Strength and Honor: Triumphing over Feminism

[Mink57]

This is too funny and all too common. The man is called an a-hole for having discipline and keeping his word to his friends. Radical feminism?

Can't blame her attitude on "Radical Feminism." She simply may not be mature enough to deal with the fact that her b/f has a life outside of HER.

Without more info, we really can't say.

 

[Mink57]

Radical femnisim? Priority seating and lower cost based on sex.

Yeah, Radical Feminism. Unfortunately the 'narrator' doesn't have all his facts right, but he does a decent job, nonetheless.

 

[Mink57]

Yet feminists have had plenty to say on what women and women in relationship should and shouldn't be doing.

Not all feminists are created equal, Wynona. It's not as if ALL feminists have some 'hive mentality'. We don't ALL think alike.

Also, isn't Wrangler doing the same thing? Isn't Wrangler saying that "women "SHOULD" be in the home (and not working outside the home) and that women "shouldn't" have the right to vote"?

The problem was, that men were telling women for YEARS how they "should" and "shouldn't" behave. Women finally got sick of it.

There is no neutral opinionless zone in the culture. Not one person ever suggested Id be happy as a homemaker or even that I didn't need college education to be a happy successful adult.

There are many people out there who believe that the 'norm' is to go to college, find a job, get married and have a few kids. That's for both men AND women. But who created this 'norm'? Some will say, "Well, SOCIETY says..." yet, WHO is "society", and where do they get their beliefs from?

 

[Wynona]

The problem was, that men were telling women for YEARS how they "should" and "shouldn't" behave. Women finally got sick of it.

It's true that patriarchy defined what women should do just like it defines what men should and shouldn't do.

What I'm saying is that what feminists define as liberation is bondage in the eyes of God. Scripture also tells men and women what they should do. Feminists may not all think the same but the majority reject patriarchy as an egotistical power play designed to make women miserable.

I believe God ordained patriarchy to make men responsible in spite of the ability to use their strength for harm. To protect women and children, not simply restrict their choices.

Choices are not the main factor in happiness anyway. There are people with very limited options in life who are poor who are happier than those who are very rich and have endless options. Happiness is a byproduct of living in accordance to how we are designed. The feminist movement has a proven track record of saying gender is only a social construct. Saying 'not all feminists' does not change this track record. It's already influenced the culture.

Besides, we acknowledge gender differences in the legal system. If feminism is truely about equality of the sexes, why isn't it a bigger issue that mothers are heavily favored in child custody battles in divorce court?

The ideology is very selective with what advantages and choices it wants to promote. It doesn't matter if its inconsistent, as long as women get symbolic victories with highly prized positions of power. Christians are not supposed to be obsessed with status, power, or even personal rights and autonomy. We are called to serve and expect persecution in the process.

God didn't call women to march in the streets against evil. Times were evil when Paul was writing. We are still called to love our families and serve at home because this is when whole communities are healthier and thrive.

That is indeed telling women what they should do. God reserves the right to do this. He does this for our good and it is a blessing. Rebellion is what feminism promotes, whether it ultimately helps women or not. Feminism is not biblical. Nor is it making us better off.

 

[Wynona]

What's ironic is that I have way more control over my life as a housewife than I ever did doing an egalitarian style marriage where I tried to also advance my career.

I control how many hours I work in a day.

I can blast the music I want.

I actually do get paid. I live essentially bill free and get spending money when its available.

I can actually lose the excess weight I gained at college.

I can cook the lunch I want.

No issues over bathroom breaks or food breaks.

I lead my baby girl's routine rather than strangers

The idea that some modern career woman archetype with controlled hours and breaks, having to submit to a boss that does not care about her, where she can be replaced by someone with similar qualifications and not get to see her children as much---she is *somehow* more free than a housewife cause she earns a paycheck?? Righhht.

 

[Mink57]

It's true that patriarchy defined what women should do just like it defines what men should and shouldn't do.

