Strength and Honor: Triumphing over Feminism

[Wynona]

Silly feminist idea I want to address--- @Mink57

"Patriarchy is bad for telling men they have to be strong and tough."

This is just as silly as saying, "Women shouldn't care if a man works or makes any money."

We can't just make up rules about human nature and how the world really works. I suppose conservatives will keep being hated for saying that.

We have so much modern luxury and convenience that we are out of touch with the fact that men did not make up patriarchal traditions to oppress women. Most people throughout history were simply trying to survive.

What man would feel good sending his wife to a coal mine or to to clear trees for a farm if he could avoid it? Certainly not to "empower" her.

@Skovand said that women should not be forced to just make babies and be in the kitchen. As if raising children and making food are neither challenging or important enough for women to actually want to do those things. No wonder America is in an obesity crisis.

If the kitchen is just unimportant and making food is demeaning, than there goes the health of a nation.

A group of men did not just sit in a room with cushy chairs to invent traditions to oppress women. If the alternative was to work outside in the heat for hours on end or risk your neck at sea to bring back whale oil...the kitchen suddenly doesn't sound so bad.

Men's strength and toughness was needed for the survival of humanity and it still is because it's still men doing the most dangerous and necessary jobs.

It doesn't matter that we are so comfortable now that we think men can afford to opt out of protective or leading roles. When a crisis occurs, strong men prevail and weak men produce more chaos.

 

[Mink57]

Gender Bias is not a reality, in America.
Its just a talking point that keeps social justice warriors up and running.

See, any woman, can become whatever she wants to achieve, in the USA.

She can run a President's Campaign, as 2 different women.. have done this for Donald Trump, and he won both elections.

She can become the President of the USA

She can own an Airline, a Football team.

She can own CNN or FOX News, or a BANK.

She can do whatever she wants to achieve.......in the USA or in ISRAEL., and many other countries.

Where she can't do any of this in in IRAN, or in any muslim owned country, as they dont offer anyone "Human rights"... not men or women.

Thats a fact.

If that's ALL you're considering then you don't have an understanding of what gender bias is. It's not ONLY about being able to run for office, or owning an airline or a football team.

Gender bias comes in different varieties, from a woman not getting paid as much as a man for doing the same job, to facing sexual harassment ON the job, being passed over for promotions, to being treated (by men) as if they're not competent to handle the job...and so on.

Gender discrimination comes in many forms for today’s working women

About four-in-ten working U.S. women say they have faced discrimination on the job because of their gender. They report a broad array of personal experiences.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Wynona]

I see some "men vs women" issues coming up so I also wanted to say that I do see men and women as equal in the sense that they have equal value to God as created beings. But their equality is not in strength, seniority, or ability in different areas and that is a tremendous blessing.

Genesis 2:18 is my verse for my purpose as a woman: a companion and helpmate. Im not a sex object, concubine, breeder, or independent boss babe by design. I am the suitable help for the man and we both fulfill God's call together in marriage.

It is a beautiful thing to be the helpmate. Im saying this from experience. My husband recieves the call from God and it's specific to him. I follow his lead and help him fulfill this call.

IOur lives are hard but his is much more than mine. He has no desire for me to stress as much as he does. Rather, its giving me an easier life through his work that gives him fulfilent and purpose.

In return, as biblically instructed, I am to respect him, submit, raise children, keep the home, keep the marriage bed and have an affectionate love for him. Its when he comes home and I am relaxed and happy with a meal for us that he feels like all the stress at work was worth it.

Its not just that feminism is evil and stupid. It's that God's way is so beautiful and reflective of the love of Christ. Its not oppressive at all. It produces the very best from our natures as men and women of God. And it is the reason why patriarchal civilizations far outperform matriarchal ones.

 

[Skovand]

Silly feminist idea I want to address--- @Mink57

"Patriarchy is bad for telling men they have to be strong and tough."

This is just as silly as saying, "Women shouldn't care if a man works or makes any money."

