Feminism and double standards in the church

[fassopony]

No, never married.  "Dang" as in part of a slang expression to indicate I am tired of people arguing about who should do what when where and how :)

I agree about the curse (it reads directly from Genesis).  It explains why some of my friends will do anything for a guy, desperate, horrible, disgraceful things.  I am glad not to be so "boy crazy"!  However, Christ has freed us from any earthly curse and using that bit of Scripture to condemn all females or justify poor treatment is a stretch.  I know some do but they can discuss that with God sometime I suppose.

**edited to add, "feminist" as firm belief that females are equal to men in the eyes of the Lord (really all that matters) but also to include equal opportunity in the workplace/hiring, etc but not to include dismissing job requirements (such as lifting 200 pounds) in order to meet a quota for sex in the workplace.

[Cally]

No, never married.  "Dang" as in part of a slang expression to indicate I am tired of people arguing about who should do what when where and how :)

I agree about the curse (it reads directly from Genesis).  It explains why some of my friends will do anything for a guy, desperate, horrible, disgraceful things.  I am glad not to be so "boy crazy"!  However, Christ has freed us from any earthly curse and using that bit of Scripture to condemn all females or justify poor treatment is a stretch.  I know some do but they can discuss that with God sometime I suppose.

Right . . . the curse was broken . . . which means it's the job of women to convince men everywhere that the curse is broken.

But before that happens completely, is the curse really broken? 

Amazing logic. Just amazing.

[fassopony]

Justify your behavior anyway you like, Cally.

Your utterly amazing lack of logic in jumping from Christ's redeeming humankind to assuming that means women have some sort of job to convince men of something is ridiculous at best.

I am not name calling, just utterly astounded at the projecting behavior and negative spirit you possess.

[Cally]

Justify your behavior anyway you like, Cally.

Your utterly amazing lack of logic in jumping from Christ's redeeming humankind to assuming that means women have some sort of job to convince men of something is ridiculous at best.

I am not name calling, just utterly astounded at the projecting behavior and negative spirit you possess.

I don't think you even understood what I said . . . at all.

Reviewing the curses dealt to Adam and Eve, Adam will die (so does Eve), Adam will do hard work to get food (so does Eve, unless a man does it for her), Eve gets multiplied pain in childbearing (Adam doesn't), and the man will now rule over woman (obviously that applies to Eve and can't apply to Adam).

None of those things really change after one is saved--except some people got caught up straight to heaven, possibly, but most believers die the same natural deaths that are the legacy of Adam and Eve.

But for the most part, you want to say that that ONE curse gets an overhaul. And I'm saying, that's a logic-free touchie-feely belief that can't come from any kind of reason.

What I was trying to say in that post is that you saying men no longer rule over women ultimately manifests itself in . . . what? Men just deciding to quit being "oppressive," right? So the lifting of that curse is DEPENDANT on the actions of someone other than the person being "redeemed."

In practice, being "redeemed" from that curse meams you're just going to say (which sounds like you're saying now): "hey men, Christ redeemed us women, so you can stop being oppressive now!" And then that's how you get your redemption in Christ (or only after the men actually decide to see it your way).

And that's ridiculous. It's a theology force-fit around the agenda of feminism.

By the way, separate question: if you believe in "equality" as a feminist, how do you feel about the total death of chivalry and other gentlemenly treatment in lieu of equality? That is, no more holding doors open, no more pulling chairs out . . . little things to bigger things--bigger things being no more "women and children first." Some women are in favor of that kind of TOTAL equality while others want "equality and then some" by asking for chivalry in addition. Where would you say you fall in that debate?

[BlackSheep]

Although I am a "newbie" on this site, and others may have a higher "status" of "senor member"; the status of a member is only a result of a mathematical algorithm. My newbie status just means I have not logged as much time through post responses as others.

What really matters and exposes the heart of a person is how they live their life, and what comes from their heart through their thoughts, words and deeds.

Mat 15:18  But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
Mat 15:19  For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

What is really "amazing" to me is the lack scriptural support to some of these "opinions" expressed on this "Christian" site.