Very true. I think that patriarchy can also be damaging to MEN just as much as to women.

What I'm saying is that what feminists define as liberation is bondage in the eyes of God.

I don't think so...

Scripture also tells men and women what they should do. Feminists may not all think the same but the majority reject patriarchy as an egotistical power play designed to make women miserable.

I'm not sure that the majority of feminists see patriarchy as an 'egotistical power play designed to make women miserable'.

IMHO, much like feminism, patriarchy didn't occur overnight. There are several schools of thought as to how and WHY it developed in the first place.

I believe God ordained patriarchy to make men responsible in spite of the ability to use their strength for harm. To protect women and children, not simply restrict their choices.

At what point do you believe that God ordained patriarchy?

Choices are not the main factor in happiness anyway. There are people with very limited options in life who are poor who are happier than those who are very rich and have endless options.

Happiness IS a choice, regardless of circumstances, social status, type of employment, family dynamics, etc.

Happiness is a byproduct of living in accordance to how we are designed. The feminist movement has a proven track record of saying gender is only a social construct. Saying 'not all feminists' does not change this track record. It's already influenced the culture.

Happiness is a choice regardless of how we're 'designed'.

Besides, we acknowledge gender differences in the legal system. If feminism is truely about equality of the sexes, why isn't it a bigger issue that mothers are heavily favored in child custody battles in divorce court?

Let's not forget that for MANY years before feminism stepped in, it was FATHERS who had "absolute authority over children" in child custody in divorce.

"Colonial Americans followed the English common law rule that upon divorce the father retained custody of his children. Fathers had the right to the physical custody, labor and earnings of their children in exchange for supporting, educating, and training them to earn their own livelihoods or, in the case of girls, marry a man who would support them"

Child custody - parental rights vs the child’s best interest

The November 2014 elections included a North Dakota voter initiative emblematic of the vigorous debate taking place nationwide about child custody. The “Parental Rights Initiative” required courts to award…

theconversation.com

Does that sound fair to you? While divorce wasn't all that common in Colonial America--especially divorce as initiated by women--but when father's DID initiate divorce, they were automatically awarded custody. That is how our legal system (stacked by MEN) operated.
Again, does it seem fair to you?

Things began to change in the 1800's. In fact, automatic paternal custody was one of the pressing issues at the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848.

Here it is, 2024. And while women are awarded custody in the majority of cases, the 'award' isn't automatic. The courts use a system where several key questions have to be answered before hand:

• the child's age, mental and physical health, and any special needs
• each parent's mental and physical health
• the emotional bond between the child and each parent, as well as any siblings
• each parent's ability to meet the child's needs and provide a stable environment
• each parent's willingness to encourage the child's relationship with the other parent
• the child's ties to school, home, and community, and
• any history of a parent's abuse of the child or the other parent.

Also, nowadays the courts will want the parents to draw up a parenting agreement between them. Judges don't like trials and hearings for custody. They want the matter settled beforehand. All a judge wants to do is to see that the custody agreement is fair...and to put their stamp of approval on it. In other words, the custody 'battle' is mostly handled between the lawyers. And the lawyers don't always have the interests of their client in mind.

The ideology is very selective with what advantages and choices it wants to promote. It doesn't matter if its inconsistent, as long as women get symbolic victories with highly prized positions of power.

Do you think that patriarchy is 'consistent'?

Christians are not supposed to be obsessed with status, power, or even personal rights and autonomy. We are called to serve and expect persecution in the process.

Men can be obsessed with status, power, personal rights and autonomy. Even if they're Christian.
Women can be obsessed with status, power, personal right and autonomy. Even if they're Christian.

Yes, we are called to serve one another. But in what capacity?

God didn't call women to march in the streets against evil. Times were evil when Paul was writing. We are still called to love our families and serve at home because this is when whole communities are healthier and thrive.

He never called for one group of people to lord over another, or to have more rights than another, either.

That is indeed telling women what they should do. God reserves the right to do this.

If God reserves the right to tell women what they should do, then He also reserves the right to tell MEN what to do. Again, God never told men to lord over their wives, as what had been done for centuries.

He does this for our good and it is a blessing. Rebellion is what feminism promotes, whether it ultimately helps women or not.

And what does patriarchy promote? Male superiority?

Feminism is not biblical. Nor is it making us better off.

Neither feminism nor patriarchy are in the bible.

 

[Mink57]

What's ironic is that I have way more control over my life as a housewife than I ever did doing an egalitarian style marriage where I tried to also advance my career.

I control how many hours I work in a day.

I can blast the music I want.

I actually do get paid. I live essentially bill free and get spending money when its available.

I can actually lose the excess weight I gained at college.

I can cook the lunch I want.

No issues over bathroom breaks or food breaks.

I lead my baby girl's routine rather than strangers

The idea that some modern career woman archetype with controlled hours and breaks, having to submit to a boss that does not care about her, where she can be replaced by someone with similar qualifications and not get to see her children as much---she is *somehow* more free than a housewife cause she earns a paycheck?? Righhht.

First of all, I'm glad you said "...some modern career women". You're right. SOME, but not ALL. Controlled hours and breaks would depend on the profession, and if a woman is a business owner (for example), she can make her own hours and breaks, without having to submit to a boss. She wouldn't be replaced by someone with similar qualifications and she could probably fashion a lifestyle where she could see her kids.

If you enjoy the lifestyle you have as a housewife, that's wonderful....

...for YOU. But not all women are cut out to be housewives and stay-at-home-moms. And likewise, not all men are cut out to be ambitious CEO's...or even husbands, for that matter. While much of society believes that ALL people should be 'paired off', other people don't.

Unfortunately, many allow 'societal attitudes/beliefs' to dictate their lives. If 'most' people believe that everyone 'should' marry/have kids, one may get sucked in to that belief.

 

[Wynona]

Do you think that patriarchy is 'consistent'?

Biblical patriarchy is.

Yes, we are called to serve one another. But in what capacity?

In the context of marriage, Ephesians 5 calls men to honor their wives and be willing to lay down their lives for them. Wives are to obey their husbands and have reverence for them. This is also patriarchy. Male leadership is just them taking responsibility for the well being of those under their authority, which God supports.

Titus 2 calls wives to be keepers at home, and again, obedient, so that the Word of God is not blasphemed.

Neither feminism nor patriarchy are in the bible.

I disagree. Patriarchy means father-rule. Genesis 2 establishes that Adam was created first, with Eve created to be his companion and helpmate. After the fall, God ordains that "her desire will be for her husband and he shall rule over her".

This is both the consequence of her sin and God's plan for her redemption. She shows faith in God by accepting God's order for families and humbling herself even though, by nature, we as women crave control in relationships with our husbands.

This explains also why women are not to be in authority over men as pastors or dominate their husbands in marriage. Eve was decieved and so the Scripture calls for women to be humble and for men to gatekeep doctrinal truth.

 

[Wynona]

Unfortunately, many allow 'societal attitudes/beliefs' to dictate their lives. If 'most' people believe that everyone 'should' marry/have kids, one may get sucked in to that belief.

All people everywhere are getting swayed by beliefs. I'm saying some beliefs promote health, family, community, and fulfillment more than others.

Scripture is the belief that promotes this but due to modern values and the erasure of gender roles, key verses are being ignored. Including the verses that affirm those who never marry or become single for the sake of the Kingdom. This is why I don't believe everyone is called to marry either.

I just know that most men and women will marry, usually by their own choice. Why not set them up for success?

The belief that I needed my college education and career as personal insurance so I never had to rely on my husband was a well intended teaching. But it did not set me up for marriage success, nor did it teach me to see my marriage as a one flesh union like Scripture talks about.

I saw marriage as a 50 50 split like roommates. But this ignored God's design for marriage and the strengths and weaknesses of my husband and I. We fought often over chores, money, and the elephant in the room of me always having a "backup option" mindset out of the marriage.

I simply quit my job and all of a sudden, the arguing stops because I'm the one who cares about the home being clean often, but its all under my jurisdiction now. He's the one who gets satisfaction for bills getting paid, and its his role. Oh nooo gender roles! But they helped!

Scripture's view of men, women, singleness, and marriage beats any modern movement's interpretation every time. Not every person feels its possible in today's economy but I maintain that a marriage with the wife home-centered is objectively better than an egalitarian or matriarchal modern marriage.

Any view of a wife homemaking that ignores its obvious health, generational, and relational benefits is not a view that ultimately supports women. We are being pressured to do it all to be seen as successful and that is a heavy burden that no one should have to carry.

I cannot force any woman in a home so I don't think it's an issue of controlling wen with my opinion.
I think it's an issue of the image of what a successful woman is that the culture promotes. Christians are to promote biblical values. Do we? Or are we going along with secular culture because we don't want them to view us as old fashioned?

 

[Wrangler]

I think that patriarchy can also be damaging to MEN just as much as to women.

No human system is going to be perfect.

At what point do you believe that God ordained patriarchy?

Genesis 3:16
16 To the woman he said,

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to[a] your husband,
but he shall rule over you.”

Let's not forget that for MANY years before feminism stepped in, it was FATHERS who had "absolute authority over children" in child custody in divorce ...Does that sound fair to you?

It sounds right even though it is not fair. Many things are not fair but still right.

The wisdom of the ancients is lost in our feminized world. By removing that constraint, women now initiate 80% of divorces. When the law was written to support the life long vow, women could still get divorced. They should had to abandon all their property and children.

This is called taxing undesirable behavior.

Now, we subside undesirable behavior through transfer of wealth payments. A couple of decades ago the women would get the house, kids AND they father had to pay to have his children raised in a manner against his will. Does not sound fair to you?

Men can be obsessed with status, power, personal rights and autonomy.

What a sexist! As if feminists are not obsessed with status, power, personal rights and autonomy.

And what does patriarchy promote? Male superiority?

No. It acknowledges the male superiority in taking responsibility.

Neither feminism nor patriarchy are in the bible.

Untrue. The words are not there but I trust you are not making a semantic argument. See GE 3:16. 1 Peter 3:7. Genesis 18:12

 

[Wrangler]

RADICAL feminism isn't good.

Why is radical feminism not good?

Your refusal to face the truth is entertaining.

 

[Wrangler]

I simply quit my job and all of a sudden, the arguing stops because I'm the one who cares about the home being clean often, but its all under my jurisdiction now. He's the one who gets satisfaction for bills getting paid, and its his role. Oh nooo gender roles! But they helped!

Great wisdom there!

It's sad that so many women today do what is unsatisfying, exhausting to them and drains them spiritually to live according to todays's feminist consumerism ideals.

Before my 2nd marriage I made my wife an offer. I told her if she gives up her car, she can stop working out of the home and I'll pay all the bills. She declined. Maybe eventually I could afford 2 cars but she was not willing to sacrifice a material possession for the life style she said she preferred.

 

[Wrangler]

I maintain that a marriage with the wife home-centered is objectively better than an egalitarian or matriarchal modern marriage.

Especially when children come into the picture.

A young man, 29 yo, told me he is looking for a woman to marry who is willing to raise their children full time. He cannot find such a woman. All he finds are women ensnared by feminism, content to outsource the raising of their own children 50 hours per week.

 

[MA2444]

Very true. I think that patriarchy can also be damaging to MEN just as much as to women.

I dont understand what you mean by this. In what way? It is what it is. Men have responsibilities that they are responsible for so to get some sort of damage to themselves somehow it would have to be emotional or psychological or something like that. Men dont do such things! Maybe your new generation X is all feminized now but most men are not so dont get damaged by thier responsibilities!

