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

[ImaginaryDay]

Are you saying 1st Corinthians is directed to men (because....doesn't the whole letter go together) or just that one line? If it's directed to only men (which I don't believe it is)....then that wouldn't be a stereotype.

The introduction to Paul's letter said,



I don't understand where you're getting that it's only to men (except by reading those specific versions).

An introduction to the Epistles is just that, an introduction. Afterward, the authors can (and did) address anyone (the collective, husbands, wives, children, masters, slaves, etc.)

Just as an introduction in any book can address a collective audience, the author can take a chapter to specifically address whomever they wish if they want to be specific to that audience.

 

[mkgal1]

Okay....if that's so and Paul was directing that towards men...then, like I said, that's not a stereotype (which is the reason that verse was brought up---to demonstrate that God used stereotypes in the Bible).

 

[ChristianGolfer]

An introduction to the Epistles is just that, an introduction. Afterward, the authors can (and did) address anyone (the collective, husbands, wives, children, masters, slaves, etc.)

Just as an introduction in any book can address a collective audience, the author can take a chapter to specifically address whomever they wish if they want to be specific to that audience.

Just because an author can take a chapter to specifically address whomever they wish doesn't mean that in this instance that is what happened.

Where in 1 Corinthians 16 does Paul begin specifically addressing men? Where does he start addressing everyone again?

If he was indeed addressing only men in some part of that passage - where does he indicate that? What words, specifically, does he use to alert the audience that certain instructions are only for the male gender?

It's true that Paul sometimes did address specific members or groups in his audience. When he did so it was clear; he would name the group he was addressing.

In this case, I see no where in the passage that gives any indication he intended the instructions to be directed only at the men: "Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong. 14 Do everything in love." He doesn't say "Men, be on your guard," for example.

 

[tall73]

Just because an author can take a chapter to specifically address whomever they wish doesn't mean that in this instance that is what happened.

Where in 1 Corinthians 16 does Paul begin specifically addressing men? Where does he start addressing everyone again?

If he was indeed addressing only men in some part of that passage - where does he indicate that? What words, specifically, does he use to alert the audience that certain instructions are only for the male gender?

It's true that Paul sometimes did address specific members or groups in his audience. When he did so it was clear; he would name the group he was addressing.

In this case, I see no where in the passage that gives any indication he intended the instructions to be directed only at the men: "Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong. 14 Do everything in love." He doesn't say "Men, be on your guard," for example.

It looks as though the LXX uses that term to translate at least two different Hebrew terms. The Hebrew terms that I saw didn't seem to carry any connotation of gender. Nor do I see an indication of specific gender in I Corinthians 16 either.

On the other hand there are other phrases used for courage or boldness in the NT that Paul could have used.

Etymology doesn't always determine current meaning. I would think it likely in this case that the word was just one used by the Greeks for courage, but came from their notions of courage in battle, which was largely fought by men.

Even in those contexts, if you are speaking to a group of men before a battle and saying "be men" the point is you are wanting some traits that are generally associated with manhood, in this case bravery over cowardice. And you realize that some will not live up to that, but some will.

Moreover, the contrast is likely not between men and women. The contrast might be between men and boys. A grown man would likely be better able to face danger while reasoning through the necessity of the moment than a young boy. They wanted men to take courage, not run. They wanted them to act like a man, not a child. Hence even today at times some men will still tell their sons "be a man" when they want them to handle pain or difficult circumstances in a stoic manner.

 

[tall73]

Another stereotype:

It was not considered honorable to be killed by a woman in battle:

Jdg 9:53 And a certain woman threw an upper millstone on Abimelech's head and crushed his skull.
Jdg 9:54 Then he called quickly to the young man his armor-bearer and said to him, "Draw your sword and kill me, lest they say of me, 'A woman killed him.'" And his young man thrust him through, and he died.

 

[Avniel]

I think that is illogical to do away with all differences between men and women. Creating a genderless society only adds to the immorality of a society. The reality is men and women are different we can examine the physical differences to see this. Imagine a world where women and men enter into the boxing ring together, play on the same football team or even legally if a woman refuses to leave a man's home or strikes a man he has the legal right to treat situation the same way he if the woman was a man. That's illogical and takes away the protection from men.

 

[vincenticus]

I think that is illogical to do away with all differences between men and women. Creating a genderless society only adds to the immorality of a society. The reality is men and women are different we can examine the physical differences to see this. Imagine a world where women and men enter into the boxing ring together, play on the same football team or even legally if a woman refuses to leave a man's home or strikes a man he has the legal right to treat situation the same way he if the woman was a man. That's illogical and takes away the protection from men.

No one is advocating doing away with the differences between men and women. No one is advocating creating a genderless society. People are advocating doing away with the gender stereotypes and resulting prejudices. Gender stereotypes, like racial stereotypes, do nothing but limit ourselves and our understanding of others. There is no "typical" anything, and the assumption that physical aspects of a person translate to personality traits is illogical.

 

[vincenticus]

[Staff Deletion of Quoted Post]

Yet, in just about every conceivable way, we are better off now than in any time in history. We live longer, we are healthier, we have open access to creative mediums and literature, we have computers to discover amazing things and share our findings, communicating with others has never been easier, and the list goes on and on.

If society is crap and things are just getting worse, we sure are taking a roundabout route to the collapse.

 

[mkgal1]

You live in California, center of "coloring outside the lines". America has never been more liberal. All of your ideas are being implemented. You should be one of the happiest women who ever lived! But are you? No, you won't be happy until every other person agrees with you. Until then, your conscience bothers you. As well it should.

What in the world?

This has nothing to do with my conscience---which is a-okay, BTW. I'm also not sure where you get your ideas about where my happiness comes from (but you're mistaken).

Let's stick to the topic...agreed? Which is not (as so many posters seem to believe) about making everyone the same or "creating a genderless society". Vincenticus described what the topic is.

 

[mkgal1]

By the way.....this sub forum is for married people only. Just a reminder.

 

[Avniel]

Yet, in just about every conceivable way, we are better off now than in any time in history. We live longer, we are healthier, we have open access to creative mediums and literature, we have computers to discover amazing things and share our findings, communicating with others has never been easier, and the list goes on and on.

If society is crap and things are just getting worse, we sure are taking a roundabout route to the collapse.

How are we in better shape? We have more teen pregnancies, more crime, more divorce, more single mothers, more addiction, more prisons and a lower educational ranking how is that better?

 

[mkgal1]

Another stereotype:

It was not considered honorable to be killed by a woman in battle:

Jdg 9:53 And a certain woman threw an upper millstone on Abimelech's head and crushed his skull.
Jdg 9:54 Then he called quickly to the young man his armor-bearer and said to him, "Draw your sword and kill me, lest they say of me, 'A woman killed him.'" And his young man thrust him through, and he died.

Wouldn't that be more of a demonstration of a belief? That's how I see that. They believed it was dishonorable to be killed by a woman in battle---Abimelech proved that he truly absorbed that belief (not just went along with the "code").

A stereotype in that situation would be (IMO) to say "men consider it dishonorable to be killed by a woman in battle" and have a lot of men *say* that they agree....yet not prove it, when actually faced with a situation like Abimelech's. Stereotypes attribute the same characteristics to *all* the members of that group or set of people (and that's the problem).

 

[mkgal1]

On teen pregnancies:

The 2013 teen birth rate indicates a decline of ten percent from 2012 when the birth rate was 29.4 per 1,000.[1] The teen birth rate has declined almost continuously over the past 20 years~Trends in Teen Pregnancy and Childbearing - The Office of Adolescent Health

 

[vincenticus]

How are we in better shape? We have more teen pregnancies, more crime, more divorce, more single mothers, more addiction, more prisons and a lower educational ranking how is that better?

