I know, I know, "patriarchy" is not ... politically correct. It's viewed as "sexist" and "narrow-minded". Is it possible, though, that it is God's design? Is it possible that God intended it to be that way?
One reason I say that is true is all I've said before regarding biblical patriarchy. I mean, it's in the Bible. Why would I not think it was God's design. But there is another reason, a reason currently under assault in our society. That reason is that men and women are different. "Oh, now," you caution me, "be careful where you take this." Apart from the very obvious physical differences between men and women, science tells us that there are very significant differences. One article from Masters of Healthcare is devoted to 10 Big Differences Between Men's and Women's Brains. This isn't religion. It is science. It's not biblical opinion. It's experimental examinations.
According to science, women have more connections between the two halves of their brains. This tends to produce what we call "multi-tasking", the ability to handle multiple processes at once. On the other hand, the lack of interconnection in males tends to produce what we see as "linearity", the ability to think through something from beginning to end without interruption. Now, without really trying, I think you can see advantages and disadvantages to both. For instance, a secretary typically has to juggle a whole bunch of different simultaneous tasks and we've found that most often females make the best secretaries. On the other hand, engineering takes dedicated focus to a singular task so most often men make the better engineers. It's not that one is better than the other. It's that each has different strengths and weaknesses.
The dual connection in women would also affect all sorts of other interactions. They would be more in touch with feelings than their male counterparts and more talkative. That would also mean that they were better at communicating, more interested in talking things through, better at non-verbal cues. Accessing the emotions better, women would have better recall of events that were highly emotional than men would. They would tend to be more group oriented rather than individualistic. They would tend to have a broader view on solving problems. On the other hand, the depth of a particular solution would likely be much less because of the range of possibilities, while a man would tend to think it through from beginning to end.
The differences are really quite remarkable. Women typically have a larger deep limbic system than men, putting them more in touch with their feelings. Men typically have brains that are 11-12% bigger than women’s brains. (That doesn't mean smarter; that means more neurons to control larger body and muscle size.) Men are more likely to have dyslexia for which women can more easily compensate, but women are more likely to suffer from mood disorders. Men approach problem solving as a means to display competence and women approach problem solving as a part of a relationship, a group effort. Women think in more global terms and men think in more compartmentalized systems. Men compete while women relate. Studies show that, facing a crisis, men tend toward the "fight or flight" approach while women tend toward the "tend and befriend" approach.
The point, thus far, is to say that men and women are not the same. Each has strengths and weaknesses. The simple truth is that both are valuable in different applications, and both fall short in different applications. (On a side note, isn't it interesting? If you say that a male has inherent abilities that a female doesn't, it's sexist. If you say that a female has inherent abilities that a male doesn't, it's politically correct. Why is that, do you suppose?) I am not suggesting "superior" in any sense. I am suggesting "different" and even "complimentary" -- the two fill in the gaps that each other has.
There are those that argue that "patriarchy" is manufactured, that this kind of thing is simply a product of power-seekers establishing a "norm" that is not genuine, and that it's not at all right. Here's what I think. If it is true that men and women have real and significant differences, and if it is true that God actually intended to design society with a patriarchy, wouldn't it make sense that God designed it all with the differences in mind?
45 comments:
Stan said...
The point, thus far, is to say that men and women are not the same.
For the record, I will note that I, nor any of my feminist friends believe that men and women are the same. I don't know that I've ever read anyone who thinks this. At least no one rational.
What our point is, is that we are equal in rights, equal in responsibilities, equal in privileges and equal in duties. Our point is that one ought not be dominated by the other, merely based on race. Our point is that we ought to share decision making responsibilities and that one ought not choose for the other.
In short, we believe we are all created in God's image with the right and responsibility to make our decisions for ourselves.
Patriarchy, on the other hand, by definition means, "social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; control by men of a disproportionately large share of power."
We object to the disproportionately large share of power held by men in patriarchal societies. We object for many reasons, not the least of which is that women are created in God's image with the right and responsibility of self determination.
We object to the legal dependence of wives upon their husbands. Being independent creations of God with the right and responsibility of self-determination, they need the legal freedom to make their own legal choices.
None of which has anything to do with innate differences between men and women, UNLESS you want to make the argument that women are innately not capable of making independent decisions.
Are you defining patriarchy in some manner other than the dictionary definition that most of us accept in our language?
Dan Trabue: "What our point is, is that we are equal in rights, equal in responsibilities, equal in privileges and equal in duties."
First, I have to say it was amusing that the "our" there was "me and my feminist friends" as if you're a feminist. Sorry ... I come from the Land of the Easily Amused.
But, seriously, this makes sense to you? Because it makes no sense to me. Oh, I agree with equal in value. I would not suggest that men are more or less valuable than women. But you didn't include "value". So you would argue (as an example) that just because men make the best football linemen, it is wrong to limit the position to men? ("Equal in duties".) Our whole society is constructed on "The best one for the job", not "equal in responsibilities and equal in duties". Indeed, societies cannot exist without hierarchy. In fact, a society built on "equal in authority" has its own "archy" term: "anarchy". And I have to say that you've radically misunderstood both Von and I in terms of husband/wife relationships. We would say, "Husbands are the ones ultimately responsible." That means that wives get a privilege that husbands do not. While husbands have to question, "Am I doing the will of God?", wives get to say, "Since God has placed this man as His representative in my life, I can know if I'm doing the will of God." (If you're planning to go to the "What about that lunatic that asks her to sin?!" place again, don't. You're talking about extremes; I'm talking about normal.)
Dan Trabue: "We object to the disproportionately large share of power held by men in patriarchal societies."
You object to the structure that God ordained. (I mention that because the dictionary I read says specifically, "The term patriarch was originally applied to the fathers of the tribes of Israel.") You object to the standard structure of the Bible. You object to the structure God set up in 1 Cor 11. Fine. But when you object to all that, I don't want to stand near you. I know ... God doesn't miss with His lightning, but sometimes there is splatter, you know. (Kidding.)
Let's see ... the alternative. We can have "equal power". That would mean that husbands and wives do not share names. (That's fine, I suppose. They don't in some societies - even patriarchal ones.) Family lines are traced through ... well, no one in particular. There is no "patriarch" to trace. Inheritances are passed on ... randomly. Look, let's do away with inheritances altogether. Just distribute it to the populace in general. I mean, why should his family get it over hers? And if not his or hers, whose? Why shouldn't a woman dominate the house? Look, society is already moving away from any sense that men are of any real value. Why not switch ... to matriarchy?! I mean, we've already established that God's opinion in all of this doesn't count, so ... why not?
Feel free to object, Dan. I don't mind. And I realize that you are viewed as "politically correct" while I would be labeled as "sexist" and "narrow-minded". We're all clear on that. Except ... if the Bible rightly outlines patriarchy as God's design and if science rightly shows how one gender has strengths the other doesn't and weaknesses the other doesn't and if it only makes sense to make the best use of those strengths and weaknesses (in accordance, as it turns out, with biblical principles), then you're objecting in favor of popular feminism but against ... God, science, and logic.
I have to say it was amusing that the "our" there was "me and my feminist friends" as if you're a feminist. Sorry ... I come from the Land of the Easily Amused.
I'm not sure I follow. I AM a feminist (feminist: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes).
What's your point there?
So you would argue (as an example) that just because men make the best football linemen, it is wrong to limit the position to men? ("Equal in duties".)
I would argue that IF a woman could do the job as well, there is no logical, moral or biblical reason to restrict her from doing so. Now, as I have noted, no one argues that men and women are exactly the same. Women TEND not to have as much upper body strength or bulk so they would not TEND to be as qualified to be a football player.
But IF a woman had the required strength and skills to do it, I would argue that a team would be foolish to ban her based on her gender alone. You disagree?
You object to the structure that God ordained.
No. I object to the power system that YOU THINK God ordained. I think no such thing. I think the Bible dictates against this and in favor of us all being created in God's image with the rights and responsibilities of self-determination.
Do you think women are NOT created in God's image? Do you think women do NOT have the rights and responsibilities of self-determination?
I'd suggest we not confuse what WE THINK God wants with what God wants. You're certainly responsible for acting upon what you think God wants, but I'd be careful about speaking for God.
Dan Trabue: "What's your point there?"
I think I see it now. We don't communicate well because you don't have a sense of humor.
Me? I wanted to be a mapmaker in Arizona until I found out I didn't have a sense of Yuma.
Okay, joking there. Look, Dan, since you can't see much of what I say ("I come from the Land of the Easily Amused") as humor and most of what I say has a tinge of humor in it, we're going to be lost in trying to communicate.
Stan said...
Except ... if the Bible rightly outlines patriarchy as God's design and if science rightly shows how one gender has strengths...
Well, this IS the question. IF you are right, then I'm mistaken. IF I am right, then you are mistaken. I think we can all agree (although there's always the possibility that we might both be a little right and a little wrong).
I think you are clearly mistaken based upon the Bible's teachings, Jesus' teachings and good ol' logic and basic morality. You think I'm mistaken.
May God give us both wisdom.
Dan Trabue: "I would argue that IF a woman could do the job as well, there is no logical, moral or biblical reason to restrict her from doing so."
So you would argue that a woman can be the same as a man. Tell me again ... what significant differences are there? You see, I would argue -- no, science would argue that men biologically are constructed to have more muscle mass and upper body strength (and the other stuff required to do the lineman's job), so the "if" is a pure, non-existent hypothetical. You know, like "I would argue that IF a man could have a baby, there is no logical, moral or biblical reason to restrict him from doing so."
Joking is fine. I just don't get the joke. I LOVE jokes, but if it has to be explained, is it funny?
Seriously, I dig jokes, what WAS the joke?
That a man can believe in the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes?
If it is obvious, I apologize for my obtuse-ness.
Stan said...
So you would argue that a woman can be the same as a man.
Is this another joke? I'm not getting it again, sorry.
What I said was that IF a woman can do a job normally held by men, why shouldn't they? What I did NOT say was that a "woman can be the same as a man." I didn't say that so your comments don't make much sense, unless, perhaps, it's another joke?
You tell me.
Stan said...
You see, I would argue -- no, science would argue that men biologically are constructed to have more muscle mass and upper body strength (and the other stuff required to do the lineman's job), so the "if" is a pure, non-existent hypothetical.
You DO know, Stan, that although women don't tend to have the right qualifications to be a football player, that SOME women might have the qualifications? It is not hypothetical at all.
Dan Trabue" "I object to the power system that YOU THINK God ordained."