We can't just make up rules about human nature and how the world really works. I suppose conservatives will keep being hated for saying that.

We have so much modern luxury and convenience that we are out of touch with the fact that men did not make up patriarchal traditions to oppress women. Most people throughout history were simply trying to survive.

What man would feel good sending his wife to a coal mine or to to clear trees for a farm if he could avoid it? Certainly not to "empower" her.

@Skovand said that women should not be forced to just make babies and be in the kitchen. As if raising children and making food are neither challenging or important enough for women to actually want to do those things. No wonder America is in an obesity crisis.

If the kitchen is just unimportant and making food is demeaning, than there goes the health of a nation.

A group of men did not just sit in a room with cushy chairs to invent traditions to oppress women. If the alternative was to work outside in the heat for hours on end or risk your neck at sea to bring back whale oil...the kitchen suddenly doesn't sound so bad.

Men's strength and toughness was needed for the survival of humanity and it still is because it's still men doing the most dangerous and necessary jobs.

It doesn't matter that we are so comfortable now that we think men can afford to opt out of protective or leading roles. When a crisis occurs, strong men prevail and weak men produce more chaos.

I never said anything about it’s being challenging or important. I said that not all women have to have your life where they feel fulfilled spending their life in the bedroom and kitchen. Big difference between saying not all women have to be housewives versus it’s not challenging and contributing to obesity.

 

[Wrangler]

You're a broken record, Wrangler. Not really contributing anything to this thread, save to accuse feminism of being "evil" without anything to back you up.

LOL. Willful ignorance and projecting.

 

[Wrangler]

How do you know that ANY female in those positions didn't get there based on their merits?

Because DEI, affirmative action exists, denying the claim they are there on merit is the only logical conclusion. Certainly, it clouds what should be clear.

God is the God of order. The devil is a god if chaos. This is how you know feminism is evil, not of God.

 

[Wrangler]

they feel fulfilled spending their life in the bedroom and kitchen.

How contemptuous of the women who live a purpose driven life guided by God. @Mink57 said she never heard such contempt.

 

[Mink57]

Silly feminist idea I want to address--- @Mink57

"Patriarchy is bad for telling men they have to be strong and tough."

This is just as silly as saying, "Women shouldn't care if a man works or makes any money."

Not ALL men are 'strong and tough'. Not ALL men WANT to be 'strong and tough'. Plus, you're comparing apples to oranges. Patriarchy not only tells men they need to be 'strong and tough' but that women need to be 'weak and mild-mannered.'

We can't just make up rules about human nature and how the world really works. I suppose conservatives will keep being hated for saying that.

How the world really works is as I described above. SOME men are 'strong and tough.' Other men are not. Why can't the 5'5" guy fight in battle, if that what he wants to do? And why can't the 6'4", 200 pound guy choose NOT to fight, but become an artist instead? Why can't EITHER of those men choose to do what they want without being picked on or faulted for their choices?

What universally accepted authority wrote these so-called 'rules' in the first place?

We have so much modern luxury and convenience that we are out of touch with the fact that men did not make up patriarchal traditions to oppress women. Most people throughout history were simply trying to survive.

MOST human beings survived as egalitarian societies; not patriarchal ones. Patriarchy didn't only oppress women, but men as well.

What man would feel good sending his wife to a coal mine or to to clear trees for a farm if he could avoid it? Certainly not to "empower" her.

What if the wife is CHOOSES to work in a coal mine or clear trees for a farm? Sorry Wynona, but women worked the fields PLENTY of times. Point being that NO ONE should be telling the wife that she "ought NOT" being doing that because of her gender!

@Skovand said that women should not be forced to just make babies and be in the kitchen. As if raising children and making food are neither challenging or important enough for women to actually want to do those things. No wonder America is in an obesity crisis.

You're missing the point. Skovand said that women should be FORCED to just make babies and be in the kitchen. Skovand did not say that women should not CHOOSE to do those things. The matter is about CHOICE, Wynona. Plenty of women CHOOSE to be a mother and homemaker. No problem there. But nowadays, about 13% of homemakers are MEN. Shouldn't those men have the right to choose being a SAHD without getting a lot of back lash from others?

