Christianity + Feminism = Chaos?

[Josh Miller]

Here's the truth. Over the past year I've worked as a missionary, and this is one thing I haven't quite been able to figure out. How would it be possible for a woman to be both a feminist and a christian, thus creating the fem bot for jesus? How would someone describe christianity to a feminist, how would you back up your statements or how would she back up hers? Some of the things that have been quoted before are the scriptures of timothy and corinthians referring to women to stay silent. I also know there are christian denominations that would rather murder a woman than have her serve as a pastor (I have a female pastor). I've been told the fig tree as a symbol of a woman is constantly bashed throughout the bible. Why I don't know is if it would be possible for both of these ideal systems to co-exist? Feminism has become a religion of it's own in that aspect.

Considering there is a wide variety of beliefs here, I'd just like to here what you really think about this issue. More importantly other issues too, how do you feeel about woman in positions of authority within the church where I promptly ask "Why Not Women?"

[Matt Cruea]

The word of the Bible is, more and more, being taken less literally (and more figuratively) by today's Christians, which is a very, very good thing. The values of 1AD do not hold up well over 2000 years later.

[Tom]

Christianity and its roots are clearly in favor of male supremecy over women. Women are treated as side-kicks or whores, throughout the old and new testaments.

The fact of the matter is that if you are a feminist and believe in complete gender equality and that whole movement, it IS backwards and counter-productive to also be a serious practitioner of Christianity.

Like Matt said, the Bible is being taken less and less seriously as time goes on. It's a giant archive of letters and testiments of people who lived two thousand years ago, when they had no modern sensation of science or contemporary human equality and rights, that have been translated to new languages, re-translated and translated again.

If the situation was my own, I would continue being a feminist and forget all about Christianity. I think there's only so much you can cherry pick and adapt between your own religion and outside beliefs (such as feminism) before you just have to suck it up and say "Fuck everything" and realize that your own system of morality and living is applicable for today's times and you are capable of following your own rules for life.

[Batgirl]

I think its possible to be a Feminist and a Christian if (as Matt and Tom said) you take some of the more social teachings of the Bible with a grain of salt.

For example, if I remember my Christianity right, Jesus never said that women needed to stay silent, or be subserviant to their man, etc.

The key to being a feminist and a christian is to keep in mind that God and Jesus bring a message of Love and Respect for everyone else on earth. This message had to travel through people though, and I very much doubt it is possible for the words in the Bible to be the Direct words of God. I mean, if you were say, a high ranking official of christianity, and it was very easy for you to change a word here or there or to add a word, or slightly change some wording to make it so that women were subserviant, there are people who would do that. I mean, I think by just looking at the church today we have to admit that not ALL members of the cloth are the best of people (not to say they are all bad either)

You can be a Christian and a feminist by living your life as a decent person, a person you would be proud to present before God when your life comes to an end, and have faith.

I'm not a christian though. I don't believe in organized religion. I believe in discovering religion via a personal path to a relationship with God, Goddess, or Gods, (or Heck, Earth, or Brahma, or whatever you choose to call "god"). So I'm sorry if I somehow blasphemized the Christian religion with my above paragraphs, I didn't mean to. ^^'

[ClymAngus]

It's a tricky one, that said there a a fair number of contributing factors that may make the unification of these two structures of thought more or less compatable. How personally you take your relationship with God and Jesus for example, your personal background (how you came to faith in the first place), your interpretation of the scriptures and how you apply them to your life.

A lot of people I've talked to take their faith as more than just the book. If their looking for a "loop hole" in the book to justify their actions then maybe they need to ask the source. Some may consider that angle to be a touch spiritualist and that's fair comment.

Getting down to brass tacks we are all mixing pots for many ideas and possibilities. If two of those are ununifiable, then a cold hard desision has to be made. I'm an optimist, I believe there is enough room for manover in both structures for an amicable truce. If there is a truce to be drawn up however it's going to be a very personal one between that person and god.

[Cordelia LeFay]

Oooo, what a fun topic! I wish I had more time.

I've studied feminism and I've been raised Roman Catholic....and actually right now I'm taking a class on sex and desire in medieval lit when deals a lot with Christianity and sex.

Is your major question about female priests in Catholicism? Cuz there are some branches of christianity that allow female pastors.

They say that female priests aren;t theologically possible which is utter crap. They say it's not possible cuz Jesus was a guy so a girl can't represent Jesus--although it says it the Bible that if you act like Jesus, that you are the image of Jesus. And really folks, this is religion--you're trying to transcend your physical body, not be bogged down by it.

You should check out the gnostic gospels--the books that were banned from the bible. In them you see that Mary Magdelene was a much more influential person in early Christianity--and I think there was also female deacons in the beginning until that was squashed.

It's also very funny too cuz it says in the Bible that Jesus and his disciples were supported by wealthy women!

You also have to remember too American Catholics are pretty liberal--they'd ordine (sp?) female priests and have priests marry in a heart beat. It's just not central to the religion for them.

[ClymAngus]

Oooo, what a fun topic! I wish I had more time.


For some reason, that line right there worries the hell out of me. I'm detecting a retreat coming on.

[Josh Miller]

The good thing about me is it's especially interesting to get all of these different takes on this issue. So, who am I to object? To each it's own I suppose. I like seeing woman in the religious field, hell they outnumber men by a large sum, but some denomonations decide to *adjust* numbers. It appeals to the masses more apparantly. The last missions school that came through the base I was at women out-numbered men 9-1. Nice odds.

As for what Laura said, a good part of the modern christian movement is focused on finding that personal relationship with god and living it out through the world. Also in going with what others have said I have been to many different churches all across the world and one specific place sticks out when she mentions men of the cloth.

In Vancouver, there is a very young satelite church running in the basement of the main (colloseum-like) library. There, I met a very spirited lady pastor, a bunch of very young (almost overtly so) passionate people who if you were to walk into in the middle of worship you would have associated them with the cult, and the male pastor. Now this pastor, supposively one who has spoken into the hearts of men all across the world would not look me straight in the eye. He wanted to shake everybody's hand and as he came by he had a weak handshake, muttered, and wouldn't look me in the eye as if I were the anti-christ or lesser a stray dog.

Granted that was the last time I was ever at that specific church, and the moral of the story being, everyone has their problems...even wierd hocked-up pastors. Sometimes we forget though that a lot of those who have religion as a life's work, may even have more problems than your everyman. Still I went to a bible-study for the same church and they were all really solid people, which also tells you not to let the head necessarily represent the group.

and yes...I am hoping this doesn't turn into a quick burn and lock---just like many religious threads before it.

[Cordelia LeFay]

For some reason, that line right there worries the hell out of me. I'm detecting a retreat coming on.

LOL Naw, I just wanted to respond to the post, but I didnt have enough time to say everything I wanted to say all in one post.

I could talk on and on about this subject. LOL

This might be an interesting like on women and ordination.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9304/articles/novak.html

[topleka]

I believe in gender equality and I'm a devout Christian. To me, that's what Christianity really teaches. Male supremacy comes from picking and choosing verses from the Bible with little regard to context. Throughout the Bible, women are praised as heroes and examples. Yes, there are many evil women, but there are many evil men as well. In the era of Judges, there was a female judge. No way, God chose a female to be the leader and speak His word? No waaay! During his travels, Paul stayed with women who worked. And...HAD JOBS. You mean they weren't just hanging around in the kitchen all day? Amazing! Everyone like to point to "wives, submit to your husbands." Right before that, it says everyone should submit to everyone else. So...for example, wives should submit to husbands. Of course, the verse right after that says husbands must love their wives the way Jesus loves people. That is, they must be completely selfless and give up their lives for their wives. Hmm...I wonder why that rarely shows up.

If men have a problem with women in positions of authority, it's more likely rooted in their misconception of the Bible or their own insecurity.

[KitsuneSqueak]

Well, I was always taught that everyone is equal in God's eyes.

Anyway, not all prophets and key people were males. Without Mary, Jesus would not have been born. Also, Esther saved her people from persecution.

[Justin Parr]

I believe that men have been given the dominant role in the family, as women were punished by God in Genesis 3:16, "Your desire will be for your Husband, and he will always rule over you."

[Tomoe]

Yes, but I don't think that it was intended to become what it turned into. To me, seeing that quote as the decision to make men the dominant role is a misinterpretation. As such, it's quite the popular misinterpretation. It's always refreshing to see people attempt to use the bible as reasoning for everything they do, even when it goes against the basic tenets of their spirituality.

[Tom]

It's always refreshing to see people attempt to use the bible as reasoning for everything they do, even when it goes against the basic tenets of their spirituality.

HAHA! (!!)

[topleka]

I believe in gender equality and I'm a devout Christian. To me, that's what Christianity really teaches. Male supremacy comes from picking and choosing verses from the Bible with little regard to context. Throughout the Bible, women are praised as heroes and examples. Yes, there are many evil women, but there are many evil men as well. In the era of Judges, there was a female judge. No way, God chose a female to be the leader and speak His word? No waaay! During his travels, Paul stayed with women who worked. And...HAD JOBS. You mean they weren't just hanging around in the kitchen all day? Amazing! Everyone like to point to "wives, submit to your husbands." Right before that, it says everyone should submit to everyone else. So...for example, wives should submit to husbands. Of course, the verse right after that says husbands must love their wives the way Jesus loves people. That is, they must be completely selfless and give up their lives for their wives. Hmm...I wonder why that rarely shows up.

If men have a problem with women in positions of authority, it's more likely rooted in their misconception of the Bible or their own insecurity.
...well...

[Justin Parr]

Yes, but I don't think that it was intended to become what it turned into. To me, seeing that quote as the decision to make men the dominant role is a misinterpretation. As such, it's quite the popular misinterpretation. It's always refreshing to see people attempt to use the bible as reasoning for everything they do, even when it goes against the basic tenets of their spirituality.

I apologize, I understand how my post could have been misinterpritated. I agree, that verse doesn't refer to being an abusive father. I never thought for a moment that it meant being an abusive father. I believe that it only refers to the (hopefully) rare occasions where the husband and wife never have, don't, and never will agree, in which case SOMEONE has to make the final decision.

[Tomoe]

http://steelturman.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/wtf_1.JPG
I never mentioned abusive relationships. Or disagreements. And I didn't misinterpret your thoughts, I was raising a point.

[yukie]

I myself a Christian and I highly support gender equality based on the Bible.

True, women were created to assist men. But that doesn't mean that the Bible says male should be superior over women. It says a wife must be obedient to her husband, but not generally women to men, I believe that is merely referring to family positions. Eve was created as a helper for Adam, because as God said, "it is not good for man to be alone". However, that does not mean women can do without men. They are both equal, and both are needed. That is why I agree that feminists and Chrisitianity may not go so well together. Indeed the society may be leaning towards the fact that male should have dominance, authority and such, but that is no excuse for anyone to suggest one gender over the other.

[mystique]

I myself a Christian and I highly support gender equality based on the Bible.

True, women were created to assist men. But that doesn't mean that the Bible says male should be superior over women. It says a wife must be obedient to her husband, but not generally women to men, I believe that is merely referring to family positions. Eve was created as a helper for Adam, because as God said, "it is not good for man to be alone". However, that does not mean women can do without men. They are both equal, and both are needed. That is why I agree that feminists and Chrisitianity may not go so well together. Indeed the society may be leaning towards the fact that male should have dominance, authority and such, but that is no excuse for anyone to suggest one gender over the other.
I agree with you up to the point where you say it doesn't go well together. See you're right when you say that is isn't an excuse for anyone to dominate one gender over another. The bible as you've pointed out preeches with love and support not dominance.
Think of it this way right.

Religion in general is used by us messed up humans as a tool for power and control. When christianity swept over europe, it did it on a mass murder spree, we're talking about probably the highest mass killing rate ever known to humanity on basis of "faith"
(and even happens today)
If you've seen the Da Vinci code, it plays on the idea of the witch burnings and mass killing on women as a way to cover up a secret that'd shake the very foundations of it all (without spoiling those who ain't seen it)
And even to step outta the topic a lil, same goes with Islamic religion. A devout follower was telling me how upset she was at the way other muslims where trying to justify their actions of hatred with the Qur'an or the way women were seriously oppressed in some middle eastern countries when the Qur'an alike the Bible doesn't specify any of that.

Humans take teachings of good to an extreme to use/justify their own selfish behaviour.
"Let's totally cover a woman cause men can't keep their dicks in their pants and will commit adultry upon seeing her face."
"Let's burn a woman cause she may be a 'witch' without any proof that she can actually do anything."

