Almost Heretical, Women in the Church, Gender Roles in the Church
***
If you believe that God designed hierarchy between husband and wife, that husbands are “over” women, and only women submit to men, not the other way around. I encourage you to listen to this podcast series.
The above used to be what I believed. I didn’t care for it, but I accepted it as God’s way because that is what I was taught and what the Bible seemed to say. There are church groups/pastors who listen to other leaders, listen to traditions of their church’s denomination, give credence to translations of the Bible by all-male translators. In adhering to those church traditions and interpretations, women have been silenced and limited in what they can do and say in the church and in their marriages.
I used to have a hard time reading Paul’s letters (Ephesians, Colossians, etc), because of how it seemed he also limited women and put restrictions on them.
Now, after doing a lot more reading from Biblical scholars, professors of theology, I have challenged what was taught to me.
I never saw Jesus limiting women in the Bible. He elevated women. Always. Now, after looking through a different lens of interpretation, I see that Paul has also done the same. The verses in which I thought Paul was limiting women, I now believe the opposite. This has been life-changing for me, and has brought a new love for Christ and His message for the Body of Christ.
This is a great podcast to listen to if you are interested in challenging yourself in this area. Don’t let the name of the podcast, Almost Heretical, turn you off. It’s just a couple of guys who have challenged some of the teachings that have left a sour taste in their mouths. Nate Hanson and Tim Ritter are former pastors who understand spiritual abuse, the harm done to Christian women, and want to show that you don’t have to “do” Christianity in a way that conflicts with your heart. I think many in my reading audience will be able to resonate with their messages.
Listen here: Almost Heretical Series on Gender
Spiritual Sounding Board 
I started on this podcast a couple weeks ago and really appreciate their work. It will to soon be on my church’s recommended podcast list!
LikeLiked by 1 person
On the upcoming podcast, I along with 3 other women were asked to participate in a panel discussing the series.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are transcripts available?
LikeLike
I haven’t heard of any, HUG.
LikeLike
JA, I am glad to hear that. They noted in the podcast that as two men they felt awkward talking about patriarchy without hearing women’s voices as well. Good to hear they intend to walk the talk.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The only one of the podcasts I have listened to was the one on veils. Basically they were referencing the relevant chapter of Cynthia Westfall’s book Paul and Gender, which going by the reviews of it I have read of it is likely to be the standard text book if you want a well-argued statement of the egalitarian interpretation of Paul.
LikeLike
Truly amazing that there are people who can interpret one of the early misogynists as an egalitarian. * smh *
LikeLike
I’m loving these podcasts! Thanks for recommending them JA!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Carmen:
Maybe he WAS in comparison to what was Normal at the time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not buying it, HUG.
All one has to do is read the text. Sugarcoating by interpreting something else entirely is desperation, in my opinion.
LikeLike
The podcast was posted today, Loren. I haven’t listened to it yet.
BTW, I’m on my second day of driving from Chicago to WA state, so comments stuck in moderation might be stuck longer than normal.
LikeLike
Women are not -ABOVE- God’s laws….ie. the first five books of the bible.
The 600+ laws are not meant to HARM women (as extreme patriarchy wants) but to protect INNOCENT women and put the “Jezabel” in her place…….
1Ti_1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
Heb_10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
It is my personal opinion and belief that Nazi Germany situations would never have happened had people (men and women) actually accumulated and absorbed the first five books of the bible in a practical and realistic sense. Look up “nazi women” of Germany. Those were not good women. AT ALL.
LikeLike
Anongrace, the only lawful use of the law is as a tutor to bring one to Christ, I.e., you try to follow it, realize it’s impossible and understand the saving grace of Christ which delivers us from law and makes us stand upon faith and faith alone. If you think trying to follow the law would have changed the outcome of Nazi Germany, then you have not read or understood the outcome of the Old Testament. Law does not and cannot make human beings righteous.
LikeLike
Carmen, there is evidence that Paul’s original words were skewed by misogynistic translators in much the same way that Wayne Grudem recently privileged himself to change the wording in Genesis 3 to reflect his own bias. If this is so, then we may have misjudged the actual man to accuse him of misogyny.
LikeLiked by 1 person
anongrace, “Women are not -ABOVE- God’s laws….ie. the first five books of the bible.”
So, you want to bring back polygamy, then?
LikeLike
Shy1: Have you read “the law”…….it requires people to stop xyz and to do xyz. Of course we cannot fulfill it on our own terms, nor should we ever try. Especially if we KNOW we have Jewish family members (immediate and extended family included)! Yikes! I would never want to encourage family male or female to commit xyz acts in personal domestic life!
Rev_22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Mark: The woman at the well had 5 husbands. What is your point again? Are you interested in moving into the era where women can easily seduce teenage boys into xyz (futuristic internet time frame) because she has all rights? Let me know when your kingdom actually functions with dignity, honour and strength.
LikeLike
I think the biggest issue with “patriarchy” is “marriage”…… understandable. A man who commits “infidelity” is a -law breaker-…..
However, one must understand Christian history in terms of masculinity and femininity. Natural design of humanity essentially. De-scripture is the description from de-law….onward.
How many “female disciples” were tortured? I don’t really know. Depending upon the deep understanding of scripture a person would come to the conclusion that Mary (female) was also mother of James (male). -James- is that book in the bible for those who don’t actually read scripture (or just read it sporadically to suit a special case purpose for the elderly widow) and just assume that James…….dropped onto this planet by UFO encounters. Ummmm. No James was a real (male) human with a real *female mother……also hu-man.
What types of things did the “female disciples” errrr um, I mean “male disciples” go through? Hmmm. There are many extra biblical accounts about those types of things.
Summary: The focus in general is on JESUS…….HIS…….redemption.
Anything else won’t create a tear-drop when it hits the (female) heart (your sons/brothers/husband/uncle/father/male cousin……other male in your family) and they pass from this world into the next……
Enough about the cultural dilemmas and what types of garments a HU-MAN should wear. Was Martin Luther King Jr. a Human?
One of the skipped verses from “the law”….. “Gen_5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”
Now its time to digest…….REAL-IT-Y…….REAL-EYEZ-IT.
LikeLike
In her place? You think that was the purpose of the law???? Wow.
What? No.
Many women were killed for being Christians. What exactly is your point.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lea, it’s patently clear that anongrace has swallowed the ‘women are the weaker and more sinful sex’ line hook, line and sinker. This is what indoctrination does. So sad. 😦
LikeLike
Anongrace: “The woman at the well had 5 husbands. What is your point again?”
My point is that the OT law was the moral law (10 Commandments), the ceremonial law (fulfilled by Jesus) and the case law. The case law was specific to the nation of Israel, at their level of technology and their cultural issues.
So, the fact that slavery is part of the OT law does not mean it’s applicable today. Just because it has polygamy doesn’t mean it’s applicable today.
So, simply saying “the first five books of the Bible” misses the point that the OT law is an application of the law. We don’t put fences around our roofs, but we put fences around our swimming pools. We don’t carry shovels to bury our poop, but food service workers are required to wash their hands when they use the bathroom. We don’t count the number of days from menstruation or birth, but we do have medical standards for rest and feminine hygiene. That is the problem with Theonomy. They can claim that they’re just following the OT law, but what they want to do is pick and choose what OT law gets applied.
Just like KAS, you can’t claim that you’re following the Bible. You’re following YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible, which may or may not be a correct interpretation.
“Natural design of humanity essentially.”
It’s hard to separate the Bible, what God originally designed and our fallen state. The post-Fall account in Genesis is about “taking” – Enoch “took” two wives. The mighty men “took” women. That was not God’s original design. The clear effect of the Fall was patriarchy and male entitlement, and not surprisingly, we still struggle with that today. Abraham followed the custom of the pagans in taking a concubine. David multiplied wives. Solomon married to form political alliances, another custom. So, even the godly men in the OT struggled with male entitlement and patriarchy. That male entitlement and patriarchy was sealed in the law. It wasn’t until Jesus came along and said that it wasn’t God’s original design. God’s original design was one flesh – the two become one. Paul applied that, saying that a church leader had to be a “husband of one wife” (lit. one woman man).
“dropped onto this planet by UFO encounters”
What’s the point of the snark? We also believe the scripture and we have just come to different conclusions than you. You can dig deeper into your understanding like the Bereans, or you can be snarky and dismissive and rude and just pronounce that your interpretation is the only valid interpretation.
I find a lot of Reformed scholars are silent about James. They say that the apostles mirror the Israelite tribes – 12, but also 13. But then James the apostle comes along, who is never specifically numbered among the 12/13, and writes letters by his own authority. If he is truly an apostle (and no scholar I know says otherwise), then it’s hard to dismiss Junia. Junia is only dismissed because of an a priori conclusion that church leadership was restricted to males.
LikeLike
Shy1. I’m going to come to the defence of translators of the bible.
An enormous amount of care goes into translation to ensure that denominational or personal doctrinal bias is excluded. Whole committees checking over the content for accuracy and good English. It is true that current usages do creep in sometimes, such as ‘bishop’ or ‘baptise’ (instead of dip) in the KJV and some of its successors. The RSV was accused of some liberal bias when first published. The NEB more so – and with good reason! The trick – if you don’t know the original languages – is to read different standard and preferably literal translations, compare them, which should eliminate any slight bias from any one translation. Reading in other modern languages can be of benefit as well.
Discussions in commentaries can also be helpful.
If anything, some modern versions are accommodating themselves to current culture which is something to watch out for. I’d be careful about heeding lone voices who have ‘seen’ something in the original languages that large numbers of highly qualified translators have supposedly missed.
LikeLike
Seems that way Carmen. Often I do not comment because I think it will reach the commenter in any real way, but to make sure people casually reading know that people differ on interpretations. And sometimes because something is simply not ok.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS, you haven’t read Katharine Bushnell’s book. She traces the history of various NT greek translations. Her thesis is that the Talmudic “traditions” – the ones Jesus speaks against, were extremely misogynistic. She discusses that here:
Bushnell then traces the translations of certain Hebrew words through the Septuigint, Coptic writings and other ancient sources and finds that there is a high correlation between the introduction of Talmudic traditions to a culture and the subsequent change of translation of certain words in the scriptures.
And, honestly, I think that there is a lot of latitude taken by translators. For example, the word angel means messenger. It would be the best translation for the translators to leave the word as messenger and let the context decide whether it is a spiritual or human messenger. However, the translators arbitrarily choose whether it is human or spiritual and translate angel or messenger based on their interpretation. That lead to some rather strange doctrines. For example in Revelation, “to the angel of the church of ____ write”, okay, so how exactly does that work? John writes a letter to some spiritual being? Is that how kids can write letters to Santa Claus? But, if it is messenger, then we can see that person either being someone who carries the letter from Patmos to the desired church, or someone at that church who is then responsible for relaying the message to the people?
Another great example. Jehovah/Yahweh. It is the covenantal name of God. Reformed scholars mock the Jewish scribes for their superstitious treatment of “the name”, refusing to actually use it, and partly because “the name” doesn’t really convey the proper understanding of the name’s meaning. God says to Moses, tell them “I AM” sent you. The meaning is one of eternal being.
Now, fast forward to today’s careful translations where “An enormous amount of care goes into translation to ensure that denominational or personal doctrinal bias is excluded.” What is “Jehovah/Yahweh/the name” translated by our careful scholars?
So, the NASB translators, who are probably about the most scholarly of the modern translations, carefully translated “I AM” to be “LORD”. Those are two completely different concepts, and there already exists a “Lord” word in the Hebrew.
Now, why would translators translate a word meaning essentially “eternal being” into a word meaning “master/authority”, and, if their so-called Biblical concept of God revolves around his being a master/authority, then why should it be so surprising that we as a Christian culture are so obsessed with domination?
LikeLike
Your comments always make perfect sense to me. 🙂
I agree with you – some things just aren’t ok and there’s nothing wrong with pointing that out.
LikeLike
@Mark:
During my time in-country, I noticed Christianese of the period used the term “The LORD” (pronounced with caps lock) almost exclusively for God or Christ. It seemed that every other word out of their mouth was “LORD, LOORD, LOOOORD”.
And things have gotten crazier since then. Today, when an Evangelical/NonDenom intones “The LORD”, you first have to make sure he’s not referring to Donald Trump.
LikeLike
@Carmen:
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what anongrace has between his/her legs?
And “Grace Grace Grace” has also become a buzzword of the More-Calvinist-than-Calvin crowd. Like “LORD, LOORD, LOOORD” during my time in-country.
LikeLike
Mark,
I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on Bushnell’s book.
For those that are wondering what that’s about–here’s the cliff notes version:
One hundred years ago, Katherine Bushnell devoted her life to fighting human trafficking. She was on the front lines of getting laws passed to protect women from the pimps. Long story short, no matter how hard she tried, she kept hitting a brick wall because of the deeply rooted misogyny in society at that time.
So she invested many years into studying the roots of where that came from. Long story short, she discovered how the roots of misogyny had infiltrated the church, polluting the truth that Jesus came to set the captives free including women being freed from the pain and suffering of patriarchy.
Instead of following the actual Biblical teachings of God given rights for women, the church was infiltrated by ancient Talmud teachings of the Ten Curses of Eve. The Talmud (NOT the Bible) taught that women had to suffer by being stuck in the house, while men were free to go wherever and do whatever.
The Talmud taught that women were supposed to suffer the pain of polygamy. The Bible actually condemned the man made system of polygamy that has caused so much suffering for women.
The bottom line is that Jesus came to set the captives free. (Luke 4). That includes freeing women from the deeply rooted misogyny that has controlled too many cultures and societies for too many years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s some food for thought:
1) Study what the Ten Curses of Eve philosophy is.
2) Compare that with mainstream Christian philosophy. Then we can see how deeply this has infiltrated the church.
3) Then study what Jesus described His purpose was in Luke 4:
1) Freedom for the captives
2) Recovery of sight to the blind (think in the fog, people can’t see where to go)
3) Good news to the poor
4) Freedom for the oppressed (Have women been oppressed by society?)
4) Remember Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil. (1John 3:8)
Misogyny is theft of women’s rightful dignity in the world.
Remember Jesus said, “The thief comes only to steal, kill and destroy. I am come that they might have life and life more abundantly.” (John 10:10)
LikeLike
AR, I got about half way through before life intervened. I tend to like her arguments when they combine both history and scripture. For example, the “leave and cleave” corresponding to a matriarchal society – vs. the taking of wives of the patriarchal society and the protection that is for women.
I felt she had a good systematic approach when it came to Paul’s writings, although I am not convinced on some of her translations, which seem to be a stretch, but I again appreciate that she takes something, e.g. “against the law” and then shows how Paul is not talking about the OT law, but talking about the Talmudic traditions, and then she explains how, then, it must be Paul quoting something to then show the folly of it.
Again with the system approach she shows how a “woman praying with her head uncovered” must be in the context of the gathering, thus “women must keep silent” doesn’t really make sense.
I guess where it gets weak for me is claiming that Paul is putting what seems to be temporary restraints on women in response to intense Roman persecution. I’m not saying that it can’t be the way it should be interpreted, but I think it is weaker. Especially after she goes so far to demonstrate the other passages say something completely different than how they’re translated.
I’m not well versed on egalitarian scholarship, but it seems that there could be a significant amount of work going through her book, modernizing the language and adding some depth to her arguments.
LikeLike
Mark,
That makes a lot of sense. I don’t agree with some of her points either. However, the best part of the book is how she focuses on Jesus actually being the liberator of women.
LikeLike
I believe individually there are gender roles.
For instance, I’m not comfortable with a man teaching my grand kids in a Sunday School class or in a Church nursery, unless there is a woman in the same room.
Maybe I’m stereotyping gender roles here, but I think most women have a gentler approach with kids than most men and so I prefer a woman doing teaching, maybe it’s just me.
LikeLike
D,
We all agree that there are differences between men and women. The question is whether the differences require one group to control the other. Or can we work together by blending our strengths and weaknesses?
LikeLike
Avid Reader,
I fail to see the term “Gender Roles” being defined as “one group to control the other”.
And yes, I agree everybody, men, women and children should work together by blending our strengths together.
LikeLike
My boss (a woman) and the teachers at the nursery schools I visit (also mostly women) certainly don’t agree with you. I’m a man, and they trust me enough to teach kids of all ages.
And yes, D, you are stereotyping gender roles. Very much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
HUG – I’m much more concerned with what’s between anongrace’s ears. 🙂
LikeLike
D,
That was describing the two main points of view on this issue. When people start advocating for gender roles, the argument soon turns into justifying Comp theology. The root of which is the argument that because differences exist, that must justify one group controlling the other. Of course, I’m not saying that’s what you meant. That’s just typically where these types of discussions lead.
The other point of view is that yes, of course differences exist. But the existence of differences doesn’t automatically prove that one group has to be stuck in fulfilling other people’s opinions for that role. (I.e. Piper’s ideas that being female requires submission to all men).
For example, I’m really good at math, logic, reasoning, etc. According to gender roles, women aren’t expected to be good at math. That’s one thing that needs to be addressed. Girls in school should be encouraged to pursue education and careers in math and science. Work needs to be done to get rid of these notions that limit girls into thinking that just because we are female, we must not be good at math.
The other day, I was buying a new bookcase to hold my growing collection of books. My neighbor saw me trying to unload the bookcase and offered to help. I was grateful for his help. Yes, I’m not as strong as a man. Differences exist.
The question is just because differences exist, are we using those differences to work together or try to limit each group?
LikeLike
Hmm.
I was down on the floor building towers of wooden blocks with three year olds last Sunday at my church. I get the feeling their parents appreciate the kids being around a burley, gentle man who loves Jesus and wants them to love Him too.
LikeLike
Japan,
I said “most” (not all) women have a gentler approach than “most” (not all) men teaching a Sunday School or watching kids in a nursery.
With the amount of hyper-Calvinism and abuse sneaking into churches, the aggressive ones tend to be men. I guess I’m stereotyping again.
And yes, in this case when it comes to gender roles I was stereotyping. What is your point?
(btw, for the last 10 years my boss has been a woman, best boss I ever had)
LikeLike
It always ends up there. How else can it be enforced?
LikeLike
Loren,
I bet their parents do appreciate their kids being in the presence of a burley (or not so burley) gentleman who loves Jesus.
You must be speed reading my comments and as I didn’t suggest that “all” men lacked a gentle spirit.
LikeLike
Lea,
you wrote: “It always ends up there. How else can it be enforced?”
I fail to see it “always” ending up there. But when it does, it shouldn’t.
I know I wouldn’t want my wife or daughters being controlled by anyone and I would want them to flee that church, job or relationship.
Being of a different gender or gender roles assumed by someone willing (not forced) doesn’t mean “one group to control the other”.
LikeLike
Avid Reader,
The issue for me isn’t about “gender roles” but Theology, Hyper Theology and their mis-treatment of women. (and men)
We are both talking about the same thing, in fact I’m not even sure if we are disagreeing. Both of us seem to agree we aren’t a bunch of “unisex” neutrally minded human beings.
Though I’m sure some want that to happen where there is “us against them” mentality with both genders.
We can also agree that men and women aren’t the same and that both should be treating one another fairly. We also know that isn’t always the case.
Your math example actually is a good one, because it doesn’t matter with gender, though some would argue that is it the woman that balances the checkbook so that makes them good at managing money, while others argue that some women like to shop and spend. (news flash, some men like to shop and spend as well)
Don’t get me wrong, I may suggest that “most” women have a gentler spirit than “most” men when it comes to teaching my grandkids, but that isn’t always the case.
My own mom was very aggressive, she had to be being a single mom as she didn’t have a gentler spirit than “most” men, she was also one of the most impatient human beings I knew as she didn’t have a lot of time to waste, I’m not so sure she was Sunday School material for my kids or grandkids, in fact she rarely attended church as she liked sleeping in on Sunday mornings from staying out late on Saturday nights.
It is difficult to maintain this conversation, because I have responded to you twice, Lea and Japan during the last 2 hours as it is sitting in review,, probably because my views are very dangerous.
But then that is what happens to a man who had his mouth washed out with soap from his mom when he was a little boy, for using bad language. Maybe she was teaching me to use respectful language with others, even in a titled “Spiritual” thread, which at times is anything, but spiritual.
LikeLike
The Comp side really pushes the narrative that disagreeing with them automatically proves we don’t believe in differences. Nope.
The truth is that we can believe in differences between men and women with having to accept Comp theology. They fight really hard to stop people from realizing that.
LikeLike
Avid Reader,
Gender roles have different meanings.
What you are talking about is some Comp churches (and other abusive church doctrines) are placing higher value of men above women or keeping a woman in her “place”.
Because of abuse, are you talking about eliminating roles that men and woman embrace and go with a more “unisex” view?
Aside from a few men in the church I attend, it is fact, that most of the women are better Sunday School teachers to my kids and grandkids. Is that stereotyping?
It is fact, that most of the abuse that is occurring, is mostly by men, would that be considered stereotyping? (with exceptions, like my mom because she was a single parent and took on the responsibilities of 2 parents) It is fact that, more men tend to be more aggressive than most woman, is that stereotyping?
With Hyper Comp preachers sneaking into non-Hyper Comp Churches trying to indoctrinate these churches, I’m going to be very cautious with who is teaching my grandkids.
Comp Churches you are referring, where men place themselves of higher value, and believe there is no place for a woman to teach a Sunday School class where the curriculum is a Comp Centered Curriculum or be a leader in the church, isn’t occurring in all churches.
What I’m talking about is not ignore the value of different genders, because they are a man or woman. Otherwise we are nothing more than unisex minded people, wearing the same green color long sleeve shirts and pants like the Chinese wore for 50 years after becoming Communist. Though they are beginning to stop that practice now since embracing Capitalism. North Korea has a long ways to go.
LikeLike
D – I fail to see it “always” ending up there. But when it does, it shouldn’t.
I don’t see how hierarchy can be voluntary. The very concept of hierarchy involves rule over. At a job, the hierarchy is enforced through financial means – promotions, demotions and firings based on “performance”, which means doing what my boss tells me to do. At a church “insubordination” is often one of the cardinal sins and leads to dismissal.
As soon as you say that a husband/wife relationship is hierarchical and not equal, then there is an understanding that someone who does NOT see it as hierarchical should be taught that it is – i.e. corrected. That correction may be more or less innocuous, and will probably escalate over time as the person who does not acknowledge the hierarchy starts becoming a “project”.
LikeLike
D,
I understand where you are coming from—in that you are thinking through things. That’s a good thing.
However, let me emphasize that no one here is suggesting that men and women are exactly the same. Of course we are different. Differences will always exist. The question is do the differences require us to accept Comp theology? Nope.
We can recognize the differences without allowing some people to use those differences as justification for manipulation and control.
Here’s an example:
Comp theology says that men are initiators and women are responders.
The problem with that—is disobeying Christ’s command to “Ask, seek, and knock.”
In other words, both men and women are responsible to be proactive not passive. So we can’t accept the Comp theology that requires passiveness for women. They label proactive women as “Jezebel.” That’s a very dangerous accusation that has been used to try to silence women.
LikeLike
“What I’m talking about is not ignore the value of different genders, because they are a man or woman.”
What is intriguing was an article (I think referenced here) which talked about how complementarians had equivocated certain words. For example, complementarian itself is a word that was redefined to mean hierarchical rather than mutual, as many theologians have held that men and women have complementarity in a mutual sense.
The other word they mentioned was “role”. The traditional sense of the word role was that it was a position that someone held, that anyone could attain to. So, for example, a sergeant could be promoted to be a lieutenant or demoted to private. So, there was no a priori judgment when someone was a private that they were less “worthy” than a sergeant. But, complementarians took a whole new definition to the term role, specifically gender roles, that not only meant a different hierarchical position, but one that was subtly based on worthiness.
For example, at my former comp. church, the husband works and the wife stays home and keeps house. No man can ever marry a more capable woman in that sense, unless the more capable woman agrees to subordinate her capability to her husband. So, if the husband is a car mechanic and the wife is a doctor, then she can’t be a doctor anymore, but must make the home work for car mechanic’s wages. That’s what happens in the church too (and what KAS has said), even when women are spiritually gifted to be pastors and elders, they must subordinate that gifting. This creates a completely sadistic view of God. A God who would give people the ability and desire to do something, and then let them writhe in anguish as he forbade them from doing the very thing he put the desire in their hearts to do? My former comp. belief was that God never gifted women that way, but that did not match my experience. I saw many gifted women.
LikeLike
Mark,
The word “role” is a buzz word for some, but not for me.
Abusers are mean and will degrade a woman whether the word “role” exist or not,
That means their brains are screwed up and we need to mentor our own kids to avoid the abusive Comp ideologies.
There are very few stay at home wives today, mainly because of economic purposes. Which means there are even less of stay at home wives for comp chauvinistic reasons, you are stating.
I know for my wife and I, it was much easier and less exhausting for both of us when she stayed home vs both of us working full time. We never got enough sleep, up early and going to bed late.
It is a fantasy for many spouses of having one spouse with a large enough income so the other doesn’t have to work outside the home so the other could spend more time nurturing the kids and take care of the domestic stuff which by itself, is a full time job. (I know, because I carried the load, when my mom worked full time)
The stereotypical 40’s and 50’s when Rosie replace the riveter with a dish towel to become a domestic engineer, is probably a little more appealing for a lot of wives working full-time outside her home, in todays’ inflation filled economy.
LikeLike
No one would have to make a big deal about ‘roles’ if people naturally fit where they were slated. The problem is we don’t. So we have to be pushed into it or forced. Which is why it always ends in the same place. These roles are restrictive by nature and they don’t fit everyone.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
Thank-you 🙂 for posting this audio series by a couple of guys who “get it, according to Jesus’ words/teaching/preaching/and living life according to Biblical precepts.” It has been an absolute joy and wonderful learning experience for me soul, listening intently to their conversation. And it totally makes sense to me now how the teachings of Paul, in the context of that culture, line up with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Our LORD, is not a God of confusion, but of order, so it makes perfect sense for both genders to work together in an “orderly” fashion in doing His work in accomplishing His mission.
Can God’s work be done in an orderly fashion in mutuality without the “lording it over” as Jesus speaks of? Most certainly, I have experienced this outside of the 501 c. 3 institutional church system, with exceedingly great joy and confidence! 🙂
I love and appreciate the ministry done here which has helped tremendously in my healing process. No longer have to walk with me head hanging low in the presence of hierarchal religious wing-nuts, but can walk freely in love, peace, mercy, grace, and confidence and joy, knowing without a doubt, that Jesus’ came to set the captives free…….and oh, how that irritates some folks to no end.
Jesus Kingdom…….man’ kingdom……..two polar opposites.
LikeLike
I’m so glad you’ve enjoyed the series as much as me, Katy. Jesus’ kingdom is where we get to be!
LikeLike
I posted two articles about headship and submission in my first blog giving a clear definition what it really meant based on new information. First, some of the more ultra conservative Christians don’t get is that the in the Ephesians 5:23 it quotes that the husband is the head of the wife not over the wife as some have claimed. Husband wasn’t placed above their wives. Plus the word head which in the Greek translation is “kephale” is referring the head and body metaphor that mirrors Jesus relationship with the church who is His body and He is the church’s head. This gives a different definition of the “headship” that has nothing to do with hierarchy but about unity, and the husband building up his wife and enabling her spiritual growth as Jesus did for the church out of sacrificial love. As for submission. I recall learning from scholar John Temple Bristow’s book “What Paul Really Said About Women” that the Greek translation was the word hupatoassomai which is the middle voice where means the wife voluntarily gives allegiance to, tend to the needs of or be responsive to but nothing about being obedient as many claim. I think learning true meanings of the scriptures within the context rather than was is traditionally being taught will help us all have better understanding of the bible and of men and women’s roles within Christianity. God Bless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My point is that hard-and-fast, inflexible gender roles are impractical and unhelpful.
What’s the point of declaring that all members of one gender must have a certain personality and enjoy certain things, or only do certain jobs, when many members simply don’t fit that mould? How is it fair to shame and humiliate men or women who don’t measure up to the standard of “real, biblical” manhood and womanhood?
LikeLike
Exactly! There IS no point unless you want to control people behavior. If it were truly natural there would be no need to control it either. It’s just all stupid.
LikeLike
Japan and Lea,
I certainly not comfortable with a man, exclusively teaching teenage girls in a Sunday School Class. Which is probably a result of more stereotyping on my part, for which I make no apology.
Based on the amount of abuse by men, and the aggressive nature that seems more prevalent with men more so than most women, my instincts have lead me to believe, most women have a gentler spirit than most men. And thus that is why I’m more comfortable with women teaching my young grandchildren in a Sunday School Class or watching them in a Nursery.
There is a difference of being firm and having a gentle spirit and being aggressive and not having a gentle heart. \The Hyper-Calvinist proved that “theory” correct in my church.
The are exceptions, as I do know of a few women who I wouldn’t want to teach my grand kids, mainly because of the way they treat their own kids.
Granted not all women have a gentler spirit than men, but it is in my view, they spend more time around kids and understand them more than men do. Which is why I prefer them over men in a Sunday School environment.
LikeLike
Not sure why this part is addressed to me. Your one example? This is not really the whole of ‘gender roles’ here. It’s stuff like women shouldn’t work, be in charge, and should do all the cooking, take care of the kids (which is your part) and a whole host of other things. It is far less restrictive to men, but they are still expected to be ‘manly’ men in some quarters in a way that they may naturally not be. In fact, this stereotyping of what men are and should be is responsible for some part of your ‘intuition’ that men are not gentle enough to work with children. I disagree.
You are talking about protecting young children from potential predators which is great, but aside from the fact that not all men are predators (and some women are), there are other ways to protect. Having co-teachers, for instance, which is just good practice. Having clear boundaries between teachers and students and truly enforcing them. Etc.
LikeLike
I think Lea really said it. I was trying to figure out how best to respond. I think, also, that spiritual abuse and molestation both need to be considered. Definitely molestation has deeper and more profound impacts for children, but spiritual abuse can also happen.
I think men and women raised in patriarchal homes are just as likely to spiritually abuse. What I saw in myself and what I see in those around me who have been elevated to authoritative positions within the church is that there can be a tendency for those people to drift into a domineering position. They have felt “worthless” their entire lives and now that they are in a position of value and influence, there is a temptation to use the position to further that value and influence.
That goes both ways – towards the leadership this person is going to want the kids in his/her class to look the part – emphasis on memory work and spitting out correct answers – towards the kids, there will be an emphasis on due respect for the authority.
LikeLike
Lea and Mark,
It is my view, that women do a better job with younger kids in a Sunday School environment.
Even in Public Schools gender roles seem to occur, probably benefiting more women than men, but that is OK. How many women compared to men teach a kindergarten class or a home economics class? How many men compared to women teach a wood shop or mechanics class?
It is possible to have gender roles in teaching and leadership in churches and schools without being negative or a belittling women or men.
Because of abuse and sinful chauvinism, my impression is you don’t like the term “gender role” being used in any circumstance, taking a rather unisex position.
LikeLike
D, I am trying hard to understand your point….
I am male and I teach preschoolers at my church Sunday School. What does that make me?
Am I transgendered and I don’t know it?
Should I be limited to cutting the grass and fixing the leaky faucet?
What if I am gifted to sit on the floor with little ones to play blocks and make it fun for a three year old to come to church with mom & dad?
Does my gender preclude me from building the kingdom in this way?
LikeLike
Loren, you asked “What does that make me?”
It makes you a male who happens to teach preschoolers in a Church Sunday School class.
If you had read what I have written, I have acknowledged that there are exceptions, but typically I see most woman are more effective at teaching younger kids than most men.
I just looked up on a “Men Teach” site and there were 2.4% of men that teach kindergarten. So there are exceptions, very few however. Maybe in churches, the %’s are higher.
Loren, this is a discussion, I’m not being snarky when I’m stating an opinion about gender roles, but it seems as if you are trying to start something.
LikeLike
No. People’s ‘roles’ in life (which are varied and changeable!) should not be assumed or assigned merely based on sex. That is not ‘unisex’ that is a recognition of reality. What you are doing is stereotyping men and women, and then assigning roles based on that.
If you want to talk about why women are more likely to be kindergarten teachers, we can get into the history of jobs that were considered ‘acceptable’ for women by societies standards, and we can go into why women are often required to be the primary care giver and thus prefer a schedule with summers off, etc. There are structural reasons for all of this that you are kind of ignoring.
You are also ignoring the fact that people are often assigned these roles, which is the issue most of us have with it. People aren’t stereotypes, they are individuals, with unique gifts, experience, and education. They want to do different things, they are good at different things, and no overview based on their sex alone will tell you anything real about them. So stop doing it.
And for Loren and others who teach preschoolers, bravo. I’m sure you’re wonderful with them.
LikeLike
D, “Even in Public Schools gender roles seem to occur, probably benefiting more women than men, but that is OK.”
I think it’s fine that statistically some jobs are more attractive to women, but I don’t think we should turn it into “that’s what women do”. I think more of my problem, with a daughter who is highly skilled at math, is that while studies show that men and women are just as skilled at technical fields, somewhere along the line, “gender role” people like you come along and encourage boys to enter technical fields and similarly discourage girls. So, my daughter is going to face stereotyping and discouragement as she tries to forge a path, whatever that may be that uses the things she’s gifted in.
The other question, is when you say “gender roles” I detect more than just “I think this is what is the norm”. You’re saying, “I would encourage women to take this role and discourage men from taking this role,” and therein lies the problem. As soon as the roles become actionable based on gender, race, whatever, then you are taking your stereotype of what women and men do based on your experience and saying that is the norm.
What is worse, then, and I’m not accusing you of this, is when people take their comfort zone and experience and then look at the Bible to mirror that. So, for example, slave owners looked at their experience, then looked to the Bible to justify what they were doing. Today, we have the same thing – the Bible is not as clear as we might like on “gender roles” so we go looking for what matches what we experience. We ignore Deborah, we ignore Abigail, and we ignore most of Proverbs 31, and we focus on highlighting the verses in the Bible that can be used to prove the conclusion we’ve already determined the Bible should say.
LikeLike
Lea,
My daughter and son-in-law jointly teach a Sunday School Class. (with the youth), so I’m not minimizing a man’s role. I have repeatedly said that most (not all) women are better with the younger kids than most men. (not all men) My son-in-law is more hands on with the teen boys than the teen girls which is where my daughter is more hands on which I think is for the best, Which probably means I’m stereotyping again.
When it comes to parenting, it isn’t unusual for both young parents with kids to work, thereby the kids spend nearly equal amount of time with both parents, provided they are married and work the same shift.
I watch my grand kids who are clingy to both parents, but instinctively they are go to their mom more than their dad.
I work Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays so I’m home M-T-W and see my youngest grand daughter for 2 hours a day. (my daughter works part time) My youngest granddaughter is clingy with me, but is even more clingy with my wife.
I accept that many women were appointed or assigned in positions in the Church or in elementary classes in elementary schools.
With younger kids, it is mostly women that apply for these positions mainly with kids 9 and younger. It is women are the ones being exposed to younger kids and are the ones with more experience than men. Why are there 97,6% women and only 2.4% men teaching kindergarten classes?
I was like that 20 years ago when I served on a school board in a public school and it is still like that now.
Though it seems when there is a divorce we do see joint custody, but even the law, tends to favor the women having more custody with younger kids. My niece and her parents have her kids nearly 100% of the time, she struggles but she is way better with her child, than her ex-husband who is paying any child support.
Sometimes what I see, is the husband pushing for joint custody so they don’t have to pay child support, then drops them off to his mom’s, when the child is better off with the ex-wife.
I’m sure most women have seen what I’m talking about either experiencing poor treatment from an ex or knowing a women who has. Then the ex using the younger kids as pawns, when it is clear the kids are better off with their mom.
I just see the majority of women doing the bulk of teaching with younger kids. I do think on average, the woman as being instinctively better with younger kids or with teen girls better than “most” men. I had teen daughters and when it came to more delicate physical issues they needed to discuss, my wife knew exactly what was going on with their body and I had no-clew.
As for Loren, I was engaging in a genuine discussion, I never personally trivialized his role in the church he is teaching, as he might be good with kids.
Maybe he is a different in person than writing a response to me, so maybe I could get along with him. But if he if he treats me the same way he writes, I would probably avoid him. He kind of popped in, making a snarky remark toward me, then disappears after I responded.
You and Mark aren’t being rude, even when referring to me as stereotyping as I’m very direct as to what I’m witnessing, which is why I’m making my conclusions.
LikeLike
I made an error about my niece, in that her ex pays no child support.
LikeLike
Mark,
I know you aren’t accusing me of anything, we are having a discussion about what is going on in churches and in society.
LikeLike
Whether you’re being snarky or not, D, people will object and push back if they think you’re trying to push them into a box that doesn’t fit them. I know that I don’t fit into the “aggressive and no-gentle-heart” box.
If you’re going to state as fact that most women are gentler and better teachers than most men, you’ll have to back it up with actual research. Not simply your own opinions.
Even though it shuts women out of decision making? And creates a mentality of entitlement among men?
LikeLike
Japan,
I did not make the conclusion of women having leadership positions in a church and shutting them out at the same time. Actually that doesn’t make sense.
Me expressing my opinion that most women is better in certain situations than most men, is not putting anyone in a box.
I posted earlier that 97.6% kindergarten teachers are women, So when I say most women, I’m not saying all.
But it is clear that even a liberal organization like Public Teaching Unions must also feel that women are more suited to teach younger kids.
Are Liberals choosing more women to teach kindergartners than men, putting women in a box? I don’t think so.
Are embracing gender roles in this circumstance, in my view yes.
This is a discussion, not a sparring match, I suspect Loren was trying to spar with me,
LikeLike
And Mark, when they do enter a technical field, they might have a coworker or boss writing 50 page documents about how they don’t belong because of biology, and have to deal with countless others who think it but don’t say it along the way.
It is impossible to have a teaching that men are in the ‘role’ of ‘leader’ without being negative or belittling women.
SKIJ, I am sure you don’t. And hey, plenty of people are BOTH Aggressive and Gentle sometimes at the same time. Why no recognition that sometimes there is a time to be gentle and a time to be aggressive and we are pretty much all capable of both?
LikeLike
Lea,
I wasn’t talking about exclusive gender roles in leadership where a man is purposely keeping a women from leadership.
I’m talking about gender roles that exist, that isn’t discriminating.
I was talking about certain positions where I believe “most” women as a whole, are better at nurturing young kids and teenage girls than men.
I have also emphasized that Public Educators must feel the same way as 97.6% of kindergarten teachers are women.
LikeLike
D. You talked about “leadership in churches and schools”. Leadership as a role? You don’t see how choosing who should be in leadership or teaching based on sex could be discriminatory?
You have an opinion about who is better at teaching. That’s not a ‘role’ for women, it is a job or an extra task they take on voluntarily in the case of sunday school. That is all that is, an opinion. We all have them. What is your point in arguing this on a thread about forced hierarchy pushed by the church?
So are you interested in discussing the structural, historical and practical reasons women tend to end up in that job that I mentioned? You want to talk money? You want to talk about how women tend to be put into the primary caregiver role for their own children, making a schedule that links up with their schedule quite appealing?
Do you have comments about ALL THE OTHER WAYS stereotyping gender roles affects people, other than teaching? Because there are a lot of other things going on here.
LikeLike
Lea,
Yes, top Leadership is a role, and I agree, that gender doesn’t apply to qualifications.
I have not stereotyped a woman from being a leader and thus because there are those that do, the term “gender role” is being rejected,
My wife and I endured spiritual abuse and so both of us are following this thread. Today we shared a cup of coffee together and chatted about gender roles and if they are relevant in a positive way.
Both of us feel there are roles where most woman typically more effective than men. But we also see in this thread, that using the term “gender role” is a buzz word, so I’m simply going to take a rather PC approach and not use it, to be respectful.
I have 4 family members that are teachers and my son-in-law is working on his student teaching. My wife and I also have friends that teach, 2 of which are kindergarten teachers. Kindergarten class is desired by many and not everyone gets that position.
We get a lot of feedback from women and we value their opinions when it comes to teaching younger kids.
Life is a journey and it is usually starts with good mentoring that can be stimulated by teaching in schools and in churches. And so, yes, it matters to me who is teaching and mentoring my grand children.
By the amount of discriminating and abuse against women, I can see why you and others choose to dismiss the fact that there are positive gender roles that exist, roles that doesn’t discriminate against men or women and I accept your position. Call it anything but “gender role”.
When it comes to teaching younger kids and girls, statistics show that in certain circumstances “most” woman will do a better job than most men. I’m sure there are those in the Patriarch movement that would disagree with my opinion. Which would mean I would be getting push back on both sides.
LikeLike
All you’ve listed is teaching.
Even if true (and you keep citing ‘statistics’: I have yet to see you actually cite data here: merely your opinion), it makes no sense to label it a ‘gender role’. You are ignoring the context of the thread. That is not a role for the whole gender. This is not something women should be restricted to, or men should be prevented from. You may think so and I think most disagree.
There are positive examples of women and men who are doing good and even great things. They are not examples of ‘gender roles’.
LikeLike
Lea,
Yes, you are right in that I have isolated teaching as teaching and mentoring young kids and girls is a very important ministry in churches and guidance in schools.
There are of course other ministries that are also more unique to either men or to women.
I think where you take issue, is roles being forced on people instead of a man or a woman willfully deciding for themselves their own roles.
I could’ve included men’s ministries or women’s ministries or counseling in some instances where I think a woman needs to be present in certain instances.
I have already acknowledged to you that I won’t refer to certain gifts and roles being dominated by women or men as “gender role.” I may not agree with gender neutrality aspect, as it doesn’t effectively recognize gifts or roles more prevalent being dominated by a certain gender or when a certain gender is needed over the other, like in a women’s or girls ministry.
I have today off, so I spent the better part of the morning educating myself on many interpretations, beliefs and definitions of “gender role” and it is one of those things where both of us isn’t wrong. Though the trend is leaning gender neutral, as the term “gender role” appears to be turning politically incorrect.
As for the statistic, I discovered this last night, I loaded “How many men are kindergarten teachers?” The article is rather long but it doesn’t expose discrimination, actually explains men are less interested than women. It actually admits that (and I quote “male role models” can a positive. Truthfully I would prefer a teacher that wants to teach the class they are in and it is my impression that women want to teach kindergarten more than men do. (it is a desired position by the ones I know that choose to teach it)
It is a lengthy article, I’ll send the rest to you if you want.