The scriptures are correct in saying that the whole world is still under the curse of sin, and will remain thus until Christ returns to make all things new. Therefore, the actions of your "girl friends" who do such things concerning men is proof of the sinfulness of the human condition in this persent world.

Rom 8:18  For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
Rom 8:19  For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20  For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Rom 8:21  Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Rom 8:22  For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Good Day

BlackSheep

[fassopony]

Cally, stop projecting your ides of what I and anyone else is doing onto your prefabricated agenda. 

I am speaking about women.  I did not refer to oppression by men.  Again, I am speaking (writing) about women.  I don't give a rats patoot if you think that what I clearly wrote in English meant I was talking about men, unicorns, hot wings or oppression of tree frogs.  The fact of the matter is I am speaking of women and their actions not insinuating the blame game you seem so fond of and portray so clearly with your posts.  Get it straight kiddo.

I never said one curse gets an overhaul.  You did though, illogically.

Congratulations on making up a whole bunch of things that were neither said nor implied by me.  You win the tall tale contest.

I don't debate people who have no actual grasp of what is being said.  Taking the statement that I said--

**edited to add, "feminist" as firm belief that females are equal to men in the eyes of the Lord (really all that matters) but also to include equal opportunity in the workplace/hiring, etc but not to include dismissing job requirements (such as lifting 200 pounds) in order to meet a quota for sex in the workplace.

and turning it into your histrionic over the top propaganda spewing idea of "well now we won't be being chivalrous anymore, lah-tee-dah" highlights the fact that you obviously receive and believe the emails sent out with no merit.  You have never bothered to read or comprehend them, nor have you bothered to read or comprehend anything stated here.  Your debating skill is nil as you resort to emotional wranglings, illogical conclusions that somehow don't even pertain to the matter at hand and regurgitate information found in mass hysteria emails.

Go ahead and type out a long, drawn out response if you like.  I'm not going to waste my time responding.  Your posts are filled with negativity, blame and criticism.  An accurate description of you I suppose.

[MeMyself]

Although I am a "newbie" on this site, and others may have a higher "status" of "senor member"; the status of a member is only a result of a mathematical algorithm. My newbie status just means I have not logged as much time through post responses as others.

Yes, we are all aware of this...

[PeterEnergy]

After all, feminism is most popular in the West, so it stands to reason that the West would have this big double standard: "Respect women no matter what, but don't do it for men."

The feminist standard is to respect women no matter what AND do not respect men no matter what. Both are wrong. Not all actions and choices deserve respect.

[PeterEnergy]

A prenup will only come into effect if the marriage ends. Therefore, anyone who gets a prenup is already thinking about who gets what if the marriage ends. A terrible way to start a marriage.

Appeal to Emotion. Pre-nups are a reasonable way to begin. What is terrible is not pre-nups but the irrational divorce rates that make pre-nups necessary.

A marriage is the only thing I know where people let themselves be liable for legal and financial risk purely for emotional reasons.

[PeterEnergy]

"Look how men ... use women for sex.

What are men supposed to use as sex object?

[MeMyself]

After all, feminism is most popular in the West, so it stands to reason that the West would have this big double standard: "Respect women no matter what, but don't do it for men."

The feminist standard is to respect women no matter what AND do not respect men no matter what. Both are wrong. Not all actions and choices deserve respect.

I agree, not all action and choices deserve respect,but the PEOPLE do. 

[wolflet7]

No, never married.  "Dang" as in part of a slang expression to indicate I am tired of people arguing about who should do what when where and how :)

I agree about the curse (it reads directly from Genesis).  It explains why some of my friends will do anything for a guy, desperate, horrible, disgraceful things.  I am glad not to be so "boy crazy"!  However, Christ has freed us from any earthly curse and using that bit of Scripture to condemn all females or justify poor treatment is a stretch.  I know some do but they can discuss that with God sometime I suppose.

Right . . . the curse was broken . . . which means it's the job of women to convince men everywhere that the curse is broken.

But before that happens completely, is the curse really broken? 

Amazing logic. Just amazing.

What I'm getting from this post, Cally, and from many others you've put up in the 15 pages of this topic, is that women, according to the Bible, and lesser/weaker/should serve men. 

Using that logic; when Jesus was on Earth, shouldn't we have served Him?  Oh but no, I remember this verse or two where it says that Jesus washed the disciples feet which, going back to Biblical times, servants did to their masters.  In fact, I recall that most of what Jesus did was to benefit/serve others. 

Just because someone, according to the OLD TESTAMENT, is "lesser" doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't serve them from time to time.  After all, it IS God who gives you breath everyday.  With your logic of the lesser always serving the greater, God should rightfully take away your ability to read, or comprehend in that matter, this post and the other 15 pages that were put up on this topic.  Although, realistically, you never seem to comprehend my posts or anybody who posts "against" you.  In fact, I noticed that sometimes you avoid posting back to somebody because they have already seemed to have "won" that argument.  But besides the fact...God gives you the ability to read this paragraph, website, etc.  If your logic was true, then He could take that away any second, because He has given it to you, but He is above you/you are lesser, so you shouldn't have any rights, right?  Hmm...

Being a Christian Man is about serving others, even if you SEEM to be "above" them.  Don't let your ego get in the way.

[Cally]

Cally, stop projecting your ides of what I and anyone else is doing onto your prefabricated agenda. 

I am speaking about women.  I did not refer to oppression by men.  Again, I am speaking (writing) about women.  I don't give a rats patoot if you think that what I clearly wrote in English meant I was talking about men, unicorns, hot wings or oppression of tree frogs.  The fact of the matter is I am speaking of women and their actions not insinuating the blame game you seem so fond of and portray so clearly with your posts.  Get it straight kiddo.

I never said one curse gets an overhaul.  You did though, illogically.

Congratulations on making up a whole bunch of things that were neither said nor implied by me.  You win the tall tale contest.

I don't debate people who have no actual grasp of what is being said.  Taking the statement that I said--

**edited to add, "feminist" as firm belief that females are equal to men in the eyes of the Lord (really all that matters) but also to include equal opportunity in the workplace/hiring, etc but not to include dismissing job requirements (such as lifting 200 pounds) in order to meet a quota for sex in the workplace.

and turning it into your histrionic over the top propaganda spewing idea of "well now we won't be being chivalrous anymore, lah-tee-dah" highlights the fact that you obviously receive and believe the emails sent out with no merit.  You have never bothered to read or comprehend them, nor have you bothered to read or comprehend anything stated here.  Your debating skill is nil as you resort to emotional wranglings, illogical conclusions that somehow don't even pertain to the matter at hand and regurgitate information found in mass hysteria emails.

What emails are you talking about?

I was asking a question about the chivalry debate. Are you unwilling to answer?

[Cally]

No, never married.  "Dang" as in part of a slang expression to indicate I am tired of people arguing about who should do what when where and how :)

I agree about the curse (it reads directly from Genesis).  It explains why some of my friends will do anything for a guy, desperate, horrible, disgraceful things.  I am glad not to be so "boy crazy"!  However, Christ has freed us from any earthly curse and using that bit of Scripture to condemn all females or justify poor treatment is a stretch.  I know some do but they can discuss that with God sometime I suppose.

Right . . . the curse was broken . . . which means it's the job of women to convince men everywhere that the curse is broken.

But before that happens completely, is the curse really broken?  

Amazing logic. Just amazing.

What I'm getting from this post, Cally, and from many others you've put up in the 15 pages of this topic, is that women, according to the Bible, and lesser/weaker/should serve men.  

Nah I actually think everyone can serve each other.

Using that logic; when Jesus was on Earth, shouldn't we have served Him?  Oh but no, I remember this verse or two where it says that Jesus washed the disciples feet which, going back to Biblical times, servants did to their masters.  In fact, I recall that most of what Jesus did was to benefit/serve others.  

Indeed, the Son of Man didn't come to be served but to serve. Some were obedient to him while he was on the Earth, considering him to be their master, while others decidedly weren't. The ones who believed Jesus was their master were prepared to do anything Jesus told them to do.

Just because someone, according to the OLD TESTAMENT, is "lesser" doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't serve them from time to time.  After all, it IS God who gives you breath everyday.  With your logic of the lesser always serving the greater, God should rightfully take away your ability to read, or comprehend in that matter, this post and the other 15 pages that were put up on this topic.  Although, realistically, you never seem to comprehend my posts or anybody who posts "against" you.  In fact, I noticed that sometimes you avoid posting back to somebody because they have already seemed to have "won" that argument.  But besides the fact...God gives you the ability to read this paragraph, website, etc.  If your logic was true, then He could take that away any second, because He has given it to you, but He is above you/you are lesser, so you shouldn't have any rights, right?  Hmm...

Without going into detail about those posts you think I'm not "comprehending" and other's who posted who "won" the argument . . .  well, the feeling is mutual, what can I say? No, I don't have any "rights" with God, he is able to do anything with me that He wants and I'm required to do anything He says.

Being a Christian Man is about serving others, even if you SEEM to be "above" them.  Don't let your ego get in the way.

Okay.  

[PeterEnergy]

What the word of God means concerning the stronger-weaker vessel is merely physicality.

That is certainly part of the feminist propaganda. Anyone with any practical life experience also knows men tend to be more able to put aside their emotions & think through problems.

[Cally]

What the word of God means concerning the stronger-weaker vessel is merely physicality.

That is certainly part of the feminist propaganda. Anyone with any practical life experience also knows men tend to be more able to put aside their emotions & think through problems.

To my understanding, that's one of the natural effects of testosterone, actually--increases objective thinking.

[PeterEnergy]

To my understanding, that's one of the natural effects of testosterone, actually--increases objective thinking.

Your sentence is not clear to me. The implication that the hormone estrogen has less of an effect on objective thinking? This, in turn, implies humans are not truly capable of choice at all but merely driven by whatever hormone may be coursing through our veins.

My point is, all things considered, men demonstrate a far greater capacity to not be swayed by emotion, especially in times of great crisis; to think logically and morally. This is why throughout the ages in all places men have dominated leadership roles.

Feminists say that is b/c they have not been allowed to occupy such roles. That is victim mentality. There is a reason men have not had to be "allowed" by women to take the lead in war, in peace and in the hearts of our countrymen!

[PeterEnergy]

I agree, not all action and choices deserve respect,but the PEOPLE do. 

Stupid is as stupid does. I believe the Christian command is to love your neighbor, not respect them no matter what.

[Cally]

To my understanding, that's one of the natural effects of testosterone, actually--increases objective thinking.

Your sentence is not clear to me. The implication that the hormone estrogen has less of an effect on objective thinking? This, in turn, implies humans are not truly capable of choice at all but merely driven by whatever hormone may be coursing through our veins.

My point is, all things considered, men demonstrate a far greater capacity to not be swayed by emotion, especially in times of great crisis; to think logically and morally. This is why throughout the ages in all places men have dominated leadership roles.

Feminists say that is b/c they have not been allowed to occupy such roles. That is victim mentality. There is a reason men have not had to be "allowed" by women to take the lead in war, in peace and in the hearts of our countrymen!

Well, and one has to ask the question of how it is that one half of the population can manage to oppress the other half--when they're in equal numbers and in equal positions. We can see that sometimes it happens with race because of differences in numbers (one can be in the minority, disadvantaged in numbers) and also if one group winds up on, say, a lousy part of the Earth that doesn't yield as easily to growing food and has harsh weather conditions for example.

But men and women? Almost always close to equal in numbers and they're in the same places as men, inevitably in contact with them all the time. Yet one half of the population managed to "oppress" the other? Please.

[MeMyself]

I agree, not all action and choices deserve respect,but the PEOPLE do. 

Stupid is as stupid does. I believe the Christian command is to love your neighbor, not respect them no matter what.

Ok?    People deserve to be treated with respect NO MATTER WHAT, even when calling them out on disrespectful behavior choices. THAT is what I meant.  Love is another form of respect.

[wolflet7]

Okay Cally, thanks for clearing that up 

[PeterEnergy]

Ok?    People deserve to be treated with respect NO MATTER WHAT, even when calling them out on disrespectful behavior choices. THAT is what I meant.  Love is another form of respect.

Then what you mean is nonsense. You are overextending the idea of hating the sin but loving the sinner. Should we respect Satan? Respect has to be earned, be deserved. Love does not.

[Cally]

Okay Cally, thanks for clearing that up  

You know wolflet, to try and expand the discussion with you which may or may not be on the topics of your thoughts, let's think about Jesus' service to others.

If it sounds like I'm trying to be argumentative, please don't take it that way--though I recognize I'm contradicting some people's sentiments, I don't mean to be offensive.

Firstly, let's not forget that Jesus told us to rebuke our brother if he sins, which is, in my mind, what I'm doing with some of my speech about injustices I perceive (and I would think that's what people who rebuke me think they are doing, although that seems like a paradox to me--rebuking me for rebuking someone else; feel free to comment on that).

It is true that Jesus came to serve. It is true that Jesus laid down his life for us. But when it came to Jesus and his disciples, in my mind there's no doubt that Jesus was "the boss" as it were. Some people didn't realize Jesus was boss, and Jesus was gentle on them for it! But nonetheless, Jesus was the boss, the king, and that means everyone around him ought to be prepared to do absolutely anything Jesus told them to do.

I was made for God. I was made to do absolutely anything God tells me to do, all the while showing the utmost respect. I obey his every last whim. As I do so, God lavishes his love on me, as he is kind and gentle. He flexes his power impressively for my sake!

I believe husband and wife relationships are parallel to that as the Bible says. Man was not made for woman, but woman for man. Similarly to above, women are commanded to respect their husbands. Husbands should be patient with their wives and have their interests in mind, BUT, like Jesus was with his disciples, that doesn't mean that Jesus is the one who ought to be bossed around--the man was meant to lead. That is the relationship in which they are both "submissive" to each others needs out of reverence for Christ while the woman is distinctly submissive to her husband's leadership. Jesus led, the disciples responded. Similarly, the man leads, the woman responds. That order must not be disrupted.

Do we agree?

[MeMyself]

Ok?    People deserve to be treated with respect NO MATTER WHAT, even when calling them out on disrespectful behavior choices. THAT is what I meant.  Love is another form of respect.

Then what you mean is nonsense. You are overextending the idea of hating the sin but loving the sinner. Should we respect Satan? Respect has to be earned, be deserved. Love does not.

Satan is NOT a person.

Whatever. Im not going to argue with you about this.

[PeterEnergy]

That does not answer my question. Should we respect Satan?

[MeMyself]

That does not answer my question. Should we respect Satan?

Respecting Satan has less than nothing to do with anything we are talking about.

You don't believe people deserve common human respect, fine.  Be blessed.

[Cally]

I agree, not all action and choices deserve respect,but the PEOPLE do. 

Stupid is as stupid does. I believe the Christian command is to love your neighbor, not respect them no matter what.

Yeah but do you see the Bible telling us to love Satan? I'm not saying that we should necessarily hate him, either . . .

[wolflet7]

Okay Cally, thanks for clearing that up  

I believe husband and wife relationships are parallel to that as the Bible says. Man was not made for woman, but woman for man. Similarly to above, women are commanded to respect their husbands. Husbands should be patient with their wives and have their interests in mind, BUT, like Jesus was with his disciples, that doesn't mean that Jesus is the one who ought to be bossed around--the man was meant to lead. That is the relationship in which they are both "submissive" to each others needs out of reverence for Christ while the woman is distinctly submissive to her husband's leadership. Jesus led, the disciples responded. Similarly, the man leads, the woman responds. That order must not be disrupted.

Do we agree?

I understand where you're coming from, but that doesn't correlate with what you said earlier, about women and men being treated equally.  I'm still confused on that.  Maybe we could discuss this more through private messages?  I feel somewhat distracted by everybody's posts; it's like two conversations going on at the same time. 

