Strength and Honor: Triumphing over Feminism

[Wrangler]

Many women chose homemaking for themselves until they were actively discouraged not to by the feminist movement.

@mink repeatedly denied this reality.

 

[Wrangler]

You really need to get off this whole mindset about feminists being "envious" or "jealous" of men. It's not about envy or jealousy.

Denial! You’re the one who recently commented about how few female CEO’s there are. As @Wynona pointed out, you were not lamenting how few female coal miners there are.

It is very telling that you just ignored the facts of inequality of who died in Vietnam.

 

[Wrangler]

It's about using your God-given talents that may extend BEYOND gender roles.

There is the entitlement.

Most people who ever lived worked to survive, doing what was necessary to survive. You talk as though the purpose of work is fulfillment. It’s not.

As @Wynona said very well, it is a means to an end. And the data if half a century shows women make different choices than men. It’s stupid to push or force equality of work when we each pursue fulfillment.

It works best in a society where they are still fighting against patriarchal oppression.

PUL-LEASE. We’ve covered in depth already how women are the privileged and protected class.

 

[Wrangler]

I beg to differ. Just because YOU wouldn't like it doesn't mean that NO ONE would like it.

That’s not the standard! A society is not organized around exceptions.

If most women loved the lie of fulfilling career, there would not be the psychological dysfunction known as hurried women syndrome.

 

[Mink57]

@mink repeatedly denied this reality.

You DO realize that a woman can be both a homemaker AND a feminist, right?

 

[Mink57]

Denial! You’re the one who recently commented about how few female CEO’s there are. As @Wynona pointed out, you were not lamenting how few female coal miners there are.

It is very telling that you just ignored the facts of inequality of who died in Vietnam.

Few female CEO's? There are plenty of female CEO'S. I think you have me mixed up with someone else.

And no, I'm not lamenting about how few female coal miners there are ANY MORE than I lament about how few MALE coal miners there are.
I have not comment on that plaque regarding Vietnam except to say that it's inaccurate.

 

[Mink57]

There is the entitlement.

Most people who ever lived worked to survive, doing what was necessary to survive. You talk as though the purpose of work is fulfillment. It’s not.

I never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

As @Wynona said very well, it is a means to an end. And the data if half a century shows women make different choices than men. It’s stupid to push or force equality of work when we each pursue fulfillment.

That's not what feminism does.

PUL-LEASE. We’ve covered in depth already how women are the privileged and protected class.

 

[Mink57]

That’s not the standard! A society is not organized around exceptions.

If most women loved the lie of fulfilling career, there would not be the psychological dysfunction known as hurried women syndrome.

The Hurried Woman Syndrome applies to MOTHER'S, SINGLE mothers and SINGLE women, who try to be everything to everyone. It doesn't necessarily mean they have an unfulfilling career, or that they have a career AT ALL.

 

[Wrangler]

By contrast to the Vietnam Wall, there is this amazing achievement.

The 3rd Shock Army’s Female Snipers, 1st Belorussian Front, 1945​

Over 2,000 female snipers served in the Russian military during the war, and they quickly gained a reputation for their deadly accuracy and fearless tactics. Ukrainian sniper Lyudmila Pavlichenko, for example, is credited with 309 confirmed kills – a feat that earned her the nickname “Lady Death” and made her one of the most successful snipers in military history.

 

[Wrangler]

The inequality of divorce as explained by a divorce attorney. Women have special rights that men do not have access to. Said differently, men's responsibilities in marriage is enforced by law. Women's responsibilities are not. For instance, he provides resources, she provides compassion and sex. In divorce, she is not required to continue to be nice to him and have sex but he is required to continue to provide resources.

Also, the fraud that women want commitment is seen in 80% of divorces initiated by feminists. Because divorce law makes men powerless, one can understand why men shy away from commitment. Let me say that again. Due to feminist ideology, men have become powerless in marriage. Ironic given the "equality" in theory but all for the women in practice evil ideology. This is a vicious cycle that can only stop when feminism is eradicated. Other lies include:

1. In marriage, men have no privilege. See Myth of Male Power by Dr. Warren Farrel.
2. Women are not the compassionate sex. See vid on Man Flu is real and the raw contempt women have the second men stop providing shown in comments.

 

[Wrangler]

What a hilarious paper. Feminists Think Sexist Men Are Sexier Than "Woke" Men

This vid introduces the concept of "Benevolent Sexism" that benefits women. The vid differentiates between misogyny and sexism. Sexism is an ideology that has reasons for treating women as the protected class. Feminism is an ideology that goes against human nature, i.e., men want to protect women and women want to be protected by men. Feminism takes this good, natural and God-given arrangement as if it were bad.

What's so odd is feminists like @Mink57 demands to be treated like a second class citizen like men are.

 

[Wynona]

So a few things. Feminism is not linked to relying on social benefits. But yes feminism is about undermining patriarchy because patriarchy is about developing a society that is male driven. It’s a power structure. It’s a power structure that dominated Mesopotamia and Rome in the bronze and Iron which is when all of the Bible was written. Judaism actually helped undermine very much of it. There are now two main Christian approaches to how the Bible uplifts equality, and undermines patriarchy. That’s Christian feminism and Christian womanism. Rosa Parks was also a feminist who united the two by fighting against the racial abuse white men specifically perpetuated towards black women.