Are There Enough Male Teachers in Kindergarten and Elementary Schools?
Thu, 2010-10-07 15:05 | Posted by: Bryan G Nelson in Articles by Careers with kids
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 18.8 percent of elementary and middle school teachers are male. In pre-kindergarten and kindergarten the number of male teachers is just 2.4 percent. According to the National Education Association the sector could become even more female dominated, because fewer and fewer men are entering the profession. Studies have shown how positive male role models can have a profound effect on the developmental behavior of children, so why is it that men are so underrepresented in this area of the teaching profession?
LikeLike
D – “It is women are the ones being exposed to younger kids and are the ones with more experience than men. Why are there 97,6% women and only 2.4% men teaching kindergarten classes?”
I went to an Evangelical Christian college. Women were pushed towards elementary education for a few reasons:
– Elementary teachers are typically in demand everywhere in the country, so teaching is a great occupation for the single woman whose primary purpose is marriage
– grade school teaching is also an easy occupation to get in and out of for, as an example maternity leave. Teachers don’t typically lose their jobs for taking a semester off for childbirth as they can in professional fields
– The above two are also not generally true of middle school and high school teachers, who must be certified in education AND a subject area, so a “social studies” teacher cannot be replaced permanently with a secondary teacher with a different certification, so it is more difficult to find an MS or HS job moving from one part of the country to another.
– There were not many other fields taught at the college that were so universally acceptable to the affiliated denomination. Even counseling, psychology and social work were panned for the general “psychobabble” view of social sciences.
Also:
The valedictorian at my college one year was an elementary education major. Not that it should be a problem to have a brilliant grade school teacher, but that probably means that, for the reasons above, the she was encouraged to take a career path that probably didn’t challenge her academically.
Education at least at my college was a pretty non-challenging degree. A classmate of mine had to drop an advanced math class because otherwise he would lose his scholarship due to GPA. He ended up in secondary education because that was a degree he could get in four years even having followed a different path. So, it was probably an easy sell for women taught to be codependent and feel worthless their entire lives.
My grandmother was an elementary school teacher. She had to quit her job when she married because it was okay for a single woman to teach, but if she was married, she was taking wages from some other person who needed money to live.
Prior to the Family Medical Leave Act (2009), a woman would generally be forced to take vacation for childbirth, and was in jeopardy of losing her job if she needed more time off. FMLA only guarantees twelve weeks, and that is unpaid leave.
I had a coworker in testing. Her kids were all in school, so she was willing to work nine months of the year, but she didn’t want to put her kids in daycare, so she took the summers off. I think she was able to do that for two years, but she had to quit and be hired back when school started. The third year, she quit and they did not hire her back. So, there are definitely fields where companies are less flexible to the needs of professional women.
LikeLike
Mark,
Like I told Lea, I won’t refer the term “gender role”, even though it is clear which gender dominates teaching and guiding pre-school, kindergarten as well as females guiding girls and woman in various ministries.
You wrote:
“I went to an Evangelical Christian college. Women were pushed towards elementary education for a few reasons:”
– Elementary teachers are typically in demand everywhere in the country, so teaching is a great occupation for the single woman whose primary purpose is marriage”
I just wonder if that could be stereotyping some single women or all single young women. My wife and I are surrounded by teachers that much of my “opinions” are that of teachers, primarily women, none of which were manipulated to become teachers.
Teaching have other perks that cause women/men to enter into that field that have nothing to do with landing a man or a woman. In this day in age, fewer women (if any) are being manipulated into becoming a teacher. Pay/Health/Retirement benefits is decent, there are more personal/sick leave/vacation opportunities.
There are a lot of female teachers that don’t go to church and want nothing to do with church. (unbelievers) In fact there are female teachers that drive to school with a Darwin fish on their bumper. So the Evangelical Christian College you attended didn’t sway those teachers or the majority of teachers in our education system today.
There are many reasons why 97.6% of kindergarten teachers are women. The ones I talked to say it is a very desired position to have, at least for them. But those numbers clearly indicate for whatever reason is one-sided and give me the impression they are (experience wise) better at teaching kindergarten and teaching younger kids than “most” men.
What all of us are against, is the term “gender role” when a women being forced to assume roles or forcible assume a role they don’t want to do which also means not being allowed into leadership positions. (or men for that matter)
LikeLike
You do know that kindergarten teachers are not really the whole of life though right? I know a ton of people, including lots of women, who work in fields like IT, Science, and the medicine. Business. There are LOTS of other places than teaching, so I don’t know why you are so focused on this one tiny thing.
LikeLike
Lea,
I don’t trivialize any profession a woman chooses. In fact my family doctor is a woman as well as my endocrinologist.
My 5’2″ daughter entered the military, but the one size standard of staying in step with a 6’3″ man, on a march is screwed up. As she severely injured her pelvic bone. Interestingly she never fired a weapon until she entered boot camp and received the top marksmanship medal.
In my view, kids isn’t a tiny thing, they are our legacy. Women play an important part in early childhood development and profession wise, it appears they are more exposed to kids more so than men.
In the passage below, verse 6 also gives abusers a stern warning for causing a child to stumble.
Christ explained it best in Matthew 18: 2-6
“2 Jesus called a little child to stand among them. 3 “Truly I tell you, He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven 5 And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me. 6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea
LikeLike
D – I was trying to argue somewhat from the specific to the general. My college was not in an Evangelical vacuum, nor was it greatly out of sync with society. Prior to “Rosie the Riveter” many career paths were considered unacceptable for women. I think my college was more conservative – meaning that they tended to simply follow a more antiquated paradigm. For example, in my freshman engineering class, there were three women out of maybe 30 students. By the end of the first semester, two of them had quit the program. I doubt they were any less skilled than the men – I worked with a male lab partner who was… dense. I assume the gray-haired male Evangelical professors were discouraging them perhaps even just stereotypically.
Teaching, however, is one of those occupations that has traditionally been open to both men and women. Laura Ingalls Wilder had some male teachers and some females according to her writings, and she was a teacher herself. Other occupations, as I’ve alluded to, are just not friendly to the needs of many women who are typically the ones who have to pick up their sick kids at school, take care of their aging parents and their infant children.
I think part of the reason that teaching is so highly female is because it’s one of the few careers a mom can have while being a mom. Women I’ve known in engineering or business typically have their career and then either give it up or put it on hold to have a family. Some choose childcare, but for some reason, corporations seem much less able to deal with workers who need to take 6-12 months off than schools.
I honestly think it’s a problem with corporate America. There have been lots of studies that corporations are far too rigid when it comes to employees for various reasons. My boss always complained when I took vacation that there was no one to “cover for me”. In an HR meeting once, I raised that as a concern, and the HR rep said, “if the company will fail because you’re gone for a week, that’s a real problem, but I doubt that’s true.” So, HR seems much more aware that life happens, but that doesn’t translate into the first and second-line managers having flexibility.
LikeLike
Mark,
Teaching does offer more flexibility to a woman wanting to raise kids and work at the same time.
They generally are home around 4, (unless the commute is too long) They are allowed sick days, personal days, Thanksgiving, Christmas and Spring Break Vacations as well as Summer Vacations all of which coincide with their kids time off or when they are sick. I’ve heard of tenured teachers allowed year long sabbaticals.
Some teachers get roped into extra-curricular activities which can be a drain if they have kids.
The amount of perks offered including salary/health/retirement and time off benefits is attractive for a woman with kids or who wants kids.
For professions in the private sector it is harder for a woman (or man) to be allowed the same amount of time off than teachers or other Gov’t professions. The profit margins are so tight for smaller businesses (and even larger ones) that it affects the ability to compete in a global economy and stay in business.
A woman or man wanting consistent flexibility, would have to work part time or need to venture into a self-employment role, which involves risk, sometimes a lot of risk.
LikeLike
Do you also believe the children are the future?
Way to miss the point.
LikeLike
D,
There are myriads of individuals out here that do not belong to a 501c. 3 institutional c’hurch system that are born of the Spirit of our LORD. Another words, we are believers and followers of our Master Jesus, and we meet with other born again believers as the Holy Spirit leads us.
Jesus is our only Good Shepherd, as we believe in a mutual relationship with Christ and other believers who desire to follow and believe on Him for salvation, not the ways nor traditions of man or the institutional church.
When I suffer and am in need of help, I seek Christ first and foremost, and He, in His infinite wisdom, mercy, and grace, always leads individuals to help and minister to me in some way, in edifying the Body of Jesus Christ. As the LORD is my witness, it is the unchurched folks that assist and minister to me in building me soul/body and mind back up again. To the disgrace of the institutional church, they don’t show up when us lower laity sheep are in need…….we were to wait hand and foot on them and neglect those who are the “least of these,” which is all of us as various points in our loves.
“Where two or three are gathered in My Name, there I am also,” Jesus speaking.
Alleluia and Amen!
LikeLike
Oops, “at various points in our loves” should read “at various points in our lives.”
My apologies.….was thinking of how much Jesus loves us that He willing gave up His earthly life for His sheep, so that we may spend eternity with Him……oh, how He loves His ecclesia!
LikeLike
For those that are interested here’s a great article on how 2John was written to a female pastor:
https://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/johns-second-letter-addressed-female-pastor
LikeLike
Dear Avid,
Thank-you for posting another great article regarding Biblical scholarship. I always appreciate your work, your intelligence, your passion for other believers, and especially, your faith and all due diligence in Christ Jesus.
His ecclesia moves in mysterious and wonderful ways! Blessings to you!
LikeLike
Lea, you go “Way to miss the point.”
Not sure what point you think I’m missing. I spent a lot of time responding to you about the importance of childhood development. Then I champion the ones that are in involved the most in their early development which are mostly women. (and the very few men)
Then you go “There are LOTS of other places than teaching, so I don’t know why you are so focused on this one tiny thing.” which I acknowledged back that my family doctor and my endocrinologist are women,
Your “one tiny thing” comment puzzled me, because we were talking about childhood development, then you switch gears about professions like I didn’t know women didn’t do anything else but teach while acting a little perturbed that I exposed to you that 97.6% teaching and guiding younger kids happen to be women.
It isn’t a tiny thing, kids are our future. our legacy. I even shared bible verses of a stern warning from Jesus about mistreating kids.
Not sure what point you think I’m missing, but then it really doesn’t matter. otherwise you would’ve been clearer.
My wife is extremely intelligent (more intelligent than I) and has been following our exchanges, and your “way to miss the point” was stand offish in her view, her words not mine.
LikeLike
Thanks Katy, it does seem one can get lost or be invisible in the mega institutional churches. In fact I can see how one might feel invisible in a church with 100 or less.
Actually what puzzles me about mega churches is their thirst for money is much higher and some of them aren’t that efficient in the way they budget the tithes and offerings as they build structures that are top heavy in cost to maintain.
LikeLike
D, there is a lot more women than TAKING CARE OF CHILDREN. I don’t think childhood development is unimportant, I just find it irrelevant to my points.
Yes, although I would say more terse, because I can’t honestly tell if you are acting dense or really this obtuse and it is irritating. You didn’t ‘expose’ me to the knowledge that many women are often taking jobs as teachers heavens. If you had read what I wrote, I made similar points to Mark to you, twice, about structural reasons for that that you did not address until he mentioned them. I get it. This thread is about pushing women into those roles, and to a lesser extent pushing men out, or using social pressure to say those are what women ‘should’ be doing and not doing, etc, and that is what you’re ignoring by coming in and expressing your opinion that women should be teaching young children and girls. Not boys, I guess.
Related, but I came across this thread on twitter that speaks to this from a different angle. A woman who is a lawyer got this comment from her fiancé. [He is no longer her fiancé.]
“So last week, out of the blue, the man who asked me to marry him remarked as follows: “sometimes I wish you were just a teacher or a nurse because you wouldn’t think so much, it’s intimidating”
LikeLike
Katy,
Thanks for the encouragement. Needed that today. 🙂
LikeLike
Lea,
I have conceded not to use gender roles, this is no longer a discussion.
Call me , at this point in time I’m unfazed as the hyper-Calvinist who spiritually abused my wife and I, through his aggressive Patriarch rhetoric that destroyed our church and trivialized the work women were doing in our church.
If you aren’t seeing my heart and think I’m either dense or obtuse, (which actually means the same thing) we shouldn’t even be having exchanges as I’m not going to spar with you, especially if you think because I look at things differently that makes me dumb and stupid.
I shared with you what I’m seeing happening statistically in that, most women are the ones that are involved in childhood development, but also guiding girls and involved in women’s ministries in churches.
This is why I think gender roles exists’ and I’m not talking about roles being forced on women, such as in Patriarchy churches, but roles that woman like doing.
I did share with you a statistic that 97.6% of pre-kindergarten and kindergarten teachers are in fact women. So unless you skimmed through that point, or ignored it or forgot that I shared it, then you may have to review it.
I don’t even know where we disagree, with exception you’d rather take a “gender neutral” view, (which I respect) when it comes to serving within a church or in the work place, even where certain professions and some children’s, girl’s and women’s ministries are dominated by women.
I can’t do this anymore with you.
Best wishes.
LikeLike
D – I think teaching and government attraction for women is “the way it is”. I have a good feeling about the millennials because the Boomers were all about workaholism – the more they worked, the more they made because there was more work than resources. Gen X saw the futility of that and strove for “work/life balance” through the implosion of one industry after another, yet they were paralyzed because their bosses were Boomer workaholics. I think now with the combination of Gen X management an Millennials who are even more interested in making their work fit their life, there is a greater chance for work, in general, to recognize that it is a piece of our lives, not the only thing.
That’s why I think “women want to be teachers” misses the mark. Women in our society are typically the caregivers. How much of that is “genetic” and how much of that is because of history and tradition is still not understood. So, right now, companies look at men as stable resources and women as unstable resources, and there are lots of effects of that – payscales, promotion opportunities. As we move the needle on work being a part of life and not life being a part of work, for both men and women, I think these will equalize.
Economically, we are seeing a tightening of the labor market. Third world countries are taking many of the unskilled manufacturing jobs, and we are seeing increased competition for knowledge work. The cost of living, however, is not decreasing. So, the increased international competition is driving more families to be dual-income. This is going to drive more instability into the work force.
Interestingly companies are still in the dark ages here. For example, everyone wanted to work for Google and Apple. They provided all sorts of services – dry cleaning, childcare, meals, whatever, so that their workers spent 16+ hours a day at their keyboards. All the sudden these developers woke up at 30-something and realized that they had just thrown away ten years of their lives, with nothing to show for it. So, people were leaving Google in droves. Google is trying to figure out how to change, but I still think unsuccessfully. It’s a sweat shop in an area with one of the highest costs of living and lowest standards of living in the nation. Other Silicon Valley companies are trying desperately to get talent. Supposedly around 50% of Silicon Valley residents hate living there and would leave if given a chance.
So, I guess to summarize, “the way it is” encourages women to have certain roles in families, churches and society – mostly because of historical “man goes out to work, woman stays home” reasons. I’m greatly encouraged that this historical model is being stretched beyond its capacity and we’re being forced to put careers back into the corner of our lives they belong in.
LikeLike
Never said that. It’s fine. You don’t understand and you’ve repeated your points. I got it. Take care.
LikeLike
Oh wait, D, gender ‘neutral’ meaning not preventing women from working wherever their talents, experience, education and interests take them? Then yes, I do believe that. And you don’t? Got it.
LikeLike
Gender neutral means suitable for, applicable to, or common to both male and female genders.
The term gender role isn’t consider applicable or common to both male and female.
The impression my wife and I was getting is you don’t like the term gender role.
Lea, you don’t like me, lets end this conversation.
LikeLike
Mark,
Everything in the work environment is changing. Women, Millennials and Seniors are vulnerable.
The unbalanced economy for the last 16 years, has been especially brutal on abused women, as they have had less opportunities to escape the hell, they are enduring.
I’m 58 physically fit. As I enter into my 60’s and unable to do the more labor intense side of commercial fishing, I will want to find something a little less labor intense. But because of the Fed embracing a weak dollar and low rates, commodity sensitive industries such as health care has been increasing enough, (since the weak dollar policy began in 2001) that small companies are fiscally vulnerable to hire new seniors and stay in business, if they have to provide health insurance which equates to nearly 1500/mo for full insurance based on age.
Most of us remember when banks competed for our deposits and supplementing the income of retirees. can’t count on that anymore.
Millennials are feeling it as well. The Fed kept rates so low in saturated markets thereby preventing home prices to discover a bottom making it harder to qualify for a nice home. This is causing both the husband and wife to work longer and harder in order to scrape by. An exhaustive pace for both, especially if they have kids.
LikeLike
(part 1)
I always find it disconcerting, frustrating, annoying, and infuriating that on almost any and every thread on this blog that is meant to combat sexism in the church or the broader culture, or where women (or men) who have been hurt by sexist assumptions about what men and women “should” do (and etc.) so that they can find empathetic company, and perhaps find healing…
There’s almost always at least one man (sometimes it’s a woman, but it’s usually a man), who jumps in to be contrarian and play devil’s advocate on these subjects.
There’s always at least one person who wants to argue for the sexist status quo.
