Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: Your Views on 'Your Views on Patriarchy'

  1. #11
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    751
    Amen (Given)
    175
    Amen (Received)
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor View Post
    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.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

  2. #12
    tWebber Darth Executor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kazakhstan
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,703
    Amen (Given)
    1646
    Amen (Received)
    2498
    Quote Originally Posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    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..._b_295876.html
    "But Lord, in your name did we not vote Democrat, and in your name did we not attend many Bernie rallies?" ~ Zymologist

    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
  •