It's more like Christianity + Masculinity = definite chaos.

I don't think it's so much the extreme bra burning, ball breaking 'i don't need a man' fembots that you mention that even pay too much attention to religion. Rather it's the rest of us feminists that have questioned:
'why isn't a woman allowed to vote?'
'why isn't a woman allowed to work?'
'Why isn't a woman allowed to earn the same amount being if in a same position career wise as a man?'
Why have men just deicided and enforced these rules for centuries on us as a gender?
(Maybe perhaps they've oppressed us with religion too, we need to check out the bible ourselves and see where its written that women cannot do such and such)
It'd only be chaos cause men have issues with it and are too stubborn to admit they're wrong :P

On the church side, well to me personally it is weird seeing a 'mother theresa' as leader of a church, rather she was a great adivsor, compassionate and sincere woman, I'd be more inclined to speak to a sister with emotional related stuff than a priest cause women by nature have their natural attribute. Nuns and sisters are alike wives to husbands support and back up a priest. He does the preeching, but he is not the be all and end all of spiritual advice and guidence.
It's like the dad giving out the lectures and enforcing the rules on the kids, whilst the mothers back up and support it.
It's team work basically. (or should be)

A great quote is from the movie 'my fat big greek wedding' I think it sums it up quite nicely. (pardon my rusty memory, if i am a lil off accuracy)
"He (the dad) may be the head, but I am the neck, and i control wherever the head wants to turn."

Christianity in itself alike the Bible is so complex, there are various branches of it due to human interpretation.

Catholic Church: You can't divorce, against the rules.
Henry VIII: Screw you guys, I'm making my own version.

Hence 'Church of England' (anglican) was born :facefault

At the end of the day, strip off the variations and get down to the basics, I believe we all believe the same good values that are taught by most religions.


It's always refreshing to see people attempt to use the bible as reasoning for everything they do, even when it goes against the basic tenets of their spirituality. (sarcasm is a bbcode tag!?) xD

But 'quote for absolute truth'. I just look to the west of me and see it done everyday....

And ah yeah i am a christian (catholic to be exact) and a feminist (but i need me bras) ;)

[Komichi]

God loves a silent woman. Unless she's begging.

[Steven Mane]

Everything I learned about Christianity, I learned from my mom, and her beliefs are my beliefs. That said, women should have equal rights with men, but they are the birthers of babies, and the mothers. It irks me to no end when I see a feminist say they don't need a man. The truth is, women need men as much as men need women. The woman and the man should have equal time with their children, but when it comes to gender roles, the man should be the head of the household. His word is the final word. But all rules are broken if he abuses his wife and children by any means.

Outside of the house, anything goes, as long as it abides to the moral code. Should women have equal rights in the workplace? Absolutely. But at home, men should be in control, the wife should be his queen.

[mystique]

Should women have equal rights in the workplace? Absolutely. But at home, men should be in control, the wife should be his queen.
Marry me!
Make me your queen! xD

Seriously tho, in an ideal relationship it would work out how you mentioned it, however *shakes her head* feminist in me can't get with the 'man in control' thing.
"im head of the house, what i say goes and i won't tolerate anything else"
I grew up in that, yuck, lol.
Rather, the father (you're speaking in a family situation right?) does enforce the rules most of the time, but the creation of them (and even implementation sometimes) should be a 50/50 deal.
as for a couple only relationship, depends on the individuals and their lifestyle I suppose :)

[Maeko]

As a professor once told me from her perspective Feminism is about equaility not just for women but for everyone.

I have always felt that religion should be changing constantly over time along with society. I feel that the majority of people in the world are slowly but surely leaning toward a more gender equaility earth.

[Brenzie]

To address the issue of equality:

e·qual·i·ty /ɪˈkwɒlɪti/ [i-kwol-i-tee]

1. the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.
2. uniform character, as of motion or surface.
3. Mathematics. a statement that two quantities are equal; equation.


Therefore there is no human equality.
----


Regarding rights, human relation, and so on...

It must not be forgotten that many humans possess things such as emotion, egos, desires, passions. Correction; the proper statement: there are things such as emotion, egos, desires, and passions possessing humans.