Some of what one participant above is doing is arguing for gender roles while trying to avoid using the phrase “gender roles” because –
He infers that many on this blog are upset by gender roles as defined and pushed by complementarian churches – but he proceeds to assume gender roles anyway, but using other terminology, which doesn’t make the whole thing less distasteful.
Just because you’re not using the phrase “gender roles” does not mean that you’re not advocating sexist assumptions.
Because you still kind of are, even though you’re trying to be super nice about it and attempting to avoid using “triggering” or inflammatory language about it.
The participant on this thread seems to be arguing for Benevolent Sexism and perhaps doing so from a place of Unconcious (Implicit) Bias.
(Please Google those terms and read up on them – it’s very educational.)
Most women are not “better at” child care, nurturing, or empathy than men are. Women are not “more interested” in babies or in child-rearing or empathy than men are. That is not why some occupations, such as teaching, have more women than men.
(Please google for the phrase “Emotional Labor” to learn more.)
Women, in the United States, are socially conditioned from a young age, to be more empathetic, nurturing, and to be future mothers and to be interested in children and in child care, and this pressure and socialization is ten times stronger if that woman was brought up (as I was) in churches or Christian families that teach gender complementarianism.
American men are not, by and large, brought up or encouraged to have those same qualities, and not in near the same amount as women are (those qualities = being empathetic, tender, nurturing, interested in children, etc).
One small thing that high-lights this:
When men who are fathers do parenting in public or around friends, they often get praised by by-standers for child-rearing tasks that mothers do all the time but are never, or seldom, get applauded for.
Women in American culture (and in many other ones) are expected to enjoy, or be more adept at, doing things such as changing soiled baby diapers, soothing a crying baby, or snuggling with babies, while men are not expected to do those things or to enjoy those things. That sort of thing.
These gendered assumptions about what women “want” to do, what women “should” do, what God supposedly designed all women for (or to do, or to enjoy), or assumptions about what women are better than men at, etc. etc., are usually not flattering for many women, and many of us find them sexist (as do some men).
From Washington Post, written by a man who is a father who took one or more of his kids to the grocery store one day:
_I didn’t understand male privilege until I became a stay-at-home dad_
LikeLike
(part 2)
Women are subtly and not so subtly discouraged from entering certain career fields (based on sexism or (sexist) gender expectations).
Jordan Peterson and James Damore aside, most women do not gravitate towards certain careers, or away from them, due to biological differences from men, in that, it’s not true that all women supposedly, for instance, are biologically wired to prefer knitting tea cozies, rather than learn computer programming.
(I have a post or two about this on my Daisy blog, that contain links by experts and to studies about all this.)
(And if Lydia is lurking here (she is a big supporter of James Damore and possibly Jordan Peterson’s, gag- me- with- a -spoon):
I cited another Finnish study on my ‘Daisy’ blog whose Finnish researchers found that even in a supposedly “gender equality” mecca such as Finland, there are still traditional gender role beliefs present, and Finnish women in Finland who do not adhere to them are punished for it and/or encouraged to stick with them, and that does in fact inform why Finnish women choose what career paths they do in Finland.)
There are many articles that explain that once a career field becomes male-dominated, when it used to be female-dominated, that the pay for that career field rises and women are shoved out in favor of male workers.
The opposite also happens: if a career field that was once considered masculine declines in male numbers and develops an influx of women employees, that career is then considered “feminine,” of less value to culture, and the pay rates go lower. Links about that –
_Study Shows That Pay Drops Universally in Male-Dominated Fields When Women Join En Masse_
_What Programming’s Past Reveals About Today’s Gender-Pay Gap_
(Those are just two of many more articles and studies online one can find on their own.)
LikeLike
(part 3)
The underlying assumptions about the biological sexes at play in this thread, in a certain person’s posts about gender distinctives, reminds me of this,
from the “Man Who Has It All” social media account:
(It’s meant to sound like a kind of compliment but is actually pretty insulting and sexist.)
Arguing that there seems to be more women in Career X than there are men in Career X therefore means that all to most women are better at X, or most women prefer X, so all women should work at Career X…
Is flirting with sexism and is based on gender role expectations or gender assumptions (which can then be used to limit girls and women unfairly).
This would also be somewhat akin to (but this is not a perfect analogy), to two American white people, “Person A” and “Person B”, taking a time machine back to the year 1862 in the South, standing above a cotton field by a plantation and saying,
“There sure are a lot of black people bending over picking cotton here.”
-Then returning to the our present year and one of those people arriving at this conclusion on this blog, “Person A” says:
-Again, it’s not a perfect analogy, but I’m using it to make this point:
The whole endeavor is an insult but sugar-coated to look like it’s praise, it’s a compliment, or, it’s just observing ‘how things are, it’s just how people are,’ so what’s wrong with black people being limited to picking cotton for a white plantation owner in the hot sun all day?
How else can one explain that there were not so many white people out picking cotton, isn’t it obvious that black people must just innately prefer menial labor more than whites?
LikeLike
(part 4)
About women and children, women teachers, women teaching children’s Sunday School classes and etc.
I am a woman who does not like babies or children. (I don’t hate them, nor do I condone child abuse).
However.
I am not maternal (not with humans, though I love baby animals, such as puppies), and I do not enjoy or feel at ease being around children.
I would rather be dipped in honey and rolled over a fire ant hill than work as a school teacher, a Sunday School teacher for children or teens, or in any other kid-related capacity.
I resent that about any time I have walked into a new church, the church staff assumes that just because I am a woman, I must be DYING to volunteer in their church nursery, babysitting babies, because I adore babies and cannot get enough of them.
(Then there’s also the matter of gender complementarianism in churches limiting women to only baby related roles or cleaning church kitchens.)
The reason you may find more women than men involved in Career X or in Hobby Z may not be due to innate biological differences but may be due to other factors, like social conditioning, or family / culture expectations for women, or sexism.
LikeLike
(part 5)
Relevant to those points and ones from my posts above:
_Women are Kind and Men are Strong: How Benevolent Sexism Hurts Us All_
Regarding Unconcious Bias and Sexism:
_Think you’re not sexist? Here’s why you might be wrong_
This comes from an article at ‘Business Insider’ site:
9 things people think are fine to say at work — but are actually racist, sexist, or offensive
Also from that page
(I see this happen by some of the male commentators on this blog on a regular basis):
<
blockquote>Men are nearly three times as likely to interrupt a woman instead of another man.
The New York Times called men interrupting women “a universal phenomenon.” And the kicker is when a man parrots the same idea as the woman he interrupted, receiving all the credit for it.
…”Another thing we hear a lot is when they [women] share an idea or comment and everyone ignores it, then the male in the room says it and everyone thinks it’s the greatest thing,” Ames told Fast Company.
What to do instead: Wait for the person to finish their thought. And if you like their idea, give them credit.
<
blockquote>
LikeLike
My apologies, some of my formatting in the HTML messed up some of the links and stuff.
I will try again, maybe I’ll get it correct now (at least the link, I can’t fix the messed up block quote above, sorry):
_Think you’re not sexist? Here’s why you might be wrong_
LikeLike
Lea said,
Agreed on both points 1 and 2.
That is his posting style or habit on every thread I’ve seen him on. He frequently goes down so many rabbit trails and loses sight of the original post to the point I lose sight of what the original topic was about or what anyone is saying about anything.
(The complementarian guy who was posting here quite a bit on past threads was just as bad, if not worse, which is why I at times scrolled past his posts without reading them or without commenting on them.)
Lea said,
Many men only notice a comment or idea if another man repeats it right after a woman has said the very same thing, and of course, the man gets all the credit for the woman’s idea.
Most of the men on these threads may not notice that phenomenon, but I do. 🙂
Remember, 50 women over a course of X years said actor Bill Cosby sexually assaulted them, but the public did not pay attention until a male stand up comic (I forget his name) mentioned Cosby’s behavior in his stand-up routine about three, four years ago.
It took a man to lend credence and get publicity to and for what 50+ women said over the course of YEARS.
Lea said (quoting some Twitter lady),
OMG. That is awful.
Goes back to some men wanting, needing, or insisting that women make themselves small and dumb so their male ego won’t feel damaged or threatened.
My ex was very, very stupid.
Even while engaged to him, I had to be the responsible one (making sure his rent and other bills were paid on time, keeping car tags up to date and legal, etc).
Had I married him, I would’ve had no choice but to be the “Male Head,” the responsible one, and the ‘smart one’ in the marriage.
Somewhat relevant posts on my Daisy blog about some of that:
_Gender Complementarianism Does Not Adequately Address, or Address At All, Incompetent, Loser, Or Incapacitated Men_
_Complementarians Ask Women and Girls to Be Small To Make Men Feel Big_
LikeLike