Dan, you've thrown out a lot of stuff here that seems to be completely unrelated. For instance, what does "made in God's image" have to do with "who is in charge"? But, look, why don't you do us all a favor and state your case. I spent a great deal of time with Scripture (in two separate posts) explaining why I believe it is God's plan. I didn't make anything up. I didn't alter anything. I didn't pull stuff out of a hat, so to speak. It was all pretty clear, straightforward, in fact, generally accepted by most anyone who reads the Bible. So, you disagree. That's fine. So here's what I'm asking. I see clear biblical reasons why it is so. Give me clear biblical reasons why it is not. I see clear biblical commands for such a hierarchy. Give me clear biblical commands countering those commands. I even offered plain and even scientific reasons why it is so. Give me plain and scientific reasons why it is not. Give me biblical reasons why there must be anarchy rather than hierarchy. Or give me biblical reasons why you think that all that stuff outlined in the Bible regarding the structure of marriage is wrong. Or something. Anything. All you've given me is "I don't think so!" You've assured me that it's only my perception that all of the Bible seems to say what I'm saying. So, give me a coherent argument to explain why I'm wrong. Thus far, all you've given me is your opinion, which is only as good as mine ... except that I derive mine from the Bible. Do you?
you've thrown out a lot of stuff here that seems to be completely unrelated. For instance, what does "made in God's image" have to do with "who is in charge"? But, look, why don't you do us all a favor and state your case.
I could. Or you could just go to a Christian Egalitarianism website ( here, for instance). For what it's worth, my opinions ARE derived from the Bible. Are you unfamiliar with the case?
In short, as I've noted (let me know if you need the scripture references, I think they are self-evident, but can point you to them if need be)...
1. we are all, male and female, made in God's image;
2. as such, we are autonomous human beings responsible ultimately to God and God alone for our actions;
3. Paul tells us that IN CHRIST, there is neither male nor female, just one body, the Body of Christ;
4. We each have different roles (some preach - including women, some teach - including women, some deacon - including women, some prophesy, including women, etc) but no one is "over" another;
5. Indeed, we are to submit to one another in love and respect;
Since we all - women included - created in God's image and are ultimately responsible to follow God, not man (ie, humanity), women have INNATELY and SELF-EVIDENTLY, I'd argue, the ability to make their own decisions, to be autonomous human creations of God.
Do you disagree? Do you think women CAN'T or OUGHTN'T be able to make their own decisions?
Returning to the definition of feminism... ("the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"), is it the case that you DON'T believe in the political equality of genders? If so, which political rights would you remove from whom?
Or, is it the case that you don't believe in economic equality? If so, which economic freedoms would you remove from women?
Or is it the case that you don't believe in the social equality of women? If so, which social roles/rights would you remove from women?
Or, if you don't disagree with any of that, does that not mean that you are a feminist, too? By definition?
What is your definition of patriarchy, and is it different than the dictionary definition ("social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; control by men of a disproportionately large share of power")?
For my part, I am opposed to patriarchy as it is understood in the English language because I am opposed to "control by men of a disproportionately large share of power."
I am opposed to patriarchy as defined in English because I am opposed to legal dependence upon a husband by an adult woman.
Are you in support of those? If not, then do you not oppose "patriarchy" as it is understood in the English language?
Are you proposing that there is some sort of "biblical patriarchy" that has a different definition that does not include the oppressive problems mentioned above?
Dan Trabue: "1. we are all, male and female, made in God's image;"
Oh, good! Early agreement!
Dan Trabue: "2. as such, we are autonomous human beings responsible ultimately to God and God alone for our actions;"
Ummm, I guess I'm going to need biblical references for that one. "Responsible ultimately to God" is fine but "God alone" is hard to find. So either I can search for it, fail to find it, and tell you you're wrong, or you can just show it to me.
Dan Trabue: "3. Paul tells us that IN CHRIST, there is neither male nor female, just one body, the Body of Christ;"
Yeah. That's what I figured you'd do. I knew I could count on you to jump on into Galatians 3:28 without any reference to context or meaning. So ... what is the context of Gal 3? "How did you get saved?" (Gal 3:1ff). Paul argues we're saved by faith (Gal 3:6). We're not saved by doing works of the Law (Gal 3:11). We're not saved by being Abraham's physical descendants (Gal 3:16ff). We are saved only one way: "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:26). So when Paul trots out his "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28), he doesn't do so in a vacuum. He has a point. In what sense are we all one? He doesn't leave that to guess: "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise" (Gal 3:29). We are all -- male, female, Jew, Greek, slave, free, or whatever differentiation you care to make -- all one in Christ as Abraham's spiritual descendants, as joint heirs. That does not equate to "no difference" or "no hierarchy" or any egalitarianism. Further, if Paul had intended this to be a call for egalitarianism, then we need to assume that Paul is wholly insane. On one hand he tells us that there is no difference between men and women in Christ, and on the other hand he makes commands about husbands and wives, men and women in the Church, and so on and so forth. That nut, Peter, made the same types of commands. These two guys apparently can't see their own contradictions. Insane! Certainly not "God-breathed".
Dan Trabue: "4. We each have different roles (some preach - including women, some teach - including women, some deacon - including women, some prophesy, including women, etc) but no one is 'over' another;"
I can't figure out how you can run with this thing. There is no doubt that there are roles that are over others. (If you are employed by someone else, try to tell your boss, "No one is over another" and see how long you remain employed.) We are commanded to submit to the government. Despite all the commands of wives submitting to husband, you claim "no one is over another". Despite the praise Peter gives Sara for calling Abraham "lord" (1 Peter 3:6), you affirm "no one is over another". Despite the fact that a society in which "no one is over another" is called "anarchy", you still hold it. So I can't figure out this position, let alone its clear discarding of obvious Scripture.
Dan Trabue: "5. Indeed, we are to submit to one another in love and respect;"
This, in your mind, equates to "no one is over another"? When even Jesus -- the Son of God -- submitted to His Father, you would argue that "submit to one another" requires "no one is over another"? Does any of this really make sense to you?
Dan Trabue: "Do you think women CAN'T or OUGHTN'T be able to make their own decisions?"
I haven't ever dealt with you on matters of logic and rules. I'll start now. This is what is called a "false dilemma". You are saying here that if someone is over another, then someone cannot or ought not be able to make their own decisions. You live in a country with a government -- someone is over you -- so apparently you cannot or ought not be able to make your own decisions? You see? The logic doesn't follow. One doesn't require the other. Thus, a "false dilemma". Or, in other words, illogical.
Dan Trabue: "...the definition of feminism... ('the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes')"
First, we're not going down the feminism path. Nothing at all to do with whether or not men and women are different or whether or not it's a good thing or whether or not God intended it that way. Completely unrelated. In fact, here's our second lesson in logic. This is what is called "a red herring". The idea is if you can sidetrack the discussion by running down a rabbit trail unrelated to the topic, then you've managed to derail the dialog.
Second, feminism, according to the sources available, is "concerned with issues of gender difference". I'm suggesting differences are valid and good. Feminism would say they're not.
Third, since we're using standard definitions, here's what I find for the word "equal": 1. Identical or equivalent to. 2. The same. 3. Uniform. So, which are you going to be using here. Are you going to assert that men and women are "identical", "equivalent to", "the same", or "uniform"? I just have to know so I see where you stand.
Because, you see, nothing about "men and women are different and that's good" says "Women should have no political, economic, or social value." (See "false dilemma".) Saying that men make better football players does not say that men have more intrinsic value. Saying that women make better mothers (go ahead ... dispute that) does not say that women have more intrinsic value. And ... this is key ... suggesting that one submit to the other does not say that one has more intrinsic value than the other.
I don't see men and women as "equal" as in "the same". (Duh! That's what I just wrote this post about.) I see the Bible telling husbands to treat their wives with "honor as a fellow heir". Hmmm ... doesn't sound like "no value". I see the Bible commanding husbands to love their wives as they love themselves. Nope ... not sounding like "no value". I do not see the Bible saying, "Do not allow women to vote" (despite Von's arguments -- but I'm not Von). On the other hand, I also don't find, "Thou shalt allow women to vote!" So I don't find this as a fundamental given. I do see the Bible saying that a good wife is involved in the economy (Prov 31:16, 24) (Would you call that economic equality?), "extends her hand to the poor" (Wouldn't that be, like, "social equality"?), and is strong and dignified (Prov 31:25). (Odd ... doesn't sound much like "a good wife is chattel".) In other words, I don't see feminism as an issue here, except when feminism tries to suggest what you have already disclaimed. They suggest (at least the radical ones do) that there is no difference between the genders. If there are differences, the female is superior. (Do you recall the outrage when the Women's Lib movement claimed that any woman who has sex with her husband is either a prostitute or a rape victim?) I am opposed to that kind of feminism (and it does exist in large forms despite your denial). But I don't think I've said anything that would suggest that women are "less". That would be a product of logical fallacy.
Are you going to assert that men and women are "identical", "equivalent to", "the same", or "uniform"? I just have to know so I see where you stand.
When we're talking "equal" as in the definition I gave you, we're talking EQUAL RIGHTS. Not "the same" as in size or function of physical or mental make up, but having the same rights.
Do you support women having equal (same, uniform, equivalent to...) RIGHTS as men in Political choices, in economic choices, in social choices? Is that a difficult question?
As to feminism being a red herring in a discussion of patriarchy, I don't see how it could possibly be a red herring. Feminism is sort of the direct opposite of Patriarchy. If one is prepared to endorse Patriarchy, one ought to be well-versed in why Feminism is wrong.
(I guess one could make the case that Matriarchy is the direct opposite of Patriarchy, but I think Feminism is more rightly considered the opposite. Patriarchy suggests that women don't have equal (same, uniform, equivalent) rights in political, economic or social choices and Feminism does...)
Stan said...
Second, feminism, according to the sources available, is "concerned with issues of gender difference". I'm suggesting differences are valid and good. Feminism would say they're not.
1. Which "sources"?
2. See the definition again. Feminism is concerned about equal rights for women in areas of politics, economics and social choices.
3. Are you suggesting that women NOT having equal rights in politics, economics and social areas is "valid and good"?
Outstanding! Ignore the topic at hand, do not comment on the analysis of any egalitarian argument, and jump right on top of a topic that is wholly irrelevant.
Dan Traube: "we're talking EQUAL RIGHTS."
No, we're not. You're talking feminism and I am not.
Stan:: "First, we're not going down the feminism path."
That means that we're done with the topic. Nothing I wrote about differences between men and women had anything remotely to do with whether or not women should be allowed to vote or ...? Unless you can show me the connection between what I wrote and what you're arguing so vehemently, I will stop posting further comments of yours on this topic. I am very happy to discuss whether or not the Bible sees a difference between men and women and whether or not that's a good thing. I won't discuss feminism here. That's not the issue at hand.
