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 
Daisy,
There are times when it is appropriate for a women to do the guiding whether she is the leader of the church or not, especially if she is ministering to a woman seeking counsel from another woman.
You may not agree with that. But I have witnessed it myself.
I have mentioned that I will not use the term gender role, as there are those that find the term offensive and I’m sensitive to their feelings.
I’m not looking to spar. I have also discovered in this topic, there is no room for discussion, so I’m not going to express what I’m witnessing because it won’t make any difference anyway.
LikeLike
Quote:
A lot of that is due to the fact that Women are socially conditioned and encouraged to enter occupations such as teaching.
Not all women enter what is considered female- dominated professions because they love that profession or are biologically predisposed to it or are designed by God to want to work at that profession.
I do not like babies, toddlers, and children and would rather be punched in the face than have to be around them. And I am a woman. And there are many women out there like I am.
Many of those other women call themselves “Child Free.”
(I don’t know if I’d want to apply that term to myself or not.)
Many women do not want to have children.
(For those who did or who do want to be (or to become) mothers, that is great and fine. I am not “anti motherhood” I’m not talking about you – you’re already fulfulling cultural gendered stereotypes for women.)
Some women who do have children regret being mothers and go on to post Anonymously in forums to say how much they hate their kids or they hate motherhood
They feel the need to go Anonymous when speaking up about hating or regretting motherhood because there is a huge taboo against mothers in American culture being up front about… hating motherhood or hating kids, or hating their own kids.
Women are supposed to “love” being mothers, and all women are suppose to just goo and koo and gurgle at babies.
Some people just are not interested in having kids – it’s not because they are “selfish.”
-That seems to be a popular incorrect assumption held by a lot of parents, that the child free avoid having kids because they are “selfish”.
This is from 2014 but still holds true:
_Childfree Trend on the Rise: Four Reasons Why!_
“More young people than ever are making the choice to skip parenthood.”
Mothers who regret having children are speaking up like never before
“In pushing the boundaries of accepted maternal response, women are challenging an explosive taboo—and reframing motherhood in the process”
So… that X% of kindergarten consists of women mean women prefer kids, kid related occupations, or are better at kid stuff, or is it that they had no other choice in the labor market…
Or they were socialized by their culture, church to feel they should enter such a job market, or?
There could be any number of reasons why any given woman chooses some job or another, and it may have little or nothing to do with preferences based on “wiring,” “God’s Design,” “evolutionary psychology,” or innate biological differences between men and women.
Quote:
I think she disagrees with your assumption that all to most women are better at, more suited at, or that all to most women innately prefer, stereotypical feminine pursuits or occupations such as “kindergarten teacher,” and that most to all men are awful, not to be trusted at, or are not interested at such pursuits and jobs, due to biological sex alone (denying any other factors are involved in why people choose what jobs they do).
All that is a sexist assumption. It lines up nicely with old fashioned sexist ideas of what types of jobs a woman can or should hold or pursue.
There are still Americans today who chaff at the idea of women working in the military (even combat positions aside), or as police officers, or in any other “job” that does not involve being married, cleaning house all day, and having a baby or two.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(My other caveats for this post,
-because invariably, there is usually a “hyper anti-feminism” type of woman who shows up in these threads who incorrectly assumes I am a militant feminists who pushes for all women to be career oriented and who must be hater of all things traditional who also hates the role of “stay at home mom”-
Not only am I not<//i> “anti motherhood,” but…
I am also not “anti women choosing what are considered stereotypical feminine careers if that is their choice, if they enjoy it.”
If you are a woman who wants to work as a kiddie-garten teacher, and you wish to do so because you enjoy being around kids, wonderful! I am not sitting in judgement against you.
Neither am I arguing that most to all women “should” enter into what are considered stereotypical “masculine” careers, or high- powered or dangerous careers, such as police officer, attorney, etc.
I am not arguing that all or most women “should” even have careers at all.
If you want to be a SAHM, that is great.
What I am judging is the knuckle-headed idea that states most to all women SHOULD want to do only what are considered “feminine” occupations, or jobs supposedly suitable for women only, the idea that all to most women actually naturally prefer traditional feminine occupations and tasks, or the idea that most to all women are designed by God or by nature to do, or want to do, such occupations.)
LikeLike
Quote
You are still advocating for gender roles, just not using the phrase.
I already pointed that out above.
Quote
I don’t think anyone here would dispute that sometimes it is better or more useful for woman on woman counseling or male on male counseling, depending on the reason and the topic.
For example.
If you are a woman having heavy menstrual flows with bad accompanying cramps each month and you find this concerning, you probably are going to feel more comfortable discussing such a personal, woman-specific issue with another woman or a woman doctor, than with a man.
I would not expect a man who is dealing with jock itch or erectile dysfunction to feel as comfortable talking to me, a woman, about it, as he would with another man. I get that. But…
That’s not what you’ve been arguing up and down this thread, though.
You feel, and have said several times to Mark and to Lea before I even commented on this thread, that women are more naturally attuned to children, women are “better at” caring for kids, women are more inclined to being more gentle, biologically predisposed to wanting to teach children, and that …
Men are not naturally as gentle, maternal, or caring, or as good with kids as women are.
– All of that is based on sexist gender expectations, whether or not you are saying these views should be used to determine who gets what job.
You may not want to force these jobs on to women against their will, but you’re still being guided by the same sexist ideas about women’s natures and capabilities and interests that complementarians are when talking about what women can or should do in home, church, or culture.
See, I too can debate this without using the phrase “gender roles,” but it’s not the always the phrase that is the problem, so much as it is the underlying assumptions at work as well as their logical out-workings.
LikeLike
Daisy,
If we are going to have an intellectual discussion, without you calling me dense or obtuse or challenging my intelligence, I’m ok chatting with you.
I’m not advocating gender roles, I’m suggesting they simply exist. There are gender roles that are forcibly being put on men and women and I don’t advocate that.
Do you know a woman that has been abused or prefer to be counseled by a woman over a man? I do.
Most teen ministries prefer a woman to be included in the ministry if there are girls included in the youth group,
That is what I’m talking about.
LikeLike
D, I think you’re missing Daisy (and Lea’s) point. It’s one thing to encourage women to be part of something because women need to be mentored. It’s another thing to suggest that women should be part of something (e.g. teaching grade-school-level and below Sunday School to both sexes) because women, in your opinion, are naturally better at it, and statistically, those are the sorts of jobs that women take.
That’s what I believe the debate is, and honestly, I’ve had some awakening moments. For example, my wife is a SAHM. I think at one point she went out with her friends and I used the word “babysitting” to describe staying home with the kids. I probably did it a few times before she corrected me that I don’t “babysit” my OWN KIDS. So, I can definitely see how subtle some of these concepts are. There are some pretty obvious gender biases I’ve seen, for example, girls get baby dolls and boys get action figures. Girls get kitchen and home playsets and boys get construction playsets. It’s considered ‘odd’ if a boy likes to play with baby dolls, and it’s considered ‘odd’ if a girl doesn’t like playing house and having tea parties and dressing up, but would rather play pickup baseball with the neighborhood kids. But I don’t pick up the ones like treatment of women in meetings – surprising because my abusive former church used those ON ME. That’s part of the reason why I try (maybe fail too much, but) to give credit if I use someone else’s idea.
LikeLiked by 1 person
D said,
Lea is the one who referred to you as such in her post.
It’s not an insult to refer to someone’s online behavior as being obtuse – and yes, your behavior on many of these threads is that exactly.
Also meandering. Your posts meander all over the place, you never seem to understand what Lea or I are getting it, and you go off on esoteric tangents about subjects she and I sometimes don’t even mention or address, you sometimes accuse us of making a point we never made or holding a view we don’t hold.
You seem to make it a point to deliberately – and repeatedly – miss the point of whatever myself or Lea write. It gets very annoying and tiresome.
I actually wish that men (and women) with your views would leave gender-related threads on SSB altogether and stop commenting on them (especially KAS), but Julie Anne permits you to keep posting for some reason.
D said,
I know that and made that clear in my posts above.
And I still disagree, which I also made clear in my posts above.
You actually kind of are advocating for gender roles, but you are just saying you don’t want to use the phrase “gender roles.”
I explained above why this is still problematic.
I’m not going to rehash my previous posts. You can scroll up the page and read them.
The gender related phenomenon you describe, such as there being more women kindergarten teachers than men kindergarten teachers, exists because women are pressured and socialized to take such jobs –
Not because women are biologically suited more for such jobs than men are, or that women are born liking such jobs more than men.
You seem to be implying that there are more women in teaching jobs because women are born being better at dealing with kids than men are, or women are born WANTING to be around kids more than men. And I disagree with such assumptions.
D said,
What did I just say above, D? Did you even read my post where I addressed that point of yours?
I don’t think you even read my post, and it was just a post or two above yours there where you make this comment.
Here is the link to _that post of mine_.
D said,
No that is not what you are talking about.
You’re now moving the goal posts.
Earlier in this thread, before I even joined, when I was just lurking, you were saying things to Lea and Mark such as…
Women are more gentle than men, men are more aggressive than women (so that men should not be teaching children), and look, you said, at how 99% of kiddie teachers are female, etc and so on.
None of that is the same thing as saying something like this:
“I think, in life, there may occasionally be some gender- specific moments when a person would feel more comfortable talking with someone of their same gender regarding a delicate matter, such as, when a girl gets her first period, she may feel less embarrassed talking that over with her mother as opposed to her father.”
Those are not the same things. You’re changing your position now.
D said,
<
blockquote>Most teen ministries prefer a woman to be included in the ministry if there are girls included in the youth group,
<
blockquote> That’s not the same thing as saying that most women gravitate to teaching pre-schoolers because they’re “better at it” than most men, women are wired for being around kids, men are aggressive -and hence unsuitable for teaching jobs-, women are more gentle than men, etc.
Here is what I said that in that post that you apparently did not read where you made that same point:
If you choose to rely on this post, I trust you’ll once again either not really read it closely or else go on another tangent that doesn’t have a lot to do with what I actually typed, and I’ll find myself going in circles with you, which I’d rather not.
LikeLike
Re: Mark’s post to D, of SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 @ 10:10 PM
Thank you, Mark. You actually read what Lea and I type and make an effort to understand what we’re saying, too. (I also have to give a shout out to HUG for that, when he shows up, and Serving Kids in Japan.)
LikeLike
Correction, I said in a post to D above:
“If you choose to rely on this post,”
I left out the “P”, that should read “reply” not “rely”
LikeLike
And, btw, D, if you are still reading here,
my Parts 1 – 5 posts above on this thread are about your posts.