The point is about both men and women having these CHOICES without any repercussions. If a woman is revered for being a SAHM, a man should also be revered for being a SAHD. If a man is revered for moving up the corporate ladder on his merits, then a woman should also be revered for moving up the corporate ladder on HER merits...and not because she 'slept her way to the top.'

Men are just as capable at making nutritious meals for the family as women are.

If the kitchen is just unimportant and making food is demeaning, than there goes the health of a nation.

It's not about being 'unimportant'. It's that it's not the ONLY important thing.

A group of men did not just sit in a room with cushy chairs to invent traditions to oppress women. If the alternative was to work outside in the heat for hours on end or risk your neck at sea to bring back whale oil...the kitchen suddenly doesn't sound so bad.

You're right on one count; Patriarchy didn't rise overnight, nor was the goal to oppress women. However, the goal WAS for MEN to grip and maintain POWER over others, including women.

I keep using the Iroquois as an example because Elizabeth Cady Stanton and a few others took their cue regarding feminism from the Iroquois. Iroquois women DID work in the fields all day. They planted the seeds, plowed the fields and did just about everything to supply the house with food. They also had a say in war counsels, and choosing their chiefs. They had veto power, if those chiefs got out of line. A man didn't bring a wife into HIS home, he was brought into HER home, with HER family. And if her husband stepped out of line, he had to answer to the other MALE members as well as the other FEMALE members.

Also, because the Iroquois are under a Matrilineal rule, there is HARDLY any violence, especially toward women.

Men's strength and toughness was needed for the survival of humanity and it still is because it's still men doing the most dangerous and necessary jobs.

It took a collective effort by both men AND women for humanity to survive; not one gender OVER the other. Women ALSO hunted. Plus, women have demonstrated that they CAN do the 'dangerous' jobs, just as well as a man...IF that's what she chooses to do.

It doesn't matter that we are so comfortable now that we think men can afford to opt out of protective or leading roles. When a crisis occurs, strong men prevail and weak men produce more chaos.

Again, not ALL men wish to be thrust in the role of 'protector and provider.'

But I do agree that weak minded PEOPLE -- that is, men AND women -- produce chaos in this world.

 

[Mink57]

Because DEI, affirmative action exists, denying the claim they are there on merit is the only logical conclusion. Certainly, it clouds what should be clear.

God is the God of order. The devil is a god if chaos. This is how you know feminism is evil, not of God.

What a load of bunk. Again, NOTHING to back up what you're claiming.

 

[Wrangler]

What a load of bunk. Again, NOTHING to back up what you're claiming.

Well, you are biased. In logic law and statistics, you must reject the claim if there is doubt.

 

[Wynona]

I never said anything about it’s being challenging or important. I said that not all women have to have your life where they feel fulfilled spending their life in the bedroom and kitchen. Big difference between saying not all women have to be housewives versus it’s not challenging and contributing to obesity.

Fair enough.

 

[Mink57]

Well, you are biased. In logic law and statistics, you must reject the claim if there is doubt.

Again, not true. You really need to do your homework...with your eyes OPENED.

 

[Wrangler]

How feminism has destroyed marriage.

 

[Wynona]

What if the wife is CHOOSES to work in a coal mine or clear trees for a farm? Sorry Wynona, but women worked the fields PLENTY of times. Point being that NO ONE should be telling the wife that she "ought NOT" being doing that because of her gender!

Yes they did in order to survive. Women did hard labor to survive alongside their husbands. The difference is that back then, it was seen as an affliction and a hardship that just had to be done.

Nowadays we see it as a token of equality because feminism has such envy for everything associated with traditional male roles.

No one actually wants to work in a coal mine for the pure joy of it. Most men will not find fulfillment i. their caeers. Only the priveliged even have careers. Its what their jobs enabled that made it worthwhile: the survival of their families. No one actually loves coal mines.

The idea of finding fulfillment in work is fleeting and a luxury most people never get. For most people work is simply a means to an end. Some of it is more bearable than other types of work.

Hyping up work as if its an end in itself is unwise. Its relationships that give life meaning, not hours toiling in itself.

If women want to work coal mines so bad, no one is stopping them. But statistically, they are not even voluntarily choosing that. Why? Because it sucks even though the pay is decent. No amount of feminist "you go girl points" is worth working in a hot dark coal mine if its not for a greater purpose like feeding your family.

And most women aren't dumb so if thats their goal, they will do it in an air conditioned building with chairs and desks. This idea that every gender disparity is from patriarchy and men holding women back from choice in 2024 is just silly.

Whether women should be able to do hard work isn't whats in question. They have, they can, and they will. The question is what lifestyle will actually help women thrive given the undeniable differences we have with men?

I would have rather been informed about domestic life as a respectable decision. Instead I was only pushed toward independence and career mindedness. In the feminist's own ideal of fairness, I should have been able to make an informed decision about which path based on real pros and cons of both.

I chose college and career because the assumption was that to not do that was to choose to be a dumb burger flipping loser with no options except maybe some controlling abusive husband.

If its really about honoring women's choice, why didn't a single family member, teacher, or friend ever suggest homemaking when just a short time ago, women decided that for themselved in droves?

I don't think feminism is purely about choice at all. Many women chose homemaking for themselves until they were actively discouraged not to by the feminist movement.

 

[Wrangler]

In logic law and statistics, you must reject the claim if there is doubt.

Again, not true.

You are pathological! Everyone knows reasonable doubt goes against the claim - not in support of it.

 

[Wynona]

The goal of gender roles is to promote success not to restrict freedom.

It was my husband who showed me proper newborn care and cleaning tips. I see that as a blessing.

The success of the traditional married lifestyle is that I can now perfect those things as he perfects bringing in money.

Its a simple principle. Every area of life cannot be perfected by everybody. Gender roles allows men and women to target different areas needed to survive in ways that play to their natural strengths. Thats why it works and why its objectively better than feminism or modern egalitarian marriage ---which we did try.

 

[Skovand]

It works best in a society where they are still fighting against patriarchal oppression. Could not the same arguments be made by segregationist that what was working was working really well? They also thought it was best.

 

[Mink57]

Yes they did in order to survive. Women did hard labor to survive alongside their husbands. The difference is that back then, it was seen as an affliction and a hardship that just had to be done.

Why can't a woman do hard labor WITHOUT having husband? There are laborious jobs TODAY, and yet if a woman WANTS to do those jobs, she still faces discrimination.

Nowadays we see it as a token of equality because feminism has such envy for everything associated with traditional male roles.

You really need to get off this whole mindset about feminists being "envious" or "jealous" of men. It's not about envy or jealousy. It's about using your God-given talents that may extend BEYOND gender roles. Can't a woman go into any of the STEM professions because she's GOOD at them? Has a natural talent for them...without someone like you coming along and believing she's doing it JUST to compete with men on 'their' self-proclaimed 'turf' out of envy or jealous?

No one actually wants to work in a coal mine for the pure joy of it. Most men will not find fulfillment i. their caeers. Only the priveliged even have careers. Its what their jobs enabled that made it worthwhile: the survival of their families. No one actually loves coal mines.

I beg to differ. Just because YOU wouldn't like it doesn't mean that NO ONE would like it. Not everyone thinks like you, Wynona.

The idea of finding fulfillment in work is fleeting and a luxury most people never get. For most people work is simply a means to an end. Some of it is more bearable than other types of work.

I agree to SOME degree. Many people aren't doing the kind of job that they'd WANT to be doing. But that doesn't mean they don't find fulfillment in doing what they're doing. Even though I loved being a paralegal, it wasn't my 'dream job'. Now that I'm retired, I can pursue what I SHOULD have been doing all along.

Hyping up work as if its an end in itself is unwise. Its relationships that give life meaning, not hours toiling in itself.

I believe that, and I'm glad you said 'relationships'...and not 'marriage and family'.

If women want to work coal mines so bad, no one is stopping them. But statistically, they are not even voluntarily choosing that. Why? Because it sucks even though the pay is decent. No amount of feminist "you go girl points" is worth working in a hot dark coal mine if its not for a greater purpose like feeding your family.

This is not true. I own coal property in Kentucky that has been mined for the past 5 years. Since that time, I have worked closely with the mining director. There ARE women who are currently working in those coal seams on MY property. That means they're working underground. The women are both single and married.

Oh, and by the way...coal mines aren't "hot" and dark. There is plenty of artificial light and the average temperature range is between 50-80 degrees, depending on the depth of the mine, movement of machinery and people, etc.

And most women aren't dumb so if thats their goal, they will do it in an air conditioned building with chairs and desks. This idea that every gender disparity is from patriarchy and men holding women back from choice in 2024 is just silly.

O.k., so by your 'logic' ANYONE who does not work in an air conditioned building with chairs and desks is "dumb." Got it.

Sorry Wynona. Feminism isn't only about what's going on in the US. It's WORLDWIDE. And it IS patriarchy that is holding THOSE women back.

Whether women should be able to do hard work isn't whats in question. They have, they can, and they will. The question is what lifestyle will actually help women thrive given the undeniable differences we have with men?

The answer is: Whichever lifestyle they CHOOSE.
And while there are differences between men and women, there are more similarities than differences...the differences being mostly about reproduction and attraction.

I would have rather been informed about domestic life as a respectable decision. Instead I was only pushed toward independence and career mindedness. In the feminist's own ideal of fairness, I should have been able to make an informed decision about which path based on real pros and cons of both.

Fair enough. But that's not feminism's fault. Again Wynona, your experience is not ALL women's experiences.

I chose college and career because the assumption was that to not do that was to choose to be a dumb burger flipping loser with no options except maybe some controlling abusive husband.

I'm not buying that assumption, nor am I buying that you talked to many people about this ahead of time, nor am I buying that even the FEW people you DID talk to about it gave you the same information. Ever go to a public library and look up this stuff yourself?

If its really about honoring women's choice, why didn't a single family member, teacher, or friend ever suggest homemaking when just a short time ago, women decided that for themselved in droves?

Because they didn't decide that for themselves in droves. It was assumed back then that IF a woman went to college, she did so to 'find a husband.' Back then, the options women had OUTSIDE of homemaking were limited to being a nurse, a teacher, secretary, or work as a clerk in a department store. I graduated high school in 1974, and women weren't allowed to take Shop!

I don't think feminism is purely about choice at all. Many women chose homemaking for themselves until they were actively discouraged not to by the feminist movement.

So far, in my life, you're the ONLY woman who is complaining about being discouraged by the feminist movement to turn away from homemaking. When I chose to be a SAHM, I heard nothing discouraging from anyone.

Maybe you need a new set of friends...

 

[Mink57]

Yup! Just as slavery worked best for the slave-owners.

 

[Mink57]

The goal of gender roles is to promote success not to restrict freedom.

And just WHO gets to decide these roles? Men? The women who are too cowardly to make decisions on their own and leave it up to the men to decide FOR them? No thank you.

It was my husband who showed me proper newborn care and cleaning tips. I see that as a blessing.

Good on you and your husband IF that's what you want.

The success of the traditional married lifestyle is that I can now perfect those things as he perfects bringing in money.

You opinion.

Its a simple principle. Every area of life cannot be perfected by everybody. Gender roles allows men and women to target different areas needed to survive in ways that play to their natural strengths.

No, it doesn't. If a woman's 'natural strength' is working with numbers, and she's restricted to being a homemaker by gender roles, what good does THAT do?

Thats why it works and why its objectively better than feminism or modern egalitarian marriage ---which we did try.

Egalitarian marriage vs. Traditional marriage. One is not necessarily better than the other. It's just different.