Teen pregnancy rate, like the crime rate, is falling. I have no problem with the divorce rate but I understand that is arguable. Single parenthood, through wars, diseases, and social factors, has been an issue since forever. Access to information has never been easier. Education rates continue to rise.

No, society isn't perfect, but do you seriously think people were better off at any other time in history? When exactly?

 

[mkgal1]

What keeps coming to my mind...and what I notice about what happens every time this topic is raised, is that while I'm suggesting that people be perceived as unique individuals---instead of part of a homogenized group--the understanding is that I'm positing the opposite. It never ceases to fascinate me.

A way of explaining my stance is that instead of a person thinking merely of flowers (as one vague group) and having a standard image in mind.....think of all the variety God has created within the group of flowers.

It's not my stance to take away differences---I'm actually suggesting that we need to see *more* variety in people than we often do.

 

[Inkachu]

How are we in better shape? We have more teen pregnancies, more crime, more divorce, more single mothers, more addiction, more prisons and a lower educational ranking how is that better?

It all depends on how you qualify the word "better".

Some people think a wealthy, educated, technology-saturated society that's completely devoid of morals and honor is "better".

To each their own.

 

[Inkachu]

On teen pregnancies:

Just FTR, the link you posted was about teen births, teen pregnancy rates do not equal teen birth rates. A huge number of pregnant teens are having abortions, so the birth rate has gone down. But we already know that we've got about 200,000 teen abortions per year, and though the rate has dropped, it's still astronomically high. In 2010 we had 600,00 teen pregnancies (that's over half a million), but only 400,000 births.

 

[Hetta]

No, society isn't perfect, but do you seriously think people were better off at any other time in history? When exactly?

The magical 1950s.

 

[Lollerskates]

To me...it seems like knocking down the typical stereotypes (like the narrow definitions of what it means to be "feminine" and "masculine") would be a *good* thing---a liberating thing---that would offer *more* choices....more ability to "color outside the lines" so to speak and still be accepted.

Doesn't it emasculate men to have the idea that the bigger and stronger....less emotional kind of guy that has an occupation like lumberjack is more of a man than a guy that has an ectomorph build...is a writer/poet that is fluent in both articulating and being aware of his own emotions as well as the emotions of those he loves....and has no interest in sports?

Wouldn't it be better for everyone if those ideas were something of the past?

What about child custody after a divorce? If the typical idea that women are the nurturers was taken off the table (which I think it has, in a lot of courts---thankfully) isn't that better for everyone? Shouldn't that be judged on more than just gender? Isn't there such thing as women that *aren't* the best sole custodial parent?

That's just the obvious things that come to mind.....but it really seems like more of a positive for everyone to be judged without these stereotypes than any possible negatives.

Are there even negatives?

What you are explaining is ideal, and not realistic over an entire spread of any nation that considers itself a "melting pot." There are too many cultures - many that are very old - that like the foundation. In a worldly sense in which everyone's culture is a carbon copy of cosmopolitanism, then it may work.

For example, if there actually existed a nation of Amazons, do you think 5'5" men would be considered symbols of strength? Or, would a group coming from a theocracy mentality appreciate liberal paganism? A country that has a history of patriarchal hegemony would not have an easy transition (if any) into gender equality. It would dissolve culture known for centuries, and present a new and unknown culture - which means uncertainty, which means fear. And, with that fear usually comes violence in physical, political, psychological, economic - some form.

 

[mkgal1]

Just FTR, the link you posted was about teen births, teen pregnancy rates do not equal teen birth rates. A huge number of pregnant teens are having abortions, so the birth rate has gone down. But we already know that we've got about 200,000 teen abortions per year, and though the rate has dropped, it's still astronomically high. In 2010 we had 600,00 teen pregnancies (that's over half a million), but only 400,000 births.

Oops. You're right. Like you said, though....the *pregnancy* rate is also declining (I grabbed the wrong link, however).