Foul the Christian

[Linna Heartbooger]

Hmm, it strikes me that "toil" might be men's work, and "spin" (as in spinning yarn or thread) might be women's work...

Ali- NEAT point. I woulda been unlikely to think of that. For me, I think it points out that Jesus was intentionally making his teaching relevant to his whole audience - including women.
On your end, do you have concern about Jesus accepting the normative assumptions about gender roles, though?

This question seems to go too far from any Scriptural interpretation, though - it takes as its starting point an unwarranted speculation that the verbs represent 'gender' (sex) roles.

Hmmm... see, I saw the question I asked Ali right there as a question about herself and her response to Jesus' stance; not as a question about what the scriptures themselves say or mean.

I think the assumption may have SOME scriptural basis, actually.
"Toil" seems to have a real resonance with the consequence God gave to the man after the Fall. (granted, that word was originally in Hebrew, not Greek)
It would require some knowledge of the history & culture to determine if spinning was restricted to "women's work" - but that is data that is find-able.
But I'll take your point that seeking reliable, trustworthy research that has been done on such subjects is wiser than hypothesizing "what sounds likely to me."

As far as the word "gender," hmmm.
I'll think about that, seeing as I just finished reading The Screwtape Letters, and C.S. Lewis made the point (by demonstration) that the way we use words affects our attitudes, our actions, and how we live our lives.
I have to wonder though - if I use the archaic word "distaff," does that make up for it? In this context, at least, where we are discussing distaffs? I've certainly thought of using the words "distaff" in this forum before! This is what everyone gets for talking to a group of people who read an author who likes words so much.

Actually, much of the appeal of the word "gender" for me is an appeal to my prudishness. (Well, I'm a recovering prude.)

...next post of mine, scheduled to be back on-topic!

[aliantha]

The modern insistence that the differences make no difference is philosophically foolish.

I am confident that if Jesus actually comes back, he is going to tell those who hold your views that you are soooo two centuries ago.

[Cybrweez]

I doubt it ali. God created 2 different sexes that have different roles. The sexes haven't changed, so I doubt the roles have.

[aliantha]

I dunno, Weez. Jesus was pretty much a liberal in his day. I think he'd be pleased at the strides we've made toward equal rights for everybody.

[rusmeister]

I dunno, Weez. Jesus was pretty much a liberal in his day. I think he'd be pleased at the strides we've made toward equal rights for everybody.

Well, it is precisely the Christian atmosphere that made the idea of equal rights possible, and I say that with an eye over all of Christian history. It was the Christian who first said, "We are all equal before God". (Edit - the Jews had already come up with "All Jews are equal before God" - the Christians made it universal in extending that equality to Gentiles, and gradually and increasingly applied it to all relations between people, at least ontologically speaking.)

But that would be just one aspect of human relations, and taken out of proportion, it becomes just as tyrannical and destructive as any other. When we emphasize rights at the expense of responsibilities, for example.

But since, even if I stick only to the sayings of Jesus recorded in Scripture (something I do not actually do), I find that He was concerned with the human soul and eternity, and very little about "progress" in this world, especially an abstract one - He was completely concerned about the individual, and his eternal fate - so while that does impact on our behavior and treatment of others on this planet, an abstract progress toward an abstract equal rights is decidedly not at all central to what He seems to have held to be important - at best, it was entirely incidental. (And I'm leaving authority and the Church out of it for now) He was pretty clear that His Kingdom is not of this world.

[rusmeister]

As far as the word "gender," hmmm.
I'll think about that, seeing as I just finished reading The Screwtape Letters, and C.S. Lewis made the point (by demonstration) that the way we use words affects our attitudes, our actions, and how we live our lives.

Isn't that just the greatest book? It was the very first thing I read, or rather, had read to me, when I was driving my wife across California, and she cleverly read it to me (before I ever began considering questions of faith). At first, I was like, "Yeah, yeah.." and then BOOM! "Whoa, he's talking about ME there - and I've never talked about that to anyone!" And then another BOOM! And then again and again. And so the seeds were planted...


No comment on distaffs - but if you want to talk about them, be my guest!

[Cybrweez]

I dunno, Weez. Jesus was pretty much a liberal in his day. I think he'd be pleased at the strides we've made toward equal rights for everybody.

You conflate 2 things there. I think allowing anyone to do anything is one thing (equal rights). But I mention gender roles, and you answered about equality. Different things, but you speak of them the same.

IOW, my guess, Jesus would expect a wife to submit to her husband, altho not expect her to be forced too. Rather, that she would want to.

[rusmeister]

I dunno, Weez. Jesus was pretty much a liberal in his day. I think he'd be pleased at the strides we've made toward equal rights for everybody.

You conflate 2 things there. I think allowing anyone to do anything is one thing (equal rights). But I mention gender roles, and you answered about equality. Different things, but you speak of them the same.

IOW, my guess, Jesus would expect a wife to submit to her husband, altho not expect her to be forced too. Rather, that she would want to.

I think, due to the rabid reaction to the idea of ANYBODY submitting to ANYTHING (in the modern world the individual is supposed to be his own pope and God, remember?), that you have to speak of that in the context of what the husband is supposed to do, and then you have to drag in the whole Christian worldview to deal with the objections to the submission of self from a dozen sides.

[Cybrweez]

Yea, that gets tiring. Most here have read the Bible, and speak as if they know it, so they would already know the context, right?

[aliantha]

What are we talking about, if not equality?

It would be a little ridiculous for me to deny that men and women are built differently, considering I've borne two children myself. But once the kids were weaned, the girls' father had all the physical equipment anybody would need to raise a kid to adulthood. As do you and rus.

So at that point -- say, two years into the each kid's life -- the whole thing of men saying, "Women are meant to raise the kids and men are meant to bring home the bacon," becomes all about domination and controlling the relationship.

Y'all can sugar-coat it with that b.s. about how husbands "honor" their wives by letting them stay home and take care of the kids, as God wants, while the men go out into the big, scary world and fight every day for the family's slice of brontosaurus or whatever. But it's still b.s. Men today are scared to death that if women can give birth, raise the kids, and pay for everything themselves, then they could be relegated to the role of sperm donor. And it's men who do badly emotionally if they don't have someone at home to take care of them.

[Linna Heartbooger]

But once the kids were weaned, the girls' father had all the physical equipment anybody would need to raise a kid to adulthood. As do you and rus.

I like your veracity-checking, ali. I think that when you have the word "physical" in there, you limit the scope in a very relevant way...

So at that point -- say, two years into the each kid's life -- the whole thing of men saying, "Women are meant to raise the kids and men are meant to bring home the bacon," becomes all about domination and controlling the relationship.

I think it always depends on the real intentions of individual source/institution. You know... "To the pure, all things are pure."

If the thing is about the power a man can have over his woman because he, as an individual is insecure, incompetent and controlling, well, that just sucks.
And I agree: that IS the usual way of things.

Of course, if she goes above and beyond the requirements of mere harried compliance day after day, year after year, (and manages to do it w/out passive-agressive anger or a "look at how awesome I am" achievement mentality) I think that's one way to break the cycle of control.
But I do think that sort of thing is impossible to keep up without (literal) divine help*.
Yet I believe that sort of thing happens every day.

Eh, well. There's a reason that Christianity presses ME to do my best at my own responsibilities instead of directing my main efforts at discerning how well my husband, my friend, or my neighbor is holding up their end of the deal and berating them. (though some days, many churches will make you think otherwise. alas.)

...while the men go out into the big, scary world and fight every day for the family's slice of brontosaurus or whatever. But it's still b.s. Men today are scared to death that if women can give birth, raise the kids, and pay for everything themselves, then they could be relegated to the role of sperm donor.

See, what I think is ridiculous is not whether God has given certain people leadership roles within various social structures... but the fact that society tends to act as though that the leaders are "the important people," while everyone else who holds them up is somehow "unimportant" and should vie for leadership roles at all costs.

But maybe you're also saying, "oh please don't gimme that bologna about how going out into the world is the 'important' and 'difficult' job." Right?

But then, I also don't believe that any humans were meant to be independent; we're meant to be part of a complex interdependence... but I'm sure you've noticed that's a theme for me by now.

