Strength and Honor: Triumphing over Feminism

[MA2444]

The other day, my husband said he may have tried micromamaging as a husband in the beginning but quickly learned that this wasn't effective leadership.

No way does he tell me how to run the chores unless Im struggling and need help at some of them. He has no desire to dictate where we eat and he prefers that I choose his outfits. Im the one that executes bill payments and sending money. I don't have an allowance either. I buy what's needed and am simply trusted to stretch that dollar.

I learned that fast as a husband too! Well, she was smart. Everything she touched turned to Gold! She didnt need me micromanaging her, I even taught her how to file our Business taxes and she loves that stuff so I was a happy camper, lol.

I let her dress me too, why not? There was only like two times she brought something home that I wouldnt wear, lol.

 

[Wynona]

I learned that fast as a husband too! Well, she was smart. Everything she touched turned to Gold! She didnt need me micromanaging her, I even taught her how to file our Business taxes and she loves that stuff so I was a happy camper, lol.

I let her dress me too, why not? There was only like two times she brought something home that I wouldnt wear, lol.

I used to talk about advanced submissiveness with the example being him knocking a bowl of skittles to the floor just to be mean and him demanding I clean them up. I said, biblically, Im still called to obey despite how rotten that would be.

But I kept using that example so now he jokes that he needs to buy a bunch of skittles to test me. He hasn't bought them but if he ever did that, Id probably come up with a pretty good prank afterward.

The joke though, is that people fear the worst when bringing up headship and submission. But a lot of men are not these evil cartoon characters. A lot of men feel positive pressure to level up when their wives choose to be more respectful.

 

[Mink57]

I understand that flexibility is good in a relationship. My husband insists on a lot of decisions being completely delegated to me.

Wonderful! And that's not because of feminism, that's because he seems to realize that there may be some areas where he recognizes his own skill set may not be as good as yours, PLUS, he may not enjoy doing certain tasks (and therefore may not do them well) and will GLADLY defer to someone who MAY enjoy them. That's not feminism; that's just common sense!

But the right for him to ask me to obey him for the good of the household and even me as an individual is codified in Scripture. His authority is based on ordained order, not who wants to take turns. (Ephesians 5:22, 1 Peter 3:1, Titus 2:3-5, etc)

As a suggestion, you may want to do a bible study on those passages, especially on the word 'submit'. Not all bible versions use the word 'submit', and ya gotta wonder WHY. Also, the Greek word for 'submit' and 'obey' differ.

But that's just it, Wynona. His "authority" was never ordained BY GOD HIMSELF. NEVER has God the Father or Jesus EVER told a man to 'rule over his wife, nor was a woman told to 'submit' to her husband. God's original plan for a married couple is in Genesis 1; not 2.

God does this for our good. Having order and peace is better than me getting my way 50 percent of the time or insisting on compromise, in which case no one gets their way.

Why? Like I said in my previous post, in so many words, don't be so attached to getting your way. "Sweetheart, I'd like to paint the living room a light blue. Oh, you want eggshell? Well, I want light blue, and that's FINAL!" And if that happens a LOT, it's a great way to build resentment.

Meanwhile, the couple that has the maturity to know how to compromise will do so. "Sweetheart, I'd like to paint the living room wall a light blue. Oh, you want eggshell? Hmm...never really thought about eggshell. What about a pale green instead? No? O.k. How about Wedgewood? Yeah? That would be o.k.?" You can't look at compromise as neither person not getting ALL that they want, but both people getting SOME of what they want. May not be their first choice, but their agreed on 3rd or 4th choice might be acceptable to BOTH.

Decision making is not always this fun privelige. I didn't understand at first, but being the one solely responsible when things go wrong is a heavy burden. My husband is often the last to buy anything for himself or indulge in a day off. That is because he knows he is accountable for each decision and action and how it affects me and now our children. This is not about him getting to choose dinner (He always insists I choose).

I agree! It IS a heavy burden! And the idea that he 'defers' to you for choosing dinner, then you could say that he's 'submitting' to you...as the bible states, "Submit to ONE ANOTHER..."

When crap hits the fan, who is fixing it? When the car breaks down, when were responsible for financial crisis, who is shouldering that?

Why can't those decisions be MUTUAL, as in DINNER?