You dont know how men think. So men are under (God's) authority and of course there is a chain of command. Buck privates do not cry when the drill Sargeant yells at then! So why should the women? Wah. Go make us some sandwiches! That's real hard huh? Dont hurt yourself!

 

[MA2444]

Your refusal to face the truth is entertaining.

Isnt the answer, because Gloom, Despair and Agony on me will come?

 

[MA2444]

I'm sorry but this popped up in the feed. Thought it was funny. I'll be good.

 

[Wrangler]

Maybe your new generation X is all feminized now but most men are not so dont get damaged by thier responsibilities!

@Mink57 cannot embrace the proper world view that includes responsibilities of women and freedom of men. She's only open to the hateful brain-washing diagonal of the proper 2 x 2 matrix of "It's a women's right to choose and a man has to live up to his responsibilities" on all things (not just THE thing).

Not only is this hateful to men, denying their freedom to choose, it is hateful to women in infantilizing them. Described as "big guns" by Dr Laura in her epic The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, she recalls a phone call on her show about a wife upset that her husbands minor child was going to come out to be with them for a couple of weeks during the summer after the husband was victorious in overcoming all manner of law fare against him.

The "big gun" the woman pulled out was the she was "not comfortable" with the situation. Dr Laura was rightfully ashamed of her gender, prancing around with such entitlement that they believe they have a right to live a life where they are never uncomfortable. Dr. Laura told the caller to put on her big girl pants and deal with it! The child is her husband's child and the child is going to be living with them for a while - as he (male child) should.

If a man said this, he'd be called misogynistic. It's an Ad Homenim designed to deflect any and all responsibilities a woman has.

Go make us some sandwiches! That's real hard huh?

I understand the young generation today of man-hating feminists negotiate this, equating a man giving her a house as the price for her to make him a sandwich. (And he has to give her the house first - not even during.) THE PERVERSION OF EQUALITY.

In this powerful video, she bragged "I didn't have to do a single thing" for a new house! Evil passive aggressiveness with a soft voice on display. The hordes of online evil feminists applauded her entitlement, reminding her she is not a slave and has no responsibility for a house she is going to live in ... Divorce immediately followed. Justice.

 

[Mink57]

Biblical patriarchy is.

Ironically, not ALL of the tenets of "Bible patriarchy" are consistent with the BIBLE.

In the context of marriage, Ephesians 5 calls men to honor their wives and be willing to lay down their lives for them. Wives are to obey their husbands and have reverence for them. This is also patriarchy. Male leadership is just them taking responsibility for the well being of those under their authority, which God supports.

Ephesians 5 begins with the sentence: "Submit to ONE ANOTHER out of reverence for Christ." Unfortunately, so many people IGNORE this sentence and go straight the next sentence about wives 'submitting' to their husbands. For them, it's more important that SHE 'submit' than the husband submit.

Titus 2 calls wives to be keepers at home, and again, obedient, so that the Word of God is not blasphemed.

Depends on WHICH Bible you read. Those who interpret the Bible YOU use may understand the Greek word to mean "obedient", whereas, in MY BIBLE, the word has been interpreted to mean "subordinate."

Also, Titus 2 does not say that women are to ONLY be 'keepers at home', and do nothing else.

I disagree. Patriarchy means father-rule. Genesis 2 establishes that Adam was created first, with Eve created to be his companion and helpmate.

Genesis 1 came before Genesis 2. In Genesis 1:26 God said, "Let us make man (a.k.a. humans) in our image, in our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth." Right away, God had the plan to create both men AND women, and to give BOTH men and women dominion over all of life. AT NO TIME DID GOD SAY THAT HE WAS GIVING DOMINION TO MAN OVER WOMEN.

Genesis 1: 27: "God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." There are various theories as to why God is depicted as a MALE in the Bible, which I'm not going to get into at this moment. But Gen 1:27 clearly shows that God created male and female humans simultaneously. He gave the power of dominion to all of the life He created to both men and women.

