what if you were in our (womens') shoes?

[Stephen168]

We have been married almost 20 years. If the house is a mess, it is my fault. Our roles are defined and we both are fine with that. He supports the family and I take care of children, household chores and pay the bills.

He makes the money. The kids and I are the ones that spend it.

I clean the house. He and the kids are the ones that mess it up.

It was the same when my wife worked at home. We just went over 35 years, the kids are gone, she works outside the home, so we split everything. The kids have said how much they liked having her at home when they were here.

 

[Stephen168]

Imagine that! A man sympathizing with the female condition and struggles! Wasn’t that kind of the whole point of this thread - for men to step into women’s hypothetical stilettos for a moment and ponder some struggles that many good, Christian women battle?

The article I posted is a wonderful example of a man trying to do just that, and you know what? He succeeds.

:newidea:

I was imagining someone making a list of things of which they claimed to be oblivious. One has to a aware of something to list it. The list was either given to him by women or he (a man) was NOT oblivious to the things on the list. He lied.

As far as the content of the list goes, it seems pointless. My mother would want to know if there are any items on the list where women are not treated equal by their national or local governments. I didn’t see any.

 

[Stephen168]

Because it is still the case today that a married woman’s income, no matter how high it may be, cannot be considered collateral on a mortgage - because she might get pregnant and lose or quit the job.

If we ever get to the point where a woman’s income is considered stable enough to be used as collateral against a mortgage, then you’ll see news stories where people are homeless because neither of the adults in the family can find work.

One of the things accomplished by the feminist movement of the 1960’s in the United States was a woman’s access to credit. Almost every married couple I know, in the last 35 years, bought their first house using the wife’s income; including us. My daughter and her husband bought their home while he as in graduate school; almost all was her income. In the United States, a mortgage is not the only thing that keeps one from living in an abandon car; we can rent a home if we can’t afford to buy. While I was in college, my wife worked to pay the rent. Women can support a family, I was raised by a single mom, who rented until she could buy a home. Because we both were aware of this, we were surprised to see a news piece claim the reason they were living in a car was because HE could not find work. Just one of those expectations that are floating around out there.

As for, what role are women suited for, they are suited for the roles that fit their God-given talents. Every woman is different, and is suited for a different role. There is no such thing as “women should” do this or that, as if all women were created from the same cookie cutter. Women are just as diverse as men are.

I was talking about an expectation that my wife puts on herself as a woman. My wife has a “woman should” list and a “men should” list. I don’t expect either to be enacted into law.

If a girl spends her whole life building up her muscles and practicing her manual dexterity, she can be just as athletic as a man.

That is why there is no such thing as women athletics. Women compete right along side the men because there is no athletic difference between them. Well, in the US that isn’t true, but maybe somewhere else.

If a man spends time practicing the skills of a home-maker, he can be just as good a cook and house-keeper as any woman. These things are taught and learned; nobody is born with them.

True, they are taught and learned.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I am in “our” shoes because I am a woman. I am quite proud of the role of women in the church. Truly God in his great mercy and wisdom has given some of the best roles to us. We have been so misled by the modern feminist agenda that anytime a woman’s role is different then a man we are being oppressed.

Serving God has never been about power, or decision making or administrative duties. These are burdens not blessings. God established these roles, I do not question his wisdom.

This is not saying women are inferior at all, quite the contrary. Women have been blessed with a deep sense of spirituality, compassion and mercy; as well as great intelligence and intuition. We have been given the gift to bring forth life. God uses us to bring forth new souls for His kingdom. We should not brush this aside as “oh yes we woman can babies big deal” because it is a big deal, a very big deal.

It’s seems your under the impression that the Bible teaches women are not capable of the decisions required in positions of authority in the church (such as priest, bishop or pope) Or that they do not trust women to make such decisions and so husbands must. Popes, bishops and priest have and continue to seek out the wisdom of holy woman. Likewise a husband who truly loves his wife as Christ loves the Church seeks out the wisdom of his holy wife. This is not about capability but about calling. But nobody sees or knows about these women so it’s not fair? After all they receive no credit. Ahh but see this is where women have been far greater blessed.

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. Matt 6:1

We have greater opportunity to practice humility. We can give of ourselves, of our God given abilities, without any earthly credit. Why do we need it when are calling is to serve God?

Because if women are never given credit, if they are constantly overlooked, and if males are seen as the only ones deserving of glory and authority, then men (and to certain extent individual women) will not value women very much.

In Asia ancient prejudices are combining with new technology (ultrasound scans of the womb to determine the sex of a fetus) to intentionally reduce the number of female at birth. This ruthless devaluation of women is not new, many (if not most) of these areas have a long history of female infanticide, this is happening mostly because the people living in these places can now fully express their misogyny.

Here is the relevant article in the Economist: economist.com/node/15606229

As well as some more articles on what is becoming known as the War on Baby Girls:

An article from First Things: firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/03/the-global-war-against-baby-girls

Here is an article from The Boston Globe on the subject: boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/03/14/100_million_missing_girls/

As well as some relevant quotes from the Globe article:

The Chinese writer Xinran Xue writes in a new book, “Message from an Unkown Chinese Mother,’’ about visiting a peasant family in Shandong while the mother is giving birth. The baby turns out to be a girl, and Xinran hears a man’s voice mutter: “Useless thing!’’ To her horror, the “useless thing’’ is thrown into a pail of slops to be drowned.

“That’s a living child,’’ I said in a shaking voice, pointing at the slops pail.

“It’s not a child,’’ she corrected me. “It’s a girl baby, and we can’t keep it. Around these parts, you can’t get by without a son. Girl babies don’t count.’’

On its cover, The Economist asks: “What happened to 100 million baby girls?’’ The answer is simple — and sickening: They didn’t count.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.

-Now tell me again how it doesn’t matter whether or not women get earthly credit for what they do

That women should be humbled and not given credit, that its for their own good

 

[AngryAtheist8]

So ours is the lowest role?

Traditionally yes.

Women do have the least prestigious, least recognized, and usually least valued role.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Mothers are always closer to their children. There are exceptions of course, but thats the general rule. No man can compare to the bond a mother and an infant has, especially with the 9 months in the womb and breastfeeding. Its inherent with all mothers and their child, and if its not there then it was the fault of the mother for breaking that bond.

That’s one of the wrongest things I have heard in a while.

If a child becomes estranged from his or her mother its automatically the mother’s fault

 

[rayne89]

Because if women are never given credit, if they are constantly overlooked, and if males are seen as the only ones deserving of glory and authority, then men (and to certain extent individual women) will not value women very much.

In Asia ancient prejudices are combining with new technology (ultrasound scans of the womb to determine the sex of a fetus) to intentionally reduce the number of female at birth. This ruthless devaluation of women is not new, many (if not most) of these areas have a long history of female infanticide, this is happening mostly because the people living in these places can now fully express their misogyny.

Here is the relevant article in the Economist: economist.com/node/15606229

As well as some more articles on what is becoming known as the War on Baby Girls:

An article from First Things: firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/03/the-global-war-against-baby-girls

Here is an article from The Boston Globe on the subject: boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/03/14/100_million_missing_girls/

As well as some relevant quotes from the Globe article:

The Chinese writer Xinran Xue writes in a new book, “Message from an Unkown Chinese Mother,’’ about visiting a peasant family in Shandong while the mother is giving birth. The baby turns out to be a girl, and Xinran hears a man’s voice mutter: “Useless thing!’’ To her horror, the “useless thing’’ is thrown into a pail of slops to be drowned.

“That’s a living child,’’ I said in a shaking voice, pointing at the slops pail.

“It’s not a child,’’ she corrected me. “It’s a girl baby, and we can’t keep it. Around these parts, you can’t get by without a son. Girl babies don’t count.’’

On its cover, The Economist asks: “What happened to 100 million baby girls?’’ The answer is simple — and sickening: They didn’t count.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.

-Now tell me again how it doesn’t matter whether or not women get earthly credit for what they do

That women should be humbled and not given credit, that its for their own good

We’re talking from a spiritual perspective. Your mixing apples and oranges. Since you are an atheist I can see where you can not understand what I am saying. We were discussing the bible. The fact that bring up things like “ancient Asian prejudices” shows that you are reading something completely into different into what I wrote.

No where does the Church condone the abuse of women. No where does the Church say the women are of less value or dignity -far from it. Who is the most venerated created being in the church, the one held in the highest regarded, the most honored? Certainly not a man but a woman -Mary. Women are not seen as lesser, this is completely opposite of Church teaching.

Since you are an atheist I don’t expect to able to relate to what I wrote.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You previously made the assertion that because the Bible says “wives submit to your husbands” that we still have to reconcile this phrase so it doesn’t demean today’s woman.

You asked what meanings “submit” meant if not other than complete submission. I gave you the strict meaning and I gave you a few others as well. It hasn’t been my assertion that acquiescing in every instance is equal. I explained that “wives submit to your husbands” could have meant different things but most likely meant so in the strictest form due to the society of that time which already held women in less the high regard.

Again, it wasn’t equal during the time it was written just as, “slaves, obey your master” wasn’t equal but was applicable to that time. We certainly don’t condone slavery today.

We are equal in dignity but not equal in function. That was God’s plan. You are hung up on the fact that we humans need everything to be “equal”; this is a human endeavor, not a Godly endeavor. God obviously made the male to be the physically dominating gender. If we are supposed to be “equal” by human standards then you must ask the same question of God as to why He did not foster equality by this “physical advantage” He gave to men and not to women.

So men are stronger and more aggressive, thus they obviously have a divine right to dominate?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The effect of changing the norms to allow girl servers will likely lead to further feminization of the Church; and we cannot have women priests. There have been many priests who served as altar boys so to say that being an altar boy does not motivate boys to a holy life is erroneous and unfounded.

So?

As I recall one of the titles the Church uses most often to describe itself is Holy Mother Church.

What is wrong with your ‘Holy Mother’ acting feminine?

Is the Holy Mother supposed to be Butch?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The way I see it, is not that God is so interested in who plays what role in society, but that each person be content wherever they are.

So a woman who does not feel fulfilled in life for whatever reason, I’m guessing is not likely to become fulfilled if the circumstances were changed.

Alan

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

You are essentially saying that circumstances don’t matter.

That if you’re unhappy because your being ignored, demeaned, or perhaps even raped and/or tortured the* problem is you.* That instead of trying to change your circumstances you should just accept your lot in life, count your blessings, and try to be happy.

That is a recipe for being abused and exploited.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Envy is the root of unhappiness. Unhappiness is not good. Therefore envy is wrong. I don’t like seeing people frustrated and unhappy as seen in the OP. You can ignore the “men can, women can’t” “men don’t have to, women do” (whether factual or perceived) statements in the OP, but they are there; envy is clearly there.

.

There are legitimate reasons to be unhappy.

Such as when you or those you care about are being abused.

Unhappiness can even be a relatively good thing, if it spurs people into action so that they are motivated to deal with real problems.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I know you differ with me, and many other men and woman that have posted on this thread. Women that have said power is not important. Men and women that do not have these perceived roles in their relationships, or care if they did. Men who know this ‘power’ of which you speak is a perception. For the OP to suggest ALL is envy.

Power IS important.

If you have no power/authority you have no way of defending your rights (or perhaps even your life) against the predations of others. Those in power who tell the people under their authority that power does not matter are lying in their own self-interest (or on occasion, deluding themselves).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

It just occurred to me that women probably have no idea what effect they have on their men.

“They” say that behind every good man is a good woman. There’s a reason for that.

Women know whether any given babies is theirs, but men’s could not be determined back then before DNA testing and such. So men don’t want to spend their life energy raising a kid unless they’re pretty sure it is theirs. This is only a hypothetical situation; I’m aware that not all men are like that. But we are drawn to reproduce, not to be workers for other men to reproduce.

So the men want every assurance that the woman will remain faithful, whether by constraint or by her own “need” for the man. Men don’t want women to be “needy” because they that means we have to give attention and energy to them when we might not want to. Ironically, they want the women to “need” them at the same time – in that they want the women to think whatever they want they don’t have to go elsewhere to get it.

So if I think my wife has her eye on something that she admires, or adores, or is drawn to, whether person, place, or thing, I have to compete for her 100% attention by either destroying the thing she likes, trying to make her not like that thing (yeah right), or assimilating into myself whatever is the essence of the attractive element. .

This is not a healthy attitude, and is a quality that many (most?) men lack.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I also believe that if a woman treats a man with as much respect and awe as they would Jesus himself, that the man would be putty in their hands, and will be instinctively compelled to conform to your image of him. So what you ladies think about what men should be has more of an impact on whether a man changes, than any arguments or complaints or confrontations can ever do. It sounds like you’re gratifying the ego, but all you’re doing when you “honor” a man is to honor Christ Himself, for whatsoever you do …

If a woman treated a man like a god that’s exactly what she would be doing (gratifying his ego). Moreover it would turn a wife into her husband’s virtual slave.

Because in Christianity, God is right by definition, and its a sin to deny (or at least attempt to deny) Him anything. Moreover, you must do whatever you can to please God.

So if you treat your husband like God (Jesus) then it is a sin to argue with your husband, to deny him anything (no matter how impractical or unreasonable), and even to mention the possibility that he could be wrong and needs to consider the needs of others.

 

[mark_avery]

As long as we didn`t have to wear skirts,not such a big deal, especially when we have to, like the woman, wait for god,fear him,very much i would say.

Also like the woman,man should also be silent in church,have you never read “FEW WORDS ARE BEST IN THE HOUSE OF THE LORD”

And i suppose you could add,is it not like the relationship between the flower and the bee,which is which way around!,and who really cares anyway other than our sweet lord.his will is paramount “Trust not in your own understanding”.

The suffragettes attitude like in the public way of life,has not made a huge contribution unlike the zeal of they inception.

The knife and the fork,we rely on each other just so, and we share the pudding.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Here’s another one who loves being a woman. In fact, I’m often seen as a bit on the “conservative” side of things as far as faith, morals and such go.

But I also find myself uncomfortable with certain pieces of scripture. I am suspicious that any woman who claims comfort with these pieces of scripture is either lying, or is 100% perfect in virtue and trust. For example, I have no desire to be submissive to any man other than Christ Himself. Maybe that is my pride speaking, but who among us does not have some amount of pride?

Plus, it’s asking a lot of trust from women towards men, and frankly, I don’t believe men deserve or ever really live up to that trust. Sorry to be so blunt, but from what I’ve seen and experienced, those who put too much trust in men end up getting hurt.

As for needing a tie-breaker in a marriage… as concerns any moral or ethical questions, I say bring it to the Church. As concerns any practical issues, I say find a way to compromise, rather than have one partner overruling another.

If I were to enter into marriage, it would be as a equal partner rather than as a subservient partner. There is a difference between these two things, a difference which does not seem to be recognized by certain passages of scripture.

I understand the OP’s discomfort and feelings. <3

wayward

I suspect the only people without any pride are those without any self-respect. Moreover there is no such thing as a (completely) subservient partner.

One partner might be more dominant in a real partnership, but if either partner is completely subservient then they are not a partner but a servant (or perhaps even a slave).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

That is an incredibly naive and presumptuous position. I don’t have to be a man to know that men can and do suffer greatly. I see it in my husband, my father, my priests, my brothers, and my friends.

If any man dared to say, “I maintain that men are the ones who really suffer in the world,” there would be an uprising, and rightly so.

I’m done with this thread. I’ve seen women going on whining, complaining tirades with very little concession to any other point of view. The cry seems to be, “Admit how badly we have it, but don’t you dare ask us to do the same, or to admit that maybe we have somethings better.” Most of the women who’ve spoken up in objection (as I did) were soundly ignored.

So go on wailing at the men until they wise up and spare their breath. I’m out of here.

One of the objections was the idea that even if women were ignored, demeaned, and suffered more (than men) that was good for them, and good for women as a group.

This is a bad and harmful idea, and deserved to be ignored or refuted.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

That is an incredibly naive and presumptuous position. I don’t have to be a man to know that men can and do suffer greatly. I see it in my husband, my father, my priests, my brothers, and my friends.

If any man dared to say, “I maintain that men are the ones who really suffer in the world,” there would be an uprising, and rightly so.

As a man, I can tell you that men say stuff like that all the time.

Only in the modern West (and areas heavily influenced by Western values) has dismissing women as weak become socially unacceptable.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

How can you say that those who advocate for women priests aren’t feminists? That is indeed feminizing the Church. That is more egregious a feminist attitude than women should play in the NFL! Call it liberalism or feminisim…both apply. Feminism is a form of liberalism.

It is common sense and a fact that boys serving on the altar often become priests. I am not going to spend more time on this as you appear obstinate by refusing to engage in common sense by conceding this point.

Who is against the female gender?..there you go again on this rant. I have not seen one post from anyone where I would think they were against the female gender. The only thing most of us guys are trying to get across is the obvious natural differences in genders and the role God has planned for each. We have stated many times the uniqueness and value of women.

Plenty of people are against the female gender (or least don’t respect it very much), including all too many women.

That is why Asia is in danger of running out of women in a generation or two. They are aborting and/or mistreating the girls too much.

 

[Stephen168]

There are legitimate reasons to be unhappy.

Such as when you or those you care about are being abused.

Unhappiness can even be a relatively good thing, if it spurs people into action so that they are motivated to deal with real problems.

So you are saying the purpose of unhappiness to motivate people to fix their unhappiness. If unhappiness was good, there would be reason to fix it.

A flat tire is a bad thing; motivating me to fix it doesn’t make it good.