Is the patriarchy a good thing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnz123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MagdalenaRita said:
Feminism is not the answer. Christ, His Church and His commandments are the answer.
Click to expand...
Neither patriarchy nor matriarchy are the Answer. These are both cultural constructs not of Christ’s kingdom.

Patriarchy is what could have gotten Mary stoned to death for an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Patriarchy is what Christ challenged when He stopped a throng of men from stoning an adulteress.
 
Last edited:
This thread got me thinking about an article I read recently. One problem with patriarchy is that it has come with (in some cases almost exclusively) focusing on what is true for men and then generalising it to women. This doesn’t work, because women’s bodies are different to that of men’s. It puts women at a disadvantage.

www.theguardian.com

The deadly truth about a world built for men – from stab vests to car crashes

Crash-test dummies based on the ‘average’ male are just one example of design that forgets about women – and puts lives at risk
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Some excerpts:
Differences in chests, hips and thighs can affect the way the straps fit on safety harnesses. The use of a “standard” US male face shape for dust, hazard and eye masks means they don’t fit most women (as well as a lot of black and minority ethnic men). A 2017 TUC report found that the problem with ill-fitting PPE was worst in the emergency services, where only 5% of women said that their PPE never hampered their work, with body armour, stab vests, hi-vis vests and jackets all highlighted as unsuitable.

When it comes to frontline workers, poorly fitting PPE can prove fatal. In 1997, a British female police officer was stabbed and killed while using a hydraulic ram to enter a flat. She had removed her body armour because it was too difficult to use the ram while wearing it. Two years later, a female police officer revealed that she had had to have breast-reduction surgery because of the health effects of wearing her body armour.
Click to expand...
Another is:
Crash-test dummies were first introduced in the 1950s, and for decades they were based around the 50th-percentile male. The most commonly used dummy is 1.77m tall and weighs 76kg (significantly taller and heavier than an average woman); the dummy also has male muscle-mass proportions and a male spinal column… There is one EU regulatory test that requires what is called a 5th-percentile female dummy, which is meant to represent the female population. Only 5% of women will be shorter than this dummy. But there are a number of data gaps. For a start, this dummy is only tested in the passenger seat, so we have no data at all for how a female driver would be affected – something of an issue you would think, given women’s “out of position” driving style. And secondly, this female dummy is not really female. It is just a scaled-down male dummy.
…
The situation is even worse for pregnant women. Although a pregnant crash-test dummy was created back in 1996, testing with it is still not government-mandated either in the US or in the EU. In fact, even though car crashes are the No 1 cause of foetal death related to maternal trauma, we haven’t yet developed a seatbelt that works for pregnant women. Research from 2004 suggests that pregnant women should use the standard seatbelt; but 62% of third-trimester pregnant women don’t fit that design.
Click to expand...
I really do recommend the article. The author has written a book on the findings she discusses.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
While it is true that throughout history women have been mistreated in many ways, not all men are or were chauvanist pigs and as I said above this phrase was not said to just those men who treated women cruelly, it was something said very often to most all men at that time. It was a horrible phrase you heard alot. Men in general were treated like the enemy (and still are) and the thing is, there is good and bad in everyone and where there are some men that do evil, there are also men who do good and that applies to women also.
Click to expand...
Actually, I also remember a time when there were imaginary limitations put on the capacities of both men and women. I remember working in a produce-processing plant when it was assumed that women couldn’t drive forklifts. Then on the insistence of the union, women were given a chance to do it. After that, the prejudice started to grow up that women were more careful with the forklifts than men are. Eventually, though, the truth came to be appreciated, which is that both males and females can be either safe and competent or incompetent and careless forklift operators. Men, likewise, were considered “incapable” of doing some things back then, excepting that when they had to do them, why, look, they did just fine!

This wasn’t men being “pigs.” It wasn’t done out of bad intentions. It was people (both male and female) assuming they knew differences existed when they’d never actually put their assumptions to the test.
 
Last edited:
I am against blanket condemnations. I am also against depictions of female chauvenist pigs on TV, referring to Sex and the City.
 
Aquinas11 said:
the contention was “no numbers at all ” and “ Just feelings” which is false.
Click to expand...
Most people would understand that to mean “no numbers of women actually not hired,” since your original contention was that women are not being hired due to our calling out of harassment. I apologize for not spelling it out more clearly.
 
Last edited:
We read and absorb the Old Testament, but we live under the New and Eternal Covenant. The new standard is higher than the old: animal and grain sacrifice versus the command to love - not just God, but those of us who are the most difficult to love. Let us not fall into a form of misogyny, but marvel at God’s creation of “male and female He made them.”

To answer the question, Jesus’ Church, as He founded it, is good.
 
blackforest said:
Neither patriarchy nor matriarchy are the Answer. These are both cultural constructs not of Christ’s kingdom.
Click to expand...
This is what feminists want us to believe, that patriarchy is a cultural construct that is not true… Patriarchy is of Christ’s kingdom.
blackforest said:
Patriarchy is what could have gotten Mary stoned to death for an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Patriarchy is what Christ challenged when He stopped a throng of men from stoning an adulteress.
Click to expand...
While it is true that Mary could have been stoned at that time, it wasn’t due to just some man’s patriarchal rule. It was part of the Mosaic law given to Moses by God. It was because of the goodness and love of Joseph that kept her from being stoned and then of course God’s message to Joseph in a dream.

When Jesus stopped the woman caught in adultery from being stoned, that also had nothing to do with patriarchy but the abuse of power (which both men and women can be ruthless abusers of power). Again, stoning anyone caught in adultery was part of the Mosaic law given to Moses by God. Not only that but those men were using her to trap Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Ok. Well the definition of “misogyny” is hatred of women. I don’t hate women. I do think men and women are to have different roles in society. The roles are equal in value but different. Women’s highest calling is motherhood (despite what feminism says). Men are called to be leaders. Now in terms of the New and Eternal Covenant we see that Jesus did not believe in stoning a person to death for committing adultery. Yet He still acknowledged that they deserved to be stoned. There are other fulfillments of the Law. But I don’t see what feminists are pushing today as anything related to the New Covenant. From the beginning (at the time of Adam and Eve), men were called to lead women. It was only until after the fall when that relationship between man and woman was damaged.
“your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you”
 
angel12 said:
your original contention was that women are not being hired due to our calling out of harassment
Click to expand...
No, the original contention was that less women are being hired due to risks associated with harassment
Aquinas11 said:
Employers are hiring less women now due to higher & risks costs associated w harassment complaints
Click to expand...
And the USA today article cites a poll and survey which precisely backs up that point
A poll directed this year by LeanIn.org and SurveyMonkeyfound nearly half of male managers are uncomfortable participating in common work activities with a woman, and senior-level men are 3½ times more hesitant to have a work dinner with a junior-level woman – and five times more hesitant to travel with one for work – than with a junior-level man.Male managers also have grown significantly more uncomfortable mentoring women than before, the survey said.“We’re literally having executives say, ‘I’m really nervous about hiring a woman, particularly in roles like EAs (executive assistants), that’s such a personal job … I’d just as soon hire a male,’’’ Taylor said. “It has become a risk-management conversation.“We must figure out from an HR perspective how to minimize that, because we don’t want men penalizing women for fear.’’
Click to expand...
 
And if a woman doesn’t want to be a mother? What callings should women be permitted to answer?
 
Oh brother. Women are not better than men. I am seeing this fake ideology being marketed right now. Soon, in California, public companies will be required to hire a certain amount of women. Is this ‘affirmative action’ all over again? I’m not against hiring women but doing it because of some law? Come on. I’ve also read that “women add value.” How? Where?
 
MagdalenaRita said:
Patriarchy is of Christ’s kingdom.
Click to expand...
Says who?
MagdalenaRita said:
While it is true that Mary could have been stoned at that time, it wasn’t due to just some man’s patriarchal rule. It was part of the Mosaic law given to Moses by God. It was because of the goodness and love of Joseph that kept her from being stoned and then of course God’s message to Joseph in a dream.
Click to expand...
Christ challenged a number of old Mosaic practices, which explains why we Christians adhere to the seventh commandment but don’t stone each other when we don’t.

This is why He disregarded the scorn of the Pharisees judging him for hanging around tax-collectors and prostitutes, the latter of whom would have also been stoned.
 
Last edited:
Your wording is confusing. Are you asking what kind of value they add . . . to the workplace? They would add whatever skills and talents they have to offer. Just like a competent man.
 
johnz123 said:
Ok. Well the definition of “misogyny” is hatred of women. I don’t hate women. I do think men and women are to have different roles in society. The roles are equal in value but different. Women’s highest calling is motherhood (despite what feminism says). Men are called to be leaders. Now in terms of the New and Eternal Covenant we see that Jesus did not believe in stoning a person to death for committing adultery. Yet He still acknowledged that they deserved to be stoned. There are other fulfillments of the Law. But I don’t see what feminists are pushing today as anything related to the New Covenant. From the beginning (at the time of Adam and Eve), men were called to lead women. It was only until after the fall when that relationship between man and woman was damaged.
“your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you”
Click to expand...
Not all women are called to be mothers or can be mothers.

Are all women expected to get married and have babies?

Even the Church does not think so. The church teaches that once married, people are supposed to be open to children. It does not teach that all women must get married.

Also not all men are supposed to be leaders. They are supposed to be spiritual leaders in their families but a random man on the street does not have authority over me and I am not expected to submit to him.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top