Also, you can't go by the order of creation to mean that anything/anyone created after Adam as being lesser than Adam. If that was true, then ROCKS would be more important than Adam. So would light, darkness, the planets, stars, the earth and ALL the animals would be more important than Adam, since they were created BEFORE Adam.

After the fall, God ordains that "her desire will be for her husband and he shall rule over her".

That was not an "ordination"; it was a prediction by God to Eve. At no time did God tell ADAM that HE hall rule over Eve. It was never a command to Adam (or men, PERIOD) that they should rule over their wives.

This is both the consequence of her sin and God's plan for her redemption. She shows faith in God by accepting God's order for families and humbling herself even though, by nature, we as women crave control in relationships with our husbands.

You're doing it again. You're presenting this as if ALL women are 'naturally' of a hive mentality, and we ALL want control of our husband's.

This explains also why women are not to be in authority over men as pastors or dominate their husbands in marriage. Eve was decieved and so the Scripture calls for women to be humble and for men to gatekeep doctrinal truth.

Just because Eve was deceived doesn't mean that OTHER WOMEN IN HER POSITION would also have been deceived.
And even though she WAS deceived, wasn't Adam deceived, too? After all, he was WITH Eve when she was deceived. Adam heard that whole conversation between Eve and the serpent. God first told Adam, NOT to eat the fruit. Sorry, but Adam COULD have said, 'NO!' to the serpent and 'NO!' to Eve. Then he goes ahead and BLAMES Eve for giving him the apple and blames GOD for putting Eve with him in the in the garden first place!

By the way, Scripture calls for MEN to be humble as well.

 

[Wrangler]

Ephesians 5 begins with the sentence: "Submit to ONE ANOTHER out of reverence for Christ." Unfortunately, so many people IGNORE this sentence and go straight the next sentence about wives 'submitting' to their husbands.

Wrong! As Christians, we should submit to one another. For instance, my friend asks me to go to dinner. I submit. Where and when is something he submits to me about.

The next sentence is not about Christians, generally. It is about authority. It is about the God-given authority husbands have over their wives.

Honestly, I hardly ever act on my authority in my marriage. It is much easier for me to submit to her than for her to submit to me. I told her friends when we first got together that I believe the woman should make most of the decisions in the house - BUT that I reserve the right to make the final decision. Her friends were 100% OK with that. They were her Pastor and his wife.

I told them that I work 70 hours per week and most decisions in the house are arbitrary and mundane, such as what are we going to have for dinner. It's a relieve for me for my women to just handle the needful things in the home. A decision has to be made. Another example is what to get a relative, like niece or nephew, for their upcoming birthday. Within a certain dollar amount ... I'm OK with deferring to whatever my wife thinks is best.

This is how my wife turns my house into our home. My focus is on the structure, the framework, including finances. Her focus is on making the resources we have enjoyed to the max, on making the life I provide worth living. It is beautiful. It is divine. And it is anti-feminist.

 

[MA2444]

Just because Eve was deceived doesn't mean that OTHER WOMEN IN HER POSITION would also have been deceived.
And even though she WAS deceived, wasn't Adam deceived, too? After all, he was WITH Eve when she was deceived. Adam heard that whole conversation between Eve and the serpent. God first told Adam, NOT to eat the fruit. Sorry, but Adam COULD have said, 'NO!' to the serpent and 'NO!' to Eve. Then he goes ahead and BLAMES Eve for giving him the apple and blames GOD for putting Eve with him in the in the garden first place!

Adam wasnt deceived. It was his first ever girlfriend so he feel deply in love with her and wanted to be there to stand at her side rather than making her go through it alone. That's all that was. Eve was decieved but in a way that's kind of not her fault.

You see God took one of Adams ribs from the left side to make Eve, but it is the ribs on the right thst contain the common sense genes. So that's why she was deceived but he wasn't.
(I've heard that the good driving genes is on the right side ribs also but honestly I havent confirmed that with research yet. But my field experience points to the probability of that being true also!)