Therefore it is most likely they will generally engage in power struggles of varied forms. Conflict, within or without or both, for various reasons.

Feminists search for that which basically many personally want in some form or another: to satisfy one or more of those aforementioned qualities possessing them.

Regarding roles in relationships: as long as it is effective and good in nature with proper understanding of both entities. Naturally, it is as if the male should be dominant. Probably only a feminist there be to oppose it. Of course it can work if the female is dominant, but for a male to not be dominant is very unnatural.

[Phyrax]

God made Males and Females with different roles in the body of Christ.

doesn't mean they aren't equal just they do different things. God didn't give males the ability to bear children, that's a big responsibility, but it doesn't mean men are less important then women.

if things don't run the way God intended that's sin. That's why a female being a Pastor having authority and teaching over men isn't God's will, and therefore wrong. (Timothy 2).

Do women have the ability to do it? sure. Does that mean i's right no.

people have the ability to kill others, does that mean it's right? no.

[Queen Anime 99]

No offense, but this type of thinking holds societies back. If a woman can do something, she should be allowed to do it. Not allowing someone to do something just because of their sex is idiotic. Your bible also says slavery is alright.....


God made Males and Females with different roles in the body of Christ.

doesn't mean they aren't equal just they do different things. God didn't give males the ability to bear children, that's a big responsibility, but it doesn't mean men are less important then women.

if things don't run the way God intended that's sin. That's why a female being a Pastor having authority and teaching over men isn't God's will, and therefore wrong. (Timothy 2).

Do women have the ability to do it? sure. Does that mean i's right no.

people have the ability to kill others, does that mean it's right? no.

[Queen Anime 99]

Steven Mane, you're thinking of the stereotypical femininst. There are many types of feminists. Some femininsts are even married and have children. Most feminists believe in equal rights for all people. When some femininsts say that we don't need men, they mean that women in society do not actually need a man to be happy or to do things. In our society, women are pressured to "get a man" and get married and are looked upon as strange if they don't have a man. You don't need a man to be happy and to love yourself. And no, I'm not saying women shouldn't want to be with a man. I would like to have a boyfriend one day. What I'm saying is that you do not necessarily need a man to be "
"complete". Finally, some women aren't straight, so of course, they don't need men. :D

When it comes down to gender roles, both genders should be in charge of the house, in my opinion. Sorry, but if the woman can't do anything, she is not a "queen." It's just a nice way of saying "I'm better than you. Sit down and shut up." You are not for equal rights if you think a woman should be subservient to her husband. In a marriage, you shouldn't rule over your spouse. Hell, your spouse might be more knowledgeable about certain things than you (money). Would you ignore her because you're the "man of the household"? That would make absolutely no sense.

Brenzie, a relationship can work if both partners are equal. Also, you might want to educate yourself about feminism.

[Brenzie]

Brenzie, a relationship can work if both partners are equal.


Have you comprehended my words or have you comprehended what you wanted to?

[ClymAngus]

Have you comprehended my words or have you comprehended what you wanted to?

Ah for a man to speak in such way, as if they are an oricle of truth there to be "comprehended" yet remain unquestioned, suggests a burning sence of pride.

A dangerous virtue to have as ones master.

[Steven Mane]

Steven Mane, you're thinking of the stereotypical femininst. There are many types of feminists. Some femininsts are even married and have children. Most feminists believe in equal rights for all people. When some femininsts say that we don't need men, they mean that women in society do not actually need a man to be happy or to do things. In our society, women are pressured to "get a man" and get married and are looked upon as strange if they don't have a man. You don't need a man to be happy and to love yourself. And no, I'm not saying women shouldn't want to be with a man. I would like to have a boyfriend one day. What I'm saying is that you do not necessarily need a man to be "
"complete". Finally, some women aren't straight, so of course, they don't need men. :D

When it comes down to gender roles, both genders should be in charge of the house, in my opinion. Sorry, but if the woman can't do anything, she is not a "queen." It's just a nice way of saying "I'm better than you. Sit down and shut up." You are not for equal rights if you think a woman should be subservient to her husband. In a marriage, you shouldn't rule over your spouse. Hell, your spouse might be more knowledgeable about certain things than you (money). Would you ignore her because you're the "man of the household"? That would make absolutely no sense.