I have the feeling you glossed right over those and did not read them.
For your convenience:
_Link to My Part 1 above, on this thread_
_Link to My Part 2 above, on this thread_
(There is also a part 3 – 5 below those.)
LikeLike
Avid,
So glad you were encouraged and built up. I want you to know from me heart, that when I see you post here and on other sites, I look forward to reading what you have to say from your heart, because I know it is going to be good, edifying, reasonable, and full of scholarship, which me brain loves to read. Many can learn from your knowledge and wisdom, and frankly, you are one of the individuals that the Holy Spirit has helped in my healing process, and as a result, I am more filled with the joy of our LORD, instead of always trying to be on the defensive in “proving” my faith in Jesus Christ.
You, Avid, are a true blessing to me from our LORD Jesus Christ. I want you to know this because we never know about tomorrow.
Blessings to you from our LORD!
LikeLike
In discussing gender roles, I believe the “c’hurch” has missed a valid point with regards to the beginning…..Adam and Eve plus their siblings…..my belief is this;
After the fall, when “sin” entered the picture, mankind was commanded to till the land and provide for his family, since they “both” chose to sin. In my work in agriculture, the land, the machinery, the “farm” doesn’t care which gender gets the work gone, including “pulling the thorns from the land” to prosper crops to feed mouths. It’s a non-gender issue, with the goal to provide an essential of living……nourishing our bodies. My belief is that Eve, while bearing children, had her butt out in the fields working in mutuality with her husband….and yes, the children as they grew, were required to work as well (and working hard they did!), in assisting to feed their family. If Adam fell ill, then Eve was there ready to carry the burden and get the work done for the day. If Eve fell ill, then Adam was there to assist in carrying her burden in taking care of the family.
This thing called “mutuality” is NEVER, ever, ever, ever discussed in the c’hurch forum. NEVER! The thing I always here within the apostate c’hurch is leadership, leadership, head this and head that, and submission to folks. Then I could just as well place me brain in the coffer before I set meself down in the pew and not think for an hour or so……..just let the “leadership” brainwash me into believing their rhetoric and also their preconceived notions that women were/are not valuable to Jesus Christ. Been there, done that, even in a small abusive Baptist church in a rural area, that states “man/husband has the final word in all decisions.” This false teaching had led many a woman into depression, some considering suicide as a way out, many an unhappy/unfruitful wife that has called me home, crying and needing an empathic and compassionate ear just to “vent” their souls, and a rotten stench of imprisonment that has blasphemed the Holy Spirit in not being allowed to use their spiritual gifts for our LORD Jesus Christ. The Book of Revelation has some pretty condemning things to say about the Nicolaitans….the “conquering of folks.” And perhaps, on that final day, Jesus will have some judgements to say about the hierarchal “leadership” that we lower laity pew folks have had to wait on, hand and foot, for years on end.
Like stated earlier, when I am in need of wise counsel, help, or physical assistance, it is the unc’hurched believers that are willing to grab a shovel/or a pitchfork, and dig in to do the “work” of helping this individual. The “leadership” does not want to get their hands dirty in helping us lower laity, mainly I believe, is because it doesn’t “glorify themselves.”
And I believe our LORD is most merciful and overflowing with grace to even allow unbelievers to come alongside of us in helping us heal. Imagine that!
LikeLiked by 1 person
D, not agreeing with what you say is not the same as not liking you. Honest. But sure.
LikeLike
Hi Daisy! I read a thing the other day that said ‘the devil doesn’t need an advocate’ and I felt that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
D – honestly I think we’re arguing mostly opinions. We can’t really know what women and men are going to gravitate towards until we have a way of socializing that removes our own biases as to what they can and should do. Patriarchal types, at least, are very explicit. They say that women should be wives and stay-at-home-moms, so anything that furthers that goal is good and anything that distracts is unnecessary, whether it’s a part-time job, a college education or whatever.
Nancy Pearcey’s “Total Truth” talks about the cultural phenomenon of stay-at-home-moms. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, many occupations were familial. The family ran the farm, or the general store, and mostly there was a division of labor. During the Industrial Revolution, a new model was needed where the strong men worked in the factories all day and the women stayed home to take care of the house and kids. Because this was a significant cultural shift, there was also a lot of theological discussion about whether this was “Biblical”. Ultimately, the church found enough prooftexts to determine that not only was this okay, but this was the suggested model all along – man goes off to work and wife stays home and keeps house.
So, there is a powerful tendency to take what we are used to and assume that it is therefore Biblical. I remember a New Tribes video where they reenacted a tribe becoming Christian. At the end of the video, they are singing “Amazing Grace” in their native tongue. It struck me at that moment that, perhaps, the missionaries were forcing the natives into a Western cultural church mold. Why couldn’t they sing their own songs?
So, whether women have genetic predispositions towards things like primary education, we will perhaps never know in our lifetime, but we should not presume so, and we should definitely not be steering our children to those sorts of roles unless they naturally gravitate towards them. We need to drop the behavioralist “father knows best” mentality where dad makes a career choice for his children and instead allow the children to mostly guide their own path with some wisdom and insight from parents.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for bringing this up, because I wanted to tell Avid that I really enjoyed her link about john and the lady! I want to dig more into that when I have time.
LikeLike
Mark,
“Ultimately, the church found enough prooftexts to determine that not only was this okay, but this was the suggested model all along – man goes off to work and wife stays home and keeps house.
So, there is a powerful tendency to take what we are used to and assume that it is therefore Biblical.”
It is Biblical. Anyone who is interpreting the Bible to make it seem like it’s anything but patriarchal, suggesting perhaps women played a significant role in the Bible, and/or stating that women had as many rights as men are interpreting it through rose-coloured glasses.
Women had one function in the Bible stories, and one function only. I shouldn’t have to spell it out for you. In a primitive, patriarchal society women were possessions . Period.
I’d go further and suggest that for people on the Christian Right, these are the principles guiding their thinking. Everyone should be reading up on Dominionism – it’s alive and well (Mike Pence is a vivid example) and terrifyingly close to reality in your country. 😦
Read and weep, I might add.
LikeLike
There is not really anything biblical about reading modern social norms into a 2k year old text as if we are living in the same world. We aren’t. It’s all rather silly.
I don’t agree with this, although I do agree that in many places in the bible it is clear that women were considered possessions. But the stories we do have of specific women like Deborah and Esther and Ruth/Naomi show that as people we have always had our own agency, thoughts, schemes…even in a world with men who are trying to control us. That is not so different. Women are adaptable.
Unfortunately, it is often men who come in to give their opinions of what women should be doing. Thankful for men who see the issues with it, like you and SKIJ.
LikeLike
Katy,
Thank you. That means a lot to me. 🙂
LikeLike
Isn’t it? It’s also wrong in about 8 different ways. Sigh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmmmm…..let’s see:
1) Jael takes down the enemy military leader attacking their land….with nothing more than a tent peg and bottle of milk. (Judges 4)
2) One woman saves the whole city by killing the enemy military leader with a millstone. (Judges 9:53)
3) One woman saves the whole city by getting rid of one bad guy and talking some sense into the nations military leader. (2 Sam 20:18-19)
4) Abigail stops a massacre and saves the lives of the whole household. (1Sam 25)
5) Deborah was in the highest position of authority, judging the nation. (Judges 4)
6) Jesus makes the case for equal rights for women. (Luke 13:16)
7) Jesus makes the case that women have the right to spend their own money as they see fit. (John 12:5)
8) Jesus makes the point that women are not the problem or at fault for men’s desires. (Matt 5:28) That upends years of other teaching that women were responsible for men’s sins.
9) Paul honors Junia for being in a position of church authority. This upends years of modern assumptions that churches only had male leadership. (Romans 16:)
10) The whole book of 2John was written to a female pastor. (2John)
Those are just a few examples of how the Bible honors the leadership of women. Yes, history records how ancient societies oppressed women. Describing history is NOT the same thing as promoting or condoning that oppression.
For example, Genesis 38 is about how a woman outsmarted the oppressive culture that she was trapped in.
There are many more examples. The bottom line is that if we really take the time to study the Bible, we see the heart of God is freeing the captives. The devil is the one who comes to steal, kill and destroy. Jesus came to give women life more abundantly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t blame God for other people’s stubborn refusal to allow women their rightful dignity.
Remember the beginning of the Bible is God warning Eve that Adam would wrongly try to control her. That was never God’s will or choice. Don’t blame God for other people’s willful choice to mistreat women.
LikeLike
There’s no such thing as the devil.
But keep dreaming, Avid Reader. And keep interpreting myths as truths, it’ll help keep your faith.
I prefer reality.
LikeLike
Mark,
I did at first miss Daisy’s point and I think she was missing my point. She thought I was advocating gender roles, or roles that are being forced on a woman or a man which I’m not.
I’m not advocating gender roles being forced on anyone.
I’m saying there are roles that exist, where specifically either a man or a woman is needed or preferred because of their gender in certain circumstances in ministries and even in certain professions, again that isn’t being forced on them.
The issue here is I was referring it as a “gender role.” and I think Daisy at first thought I was advocating forcing someone based on their gender into doing something against their will.
I have said repeatedly that I won’t refer the term gender role again.
And I don’t even know Lea’s point, unless she is making the same point as Daisy, Lea called me dense and obtuse, which caused me to end the discussion with her.
LikeLike
Mark,
There was even a rant earlier where someone suggested that chauvinist think the “little wifey’s place is in the home”
Those views are rare in this economy.
Both the husband and wife are forced to work in order to pay rent, many can’t even get into a house, because the Fed kept rates so low in order to prevent home prices to find a natural bottom, in fact a weaker dollar shrunk purchasing power and increased the thirst for higher wages, that didn’t exist.
When the economy melted down, my wife went to work. We didn’t know how blessed we were when she didn’t have to work, until we found ourselves on an exhausted pace with no end in sight.
Did her and I want to survive on one income while one of us to stayed at home to be there for our kids or have a meal prepared at a decent hour instead of late at night? yes
I grew up where we didn’t eat dinner until 7:30 or 8:00 at night on week nights, because both my parents worked and didn’t get home until 6 or even later, I was washing dishes and cleaning the kitchen until 10 pm at the age of 12. Sure I did the chores to help, but it was my parents, (mainly my mom) that were on an exhaustive pace and I virtually grew up with unhappy parents that were fatigued.
LikeLike
If you don’t want me to talk to you, you should stop complaining about me to everyone else lol! I think you did this another time too.
I said you were either dense or being ‘purposefully’ obtuse, because you seem to constantly miss the points that I make or ignore them. Honestly, I made my points above. Reread if you wish to understand me or don’t, it’s up to you. Daisy is correct that you often argue in circles or go off on tangents, which is why I wondered if it was purposeful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Carmen,
Does evil exist in the world? Think of it as evil if you prefer. My point is that yes evil exists in the world. Evil comes to steal the dignity of women, kill their giftings and opportunities and destroy them. Jesus came to free women from that oppression.
LikeLike
I don’t believe in evil either, Avid Reader. It’s a religious word and has religious connotations. Again, I believe there’s no such thing.
Jesus was NOT the first feminist. Sorry, but it just isn’t true. (I also believed it for years)
Incidentally, as your comment came in I was reading a post by someone I have mentioned before. It touches on many of the themes mentioned in this post of JA’s. He’s a comprehensive writer and extremely intelligent; he’s also an avid reader. 🙂
http://fiddlrts.blogspot.com
LikeLike
Carmen,
That’s assumptions. Where is the evidence?
Make your logical case. On what are you basing that conclusion?
LikeLike
Carmen,
That’s assumptions. Where is the evidence?
Make your logical case. On what are you basing that conclusion?
LikeLike
No, that’s opinion based on my observations of how the world works, the scientific evidence that people’s actions are based on what goes on inside their brains, and my ability to reason objectively. (as opposed to basing my opinions on supposed supernatural happenings, which IN MY OPINION is complete and utter nonsense)
LikeLike
Lea,
Mark, made a comment that I missed Daisy’s point and in parenthesis he mentioned your name. (and Lea’s)
I acknowledged that I didn’t know that she thought I was advocating “gender roles” being forced on men and women. When I figured it out, I proclaimed to her that I don’t advocate roles being forced on anyone.
Then I explained, that roles do exist where a certain gender is preferred over the other.
Lea, we were having a discussion, you got personal calling me dense and obtuse, which actually means the same thing. Even after I mentioned that I won’t use the term gender roles as you were taking a more gender neutral approach.
Then you thought gender neutral was insulting, when it wasn’t.
I wasn’t mean or called you a mean name, didn’t call you stupid, I was genuinely trying to have an intellectual conversation with you.
I grew up much of my childhood with a single mom and watched her being mistreated, I don’t advocate roles being forced on anyone.
LikeLike
Carmen,
Please make your logical argument for why you believe that Jesus was ——— towards women.
LikeLike
It is a word that can have religious overtones, but can also be used absent any religious thoughts. People do evil things, whether you call them evil or bad or heinous. Are people like Ted Bundy ‘evil’ or do they do evil? That’s a bit of philosophical question, but probably not terribly germane to this thread. (although Bundy certainly directed his murderous behaviors at women)
He is definitely an interesting writer with experience in some of the more fundamentalist wings of Christianity.
LikeLike
Carmen, “It is Biblical. Anyone who is interpreting the Bible to make it seem like it’s anything but patriarchal, suggesting perhaps women played a significant role in the Bible, and/or stating that women had as many rights as men are interpreting it through rose-coloured glasses.”
I haven’t read a lot specifically about “epistemology” – the study of how we gain and process knowledge, but I think it is vitally important. As an N – intuitive type personality, I naturally try to build structure around knowledge. I believe most people are S – sensing, and they seem to more gain knowledge in compartments. I have very very frustrating arguments with S’s because they generally refuse to see the connections between compartment A and compartment B. So, for example, in this discussion, is my belief about gender roles functionally separate from my behaviors towards women and men? I would see a strong connection, but others don’t.
So, back to the point. When we read the Bible, we bring our own ideas about how knowledge is gained and what is truth and we use the Bible to sculpt that. I think S’s are at a great disadvantage because they can focus on one verse e.g. “He makes the barren woman abide in the house As a joyful mother of children.” and not see it in light of other passages. I think that’s because our knowledge is axiomatic (or presuppositional). We look at what women do in our society and how we were raised and then we presume that it is in line with what the Bible says, unless something smacks us upside the head. So, I think primarily, the Bible is patriarchal in today’s society because the patriarchs are in charge of the church and seminaries where people are interpreting it.
So, even in the comp. husbands love, wives respect, the patriarchal tendency is to gloss over what it means for a husband to love his wife, and instead focus on what it means for a wife to respect her husband.
I’ve been more and more intrigued by what Jesus’s ministry looked like. In my former church is was seemingly always portrayed as fighting tooth and nail against the sort of “American civil religion” – I’m American, I live a good life, therefore I’m going to Heaven. But, more and more I see it as flipping everything on its head. Instead of elevating the powerful, he calls them out, and instead of ignoring and belittling the “worst” of society, he is gentle and gracious. He was very interested in respecting the “least” in society – he ministered to children, he ministered to women, he ministered to lepers, the blind and the crippled, he ministered to tax collectors, he ministered to foreigners. Essentially all the people the church of that day ignored and rejected.
So, when I look at a passage of scripture with a comp. lens, it is often diametrically opposed to what Jesus said and did. I have to say that my interpretation is what’s wrong. And, yes, there are very very difficult passages that I would like to wave away, but I think wrestling with them has value. I presume Paul was patriarchal, but I believe the words he wrote were not, by the Holy Spirit. I believe that because a patriarchal lens has so infiltrated the scholars of the church, the very words we read in English are slanted, and then the interpretations are slanted, some in very subtle ways and some in very obvious ways. For example, James is accepted an apostle, “But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.” but Junias is rejected “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” Men as translated “deacons”, but women as “servants” even though the words are the same.
LikeLike
You are putting words in my mouth, AR. What I’m saying (and I’m sure I’ve said it before on this site) is that Jesus (IF he existed – I’m a mythicist, by the way) would have been a man of his time. Which means that he would have held the same opinion as every other man of his time (how would he have felt any other way??) — women were possessions . Any other interpretation – I believe – is wishful thinking on the part of people looking for something that isn’t specifically addressed in the Bible. (wouldn’t it have been wonderful for a supernatural being – you know, the spirit that can supposedly do ANYTHING – to have included in the Ten Suggestions things like, “Every person is equal to another” and “Keep your dirty mitts off children”, eh?)
LikeLike
I said you are not understanding me. I speculated on why. For the record, I said I cannot tell if you are ACTING dense which means that you are not understanding ON PURPOSE, I did not just say those two things twice, they were a contrast. You misunderstood. I am only including this for clarification.
Considering that you seem to rather constantly misunderstand what I’m saying, and furthermore take offense when you do, I don’t know that talking about this anymore is terribly productive.
Furthermore, I don’t think we’re able to agree on terms to began with, which is part of the problem. As I mentioned above, saying women often teach kindergarten for a wide variety reasons does not mean the same as saying women’s role is to teach kindergarten (or children, or sunday school, or what have you).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Mark! I think you can know a thing without doing a thing. For a variety of reasons. But being able to critically examine our belief system and how it affects our actions is helpful in correcting them. And sometimes we just pick things up from culture and say them…and when we really think them through we realize they aren’t right. I see this in your babysitting example.
When they do focus on the ‘love’ part, they tend to rewrite it in their own ways – often as control ‘in the best interest’ of the wife. I don’t think that’s what Paul meant, given his descriptions of love.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Carmen, “I don’t believe in evil either, Avid Reader.”
That sounds like determinism. The problem I have with determinism is the logical conclusion of their belief that our thoughts and actions simply stem from chemical processes in out brains. So, on the one hand, the conclusion is that a person who commits a violent act against another isn’t morally responsible for the action, and that action isn’t evil because there is no real “choice” involved.
But, on the other hand, the determinist also faces a fundamental challenge – their belief in determinism is also based on chemical processes with no moral agency. So, by their own argument, they cannot claim any sort of moral ‘truth’ or superiority of their beliefs simply because the process by which their beliefs were obtained is, in their opinion, no different that a Muslim or Buddhist.
If there is, however, moral agency and individual responsibility, and there is also a moral truth, be it what is generally socially acceptable or absolute, then that moral agent can choose to be in conformity with what is socially acceptable, i.e. “good”, or that moral agent can choose to reject what is socially acceptable, i.e. “evil”. And, also, I believe most of the world holds certain actions to be “good” vs. “evil”. Even inmates don’t want to be around a child molester, for example.
LikeLike
Lea,
You wrote: I can’t honestly tell if you are acting dense or really this obtuse.
Which implies I’m either “acting dense” or I’m I really this obtuse. One or the other.
If I had said the same to you, your reaction toward me wouldn’t be warm and fuzzy.
Again this was a discussion about roles where I expressed there are times when a “choice” of preference of either a man or woman is a reality. It happens in churches and in society.
Again, I’m not advocating roles being forced on any gender.
LikeLike
Mark, a discussion about free will vs. determinism could go on for hours. I don’t have that kind of time or inclination. It would seem, however, that neither determinism nor free will can be proven to be fact in the world of philosophy. I adhere to the general principle that every person must bear moral responsibility for his or her actions. I totally reject “the devil made me do it” as an excuse. The idea that there is a negative force in the world (a ‘devil’, for instance) trying to tempt people on a daily basis – to me – is ludicrous and belongs to the world of the superstitious and ignorant. My conscience and good sense govern my actions and it appears they have guided me in the right direction for 60 years. Have I made mistakes? (MISTAKES, not sins) Certainly. Making mistakes is part of the human condition and hopefully I have learned something along the way. That might be a simple response but that’s what I consider I am – a simple person with perhaps a simplistic outlook on life. 🙂
LikeLike
Yes. Not:
LikeLike
Carmen wrote:
“What I’m saying is that Jesus (IF he existed – I’m a mythicist, by the way) would have been a man of his time. Which means that he would have held the same opinion as every other man of his time (how would he have felt any other way??) — women were possessions.”
Let’s diagram the logical argument:
Premise #1: Men in that time period thought women were possessions.
Premise #2: Jesus was a man in that period.
Conclusion: Therefore—Jesus must have believed the same way that all other men believed.
The obvious fallacy is the assumption that Jesus automatically agreed with other people’s opinions of that time period.
Logical fallacy: If most people believe _____, then everyone must believe _____.
For example:
Premise #1: Most modern people believe in using electricity.
Premise #2: Therefore all people in the modern time period believe in using electricity.
Conclusion: Therefore everyone (even the Amish) believe in using electricity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Katy said,
This is off topic for the original post (I apologize to all), but I just wanted to add out of the different reasons I’ve partially (not totally, but partially) walked away from the Christian faith in the last few years is that other than my Mom and Dad, and a tiny number of other self professing Christians, I’ve not seen most Christians offer practical assistance to those in need.
My dad will do things like take his fellow church members to doctor’s appointments – he will drive them when they are too frail or sick. My mom used to cook and clean for sick neighbors (whether they were Christian or not).
I used to do that too – I used to offer concrete assistance to people in need when and where I could, because that is how my parents raised me, that was the example they set, and I believed it’s what the Bible teaches.
Ever since my mother died several years ago, however, I began noticing that most Christians -especially the ones I meet in real life- are terrible at this.
Many Christians I’ve seen are willing to write checks to donate to charities that feed starving kids in third world nations and so on, but they will shame and scold any person who comes to them needing help with groceries, emotional support, etc.
And I don’t mean just me, though this did happen to me after Mom died and I sought emotional support from Christians, who refused to offer any-
I’ve seen many people on various other blogs and forums say in their time of need, when they went to a Christian or their church for financial assistance, emotional support, or asked to be driven home from a doctor’s appointment (or whatever the need was), the Christians or church in question flatly refused to help!
And maybe even on top of the refusal also gave them a shaming lecture about how they should help themselves, not rely on others, they should remember that people in third world nations have life harder than them so don’t expect help from others, etc.
I perceive this as being a big problem, and I think it’s one factor of a few as to why so many people are dropping out of churches.
My perception is that Churches (and many Christians) are not meeting the needs of “every day” people in their communities who are undergoing more “regular” type problems-
Churches are only helping “exotic” problems (e.g., starvation in Africa, children being sold into human trafficking overseas, etc)
But they don’t want to offer support to more common, regular people who are going through the more garden variety life issues, such as the widowed woman who is financially strapped, living alone, has no one to do the odd repair around her home, to drive her to the grocery store or doctor’s office, help her pay for groceries, etc.
(Sorry to go off topic.)
LikeLike
Carmen said, <blockquote.It is Biblical. Anyone who is interpreting the Bible to make it seem like it’s anything but patriarchal, suggesting perhaps women played a significant role in the Bible, and/or stating that women had as many rights as men are interpreting it through rose-coloured glasses.
Women had one function in the Bible stories, and one function only. I shouldn’t have to spell it out for you. In a primitive, patriarchal society women were possessions . Period. I don’t agree.
You’re actually choosing to view and interpret and use the Bible in the same manner that the complementarians do.
As I’ve gotten older and researched and read more, I realize there is more than one way to read and consider the Bible.
LikeLike
Lea said,
Also, note that Jesus went against the societal norms and scriptural understandings of his day to treat women as equals.
Which really upset the “complementarian” (yes, I’m using that word anachronistically here) Pharisees quite a bit, and even some of his male disciples.
Jesus taught women, allowed them to debate him, question him, etc. He did not treat women like irrational, overly emotional, subservient things only intended to be broodmares.
Jesus of Nazareth took their comments (and them) seriously. He defended them even when the religious around wanted them stoned to death or ostracized. Jesus refused in each and every case.
LikeLike
Lea said (to Mark),
Yeah, this is one tell in the complementarian position, or in men who don’t take women seriously (but may claim that they do).
As to complementarians specifically – they are always quite keen on pounding a lectern and telling women what they think the Bible says we can do, should do, or should not do.
These men expend a lot of effort and time trying to convince us non-comp women on this blog why gender egalitarianism (or mutuality) is supposedly wrong and complementarianism is right, and why only wives should submit in a marriage.
I do not see these men expending near the same amount of time, effort, energy, and comment space in lecturing men to treat wives the way Christ loves the church.
They choose to hammer away on womanly submission and female subordination, not how MEN should be treating women.
Their priority is to keep women in line. They want men to remain in control of women. That ultimately is what complementarianism is all about.
Lea said to Mark,
Ditto. It’s an absolute breath of fresh air to see men who read what we post (or what other women post) on these subjects and take it seriously. In my experience, especially online, that is a very rare thing.
I usually come across men who ignore most of what I say, or only choose to ram their “wife submit!” views down my throat. They don’t want to deal with how their comp doctrine has negatively worked in my life.
LikeLike
Carmen said,
The complementarians interpret the Bible in such a way to keep women down.
You don’t have to believe in a being called the Devil to see that or concede to that point.
I wonder why you post to this blog. Is it to de-convert Christians to atheism?
You told me on another post about feminism a few weeks ago that you’re not here to persuade non- or anti- feminists to view women (or women’s causes) more favorably. That much I know.
Regarding Christianity / faith, I’m in a place of doubt myself the last few years, but I don’t care for the tactic of replying to someone of faith that their beliefs or scripture are nothing but myth (as in being false), and implying they are out of touch with reality.
The comp guy on the other thread was pulling this condescending stuff on me as well, claiming I am not living in reality but am living in “fantasy.” (I did tell him to kiss off in response, before bowing out of that thread about two weeks ago.)
It’s unnecessary behavior. It doesn’t make atheism look appealing to me.
At times, you act as though you are on friendly terms with some who post here, but on other occasions, like with me previously, or there with Avid Reader in this thread, you get snarky.
LikeLike
D said,
No, I understood your points, D.
I critiqued them twice above. Did you see those posts?
Even though you are not saying you are for “forcing” women into “roles,” I still disagree with your opinions.
You keep arguing that roles simply “exist.”
I do not believe that gender roles “exist,” depending on how you are understanding that statement
I disagree that “gender roles simply exist.”
Society conditions or forces women into roles. That is why society has gender roles in the first place.
Gender Roles do not exist because women (or men) innately prefer certain roles, God designed them to want to take on certain roles, or are biologically predisposed to take on certain roles.
This is about the third time this thread I’ve explained this. You either haven’t been reading my posts or are completely misunderstanding them.
You said,
Nope, I never assumed that you were arguing for “forcing someone based on their gender into doing something against their will.”
You said,
I think she was describing your behavior as such (not you personally), which is not an ad hominem.
And up thread, I agreed with that premise of hers twice – once in a post directed at her by her name, and once in a post to you specifically.
I said your behavior on these threads is in fact usually obtuse as well as meandering. You can read my post to you about that in this thread _Located Here_
I get the feeling you’ve not been reading my posts.
LikeLike
@Daisy per September 7, 2018 @ 11:12 AM comment thread,
So true! I love the fact that your parents were “being the Body of Christ” on a daily basis, not just Sunday morn, as Christ calls His sheep to be. What a wonderful testimony of Jesus Christ working and moving with your parents’ souls/and yours as well! We have been brainwashed to believe that our faith depends on meeting in a building once a week to have that “membership box” checked off, and that “communion card” turned in to the leadership in “proving we have faith in Jesus Christ.” This is hogwash as early believers met in homes, broke bread on a daily basis, and worshiped together in spirit and truth to our LORD. Our faith was and still is about “rejoicing with those who rejoice, and mourning with those who mourn,” as well as caring for the “least of these” and “bearing one another’s burdens…….it’s called being a Christian, a Christ believer and follower. And our faith is still about “relationship” in showing Christ to the world. It’s truly a “daily mission trip” in serving our LORD, and will probably not qualify as a “resume enhancement mission trip” that I have seen job seekers use to their benefit.
I really enjoy seeing folks “be the church” instead of bragging out their “c’hurch attendance and how much money they give; for this give me the Hope (Jesus).
LikeLiked by 1 person
D said,
<
blockquote> I don’t advocate roles being forced on anyone.” It’s great you don’t want to “force” women into roles. I mean that sincerely.
However. IMO (and other women’s mileage may vary on this),
However, it’s no less insulting for you to say or to IMPLY (as you’ve been doing) that women were designed by God, or by Biology, to favor being school teachers and working around children.
It’s no less insulting for you to say or to IMPLY that women are born to, biologically prone to, prefer being kindergarten teachers or baby-sitters.
You’re ignoring other factors that go into why women choose what jobs, hobbies, and interests that they pursue.
You’re chalking up a woman’s life choices, such as what career to enter, to biology or God’s design.
LikeLike
Katy you’re such a breath of fresh air! Hope you’re having a good day.
LikeLike
D said,
I have never said that I believe that you are
“advocating “gender roles” being forced on men and women.”
Yet you keep saying that on every other post you make to this thread.
I do think you are ultimately doing so, but in a round-about way, whether you realize it or not or care to admit to it or not.
You are basically advocating for gender roles for women, but using a different approach than complementarians do by trying to avoid their terminology, but the end result or the assumptions are the same.
My understanding of your views is this:
You are arguing that “gender roles simply exist.”
I said, to paraphrase my earlier posts,
<
blockquote>“Wrong, nope. “Gender Roles” exist (in the manner you suggest), and women often enter what are considered “feminine” jobs because of cultural pressure, sexism, and social conditioning, not necessarily due to innate biological differences.” I also pointed out that you are arguing for gender expectations based on Benevolent Sexism and Unconcious Bias. See my post to you about that _located here_, on page 1 of this comment thread.
D said,
I disagree yet again.
And I’ve explained why, and cited links to research and such, several times up thread. For example, see _Tthis Post of Mine_ on this thread.
D said,
This is an accurate description of your usual posting habits.
You have even done this with me a few times today in replying to me.
You keep mis-contruing and misunderstanding my views, even though I’ve explained them to you several times already.
LikeLike
Mark said,
On Jesus Creed blog (pertinent to your comments):
Identity Mapping
LikeLike
I wanted to add something regarding this, by D:
I’ve re-read this remark of yours.
Yes, sometimes in some situations or for some tasks, people in a culture “prefer” one gender to another, such as, women as kindergarten teachers.
But in my view, that is so because many in a culture hold sexist, pre-conceived and flawed assumptions about women.
I don’t believe that all to most women are necessarily more interested in working with and around children than men are, but they are brought up by their mothers to focus on children.
I don’t believe all or most women are necessarily biologically predisposed to dealing with children better than men – the difference is, in U.S. culture, girls are socialized to want to be future mothers and to want to look after children. Boys do not usually receive that same socialization.
LikeLike
Carmen said,
Point 2.
I have no idea how that is so, since the Gospels record, as _I said to Lea_ earlier,
If Jesus believed as all other men of his day and age did, we wouldn’t see him in debates with men, as recorded in the Gospels, about women so often… but we do.
Your point also does not follow.
That someone is a product of their time does not mean they agreed with everyone around them on all issues.
I sure don’t.
Take politics, for example. I’m neither for or against Trump.
But 2,000 years from now, someone could go on to a blog to say,
“Because so many hated Trump in 2018, Daisy must have hated Trump too, there is no way she could not have.”
Or, someone else 2,000 years from now could say on a blog,
“Because so many loved Trump in 2018, Daisy must have loved Trump too, there is no way she could not have.”