Its not me. I reap the benefit of him shielding me from much of that type of stress and the first to get tp indulge when his income allows because he sees this as his purpose.

Again, some people are simply BETTER at handling certain tasks. I loved doing the finances in our home. My first husband HATED dealing with finances. But my second husband wanted to control the finances. I didn't like that because of the 'wheeling and dealing' he was doing. I separated my finances from his. He didn't like that, but he accepted that. Had nothing to do with having one foot out the door.

IHe does the shielding so I do the yielding, to allow him the room to direct us the way God would want. If I am constantly wanting a turn, he cannot grow in competence and confidence as a leader the same way as him knowing I must follow his direction as he seeks God.

Why not? Plenty of other men DO grow in competence, even though they don't ALWAYS do something.

He cannot opt out of the burden of leadership. Even if he leads poorly, he is accountable for that as well. So the obligation to submit stands.

Well, if you have to 'obey' your husband, that means that your husband has the authority to defer HIS authority to YOU. His way of 'opting out'. Leadership doesn't mean ALWAYS being in command...as some would think. Consider the woman in your Proverb 31. Her husband trusted her judgment. And of all the undertakings the wife did, her husband...was nowhere to be found. Nothing in Prvbs. 31 says that her husband was directing her efforts. She was in a position of leadership. Of authority.

II no longer have a desire to make the major decisions. I love deciding where to eat, what the house is, what the decor is like, how my schedule and home are run. I don't enjoy deciding how many kids we'll have, which church we'll consider, and other issues.

Uhhhhh...deciding how many kids you'll have should be a joint decision; not a ONE person decision. Same with what church you'll attend.

Jesus did not take turns getting his will done in his life on earth. Or he would have chosen to escape the cross. He was honest about what he wanted but submitted in trust to the Father, knowing good would come of it.

But Jesus was a servant-leader. Think he never 'submitted' to anyone else?

Me submitting did not take my voice, influence, or autonomy away. It gave me a position of trust and honor I had never gotten by power struggling with my husband.

Ok. But from what you described, that doesn't sound like it was feminism that influenced you.

No, our interests and goals may not be exactly the same. But THE goal is to honor Christ in all things in the way God calls us. For that, we work together, him leading, and I assisting without prioritizing a bunch of other things that would get in the way of that call.

Leading isn't the same thing as dominating. So many people seem to get that wrong.

 

[Wynona]

Leading isn't the same thing as dominating. So many people seem to get that wrong.

I do agree with this. The wife submits  herself. Its not something a husband should try to coerce or force. It needs to be addressed before a marriage starts.

Leading doesn't mean dominating. But it does mean the leader gets final say in decision making. As for church and how many kids, I trust my husband will decide something I will like at this point. I want him to decide on those things because I know my emotions will see saw on those decisions with time.

 

[Mink57]

The reason why I never liked the results of us dividing the work and chores equally is because we cared about different things and were at each other's throats for not approaching each other's priorities with as much care.

My late husband LOVED cooking...but HATED cleaning up. Mommy always cleaned up his cooking messes for him and he expected the same of his wife. Nope, nope, nope...especially since *I* loved cooking, too. He who does not cook, CLEANS. Our cleaning styles were different. I clean-as-I-go, whereas, he...wouldn't. It was only after one evening I cooked dinner and did NOT clean as I go that he realized how much work he was leaving for me when HE cooked. After that, he would clean...grudgingly...hearing him grunt in the kitchen for having to rinse off a few dishes and a few pots, while I cleaned the stove, countertops, kitchen table and floor. He didn't want a wife; he wanted a wife/mommy.

Yeah. That wasn't happening. It was about FAIRNESS.

Just being transparent, the way my husband approached chores when he worked on weekends and I took the car through the week drove me nuts. He would take care of it long after I wanted it done. He would not look for ways to jumo up and get it done. It was done when it could no longer be ignored mostly.

Then WHY didn't YOU take it to get it done?

At the same time, I hated that my paycheck got absorbed into bills and groceries with no leftover just for me.

Why? Was it about HOW the two of you dealt with finances? The finances themselves?

What was the point of working? For my husband its different. If he doesn't get something for himself, he is satisfied knowing Im taken care of and he put food on the table. Me being in exact same position drove me nuts and made me feel resentful, despite him choosing part time work to accomodate my career goals at the time.

O.k., but that's not about feminism.

Could it be that our natures just directed us toward different things? Could men and women be different in their approaches? Absolutely. But what I know is that when I quit my job, the level of poverty we sunk to just didn't matter. The arguing frankly just stopped and I felt truly happy just giving the whole housewife thing a shot, doing the chores like I wanted to, and not having to pay the friggin bills with nothing left to show for my labor.

O.k. But you can't direct all that angst to feminism. The crux of feminism is about FAIRNESS...but FAIRNESS isn't necessarily defined by 50/50.

 

[Wynona]

I clean-as-I-go, whereas, he...wouldn't.

Hehehe. That is me vs my husband for sure.

Yeah. That wasn't happening. It was about FAIRNESS.

Ah.

O.k. But you can't direct all that angst to feminism. The crux of feminism is about FAIRNESS...but FAIRNESS isn't necessarily defined by 50/50.

I think feminism feeds the flesh. We already desire to point to others flaws. The Spirit directs us to focus on changing the only person we can control, ourself. I hear a lot of women say 50/50. What is your view of fairness in marriage?

Since you don't define it as 50/50, I would argue that traditional marriage can be very fair and mutually beneficial. I just don't see fairness as a universal good to be sought at all costs in all situations.

 

[Mink57]

I do agree with this. The wife submits  herself. Its not something a husband should try to coerce or force. It needs to be addressed before a marriage starts.

Absolutely!

Leading doesn't mean dominating. But it does mean the leader gets final say in decision making.

No, it doesn't.

As for church and how many kids, I trust my husband will decide something I will like at this point. I want him to decide on those things because I know my emotions will see saw on those decisions with time.

If that's the way YOU feel, that's fine. But plenty of women KNOW that their spouse will make decisions for HIS benefit, because they will take advantage of their 'authority'. THAT'S part of what feminism sought/seeks to combat.

A short story for you --

Years ago, I saw an episode from Little House On The Prairie. The episode was about a woman who came to Charles and Caroline Ingall's town, and the woman was advocating for woman's rights...explaining that once a woman marries, she LOSES her autonomy and her property to her husband. Charles didn't want to sign the petition because he and his wife always SHARED in their work efforts, raising their kids, and other important decisions that affected the family. There was a 'war' between them, which separated them.

In the end, Charles signed the petition. He signed it because he realized that just because HE believed in mutuality between spouses, NOT EVERYONE DID.

Some people NEED certain laws...whether civil or biblical or both...to GUIDE them. But some will take advantage of the written word, without looking at ALL of the word.

Make any sense?

 

[Wynona]

Some people NEED certain laws...whether civil or biblical or both...to GUIDE them. But some will take advantage of the written word, without looking at ALL of the word.

Make any sense?

Will give it some more thought. I would say a husband seeking control without caring about the fruit of the Spirit or the whole counsel of God is a tyrant in a home. I just don't think feminism is the answer. Fairness is what appeals to us as natural people. But Jesus calls us to a lot higher standard of conduct than that.

Love suffers long (1 Cor 13). It's choosing to suffer one more inconvenience, do one more chore I dont feel like doing, get interrupted forths umpteenth time. For my husband, its going to work whether he feels like it or not, fighting through tiredness to play with our daughter, learning to understand my need to not always hear a fix to a problem but to bounce off ideas first to help me identify what's really wrong first.

Suffering for another's sake with respect to God is not natural. I was never able to make much sense of it as a newer wife. But it's what Jesus did. He died to His personal temporary desires for the joy of eternity with us.

Ultimately, the ideal is that both parties serve selflessly in a marriage. But if marriage involved two perfect people, there'd be less opportunities to learn Christlikeness. If my husband never began to change his wrath or his immaturity, I'd still be under direction from the Lord to demonstrate the love of Christ to him, as far as Im able. Christ is the standard, not the behaviour of our husbands.

Just like Adam cannot simply blame Eve and escape punishment for eating the fruit, I cannot simply point to my husbands actions and escape how I should've responded. No matter what he does, the right thing is still walking in the Spirit. It's still demonstrating the love of Christ. A sacrificial love, not a fair love.