The gap between women and men is unbelievably huge. The differences in thinking can lead to some pretty heavy arguments. Marriage is a partnership between two people, but like any partnership, someone is going to take care of one aspect and the other will take care of another. Eventually, however, it's all going to boil down to control, and the standard is that the woman gives up the power to the man. If the man gives up control, he is often looked down upon as "lazy, good-for-nothing, etc." Also, in the case of religion, when two people are married they agree to wed under their religious convictions, and those are usually male-oriented. The fact is, society plays a huge role in how a marriage works. Ignoring what society says does not address the problem, and 2,000 years of one train of thought doesn't cure itself.

That doesn't mean you should ignore your spouse, however. If the woman (or man, in some cases) has a genuine concern or problem, it is the responsibility of the man (or woman) to address it. Likewise, if they have a great idea, it should only be fair that the idea is credited to that person. Think of the wife as the second banana. When the husband is lost, who fills in the gaps? When the husband is hurt, who takes care of him? Likewise, it should be the husband who takes care of the wife if she gets hurt. The man should get the last word, but that doesn't mean that he should be completely oblivious to his family environment.

I could go into the topic of homosexuality, but I'll finish what I'm saying here. When it comes to people saying, "you don't need a man to be happy", I agree. But it's when the phrase is shortened that any general term could be applied, like, "if all men died, women could still live and breed. Who cares? We don't need them." That's where I start coming out guns blazing. As for the feminists with a husband and kids, much power to them. If they're perfectly happy the way they are, who are we to interfere?

[Brenzie]

Ah for a man to speak in such way, as if they are an oricle of truth there to be "comprehended" yet remain unquestioned, suggests a burning sence of pride.

A dangerous virtue to have as ones master.

It was merely an inquiry to her comprehension, for obviously her response was an illogical one. What does pride have to do with it? What does "an oracle of truth" have to do with it? Cease your futile personal approaches, for they bear no heeding.

[ClymAngus]

It was merely an inquiry to her comprehension, for obviously her response was an illogical one.

Well your initial statement was incorrect. They were not "your words" they were in fact dictionary definition.



What does pride have to do with it?


Brunzie = Dictionary = Absolute = Infallible
See where I'm going with this?



What does "an oracle of truth" have to do with it?


Brunzie = Dictionary = Absolute = Infallible
Try thinking a little more laterally and a little less literally and we may yet end up on the same page here.



Cease your futile personal approaches, for they bear no heeding.

A conclusion born of a literal outlook. Assuptive and wrong yet completely predictable.

[Queen Anime 99]

Brenzie, I have comprehended your words. I'm a psychology major so I completely understand what you're getting at. Quit trying to break down the word "equal." Nothing, obviously, will be completely equal. That's impossible. However, we can make it so the wants and needs of both partners are satisfied and both partners see themselves as equals. Ever heard of "egalitarian marriages"? Check that out because I know what I'm talking about Also, as I said, educate yourself about feminism. :D

Maeko, yes, feminism is the fight for equal rights for all people.

Steven Mane, I don't agree that the gap between men and women is huge. I think our society makes it seem as though women and men are hugely different. We're really not that different. Why should there be "control" in a relationship? As you said, marriage is a partnership. People who would look down on you because you don't have "control" over your wife are fools, in my opinion. I don't see how you would be a good for nothing just because you aren't the "head of the household." I mean, it would just mean that both of you are the heads of the household. A good for nothing is someone who doesn't do anything or abuses his spouse.

It just means that you see your wife as your equal (The type of marriage I'm thinking of, by the way, is egalitarian). I know society plays a huge role in everything and the history of marriage is "male-oriented." (The people who wrote the Bible, by the way, thought women were less than men and didn't want them to do anything. One verse, if I remember, says women aren't even supposed to teach!) And? What do you mean "ignoring" what society says? I'm confused. Regardless, I don't think just because marriage is "male-oriented" it SHOULD be male-oriented. The Bible also says that it's alright to have slaves, but you and I know that's wrong. I think the marriage should be a balance of the needs and wants of the wife and groom, not mainly or just the groom. I don't feel a partnership exists when someone controls another person (Excluding the kids, of course. You have to control them or they might die or something ^_^). Before, the woman gave up control to the man. But now, that kinda stuff doesn't work. A woman does not want to be controlled by her spouse in this day and age. In all actuality, I think society is becoming more egalitarian, even within the family.