The fact is, I’m personally neither wholly for or against Trump, even though many around me in my nation either are big fans or haters of his.
In the same way…
Just because 90% or more of the men back in Jesus’ day and nation were patriarchalist (spelling?) does not mean that Jesus himself was.
That’s quite an assumption.
Jesus actually pointed out to the Pharisees on many an occasion that they had warped and misunderstood their own Scriptures, and he would correct them where they had mis-intepreted things.
Anyway. It is possible for individuals to disagree with the larger secular, religious, or political community they are being raised in.
Not everyone walks in lock-step to the prevailing cultural norms of their day.
Isn’t that in part what the hippie culture of the American 1960s was all about? And all the protest rock music back then?
I don’t see where Jesus “treated women like possessions” in the New Testament. I think Avid Reader was asking you for your examples of that.
(continued in another post…)
LikeLike
(part 2, response to Carmen’s posts)
Carmen said,
Point 1.
Was Avid Reader putting words in your mouth?
I didn’t see it that way, based on your own posts.
Here is one of your initial posts that got the ball rolling (addressed to Mark): Source):
And this one:
By the way, did anyone in this thread specifically refer to Jesus as “the first feminist”?
(I ask because I don’t recall seeing that claim made by anyone on this thread but perhaps I overlooked it.
I don’t even completely like the term “feminist,” because _the word “feminist” is so problematic_ and, I think Jesus defied categories.
I don’t think Jesus was a feminist, I don’t think he was anti-feminist either, any more than I think Jesus was a Democrat or a Republican, or a Free Market Advocate, a Capitalist, or a Socialist.
I don’t think Jesus was any of those things, though he may have agreed or disagreed with aspects of all or most of those views or political parties.
Everyone wants to slap their own labels on Jesus to make him their own.)
Anyway….
Avid Reader then asked:
Carmen, you made some assertions about Jesus. You’re saying that Jesus was not “the first feminist,” and you don’t believe he’s any different than many of the sexist men of his culture.
You seem to imply that Jesus was a patriarchalist, and/or a sexist jerk (or am I repeating myself)?
Avid Reader is asking you to back up your view. I don’t see that as being unreasonable or as putting words in your mouth.
You seem to be claiming that Jesus was sexist and/or that he treated woman poorly. So, how do you think Jesus treated women, and interacted with them?
LikeLike
(part 3, response to Carmen’s posts)
Carmen said,
Point 1.
You think a fictional, mythical character (Jesus) was sexist, as were the very real men who existed in a patriarchal Israel 2,000 years ago?
Why would you attribute qualities to, or make assumptions about, a person you consider to be fabricated?
And why would you then want to debate about any of this on a blog with a lot of people who do believe that Jesus was an historical person?
(And some here also further believe he was God incarnate?)
I personally don’t believe Unicorns exist, but…
If others want to believe in Unicorns, and so long as they’re not hurting others with their Unicorn beliefs, I don’t think I’d try to argue them out of their Unicorn beliefs on blogs or forums (and for over a year’s time), or get testy with them if they counter my claims or implications about Unicorns.
You’ve stated on previous threads in weeks past that you’re not interested in persuading sexist men on this blog out of their sexism, or to believe in feminism.
So, if you’re not here to persuade people to accept feminism or reject sexism, are you here to persuade people to stop believing in Jesus? I’m not sure what the end goal is here on your part, or if there is one.
(If anyone is interested, I can later share some of the reasons why I post to this blog, why I began posting a few years ago.)
Anyway. If Jesus was a myth, why does the New Testament, which dates back to roughly 1,900 years or so ago, contain quotes by a person called Jesus in the text rebuking the patriarchal men of his time (such as Pharisees and scribes) for their unfair, sexist, or poor treatment of women?
Some scribe, or set of scribes, took quill to parchment and vellum way back when to record the words they attributed to Jesus of Nazareth.
Where did those forward-thinking scribes and scripture copyists get their more enlightened ideas about female equality from?
If there was so much sexism around way back when in all those cultures, who was it that put pen to paper hundreds of years ago and recorded incidents of a male character named Jesus telling the sexist males of that sexist culture to stop mistreating women, and to stop applying double standards to women vs. men?
That content had to come from somewhere.
(Unless you’re in hyper denial mode and saying you do not see any where at all in the Gospels, or elsewhere in the New Testament, that the sexist norms of the culture back then were being challenged by anyone, including the figure in the text called Jesus.)
And I’m aware of all the theories… about the Gnostics and stuff. But that’s another topic altogether.
LikeLike
Lea,
Acting Dense and or being obtuse in the context you were directly implying toward me has the same meaning, but it doesn’t really matter, does it?
I was just a little taken back with the way you are implying my lack of intelligence and if you weren’t implying that then why even include those words in the context that you did?
I would never do that to you or anyone else on this thread, except maybe a hyper-calvinist or a male chauvinist.
I do believe there are times when it is best for a woman to do the mentoring and at times there are instances that the majority are more qualified than men or are more preferred to do the job over a man.
That is how I defined roles. I don’t find the term gender role offensive as roles do exist. What I do find offensive is when certain roles are being forced on either a man or woman, which usually occurs where there is abuse.
LikeLike
D said,
And I still find this view of yours problematic.
Your view ends up re-enforcing sexist ideas and subtly pressuring women into roles they do not want or may not actually be adept at.
For example, many girls in America get the message while growing up in their school years that most boys are better at math and science than girls are.
So, girls give up on math and science when young. That is one reason why STEM careers don’t have as many women as do men.
There are studies online about this. I have some on my blog here
When you imply or assume as you do that women and girls are “just better at” certain jobs and tasks more than boys and men, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
That is one reason why you see more women working as kindergarten teachers than you do men.
LikeLike
No. One is you being confused and the other is you purposefully ignoring what I say or gaslighting. The charitable explanation is that you don’t understand me. I don’t really know what else to say, honestly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Daisy, The Man who has it all lampoons this issue so well. Like this one:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Carmen said,
I agree with most of what you say there.
It would be nice if the Bible plainly came right out and said in some text or another,
“Hey Men: God considers women of equal value to men, and women should not be excluded from certain roles in churches and so on, due to biological sex alone, women should be given equal opportunity to choose any career they want to, and to even be preachers in a church, if they are qualified and have the skill set and gifting for it.”
Why on earth a deity that supposedly wrote the Bible didn’t see fit to slap that in there, knowing down the line, that we’d have ignorant fundamentalist, evangelical, and other Christians, using cherry-picked verses, or verses yanked out of their cultural setting and misapplied to today’s women, to keep women down, is beyond me.
You’re falling into the same trap, though, of approaching the Bible just like 99% of Christians today, especially the conservative ones.
(And I used to read the Bible just like that. Escaping that mindset does require a paradigm shift, and a willingness to ask yourself, “Maybe my views have been wrong this entire time.”)
I think that Pete Enns and Scot McKnight (of Jesus Creed) blog have valid, alternative ways of approaching the Bible you may want to check out.
(Which is not to say I am in complete, total agreement with either men, especially Enns, on every topic.)
_Pete Enns blog_
by Scot McKnight: The Blue Parakeet, 2nd Edition: Rethinking How You Read the Bible
-on Google Books (free sample chapters)
(McKnight also has a blog on the Patheos site you can look up called “Jesus Creed,” if you are interested.)
I don’t think the Bible is as clear-cut on every subject as many present-day Christians like to think it is, nor do I think the Bible was intended to be used as a manual for every problem and topic under the sun (such as psychological issues).
I read an interesting web page months ago about all this, wish I could recall where, but it talked about how the God of the Bible means for our view or understanding of the Bible itself to change as time progresses.
I can’t articulate it as well as the guy who wrote the page, but it made so much sense to me.
God progressively reveals some of his views and purposes to believers as time marches on. It’s only in hind-sight that you can go to the Bible and then certain verses make more sense in light of cultural shifts that have taken place, and that is by God’s design that people start to re-interpret passages or how they use the Bible.
God did that from Old Testament to the New, kind of… you had Jews of Jesus’ day reject him as the Messiah because they misunderstood what the OT was saying about the Messiah.
They were expecting a warlord and political conqueror, but what they got was a guy who humbled himself and who voluntarily gave up his life to pay for humanity’s sins.
Jesus was not into toppling the ancient Roman government at that time, but you can understand how the Jews way back then were expecting the Messiah to do that, based on their point in history, and how they were interpreting the Old Testament.
In the same way, I think Christians have gotten a lot of stuff wrong, only to decades later, realize they were wrong – like regarding white Americans in the south who used to use the Bible to justify why they owned black people.
In hindsight, today’s (most) American Christians can see how that was a warped understanding and misuse of the Bible, and that the Bible, while mentioning slavery and including rules for the treatment of slaves under owners in ancient cultures, never really condones slavery, or says it was God’s intent or ideal for humanity.
LikeLike
Lea said,
<
blockquote>Daisy, The Man who has it all lampoons this issue so well. Like this one:
Todays Fact: Women and men are equal but different. For example, women are strong, decisive and assertive leaders. Men are communicative, nurturing and emotional leaders. We have science to thank for this. Thanks Science!
<
blockquote> Oh yeah! I just quoted Man Who Has It All on the previous page of this blog.
I dig the Man Who Has It All. 🙂
One of my favorites from MWHIA (that I quoted earlier) was this one:
That sounds like what “D” has been saying on this thread.
D thinks women just happen to be more gifted or better at menial tasks and lower-rung careers that most of society doesn’t honor so much (though I think he personally has said he deeply values women teaching children(?)).
Isn’t it funny how all the jobs and tasks women get told they are “better at” and have “natural giftings for” are coincidentally the very same ones that don’t get as much cultural esteem, or as much pay as the jobs and tasks that are considered “masculine,” that tend to be held or done by men?
(_Study Shows That Pay Drops Universally in Male-Dominated Fields When Women Join En Masse_)
Interesting how that works, eh?
Gee, I wonder what could be behind that phenomenon?
I don’t know if you are more tired at explaining to D what you said in your one post referencing “obtuse and dense” than you are in reading him rebut it 20 times a day. I even tried to explain to him at least once or twice what I thought you meant. I think it’s time to move on from that, on his part.
LikeLike
Sorry to once more go a bit off topic, but this by Mark got me to thinking:
I am drifting somewhere between agnosticism (or deism) and Christianity these days. In that process, I’ve done a lot of skimming of material, including the occasional atheist article, twitter account, and site.
I read one a couple of years ago that was so sad.
I don’t remember if it was by an atheist or by a Christian paraphrasing some atheistic beliefs or an atheist person, but it was describing how atheists, at the end of the day, don’t really believe in love per se, or, maybe they do, but it comes down to nothing to them but electrical and chemical reactions in your brain… nothing more.
That is just so sad. I love my mother more than anything in the world, she passed away a few years ago, and I’d like to think my love for her was more than just some physical workings in my body, that it had more meaning, or more of a basis than that.
LikeLike
LOL. Exactly!
And I do value anyone (not just women) who teaches children and does a good job of it. BF is going back to school to teach and I think it’s lovely. He’s great with kids. It’s just ridiculous to hyper focus on this one thing.
And of course you are absolutely right that the jobs women are just mysteriously considered ‘best at’ and ‘just naturally gravitate towards’ as our ‘role’ (as told by people who aren’t me) tend to be the ones that pay worst or not at all. This is not a coincidence and I’m not hear for that.
[yes, I’m pretty much done explaining things that have been explained and explained and explained…at least for today. It’s weekend 😉 Everyone have a lovely one!]
LikeLiked by 1 person
As far as I know, that isn’t particularly an atheist belief. There are physiological components to romantic love that have a time limit, but I’ve never heard that applied to familial love. I think the kind of (romantic) love that you build has to be more than the attraction is all that really means. That’s where friendship comes in.
LikeLike
Carmen said to Mark
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but…
Evil exists, regardless if there is a supernatural being called the Devil or not.
There was a horrendous news story about two years ago, out of New Mexico, I believe.
This little girl, on her tenth birthday – she got home from school, was fed drugs by her mother’s live in boyfriend, she was then raped by her mother’s live-in boyfriend and the mother’s (female) cousin.
They killed the girl. They chopped off one arm, attempted to burn her body. The police found her body in the mother’s apartment’s bathtub. The girl’s cut off arm was found in another part of the home by the cops.
Come to find out, prior to that, for months, the mother had been (if I recall the details correctly) had been advertising in Craig’s List site for grown men to pay her to let her let them rape her kid in her own home, which she had done on numerous occasions.
She would sit in the room and watch men rape her girl because she said she was “turned on” by it.
And you don’t want to use the word “evil” to describe that?
Do you want to chalk up that incredibly perverse and deviant behavior to being nothing more than a “mistake”?
If there is a hell and an afterlife, I won’t be upset if the mother, the rapist man and woman spend all eternity there. On occasions like this, when I see awful news reports like that one, I sincerely hope there IS an afterlife, and the abusers roast away in Hell forever.
LikeLike
Lea said,
Ues, physical reactions take place when someone is around their lover or thinking about their lover (or loved one), but the way the article was talking, that is ALL atheists ascribe to love, or, that is where their views about morality, deity, people lead to. I found it a sad and hollow thing.
LikeLike
Oh, type-o in post to Lea:
I typed,
Ues,
should have been “Yes,
LikeLike
Lea,
We don’t like roles being force on any gender, that we can agree on.
If I wrote to you “I can’t honestly tell if you are acting dense or really this obtuse” my impression you would’ve been offended or insulted and I’d probably have my postings screened by Julie Anne or Kathi.
Just because I see things slightly different than you do or if you see things different than I do, doesn’t mean we need to insult one another.
A synonym for “obtuse: includes “dense”
Synonyms for obtuse
adj
slow to understand
“dense”
dopey
dull
dumb
imperceptive
insensitive
opaque
slow on uptake
stolid
thick
uncomprehending
unintelligent
LikeLike
D said,
Point 1.
From what I understand of your views as put forth in this thread, you are still advocating for sexist stereotypes which influences what careers women choose or are permitted to choose or are encouraged to hold by culture, their family, or their church, so it’s still a problematic view.
Point 1.
You are doing the very thing you’ve been arguing about 50 times a day every day on this thread but are insisting you are not doing.
By continually harping on whether or not Lea called you “dense and obtuse” in one post, or arguing and nit picking over what those terms mean, you are, yes, acting in a dense and obtuse manner.
That, plus you intentionally distort and misunderstand (or ignore) our points, and you do this repeatedly, on other threads, too.
You frequently harp on some small thing or another like this on many threads.
You remind me of this one aunt I have who loves to hold grudges.
Unless you drop it now, I can guarantee that five weeks from now, you will still be on this thread chewing Lea out for having said your behavior was obtuse and/or possibly dense.
Can you please drop this and move on already?
You’re focusing on this petty, stupid issue and ignoring the reams of posts where most of us have been commenting on sexism in culture or church, or with Carmen about atheism and what the Bible says about sexism and evil, etc.
LikeLike
Correction, in post above,
Point 1.
You are doing the very thing you’ve been arguing about 50 times a day every day on this thread but are insisting you are not doing.
That should be,
Point 2
You are doing the very thing you’ve been arguing about 50 times a day every day on this thread but are insisting you are not doing.
LikeLike
This is from a Tweet by CBE:
THREAD: When egals argue that God doesn’t intend for women to submit to men in all situations at all times, or for wives to always submit to husbands, we’re accused of hating submission. So, we thought it might be helpful to outline what we think submission is & isn’t. 1/15
You can read the remainder of that thread _Here_
LikeLike
Daisy,
Lea and I are pursuing a little closure already.
But I want to make it clear, even with you, that having a slightly different view doesn’t mean we should insult one another.
Otherwise this is no room for intellectual discussions and you will have pushed me away from the conversation.
LikeLike
D said,
She wasn’t referring to your post(s) as dense and obtuse because you have a difference of opinion.
Do you want me to explain to you why she said what she said?
LikeLike
Daisy,
I know she wasn’t referring to my post because of my difference of opinion.
Her comments were directly targeting my state of mind. this is what she wrote: “I can’t honestly tell if you are acting dense or really this obtuse”
I have had several exchanges with you, and I know if I said that to you, you would’ve been insulted.
LikeLike
D said,
That’s not what you said here:
D said,
D said,
Do you want me to explain to you why she was saying that?
(I’ve actually already explained it several times over on the first and second pages of this comment thread. Do you want me to explain it yet again?)
What do you suppose prompted Lea to say that to you?
LikeLike
I know what prompted her to say that. Not completely agreeing with someone isn’t a good enough reason.
If I ever had just cause to say something like that to you, I still wouldn’t because it is rude and it would either push you away or cause you to verbally retaliate.
Daisy, we aren’t even agreeing about this. Lets leave it alone.
LikeLike
D said,
But you flip flopped on this a moment ago and said,
Now you’re back to saying Lea said what she said merely because she disagrees with your opinion.
Which is it?
D said,
Then please explain to me, why in your words, or in your view, did Lea write what she wrote about your post(s) being dense or obtuse?
LikeLike
I didn’t flip flop, she didn’t like what I was writing, which prompted her to directly target my state of mind.
You said to me over an hour ago “Can you please drop this and move on already?”
LikeLike
D said,
Hmm. Let’s review.
D said,
Daisy replied,
D said,
Daisy said,
D said,
So you are now claiming it was a both-and, not an either-or.
Well, why then do you suppose that Lea did not like what you were writing and prompted her to “target your state of mind”?
Would you like for me to explain it to you?
(Hint: it has nothing to do with her disagreeing with your views or “targeting your state of mind.”)
LikeLike
Daisy,
I know why and I don’t really care.
I was having a conversation with Lea, you came in and wrote: “Can you please drop this and move on already?”
Now you are the one not dropping it.
There is no justification for Lea to target my state of mind over a trivial minor disagreement the comment, and yet you seem to think otherwise.
Lets leave it at that. You won,
LikeLike
D said,
So that is the reason you are citing?
That is what I said in the first place – you think she was disagreeing with a view of yours, which is what I said in the first place, but you later disputed that, but are now back to saying yes, that was the reason, (which, also, in your view, resulted in her “targeting your mind”).
Lea was not “targeting your state of mind” due to a “trivial minor disagreement.”
Do you want me to explain to you why she said what she said?
(I’ve already explained why much earlier in the day in other posts).
LikeLike
Daisy, to simplify it, both Lea and I both agree that roles shouldn’t be forced on any gender.
As I said before, I don’t advocate gender roles, I’m saying they actually exist by willing men and women in churches and in certain pockets in the work place. She doesn’t like the term “gender role” and I respect that.
If you think this is a bigger deal than that, then you probably think she was justified for saying to me “I can’t honestly tell if you are acting dense or really this obtuse”. then lets leave it at that. I’m not going to sway your thinking.
I’m begging you to take the advice you gave me a few hours ago when you wrote to me: “Can you please drop this and move on already?”
LikeLike
D said,
You have misunderstood why Lea described your posts or your behavior as being “dense or obtuse.”
Would you like for me to explain why she said what she did?
The reason she said your post(s) / behavior were “dense or obtuse” is not because she was ‘disagreeing with your views and targeting your mind.’
You can always choose to stop replying to my posts.
But this is getting at the crux of the matter of why Lea said what she said.
You’re going to keep repeating the same behavior on this blog so long as you keep posting here. This dispute over the phrase “obtuse and dense” is not the first time you’ve pulled this.
You said,
Those women and men have been socially conditioned by their churches, parents,and culture to make certain assumptions about men and women, which is why we end up seeing more women teaching children than men.
You need to acknowledge that but you keep ignoring it and just keep repeating you’re not “forcing” anyone to adopt a role.
LikeLike
There are times where a woman is needed in a youth group full of girls. I know my wife when she was in a youth group growing up needed to talk to a woman on personal matters.
Yes, I also did concede that some statistics have given me the impression that most women (97.6%) are better or more willing at teaching pre-kindergarten and kindergarten classes. And because of that kind of experience leaning toward women, I would prefer the kindergarten teacher guiding my grandchildren.
I’m not going to comment on the intelligence of someone who disagrees with those views.
What do you want from me? Are you trying to change my mind and say how wrong I am?
Lets drop it. I’m done here.
LikeLike
D said,
And I told you previously twice I agree with that, there are times when men need men on men counseling and women may need or prefer woman on woman counseling.
That is not why I disagree with you about this gender stuff. I already explained why I disagree with you many times on former posts in this thread.
D said,
This is another issue. You like to have the last word.
You can choose to stop replying to my posts, but you keep replying.
At any rate, this is not why Lea was motivated to describe your post or behavior as “obtuse or dense” –
I already explained to you on this thread earlier today, at least once, possibly twice, WHY Lea said what she did to you.
And it was not due to that rationale you mention there but due to another reason(s).
Did you read my posts about that, yes or no? If yes, please summarize what I said to you so I can verify that you actually read the posts.
If you don’t address this, you’re going to keep behaving in the same way on this blog with Lea, with me, and with others.