 

[Mink57]

Hehehe. That is me vs my husband for sure.

But here's the thing. My attitude was, "I cook YOU clean." HIS attitude was "YOU cook, YOU clean." Yeah...no.

Ah.

I think feminism feeds the flesh. We already desire to point to others flaws. The Spirit directs us to focus on changing the only person we can control, ourself. I hear a lot of women say 50/50. What is your view of fairness in marriage?

First and foremost, men are not 'superior' to women simply because of their 'maleness'. Men and women BOTH bring strengths and weaknesses to marriage as individuals. BOTH men and women need to understand and accept this.

Second, I don't agree with 50/50. Too much room for people keeping track of what they do. And yet, keeping track to a point isn't so bad. Balance is important. It's not like, you make 30% of the family income, and your husband makes the other 70%...and that's somehow "unfair"...or worse, to HIS benefit, and that because he makes more money, that HE gets to make ALL the big decisions

I've said before, FAIR is not always EQUAL. If you make 30% of the family income, and he makes 70%, figure out what your FAMILY bills are. Do they eat up 75% of the family income? O.k. Then YOU contribute 30% and HE contributes 70% of that 75%. You BOTH get the bills paid AND you both have your own money to spend after the fact.

Since you don't define it as 50/50, I would argue that traditional marriage can be very fair and mutually beneficial. I just don't see fairness as a universal good to be sought at all costs in all situations.

Really? So, you don't agree with Galatians 3:28?

 

[Wynona]

Really? So, you don't agree with Galatians 3:28?

Has nothing to do with fairness. ​

​

Galatians 3:28​

King James Version​

​

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

One in Christ Jesus. Unity and fairness are not the same. We are one body with one Lord and each a measure of the Spirit. But the same author also wrote about many distinctions of authority and function within the Church. What is doing the unifying? Having the same beliefs, faith, and baptism.

I don't see in Scripture anything that says men are superior (although wives are considered the 'weaker vessel' but co-heirs of the grace of life). But I do see seniority.

1 Timothy 2:13-15
King James Version
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Corinthians 11:7-9

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

 

[Mink57]

Will give it some more thought. I would say a husband seeking control without caring about the fruit of the Spirit or the whole counsel of God is a tyrant in a home. I just don't think feminism is the answer.

Then what do you think IS the answer?

Fairness is what appeals to us as natural people. But Jesus calls us to a lot higher standard of conduct than that.

No, it doesn't. Too many people don't want fairness...they want CONTROL and for that CONTROL to benefit THEM ONLY. Consider Adam again. What was the first thing he told God? "The WOMAN YOU put here with me..." That is, that ADAM blamed Eve for his own actions, and blamed GOD, too. Know what? Some MEN in general, have been blaming Eve...and ALL women, ever since, even though, Adam had a choice.

God told Eve what Adam was going to do. He NEVER told Adam to 'rule over your wife'. Hello, patriarchy. Women are sinful...evil...alleviating themselves from ANY responsibility. And yet...if GOD didn't think that Adam had responsibility, then WHY did God punish Adam?

Hmmm...

Love suffers long (1 Cor 13). It's choosing to suffer one more inconvenience, do one more chore I dont feel like doing, get interrupted forths umpteenth time. For my husband, its going to work whether he feels like it or not, fighting through tiredness to play with our daughter, learning to understand my need to not always hear a fix to a problem but to bounce off ideas first to help me identify what's really wrong first.

1 Cor 13: ..." it (love) DOES NOT SEEK ITS OWN INTERESTS..." Doesn't that apply to BOTH sexes? Male Female? Spouse or widowed or single? Why do SO MANY supposed Christian men pay MORE attention to the woman 'submitting' while ignoring their own role?

Suffering for another's sake with respect to God is not natural. I was never able to make much sense of it as a newer wife. But it's what Jesus did. He died to His personal temporary desires for the joy of eternity with us.

Can't look at it like that.

Ultimately, the ideal is that both parties serve selflessly in a marriage.

Yes! Yes!! YES!!! But the whole, "Wives must submit" verse hurts BOTH spouses.

But if marriage involved two perfect people, there'd be less opportunities to learn Christlikeness. If my husband never began to change his wrath or his immaturity, I'd still be under direction from the Lord to demonstrate the love of Christ to him, as far as Im able. Christ is the standard, not the behaviour of our husbands.

And if your husband CONTINUED in his immature un-Christ-like behavior...then what?

Just like Adam cannot simply blame Eve and escape punishment for eating the fruit, I cannot simply point to my husbands actions and escape how I should've responded.

One has nothing to do with the other. You are NOT responsible for Eve's actions. God never told ADAM "rule over your wife"! He told Eve what was going to happen.

No matter what he does, the right thing is still walking in the Spirit. It's still demonstrating the love of Christ. A sacrificial love, not a fair love.

Yes, I agree with a sacrificial love. Then again, read Jesus' words. NOT the words of those after him. But JESUS' own words...

 

[GodsGrace]

I used to talk about advanced submissiveness with the example being him knocking a bowl of skittles to the floor just to be mean and him demanding I clean them up. I said, biblically, Im still called to obey despite how rotten that would be.

But I kept using that example so now he jokes that he needs to buy a bunch of skittles to test me. He hasn't bought them but if he ever did that, Id probably come up with a pretty good prank afterward.

The joke though, is that people fear the worst when bringing up headship and submission. But a lot of men are not these evil cartoon characters. A lot of men feel positive pressure to level up when their wives choose to be more respectful.

Where does the bible state that you'd have to obey your husband if he told you to pick up the skittles?
And
What IS a skittle?

(but I am serious)

 

[GodsGrace]

Then what do you think IS the answer?

No, it doesn't. Too many people don't want fairness...they want CONTROL and for that CONTROL to benefit THEM ONLY. Consider Adam again. What was the first thing he told God? "The WOMAN YOU put here with me..." That is, that ADAM blamed Eve for his own actions, and blamed GOD, too. Know what? Some MEN in general, have been blaming Eve...and ALL women, ever since, even though, Adam had a choice.

God told Eve what Adam was going to do. He NEVER told Adam to 'rule over your wife'. Hello, patriarchy. Women are sinful...evil...alleviating themselves from ANY responsibility. And yet...if GOD didn't think that Adam had responsibility, then WHY did God punish Adam?

Hmmm...

1 Cor 13: ..." it (love) DOES NOT SEEK ITS OWN INTERESTS..." Doesn't that apply to BOTH sexes? Male Female? Spouse or widowed or single? Why do SO MANY supposed Christian men pay MORE attention to the woman 'submitting' while ignoring their own role?

Can't look at it like that.


Yes! Yes!! YES!!! But the whole, "Wives must submit" verse hurts BOTH spouses.

And if your husband CONTINUED in his immature un-Christ-like behavior...then what?


One has nothing to do with the other. You are NOT responsible for Eve's actions. God never told ADAM "rule over your wife"! He told Eve what was going to happen.

Yes, I agree with a sacrificial love. Then again, read Jesus' words. NOT the words of those after him. But JESUS' own words...

Wow.
Are you a girl or a boy?

 

[Wynona]

Yes, I agree with a sacrificial love. Then again, read Jesus' words. NOT the words of those after him. But JESUS' own words...

Jesus expected we would believe on Him through the word of His disciples and apostles.

John 17:19-20

19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

It's unwise to pick the verses we like and ignore verses we don't. That"s how you get the corruption of the faith we see today.

1 Cor 13: ..." it (love) DOES NOT SEEK ITS OWN INTERESTS..." Doesn't that apply to BOTH sexes? Male Female? Spouse or widowed or single? Why do SO MANY supposed Christian men pay MORE attention to the woman 'submitting' while ignoring their own role?

I'm not sure. But let me not be a Christian woman who pays more attention to my husband's role than my own. That would be just as bad.

Then what do you think IS the answer?

Get back to churches teaching every word of God and not an hour or so of intellectual wranglings or motivational speeches.

And if your husband CONTINUED in his immature un-Christ-like behavior...then what?

A lot of sanctification for me. Whether the marriage survives or fails, I can still be peaceful and choose to walk in the Spirit. If I need to divorce, that is an option. But I don't believe I then necessarily get to remarry without guilt. I remain single or reconciled to him. One flesh is one flesh for life.

God promises suffering and His presence in us and with us in that suffering. Not that we'll have a happy marriage.

 

[Wynona]

Where does the bible state that you'd have to obey your husband if he told you to pick up the skittles?
And
What IS a skittle?

(but I am serious)

Skittles are candy.

Ephesians 5:22
King James Version
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

If the Lord told me to pick up candy, Id do it.


1 Peter 3:1
King James Version
3 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

Why?

Titus 2:5
King James Version
​

5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.


Submission is always voluntary. But I don't want to refuse just for any reason. Even if a request is small or petty, it's not a big deal compared to causing the Word of God to be blasphemed.

 

[Waiting on him]

First of all, neither God HIMSELF nor Jesus HIMSELF directly said to anyone, the words written in 1 Timothy 2:15.

God (directly) said to Adam and Eve to "go forth and multiply". But did He tell ALL people to do this? He already knew that SOME men and women would be physically incapable of multiplying, so the instruction would seem more likely directed at Adam and Eve rather than EVERYONE.

Plus, Jesus also knew that some people would forego marriage (and thereby forego having children) "for the sake of the kingdom" as an acceptable option.

In order to understand 1 Timothy 2:15, you need to begin at 1 Timothy 2:8, which begins "It is my wish then..." which tells me that Paul is speaking of what HE wishes from 2:8 through and including 2:15...and not necessarily what the Father and/or Jesus wishes.

I have a totally different perspective on this where the reference to a woman has nothing to do with being a biological female.

If you wish to discuss my opinion from a genesis perspective, then I’m comfortable with that.


Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
— Genesis 5:2

 

[GodsGrace]

Skittles are candy.

Ephesians 5:22
King James Version
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

If the Lord told me to pick up candy, Id do it.


1 Peter 3:1
King James Version
3 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

Why?

Titus 2:5​

King James Version​

​

5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.


Submission is always voluntary. But I don't want to refuse just for any reason. Even if a request is small or petty, it's not a big deal compared to causing the Word of God to be blasphemed.

OK
I agree and can't post too much right now....
but what about what Paul taught in Ephesians?

Wives be submissive to your husbands...
Husbands love your wives as you do your own body.

I do believe there's a limit to being submissive IF there's abuse involved.
IMHO, what you posted sounds like abuse from the husband....

Will be back in a while but won't have much time till the morning...
Not ignoring you.

 

[Waiting on him]

God (directly) said to Adam and Eve to "go forth and multiply". But did He tell ALL people to do this? He already knew that SOME men and women would be physically incapable of multiplying, so the instruction would seem more likely directed at Adam and Eve rather than EVERYONE.

Yes this is exactly right, except for the whole some would be incapable part.

Plus, Jesus also knew that some people would forego marriage (and thereby forego having children) "for the sake of the kingdom" as an acceptable option.

I disagree with this totally. In my mind the kingdom is all about having children.

 

[Wrangler]

Do men and women have fundamentally different natures and sense of fulfillment?

There can be no doubt about that now. Nietsche spoke theoretically in the 19th century. In the 21st century, we have the benefit of at least half a century of data.

Given equal opportunity, women generally choose careers in VECEN but men chose STEM.

A review of the literature shows an obsession to get more women into relatively high paying STEM jobs but nothing to get men into low paying careers that women dominate in such as vanity like cosmetics, hair, nails, early childhood education and nursing.

There is even a movement to reclassify nursing as STEM to make it seem like some victory has been achieved. Once again, reality refutes feminist ideology. The victimology was that sexism forced women into these careers stereotypically dominated by women. Facts prove otherwise.

Jordan Peterson has many vids explaining why. Spoiler Alert: Men and women are different and make different choices, given the same opportunities. He points out the stupidity of promoting women in STEM, pushing them to go into fields they are simply far less interested in.

If you believe women should have freedom of choice, feminists must respect the choices they make and not demand equality of outcomes just to satisfy a flawed and evil ideology.

It’s not about intelligence or education but happiness. At the margin, men tend to be interested in THING, like STEM and women interested in PEOPLE, like the care professions of VECEN.

 

[Waiting on him]

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
— 1 John 2:1

My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
— Galatians 4:19

I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.
— 1 John 2:12

I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
— Philemon 10

@Mink57

You see I asked Him several years ago if I could be a father.