do that makes it easier for my husband to earn a living benefits me too. So I'll do the laundry if I'm physically up to it, and I'll sew buttons on his shirts and hem his pants. I'm better at those things than he is anyway. Household chores, we both do, because we both live in this house. I'm glad to outright serve him sometimes too--bring him a drink or a snack while he's watching TV, sure. He'd do the same for me. I hear it all the time. "Can I get you anything while I'm up?" It works both ways.

That is two people that being one. You see your interests as his interests and his interests as yours it's not about "what can I do to for me" but "what can we do for our team." People are to individualized in almost all aspects of society.

Hetta · Jul 18, 2014

When you refer to housewives "waiting" on men, or when you refer to men supporting the old system because they have it "really really" good, that is just downplaying the legitimacy of those who choose that. That is not allowing more options.

It's amazing that some people take one comment and twist it. My comment was:

We don't have women waiting on men in my home. We all serve each other. Which is biblical.

For some reason this has become "all housewives wait on men". That's quite clearly not what I typed but I guess that's a fun soundbyte, right?

In some of those very right wing fundamental households, that is what men think women should do. I have actually seen this, IRL. The wife/daughters serve the males of the house before they can sit down and eat.

I maintain that all members of the household serving each other is the ideal - and consider it to be biblical, and particularly in a household where both spouses work full time. In a functional household, people do things for each other because they love each other, not because they supposedly have some kind of cleaning and cooking gene.

tall73 · Jul 18, 2014

Hetta said:
It's amazing that some people take one comment and twist it. My comment was:

For some reason this has become "all housewives wait on men". That's quite clearly not what I typed but I guess that's a fun soundbyte, right?

Actually it was more the notion that you would talk about someone "waiting" on the other in a negative sense in the first place, and assured us that doesn't happen in your house that led to the conclusion.

In some of those very right wing fundamental households, that is what men think women should do. I have actually seen this, IRL. The wife/daughters serve the males of the house before they can sit down and eat.

And?.....If this works for them, what difference does it make to you?

I thought you wanted more acceptance of a greater variety? You mean with you saying that you want more acceptance you don't accept the above action?

I maintain that all members of the household serving each other is the ideal - and consider it to be biblical, and particularly in a household where both spouses work full time. In a functional household, people do things for each other because they love each other, not because they supposedly have some kind of cleaning and cooking gene.

And in many functional houses they choose to have one stay home and the other go outside the home to work. And they both love each other and they are both doing things for each other.

Since the Scriptures indicate to teach the young women to be busy at home there is nothing wrong with taking that Scriptural advice to heart. God created the genders, so He knows their genes well.

Hetta · Jul 18, 2014

tall73 said:
Actually it was more the notion that you would talk about someone "waiting" on the other in a negative sense in the first place, and assured us that doesn't happen in your house that led to the conclusion.

It is a negative to divide up household tasks by gender and make one gender subservient to the other.

And?.....If this works for them, what difference does it make to you?

Er, this is the topic of the thread: equality. I'm giving my opinions based upon the OP. If you want to talk about something other than that, you would need to start a new thread.

I thought you wanted more acceptance of a greater variety? You mean with you saying that you want more acceptance you don't accept the above action?

That isn't a variety, that has been the norm for a long time.

And in many functional houses they choose to have one stay home and the other go outside the home to work. And they both love each other and they are both doing things for each other.

I never said otherwise. That's just a strawman argument.

Since the Scriptures indicate to teach the young women to be busy at home there is nothing wrong with taking that Scriptural advice to heart. God created the genders, so He knows their genes well.

God said a lot more than that one scripture.

tall73 · Jul 18, 2014

Hetta said:
It is a negative to divide up household tasks by gender and make one gender subservient to the other.

Dividing up tasks by gender is not negative if both are fine with it.

And who said anything about subservient? If the family arranged for the women to serve food, why does that entail subservience? It is simply how they have arranged things in their family.

That isn't a variety, that has been the norm for a long time.

Of course it has. Which is why I am trying to discern if you think that adding other patterns would mean that you are not OK with the old way also continuing for those who want it. So just to be clear, you are OK with this continuing though for those who want it?

I never said otherwise. That's just a strawman argument.

I responded to the following:

In a functional household, people do things for each other because they love each other, not because they supposedly have some kind of cleaning and cooking gene

Now, if they both agree to have tasks divided along gender lines, and still help each other, and still love each other, what is wrong with that?

God said a lot more than that one scripture.

Yes He did. And He also said that one Scripture.

Wouldn't gender equality be a positive thing for all?

Sophia7's husband

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

We Live Here

Doing my part each day by being the best me

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

My husband drew this cartoon of me.

Doing my part each day by being the best me

I'll find my way home

Sophia7's husband

I'll find my way home

Sophia7's husband

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency