PDA

View Full Version : Your Views on Patriarchy



Zymologist
09-07-2017, 09:44 AM
How does the Patriarchy make you feel?

Me? I think it's alright. I asked my wife the other day what she thought, while she was making me a sandwich and getting me a beer, and she agreed.

Darth Executor
09-07-2017, 09:59 AM
Patriarchy is the biblical way. I don't think that women can never be leaders, but Wildflower needn't worry about her gender, she obv has no leadership skills either way.

Sparko
09-07-2017, 10:13 AM
23981

Bill the Cat
09-07-2017, 10:17 AM
Patriarchy is the biblical way. I don't think that women can never be leaders, but Wildflower needn't worry about her gender, she obv has no leadership skills either way.

I disagree. I think she is pretty well spoken and passionate on the subject - both leadership qualities. But as far as Patriarchy goes, there's societal patriarchy and there's familial patriarchy. It's important to not confuse the two.

Zymologist
09-07-2017, 10:19 AM
If any of the tweb females read this thread and feel their toes have been stepped on, I apologize.

But I do have to point out that I wouldn't have stepped on your toes if you'd been in the kitchen. Just saying.

Bill the Cat
09-07-2017, 10:20 AM
If any of the tweb females read this thread and feel their toes have been stepped on, I apologize.

But I do have to point out that I wouldn't have stepped on your toes if you'd been in the kitchen. Just saying.

Exactly. Sandwiches don't make themselves! :whip:

TheWall
09-07-2017, 10:20 AM
To me the word feels like a bludgeon and a secret society.
People want to shut you up accuse them of being patriarchal.
You point out the fact that men and women were made different by design and people think you are some kind of bigot.
Women are awesome but they have different attributes than men.

Bill the Cat
09-07-2017, 10:23 AM
To me the word feels like a bludgeon and a secret society.
People want to shut you up accuse them of being patriarchal.
You point out the fact that men and women were made different by design and people think you are some kind of bigot.
Women are awesome but they have different attributes than men.

And you should see them with an iron! :deal:

Darth Executor
09-07-2017, 10:23 AM
I disagree. I think she is pretty well spoken and passionate on the subject - both leadership qualities. But as far as Patriarchy goes, there's societal patriarchy and there's familial patriarchy. It's important to not confuse the two.

Someone who demeans subservient roles is unfit to be a leader, period. She doesn't have even the slightest understanding of what leadership is or what it entails. She's a child who's angry because Daddy won't buy her all the candy she wants.

Bill the Cat
09-07-2017, 10:26 AM
Someone who demeans subservient roles is unfit to be a leader, period. She doesn't have even the slightest understanding of what leadership is or what it entails. She's a child who's angry because Daddy won't buy her all the candy she wants.

I thought it was mom's role to grocery shop? :huh:

Darth Executor
09-07-2017, 10:28 AM
I thought it was mom's role to grocery shop? :huh:

like wimmin can carry all those groceries

TheWall
09-07-2017, 10:29 AM
Another thing.
If that wage gap thing was real and patriarchy as a secret society is real then that means that men everywhere are foregoing massive profits working there and are surrounding themselves with other men just because.

Zymologist
09-07-2017, 10:31 AM
Another thing.
If that wage gap thing was real and patriarchy as a secret society is real then that means that men everywhere are foregoing massive profits working there and are surrounding themselves with other men just because.

The gender wage gap, simplified: a bunch of greedy, straight male business owners pay extra to surround themselves with dudes. Because patriarchy, that's why.

Sparko
09-07-2017, 10:35 AM
As Christians we are all to be subservient and submit to God and each other.

Bill the Cat
09-07-2017, 10:43 AM
23984

Sparko
09-07-2017, 10:50 AM
23984

Because the last time they tried, this happened:

23988

NorrinRadd
09-07-2017, 02:43 PM
So... Apparently we are allowed to silently creep the sex-specific fora and then go elsewhere to mock, but we are not allowed to participate directly.

This place has asinine rules.

Bill the Cat
09-07-2017, 03:10 PM
So... Apparently we are allowed to silently creep the sex-specific fora and then go elsewhere to mock, but we are not allowed to participate directly.

This place has asinine rules.

23999

demi-conservative
09-07-2017, 03:10 PM
So... Apparently we are allowed to silently creep the sex-specific fora and then go elsewhere to mock, but we are not allowed to participate directly.

This place has asinine rules.

:glare:

Leave weaker vessels alone!!!

:wink:

Darth Executor
09-07-2017, 03:15 PM
So... Apparently we are allowed to silently creep the sex-specific fora and then go elsewhere to mock, but we are not allowed to participate directly.

This place has asinine rules.

I agree, you can't ban people from a thread and then keep talking about them but you can attack them in forums where they can't participate?

Zymologist
09-07-2017, 03:17 PM
Serious question:

Does complementarianism/patriarchy necessitate that women be inferior?

Darth Executor
09-07-2017, 03:20 PM
Believing that God purposes and endorses sexism is a serious infraction against God's character and the identity of the people He created to bear and reflect His image as male and female.

This is a new one. I don't think I've seen someone argue the DICTIONARY can dictate morality to God. :lol:

Darth Executor
09-07-2017, 03:21 PM
Serious question:

Does complementarianism/patriarchy necessitate that women be inferior?

According to Wildflower, leadership is superior to servitude, so apparently yes.

Bill the Cat
09-07-2017, 03:22 PM
I agree, you can't ban people from a thread and then keep talking about them but you can attack them in forums where they can't participate?

This thread was made to have some fun. We do it frequently. Even Wildflower saw it as such and laughed. No one was attacking her except you.

demi-conservative
09-07-2017, 03:27 PM
Serious question:

Does complementarianism/patriarchy necessitate that women be inferior?

If someone is under authority of king/government/pastor/father, is he inferior?

Bill the Cat
09-07-2017, 03:28 PM
Serious question:

Does complementarianism/patriarchy necessitate that women be inferior?

Necessitate? No.

Darth Executor
09-07-2017, 03:30 PM
This thread was made to have some fun. We do it frequently. Even Wildflower saw it as such and laughed. No one was attacking her except you.

I was actually referring to her and bookworm attacking complementarians, which started before I retaliated.

Bill the Cat
09-07-2017, 03:31 PM
I was actually referring to her and bookworm attacking complementarians, which started before I retaliated.

If you read the OP, you would have seen that this thread was to have a little fun, not comment on that thread.

Darth Executor
09-07-2017, 03:34 PM
If you read the OP, you would have seen that this thread was to have a little fun, not comment on that thread.

not relevant to my comment

Darth Executor
09-07-2017, 04:47 PM
God created Eve because Adam was bored.

and lol @ wildflower claiming complementarians believe women's traditional roles are inferior. She spent ALL THREAD making that exact argument. It is in fact egalitarians who think women's roles are inferior which is why they demand that women be given the vastly superior male roles and project their belief that those roles are inferior on their opponents.

Apologiaphoenix
09-08-2017, 07:43 AM
Any husband knows he automatically has two titles around the house.

He who takes out the trash is the first.

The second is official bug-killer.

Apologiaphoenix
09-08-2017, 07:44 AM
As for Adam and Eve, when Adam sees Eve he says "This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man."

Now I have talked to some serious Hebrew scholars and such about this, and I have been told that a direct English equivalent of what Adam said is "YOWZA!"

Sparko
09-08-2017, 08:11 AM
As for Adam and Eve, when Adam sees Eve he says "This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man."

Now I have talked to some serious Hebrew scholars and such about this, and I have been told that a direct English equivalent of what Adam said is "YOWZA!"

And then Eve told him to take out the trash, kill the spider and give her a foot rub.

TheWall
09-08-2017, 09:11 AM
And then Eve told him to take out the trash, kill the spider and give her a foot rub.

And then a snake showed up and asked her to eat an apple.
Then Adam ate the apple knowing full well it was wrong.

Sparko
09-08-2017, 09:53 AM
And then a snake showed up and asked her to eat an apple.
Then Adam ate the apple knowing full well it was wrong.He just did it because Eve made him. He was hen-pecked. and of course, Eve blamed the snake.

Apologiaphoenix
09-08-2017, 10:03 AM
God made Adam and told him to go make love to his wife and continue the human race. Adam asked where she was.

God: Go and follow the river....
Adam: What's a river?

God explained what a river was.

God: Then go through the forest.
Adam: What's a forest?

God explained what a forest was.

God: And then go over the mountain.
Adam: What's a mountain?

God explained what a mountain was. With that Adam was on his way. A few days later he returned.

God: How did it go?
Adam: What's a headache?

TheWall
09-08-2017, 10:28 AM
I imagine that Adam has heard all of these jokes and such by now.

demi-conservative
09-09-2017, 05:28 AM
I imagine that Adam has heard all of these jokes and such by now.

Protip: jokes is common way for people to take on sensitive, sensitive topics!

Not my style, of course!!!

Apologiaphoenix
09-09-2017, 07:03 AM
Come to bed at night with a glass of water and an excedrin for your wife.

Her: What's this for?
You: For your headache.
Her: I don't have a headache.
You: Excellent!

demi-conservative
09-09-2017, 07:06 PM
Because libtardedness must be answered:


And, again, the point is...how do you as a woman deal with this belief of a sexist God and the identity He gave you as an inferior person who is ontologically deficient to make a "final decision" or who cannot ideally function as a female without male leadership in church and home? How do you deal with the inherently female need you supposedly have to need a male to be your "king and priest", your built-in spiritual guide, your authoritative "head"? How do you feel about God purposefully designing you to be deficient in these things, as if God Himself is not enough of those things for you?

And he said to me, My grace is sufficient for you: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest on me.

But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen, yes, and things which are not, to bring to nothing things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence

It's not about ego of yours or feelings of yours or ':bawl: why is status of mine lower :bawl:', libtard!!!

NorrinRadd
09-10-2017, 12:24 AM
Serious question:

Does complementarianism/patriarchy necessitate that women be inferior?

They commonly staunchly affirm that men and women are equal in humanity and equal in value before God, but that their "roles" are different. It just so happens that the difference in "roles" is such that an adult male must always be in the place of highest authority in the home or church. So the reasonable inference is that compared to men, women must always be inferior in regard to whatever qualities suit one for leadership.

Darth Executor
09-10-2017, 01:48 PM
They commonly staunchly affirm that men and women are equal in humanity and equal in value before God, but that their "roles" are different. It just so happens that the difference in "roles" is such that an adult male must always be in the place of highest authority in the home or church. So the reasonable inference is that compared to men, women must always be inferior in regard to whatever qualities suit one for leadership.

It just so happens that "egalitarians" are the ones who think authority = superior and project this on all complementarians. It's the sin of Pride at work. Once you think you are equal to your "better" it's only a matter of time before you start thinking you are equal to God. Ultimately, egalitarianism is the same sin that got Satan thrown out of heaven.

Cerebrum123
09-10-2017, 02:13 PM
They commonly staunchly affirm that men and women are equal in humanity and equal in value before God, but that their "roles" are different. It just so happens that the difference in "roles" is such that an adult male must always be in the place of highest authority in the home or church. So the reasonable inference is that compared to men, women must always be inferior in regard to whatever qualities suit one for leadership.

I don't see how it's any different than the functional subordination within the Trinity.

KingsGambit
09-10-2017, 06:04 PM
I don't see how it's any different than the functional subordination within the Trinity.

That is the orthodox view. Anyone who goes with essential subordination has crossed the line into heresy. (And that's the heart of an intense theological dispute in recent years touching on this issue.)

Darth Executor
09-10-2017, 11:17 PM
And, to contrast the complementarian and egalitarian models, in the complementarian model, the male gets the supposedly needed "tie-breaking" decision based on gender alone.

The problem with egalitarians is that like with all other leftist thought the egalitarian keeps projecting basic assumptions on a completely different system. In this case the egalitarian starts from assigning equal, hollow value to both sexes and then distributing traits (and complaining about how complementarians distribute them). When in practice Adam was created first and specifically made as steward to creation. Woman was subsequently created, not to order Adam around but so that he could have a helper.


Whereas in the egalitarian model, preference is given based on either whoever feels the most passionate or whoever has the most knowledge concerning the particular issue, or whoever is the one most gifted, etc.

The egalitarian model seems to assume that both men and women exist for no purpose other than to pursue whatever crosses their minds at any given time rather than to fulfill God's purposes. So from this atheistic perspective egalitarianism sounds like a swell idea. Of course, in actual practice the egalitarian model seems to have mostly resulted in self destructive behavior at the civilization level on the part of both sexes. If women should be able to do whatever they feel like, then so should men. So both are increasingly abdicating their responsibilities, down to even something as basic as reproduction.


These decisions are based on gender mutuality in an egalitarian marriage instead of one gender being superior to another holding the "tie-breaking" vote in a complementarian marriage.

Once again the idea that authority = superiority shows up without justification.

NorrinRadd
09-11-2017, 01:22 AM
I don't see how it's any different than the functional subordination within the Trinity.


That is the orthodox view. Anyone who goes with essential subordination has crossed the line into heresy. (And that's the heart of an intense theological dispute in recent years touching on this issue.)

As I understand it, the egalitarian view is that the distinction between "functional" and "essential" is a recent invention by complementarians, concocted by working backwards to find additional support for their hierarchical view of male/female (or at least husband/wife).

NorrinRadd
09-11-2017, 01:26 AM
It just so happens that "egalitarians" are the ones who think authority = superior and project this on all complementarians. It's the sin of Pride at work. Once you think you are equal to your "better" it's only a matter of time before you start thinking you are equal to God. Ultimately, egalitarianism is the same sin that got Satan thrown out of heaven.

You are not making sense. You claim that we egalitarians are the ones who equate authority with superiority, and then go on to explicitly say that some really are "better." Explain yourself more clearly.

NorrinRadd
09-11-2017, 01:52 AM
The problem with egalitarians is that like with all other leftist thought the egalitarian keeps projecting basic assumptions on a completely different system. In this case the egalitarian starts from assigning equal, hollow value to both sexes and then distributing traits (and complaining about how complementarians distribute them).

No. We start with Scripture, which shows that God created humans male and female, equally bearing the image of God, and assigned both of them to rule the earth and all other living creatures on it. (Gen. 1:26-28) There is no mention of one of the humans ruling over the other.



When in practice Adam was created first and specifically made as steward to creation. Woman was subsequently created, not to order Adam around but so that he could have a helper.

Neither was created to "order around" the other. The woman was created as a "suitable companion" for him. The NET translation helpfully notes that the Hebrew word "ezer," often translated helper, does *not* convey the sense of subordination.


Whereas in the egalitarian model, preference is given based on either whoever feels the most passionate or whoever has the most knowledge concerning the particular issue, or whoever is the one most gifted, etc.

The egalitarian model seems to assume that both men and women exist for no purpose other than to pursue whatever crosses their minds at any given time rather than to fulfill God's purposes.

I don't know where you got that quote. You pulled it out of some orifice with no citation of source. And I don't know how you came up with that dim-witted interpretation of it. In the egalitarian model, male and female are equal. Neither is automatically prohibited any "role" solely on the basis of gender. We serve God as equal partners. We also sometimes refer to ourselves as "mutualists," because submission is not one-sided. We are always ready to defer to each other. So, yes, in a given situation, either can be the "leader," depending on knowledge, gifting, etc., or they can collaborate with neither really being "the" leader.



So from this atheistic perspective egalitarianism sounds like a swell idea. Of course, in actual practice the egalitarian model seems to have mostly resulted in self destructive behavior at the civilization level on the part of both sexes. If women should be able to do whatever they feel like, then so should men. So both are increasingly abdicating their responsibilities, down to even something as basic as reproduction.

You are clearly speaking from poorly informed preconceptions, utterly ignorant of actual egalitarian Scriptural arguments and life practices.




These decisions are based on gender mutuality in an egalitarian marriage instead of one gender being superior to another holding the "tie-breaking" vote in a complementarian marriage.
Once again the idea that authority = superiority shows up without justification.

The unnamed poster did not use the word, "authority." (As a possibly interesting digression, the word "authority" does not occur in any of the NT passages commonly invoked when discussing family structure, with the exception of 1 Cor. 11, where the woman is the one who has "authority" in the matter there under discussion.) The poster used the word "superiority." If one has the tie-breaking vote, how is that one not in position of superiority? If one gender always has the tie-breaking vote, how is that gender not in a position of superiority?

demi-conservative
09-11-2017, 04:12 PM
"tie-breaking" decision

Description with zero sense, not even wrong!!! If one out of two parties has authority of decision, then there is no vote. Full stop!!!

demi-conservative
09-11-2017, 04:19 PM
*hogwash*

Let's tell truth: egalitarian view is recent invention by egalitarians, concocted by trying to read worldly ideas into Scripture, saying 'what Paul said was affected by his culture around him!!!' Of course, egalitarian view of Scripture coming up when worldly culture becoming egalitarian is just yuge coincidence!!

Sad!

Darth Executor
09-11-2017, 06:03 PM
No. We start with Scripture, which shows that God created humans male and female, equally bearing the image of God, and assigned both of them to rule the earth and all other living creatures on it. (Gen. 1:26-28) There is no mention of one of the humans ruling over the other.

1. It's not very detailed.
2. It does not even say they equally bear the image of God.
3. It is obvious from the context that eve was created for Adam's benefit because God made Adam first, then stated it is not good for him to be alone. Exactly what degree of subordination this entails isn't stated just from Genesis, but it does set a pattern of man having his own goals and women being there to support said goals.

Let's not forget that they originally looked for a helper among animals, but none was found.


Neither was created to "order around" the other. The woman was created as a "suitable companion" for him. The NET translation helpfully notes that the Hebrew word "ezer," often translated helper, does *not* convey the sense of subordination.

The word is used earlier when it states there was no help found for him among the animals. Do you think it does not convey any sense of subordination there as well? How can someone even be considered help if he is not subordinate to the person he is helping?


I don't know where you got that quote. You pulled it out of some orifice with no citation of source. And I don't know how you came up with that dim-witted interpretation of it. In the egalitarian model, male and female are equal. Neither is automatically prohibited any "role" solely on the basis of gender. We serve God as equal partners. We also sometimes refer to ourselves as "mutualists," because submission is not one-sided. We are always ready to defer to each other. So, yes, in a given situation, either can be the "leader," depending on knowledge, gifting, etc., or they can collaborate with neither really being "the" leader.

My apologies, I often think and write too fast assuming the person on the other end can keep up. I will try to slow down, so that someone of your vastly inferior intellect isn't completely lost.

For starters, I don't understand why you are talking about being prohibited any role when I say you believe you are not prescribed any roles. They are completely different things.

The rest of your post is also, amusingly enough, unwittingly making the case I made.


You are clearly speaking from poorly informed preconceptions, utterly ignorant of actual egalitarian Scriptural arguments and life practices.

Quite the opposite, I see egalitarianism fail over and over again. The only egalitarians who do not fail are the ones who unwittingly follow complementarian prescriptions but falsely believe themselves to be egalitarian (IE: men/women who closely follow gender roles but think they are actually a mixture of both)


The unnamed poster did not use the word, "authority." (As a possibly interesting digression, the word "authority" does not occur in any of the NT passages commonly invoked when discussing family structure, with the exception of 1 Cor. 11, where the woman is the one who has "authority" in the matter there under discussion.) The poster used the word "superiority." If one has the tie-breaking vote, how is that one not in position of superiority? If one gender always has the tie-breaking vote, how is that gender not in a position of superiority?

If you view getting your way as an unmitigated good, as egalitarians do, you are correct. Of course, I am not an egalitarian so I think the answer to your question from my perspective is self evident, if only you were capable of thinking about it from a different perspective.

Darth Executor
09-11-2017, 06:05 PM
You are not making sense. You claim that we egalitarians are the ones who equate authority with superiority, and then go on to explicitly say that some really are "better." Explain yourself more clearly.

I put it in quotation marks for the obvious reason that I was quoting the egalitarian perspective.

Darth Executor
09-12-2017, 02:31 PM
wildflower logic: Giving money to the homeless can be abused. So don't give anything to the homeless.

Darth Executor
09-23-2017, 12:06 PM
Question for the women on this thread who think "the husband gets to be a tie-breaker":

I got divorced in 2014 after 11 years of marriage. There were a lot of reasons for that, but the beginning of the end occurred when my then-husband became infatuated with his co-worker. I never found any evidence of anything physical between them, but he was spending an intense amount of time with this woman.

You see, she lived in Chicago proper, and she took a job at my then-husband's place of business 27 miles away in Northbrook. The problem? She had no transportation to the job, and there were no public commute options that could get her to her shift and back on-time.

My then-husband's solution was to offer to drive this woman back and forth to and from work. Every. Single. Day. It took him 3 hours a day to do this and was costing us hundreds of dollars extra in gas, to say nothing of the wear-and-tear on our aging vehicle. He did not consult with me before making this decision, he just started doing it. There was no time frame on the rides, either; this wasn't temporary help. He intended to keep giving her the rides until she got her own car, and there was no sign of that happening any time soon.

I eventually told him point blank that I wanted the rides to stop, that she was a grown woman who needed to be responsible for her own transportation to work. I told him that I felt it was inappropriate for him to be alone in the car with this woman for 3 hours a day, and we couldn't afford these rides, and I needed his help at home. (I was 4 months pregnant at the time, trying to finish a master's degree, and our first child together was disabled.)

He responded that he had prayed about it and God had told him not to stop giving this woman rides, so he wasn't going to stop, and I didn't get any say in the matter.

What do you think I should have done in this situation? Should I have submitted myself to his tie-breaker vote?

I have thick skin and won't take your answers personally, I promise.

Keeping in mind that we only have one side of the story (IE: it almost certainly is worse for MsJack than this already looks, and it looks pretty bad as it is), she divorced her husband because ... he kept giving a woman charitable rides? Seems like MsJack adopted "egalitarianism" (AKA a feminist perversion of Christianity which is in many ways worse than run of the mill secular feminism) to excuse her own sins. Mind you, he shouldn't have been giving her those rides, but that alone is nowhere near a divorce worthy offense.

She also seems to be quite upset that her husband wasn't following through on his patriarchal duties. So what if she was 4 months pregnant? It's his job and his money, if she's living off him she really does have no say whatsoever. You can't reject the Patriarchy and then demand your husband support you while you mooch off him.

Bottom line, never marry a feminist. They're not honest about what they want, and they routinely aim their attacks at the people trying to accommodate them the most. They are never satisfied and the extra effort isn't worth the lesser reward.

One Bad Pig
09-23-2017, 12:11 PM
Keeping in mind that we only have one side of the story (IE: it almost certainly is worse for MsJack than this already looks, and it looks pretty bad as it is), she divorced her husband because ... he kept giving a woman charitable rides? Seems like MsJack adopted "egalitarianism" (AKA a feminist perversion of Christianity which is in many ways worse than run of the mill secular feminism) to excuse her own sins. Mind you, he shouldn't have been giving her those rides, but that alone is nowhere near a divorce worthy offense.

She also seems to be quite upset that her husband wasn't following through on his patriarchal duties. So what if she was 4 months pregnant? It's his job and his money, if she's living off him she really does have no say whatsoever. You can't reject the Patriarchy and then demand your husband support you while you mooch off him.

Bottom line, never marry a feminist. They're not honest about what they want, and they routinely aim their attacks at the people trying to accommodate them the most. They are never satisfied and the extra effort isn't worth the lesser reward.
To be fair, Ms. Jack is leaving out details she's posted elsewhere - such as her husband declaring to her repeatedly that he was head over heels in love with the other woman. Maybe as a Mormon he felt that was perfectly fine, but it's not something I expect a woman to put up with.

Darth Executor
09-23-2017, 12:19 PM
To be fair, Ms. Jack is leaving out details she's posted elsewhere - such as her husband declaring to her repeatedly that he was head over heels in love with the other woman. Maybe as a Mormon he felt that was perfectly fine, but it's not something I expect a woman to put up with.

Christ makes it quite clear that divorce in general is unacceptable and the sole exception He gives is adultery. So while I wouldn't expect someone to put up with it, it seems strange to bring it up when making the case for your own leadership when it was in fact a failure.

One Bad Pig
09-23-2017, 12:38 PM
Christ makes it quite clear that divorce in general is unacceptable and the sole exception He gives is adultery. So while I wouldn't expect someone to put up with it, it seems strange to bring it up when making the case for your own leadership when it was in fact a failure.
Christ also makes it clear that a man looking at another woman with lust has committed adultery in his heart. Even if he didn't physically commit adultery (which may or not have been the case), he was certainly not being faithful.

And she's not bringing it up to make a case for her own leadership, but as an example of someone who actually did leave when they found the situation unbearable. I don't think it was an appropriate example, though she seems to think so.

Darth Executor
09-23-2017, 12:52 PM
Christ also makes it clear that a man looking at another woman with lust has committed adultery in his heart. Even if he didn't physically commit adultery (which may or not have been the case), he was certainly not being faithful.

I don't believe for a second Christ was saying lusting after someone is literally adultery. Committing adultery in your heart means just that. It's not actual adultery. The whole context of the paragraph is about casting away things that are gonna make you sin and you shouldn't be resting easy just because you haven't committed the actual sin. If you think it should be taken literally, then the gouging of eyes or cutting off of hands should also be taken literally.


And she's not bringing it up to make a case for her own leadership, but as an example of someone who actually did leave when they found the situation unbearable. I don't think it was an appropriate example, though she seems to think so.

It was a conversation about leadership, where she presumably wants people to think her husband's leadership is inferior (or at least equal to) her own, the justification for egalitarianism. Seems to me her case for her own leadership is highly suspect given the poor choices she's made in life.

Darth Executor
09-23-2017, 12:55 PM
Seems like MsJack adopted "egalitarianism" (AKA a feminist perversion of Christianity which is in many ways worse than run of the mill secular feminism) to excuse her own sins.

lol like clockwork


Yes, the Bible says you can divorce over adultery, but it's rather fuzzier on the subject of emotional affairs.

It's not fuzzy at all, it explicitly prohibits divorce except for adultery.

Darth Executor
09-23-2017, 06:05 PM
Darth Executor, since you are taking such a great deal of interest in my reasons for divorce over in the Fraternity, as I mentioned before, I have told my story in detail elsewhere.

Thanks, I think I've already read the first two but judging by the title of the third it's well worth reading just to further validate my worldview. :wink:


Your knowledge of what the Bible says about divorce is deficient. As far as the New Testament goes, adultery and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse are both given as acceptable reasons for divorce (1 Corinthians 7:15), so I'm covered on both counts.

Abandonment means someone divorced you. It does not make it an acceptable reason for divorce. You simply don't have a say in it so there's no reason to bring it up at all. And in your case I believe you said you separated yourselves (which sounds like a stupid idea when he's chasing another woman, if you really want to save your marriage). So no, there's nothing deficient about my knowledge. The OT isn't even relevant at all considering the completely different marriage structure.


First century Christians wouldn't have recognized a difference between an "emotional affair" and a physical one. A married man who spent hours upon hours of time alone with another woman and chose to support her rather than his own family absolutely would have been charged with committing adultery---which is why I say that the Bible is fuzzier on the subject.

Your implausible interpretation of what "First century Christians" would have done has no bearing on what the Bible says. I also took it to refer specifically to the NT, unless you want to advocate for polygamy.


Behold what patriarchy really thinks of women! It tells women to stay at home and let a man support them, and then calls them "mooches." In reality, I was staying at home because I had a disabled child to care for (which has already been mentioned). We had jointly agreed on me quitting my full-time job to care for her after she was born and we learned of her disability. I don't think that makes me a "mooch;" I guess patriarchy doesn't think disabled children need caregivers.

I am only calling you a mooch because you advocate for feminism when it suits you and patriarchy when it doesn't. My comment was not directed at anybody other than you. It's actually egalitarianism who considers a housewife a mooch.


But telling women that they have no say in the household finances, even when a man is spending the household money on another woman instead of providing food and housing for the family, is exactly why patriarchy is an abject failure. How was I supposed to feed my family and pay rent with our rent and food money going to this other woman? We can't eat "charity rides to a co-worker."

But you don't live (and never lived) in a patriarchal society. You live in an egalitarian society where there is no culture or law to compel him to fulfill sexist patriarchal duties. So how is patriarchy an "abject failure" just because your marriage imploded in an egalitarian society?

In a patriarchal society your father (or some other close female relative) wouldn't have even allowed you to marry a Mormon in the first place. Sounds like you're using patriarchy like a whipping horse because you want to deflect most of the blame for your poor decisions.

24163


I really, really don't think men like you have to worry about feminists marrying them. :lol::lol::lol:

You'd be surprised. But there are some desperate souls out there, many on this very board, that might consider making that mistake. My warning is for them, not me.

Darth Executor
09-23-2017, 07:40 PM
Wrong. It means someone left you. Not everyone who leaves formally seeks a divorce.

If you want to split hairs that way the Bible still doesn't say you can divorce them, just that you should let them leave. I doubt they even had a formal divorce mechanism (the Orthodox church doesn't, for example).


I asked for a separation so that he would see the financial side of the picture. His job wasn't making any money and he was forcing me to return to work to support the family; there was no way I was going back to work pregnant so that he could siphon off the money I was earning for himself and his not-quite-mistress. He was also making a lot of financial decisions that were making it impossible to run a household (like spending the rent money on work expenses just before rent was due and not telling me about it, signing up for expensive weight training lessons without telling me, etc). I asked for a separation to protect myself financially.

He later chose to secretly begin a relationship with another woman all while acknowledging to me that our marriage was still intact and other women were off limit. When I found out, he was the one who filed for divorce.

K, you don't have to justify your life choices to me.


I also found out that he had an affair in the first year of our marriage; I'd have left him then had I known. So, no matter how you slice it, my divorce was biblical.

Ok.


The OT isn't relevant because a minority of Jews practiced polygamy? You know they were still doing that in New Testament times, right?

The OT isn't relevant because God sanctioned, and in at least one case (brother's widow) MANDATED it. And Jesus explicitly states divorce was only given in the OT as a concession.


You are welcome to find me some examples of first century Christians who thought it was acceptable for married men to spend excessive amounts of time alone with women who weren't their wives and wouldn't have called that adultery. I'll wait.

lolno, you made the argument you demonstrate it. I'd be shocked if you could find a first century person who believed in modern nonsense like "emotional affairs". spending so much time alone with a woman would have been viewed with suspicion for the obvious reason that he would be suspected of ACTUAL adultery.


Egalitarianism does not teach that women must always work outside the home. That my then-husband and I mutually agreed that he would work and I would stay home to care for our disabled child doesn't mean I was "advocating for patriarchy."

Egalitarianism teaches that there are no gender specific duties. What you are now saying (that your husband broached a mutually agreed upon EGALITARIAN contract) contradicts your earlier claims (and your article) blaming patriarchy for your failure.


Thank God! We've got thousands of years of human history to tell us what it was like for women in patriarchal society. If they did not have a direct male sponsor, their only options for supporting themselves were prostitution and menial labor for low wages. Feminism fixed that.

Not really. Feminism now mandates that other people be forced to employ you (or support you for free). One of your points in your patriarchy articles was explicitly that the patriarchy does not support "single mothers" IE: people who make irresponsible decisions and now expect others to sweep up their mess. You have simply placed a tyrannical burden on men to support you without getting anything in return. (http://judgybitch.com/2016/08/16/reblog-research-find-that-as-a-group-only-men-pay-tax/) By contrast, traditional Christian/Jewish patriarchy placed burdens on both sexes. The result has been a sharp increase in men like your ex, who will simply take what they want out of life and discard what doesn't suit them. Congrats.


There never was anything to compel men in patriarchal societies to fulfill what you call "patriarchal duties." Male misbehavior was treated with a wink and a nod,

Not true.


and there was absolutely no social safety net for women who lost their male sponsor through no fault of their own.

There was no social safety net for ANYBODY. You were useful to somebody, received charity, or died. That's because our current economic prosperity is very, very recent. People used to actually struggle just to exist.


My marriage could have just as well imploded in a patriarchal society. The difference is, the egalitarian society we live in enabled me to get an education, get a job, and get away.

Your marriage wouldn't have existed in a patriarchal society. I mean, you could have ran away, but then (like now) you'd have paid for the consequences of your bad decisions.


I have a boyfriend who is already planning on proposing to me, so you can rest assured that the fair men of this forum are safe from me.

Looking forward to rehashing this conversation in 5-10 years.

Darth Executor
09-24-2017, 11:32 AM
Your ignorance is on display again.

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/DivorcesByJewishWomen.htm
http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/divorceinancientrome.htm

*talking about divorce by Christians*
*links to divorce by jews and pagans*

:lol:

Even for the latter the link shows how informal the whole process was.


It was entirely possible for a spouse to leave without going through a divorce process, leaving the Christian to decide whether to make the divorce formal or wait, hope, and work for the unbeliever's return.

Again, it doesn't say you can divorce just because someone leaves, it says you can let them leave. You know, since you want to get hyperliteral.


Sorry Marcion, there is nothing in the New Testament commanding us to dump the whole of the Old Testament. Jesus said that men writing their wives certificates of divorce was no longer relevant. Ezra 9-10 is about God specifically commanding men to divorce for non-adultery. BIG difference.

Alright so I can now marry multiple women? Thanks for the clarification Joseph Smith.


Nice to know that "put up or shut up" scared you into agreeing with what I said in the first place.

I never agreed with what you said in the first place. Nice to know "put up or shut up" reveals you had nothing to begin with.


My husband was raised in a heavily patriarchal culture, then agreed to marriage with me on egalitarian terms, then decided to practice patriarchy in the marriage without my consent. Not sure why that's so hard for you to grasp other than your inhuman need to blame women for everything.

"let's you and them fight", typical tactic of women like you who can't live up to her wonder woman fantasies and has to drag others (in this case an entire sex :lol:) into the conversation. Unlike the losers at your church (or your husband's church for that matter) I am willing to hold your feet to the fire and demand some consistency in your behavior, rather than just nodding my empty head and feeding your ego and victimhood complex as you attempt to spread blame on everybody but yourself.

Your husband was raised in a heavily egalitarian culture (it is impossible to raise someone in a patriarchal culture without becoming a full blown cult that cuts off most contact with the outside world in a western country). He decided to practice egalitarianism in the marriage, just not the egalitarianism you agreed upon (which just so happens to closely resemble the patriarchal ideal). Seems to me he wasn't much of a fan of the patriarchy at all.


Yes, every woman who was raped and chose to keep the baby, every woman whose husband cheated on her and walked out on her, and every woman who is a widow simply made irresponsible decisions and now expects others to clean up her mess. That is how the world works.

lol all those are extreme outliers, overwhelming majority of single mothers are "I'll do what I want" idiots who had sex with the wrong man and now expects everybody else to sweep up after them.

Who made you marry a Mormon? And by your own account a man who barely got married to you before he started cheating, which shows he was rotten from the beginning, and didn't suddenly become a monster near the end of your marriage. Where WAS your family and your church when you made this colossally stupid decision? My guess is that like all egalitarian (or complementarian for that matter) churches they just nodded their head along afraid to offend Grrl Pwr

full disclosure, in case people think I'm being too rough on you: I was also in a disastrous relationship, though no kids were involved (thankfully). would never have happened if I didn't live in an egalitarian society. But ultimately it was my fault for getting involved with this person. And I'm not trying to extract cash prizes from strangers for it.


BTW, you do know that the Bible contains dozens of admonitions to care for widows (who were often single moms), right? Sounds like God expects you to "sweep up their mess," too.

Where does the bible contain admonitions for creating a "safety net"? I must have missed the part about wealth redistribution by force. Obviously Christians should be charitable but I'm not sure what that has to do with patriarchy specifically. If anything a patriarch would be more generous than an egalitarian since he has an honor bound obligation to show off his generosity whereas egalitarians can simply claim nobless oblige does not apply to them.


And, as I said, failed to punish men who violated patriarchal familial ideals. One need look no further than the history of prostitution to see this was the case. Thomas Aquinas reasoned that prostitution was a necessary evil because married men couldn't possibly be expected to limit sex to marriage, and young men couldn't possibly be expected to save sex for marriage, and it was better for lusty men to visit prostitutes than have affairs with married women. He compared this to the sewer system in a palace: disgusting, but without it the palace would overflow with sewage.

Adultery was a serious criminal matter for most of Europe's history, and adultery laws only began being overturned with the advent of atheism and feminism (but I repeat myself). That Aquinas wanted to leave prostitution around as the lesser of two evils does not mean they failed to punish men who violated patriarchal familial ideas, and I'm not even sure how single men having sex with prostitutes violates "patriarchal familial ideals", though it does seem to violate the ideals of women like you who think that completely strange men should be compelled to support you instead of paying for prostitutes.


Pretty apt analogy for how patriarchy treats women though. It turns them into conduits for men's crap.

It's funny you word women's decision to become said conduit into something the patriarchy did to them. Almost as if you don't truly believe women have agency. I'm starting to think your patriarchy ideal is quite a bit more conservative than mine. :lol:


You want modern day examples?

I prefer statistics to anecdotes.


Look at the Sovereign Grace Ministries scandal. Children were being raped and abused, C. J. Mahaney knew about it and covered it up, powerful evangelical leaders from Albert Mohler to D. A. Carson circled the wagons to save Mahaney.

According to ultraliberal wikipedia it's not true. But even if it was, this article makes it sound like your grace doctrine. (https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/02/14/the-sex-abuse-scandal-that-devastated-a-suburban-megachurch-sovereign-grace-ministries/)


Look at the Village Church scandal. Male missionary confesses to looking at child porn, new wife decides to file for annulment. Which one of those did the Village Church side with and which one did they try to discipline? They sided with the man and tried to discipline the wife (AFTER she had already left the church).

Sounds like your ideal of grace to me. The guy didn't actually rape anyone, confessed to his sin, and his wife divorced him despite not meeting your own biblical requirements for divorce.


Look at all of the scandals in the Roman Catholic church involving known sex abusers who were quietly transferred elsewhere. Patriarchy looks out for what it values---and it only values men. [/.quote]

They were quietly transferred elsewhere because psychologists at the time thought pedophilia was curable. Given that psychology was always a liberal, deviant field that pushes things like the normalization of homosexuality with gusto I'm having trouble figuring out how to blame the Patriarchy for this one. You could blame the fallible leaders of the RCC, but I'm not sure how that makes it the fault of the system itself.


Look at Tullian Tchividjian. Guy confesses to adultery and calls out his then-wife for adultery; gets punished with a leadership position at yet another church. Which he only loses because of an earlier affair that he did not disclose, which had been covered up by his church elders.

Sounds like your ideal of grace to me. And actually at this point it's obvious that there's something really wrong with the evangelical church because here at tweb we have a discussion on this very subject (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?15707-Future-ministry-opportunities-for-disgraced-televangelists) and you (and these guys' defenders) along with a surprising number of people here are all in agreement with it.


Look at Josh Duggar. Josh molests his sisters and Josh's parents check him into therapy (but not his sisters). But hey, at least we can thank Anna Duggar's father for making sure she didn't marry a child molester or an adulterous jerk who would embarrass her on a national stage, right? Good job, Christian Patriarchy! You showed Egalitarianism how it's done.

Lol they made him do physical labour, how many ditches do you think they should have made his sisters dig? Nevermind that as far as we know he hasn't molested anyone since, and it's absurd to call him a child molester when he was a child himself at the time.


You mean patriarchy was impotent to come up with the means to help anyone for thousands of years, and that help coincidentally appeared at the same time as feminism? Hmm. Wonder why that is.

No, it has nothing to do with "patriarchy", it was simply not as easy to set them up as it is today due to limited resources. Feminism predates social safety nets by quite a bit, and they started being enacted by conservatives to bleed support from socialists, not because women like you want strangers to take care of them for free.


I accept that I made a bad decision with my first marriage, and I accept the consequences, but your attempts to say that my choices in life disqualify me from leadership are absurd and reflective of an unbiblical theology of grace. According to the Bible, I could be a violent insurrectionist (Simon), a serial Christ-denier (Peter), a liar who steals from the poor (Matthew), petty and power-hungry (James and John), an adulterer (David), a murderer (David), an accomplice to murder and persecutor of the church (Paul), and I STILL wouldn't have made any life choices that disqualified me from leadership.

Grace is about salvation, I'm not sure why you think it should absolve you of consequences, though that suggestion is amusing in light of your earlier complaint that "the patriarchy" is too soft on sexual misconduct.

Also you don't accept the consequences, you blame a phantom patriarchy that doesn't exist anymore and actually rail against that more than you do against your ex husband, of whom you claim you simply don't care about one way or the other anymore. This is not the kind of behavior I'd want in a leader.

demi-conservative
09-24-2017, 01:59 PM
My husband wanted me to go out and work and support family :bawl:

But equality!!! Egalitarianism! Why not?


I don't want to go work when pregnant and taking care of kids and housework at home :bawl:

Guess what!! Under actual patriarchy, expectation in such situation is on husband to go to work, instead of you! But no, we have egalitarianism, so you, woman, have to!!!


say in the household finances, even when a man is spending the household money on another woman instead of providing food and housing for the family, is exactly why patriarchy is an abject failure

Attempts at patriarchy likely to fail when culture is egalitarian. Big surprise.

demi-conservative
09-24-2017, 02:05 PM
My husband was raised in a heavily patriarchal culture, then agreed to marriage with me on egalitarian terms, then decided to practice patriarchy in the marriage without my consent.

Then he decided to go egalitarian!!


He asked me to go work

So what's wrong??

demi-conservative
09-24-2017, 02:52 PM
Some atheists are very angry at God, because they think He's not doing what he's supposed to.

Reading of mine is the MsJack is like that, angry at patriarchy that it's not doing what it's supposed to, so that husband is irresponsible and she needs to go to work when pregnant etc. Sad news is, patriarchy is dead for quite some time in culture of West. Three cheers for egalitarians!!!!

demi-conservative
09-24-2017, 03:04 PM
Also you don't accept the consequences, you blame a phantom patriarchy that doesn't exist anymore and actually rail against that more than you do against your ex husband, of whom you claim you simply don't care about one way or the other anymore. This is not the kind of behavior I'd want in a leader.

What is there to say?

Yes, MsJack wants benefits of both egalitarianism and patriarchy, to have cake and eat it. Yes, there is big inconsistencies of hers, yes, I don't think she accepts full responsibility of hers.

Even so, she is right to want safety barriers. So that she won't marry good-for-nothing, so that she doesn't have to work to support kids while pregnant, and so that no separation needed. Yes, she is right to want this. Why?

This is because in healthy society, which means patriarchy, society that is functioning good, there would be barriers that she wants. Safety barriers of patriarchy. Yes, to protect her and children! So that she won't be in state she's in, have to go through all she had. But patriarchy (in country of hers) is long dead.

So really, what to say? I have real pity for her, but what can be done?

demi-conservative
09-26-2017, 05:51 PM
Guess what!! We had thousands of years of nothing but patriarchy! If you think it adequately cared for women, go and get your history book and show me!!! Okay??

Translation: "just about all societies, because patriarchal, through history always never cared 'adequately' for women!!!!"

Let's see, if we talk about this, what will happen: I give example, you point out that care for women is not perfect, I say lots of men also 'fell through cracks', you will ignore point, keep saying 'patriarchy sucks!!!'

Why bother??? Look at yourself, single mother, forced to work while pregnant to support disabled kids. Go egalitarianism!!!

Bill the Cat
09-27-2017, 06:50 AM
Ok. This has gone on long enough and has drifted into the realm of blatant flaming. I am closing this thread. If you wish to discuss this further, open a thread in the Padded Room where everyone can participate.