LikeLike
D said,
So now, you are suggesting that anyone who does not share your views about gender (and teaching) is stupid.
That would include Lea, Serving Kids in Japan, Mark and myself – all four of us are dumb because we don’t share your opinions.
And you never did address this:
Not all women end up teaching children because they are “better at” teaching than men, or because they like teaching children. There are other reasons why people end up in the professions they do. You’ve not acknowledged that.
LikeLike
I didn’t say all women end up teaching children because they are “all” better at it.
I did say when it comes to younger pre-school and kindergarten students. women do dominate those positions. Maybe kids prefer it over men, I don’t know. Maybe men are more aggressive than woman and educators prefer woman over men in that age category.
I don’t see liberal educators discriminating when hiring more women than men to teach kindergartners. I have a lot of friends that teach, the ones that teach kindergartners say it is a very desirable position, so women aren’t being forced to teach those classes. So yeah, I prefer my granddaughter’s kindergarten teacher to be a woman.
If I can’t express those views or similar ones like that without being labeled as either dense or obtuse then I don’t belong here.
Daisy, I have already been through all this, Why are you trying to change my mind, I’m not trying to change yours?
Its like you are purposely trying to ignore the advice you gave me hours ago, don’t your remember? “Can you please drop this and move on already?
LikeLike
D said,
You imply that “most” women are better at it or more suited to it.
One of several reasons women end up in teaching positions is because culture, society, churches, and parents all adhere to sexist and gender stereotypes about what girls and boys are good at, and what they “should” do.
Those women and men have been socially conditioned by their churches, parents, and culture to make certain assumptions about men and women, which is why we end up seeing more women teaching children than men.
D said,
That is not why Lea referred to your post or behavior as “dense or obtuse.”
D said,
If you don’t address this (the “obtuse and dense” commentary), you’re going to keep behaving in the same way on this blog with Lea, with me, and with others.
This is another issue. You like to have the last word.
You can choose to stop replying to my posts, but you keep replying.
LikeLike
Daisy, “Many Christians I’ve seen are willing to write checks to donate to charities that feed starving kids in third world nations and so on, but they will shame and scold any person who comes to them needing help with groceries, emotional support, etc.”
Yeah, this is a real thing and I don’t understand why. Maybe it’s because it’s a second/third party issue. In other words, if Frank (whom I trust) says that Bill (whom I barely know) needs help, then maybe I’ll offer Bill help on Frank’s word. So, if Compassion or World Relief tells me that people in Ethiopia need help, I don’t need to interview every last one of them, I just trust that Compassion is helping them.
Same thing with homeless in our area. I can fund the local rescue mission and trust them to help the local homeless in the right way, but if there is a guy begging at a street corner, somehow I can walk by.
But, within the church, I think there is an enormous struggle against the Pharisaical undertones. The Pharisees believed (like Job’s friends) a version of the prosperity gospel. If you are righteous, God will give you money and health. If you are unrighteous, God will punish you. Then the converses are also true – the healthy and wealthy are such because of God’s blessing and the sick and poor are such because of some “sin”. We see these arguments in bits and pieces – for example, “who sinned, this man or his parents such that he was born blind?” or the disciples responding, “then who can be saved?” when Jesus said “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
So, in that sense, when a person approaches us with a “need”, our Pharisaical knee-jerk reaction is to think that the “need” is a punishment for sin and somehow we should allow those consequences.
I honestly really struggle with this in my children. My natural inclination when they reap the consequences of their action/inaction is to blame – e.g. you missed that homework assignment because you chose to play games instead, rather than turn it into a growth opportunity. Even growth opportunities, I feel I turn into “sin avoidance” – if you work really really hard, then you won’t fail this upcoming test. I don’t know that I have a good strategy to encourage them to work hard without it being about avoiding failure. Much of it is… if you get a bad grade, then you are closing these future doors.
LikeLike
D – “I have a lot of friends that teach, the ones that teach kindergartners say it is a very desirable position, so women aren’t being forced to teach those classes.”
I think this is a very naive statement. Force does not necessarily imply something direct. Force can exist due to economic pressure – that is I may want to mow lawns for a living, but I am an engineer because mowing lawns will not provide the standard of living I want. Force can exist due to societal norms – for example, in Japan where teachers are much more highly regarded in society, more males are attracted. Primary teachers, are 64% female vs 87% in the US, secondary teachers are 36% female vs 62% in the US, and post-secondary is 27% vs 49%.
We don’t deal in absolutes, so saying that women “want” to teach kindergartners has to be understood as primarily a relative statement. The prefer that to… other occupations, now why? I’ve already mentioned some things, such as how much educational positions fit into our Western societal roles for women. But also consider:
1) Salaries in education are typically by experience level and years of service, not discretionary to the administration – meaning that women and men in education get equal pay. That is not true in virtually all other occupations
2) Patriarchal societal norms, e.g. you said “So yeah, I prefer my granddaughter’s kindergarten teacher to be a woman.” en masse these views have a general encouragement of women towards those positions and discouragement of men. If our societal view of kindergarten teachers is female, then how can it be hard for you to see that there is a subtle force applied towards women that they ought to find teaching children rewarding vs. men who, perhaps when they want to be a kindergarten teacher raise eyebrows?
The same is true “relatively” towards shop and engineering. There isn’t necessarily any genetic issue that keeps girls from these careers, other than the subtle socialization effect – we buy girls dolls and we buy boys cars and tools. We assume girls to be more abstract and artistic while we assume boys to be more concrete and mechanically inclined. Then we praise them for the same – we praise girls for sportsmanship and service and we praise boys for competitiveness and leadership. Again, to say that this isn’t a societal “force” is to be naive. An artistic boy is presumed to be “gay”, and a competitive girl is a “tomboy”. A girl who is a leader is “bossy” while a boy who serves is a “pushover”.
LikeLike
Mark regarding your post of SEPTEMBER 9, 2018 @ 12:34 PM
Yeah, I don’t understand that behavior from a lot of Christians either, and it was very hurtful.
After my mother died, I was really expecting close -and extended- family members (most of whom are Christian, who are retired with lots of free time) and church people I went to during the grieving period to be there for me, but most were unwilling.
And I found it difficult to reach out to them. It felt embarrassing and shameful to phone these people and admit I needed someone to lean on!! But I forced myself to get out of my comfort zone and do so.
Many preferred to brush me off, give me platitudes, give advice – when what I was needing was someone just to sit next to me and pat me on the hand while I cried.
None of them wanted to do that for me, certainly not on an extended or consistent basis, and the grief lasted for a little over four years.
I also got Christians comparing my situation (grief over mom being dead) to what third world nation orphans going through, and then dismissing my emotional pain because orphans have life worse than me.
Well, maybe they do, but that did nothing to dissipate my grief but actually compounded the pain I was in.
(And again, this is not just me. During my time of grief, I went around blogs and forums about Christianity and/or grief and saw similar testimonies from other Christians who were let down when they needed help in their time of illness, grief, or with a divorce, etc, and they all said they got little to no help or empathy, but a lot of shaming, advice they didn’t ask for or need, etc).
(continued in a part 2)
LikeLike
(part 2)
Mark regarding your post of SEPTEMBER 9, 2018 @ 12:34 PM
It’s not that I’m against holding people accountable, by the way. (You spoke of your kids failing tests and stuff.)
I do think you should encourage your kids to study hard. If you get the feeling that one of your kids is intentionally being lazy or irresponsible, I wouldn’t blame you for taking them aside and telling them to study more and stop goofing off so much.
It’s difficult for me to speak on this particular topic, though, because I was always very good at school work.
I enjoyed mostly enjoyed reading, and my self esteem hinged in part on bringing home straight A’s, even when in college.
I was also busting my rear end to earn all A’s because I was trying to earn my father’s approval and to hear him say, “I am proud of you.” (He never did either).
Also, I was a very conscientious type of college kid. My father paid my way through college. I knew he came from an impoverished background when he was a kid, money was tight. I would see other college kids partying all the time, hitting the night clubs, blowing off studying.
Not me. I didn’t goof around and party. I sat in my dorm room every semseter studying my school books, or I went to the library.
I ate, lived, and breathed school, so I earned A’s in almost everything. (I tended to usually make B’s in math and science, because those were my weak subjects). But I would see other kids slacking off – going out to see movies, visiting bars, going out to get drunk, and they’d earn D’s and F’s.
I could not in good conscience do that to my father, since he was paying my way.
I also didn’t want to do that for myself. It made me feel good to get good grades. It was a personal challenge I set for myself since I was a kid in grade school all the way to college to get straight As.
If you know that your children are sincerely doing their best with school work but still coming home with D’s and F’s, I’m not a fan of parents who still scream and shame their kids over that/
In my case, both my parents knew I was sincerely trying to do well in all my classes, but they also knew I was weakest in math and science, so when I came home with a report card with all A’s – except for the occasional “B” or “C” in math or science, they were okay with that, because they knew I had given it my all, and I was not blowing off studying for math exams by playing video games all day, etc.
LikeLike
part 3.
I wanted to add something else you said, Mark, but forgot to above.
Mark said,
Thats part of your post reminded me of something I’ve noticed in the last few years.
I was raised in Southern Baptist churches.
Even now, my father goes to a Southern Baptist church. I went with him to his church for a few months before dropping out.
I periodically talk to a lady from my dad’s SB church.
I’m going to use her as an example here, but I’ve experienced this SAME behavior from other Christians who are not into the “Word of Faith” Gospel.
Okay. Southern Baptists are most definitely not into a lot of the same doctrines as are Pentecostal / Charismatic Christians. Southern Baptists tend to believe that “talking in tongues” and so on is not for believers today (I myself am agnostic on that topic).
One of the things I find so weird and hypocritical in talking to, say, Southern Baptist Christians, such as the lady from my father’s SB church, is that while they mock or strongly repudiate the “Word of Faith” Gospel (also known as “Prosperity Gospel”), they never the less act as they do in some contexts.
When I met with the Southern Baptist church lady a few months ago at her home, to discuss certain issues I’m having in my life – one of which is anxiety attacks or generalized anxiety – this Southern Baptist lady starts implying that I may never have really been “saved” to start with.
At one point, she actually asked me something like, “Who is Jesus to you,” after I finished telling her about a life long struggle I’ve had with anxiety, and I used to have clinical depression.
She seemed to be implying that I was never really saved to start with.
She also told me more than once, on more than one visit to her home, that she and her family have “inner peace and joy” because they have “the Holy Spirit living in their hearts.”
Again, she seems to suggest the reason I used to have depression and still deal with anxiety these days is because I, contrary to her and her family, do not have the “Holy Spirit in my Heart.”
This sounds like an “emotional health gospel,” the sort of thing I’d expect a television “Wealth and Health Gospel’ preacher to say. I would not expect any Southern Baptist to spout this stuff off, but they do.
I didn’t care to argue much with that church lady, so I didn’t say much of anything, but between you and me, I find it offensive, insensitive, and insulting when so many Christians (and amazingly, including some Southern Baptists, of all people!!) who imply if you have any problems in life (such as psychological or mental health problems, such as anxiety), you must be a Non-Christian who never really asked Jesus into your heart as Lord and Savior.
I’m sorry, but though I know the Bible says Jesus says from him you can get peace but not as the world gives peace, etc, I don’t see where the Bible makes promises and guarantees that all believers in Jesus will never, ever experience anxiety, anxiety attacks, depression, or PTSD, bipolar disorder, etc.
I am now rather hesitant and reluctant to get transparent with self professing Christians I meet in person and try to talk with them about my anxiety problems, etc, because it seems almost any time I do, the usual reaction is to go into victim-blaming mode, due to theological beliefs that say,
“If you are really, truly a Christian, you will never experience fear, anxiety, depression, etc, in life. If you’re having those issues, you must be in sin, or you never truly accepted Jesus as your savior.”
I’m surprised to see that even some Southern Baptists believe in and promote that Emotional Health Gospel. They’re supposed to be opposed to that sort of theology in regards to finances and physical health, but they practice and believe it in the area of psychological health or other areas of life.
LikeLike
(part 1)
Mark said (to D),
Exactly. Not all “force” is direct and obvious.
Sometimes “force” is very indirect and subtle.
If you keep teaching your daughters (or girls generally), or saying publicly, that, “all to most girls and women are better at ‘X’ than men are, and I personally prefer women, rather than men, to do ‘Z,'”
…you are strongly influencing girls and women to do X and Z.
Which is why you may see that there are more females performing X and Z than there are men.
I tried explaining that (among other factors) above many times, but D never got it.
D seems to think all to most women are just born being better at X than men are, or that most women are born wanting to do X more than men (which is a very James Damore- or Jordan Peterson- type argument to make, one which I address on my ‘Daisy’ blog).
There seems to be a lot of Unconcious Bias going on there, and maybe a tad of _Benevolent Sexism_, too.
I linked D to articles about Unconcious Bias in one my first five posts to him on page 1 of this comment thread, but I don’t think he ever looked at those posts.
D gets easily distracted on other (trivial) points, goes down rabbit trails, and prefers you to go down those rabbit trails with him, over issues that are tangential to the main points of a post or thread. (I more than entertained him on that score the other day, heh.)
Girls are subtly (and sometimes not- so- subtly) discouraged from pursuing certain courses of study or careers (such as anything mathematically related) by their teachers and parents, and/or the culture in which they live, which is one reason of several why society tends to see more women in certain careers (such as teaching children) than they do men.
(I never did see D address that, and I brought that point up 15 times!)
(continued in part 2)
LikeLike
(part 2)
Mark said (to D),
In the movies _“Meet the Parents”_ and “Meet The Fockers,” actor Ben Stiller plays a nurse named Greg Focker.
As we know, in the United States, most nurses happen to be women.
During the course of the “Meet The Parents” movie and its sequels, Ben Stiller’s father-in-law, (played by actor Robert DeNiro), keeps subtly ridiculing the Stiller character for working as a nurse – because nursing is supposedly a “woman’s profession.”
(Men are “supposed to” be doctors, according to the father- in- law character and some of his friends.)
When I was a teen, my mother used to have a male hair-stylist. She LOVED this man’s work – he was really good at giving her perms and hair cuts.
One day, my mother walked into her usual appointment time to find him gone.
A woman at that salon ended up styling Mom’s hair from that day forward, which bummed my mother out.
My Mom told me that while she was there getting her hair done, her former (male) stylist dropped by.
My mom told me she asked him, “Why did you quit working here, I was so sad to see you go, I love how you do my hair!?”
He said to my Mom,
“I was tired of people mocking me for being a male hair-dresser. Many people I meet, including my family, think that this is a “woman’s” profession, and some suggested I must be gay. I’m not gay. I used to really love cutting and styling hair, but I was so tired of being teased for being a man in this profession, I quit. I’m now working in another career.”
So, that guy gave up a career he loved… all because people have a gender stereotyped expectation over which biological sex should be a hair stylist and they kept making fun of him over it. I find that really sad.
One of a few reasons more women “want” to be teachers, and / or end up as teachers, is because the culture, and men like “D,” repeatedly tell women from the time they are girls, that women are just naturally better at teaching than are men, and they suggest that girls should want to be teachers one day (or enter other similarly stereotypical feminine careers).
Maybe if D and those like him started telling boys,
“You know, I think men may be just as good at teaching kids as women, and boys should consider teaching as a career one day,”
then perhaps we would start seeing more men as teachers.
Do the reverse in STEM careers: start telling girls, “Hey, girls, women are just as good at computer programming and engineering as men are,” and don’t be surprised if you then see more girls willing to take more math and science in school and then go on to be programmers or engineers.
I discussed some of these topics, and other related ones on my blog (with lots of links to research, editorials, etc), in posts such as (but not limited to) this one:
_Are Schools or Pedagogical Systems Designed to Favor Girls Over Boys? No, Not By and Large – Links to Research, Articles, Studies_
When parents and culture keeps laying out expectations for girls that girls “should” grow up to be teachers because girls are “supposed to” want to be school teachers, and girls are “supposed to” be better at teaching than men, it’s not hard to see why so many women end up in professions like teaching (among other factors).
LikeLike
Mark,
I used the term “not forced” because there are some that have suggested that (and I quote) “culture keeps laying out expectations for girls and the girls “should” go up to be teachers because girls are “supposed to” want to be school teachers,” I think the person making that quote meant “grow up” instead of “go up”.
Just because I prefer one over the other who actually wants to teach, I don’t expect anyone who doesn’t want to to teach, to be in a classroom with my kids and grandchildren, whatever gender they are. It appears most men are less interested in teaching kindergarten or even 1st and 2nd grade, than women.
There are also Patriarch movements that force or manipulate men and women into certain gender roles which I don’t advocate and I know you don’t either.
But would it be considered a positive gender role, to have available in a church a woman to provide comfort to a battered woman not wanting to be around a man, or a woman to lead in a women’s ministry or to have a woman involved in a youth group filled with girls? My wife told me, should would never have been in a teen ministry if a woman wasn’t there. If gender role is improper, what would you call it, if anything at all?
I did comment, on the phenomenal difference in the amount of women vs men teaching our 5 year-olds, which also means women as a whole has more hands on experience than men do.
As for me preferring my granddaughter’s kindergarten teacher being a woman because of experience but also, most of the male teachers I know, tend to be a little more aggressive, especially more than the women I know who are teaching the 5 year-olds.
Both my daughter’s had some rather aggressive junior high teachers, no pain, no gain, which might work for 5th, 6th grade or junior high and up, but I’m not so sure for kindergarten as I think kindergartners should have a teacher with a gentler spirit, if there was 15-20% of kindergarten teachers were male I wouldn’t have made note of it. But 2.4% being male, is a very small percentage for me to understand other than it is a better fit for most women, than most men and students.
What works in Japan won’t work in America. They are stricter and academic expectations are higher there, at a very young age. In some American schools, school boards fail to back up a teacher if they decided that kids need to follow the rules in a student handbook.
LikeLike
D said,
Men are less interested in teaching k-garten because of gendered stereotypes and expectations.
D said
What?
So I may or may not have made a type-o.
Yes, society expects that girls should GROW UP to be teachers and enter into other professions that have been stereotyped as “feminine,” or as being more suitable for women.
A point you’ve never, ever acknowledged, just like a parrot or broken record you keep squawking,
“I prefer a woman to teach my children, I prefer a woman to teach my children, I prefer a woman to teach my children.”
D said,
This may be due, there again to social conditioning. Girls are expected by teachers, culture, and parents to be and act in a gentle, quiet, demeanor while boys are encouraged, and receive messages to be aggressive, independent, and loud.
The moment a girl or women acts the way boys are told to act (such as be aggressive, loud, etc), we get negative push-back and negative labels, such as “bossy,” or “bitchy” because we are not then conforming to societal gender roles.
If you told men it is okay for them to be more gentle around children, you may start to see them acting less aggressively around children.
LikeLike
Daisy,
I was responding to Mark, you and I are done, I didn’t even read past “D said”.
You can write up 5, 6, 7, or 8 lengthy responses in a row, spending hours putting them together and I have decided not read a single one,
I won’t read what you write even though we mostly agree on most of the abuse topics on this thread. I’ll need you to response back, so I don’t get the last word in.
LikeLike
D, I think you’re moving the goalposts…
First you say: “I used the term “not forced” because there are some that have suggested that (and I quote) “culture keeps laying out expectations for girls and the girls “should” go up to be teachers because girls are “supposed to” want to be school teachers,”
So, you are implying that women wanting to be school teachers is not forced externally by the culture, but is intrinsic to femininity
You say, “Just because I prefer one over the other who actually wants to teach, I don’t expect anyone who doesn’t want to to teach, to be in a classroom with my kids and grandchildren, whatever gender they are.”
But, this is the exact thing being argued. You didn’t arrive at you “preferences” in a vacuum, and just because you believe that you are not applying pressure doesn’t mean that the collective weight of “preferences” doesn’t create a death of 1000 needles sort of effect. Even if you’ve never said “I prefer a man to teach kindergarteners”, you may have had certain body language when men said they wanted to be teachers vs. women. You are implying that people in our society 100% do not make their preferences known. So, do you not know which members of your family “prefer” Coke or Pepsi or Dr. Pepper or Barq’s? You don’t think those members of your family would apply any social pressure to suggest that you buy their preferred beverage for the fridge?
But here is the kicker!!! “What works in Japan won’t work in America. They are stricter and academic expectations are higher there, at a very young age. In some American schools, school boards fail to back up a teacher if they decided that kids need to follow the rules in a student handbook.”
So, now you are completely reversing yourself! In America, women teach because women are innately more gifted at teaching, but in Japan… women AREN’T??? innately as gifted at teaching? You argue one side of the percentages (innate feminine ability) for the U.S., but when I present the same statistics for Japan, you argue that Japanese differences are inherently based on their culture?
And, to call you out for your complete sexism here. Women aren’t as likely to teach in Japan because…. their expectations on teachers are HIGHER??? Did you just say that female teachers are inferior to male teachers if we’re concerned about academic rigor?
LikeLiked by 1 person