Episode 95: Cheryl Bridges Johns - The Bible & Women’s Spirituality - The Bible For Normal People

In this episode of The Bible for Normal People Podcast, Pete and Jared talk with theologian and professor Dr. Cheryl Bridges Johns about how feminism has changed over the years and...

thebiblefornormalpeople.com

Interview: The Bible for Normal People, "Episode 170: A Modern Church History of Toxic Masculinity,' with Pete Enns - Kristin Kobes Du Mez

In this episode of The Bible for Normal People Podcast, Pete and Jared talk with Kristin Kobes Du Mez about patterns of toxic masculinity in the white Evangelical church as they explore the following questions: What led Du Mez to be...

kristindumez.com

Episode 105: Wil Gafney - Womanist Midrash (Reissue) - The Bible For Normal People

Pete and Jared talk with Dr. Wil Gafney about womanist midrash and why womanist biblical interpretation is important for everyone.

thebiblefornormalpeople.com

Those three episodes have three different women who are Christians who have studied this .

Jesus and John Wayne by Kristin Mez is a good book also.

Can look at this podcast today. Quoting it to make it easier to find later.

 

[Wynona]

Modern thought on relationships is fear based:

"Only treat a man/woman as they deserve or you'll be taken advantage of."

This is not Christianity.

Faith calls us to give of ourselves with our whole heart to our loved ones and trust God with the outcome.

If a wife in a bad marriage obeys God's call to submit, serve, keep the marriage bed, etc
in other words to love graciously and simply trust God with the outcome, sure its possible the man will simply soak it all up and still act like trash...

But God also designed men to respond positively to respect.

When I stopped worrying about being taken advantage of and trusted God...my husband got off my back and began to work on himself. He increased his income three times over and got a raise recently. He stopped binge drinking. He read Scripture and learned to control his emotions through stoicism.

Men have free will. We can't force them to change. But our obedience to God is like a loudspeaker for God to speak into their lives (1 Peter 3:1-2) We can try to coerce and nag but but it's far better to inspire change.

"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear."

1 Peter 3:1-2

 

[Wynona]

 

[Mink57]

The inequality of divorce as explained by a divorce attorney. Women have special rights that men do not have access to. Said differently, men's responsibilities in marriage is enforced by law. Women's responsibilities are not. For instance, he provides resources, she provides compassion and sex.

O.k., now you're speaking *MY* language, and I'll start by telling you how DEAD WRONG you are.

First of all, Constitutional decisions in the 1970s ended legal distinctions between the duties of husbands and wives. In other words, marriage law no longer explicitly require wives to provide domestic support and husbands to provide economic support. The law is gender NEUTRAL in this area. Both spouses have a financial obligation toward each other, even if only one party brings in an income.

As far as compassion goes, there is no law about this. After all, what is the legal definition of 'compassion' anyway?

Also, there's no legal requirement for the specific frequency of sex in marriage. While (non-legal) "experts" say that if a couple has sex less than 10 times a year, the lack of frequency can be classified as a 'sexless' marriage. However, the court is not obligated to follow that mandate. Plus, there is such a thing (in some states) as constructive abandonment, but in order to even attempt to use that as grounds for divorce, a spouse would have to refuse sexual relations without good cause for ONE year.

In divorce, she is not required to continue to be nice to him and have sex but he is required to continue to provide resources.

Again, the provision of financial support through a divorce is not gender specific. One spouse may be required to continue to support the other spouse to a certain degree, but alimony for life is very RARELY issued. The court will take a number of factors into consideration when deciding spousal support, IF at all, including the resources available to both parties.

Also, the fraud that women want commitment is seen in 80% of divorces initiated by feminists.

No, 80% of divorces are initiated by women, not feminists. Just because a woman initiates divorce doesn't make her a feminist. Plus, just because wives initiate a divorce doesn't mean that her husband was 'innocent', and is most often, quite the contrary.

But WHY do women initiate divorce so often?

The answer in part is how you and many men view marriage: he provides resources, she provides compassion and sex. Unfortunately, this is how MANY men view marriage, believing that this is ALL there is, or all there should be to marriage. When those 80% end the marriage, it MOSTLY isn't because he failed to provide resources. It's because HE cheated, or HE wants his wife to work, yet HE refuses to help out with child care/domestic chores or HE's abusive, either emotionally, sexually, spiritually, financially, physically, etc. OR HE's a habitual drug user, creating havoc on the family....the list goes on.

Because divorce law makes men powerless, one can understand why men shy away from commitment.

Once again, divorce law is gender neutral.

Let me say that again. Due to feminist ideology, men have become powerless in marriage.

You didn't say that. You said "Divorce law makes men powerless." Now you're saying that men have become powerless in marriage...
...which is a crock.

Men are NOT powerless in marriage. More and more married couples are electing to strive for a more egalitarian marriage, where decision-making, child-care and domestic responsibilities are evenly shared, even if their incomes are unequal.

