***
The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is a parachurch organization aimed to promote complementary differences between men and women, yet only men run their board under President Owen Strachan.
The other day, my blogger friend, Tim Fall, and Gail Wallace, co-founder of The Junia Project, were tweeting about this:
Here is the mission statement for Council for Biblical Manhood and Woman (CBMW). CBMW exists to:
The mission of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is to set forth the teachings of the Bible about the complementary differences between men and women, created equally in the image of God, because these teachings are essential for obedience to Scripture and for the health of the family and the church.
The CBMW mission statement elaborates on the following points and you can see how important they feel these complementary differences are:
1. The authority of Scripture is at stake.
2. The health of the home is at stake.
3. The health of the church is at stake.
4. Our worship is at stake.
5. Bible translations are at stake.
6. The advance of the gospel is at stake.
It’s important to note that CBMW is a parachurch organization. Evidently, CBMW feels it their obligation to supplement what we get from our churches and our pastors with their “important” information. Me thinks they are acting in fear. Is God not big enough to be working in local churches through the lives of His Saints without this organization? Is God not big enough to speak His words through people sitting in the pews of the local church and church leaders? Perhaps this group thinks not or we would not be inundated through social media, blogs, conferences with their material.
But back to the topic at hand. A number of us joined the Twitter conversation about the 100% male Board at CBMW. We were wondering why there were no ladies on the CBMW board. A lively discussion ensued. In the conversation there was some back and forth between a gentlemen who challenged some of us about CBMW’s motives. I tweeted that there was no way CBMW would have a woman on their board because of their articles I’ve read about roles of women, and certainly from the original CBMW co-founder, John Piper, who has spoken about women in leadership roles in the civilian world.
During that Twitter conversation, I was reminded of a personal conversation I had with the director of a non-profit board on which I’m currently serving (non-religious board). I had never been on any boards before and he explained to me that the board of his particular non-profit makes all the executive decisions, including whether or not to fire him. So, in the context of CBMW (and if all boards work in similar capacities), this means that a woman could in fact initiate the process to fire a man. She would be in essence his authority in a hierarchal role. I know that does not jive with the teachings/articles I’ve seen from CBMW and so this was the basis of some of my arguments. To settle the issue, I decided to tweet Owen Strachan, the president of CBMW, directly:
@timetherington @tim_fall @gailwallace55 Better yet, ask @ostrachan Owen, Are women allowed to be on @CBMWorg board?
— Julie Anne (@DefendTheSheep) July 3, 2014
Tim, who was also involved in the conversation, also tweeted directly to the source to get clarification:
@CBMWorg Serious question: would women be allowed to join the CBMW Board of Directors? — Tim Etherington (@timetherington) July 3, 2014
I haven’t yet received a response to my tweet from Mr. Strachan (and didn’t really expect to get one over the holiday weekend), so I searched the CBMW site to see if there was anything published on the topic. Sure enough I found something, and it is specifically related to parachurch organizations. As I said earlier, CBMW is a parachurch organization. Take a look:
(Source)
I have to admit, I was delightfully surprised to read this. So, according to CBMW, women can serve “alongside men as members of a board of directors!” Now again, keep in mind, this is CBMW’s interpretation of what they believe a woman’s role can include (and that opens up that same can of worms about CBMW usurping pastoral role in the local church body and a pastor’s interpretation of biblical roles), but whoa – – ladies, doncha just want to line up and inquire about a position on the Board of directors at CBMW?
Today at SSB, we’re going to do something a little different. We’re going to work on math, specifically percents. Percents are your friends, people. Do not click the little “x” at the top of your screen. Percents won’t kill you. This will be easy. We’re going to do it in story problem form, too. You can do this!
Here we go: as of right now, 100% of the current CBMW board members are men.
Let me break that down for ya. That means 100% of the board are men and 0%, that would be a big fat ZERO percent, are female. 100% of the men get to tell 100% of women about their biblical roles. 0% of women get to tell 0% men about their biblical roles.
It makes one wonder if perhaps CBMW’s guidelines for parachurch oranizations and women as members of boards only applies to other parachurch organizations, and not specifically, CBMW.
Ya think?
hmmm… Yea, this seems like a brave new movement to me (this is CBMW’s Twitter banner).
But take a look at this – – CBMW recently added two new board members . . . and those two new board members are, no surprise, 100% male, which of course means 0% female.
I think I am going to break mold and allow a man to speak for me. Gomer Pyle, take it away:
Major news for @CBMWorg: we just added @JGDuesing & @DrThomasWhite to our board. This is a huge day for us! http://t.co/qSaXznHwl2 — Owen Strachan (@ostrachan) July 2, 2014
Here’s the next percentage problem. Please check my math:
Two 100% brand new board members + the 7 current 100% male board members = Nine 100% male board members (and zero percent, 0% female members).
Here are three tweets in a row from Mr. Strachan. He seems to really appreciate women, doesn’t he?
Notice here, we have FIVE women in the above tweet/picture.
Ok, for your math extra credit, please figure out what percentage of women represented their “spelling capabilities and the organization” in the above picture.
Isn’t that cute? Women were allowed to spell out CBMW, but when it comes to running the organization alongside men in the CBMW organization, we do not see any representation of women on the board.
ZERO % women
Women represent 0% of the voices at the CBMW board. Maybe the men don’t want women to interpret their biblical roles?
I do want to point out that there are 26 members on the CBMW council, 6 of whom are female. I did my math and that means there are 77% male.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galations 3:28 ESV
Spiritual Sounding Board 
I can’t remember exactly what I was going to say about the OP and Gary’s post, but it had something to do with numbers.
Even if there were a female on the CBMW council, she would be a figure head or token.
She would have to parrot the standard gender complementarian lines about things anyhow.
If there was a total of ten people on their council, and even if nine were women and one was a man, that one man’s comments or views would be considered (by their group) to be more important or binding than whatever the nine women say or think. His view would over-ride theirs.
It is funny in a pathetic way that a group that claims to represent and speak on both men and women only have men on their board.
I kind of think even if they did have women on their board, it would still be rather pointless (given their religious views about women), but not look as hypocritical.
On another point:
Seeing those young ladies pose for CBMW propaganda in those photos Owen S. posted to his Twitter page or wherever, on behalf of CBMW, makes me sad. Those young women don’t realize they are wasting their time, effort, and potential by buying into gender complementarianism, and that gender comp is not supported in the Bible.
I was a gender complementarian myself until my mid or late 30s.
I know realize how snookered I was by it all. The Bible doesn’t teach gender comp, and rejecting gender compism does not lead down a slippery slope of liberalism, acceptance of abortion and secular feminism, or rejection of biblical literalism.
(I rejected gender comp but am still pro-life, a social conservative, and believe biblical literalism is the more accurate way to understand the Bible.)
LikeLike
Left for a little while and quite the response. Even cyber-stalking.
I really don’t like the word egalitarian or complimentarian. I was not raised in either Christian culture. I am fully aware that men abuse their power.
MissDaisyFlower: I am sorry men did not see your character. My original post I told a story about a woman I met in church. Empirically very attractive. Lots of seemingly Christian virtue. In her 40’s, never had a boyfriend. Did not believe in pre-marital sex. I hear what you are saying. At one time as a non believer I would have run from such a woman. I knew I was saved when I was truly interested in this woman.
But I loved the woman completely, and she knew it and I shared it many times.
But the woman was full of fear, and we are teaching our daughters fear of men as well. Couldn’t open her heart for the life of her. In prayer once God whispered to me, you can’t get water from an empty well”. She wanted a husband and children but was too late for the latter. But her “perfume” of fear could fill a stadium and sure fire rejection was written all over her. I tried to overcome those obstacles and ignore the fear and rejection and go with the spirit of love. Love does not cast out all fear….unfortunately.
Stone cold. A good place for a woman to hide out at a fundamentalist university.
JA wrote~
“Women have found complete freedom and are giving full and complete surrender to men.
What do I mean by that ? I am not talking about freedom in Christ. I am talking about freedom in their sin to do what they want with their bodies and nobody is going to tell them what they can do. Women are submitting their bodies freely to men, liberated to do so.
Yes, men are teaching men to stay away from pre-marital sex. It is not just women that are getting that teaching. Men are stepping up and teaching their sons and I know it is being spoken at men’s conferences. Promise Keepers especially.
What is wrong with a manosphere? Women get womensphere which is feminism. There is no such thing as patriarchy but all of the worlds ills have been blamed on the victimization of patriarchy.
Men have been submitting themselves for their families for centuries. They work in dangerous jobs to make money for their families. The number of work related deaths of men compared to women are not even comparable. They have breathed in black coal dust to earn a living and died for it. Men can be conscripted for war. Women can not. Women and children first from the fire or sinking boat. Men have submitted and sacrificed their lives since the dawn of creation for their wives and families.
When rejected by their wives they are the ones to move out of the family home, when she’s the one who wants out of the marriage.
I am in agreement that it is harder for women in church to find men than it is for men to find women. I belonged to a singles group – 35 women and 3 or 4 men. I ended up running for my life. One of the reasons I left is the singles women got together and decided to have service ministry like the men’s group had. So they created a list of all the things that had to be done for the community. Everything on the list was for the men to do coming over to the single women’s houses and doing drywalling, landscaping etc. And the men did it. Don’t tell me that men do not submit to women.
IT was a one sided servitude program. All men must comply. I did not. I ran instead.
I have female friends in my current church who desperately want to get married, good careers and are attractive in their early 30’s. I feel for them. One of my female friends told me if you were part of a singles group with 35 women and 3 or 4 men, put yourself in my shoes as one of those 35 women and the available pool is 3 or 4 men. Competition is high in church as single women outnumber the men. All the more reason why a woman needs to stand out as really, the men in church have lots to choose from.
Yes, there are a lot of Jezebel’s. As a man I can tell you that is a reality. I have a right to choose what kind of woman I would like to marry. Jezebel is not one of them.
MissDaisyFlower. You make alot of sense and have your eyes open. I like the fact you do not make excuses for men and for women. If you are/ were all that you said you are and never got noticed, never got married and you were raised like that and wish to continue, and are a little lady and looked after yourself, then I have taken notice.
You’re what I’ve been looking for. Maybe I found you.
LikeLike
Buck,
Your comments are nothing but “men’s rights activist” misogynist nonsense and clichés. You aren’t going to get far here. We know repetitive mindless phrases when we hear them.
Yawn. Go practice on one of the MRA sites. Don’t bore us any longer.
It’s time you got some counseling to get over your insecurities. The rest of us have found love and happiness. You won’t until you stop blaming women for everything wrong with your life and start taking responsibility for your own decisions.
LikeLike
It’s not cyber stalking if someone else recognizes you from another blog, Buck. Please don’t exaggerate on something that is a real dangerous and legal issue.
LikeLike
Buck:
I will say it to you as nice as I can, you are full of crap! You have written pure nonsense on this blog and your views of women show a very distorted and sick view of women. There are plenty of churches you can go and join and they will love your attitude about women. For me I choose not to be a part of any church leadership that thinks like you. Good night to you!!
LikeLike
Buck said,
Don’t tell me that men do not submit to women. IT was a one sided servitude program.
I have several disagreements with this.
Women asking you to perform good, helpful deeds for them, such as mow their lawn or change the oil in their car, is not, IMO, submission – they are acts of kindness, and it was all voluntary.
These were optional and voluntary. Gender complementarians, however, teach it is a matter of doctrine, and the Gospel hinges upon, that all that women must submit to men, especially wives to husbands.
Women are not truly free to make their own choices in this system.
On the other hand, there is not really a doctrine that says, “single men MUST mow the lawns of single women, if they refuse, they are in sin.”
You still have a choice to say, “No, I don’t want to mow this lady’s lawn,” and you will not necessarily be accused of sin.
Women are not given this choice in complementarian teaching. Christian women are told they cannot “opt out” of submitting unilaterally to men; men are not expected to submit to women in Christian gender complementarian teaching.
Maybe on an UN-official level, some women in some churches expect men to wait on them hand and foot, but this is not a church-sanctioned ideal, nor do preachers scream from the pulpit that men MUST do nice deed for women. Males being nice to females is not made into a commandment of God by preachers, as female submission has been.
Males are told by their gender comp churches to “love their wives as Jesus loved the church” but they are not taught to “submit” to women.
LikeLike
I thought this was pertinent, considering some of the comments in this thread:
Different but Equal? Giving Words their Real Meaning
by Mimi
But if you press further, you discover that the claim “equal but different” turns on one matter alone—authority. The sole difference between men and women, some suggest, is that men hold authority over women.
The confusing element here is the word “equal.” How can women be equal to men when men hold authority — an authority withheld from women?
Women and men cannot share equality while men alone hold all authority. To do so renders the word “equal” meaningless!
…. Let’s give words back their true meaning. Being equal must always and everywhere include shared authority. If that is not what is intended, then a word other than “equal” will have to be found. If men and women are equal, then they will share authority as join theirs of Christ’s kingdom
LikeLike
I think TWW blog currently has the URL to this thread at Spiritual Sounding Board at the top of their blog (or they did a couple of hours ago, when I visited their blog).
I guess Buck made his way here after seeing that URL on their blog.
Buck said,
I don’t agree with your understanding or use of the word “submitting” in topics such as that.
Some women in some parts of the world, who live in very poor nations and/or nations that are patriarchal (non-feminist), do not give women equal or ample opportunity to get an education and hold a stable career, so they end up working as prostitutes.
Some of these women are kidnapped at a young age from their families, or their families sell them to, the johns who run a sex business. They are forced to work in the sex industry.
I’d rather work in a coal mine breathing in black dust than have to bang ten strange men per day.
Also, some American women have wanted to serve in the U.S. military (in combat positions), but gender complementarians keep arguing, no, that is wrong, women should not be permitted into combat, because fighting is for men only, and men are to be protectors of women, etc.
As much as I adore Christian radio host Janet Mefferd, I sometimes disagree with her on some topics: she seems to be a gender complementarian.
About a year ago, Mefferd argued against women being allowed to serve in the U.S. military (in combat positions). You can listen to her argue against women serving in combat here.
LikeLike
(part 2)
That is a distinctly gender complementarian, American cultural view – that women are too weak need a man’s protection, are dainty little flowers who should not have to fight wars, so women should not be allowed to serve in combat positions in the military.
Contrast that American view with this:
Onna-bugeisha – Japanese female wariors
(link is to page on Wikipedia)
It’s the gender complementarians that oppose women fighting and holding difficult jobs, not feminists and egalitarians that Buck is against.
Buck said,
And they’re having sex with someone – men. It takes two to tango. Some men are clearly going along with the free and easy casual sex, yet you seem to blame women more for this.
Buck said,
Not nearly enough. Most every online source I see from Christians, or TV preaching, harps on FEMALE sexual purity, rarely MALE.
Buck said,
If manosphere stuff didn’t come across as being so sexist, and blaming women for everything, with the participants acting like all men are perfect little angels all the time, with men never copping to their own sins, there wouldn’t be much wrong with it.
LikeLike
This is so obvious, but we get so swayed with flowery language people like Piper use.
LikeLike
What in the word, Buck? SSB is no dating service site. One more comment like this and you will be in the SSB dog house for moderation.
LikeLike
Julie Anne said,
What in the word, Buck? SSB is no dating service site
Yeah, I noticed that in his post but didn’t want to say anything until you commented there.
I found that a little… odd.
I was not flirting with the guy.
I was just pointing out that single Christian men I see on forums and blogs who claim they cannot find a good, sweet, submissive, Christian single woman who is living a godly lifestyle (and I’ve seen many Christian single men complain about this on the internet, going back eight or nine years now on various sites) – well, that’s a minor pet peeve of mine.
I was in fact a good, sweet, submissive gal for years, the very type these men say they are pining away for, and I never got married (and I’m not an ogre to look at- both Christian and Non Christian males have asked me on dates before and contacted me on dating sites, so I’m attractive enough).
So it makes me wonder how honest these types of single men are when they say they want a demure, passive, nice, morally upright woman. I fit that to a perfect “T” but no Christian ma snapped me up.
I’ve since dumped the gender comp beliefs, but I still live a clean lifestyle, but I will not be a quiet, passive, submissive doormat for any man.
LikeLike
Of course you weren’t, Daisy. Anyone could see that . . . well except for maybe a lonely man who wants this place to be a dating service site.
Just to make sure I’m clear: SSB has never been, nor will be, a dating service site. Amen. So be it. And there ya go. It’s in writing – – with my siggy: Julie Anne, SSB blog owner
That should settle it, right? LOL
LikeLike
Love your bedside manner.
Wow. I think I just got spiritually abused for having a voice. You are a compassionate bunch. I see Christ in you. I think the phrase of Christ you are looking for is Thou art full of crap.
Yes, I did see your comment above about Nancy Leigh DeMoss. You should read the vile comments they write at Warburg Watch. One told Nancy to go back to her mansion and that she plain didn’t count. Nancy is a wonderful woman of God. Remember, that God watches over your spirits. Just because it is a blog it does not negate that God is searching your hearts, and knows the spirit in which you write.
LikeLike
Miss Daisy,
You did not flirt. I was paying a compliment. Not like the personal attackers here. You seem rational and well rounded. Especially your thoughts on the man sphere. I can’t agree with everything you write, and you argue just about every point I make line by line, but at least you have a mind that is open..
But many of your observation are bang on.
Dating site. Don’t need over exaggerated drama. Get serious.
LikeLike
Ok…just gotta ask,.how do you know that? Do you live with her? Know her personally? I think you MEANT to say, Nancy Leigh DeMoss professes to be a woman of God, right? Key word being…professes.
Um…by calling some people here “personal attackers,” you are attacking as well.
I also gotta say…I was kinda squeed by your comment-
And are a “little lady?” What on earth do you mean…as in physical size? Looked after yourself? You mean, not gotten fat? That’s what it sounds like.
Gross. Totally inappropriate.
(Squeed: grossed out, disturbed, bad case of the heebie jeebies.)
LikeLike
This is so OTT, I am astonished. Perhaps wishful thinking?
Nah, spiritual abuse only works when there is a power system. No one here is your boss, pastor, mentor, teacher, etc. Just people on a blog disagreeing.
Great, I have been itching to use ‘white washed tombs’ all day!
That is your definition of “vile”? Seriously? Ever read the SGM lawsuit docs? I would call that vile. Telling Nancy to go back to her Palm Beach mansion instead of teaching her bizarro world doctrine is “vile”? Are you using the 20th Edition of New Calvin Fundevangelical Dictionary or something similar?
When it comes to comp doctrine that her movement teaches, she really does not “count”. She is rich (inherited wealth), single and childless. Now, who is she submitting to? And she has not been “saved” in role of bearing children. So not sure how we can “count” her in comp doctrinal circles. Especially if one had to kiss dating goodbye and her father did not arrange something for her.
In fact, she is a great source for donations so the comp celebs love Nancy. They even allow her on stage to teach men! Amazing. Wealth and or fame make a huge difference when it comes to comp doctrines.
First of all, my “spirit” is the same as me while I am alive. Can you give a practical application to God searching our hearts? Sounds rather cliche as if we do not know ourselves and someone else is writing our comments for us. Is that what you think about yourself? Are you cognitive of what you are writing?
LikeLike
“Ok…just gotta ask,.how do you know that? Do you live with her? Know her personally? I think you MEANT to say, Nancy Leigh DeMoss professes to be a woman of God, right? Key word being…professes.”
Great point, Diane. We have so much of that thinking in celebrity Christianity. Celeb worship when they don’t really know them personally at all.
LikeLike
“So I do in a way sympathize with these MRA Christians. What I find annoying, though, is that they allow their overall anger at the state of Christianity (that women are not being held accountable for their sin) to devolve into a “blame all women fest.”
They blame secular feminism and all women (Christian and Non), to such a degree they have become sexist pigs.”
Daisy, I think this was your words, right?
Anyway, the comment I wanted to make is that I think this is sort of backwards, maybe. I think MRA types, whose words and actions betray them as misogynists, aren’t sexist pigs because of the state of the church. I think they’re sexist pigs who use the state of the church (or whatever the current hot button excuse is) as an attempt to excuse their reprehensible, decidedly unChristlike attitudes and behaviors.
LikeLike
Buck,
When a cobra slithers into a school yard or a rabid dog wanders a dirt road, we have the responsibility to sound an alarm. The MRA mindset is dangerous and poisonous.
By calling you out, we are doing our job. No apologies, Buck.
(And I notice that you haven’t once denied you were an MRA.)
Julie Anne has been very nice in letting you comment here, but that’s probably so that people can see the bizarre way that MRA’s think and the weird things they say. Your blaming and bizarre word choices are so typical, we identified you on the first comment.
LikeLike
Buck:
I promise you I was a lot nicer in comments to you than my spirit wanted to be. BTW my beside ,manner is the only thing that will get someone like yours attention.
Your whining about being abused here is laughable.
LikeLike
More personal attack. Nice.
Looking after oneself in mind, body and spirit is not a bad thing. But leave it to a woman to go right the the “fat”. Like you don’t tear each other apart.
I just got caught up with a female friend who just got back from seeing family. She turned down scones. He female cousin made a personal attack “is that why she’s so thin” in the pejorative.
Nancy Leigh DeMoss comment: professing to be a Godly woman.
Miss Daisy professed to be a lot of things too. Are you going to attack her while you are at it.
The reason why I am not interested in Egalitarian women, is frankly, they do not have very nice spirits.
LikeLike
Buck T was discussing men serving in the military vs women, and I just found this:
The Marines Are Looking For A Few Good (Combat-Ready) Women
Also of possible interest to Buck (and others):
When Women Wanted Sex Much More Than Men – and how the stereotype flipped
LikeLike
Tom: Your wife is calling.
LikeLike
@ Persephone
You may be right, maybe such men are sexist to start with and just find things to gripe about (eg, church environments).
I just noticed when visiting Christian MRA-ish type blogs that they frequently get upset and angry about how (in their opinion) churches are too deferential towards women, especially, or even to, women who are considered to be morally loose (ie, women known to be single who show up to church with a big belly because they are pregnant).
And it’s not just men. I’ve seen Christian women on these blogs who support these sorts of guys. One even has her own blog – her screen name is ‘Sunshine Mary’.
She, among other persons and topics, are discussed on this page (which reads like a soap opera) by a former manosphere guy:
The Manosphere is Dead, and You Have Killed It
LikeLike
I am not an MRA. I am not a Christian MRA. More name calling. Apparently I am a cobra or a rabid dog, for the simple fact I am in non agreement with what many on this site profess as I am a complimentarian. I understand that this site is not in agreement with complimentarianism. You are defending Egalitarianism and I am defending Complimentarianism. Like Miss Daisy, I don’t have my head buried in the sand so I have researched many things.
How would they “recognize” manosphere MRA stuff unless they’ve been looking there or following the feminist indoctrination false religion who complain about MRA stuff. I suggest who wrote that above is spending too much time on radfem stuff because if I have used MRA dialogue that stands out, this site uses Radfem stuff that does not stand out but blends into all the arguments.
To me it seems this site is all radfems. It’s the very same dialogue as Jezebel.com
Maybe you should research what secular feminism really is, outside of equal pay for equal work and read the more in depth scholarly work of professors who teach this stuff to eager minds in Gender Studies. You will find it is a religion, with Earth as the creator, Earth Goddess, and Witchcraft. It is much more than a political agenda for rights. All built on rebellion against God.
Thank you Miss Daisy for the above. Women are in the military. They are invited to join the military. But there is no conscription for women. They have options. Men don’t. IS that equal ?
Here’s a great article among thousands that are out there.
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/outraged-moms-trashy-daughters/
http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/Divorce+secret+reality+Calgary+Stampede/10005530/story.html
It’s a new world we are in.
LikeLike
Miss Daisy,
And it’s not just men. I’ve seen Christian women on these blogs who support these sorts of guys. One even has her own blog – her screen name is ‘Sunshine Mary’.
She, among other persons and topics, are discussed on this page (which reads like a soap opera) by a former manosphere guy:
The Manosphere is Dead, and You Have Killed It
Don’t know where you found this, but there is nothing “manosphere” legitimate with this link. You are right….it’s soap opera stuff but unfortunately, non valid.
LikeLike
Buck: You are not doing a good job of defending COMP. You should probably quit while you are behind.
LikeLike
Buck said,
Thank you Miss Daisy for the above. Women are in the military. They are invited to join the military. But there is no conscription for women. They have options. Men don’t. IS that equal ?
And society is like that because men have all the power and call all the shots.
It’s funny and sad you blame women, or secular feminism, for the very things that are the result of a man-controlled society we live in.
Additionally, as I said above, some women want to be in combat positions in the military, but the military and gender complementarians don’t want women to be in the military, and will not permit them to serve.
I mentioned that point above, and you did not acknowledge it.
Buck said,
Don’t know where you found this, but there is nothing “manosphere” legitimate with this link. You are right….it’s soap opera stuff but unfortunately, non valid.
How would you know if it is legitimate or not, since you claim not to be in the manosphere, nor do you visit their blogs and sites, you said (if I recall correctly)?
How would you know that blog page is “non valid,” or how did you arrive at that conclusion? The guy who wrote the page is an ex manosphere member – if anyone should know what the manosphere is like, it would be an ex member.
Why would you care anyway if it’s legit manosphere site or not, since you claim not to be one of them?
I found his site by goggling for the name “Sunshine Mary.”
Also, you, Buck T, are guilty of some of the things you are criticizing others of in this thread.
You don’t seem to understand what Christian gender complementarianism is.
Some of the things you’re complaining about in this thread are the result of gender complementarianism and patriarchy, NOT secular feminism or egalitarianism.
I know what Christian gender complementarianism is because I used to be one myself and was raised to be one before finally rejecting it when I got older.
LikeLike
Part 2
(The italics tag in my post above got messed up. Sorry about that.)
Buck said,
How would they recognize what MRA stuff is – By the same token you recognize that Jezebel is a feminist site, or that, in your opinion, the manosphere site I linked to above is not “legitimate”.
How would you know that Jezebel is a feminist site, unless you visit there?
Where did you get the phrase “radfem,” from visiting feminist sites or manosphere sites? If so, why is it okay for you to visit those sites but not the participants in this thread?
How would you recognize what is and is not a legitimate manosphere blog if you don’t visit such sites yourself, or are not a member of such groups?
The reason some of the ladies and men in this thread may have heard of MRA stuff (like I have before) is one stumbles across various topics while dinking about on the web.
I don’t generally go around looking for MRA or not even usually feminist material, but I come across it while reading general news items on other sites.
I read a wide variety of sites, from news sites, to entertainment, from liberal to moderate to conservative.
Some conservative blogs I follow regularly (to read about political events) also link to editorials about secular feminism, for instance.
Buck said,
I don’t agree with, or even like, most secular feminism, but I think you are unfairly characterizing them and their beliefs. Not all of them are into Gaia worship, Wicca, and so forth.
LikeLike
Tom Parker
I find some of his comments or views about comp confusing or off-base. I seriously wonder if he really knows what it is.
Some of his comments contradict previous ones he’s made, too, making it kind of hard to understand what he’s saying or what his position is.
The only thing I take away that is consistent in his posts is that he detests feminism and dislikes Christian women who are not doormats to men, or construes any position that is not doormat like form a woman to be the result or influence of secular feminism.
I rejected the view that women should be doormats and submissive to men by reading the Bible and re-reading it and noticing all the women mentioned in the Bible who were leaders or teachers over men, or who rejected traditional gender roles, such as-
Deborah in the Old Testament, or Junia a woman who was an apostle, or Jael, who killed an enemy of Israel by driving a tent peg through his head.
I also noticed that Jesus Christ treated women as equals, not as submissive doormats who should defer to him because of his maleness.
LikeLike
Sorry, Buck, your credibility is shot.
You use MRA-speak in your comments and claim not to be an MRA. So how do you know those terms such as mangina and radfem?
If you know Sunshine Mary then you definitely spend way too much time on MRA blogs.
You may not identify as an MRA, but you sure espouse their philosophy, which is anti-Christian and evil.
LikeLike
“More personal attack. Nice.
Looking after oneself in mind, body and spirit is not a bad thing. But leave it to a woman to go right the the “fat”. Like you don’t tear each other apart.
I just got caught up with a female friend who just got back from seeing family. She turned down scones. He female cousin made a personal attack “is that why she’s so thin” in the pejorative.”
Are you serious here? You are the one who brought up size, not me. Leave it to “a woman to go right to the the fat” as you wrote? You are the one who wrote, “…and are a little lady”. You tell me-what’s the opposite of little? I can play too-leave it to a man to mention a woman’s size…sigh.
“Nancy Leigh DeMoss comment: professing to be a Godly woman.
Miss Daisy professed to be a lot of things too. Are you going to attack her while you are at it.”
Are you going to answer my question? Let’s not deflect the question and bring this back on me, ok? I’ll repeat my question, incase you’ve forgotten it: You wrote-“Nancy is a wonderful woman of God.” How do you know that? Do you live with her? Know her personally? I think you meant to say, Nancy Leigh DeMoss professes to be a woman of God, right?