I don't think the spouse should be ignored. I completely agree with you. Both partners should help each other out. No, just because you are male, you do not automatically have the "final say." Just because our society says men are better than women, doesn't make it so. We are equal. Men just happen to be stronger than women usually. Both partners should decide what's right, in my opinion, even if that takes forever. Why should you have the final say because you're stronger and taller? (maybe) As I've said before, would you listen to your wife if your wife knew more about something than you, or just ignore her because you are the "man"? If you would ignore her because you're the "man of the house" then that is a serious problem. If you do that, you aren't treating your wife with the respect that she deserves.

Oh no! I don't want to interfere with feminists who are married and have kids! ^_^ I was just explaining to you how many different types of feminists there are. There are even male feminists! There isn't one type of feminist. All feminists wants is for people to treat one another equally.

Oh yeah. I forgot. I'm sorry if I come off harsh. I do that sometimes but I'm not sure if that bothers people or not. I apologize if I said something that might have been hurtful or something. I'm sure you don't see women as being, like, really below you and you probably would treasure your wife and make a good husband. I just want you to think about some of the things I said. Like, imagine if you were the woman and your spouse was the man.... Just make sure to keep your wive in mind and not to assume that what you want is what she wants.... Of course, that goes for the wife, too. :D

[Steven Mane]

Since I agree with 95% of what you said, I'll only point out the parts I want to elaborate on.

Steven Mane, I don't agree that the gap between men and women is huge.

In the workplace, have you heard of the "glass ceiling, glass elevator" theory? If you're a woman, you can only go so far, but if you're a man, you automatically tack on 1000 I.Q. points. I rest my case.


I don't see how you would be a good for nothing just because you aren't the "head of the household." I mean, it would just mean that both of you are the heads of the household. A good for nothing is someone who doesn't do anything or abuses his spouse.

The status quo. Women tend the home, and if they don't, they'e bad wives. Men are the breadwinners, and if they're not, they're bad husbands. Strong influence, society is.


I know society plays a huge role in everything and the history of marriage is "male-oriented." (The people who wrote the Bible, by the way, thought women were less than men and didn't want them to do anything. One verse, if I remember, says women aren't even supposed to teach!) And? What do you mean "ignoring" what society says? I'm confused. Regardless, I don't think just because marriage is "male-oriented" it SHOULD be male-oriented. The Bible also says that it's alright to have slaves, but you and I know that's wrong. I think the marriage should be a balance of the needs and wants of the wife and groom, not mainly or just the groom. I don't feel a partnership exists when someone controls another person (Excluding the kids, of course. You have to control them or they might die or something ^_^). Before, the woman gave up control to the man. But now, that kinda stuff doesn't work. A woman does not want to be controlled by her spouse in this day and age. In all actuality, I think society is becoming more egalitarian, even within the family.

First of all, I think you should read the Bible a little more. It's male-oriented, but there are more than a few passages that do give women power (Book of Esther, anyone?). And another thing, where in the Bible does it say it's alright to have slaves?!

When I say ignoring society, I mean not playing by what society defines as rules for the man and woman. And by being a radical, you lose the esteem of people who you once thought were your friends. They were brought up in the status quo. Opportunities are lost (and some are gained). People will look down their noses at you. You'll end up being a pariah, more or less. Sure, you'll find some people who believe in what you do, but in the end, it's a lonely life. It's sad. If only we could all do what we wanted without being looked upon as different (with the exceptions of murder, rape, arson, burglary, adultery...).


Just because our society says men are better than women, doesn't make it so.

It's not that society thinks men are better than women; it's how everyone was raised that people believe they have different domains and different roles.


Oh no! I don't want to interfere with feminists who are married and have kids! ^_^ I was just explaining to you how many different types of feminists there are. There are even male feminists! There isn't one type of feminist. All feminists wants is for people to treat one another equally.

I wasn't addressing you there. It was a random thought. Sorry. My bad.


I'm sorry if I come off harsh. I do that sometimes but I'm not sure if that bothers people or not.
Not at all.


I'm sure you don't see women as being, like, really below you and you probably would treasure your wife and make a good husband.

Me, a good husband? Thank you. :cry: