PDA

View Full Version : Your Views on 'Your Views on Patriarchy'



demi-conservative
09-07-2017, 04:01 PM
"Life's not fair! But can't be!!! Life must be fair!!! Right, sisters? How would life being not fair make you feel????

"Yes, life is fair!!!!"

"Life must be fair, otherwise God is unfair. But God cannot be unfair! I do not believe it!!!! So how do you deal with Scripture, also people saying life is unfair???'

"Well belief that life is unfair is because of context!!! We now know in 21st century that life is fair!"

"Yes!!!!!"

etc etc

------

:lol:

It is really really really unfair, but I'm sure we all agree with me on this!!!

demi-conservative
09-07-2017, 04:04 PM
Laughing aside, bless hearts of theirs :smile:

Darth Executor
09-07-2017, 06:01 PM
Yes, one difference between patriarchy/complementarianism and equalitarianism is that patriarchy/complementarianism forces men and women into "roles" whereas equalitarianism allows both men and women to move in their gifts. So in patriarchy/complementarianism a woman must always follow a male lead, be under his "authority". Whereas in equalitarianism a woman is free to lead males if that is her gift. Like Deborah.

For the record, here is what egalitarians actually think of support roles:


Here's where I'm at. If Complementarianism/Patriarchy is true... then either God purposely MADE me, as a female, deficient to lead, deficient to safely and adequately think for myself, protect myself, too deficient to make a "final decision", etc. OR God made me potentially adequate but then tells me that I can't use my potential. Because of an arbitrary creation order. Think about it, please. It's one or the other...at least that's how I see it. Tell me what you think...how do YOU deal?

If God made you suited for a support role, you are "deficient... deficient... deficient...".


The "Don't worry, I will take care of you. I'll take the responsibility for you, I'll shoulder this burden for you." Should I therefore see myself as incompetent to care for myself? Am I not capable of being responsible for myself? Why do I need a "spiritual" leader in my home? Is Christ not enough for me that I should need a supplement, revealing just how very deficient that I am? Am I a perpetual infant in constant need of male care like this? Did God purpose this deficiency in me so that a man could come and rescue me? What is this?! Or, if its just fake...if I don't really *need* a male to be my spiritual head, etc...then why damage a woman's identity over it? Why keep her from becoming strong enough and competent enough to make decisions for herself and share in these decisions with her family? Seriously.

"Incompetent...not capable...deficient...perpetual infant...deficiency...damaged"

Wildflower claims she "only" wants to be allowed in a role that is suited for her, but the way she constantly demeans support roles shows that she does not simply want to use the gifts she claims she has but wants to avoid support roles because she genuinely finds them not just inferior to leadership but downright contemptible.

It's also amusing that she uses...Deborah, a woman leading under Patriarchy as an example. Pretty much every worthwhile female leader in history was sanctioned by a Patriarchal society. In fact it is actually the other way around. Patriarchy/Complementarianism supporters are the ones willing to give the (very rare) woman suited for leadership a chance. Conversely, egalitarianism always ends with pushing the bulk of women into roles they are unsuited for and making them miserable.

Sparko
09-08-2017, 05:19 AM
"Life's not fair! But can't be!!! Life must be fair!!! Right, sisters? How would life being not fair make you feel????

"Yes, life is fair!!!!"

"Life must be fair, otherwise God is unfair. But God cannot be unfair! I do not believe it!!!! So how do you deal with Scripture, also people saying life is unfair???'

"Well belief that life is unfair is because of context!!! We now know in 21st century that life is fair!"

"Yes!!!!!"

etc etc

------

:lol:

It is really really really unfair, but I'm sure we all agree with me on this!!!

Lay off the caffeine. really.

Apologiaphoenix
09-08-2017, 06:45 AM
Sorry. Real men don't talk about their feelings.

TheWall
09-08-2017, 06:58 AM
Sorry. Real men don't talk about their feelings.

I don't know Solomon wrote about feelings and the existential.

Darth Executor
09-08-2017, 07:41 AM
Sorry. Real men don't talk about their feelings.

This post would have more impact if you didn't have a pink pony as an avatar.

Sparko
09-08-2017, 08:54 AM
This post would have more impact if you didn't have a pink pony as an avatar.:rofl:


it's purple! :glare:

Zymologist
09-08-2017, 09:11 AM
This post would have more impact if you didn't have a pink pony as an avatar.

I have a strange desire to start a kids' show and call it "My Little Warhorse."

demi-conservative
09-08-2017, 12:15 PM
Lay off the caffeine. really.

More like those sillies need to get off binge of estrogen!!!

NorrinRadd
09-09-2017, 11:20 PM
For the record, here is what egalitarians actually think of support roles:


Well, no, only one particular egalitarian, and I think maybe you're misrepresenting her anyway.


If God made you suited for a support role, you are "deficient... deficient... deficient...".

Yes. In relative terms, being specially suited for a particular "role" (one of the magical terms of complementarianism) implies being less suited, i.e. "deficient," for other "roles." But ISTM that your glib rejoinder about "support" glosses over the specific issues she cited.


"Incompetent...not capable...deficient...perpetual infant...deficiency...damaged"

Wildflower claims she "only" wants to be allowed in a role that is suited for her, but the way she constantly demeans support roles shows that she does not simply want to use the gifts she claims she has but wants to avoid support roles because she genuinely finds them not just inferior to leadership but downright contemptible.


Personally, I'd prefer reasoning from the Scriptures, regardless of how offensive they may be. But what did she actually say that is incorrect?



It's also amusing that she uses...Deborah, a woman leading under Patriarchy as an example. Pretty much every worthwhile female leader in history was sanctioned by a Patriarchal society.

And I see your view as... well, I waver between humorous and pathetic. Deborah was not "under" a patriarchy, she was the leader of all Israel. She had that rare kind of Judgeship that was more like the first and last Judges -- Moses and Samuel -- than like the local "deliverers": She used divine prophetic guidance to settle disputes for the whole nation.



In fact it is actually the other way around. Patriarchy/Complementarianism supporters are the ones willing to give the (very rare) woman suited for leadership a chance. Conversely, egalitarianism always ends with pushing the bulk of women into roles they are unsuited for and making them miserable.

In the absence of any evidence, I'm calling Fake News on this one.

Darth Executor
09-10-2017, 12:55 PM
Yes. In relative terms, being specially suited for a particular "role" (one of the magical terms of complementarianism) implies being less suited, i.e. "deficient," for other "roles."

Well yes, we are all situationally deficient by this convenient definition, but it was not the point she was getting at. Rather, she claimed that obeying God's commands mean she must be deficient overall (to be fair, I agree that she is deficient but that's hardly my fault, it's more like something she should take up with Gods rather than those of us who are not trying to displace our faith with progressive dogma invented in the last couple of centuries).


Personally, I'd prefer reasoning from the Scriptures, regardless of how offensive they may be. But what did she actually say that is incorrect?

Egalitarians rarely prefer reasoning from the scriptures because it's the scriptures that put men in leadership positions.


And I see your view as... well, I waver between humorous and pathetic. Deborah was not "under" a patriarchy, she was the leader of all Israel. She had that rare kind of Judgeship that was more like the first and last Judges -- Moses and Samuel -- than like the local "deliverers": She used divine prophetic guidance to settle disputes for the whole nation.

Deborah was under patriarchy. A female ruler does not make a society egalitarian.


In the absence of any evidence, I'm calling Fake News on this one.

Queen Isabella. Queen Victoria. Catherine de Medici. Etc. Plenty of female rulers in patriarchal societies.

Meanwhile, women have become more and more miserable as our society has become more and more egalitarian:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-buckingham/womens-happiness-what-we_b_295876.html