Ironic given the "equality" in theory but all for the women in practice evil ideology. This is a vicious cycle that can only stop when feminism is eradicated.

Feminism won't be eradicated.

Other lies include:

1. In marriage, men have no privilege. See Myth of Male Power by Dr. Warren Farrel.

What privileges are you talking about? Sorry, but only a selfish, egotistical, narcissistic, power-hungry buffoon would want either all or even MOST of the privileges in marriage. Those people don't deserve to be married.

1. Women are not the compassionate sex. See vid on Man Flu is real and the raw contempt women have the second men stop providing shown in comments.

You think that one video proves anything?

 

[Mink57]

What a hilarious paper. Feminists Think Sexist Men Are Sexier Than "Woke" Men

This vid introduces the concept of "Benevolent Sexism" that benefits women. The vid differentiates between misogyny and sexism. Sexism is an ideology that has reasons for treating women as the protected class. Feminism is an ideology that goes against human nature, i.e., men want to protect women and women want to be protected by men. Feminism takes this good, natural and God-given arrangement as if it were bad.

What's so odd is feminists like @Mink57 demands to be treated like a second class citizen like men are.

You know Wrangler....you spew off about how you think I make exceptions the rule. And yet, you're doing the same thing with this and your other posted videos. What a hypocrite you are!

The narrator is like YOU. Lumping ALL feminists into the category of RADICAL feminism.

You claim that men (as in ALL men) are treated like second class citizens is laughable, even from other men.

Maybe if you get OFF the internet and get INTO the outside world, you might see that your views have been limited.

 

[Wrangler]

First of all, Constitutional decisions in the 1970s ended legal distinctions between the duties of husbands and wives.

So that makes it right?

There remain legal distinctions as pointed out in the vid.

Finally, you are the one who argued vehemently that the man should pay on dates (only you shrouded this in ‘the one who asks for a date).

 

[Wrangler]

As far as compassion goes, there is no law about this. After all, what is the legal definition of 'compassion' anyway?

I bet smart feminists could come up with a standard favorable to the man, such as no means no.

What is the legal standard of sexual harassment? Unwanted behavior by the woman AS DETERMINED BY THE MAN would be legally violating the standard of compassion. Sound good?

 

[Mink57]

Modern thought on relationships is fear based:

"Only treat a man/woman as they deserve or you'll be taken advantage of."

What universally accepted authority wrote THAT rule?

This is not Christianity.

Faith calls us to give of ourselves with our whole heart to our loved ones and trust God with the outcome.

Uhhhhh.....

If a wife in a bad marriage obeys God's call to submit, serve, keep the marriage bed, etc
in other words to love graciously and simply trust God with the outcome, sure its possible the man will simply soak it all up and still act like trash...

Oh, right. So she's supposed to "love graciously" while sitting in a hospital bed, fighting for her life, because her "Christian" husband beat the crap out of her...again.....

But God also designed men to respond positively to respect.

Oh pleez...ALL of us respond positively to respect. Male, female, young or old. Respect isn't a matter of gender. It's a HUMAN quality, undesignated by gender, age, ability or disability. Jesus said, "Do Unto Others". To me, that means that *I* am to respect others FIRST. I don't demand that others respect ME first. I give them respect, first and foremost. But the moment they disrespect ME, all bets are OFF.

When I stopped worrying about being taken advantage of and trusted God...my husband got off my back and began to work on himself. He increased his income three times over and got a raise recently. He stopped binge drinking. He read Scripture and learned to control his emotions through stoicism.

Good on your husband, but you can't compare ALL men to your husband.

Men have free will. We can't force them to change. But our obedience to God is like a loudspeaker for God to speak into their lives (1 Peter 3:1-2) We can try to coerce and nag but but it's far better to inspire change.

IF you can, and that's a BIG "IF". Even Paul recognizes that sometimes, the spouse WON'T change. How long does one wait for change to happen?

"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear."

1 Peter 3:1-2

You keep forgetting (or deliberately ignoring) the part that says, "Submit to one another." That INCLUDES husbands and wives, as Ephesians 5 explains. 5:22 does NOT make the wife's 'submission' more important than the husband's. Husband's still have to submit to their wives....Master's still have to submit to slaves...parents still have to submit to their children. They all do so in different ways.

 

[Mink57]

So that makes it right?

There remain legal distinctions as pointed out in the vid.

Not. About. Gender.

Finally, you are the one who argued vehemently that the man should pay on dates (only you shrouded this in ‘the one who asks for a date).

I never said "the man should pay on dates." That's your PATRIARCHY talking to you. Women didn't set that precedent. MEN did.

And yes, whoever asks for the date defaults to paying for it. Just because the MAN usually asks for the date doesn't mean it's ALWAYS the man's job to pay for it. A negotiation CAN be struck. I know some men would be HORRIFIED if a woman paid on a date. I also know of some men who would pay for the date and USE that as leverage to get sex.

You want 'tradition'? Fine. Ask a woman out and PAY for the date without GRIPING about it!