“The reason why I am not interested in Egalitarian women, is frankly, they do not have very nice spirits.”
Here, I’ll quote what you wrote at the top to reply to the above bizarre statement:
“More personal attack. Nice.”
LikeLike
Buck, you said, “The reason why I am not interested in Egalitarian women, is frankly, they do not have very nice spirits.”
I’m sorry (truly, not sarcastically) that you feel that way. I have had the privilege of experiencing an egalitarian marriage for the past 22 years. What makes it work for us? Mutual respect for each other – including each other’s interests and friendships. My husband and I would never ask for it to work any other way – and believe me, we were “instructed” in how our marriage should work/look.
LikeLike
Daisy:
You said:”I also noticed that Jesus Christ treated women as equals, not as submissive doormats who should defer to him because of his maleness.”
Jesus did treat women as equals and Jesus is to be our guide not these man made rules that some have come up with to treat women as less than men.
It really is a shame that folks take a few verses in the Bible and from them develop their philosophy of the role of women in Christianity.
It is an evil and divisive and man made.
Buck speaks about other peoples spirits-his spirit is clearly seen in his posts and it is anti-woman.
LikeLike
All posts here are radical feminism. You may not have signed the card, but you pontificate the same ideology. Word for word. Same as Wartburg Watch. It’s a hate site against men and authority. Blame the patriarchy. Men do not hold all the authority. Please….that is a total misnomer.
If there’s inequality where men are less than equal, even that is the fault of patriarchy. And like all radical feminists, if you disagree with anything about feminism or women, you must be anti woman. Same old argument like a broken record.
The enemy of feminism is not men. It’s women. Feminism hates women.
Read all the comments about men. You all hate men. The “manosphere” language for that is “misandry”. And I repeat: I am not an MRA.
You can’t hate your brother, and love God. 1st John.
This is a society that hates men, and it is not even challenged. This site is continuing to promote all things hatred to men, and using the failures of what happens in church to spread the message that men are evil. See here, here and here. Here are all the examples.
My best friend moved from England where he lived with his mom and step dad and moved in with his father and step mother. He was 13. His step mom sexually assaulted him continuously when he arrived and lived with the shame of that. He didn’t say a word for 30 yrs until his dad died. He sued her 30 yrs later…and won.
He caught his wife naked in the front of the family van in the throes of passion with her boss. Caught them red handed. While he was looking after his children ( it’s not called babysitting when fathers parent their children) she was committing adultery.
And who do you think got custody of the children. Please….all authority is Patriarchy. Stop it.
Think she feels remorse or guilt ? Good Baptist girl. She came home when his daughter was 1 claiming he gave her an STD. He got checked. He was clean. Woops……
He was always faithful. She was not. But this stuff is not in the feminist message…it’s men men men and that is ok but if you speak against women doing this you are anti woman. I am realistic….not anti woman.
I like what Miss Daisy wrote above about female Japanese warriors. Have you seen the new Japanese Samurai…..Grass Eaters or Herbivore Men. And the Japanese women are crying out for MEN.
Isaiah 3:13 – 4:1. We are there right now.
God Bless all of you. Have a great day.
LikeLike
Buck
“Read all the comments about men. You all hate men.”
Nah – wrong again. 🙂
I’m NOT hated… 🙂
I hang out here because “I feel loved.” Accepted, Appreciated, Respected.
Even when WE, His Sheep, His Disciples, dis-agree.
LikeLike
Buck: Sexual abuse and adultery are committed by both men and women. I don’t think anyone who comments here would argue against that. So, your point about this being a radical feminist site is not valid. We are not the She Woman Man Haters club here.
The stories that are written here mostly represent men because it is mostly men who are in ministry. The stories are written about pastors who are using their position wrongly. Think about the Catholic church’s sex abuse scandal. The stories revolve around priests – who happen to be men. Because women cannot be priests. Just the facts.
As a social worker who has worked with abused children, I know that women perpetrate abuse. I know that there are women who will not take responsibility for their actions. I know that women abuse their husbands. Unfortunately, that seems to be an under reported crime. It is sad. No matter who commits the abuse, it is sad.
LikeLike
As I looked at the picture again this morning, I had the old Sesame Street song go through my head (with a slight change):
One of these things is just like the others
One of these things fits right in
Can you tell which thing is like the others
By the time I finish my song?
LikeLike
“Buck speaks about other peoples spirits-his spirit is clearly seen in his posts and it is anti-woman.”
I do not understand this talk of “spirits” as if they are seperate from the actual human being. Are we trying seperate what some deem as bad to spirit but the actual person cannot help it? I don’t get it.
LikeLike
“All posts here are radical feminism.”
Please define radical feminism specifically.
I love men. I know quite a few who are fighting all forms of abuse and putting their money where their mouth is because all humans are of equal value to them. And they are man enough not to need someone to “submit” to them to feel manly.
I hate ALL abuse.
I think comp teaching can actually perpetuate abuse as I have seen over the last 20 years knee deep in that world of comp seminars, conferences, etc. Abusers love it because it affirms their status and they get to decide what is submissive or not. Most comp abusers are protected by their submissive wives so it can take years to come out whether it is emotional, mental or verbal abuse and there are no bruises..
Bruce Ware (Prof at SBTS) even taught on this at Denton Bible church years back. He said “unsubmissive wives” trigger abuse.
He has no idea what he is talking about because ANYTHING can trigger abuse. Any excuse will do. Just standing there can trigger abuse.
LikeLike
I worked at a University that was undergoing a union organizing drive. What the union does to get cards signed is to continue to chip away and bring to light every slight that management does, and does it with such a twist of victimhood that tugs at employees hearts. Unfortunately, I can say that usually there is no truth to the rhetoric, but if an employers disagrees they are viewed as interfering with an organizing drive and risk immediate certification of the union without the vote. So they remain silent. Nothing gets people going more than the viewpoint “that’s not fair”. I’m a victim.
The goal is to get the employees not to trust management, until their distrust in management gets just enough to sign a card. Management is trying to build a business, and the union wants power within that structure and is tearing down management, and trust. When they do get power , the have a grievance and arbitration process.
Wartburg Watch, and this site, is a complaint that airs Christian dirty laundry and hosts of grievances, without and real desire for a resolution procedure with management. All you want is the grievances…otherwise who would come here.
Yes, there are pastors that fail and there is failure in every business and at all levels of leadership. We are all sinners.
Christ is building His church. What you are doing is what a union does. Chipping away and tearing down the church, and posting every failure of pastors, that are men, and then blaming complimentarianism, which you view as Patriarchy, Patriarchy, on the result of sexual abuse.
What you are doing for many eyes to see, is satan’s work of tearing down the church where eventually people don’t trust the church, don’t trust pastors and there’s a sexual abuser in every pulpit, and the secular world gets to point at the church and say even those within are jaded. Like a union, when there is enough distrust of management, then they come to the union to look after them. That is when the union knows they “have them”. When they are freely choosing the union rather than trusting in management. This site, and the site of Wartburg Watch, is that mentality. Don’t trust management…don’t trust men in the pulpit. Trust us. Feminism. You are in the organizing drive for “soul cards”, and you are getting members.
This site is tearing down the church. Like proverbs 14.1. A wise woman builds her house, but a foolish one tears it down with her own hands.
There is a mason’s pick in all your hands chipping away at the house that God is building. You know Peter….patriarch.
There is a latent message underlying all your “egalitarian speak”, and it is the message that men are out and women need to be put in charge. Women want authority. They want the authority and are completely motivated by it. Women “can do it better” by demonstrating all the failures of “The Patriarchy”, but don’t look in our closet.
The pulpit is up for grabs; CBMW knows it, and you know it, and this site, like when I speak up, is not happy that CBMW is speaking up because feminism, satan, can smell victory just around the corner. So you go about trying to discredit CBMW by tearing it down and using the secular argument that has worked so well outside of church and in the world that you will use the same tool too. Feminist rhetoric. It’s not fair…the Board is men. It’s an old political and demonic strategy. Tear down what God is building.
It is a power struggle, make no mistake about it and this site is not doing God’s work. You are tearing the church down and chipping little chunks out, one by one.
The end product being that men will end up too fearful to step into leadership and the pulpit, the same way young men are too fearful to go to University. Statistics that all seem to be ignored. Women are all too enthusiastic to go after all things men and where men congregate. Men have no interest in going after all things women where they congregate. It’s even worse on the disparity of women to men in the mission field. Men are starting to do the same thing with marriage.
Put your efforts into building the church, The Bride, BTW.
LikeLike
Wow! Buck with each increasing comment of yours it shows your lack of being in touch with reality.
LikeLike
What the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals had to say about the views of certain tax protesters is an equally apt characterization of B. Thornton’s views, to wit:
“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.” Coleman v. C.I.R., 791 F.2d 68 at 69 (7th Cir. 1986).
LikeLike
Tom,
I was in a meeting at the highest levels of management in a University. There was me….and 35 women. We were in a training in Crucial Conversations, on how to manage crucial conversations well.
There were short videos where first you saw a poor exchange of a crucial conversation. Then the instructor would ask the room their thoughts.
In one video a man was having a discussion with an employee.
One of the high powered women in the room said “he needs to grow some b_ _ _ s.
Nobody in the room flinched. Except for me. Can you imagine if the situation was reversed and I made the same comment about a female body part – she’d get better results if _ _ _.
Where is the “patriarchy” when I am in a high level meeting in a University and I am the only male in the room.
My boss went AWOL. She was too important for the University to fire. She wasn’t coming to work, decided to turf her faithful husband who adored her, tore her family apart and put her employment at risk. I saw and knew what was going on. The VP started coming onto the floor at 9:30 each morning. I thought….he’s checking to see if she’s coming into work. She’s on the road to get fired.
He ended up firing her. She was clearly needing termination and frankly, was testing it. A female Dean stormed over to his office, without any knowledge or details of the situation, telling him he fired her just because she was a woman, and he hated women. Something that could not be further from the truth.
His response was I like women very much thank you.
What an attack and an attack on the VP’s character.
Wake up Tom. You’ve become obsolete.
LikeLike
Buck: Another totally irrelevant comment from you. This is my last comment to you–you are wasting my precious time with your nonsense.
LikeLike
http://biblehub.com/library/spurgeon/spurgeons_sermons_volume_3_1857/light_at_evening_time.htm
LikeLike
Buck, CBMW posted on their own site that it’s okay for women to be on the boards of parachurch organizations. They just appointed 2 more men to their board and there are 0% women represented at a parachurch organization that tells us what biblical manhood and womanhood look like. So evidently to them, women have no say in what biblical manhood and womanhood look like? Why is that? And now you are spouting off feminism?
LikeLike
@ Buck T.
You would have to label Jesus Christ himself as being a radical feminist, given your apparent interpretation of what a “radical feminist” is.
I think you have some unhealthy attitudes towards women.
I think you are under the impression that men have it worse in the world than women do. Not so.
I think you surmise that sometimes women are unfair, abusive, or mean to men – and that is true, some women are sometimes unkind to some men – but, you have allowed that point to morph into what appears to be a rage or hatred against all women.
Most of the commentators at this blog are evangelical or Reformed Christians, a few are atheists or agnostics. This is not the Jezebel site – Jezebel is mostly filled with true “radical feminists.”
I find it a little amusing that you’re accusing a bunch of mostly evangelical Christian participants (with one or two Reformed or agnostics) as being like extreme left wingers, when they are no such thing.
People on this blog are going to be a lot more restrained and civil in how they talk to you than they would over at “Jezebel.” At a site like Jezebel, you’d be getting lots of profanity strewn, vitriolic, snarky come-backs. I’ve only seen a few lukewarm snarky comments in this thread, which is still way toned down from the reaction you would get over at Jezebel.
I’m not a radical feminist. I’ve already stated several times I’m a social conservative and a right winger.
Christian gender egalitarians are not the same thing as radical feminists. You’re seemingly equating the two, which is false.
I disagree with secular feminism most of the time – however, as I’ve gotten older and more willing to listen to other people’s views with an open mind and really consider their positions, I have come to realize that the secular feminists on occasion make a good point about a few things.
And yes, we do live in a patriarchy. Most cultures from ancient times to now favor men, and men have all or most of the power.
Laws in this nation favored men for many years. It was legal in the USA for a husband to physically abuse his wife and to rape her, until the last couple of decades.
God predicted the rise of patriarchy in the book of Genesis, when he said one result of the Fall would be women desiring the protection and the care-taking of men and men abusing that desire by using it as an excuse to rule over women.
You said,
I don’t hate men.
I actually said in a post above that TO A POINT I am somewhat sympathetic with SOME of the complaints by some Christian men about how churches treat Christian single men.
You mentioned a male friend who was sexually abused by a woman when he was a child.
Nobody here would dispute that sometimes women do evil things or abuse people. That does happen sometimes. There was recently a news story about two teen girls who murdered their teen girl friend (the Slender Man murder case).
However, (speaking of American culture), men still abuse women more often than women abuse men. That is what stats show. Men abuse children more often than women do. That is another reality.
That is why experts on safety and child abuse tell kids “if you ever get separate from your mother in public, seek out a WOMAN for help”
– they don’t want the lost kid to approach a strange man, because their research finds that men are more likely to abuse a kid than a lady would.
From the American Bar Association (link to ABA page) – notice the numbers of women being killed or abused are higher than for men (I am assuming these are all heterosexual couples):
– In a 1995-1996 study conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime (based on survey of 16,000 participants, equally male and female).
– Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.
LikeLike
@ Buck T.
You also mentioned TWW (The Wartburg Watch) blog in your post. I think you’re angry at the people there, so you come over here to blow off steam. That is my impression.
There is some cross-over, in that some of the people who post here sometimes post over there. That is true.
I pretty much enjoy TWW, and there are some fine people over there, but – in case you have not paid attention, I don’t always agree with all the folks over there. Many of them are socially and politically very left wing in outlook, and I am not. I am right wing.
I have to duck out of some threads at TWW because the general consensus on some topics leads to a ganging up mentality there…
For example, I’m okay with YEC, but they mock YEC pretty regularly there.
I don’t have a huge problem with Christian bakers refusing to bake wedding cakes for homosexual weddings – neither of my stances on those topics (YEC and homosexuality) go over well there. I get shouted down by several people at a time on such threads if I speak up. It’s usually myself and maybe one or two others against five to ten other people.
I was apparently placed on permanent moderated status at TWW, shortly after I butted heads with a few people about a week or two ago who insist that SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) does not have a left wing agenda, and I said, oh yes. they most certainly do (and yes, they do), and you cannot trust all information that comes out of SPLC.
So I find it funny that you are kind of lumping me in with everyone else, when I have gotten into some pointed exchanges on some of these topics.
I do think the folks at TWW (and here on this blog) are correct that gender complementarianism is bogus, that it’s a cover for Christian males to consolidate power and authority in churches, and is nothing but sexism with biblical jargon glossed over it.
But on other topics, I don’t see eye to eye with all the people who post over there. I’m more right wing, and many of the regular posters there strike me as being very liberal or progressive (left wingers) on topics such as homosexuality.
LikeLike
(Part 1)
BT said,
Your view is in opposition to the Bible, in passages such as 1 Corinthians 5, which tells Christians to police other Christians and hold other Christians accountable.
Jesus Christ (and the apostle Paul) taught there would be false converts and wolves who pose as sheep to defraud the body of Christ and to teach false doctrine, and Jesus and Paul said Christians should be on the look out for them and expose them, not keep mum about them.
Secondly, you’re putting the cart before the horse.
People get hurt and abused by Christians, preachers, and churches, and then they seek out sites such as this one.
Most of the folks I have seen who visit this site (and TWW) do not come across these sites and then turn “anti church” as a result.
It’s the other way around: visitors to sites like this are already “anti church” in sentiment because they have been mistreated at prior churches they have attended, and then they go online to seek out validation and consolation from others who have endured the same abuse.
I have zero sympathy for churches, Christians or preachers who sexually or spiritually abuse people, and/or who cover up said abuse.
That you are siding with that and excusing it (and what, under the guise of unity or defending the church’s reputation?) is really awful.
BT said,
No, abusers are tearing down the church.
So too are the legalists or the antinomians, or the sexist, greedy, rude jerks, such as men who call themselves preachers (eg, Mark Driscoll). Those guys are giving Christianity a black eye, not the blogs that point it out.
I was already antagonistic towards Christians, going to church, and the faith itself before visiting this site and TWW. One of the slender threads that is keeping me holding on to the Christian faith at all are seeing bloggers, such as the TWW ladies or Julie Anne here, who report on the abuse.
I think reporting on the abuse is in a way a solution against it. Churces are being pressured to act now and protect people. I think it was easier for preachers to be abusive before the advent of the internet.
LikeLike
(part 2)
BT said,
Nope. That is mis-stating the egalitarian position and their motivation.
I get the feeling you have never actually read Christian gender egalitarian sites, or books or blogs, such as CBE ( “Christians for Biblical Equality”). You have a very skewed understanding of egalitarians and what they believe.
Jesus said that his followers should not lord authority over one another.
However, gender complementarian teachings tell men that they should and ought to exercise authority over women and bar women from using their God given talents at teaching, preaching, and leading.
And women in fact are prohibited from authority, leadership, or teaching positions in many churches today – only MEN are permitted to work as preachers or teachers in Southern Baptist churches, Reformed, fundamentalist, and evangelical churches. That is a fact.
Egalitarians are simply asking for equal space at the table, and to be allowed to practice their gifts, and to stop the “men should always be in power over women” shtick.
You’re very dishonest, BT. You really go out of your way to intentionally misconstrue other people’s views but get all hypocritical at being branded an MRA. You don”t like the MRA label for yourself but don’t hesitate to label others as “radfems” or as wanting all authority.
A parallel to this would be like if most churches taught that black people should not be allowed to be teachers, leaders, or preachers, only whites should hold those roles.
And you would come on to this blog screaming about how black Christians wanting to be allowed also to serve as leaders and teachers along with white people is tantamount to black people wanting all authority or being “rad-black-powerists” who have been influenced by secular culture.
Way to twist things around there, BT.
God did not build CBMW. CBMW is apparently a propaganda tool by Christian males who are insecure, want to get donations form folks, and they – males – want to say in total control. CBMW is about excluding women.
Gender complementarianism has not been informed by the Bible but by secular culture, especially 1950s American secular culture.
BT said,
“the same way young men are too fearful to go to University”
Citation for that (links to some credible articles), please? I’ve yet to see any article that says men are “fearful” to attend University.
I do, however, see articles that women are out-performing men at Uni and choosing to attend more so than males.
A few gains by women in some areas of life does not mean that women have all of life hunky-dory, however, as there are still roadblocks against women by men in society.
Most articles I’ve seen on these issues about university attendance and performance say that many young males are content to sit at home on Mom’s sofa playing X-box video games all day.
That is their choice; women are not forcing them to do that. (I’d actually say that is most likely due to “helicopter parenting.”) Sour grapes on your part – it’s not a feminist plot to take over the world.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
I inserted a link to a Spurgeon sermon. I noticed he mentioned at Oxford, 6 men that were kicked out for being too Godly, who then changed everything at the time. 6 men…..that’s quite a board of men.
I don’t know all the men on the CBMW board and I am not a member of CBMW so I do not speak for them. I am familiar with some of the stuff of one of the newest board members over the last year in his new role. Some good…some not so good.
Leadership is tough and although from the outside I raise an eyebrow at some of his decisions, I can tell you being in a position of authority what is seen from the outside is often not the real story. I have known a lot went into decisions I’ve been involved in that the community did not know, could not know, yet the University community demanded “transparency”, but the University can not share or breach legal confidentiality for all involved. And I’m not talking about non disclosure statements. Some things people just don’t have the right to know and some things are just plain private, or law. Sometimes transparency is going to cause those close to the situation a lot of pain…or a lot more pain because of the disclosure than they are already experiencing, only to find themselves the talk of blog chopping them to pieces. Do you not think that perhaps comments to Owen Strachen, that he is drunk, as is written above, is not hurtful ? C’mon.
Historically men have politically held positions of authority yet have made many decisions to benefit women, to the detriment of men. The family court system is completely lopsided against men, and the decisions to do that were made by: Men.
Do you really think, even though the Board is all male, that there is no input from Christian women of what biblical womanhood should look like. Do you really think any of the wives of these men haven’t had something to say about this ?
Why is everything that is lopsided male, total injustice for the simple fact there are no women. I work in HR. Dr. Helen Smith mentions in her book that HR is something like 93 % female. Where is the outrage. I have been afraid to open my mouth due to hostile environments to my own employment for the simple fact I am totally outnumbered, and it is laughed off that if you did, it would be a CLM. Career liming move.
One of the bloggers above mentioned the lopsided numbers of women in University compared to men and said it with such pride. It’s almost 65-35 and growing. In social services in Canada it is one male employee in 10 . Where is the outrage for such lopsidedness. I have read job descriptions posted on job boards that write in the job description state: the applicant must agree and align with the feminist mindset. Can you imagine a job description that said the applicant must agree and line up with the Patriarchy ?
Or how about complaint under Title IX that disclose the names of the accused, but not the accuser. Where is the demand for “transparency” to name the accuser. There are laws to these things.
How about this all female board and their decision regarding a 5 year old boy.
http://womenformen.org/2014/07/03/the-naturally-all-female-board-that-accused-a-5-year-old-boy-of-sexual-misconduct
The church has long been held as male headship. Why are you so surprised that the board is men. Maybe women don’t even want to get on the board because they will be slaughtered by other women, even if the bylaws lets them be board members.
If I was a woman, I don’t think for the safety of my family I would put myself at that risk by getting on the board.
Women who want to be housewives are eviscerated for being such by feminism. Could it be women don’t want to join the board, therefore sitting ducks to the hostility and bullying of: other women. The same women who are complaining there is no female representation, who was a brave enough woman to do so, and then be chopped to pieces like you do to Nancy Leigh DeMoss, for joining the board.
Think you are sticking up for sisters by getting on the board, only to be betrayed by the sisterhood for joining the Board.
It’s a lose lose for the woman.
LikeLike
BT said,
BT said,
Women who want to be housewives are eviscerated for being such by feminism.
That is true. I have been on secular feminist blogs where the secular feminists “bad mouth” and mock women who are stay at home wife and mothers.
HOWEVER – many Christians today are equally bad but in the reverse direction, in that gender complementarian Christians are anti-Single Woman, and anti- Childless woman.
Despite the Bible says that God is fine with adults being childless and single, many Southern Baptist, Reformed, fundamentalist, and evangelical churches speak disrespectfully about adult singleness (by both genders, they are anti single males *AND* anti single females).
Many churches have turned marriage and parenthood into idols.
Women who by choice or circumstance (like me) are still single and childless in their 30s, 40s, and older get either IGNORED or SHAMED by Christians – more so than Christian males who are still single and childless in their 40s.
We ladies get hit ten times harder to be mommies than men do to be fathers. Women are constantly barraged with “Why don’t you have any babies” or “when are you going to have a baby” questions. Men RARELY get slammed with the “baby” questions as women do.
Single women are repeatedly told in Christian material that our most or only godly role in life is to marry and have a baby.
Those of us who never marry and/or who never have a kid are treated like dirt in evangelical Christianity.
So, while some secular feminists do indeed speak disrespectfully against motherhood and marriage, many conservative Christians have put marriage and motherhood on a pedestal that they bow down to and worship.
One result is that women who are childless, childfree, infertile, divorced, widowed, or never-married are insulted or marginalized by conservative Christians.
LikeLike
BT said,
As I believe I pointed out above about this:
I said above that even if CBMW had a female – a token female representative on their council – it wouldn’t amount to anything.
Why?
Because in their theology (gender complementarian), a lone man’s view counts even more than ten women’s views put together.
Secondly, a woman who is a gender complementarian is obviously most of the time going to agree with everything the male members say. How is she not? She’s going to be pressured in to agreeing with the “party position,” which is (unbiblical) that males should have authority over females.
A female on a CBMW board is just a mouth piece, a show piece to make it appear as though women are included, when in reality, they have no real power or input. That is my opinion.
Re: sisterhood.
By the way, one falsehood of secular feminists that they hold to (and you appear to hold to it as well, the irony!) is that all women are supposed to agree with and support all other women all the time, in spite of disagreements, on every topic under the sun.
I think I consider myself an individual, a human being, first and foremost, before I consider myself a woman, or before thinking of myself in terms of gender.
Ergo, when I see moronic, horrible, or weird opinions or remarks by secular feminists on issues (and sometimes, secular feminists do indeed hold some very wrong or wonky views), I do not feel inclined to agree with them just because I am a woman.
LikeLike
Miss Daisy,
I know all the arguments. I have read the sites. I met a lady a little while ago and thought finally, a good one. I purposely mentioned headship on the phone to see the response. We met for supper, and she brought out a book written by her mentor: Gender or Giftedness. “God put me in your life to convert you”, she said. Insisted I read it.
I did. 54…never been married. Where are the men, she said. I’ve never been snatched up.
She had an MDIV she did 20 something years ago. Did all her essays with the Egalitarian agenda.
Told me she felt sorry I was taking such a hard line on Complimentarianism and that I was to blame for the relationship not going forward when I told her I was ending it. I told her she could lay her Egalitarian agenda down, but that she was equally (equality) being just as strong in her position as I was in mine. I left it at that. I did not try to convert her as I realized she has been writing on this for 20 something years. She let a relationship die even though she really wanted to continue dating me. She’s 54….never married….desperate for a man….and back looking.
As much as women want to tell a man how he should think, we still get to choose who we ask to marry. I love women. I loved the woman from my original post here very much and would lay my life down for her, have done so and she knows it. But she didn’t want love. She wanted to continue hating, and fearing men. Just like she’s been taught.
LikeLike
Nobody disputes that some women can be rotten to males sometimes, but overall, in a systematic sense, men make all the rules in American culture, the hold all the cards. American culture favors males.
Miss Daisy. You have to be kidding me. Did you watch or read anything in the public forum when the Patriarch of Duck Dynasty spoke out in December.
Patriarchy is dead. You are singing I’m Henry the 8th I am, 2nd verse, just like the first when someone wrote a 2nd verse eons ago. Egalitarianism, LGBTQ and those that control the media, who are in agreement with that agenda, is politically correct and in.
LikeLike
One result is that women who are childless, childfree, infertile, divorced, widowed, or never-married are insulted or marginalized by conservative Christians.
I am divorced. See my original post about a single woman, never married, would never ever get involved with me because I was a dirty divorced person.
LikeLike
@ Buck.
You seem to be suggesting that her egalitarianism is what was keeping her single?
Nope. Not buying it.
I was a gender complementarian up to my mid or late 30s, had old fashions morals, and I was still single.
Being a gender comp woman does not guarantee a woman a spouse.
Men such as yourself frequently CLAIM to want a gender comp woman, but you do not date them.
(I now realize when men such as you say they want a gender comp woman, you don’t want an equal partner to share life with, what you mean is that you want a subordinate doormat to take orders from you.)
I read a book by Christians, and another by a secular author. One was a therapist, one was a lay expert at bullying.
The therapist said in all her years (20 or more) of treating troubled marriages, the only men who ever trotted out the “wife submit to the man” thing from Ephesians were the emotionally or physically abusive husbands.
I believe Lundy Bancroft (expert at abusive husbands, he counsels them) said in his book on the topic of domestic violence that religious clients of his – men who abuse their wives – also typically hide behind Bible verse that talk about a wife submitting to their husbands.
The fact that you would bring “headship” up on a date with a woman tells me you are quite possibly selfish, controlling, or abusive.
That a man would be so obsessed with the issue of who is in “charge” or in “authority” or who gets “final say so” in a relationship is a red flag of danger that the man is abusive and/or highly selfish.
Jesus said you are not to be concerned with authority and lording authority over others. Your “headship” to a woman means you serve her, as Christ served the church.
LikeLike
I have to duck out of some threads at TWW because the general consensus on some topics leads to a ganging up mentality there…
Yah…here too.
LikeLike
Buck said,
“Miss Daisy. You have to be kidding me. Did you watch or read anything in the public forum when the Patriarch of Duck Dynasty spoke out in December.”
——————————————-
I do not believe that had anything to do with partriarchy vs. feminism.
If that was the incident the media went crazy about where Duck Dynasty guy spoke out against homosexuality (among other behaviors the Bible deems sin), that was a case of liberal Americans ticked off hearing a conservative Christian talk about biblical values, it was not about culture stripping power away from a man.
Mr. Duck man was not being beat up on for being a man, but for holding to and voicing conservative Christian views.
Bible values and patriarchy are not the same topic. You are mixing apples and oranges.
I don think Duck man is a bit sexist and patriarchal though, because in other videos, he has made terribly sexist, perverted comments that grown men should marry 16 yer old girls.
LikeLike
Buck, I feel for ya, buddy. You need help. Honestly. Your attitude is your problem. I’m writing in short sentences so you’ll be able to follow. Here’s a few pointers:
1. Learn to spell. (especially your favourite word on here)
2. Learn to write coherent sentences.
3. Lose your hate-on for women. (you’ve obviously got love confused . .. ?)
Sincerely,
a radical feminist
LikeLike
Buck – – What we have going on here is people mirroring back the attitudes/biases that they see you displaying. Sadly, you are seeing the responses, but instead of looking at yourself and making correction, you blameshift – it’s everybody else’s problem. When so many people are telling you the same thing (both here and TWW), perhaps it’s time to take a closer looks, step back and re-read your comments and see what people are talking about. Group feedback is a great way to get a reality check into how our behavior affects people. It’s a great tool if you want to accept it and use it.
LikeLike
“Wartburg Watch, and this site, is a complaint that airs Christian dirty laundry and hosts of grievances, without and real desire for a resolution procedure with management.
Since you stated this in such a matter of fact manner, could you prove this please?
(And, btw, still waiting for an answer to the Nancy Leigh DeMoss is a wonderful, godly woman question I have as to how, for a fact, you can possibly know that?
“All you want is the grievances…otherwise who would come here.”
Please prove that all the readers here want are the “grievances.”
“What you are doing for many eyes to see, is satan’s work of tearing down the church where eventually people don’t trust the church, don’t trust pastors and there’s a sexual abuser in every pulpit, and the secular world gets to point at the church and say even those within are jaded.”
“…the church…” Tearing down what church? The churches that are spiritually abusive? Good,,,tear them down. I support that.
“…people don’t trust the church…” ? What on earth are you talking about? A building? A denomination? How does one trust the church? For what?
“…don’t trust pastors…” Trust is earned. If a pastor is not willing to be transparent, why should anyone trust him?
“This site is tearing down the church. Like proverbs 14.1. A wise woman builds her house, but a foolish one tears it down with her own hands.”
Julie Anne…I bet you had no idea this blog had such power.
If you felt TWW and SSB are tools of satan doing satan’s work, why didn’t you reveal that in your first comment here? What do you hope to accomplish at such God-forsaken blogs?
LikeLike
Buck said:
“Chipping away and tearing down the church, and posting every failure of pastors, that are men, and then blaming complimentarianism, which you view as Patriarchy, Patriarchy, on the result of sexual abuse.”
Wrong. It’s called pruning, getting rid of the bad apples, removing the yeast, etc.
Those are righteous actions, to call out and JUDGE the pastors who preach false doctrines, and I don’t care who gets upset at being called out. On judgment day, Jesus has the last word.
If it takes a man to save people, the God is out of the salvation business. No one NEEDS a pastor, or a preacher. Case in point…The Bereans. All they needed was scripture, in order to make sure that what they were being told was true, or false. They had a mind of their own. They decided. Scripture is our food, it is our bread. Our gathering together on Sunday has nothing to do with elders, deacons, pastors or preachers micromanaging the lives of a married couple. Just READ the scripture. Discipleship is mentoring, not ordering. It isn’t about making sure that all married couples live their lives according to how YOU think they should. Let them decide.
I am a man, and I bash the men who control women, thinking that somehow that this is what the Bible tells them to do.
Oh, and my daughter is in the military. I used to be in the military. I think that women should be able to do anything that they want, just like men.
And, I notice that you do a lot of women blaming, all the while stating the we on this blog do a lot of men bashing. You failed to blame the man that was with the woman. Why? You only blamed the woman. Why?
There is major misnomers in the interpretations of what Paul was discussing about wives.
Lastly, I’m quite sure that you are oh, so hot on the word “obedience”, well, under the New Test, the word “obedience” takes on a different connotation.
In the New Test, we are to be obedient to the law of faith, not the law of Moses. Under the law of faith, there is only one commandment, and that is to love thy neighbor as yourself. So why all the crazy teachings about men roles and women roles, when Paul states that in Christ there is no men or women? We are all one. What sex is left after that? Transgender? Hmmmm.
Also,
Hebrews 13:17 (KJV)
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Who has rule over me? What is it meant to submit to this person that has rule over me?
When I was a kid, the old saying was, Respect your ELDERS. Why? Who are my ELDERS? The saying had nothing to do with church. Just those who were OLDER than me. But why do I need to respect those who are older than me?
Because they have LIVED LIFE. That is the ONLY reason. That means that they are WISE. Elders give WISE ADVICE, called WISDOM. They do not order anyone around, or micromanage their lives.
Obeying a person that you have respect for is not due to a position that they hold, but it is because they have lived life.
Lordship is against the rules, according to Jesus. I’ve heard it said that the leaders are aware of that, so they call themselves “servant leaders”. Really? Does that mean that the rest of us in the congregation are “leader servants”?
What I am trying to get at, is nothing more than what the tea-party people want. Get the government out of our business. Get the church out of our business. Let people live their lives based on their own conscience, based on how they read scripture. Remember the Declaration of Independence?
Ed
LikeLike
Seems to me all these men wanting to impose all these roles on women are overlooking what Jesus had to say about doing to others as they would want done to themselves.
LikeLike
Buck, what was your father like? How did he treat your mother? Just trying to figure out where you’re coming from.
LikeLike
Who KNOWS what ingredients make up a misogynist, Gary?
LikeLike
Carmen, one possibility is that misogynistic men, having a repressed recognition that women are endowed with greater glory than men, have fallen into a vindictive, retaliatory mindset–for which they invent biblical justification.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
I am on a blog site that is totally egalitarian. What is being mirrored back is Egalitarian thought. Nothing more than that and I go in with open eyes.
Nobody on this site is going to agree with complimentarian thought, or anyone who backs up CBMW. That is a given.
If you Julie Anne, were to go over to blog on CBWM, what would be mirrored back to you is Complimentarian thought, and you would feel and sense the site is not in agreement with you.
Because the people there are like minded. You have removed yourself far from them, but blog away from a distance.
As far as this line in your blog and brought up again, just above: So why all the crazy teachings about men roles and women roles, when Paul states that in Christ there is no men or women? We are all one. What sex is left after that?
That line is the golden idol of Egalitarianism and taken totally out of context of what Paul is talking about. How Egalitarian thought thinks it can stand on this line I do not know but it seems to have bought enough into that thought who like it as it works for them.
How about this one, while twisting scripture out of context. Would be quite the stand alone piece of scripture:
Revelation 14
These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. 5 No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.
Hmm. I could have a lot of fun twisting that one out of context to my purposes now, couldn’t I. Look look look. Having relations with any woman is defilement.
LikeLike
Under the law of faith, there is only one commandment, and that is to love thy neighbor as yourself.
There are 3 commandments. Love God. Love your neighbour. Love each other.
Those are righteous actions, to call out and JUDGE the pastors who preach false doctrines, and I don’t care who gets upset at being called out. On judgment day, Jesus has the last word.
Jesus will have the last word. Your final destination is a Patriarchy. Take your complaints up about his lop sided Board of Men
LikeLike
Buck said:
“That line is the golden idol of Egalitarianism and taken totally out of context of what Paul is talking about. ”
Yep…that’s the default comp talk, that it’s taken out of context. Not buying what you are selling.
Revelation 14 is discussing Jewish people, not anyone else but Jewish people. I’ve had this debate many a times before, as I am pre-trib, which leaves the Jewish people, 144000 of them behind, and they get raptured later, prior to Armageddon, as Armageddon is chapter 16, and where are these virgins in chapter 14?
Not sure what your point is in regards to Rev 14. There is ONLY ONE way for a man to defile himself with a woman, and that is to fornicate.
However, you failed to respond to anything that I stated. Why? Your default “out of context” line doesn’t work for me. Why? Because I say the same thing to you in regards to your take on the same verse about no male or female. Your take is out of context. I disagree with you, you disagree with me. And your side states that this is a salvation issue, which forces you to believe your side of it out of FEAR of MAN. YOUR salvation is at stake. Ours is already secure, out of FREEDOM in Christ.
Ed
LikeLike
I love it when Ed gets on his high horse.
LikeLike
Buck,
You state that there are three commandments? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Love your neighbor as yourself is the ROYAL LAW, and that is the ONLY law.
We SHOW that we love God BY OUR DEED OF LOVING our neighbor as ourselves. That is in the book of 1 John.
Loving people is the SAME AS “love thy neighbor as yourself”.
You are funny, dude!
Ed
LikeLike
One thing about it Buck, with your attitude – you won’t be defiling yourself any time soon. ..
LikeLike
Julie,
If you were to go over to blog at CBMW, and write your material as you have here, this would be the response they would give to you there:
Julie – – What we have going on here is people mirroring back the attitudes/biases that they see you displaying. Sadly, you are seeing the responses, but instead of looking at yourself and making correction, you blameshift – it’s everybody else’s problem. When so many people are telling you the same thing ), perhaps it’s time to take a closer looks, step back and re-read your comments and see what people are talking about. Group feedback is a great way to get a reality check into how our behavior affects people. It’s a great tool if you want to accept it and use it.
You would receive the same argument you just provided. Group feedback from a bunch of Complimentarians would let you see the light of the error of your view.
Like the message you are trying to convey- why can’t you just agree on Egalitarianism from our critique of you.
Why can’t you just agree with Complimentarianism, which lines up with scripture which egalitarianism does not.
At no point have I ever said Complimentarianism is Lording it over anybody, or ruling over a wife, or making her submit to all my way and the highway.
That is NOT complimentarianism. That is again, twisting what complimentarianism stands for.
The very fact alone that the comp message is being twisted by egalitarian thougth, let alone the scriptures being twisted is reason alone not to line up with it.
LikeLike
Julie Ann,
Isn’t CBMW one of the places they don’t allow you to post comments? I’m thinking one of the proofs of the correctness of your views is that they quite easily survive the attacks of people like Buck. One of the proofs of the weakness of the views of CBMW and its ilk is that they have to censor you. If they cannot control the narrative their ideas must utterly fail.
LikeLike
Buck,
Well, since Comp is not in the Bible, we have nothing to worry about here, now do we? Do a word search. It’s not there.
And, you don’t have to define it…it’s already been defined FOR you, by people who rule over you.
Ed
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
Apologies for leaving the final e off your name in my previous post, and just as I was about to take Buck to Task for not using your correct name. Embarrassing.
LikeLike
Carmen,
You had said to Buck:
“One thing about it Buck, with your attitude – you won’t be defiling yourself any time soon. ..”
My response:
I wouldn’t be so sure of that. Jesus shows that you can be guilty by just lusting, which requires no action…just thinking it makes one guilty. Jesus shows that evil comes from the heart, not the deed. The deed just confirms our heart.
Ed
LikeLike
Buck,
What I said to Carmen above is the REASON that I call Comps “hypocrites”. They can talk the talk, but refuse to walk the walk. That is what the Pharisees were all about. Putting burdens on people that they couldn’t do themselves. Remember Bin Laden? He preached against pornography, and when he was killed, he had a stash of porn mags. You religious people never cease to amuse me. Blame the woman, take no responsibility.
Ed
LikeLike
Ed, it seems there is reason to believe that an appallingly large percentage of so called pastors regularly view pornography. It would be interesting to know how the percentages of pornography-viewing pastors compare as between those who espouse patriarchy, complementarianism and egalitarianism, respectively. I don’t suppose we’ll ever know, but I have my suspicions. A pastor who dishonors women in one area of life likely dishonors them at every turn.
LikeLike
carmen
July 8, 2014 @ 2:32 PM
One thing about it Buck, with your attitude – you won’t be defiling yourself any time soon. ..
Carmen: if I so chose, I could allow myself to be defiled any day of the week, any hour of the day. While you may think you are funny, and get you little chuckle, it is not a laughing matter. A man does not even have to go looking for it. All he needs to do is nod his head like he agrees with her, and if she thinks she’s in control, then that’s all it takes. You played by the rules, you’ll get some for complying.
He/ I can have all he/ I want/s. We live in a sad world. Maybe that is why it is included at the end of the bible in revelation. It is so freely offered to men. The man that is not defiled is the man that has learned to say no to a woman, especially when he has every opportunity to say yes but has chosen to have the strength to say no.
So Carmen, have your chuckle – You think I won’t be defiled anytime soon because I won’t nod my head yes.
I have news for you Carmen.
You won’t learn this from any Egalitarian or Comp blog, but this is the reality. Even if this offends you it does not change the truth of it.
I can tell you from personal experience, too many times to tell, and I had to learn it when I learned to say no. You have to get to that point. Just like Revelation 14.
Strong men of God scare women.
It doesn’t happen , until you grow a pair that are not in “her” hands. Go to wall street in NYC. Stand at the bull at Wall and Broadway and watch. You’ll see exactly what I’m talking about. Like the stock market, it’s bull or bear.
This is for message for you Gary. Free wisdom buddy, no charge, from and elder living a life.
If you say no to sex to a woman/ wife, she will be furious. She will demand it from you and it will not be pretty, or seductive. It wil lbe downright defiling. Yes, you read that correctly. Demand and ORDER you to give it to her. If she does not have that control over you, then her power is lost.
That is the spirit of Egalitarianism. To have the power OVER men. Complimentarianism scares them, because it comes with male power of spirit.
Not just me. I’ve had my share of testimonies of Christian men that were physically assaulted, had their vehicles scratched up, kicked out of the house and marriages ended, because she lost her power OVER her husband.
Deuteronony 28:13.
Poor poor Samson. Thought he was a strongman. Remember what Delilah said: you don’t love me. Went straight to his heart because he did. And she knew he did.
All the while she was scheming against him to bring him down.
That is Egalitarianism.
LikeLike
Yes, Ed. Poor widdle ole Buck – he’s just SO misunderstood. Get your violins out, folks. . .
Gary, you have it bang on. As Ed and others have been trying to tell Buck, it’s all about respect. He’ll never get it; misogynists never do.
LikeLike
Gary,
Another word that I have for Patriarchy is “anarchist”. That’s why they advocate for homeschooling, uneducated daughters, barefoot and pregnant wives, no form of professional counseling, no military, etc. The more that they can keep isolated from the “world”, due to religious reasons, it’s all a set up for keeping secret the sins that abuse others. All men have to do is tell these “silly” uneducated women that God said so, and they buy it, hook, line, and sinker. I feel sorry for those who believe that God said so.
LikeLike
Carmen,
Will this violin do?
LikeLike
Buck states:
“The man that is not defiled is the man that has learned to say no to a woman,”
My response:
And yet, in your patriarchy circles, the woman has no choice to to say yes to the man. Get real, Buck…buck up!
You make it sound like your are God’s gift to women, that they just can’t resist you, that you must fight ’em off, like with body guards, or something, as if you were Elvis Presley. Dude, I’ll bet you are not that good looking!
Blame yourself for the lust that you have for those women, instead of blaming them for being beautiful, that you have a hard time not lusting. If you were a real man, you would be humble instead of bragging.
Ed
LikeLike
Haven’t yet read through all posts on here since I last posted. I might come back and read those posts later and comment.
Just thought I’d post a link or two I saw in the meantime…
Male Scientist Writes of Life as Female Scientist
An excerpt or two from that page:
It goes on and on like that, where the person who now presents himself as a male (Barres) discusses the prejudices he used to face while he used to present himself as a woman.
Barres basically demonstrates that men in American culture, and their comments and views, are usually afforded much more automatic respect than women and women’s comments, and that men do not get interrupted as much as women, etc.
LikeLike
Owen Strachan says…
“If not your gender and sexuality, what is the gospel for?”
(1: 54 mark)
I guess only for salvation CBMW stule. He goes on to loosely tie salvation with complemetarianism.
Oh, and awesome news! At the 7: 11 mark he says the following:
“If we never receive another dollar we will continue to publish whatever we can on line because we are needed. Not for our own sake, but because churches like yours commissioned us to speak truth on these contested issues.”
Fantastic!!! No need for anyone to send in their hard earned money for the new partnership program at CBMW–Stand Against the Tide. About SATT-
“Greetings—my name is Owen Strachan. As CBMW President, it’s my pleasure to introduce the summer 2014 “Stand Against the Tide” campaign. I’m delighted to announce that we have a $25,000 matching offer on the table and, on this invigorating occasion, are inaugurating our brand-new partnership program, which includes the opportunity to join CBMW for a leadership retreat in a coastal locale (see below).”
(Stand Against the Tide: An Opportunity to Partner with CBMW CBMW website)
Wow–nice, coastal scenery AND leadership all in one? Help me resist…
LikeLike
Geez, Buck – that little diatribe of yours (above) certainly illustrated many of the points the commenters have articulated in this thread – good on ya, mate!
It might really blow you away, Buck, to realize that most women (and many men!) do not want to trade one power over another; in fact, we’d like a complete paradigm shift. You know, like how about we all have equal rights, respect and opportunities?? It’s a tough one to wrap your head around, I know. . .
LikeLike
Another:
10 Simple Words Every Girl Should Learn by S. Chemaly
LikeLike
Diane,
“Owen Strachan says…
“If not your gender and sexuality, what is the gospel for?”
(1: 54 mark)”
It’s really funny that they always look at the flesh (Genitals), whereas Jesus is always talking about looking at the spirit. The flesh profits nothing…the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak, etc., etc.
The gospel is for the spirit, not the flesh. The flesh dies, the spirit is eternal. Spirit hath not flesh and blood. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
Where do they come up with the gospel is for gender and sexuality?
Ed
LikeLike
Buck, you seem to be addressing me when you say, “This is for message for you Gary. Free wisdom buddy, no charge, from and elder living a life.”
Huh? I wonder if you could rephrase that, only using coherent intelligible sentences this time. I have no idea what you are trying to communicate.
LikeLike
I already tried to tell him that, Gary but I should have known he wouldn’t take advice from a woman. . . .and a radical (even RABID!) feminist, at that. The horror!
LikeLike
Also, Buck, I’m still waiting to hear about what kind of man your father was/is. How did/does he treat your mother? Hopefully in a manner that was/is more respectful than the attitudes you exhibit toward women! Still, maybe you are only following your father’s example, in which case we could at least understand a bit better where you’re coming from.
LikeLike
I dunno, Carmen. To my way of thinking you have to be rabidly anti-men to qualify as a radical feminist, and you don’t come across as being any such thing. On the other hand, Buck seems to think that anybody who opposes his views on gender and faith is anti-men. So, by Buck’s lights, you and I are both radical feminists. Well, so be it. In that case I’m a radical feminist and proud of it.
LikeLike
All I want to know is this: did anyone watch that violin video I posted? I was ROFL!!! But I’m good at entertaining myself.
LikeLike
Buck said: “If you say no to sex to a woman/ wife, she will be furious. She will demand it from you and it will not be pretty, or seductive. It wil lbe downright defiling. Yes, you read that correctly. Demand and ORDER you to give it to her. If she does not have that control over you, then her power is lost.That is the spirit of Egalitarianism. To have the power OVER men.”
Buck, that’s just f****ed up. (Sorry Julie Anne and anyone offended by that. I only curse when necessary.) Really and truly. Anybody who demands sex is an abuser. Demanding sex is in no way the spirit of egalitarianism. Even though I don’t agree with complimentarianism, I would never stoop so low to suggest that’s how those relationships work. I believe that you are mistaking abusive relationships for loving ones – no matter how that relationship works.
Even though we didn’t communicate much with each other on here, I really tried to be open minded with you and see things from your perspective. You crossed the line with me with this sick twist.
LikeLike
Yes, that tiny violin will do Julie Anne! Thank you for bringing down my blood pressure a bit.
LikeLike
Too cute, Julie Anne! The first time I tried to watch it there was no arrow. ha, ha!
LikeLike