[fassopony]

After all, feminism is most popular in the West, so it stands to reason that the West would have this big double standard: "Respect women no matter what, but don't do it for men."

The feminist standard is to respect women no matter what AND do not respect men no matter what. Both are wrong. Not all actions and choices deserve respect.

The liberal progressives movements idea of feminism, yep.  And it's bunk.   Not my brand for sure (they rarely allow conservative prolif Christian gals around the liberals anyway LOL!!!).

Oh, and I tend to be less emotional and more rational than most I work with.  Male or female.  I also tend to be more confident and assertive, easily tending toward aggressive if needed.  And I look girlier than most.  So, stereotypes can be true but not always.

[DaveW]

"Look how men ... use women for sex.

What are men supposed to use as sex object?

And the bible is written from the viewpoint that women use the men for sex and not the other way around.

Apparently the church cannot even get that right.

[DaveW]

What the word of God means concerning the stronger-weaker vessel is merely physicality.

That is certainly part of the feminist propaganda. Anyone with any practical life experience also knows men tend to be more able to put aside their emotions & think through problems.

From the Jewish perspective (the bible was written by Jews) being able to put aside emotion is NOT a good thing.

God does not put aside emotion ....

[DaveW]

That does not answer my question. Should we respect satan?

In a negative sense - yes.  We are warned about his wiles and objectives.  If we pay that no respect we will be defeated by him.

One of the best tactiticians in WW2 was general Rommel. Had Hitler put him in charge of the whole Nazi war machine, they probably would have won.  Those who fought him in North Africa concluded he was absolutely brilliant. Hated the man, hated what he stood for but respected his prowess.

It is the same way with the devil (and yes, he is a person); hate him and what he stands for but respect his deviousness.

[PeterEnergy]

I understand where you're coming from, but that doesn't correlate with what you said earlier, about women and men being treated equally.  I'm still confused on that. 

What equality means in practice is the problem. I suggest you read Alex Toquiquille Democracy in America. Mena nd women have different roles but they are equally important. You can't be a leader without a follower, etc.

[fassopony]

The proper perspective on understanding equality and actual feminism is that we are to love (or, in reference to language translation, show or act love towards) all people.  That is simple to understand but not easy to actually do.

Examples of treating people with love ----

A customer service representative is kind and patient towards a flaming mad abusively inappropriate customer.  THAT is showing or acting love, in simple human form.  Break it down to human relations, a husband is kind and patient to a flaming mad abusively inappropriate wife.

Example of treating people with equality----

My coworker Cash is a supervisor who is amazing at tracking production, bill to pay and using Excel, etc., to show how it influences operations.  My other coworker John is a supervisor who is very talented at motivating and coaching his team to produce well, they hit or exceed goal monthly.  They receive the same pay and receive the same treatment/status at work.  Two very different strengths in the same position, two very equally respected supervisors.  As an aside, I routinely beat them both but that's just me being cocky LOL!!

This is feminism at it's most simple form.  I do the same job as Cash and John, I get the same pay, same treatment, etc.  Cash would never expect me to so "traditional girly" things outside of my job expectations like admin/secretarial or cleaning the breakroom for him nor would my manager. 

To me, this is simple stuff.

[PeterEnergy]

I agree with Chosen.. entering into a marriage via pre-nups doesn't say much for the couple's faith and willingness toward that marriage.  ButI guess there are some situations, at least, where they can be seen as prudent. 

ALL situations not some makes pre-nups prudent. I went to a man-hating female attorney. I told her I had a pre and post nuptial agreement. Rather than compliment my acting pro-actively, she looked scornfully at me and said, without even knowing what the nuptial agreements said, that the court may not enforce the nuptial agreements.

To that, I asked what then is the purpose of these agreements. She did not say. There is no good reason to allow your future liability to dictated by government legislatures and courts when there is a viable alternative.

You make a classic Appeal to Emotion, guilt via "it does not say much."  As though marriage  is exclusively a romantic event with no legal or financial implications for failure!