You're talking about PATRIARCHY, which is defined, and I repeat, "social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; control by men of a disproportionately large share of power."
I have asked, and ask again, are you using the common definition of patriarchy or some other definition?
If you're using the common definition, are you talking about "control by men of a disproportionately large share of power"? Are you talking about having "the legal dependence of wives"? These are part of the definition.
Perhaps it would help if YOU defined how you're using patriarchy, since the normal English definition makes all my comments germane and my questions topical.
Stan said...
You're talking feminism and I am not.
YOU brought up feminism in the post. I merely pointed out that you were painting feminists with an incorrect brush, pointing out the truth to correct a misunderstanding on your part.
And, as I said, since Feminism as a tenet is opposed to Patriarchy, then it would behoove you to be able to speak intelligently to the questions feminists have.
Think of it this way: You are making a case, suggesting that X million people are mistaken about an ideal. Are you making the case just to let off steam and so you and those who agree with you can commiserate, or are you hoping to make your case to the people with whom you disagree in the hopes of educating us?
If you want to make the case to the people with whom you disagree, don't you need to be willing to talk to them and heed their side of the issues?
If you're merely blowing off steam, I understand. I do that sometimes when I'm not necessarily trying to make my case, just ranting with my friends. No harm in that, sometimes. But given the tone of your posts, I thought you were interested in conversation.
As an aside, generally in civil conversations, when one has been corrected or had a point made to them, it is customary to say thanks, apologize for the misunderstanding, to somehow acknowledge the disagreement.
I began my comments here by merely pointed out that you were mistaken in your contention that feminists believe "men and women are the same," and not only did you not correct it, you kept repeating the error. With no evidence to support it. Come now, Brother Stan, we can disagree, but can't we do so reasonably?
If you have no evidence to support the notion that feminists think men and women are the same, wouldn't it be the Christian thing to do to correct the misstatement OR, at the least, if you wish to keep making the charge, to offer some support for it?
No need to publish this, just a note for consideration from me to you.
Unless you can show me the connection between what I wrote and what you're arguing so vehemently
1. Vehemently? I'm merely stating some facts and some definitions. No vehemence, no anger on my part. (Well, maybe a bit of irritability when you keep stating the straw man about "men and women are the same," that no one actually believes).
2. In case you missed it, I made the case when I showed you the definition of "Patriarchy" which is what you're talking about. The word has a specific meaning in the English language and it is opposed to women's rights.
3. If you mean something OTHER than patriarchy as it is commonly used, I would suggest you give THAT term and definition (ie, if you're talking about something like "Biblical Patriarchy" that you believe is different than the standard patriarchy for which we all know the standard meaning).
You are free to publish or not. It's your blog. But if you wish to reach out to those who disagree with you and make your case to them, cutting off communication seems an odd way to do so.
Okay, let's see. What I said about "feminism" was "you've been so infected with modern feminism that you likely read most of the women's strengths as superior to the men's strengths." That, apparently, was what it took to so offend you as to launch into a defense of "feminism".
If "feminism" meant simply "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes", there would be no conversation because it would make no sense. What about that theory would make someone think that women's strengths are superior to men's strengths? No, you're talking about generic "feminism". As such, it is not opposed to patriarchy. Instead, it is opposed to sexism. Just as you are quite sure that my problem is my understanding of Scripture, I'm quite sure that the problem here occurs once you start defining "equal rights".
Dan Trabue: "As an aside, generally in civil conversations, when one has been corrected or had a point made to them, it is customary to say thanks, apologize for the misunderstanding, to somehow acknowledge the disagreement."
I see ... like you did when I explained the error of your logic? No, you chose to ignore it. You see, conversations are defined as "civil" when they are carried out civilly. You, for instance, have assumed things of me I haven't said (such as women shouldn't have the right to make choices or to vote or that I am against that theory of feminism that you defined). You see, a civil conversation would have gone something like this. I said something that made no sense to you about feminism. You reply with something like, "That makes no sense to me. Here is what I understand feminism to be. Can you help me understand?" What you assumed instead was that I was speaking about your concept. I was not. I was speaking about "modern feminism", the kind that elevates women over men, the kind that takes as "equal rights" things that are not rights, the kind that militates against men in general. If you had asked me, I would have cleared that up for you. You didn't. So let's not presume "civil" if you're not going to be civil, okay?
Look, Dan, perhaps I ought to stop writing stuff that so irritates you. (Vehement, by the way, simply means "Characterized by forcefulness of expression or intensity of emotion or conviction." I was simply saying you were defending it with great conviction.) You don't like patriarchy. Fine. You disagree, despite all of the Scripture to the contrary, that God ordained it. Fine. You disagree that it's biblical. Fine. You cannot present a coherent biblical reason to remove it. Fine. You fail to properly understand patriarchy as a protection rather than a persecution of women. Fine. You prefer anarchy to hierarchy. Fine. (I know, I know ... on that last one you never said that ... but you never denied it even though I said it multiple times, so you may forgive me for concluding that your silence on the accusation was agreement.)
You see your side as defending the rights of women and I see my side as agreeing with God. So be it. I will not ask you to change your view. Please don't ask me to jettison God. Patriarchy, in my view, is a God-ordained hierarchy (because, first, a hierarchy is needed in all societies) that was intended to protect women. You see abuses and I see errors in its application as well, but that doesn't nullify biblical patriarchy as valid. You see yourself as a champion of women's rights and I can't help but see you as an insult to God's commands, so let's just stop the banter. It won't remain "civil", will it? (It sure didn't when you took my position to your blog.)
Look, if it makes you so upset don't read it. I can't redesign Scripture in your image any more than you're willing to look at it my way. So if it offends you so much, don't read it.
Stan said:
If "feminism" meant simply "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes", there would be no conversation because it would make no sense.
Well, that's how the dictionary defines it. It's how I understand it. It's how all my feminists friends understand it. It makes sense to us. How can the notion of extending rights to women NOT make sense?
How do YOU define it?
2. That, apparently, was what it took to so offend you as to launch into a defense of "feminism".
Well, No. If you recall, I point out specifically what I was objecting to. And I quote, "For the record, I will note that I, nor any of my feminist friends believe that men and women are the same."
You had made the statement, "The point... is to say that men and women are not the same... And while I suspect you've been so infected with modern feminism that you likely read most of the women's strengths..." and carried on to talk about the Straw man argument that people (feminists?) are objecting to pointing that men and women are different. No one is doing that and that is what I was pointing out.
Do you get what I'm saying? Initially, I was talking specifically and only about the straw man that feminists think men and women are the same.
Dan Trabue: "How can the notion of extending rights to women NOT make sense?"
Boom! And you do it again. I made it clear that it wasn't about women's rights and you assume I'm against "extending rights to women". That, in your understanding, is "civil conversation".
The problem is not that simple definition. The problem is the extension. Having agreed (as all you and your feminist friends have) that the goal is "political, economic, and social equality", how do you define equality? (Please don't bother answering the question. Not the goal of the post. Just an explanation of the difference between "feminism" and what I was referring to -- the "modern feminism" that assaults males at every possible turn.)
You are right, though. Feminism, at its core, is first and foremost opposed to patriarchy. I see that now. So I can only conclude that feminism, at its core, is fundamentally opposed to biblical thinking. Hey, what can I say? I didn't make up patriarchy. God did. Feminism (you and your friends) would need to conclude that God was wrong. Nice try, God, but you failed.
Oh, by the way, you were right when you corrected yourself. Matriarchy is the opposite of patriarchy. Now, ask your female feminist friends if they would mind a matriarchy instead of a patriarchy. The ones I've asked are happy with it. That should point in the direction of to what I was referring by "modern feminism".
We're done, Dan. We cannot communicate. Instead, we end up in strawman arguments and false accusations. I'd like to think it isn't intentional or personal. I know my feelings aren't hurt and I'd guess that yours aren't. I have to chalk it up purely as a failure to be able to communicate. You don't understand what I said for whatever reason and then misrepresent it and I don't understand what you're saying and misrepresent it and we are continually talking past each other. You complain that I don't thank you for correcting me and then don't thank me for correcting you. We are not adding light to the topic, just heat. So when you have decided that I am attempting to deceive people (the standard definition of "lying") and I have decided that we don't read the same Bible and we can't get each other to answer simple questions, it's likely time to stop, isn't it? Maybe another time with less ... vehemence.
Good work Stan, keep it up.
Dan is finished (for now anyway) over on my blog, so I will watch (and perhaps participate) over here.
On the rights issue, I don't see Scripture using that language, so for me it is irrelevant.
However Scripturally men and women are clearly given different jurisdictions, roles, responsibilities, positions in hierarchies, etc.
I will be interested to see how Dan deals (if he does) with the multiple Scriptures commanding patriarchy; and especially Jesus' references (which Stan hinted at earlier).
That's why I have asked repeatedly for your definitions, I think that is our area of disagreement. Or at least that's a starting point.
You seem to hold definitions other than the standard English ones and so I DO get lost if that's what you're doing. Surely you can understand that this is not unreasonable? That if you use some definitions other than the standard English ones, that I might not understand your point?
Still, your blog, your call. I'm sorry if there have been misunderstandings that I have contributed to.
I would like to clarify for you (if you're not publishing this, which is fine) that I specifically stated that I did NOT think you were lying, but that you WERE spreading misinformation, perhaps in ignorance or for some other reason.
If I did not adequately answer any questions, I apologize for that, too. I was trying to get to as many points as possible and certainly there have been a lot of words here in a short time. Any unanswered questions were only due to a lack of time and a surplus of words.
If you would like to try again sometime, just let me know.
And no, my feelings aren't hurt. I'm smiling a bit because of how silly and strange it is that two grown men, Christians from probably pretty similar backgrounds, can't manage a simple conversation.
Lord, grant us wisdom.
No, Von, Dan and I are finished with this. I've laid out the patriarchy argument and asked for a biblical argument against it or a biblical argument for egalitarianism or ... but those fall in the area of too many words, I suppose.
Dan, it's not about definitions. It's about starting points. You find inalienable human rights where I can't see them and then are baffled that I can't see them. You are looking at your inner sense of justice and I'm looking at my Bible. Mind you, more people are looking where you are than where I am. I'm not suggesting you're "out there". But as I said before, without common basis we will have a rough time conversing. It's as if I you believed the world was made of cheese and I believed it was made of fire and you said, "Hey, Stan, let's go for a walk!" Different basis. ;)
By the way, I'm calling an end to this conversation. I don't mean that you're not welcome to converse in other topics. Oh, and if you ever do come up with a biblical version of the "rights" you are championing, let me know. I'll be glad to examine it.
sigh,
And I just got here.
I posted this over on my blog, and was going to post it here. But if the conversation is closed...
Well, at least you can read it...
An interesting issue came up in the discussion with Dan. Something that I have seen several times before, and indeed seems fairly common.
Many times when dealing with modern politically correct liberals an issue will come up, say, patriarchy. And, faced with the multiple Scripture passages teaching patriarchy (or whatever issue they have in mind) they will say that those verses were written, “Because of the culture at the time.”
Now on its face the phrase makes sense. Those of us who have children will fully understand how the personality of one child might lead to an entirely different set of lectures and punishments then that one give to another. One child might have a particular struggle with anger, and the parent is always having to speak of not being angry, of controlling ones temper.
Another child might be lazy, and the lectures and punishments concerning working hard vs goofing off might come fast and furious.
However our opponents, bizarrely, seem to turn this natural tendency on its head. When we point to Paul forbidding women to teach, or making them wear headcoverings, we are told that that was reflective of the culture at the time.
But, hold on! If Gods ideal is that women teach, and that they do so without headcoverings, then it seems totally bizarre that he would not say so. If one lived in a culture where the women did teach, and that without headcoverings, one might see where those lectures would be muted, or even non-existent. Their full force and power would be for those primitive and unGodly societies that forbad women to teach, or forced them to wear headcoverings.
But our opponents insist that it is precisely to those societies that God, not even content with merely being silent (as, perhaps, he had more important sins to deal with) actively commanded those unGodly practices!
It is as if I, being prone to commit adultery, was told by God to go and commit it! Stan, being prone to theft, is actively encouraged in the practice. Dan, being normally of a lazy disposition, is forbidden from working.
Does this make sense? Is there any reason why God, passionate in his drive for egalitarianism and equality, would pick those very societies where women were (in the language of the feminists) treated like ‘chattel’ to command that women be silent, that they obey their husbands, that they wear headcoverings, that they call their husbands lord, that they be forbidden from teaching, that their vows could be overridden by their husbands… and all of the other horrid trappings of patriarchy?
The conversation isn't closed. I was just done talking to Dan about it. His primary concern seemed to be the misuse of the term "feminism" and whether or not rights should be conveyed. It wasn't my point.
I have found it odd that culture determines morality, as if it took the 21st century to finally find a culture that God could point in the right direction and, in the meantime, was completely and totally ... wrong.
I do have to say that the "headcovering" thing is another discussion, but if Dan and I were to discuss it it would be radically different conversation than if you and I were to discuss it. Dan would remove it entirely, you would include it completely, and I would include it with modification. So you would include it and I would include it, making Dan's discussion radically different. The point here is not "Let's talk about headcoverings", but to point out the distance.
Actually, if I read him right, it is not that he would 'remove' it but that he would actively oppose it.
When it is written:
1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
he would say that that is all non-Scripture, a cultural accretion, a mark of how that society treated women as chattel, unimportant, without rights.
How dare Paul say that woman is the glory of man, that she was created for the man, that she is of the man. Surely he would insist that this passage must really mean that men were created for the woman, that he is of her, and that he is her glory.
Or, I think he would say that. He is welcome to comment over on my blog under the headcoverings section of 'what I believe'.
(Oh, BTW, he never even did comment on betrothal!)
Oh, and just for the sake of definition, the definition of patriarchy that I would largely defend can be found here:
http://www.visionforumministries.org/home/about/biblical_patriarchy.aspx
I differ on one or two issues, particular the issue of the covenant of betrothal and generational obedience (their issues 22 and 23.) On those issues I would take a more patriarchical stance.
Hmmm. I wonder if I can post one of my favorite Chesterton quotes?
The final fact which fixes this is a sufficiently plain one. Supposing it to be conceded that humanity has acted at least not unnaturally in dividing itself into two halves, respectively typifying the ideals of special talent and of general sanity (since they are genuinely difficult to combine completely in one mind), it is not difficult to see why the line of cleavage has followed the line of sex, or why the female became the emblem of the universal and the male of the special and superior. Two gigantic facts of nature fixed it thus: first, that the woman who frequently fulfilled her functions literally could not be specially prominent in experiment and adventure; and second, that the same natural operation surrounded her with very young children, who require to be taught not so much anything as everything. Babies need not to be taught a trade, but to be introduced to a world. To put the matter shortly, woman is generally shut up in a house with a human being at the time when he asks all the questions that there are, and some that there aren't. It would be odd if she retained any of the narrowness of a specialist. Now if anyone says that this duty of general enlightenment (even when freed from modern rules and hours, and exercised more spontaneously by a more protected person) is in itself too exacting and oppressive, I can understand the view. I can only answer that our race has thought it worth while to cast this burden on women in order to keep common-sense in the world. But when people begin to talk about this domestic duty as not merely difficult but trivial and dreary, I simply give up the question. For I cannot with the utmost energy of imagination conceive what they mean. When domesticity, for instance, is called drudgery, all the difficulty arises from a double meaning in the word. If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home, as a man might drudge at the Cathedral of Amiens or drudge behind a gun at Trafalgar. But if it means that the hard work is more heavy because it is trifling, colorless and of small import to the soul, then as I say, I give it up; I do not know what the words mean. To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors and holidays; to be Whiteley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheets, cakes and books, to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people's children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.
In line (I think) with Chesterton's quote, I view patriarchy as a massive job God gave to men to protect the massive job of females. Why that is offensive to some I don't really get.
Stan, please forgive me, but if I may ask a few follow up questions...? Again, I don't care if you publish this, it's just something I'm trying as gently as possible to settle with you.
You said...
Dan, it's not about definitions. It's about starting points.
But earlier, you said...
You don't understand what I said for whatever reason and then misrepresent it
If you are using some non-standard definition for terms, then I would suggest it is unfair for you to say that "You don't understand what I said for whatever reason and then misrepresent it." Don't you see what I'm saying?
IF we are having troubles understanding one another (and at this point, from any evidence that you've given, I truly don't think I'm misunderstanding you or misrepresenting you - I think it's mostly on your side, because I have mostly only stated facts and asked questions), then don't we HAVE to have a common understanding of the language?
Definitions matter a great deal!
Don't you see that it is not a fair way to have a conversation to use terms that you have hidden meanings for different than the normal meaning? And then to suggest that I've misunderstood you and misrepresented you? Without any support for your charge?
I would say that, unless you have and show evidence of a claim, that it is (here we go again) slander to make charges you can't or won't support. What if I told everyone at your church that you wore ladies underpants, but offered no support for such a claim? It would be slanderous (albeit on a much sillier level than what we're talking about here) and I would be wrong to do so. If I were a True Man, I would admit I have no evidence for the charge or I would provide evidence.
Let me verify something that I'm pretty sure I know the answer to, but just to clarify: You DO think the Bible is quite clear in its condemnation of slander and bearing false witness?
If that's the case, why would you continue to do so after it's been pointed out? I can understand doing so by accident, thinking you were right or something. But after the false charges have been pointed out, don't you think you ought to Be the Man that God made you to be, take the leadership position and admit your mistake or clarify the misunderstanding?
Again, this is not for public consumption, this is just between you and I, with no anger or malice on my part, just a few honest questions. If I'm annoying you, I apologize, it is not my intent. I'm just a bit puzzled and concerned.
Dan, do me (and I hope you) a favor. Go back to the post and read it again. There is a sentence in the second to last paragraph that begins "And while I suspect you've been so infected with modern feminism that you likely read most of the women's strengths as superior to the men's strengths". Do not read that phrase. The phrase is irrelevant to the intent of the post. It has no purpose. Tell ya what ... I'll strike it from the post and then let you read the thing again and see if "feminist" and its "proper definition" matters. It doesn't to me. I'm not arguing "feminism" or "women's rights" or any such thing. I'm simply pointing out that men and women have differences beyond the obvious physical that makes them different. If you still disagree that men and women are different (something I don't think you disagreed with), then argue away. But if "feminism" is your issue, argue that somewhere else because it has nothing to do with this.
I would say that, unless you have and show evidence of a claim, that it is (here we go again) slander to make charges you can't or won't support. What if I told everyone at your church that you wore ladies underpants, but offered no support for such a claim? It would be slanderous (albeit on a much sillier level than what we're talking about here) and I would be wrong to do so. If I were a True Man, I would admit I have no evidence for the charge or I would provide evidence.
Actually I don't think it can be slander in this case, because the exchange was public. In the case of Stans underpants your information would be private, and inaccesible.
So anyone that wished to verify Stans charge against you can just scroll up and read the entire exchange, deciding for themselves whether he has falsely charged you of misrepresenting him.
Dan quoted Stan as saying:
Dan, it's not about definitions. It's about starting points.
IMO he has this horrible tendency to cut off (and wrongly paraphase) other peoples words. I was interested so I read the original post, which continues:
...You find inalienable human rights where I can't see them and then are baffled that I can't see them. You are looking at your inner sense of justice and I'm looking at my Bible.
If Dan had given the full quote one would have seen Stans point... that the issue was not the definition we are using but the starting point for our investigation.
Dan begins with an imaginary list of 'rights' that he pulls out of thin air (politically correct thin air) and Stan was pointing this out.
It was not a definitional issue.
Dan begins with an imaginary list of 'rights'
Then help me out here. WHERE did I begin with an "imaginary list of 'rights'?"
The only "list" I can find is where I said, "I think the Bible dictates against this and in favor of us all being created in God's image with the rights and responsibilities of self-determination."
What "imaginary list" are you talking about??
And Stan, I'm fine with dropping this. However, IF you want to drop it, I'd prefer you leave my name and supposed positions out of the conversation. It is not Christian to talk about someone's position without giving them the chance to defend themselves against the misrepresentations.
Cut it off if you wish (although I don't have a problem with discussing differences and I'm not sure what the problem is on your end), but cut it off fairly, please.
If you continue to talk about me and my positions, then allow me to correct the misunderstandings and/or misrepresentations.
Thanks.
This list:
What our point is, is that we are equal in rights, equal in responsibilities, equal in privileges and equal in duties. Our point is that one ought not be dominated by the other, merely based on race. Our point is that we ought to share decision making responsibilities and that one ought not choose for the other.
In short, we believe we are all created in God's image with the right and responsibility to make our decisions for ourselves.
As Stan has asked, please give your foundational premises for this list. Where do you get it? What authority?
I'm hoping that Dan and Von can continue their dialog on women's rights and what-not over on Von's website: Here
Post a Comment