And it's men who do badly emotionally if they don't have someone at home to take care of them.

So true. So what gives?
We've always had that power to influence...



* I feel like I'm just beginning to really get God's help in breaking the cycle of competing with my husband because of my internal insecurities.
But I've had it easy compared to most wives.
I haven't had to personally test this truth by LIVING WITH a consistently uncaring, unreasonable and controlling husband.
(though I've heard bits of the stories of those who have gotten divine help to change such situations - including one Watcher. I've been thinking I'd like to hear more of her story...)
Anyways, it's easy for me to talk. My hubby in specific is SO worthy of my honor, and definitely far, far "above average" as far as humans go.

[rusmeister]

What are we talking about, if not equality?

It would be a little ridiculous for me to deny that men and women are built differently, considering I've borne two children myself. But once the kids were weaned, the girls' father had all the physical equipment anybody would need to raise a kid to adulthood. As do you and rus.

So at that point -- say, two years into the each kid's life -- the whole thing of men saying, "Women are meant to raise the kids and men are meant to bring home the bacon," becomes all about domination and controlling the relationship.

Y'all can sugar-coat it with that b.s. about how husbands "honor" their wives by letting them stay home and take care of the kids, as God wants, while the men go out into the big, scary world and fight every day for the family's slice of brontosaurus or whatever. But it's still b.s. Men today are scared to death that if women can give birth, raise the kids, and pay for everything themselves, then they could be relegated to the role of sperm donor. And it's men who do badly emotionally if they don't have someone at home to take care of them.

You know, I think that without genuine Christian faith (and I just about HAVE to say "Orthodox" here, as individuals using Scripture to justify what they want to believe, or even simply honestly understanding it wrongly, is an inevitable problem - a person is not going to stumble across (OK, come up with on their own) a complete and correct framework of theology and philosophy except by a one-in-a-billion sheer accident. So without that, Ali, I think you're right. And that INCLUDES Christian versions that have strayed from the orthodox version (note that I am generally VERY careful with my capitalization of that word) - I'll iterate that small 'o' means 'correct, right, true' and the big 'O' refers specificallt to the teachings of the Orthodox Church. (I'd say "Eastern" Orthodox Church, but we don't say "Western" Catholic Church as a general rule.)

Without a genuine striving toward Christ that is correctly guided, I DO see a relationship going towards domination by someone. So I do so far agree with you.

Now it is precisely NOT Orthodox to 'sugar-coat' things by vague mumbling of 'honoring' (which, by the way, is the injunction to the wives (not women in general), not the husbands, and needs clarification and discussion so that you would see how it differs from certain practices such as in Protestant Sola Scriptura, where a good many people did indeed simply 'read it for themselves', and when love became a mere feeling, it became an irrelevant command, while the 'submit', 'fear' and 'honor' could be measured and imposed by people who weren't striving for the orthodox vision of themselves becoming like Christ. The whole part about love as being a complete self-sacrifice, a surrendering of the self - which is what the husbands are SUPPOSED to do - precludes domination!!!

And yes, I think that without Christ, men can indeed be reduced to sperm donors (as women can also be enslaved by those in power and reduced to gestating factories and food supplies for babies. 'Brave New World' and 'The Matrix' are not so completely far-fetched as they may appear to some.

Everyone does badly if nobody at home loves them, whether you come home to a house full of hate, or a completely empty one.

So the whole key to all of that is 'without Christ'. Without our own submission of our own lives, starting with ourselves before even beginning to look at our spouses (and better if we never apply the expectations to our wives (or husbands) but stick to ourselves), there is no hope or possibility of achieving true equality that is also love and self-sacrifice, the submission of the self. But 'submit' and 'obey' are dirty words in our modern (aka temporary/fashionable) cult of the individual, who no longer has a context for submitting to become part of something bigger than himself. And so he gets his TV dinner, his Netflix, and goes home to the empty house and listens to songs about love that his heart aches for, and the loneliness that stifles him (or her).

With Christ - when we submit ourselves to Christ, we heed His commands to be like Him, and realize that we have to change ourselves. That we are NOT 'OK' just as we are; that we need to learn to love as He does, not a smarmy feeling that comes and goes, but to really totally give ourselves up, what we want for ourselves, what we like or prefer, etc, for the sake of our beloved. (That ultimately extends to everyone around us, as we are called to love our neighbor (the one near us) as ourselves. But the family is a beginning by mirroring the relationship of the Holy Trinity. Even Christ says that He does not what He wants, but what His Father wants. (There's a lot of mystery there, we don't try to 'scientifically' unpack it, like Thomist Catholics do - and Chesterton was a Thomist, in general terms, btw) All of that makes the things that feminist fear to be wrong and sinful (damaging to the self and others), and to be avoided.

[aliantha]

But then, I also don't believe that any humans were meant to be independent; we're meant to be part of a complex interdependence... but I'm sure you've noticed that's a theme for me by now.

And so he gets his TV dinner, his Netflix, and goes home to the empty house and listens to songs about love that his heart aches for, and the loneliness that stifles him (or her).

Maybe it's because I'm basically an introvert, but I disagree with both of these.

Ever since my youngest went off to college four years ago, I've essentially lived alone. And I've never, in those four years, been lonely. Not once! I read, I knit, I plan trips and take them. I went to Spain by myself (no tour group). I went to Hawaii by myself. I go to concerts and movies and restaurants by myself. I don't mind cooking for one; if the recipe makes more than one serving, I freeze the remaining portions and take them with me to work for lunch. I don't even turn on the TV "for company". In fact, I rarely turn on the TV at all.

Actually, I find it quite freeing to do stuff by myself. I don't have to compromise.

That's not to say that I don't enjoy the company of others. In Hawaii, I met up with Waddley and had fun hanging out with her. I had a blast at Elohimfest a couple of weekends ago. I've got RL friends, as well. But I cherish my alone time. Sometimes even the cat is too much company! It's been a big adjustment for me to have Magickmaker home again, now that she's finished college.

That's not to say that I'm rethinking my belief that the Universe is a web and everything is connected to it; I'm not. I'm just making the point that not every solitary person is miserable. Some of us are perfectly fine with our quiet little corner of the web.

[rusmeister]

But then, I also don't believe that any humans were meant to be independent; we're meant to be part of a complex interdependence... but I'm sure you've noticed that's a theme for me by now.

And so he gets his TV dinner, his Netflix, and goes home to the empty house and listens to songs about love that his heart aches for, and the loneliness that stifles him (or her).

Maybe it's because I'm basically an introvert, but I disagree with both of these.

Ever since my youngest went off to college four years ago, I've essentially lived alone. And I've never, in those four years, been lonely. Not once! I read, I knit, I plan trips and take them. I went to Spain by myself (no tour group). I went to Hawaii by myself. I go to concerts and movies and restaurants by myself. I don't mind cooking for one; if the recipe makes more than one serving, I freeze the remaining portions and take them with me to work for lunch. I don't even turn on the TV "for company". In fact, I rarely turn on the TV at all.

Actually, I find it quite freeing to do stuff by myself. I don't have to compromise.

That's not to say that I don't enjoy the company of others. In Hawaii, I met up with Waddley and had fun hanging out with her. I had a blast at Elohimfest a couple of weekends ago. I've got RL friends, as well. But I cherish my alone time. Sometimes even the cat is too much company! It's been a big adjustment for me to have Magickmaker home again, now that she's finished college.

That's not to say that I'm rethinking my belief that the Universe is a web and everything is connected to it; I'm not. I'm just making the point that not every solitary person is miserable. Some of us are perfectly fine with our quiet little corner of the web.

I don't think my statement is something to "disagree with", if it is generalization that does not claim universality. Sure there are people that are fine with isolation. Monks often isolate themselves for extended times and hermits always do - but they are exceptions to the general rule. I'm perfectly willing to accept that you are such an exception.

What I was speaking to was the general elevation of the individual at the expense of the family; to the shift from seeing marriage as a vow that may not be broken, that is final and permanent, to a contract that may be broken as soon as a person's feelings change, and to the very lack of even any kind of contract whatsoever. To the resulting atomization and isolation of society as a whole, not only the exceptions who desire isolation, but of the vast majority that does not. And that DOES happen when genuine Christian values and teachings (OK, morals and doctrines) are abandoned.

[aliantha]

I understand what you were speaking to, rus. I happen to think that your lonely mooncalf with his TV dinner and his sappy songs are due more to popular culture than to anything else.

There's this drumbeat that underlies our society: "I'm so lonesome I could die." "I can't live, if living is without you." *Zillions* of other songs. TV shows are all about sex, hooking up, pairing off. Ads deliberately sell sex to sell products, and make people feel like there's something wrong with them if they don't have a partner (and this product will get you there!). It's like the marketers have gotten hold of the species' biological drive to reproduce and turned it into a monster.

I suppose you're going to say that Christian values are inversely proportional with this kind of stuff. Well, maybe. But it seems to me that it's been going on longer than since the '60s. (And I've gotta run now and get to work. More later, maybe....)

[Cybrweez]

But once the kids were weaned, the girls' father had all the physical equipment anybody would need to raise a kid to adulthood.

Wow, only physical equipment is needed?

So at that point -- say, two years into the each kid's life -- the whole thing of men saying, "Women are meant to raise the kids and men are meant to bring home the bacon," becomes all about domination and controlling the relationship.

Why is that domination? If we were sane, and cared about our kids, the higher value is on raising them and investing in them, not working. Therefore, why would it be dominating to claim women are meant to raise kids? They are performing the more valuable service. Its the society that doesn't place high value in investing in their own children that would look at a career as having higher value. And yet, those same people, should they win the lottery, would quit their jobs in a heartbeat. So tell me, why is that valuable?

This is the problem w/most flavors of feminism. Not that women should have the freedom to do whatever they want (they should). But that they should want to be just like a man! There has been a concerted effort to portray a career as "better" than a stay at home mom. Bah, its nonsense, and I'm glad why wife hasn't bought into it.

I look at both sides sacrificing. My wife sacrifices dealing with the kids when they're young, its a lot of work. Then, she gets a lifetime to see her "returns". I sacrifice being away from them and missing a lot of their growth, so that we can live comfortably. But I can't wait to retire and be done w/working and enjoy family and friends. My wife doesn't look forward to being able to work, and I can't think of why she would. She was a teacher for a few years before our first, and she never looks back.

[Fist and Faith]

Years ago, Joy Behar was saying something or other, and ended with, "Right girls? *pause* Oh, that's right. It's the 90's. We're not girls anymore. We're men!"

Chris Rock said he was in a club, dancing with some woman. She mentioned that she had kids, who were home. "What is she doing at a club at 1:00 am when she has kids? Get your ass home with your kids! If kids grow up and can't read, it's the momma's fault! If kids can't read because there's no lights in the house, it's the daddy's fault!"

I don't know how much of any of this is just tradition. Long ago, the men were far more capable of getting the food, whether hunting or farming. It made perfect sense to have the mom stay home with the kids, doing the outrageous amount of work that needed doing. Are women genetically set up to be more nurturing? I've seen a lot of single dads lately who seem to be as good at it as the single moms are. OTOH, I've heard of many more men who just leave their families - even up and vanishing, as opposed to simply moving out - than women. Is it harder for women to leave their children than it is for men? I can't answer, because, despite not living with my kids, I'll kill anyone who tries to prevent me from seeing them, and I'll die without them.

I was a stay-at-home dad for less than a year when my son was a baby, and it was, hands down, the most difficult thing I've ever done.

[aliantha]

This is the problem w/most flavors of feminism. Not that women should have the freedom to do whatever they want (they should). But that they should want to be just like a man!

Why is it that as soon as a woman says she wants to work outside the home, she's accused of wanting to be a man?

Why is that domination? If we were sane, and cared about our kids, the higher value is on raising them and investing in them, not working. Therefore, why would it be dominating to claim women are meant to raise kids? They are performing the more valuable service. Its the society that doesn't place high value in investing in their own children that would look at a career as having higher value. And yet, those same people, should they win the lottery, would quit their jobs in a heartbeat. So tell me, why is that valuable?

It's human nature to believe the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Some people who work full-time can't wait to tell their bosses to take this job and shove it. Some people who are forced to stay home all the time (childrearing, unemployment, what-have-you) can't wait to get back to work.

Why, you ask, is raising kids valued less than going out to work? Welcome to capitalism!

The "women are meant to raise the kids" line is domination because it tries to force *all* women into that stereotype. I grant you that some women are thrilled to death to stay home and raise the kids. That's their calling. I applaud them for finding it -- many people *never* find their calling.

But it's not *my* calling, and it's not the calling of a lot of women I know. If I'd had to stay home with the kids, I would have gone crazy. I need a lot more mental stimulation than second-grade math and "Hop on Pop."

And yet the Christian church would force *all* women to lay their adult, thinking brains aside for 18 years -- and lays a boatload of guilt on them if they want to do something different.

[rant] I'll tell you something else: It's a damn sight harder to both work *and* raise the kids. Y'all think it's the kids who are getting shortchanged in a single-parent household, but it's not -- the single parent is shortchanging *him/herself*. Whatever you feel like you're sacrificing as half of couple while your kids are small -- double it. There's no time to breathe. Hobbies are a distant memory. Days off? Please. Sleep? You can sleep when you're dead! [/rant]

And that "lifetime of returns"? I'm still waiting. My kids are in their 20s and I'm *still* parenting them to some degree. But it's way harder than when they were tiny, because I have no leverage when they refuse to listen to me. Parenting young adults is mostly about keeping your fingers crossed and your mouth taped shut.

[rusmeister]

Years ago, Joy Behar was saying something or other, and ended with, "Right girls? *pause* Oh, that's right. It's the 90's. We're not girls anymore. We're men!"

Chris Rock said he was in a club, dancing with some woman. She mentioned that she had kids, who were home. "What is she doing at a club at 1:00 am when she has kids? Get your ass home with your kids! If kids grow up and can't read, it's the momma's fault! If kids can't read because there's no lights in the house, it's the daddy's fault!"

I don't know how much of any of this is just tradition. Long ago, the men were far more capable of getting the food, whether hunting or farming. It made perfect sense to have the mom stay home with the kids, doing the outrageous amount of work that needed doing. Are women genetically set up to be more nurturing? I've seen a lot of single dads lately who seem to be as good at it as the single moms are. OTOH, I've heard of many more men who just leave their families - even up and vanishing, as opposed to simply moving out - than women. Is it harder for women to leave their children than it is for men? I can't answer, because, despite not living with my kids, I'll kill anyone who tries to prevent me from seeing them, and I'll die without them.

I was a stay-at-home dad for less than a year when my son was a baby, and it was, hands down, the most difficult thing I've ever done.

Amen to all that, Fist.
I was married, had a kid, separated, and then came back together, converted and moved to Russia because it was so important. It was more important than what I wanted for myself. I had just earned my credential, I could have my choice of schools to teach at in CA, AND got instant credit for teachers buying homes, and instead I gave it all up, and dismantled the life I had built there - and boy, was it painful to do that! But I was going back to live with my wife and teach myself to love her even when I didn't feel like it, and to be involved in the childhood of my own son. Three more kids resulted. It is REALLY hard. But it is better than sitting in a nice clean apartment all alone most of the time.

Loved your Chris Rock story.

[Cybrweez]

ali, I would never accuse a woman of wanting to be a man. Accuse sounds so negative, and men are great. I could see why a woman would want to be one.

Using anecdotes of how people respond doesn't have much bearing on whether these things are or are not. Like MMT, I've seen so many people write it off, b/c they don't like the idea of politicians knowing the country can't go bankrupt. As if that had any bearing on whether MMT describes reality or not. People forcing or shaming others for something is not relevant really (except to help them get a clue).

Capitalism? Oh boy. Been around longer than this feminist ideal of being like men. And of course, greed been around long time.

When I get home, I'll have to ask my wife where her adult brain is. I'm sure she'll be surprised she lost it. And to find out, she won't get it back for 18 years!

EDIT: fist, good question on the genetic angle. We're much different now than when we were created, so it may well be the case this is not the default anymore. Hard to separate nature/nurture.