An attempt to dodge the point.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ladies on the forum, do you consider yourself to be a feminist?
- Thread starter PassionFruit53
- Start date
I have as much of a problem with that as I would any family model based on situations that are no longer applicable.
Alceste
Vagabond
No kidding. That doesn't even tell you whose job it is to manage the slaves and train concubines.
Can I train the concubines? Please!
Alceste
Vagabond
I nominate Mystic. I bet her magic wand is the biggest one here.
Making assumptions now are we?
Can I at least break in the concubines that misbehave? That is my speciality.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
The thing about all metaphors is that the comparison only goes so far. People can always break a metaphor down in so much detail and find aspects in which the comparison is no longer perfect. The point in using a military metaphor was to illustrate how a clearly defined chain of command works as well as it's importance. When it's life or death, two generals cannot be deadlocked. Someone needs to make a decision. Now that I think about it, my observation that positions of rank are not always awarded on merit makes the metaphor even more accurate than I had originally noticed. Why do I say that? Because plently of men, even God fearing one's, have no business being the head of anything due to deficiencies of character. They are both destructive and foolish and following their leadership would result in disaster. And yet, Christians believe that at some level God has given a man authority over the family. If there ins't a man available to do the job of leading a family I absolutely support the woman taking charge. However, I think that is contingent upon a man's deficiences of character and/or an unwillingness to fulfill his role as a man. Heck, even the Christian God used the judge Deborah to lead men at a time when the commander of Israel's army was a useless coward
But in that case there's no reason for the default head to be the man, since there are just as many men who would be competent in such as position as those who wouldn't be; it's not something any more natural to us than to women.
In life or death situations, of course you need a clear chain of command. But most American families aren't in positions that are in any way comparable to that of combat, and thus such a chain is unnecessary.
First, I do not identify myself as a Christian. Hence, it does not apply to me and my marriage. But just because I'm in a good mood....
I don't own my husband's body. He doesn't own mine. It's my uterus, my brain, my face, my hair. It's his scrotum, his beard, his eyes, and his brain.
So, yes, I disagree with your bolded example.
No thanks. I don't believe in broad brush assumptions of power positions based solely on genitalia and specific religious doctrine that not everybody follows anyway.
Hey, I'm cool with that. Is there an addendum to that passage saying how wives love their husbands and husbands respects their wives?
I always thought that passage was rather sweet.
I think it's a real shame that the only way a woman is considered capable or worthy of leading an army or a household or a business or a team is if all the available men are considered "useless cowards".
I offer that the person most capable of performing the job duties regardless of gender is the best decision to be made. It should never be contingent on availability or competency of available men first and THEN women might be considered. There's no reason for deference for all leadership positions unless it's protecting the hierarchy for hierarchy's sake alone.
And this position - jobs and wages considered solely on ability to perform the job duties as full time adults - is one of the issues that feminism broadly addresses still to this day.
It's not that it's not perfect; it's that it's fundamentally flawed and shows what the implicit assumption is (superiority/inferiority).
Most analogies you could provide have to do with the fact that, in general, a greater amount of skill or experience is involved in the higher position. Even if it were just networking; that's still a skill.
Generals are above colonels because they were more experienced and accomplished colonels that were promoted. Among generals, there are 1-4 star generals. During times of major war, there are 5 star generals that are above comparable leaders from allied countries. It's a very specific command structure with the highest levels being appointed by national leaders.
There is no such analogy for men and women. There is no gender that is more experienced, more intelligent, more accomplished, or inherently a better leader. Just cultural viewpoints.
Asserting that all women desire a dominant man regardless of what they say is irresponsible. Some men make good leaders, some women make good leaders. In relationships, some are egalitarian, some have a man make most of the big decisions, some have a woman make most of the big decisions, some split big decisions up according to areas of expertise and interest, etc.
"Christians" in general don't believe that. A subset of Christians do, and they seem to generally be the ones that promote Paul as a deity by quoting him as such.
Not if it's done right; if it's done right, the metaphor is immediate, and that's perfect.
Alceste
Vagabond
Ironically, the sweet passage is the only one attributed to Christ. The rest come from Paul, and Paul was a jerk.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
Can we agree that genders are differenciated by more than cosmetic qualities? Let's not pretend that the two are interchangeable apart from organs that hang off the body. We're talking about complimentary roles. And no one said women can't take roles of leadership, even in a family. We simply said the man has the final say assuming he is fulfilling his duties as a man.
Last edited:
But there's no reason for him to have such duties in the first place.
Nobody's pretending that men and women are interchangeable except for genitals. However, the truth of the matter is that they may as well be in most circumstances.
Alceste
Vagabond
It's not "we". It's just you. I'm not sure whether you've noticed, but nobody else - male or female - is agreeing with you. We all think your primitive, misogynistic attitude is kind of creepy, unhealthy, immature, laughable and / or potentially dangerous. And by "we" I mean everybody you are talking to in this thread.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
Let's cut to the chase, in the secular arena, the case for male leadership must be based off of far more than scripture. We must invoke the authority of science if we are to make a case. Let's make this a discussion about the inherent differences between men and women. Ideally, these would be indisputable. I'll throw out a few differences that I believe there isn't much debate over. let's list characteristics irrespective of whether or not we personally see it as a factor in leadership. Also, let's keep in mind that no one is arguing about whether women are fit to be leaders, simply whether they are best equipped to be the CEO. Here are the fist few just to get the ball rolling.
men are more competitive
men use less words than women when expressing themselves
men are less emotional
women tend nuture
men are more competitive
men use less words than women when expressing themselves
men are less emotional
women tend nuture
Last edited:
But are these natural qualities, or cultural? Most women I've interacted with have been just as competitive as men. I've met some pretty wordy men, and plenty of women who barely talked at all. As a man, I'm far more emotional than a lot of women I know.
The only one that makes sense is nurturing, as one of the many motherly instincts. But there's nothing preventing men from being equally nurturing.
Though, I thought you were going to cite something scientific.
those are stereotypes perpetuated by culturally imbedded gender roles. there is no scientific basis that says these are in born traits and there are plenty of examples where the opposite is true and women will exhibit these traits more. besides I would actually argue that being more nurturing would be a sign of strength in a leader. I find it amusing how you say we should rely on science and yet don't post any links to scientific studies to back up your claims. Are you actually arguing that women are unfit to be CEO's or at least less fit for such a position than a man simply because she is a woman.
Also you still have yet to answer my question of why a relationship must have a "leader" or "CEO" to begin with? Why can't it be an equal partnership? Why does there have to be a single person who always has the final say?