Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 68

Thread: Your Views on Patriarchy

  1. #51
    tWebber Darth Executor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kazakhstan
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,196
    Amen (Given)
    1500
    Amen (Received)
    2277
    Quote Originally Posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    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.
    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

  2. #52
    tWebber Darth Executor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kazakhstan
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,196
    Amen (Given)
    1500
    Amen (Received)
    2277
    Quote Originally Posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    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.
    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

  3. #53
    tWebber Darth Executor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kazakhstan
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,196
    Amen (Given)
    1500
    Amen (Received)
    2277
    wildflower logic: Giving money to the homeless can be abused. So don't give anything to the homeless.
    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

  4. #54
    tWebber Darth Executor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kazakhstan
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,196
    Amen (Given)
    1500
    Amen (Received)
    2277
    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.
    Last edited by Darth Executor; 09-23-2017 at 07:08 PM.
    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

  5. #55
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,779
    Amen (Given)
    4552
    Amen (Received)
    8061
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor View Post
    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.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio

    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

  6. #56
    tWebber Darth Executor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kazakhstan
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,196
    Amen (Given)
    1500
    Amen (Received)
    2277
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    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.
    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

  7. #57
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,779
    Amen (Given)
    4552
    Amen (Received)
    8061
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor View Post
    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.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio

    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

  8. #58
    tWebber Darth Executor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kazakhstan
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,196
    Amen (Given)
    1500
    Amen (Received)
    2277
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    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.
    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

  9. #59
    tWebber Darth Executor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kazakhstan
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,196
    Amen (Given)
    1500
    Amen (Received)
    2277
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor View Post
    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.
    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

  10. #60
    tWebber Darth Executor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kazakhstan
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,196
    Amen (Given)
    1500
    Amen (Received)
    2277
    Quote Originally Posted by MsJack View Post
    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.

    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.

    patriarchy.jpg

    I really, really don't think men like you have to worry about feminists marrying them.
    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.
    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •