Wednesday, April 26, 2006

potato, potahtoe: you say responsibility, i say misogyny


The other day, I was called irresponsible. I’m a little puzzled. I mean, I pay taxes, have a job, go to church (I even believe in Christianity), vote, brush my teeth and wash my face. I’ve never been arrested, I’ve never struggled with addictions, and I’ve never even been fined for anything. I’ve never been a single mother (or even been pregnant), I’ve never been on welfare (though I’ve been laid off a couple times) and I’ve never had the police visit my apartment to shut down a raging party.

By the standards of most people, parents included, I am the picture of Responsibility. Wherefore this ‘irresponsibility’?

I suspect that when the word Irresponsible is thrown around or directed at women like me, it is not ‘sloppy living’ or ‘wastrel-ness’ that they really mean. No, I think, for a certain group of people (men who believe that women need to learn their 'place' – a problematic, gendered and racially charged word that should NEVER be used here), what is called 'irresponsibility' is actually a cover for another word, ‘misogyny.'

Isn’t language wonderful? We can say a word but actually be thinking something else entirely!

(The weighty word Responsibility reminds me of something from Foucault:
the panopticon. a structure to keep the human subject completely under surveillance and, through surveillance, control the subject .)

Of course I don’t think my life is irresponsible at all. I just define my responsibilities differently, according to my values. I put a very low priority on resting in my 'place.' You may even call me uppity. In this particular case, my irresponsibility stems from the fact that I ignore the ‘natural’ hierarchy established in the bible (God/man/woman on the bottom). I don’t just ignore that hierarchy; I think it’s irrelevant and bogus.

Like, am I subject to *all* men, or just the one I’m married to?
If I’m not married, is it my father I’m supposed to be subject to?
What if I don’t live with my father?
What if my father is dead?
What man am I supposed to be subject to then? Is it the next closest man in my family or just the one who lives across my hall?
Does this apply to just Christian women or would this also apply to slightly spiritual agnostics?
If it’s just Christian woman, are we subject to only the men in our church or perhaps men from visiting churches?
And what about men from other denominations?
Like, I’m Presbyterian – would this mean that a Methodist had mastery over me? Or a Catholic? And what about those free-wheeling Pentecostals?

See? Ridiculous.

If that’s real life, then every woman would be at the mercy of some whack-job simply because he had testicles. (And what do we call that? Patriarchy.)

And isn’t that what we’re really talking about? Patriarchal control. It’s all to put a woman in a tiny box and see her rattle around in it like a discarded toy. If you feel that a woman has a ‘place’ and should inhabit only two roles (wife and mother) in the human ‘chain of command’ you’re a straight up misogynist. You don’t respect women or value women; to you, women are objects to be mastered and used. And if that’s the ideology behind Responsibility/Irresponsibility, I’m willing to be that slacker.


(And I think it’s interesting that when you search for pictures under ‘women’ and ‘responsibility’ in Getty Images, they give you babies and marriage. haven't we progressed at all??)

70 comments:

Bonita said...

if only you could hear my chuckling and laughter. i enjoyed this, but forgive me churchgal, what exactly does the word misognyny mean? help me with the semantics. thanks

jesus chick said...

how is it that you choose to "ignore" the god/man/woman model set forth in the bible? just because you don't like something you just pitch it? i don't think it works that way. God is pretty smart and he knows what he's doing - esp with the god/man/woman thing. as far as not being married so who's your "man" - i'd say that'd be jesus - your bridegroom (somehow i think you should already know this).

i take the slightest offense to the question of *babies and marriage - haven't we progressed at all?* i suppose it's all about how you define progress. am i to assume you're putting me in a box to rattle around based on how you define progress? on the one hand i think you're saying it's fine to be a wife/mother but don't limit a woman to that role~ but your last comment about progress seems to belie the former.

Jenny said...

That photo you chose is downright creepy -- the facelessness of the woman, the hand on the small of the back.

If you can't find a man to be subject to, well, that's either because you're too much of a raging feminist or because the feminists have destroyed the fabric of our society to such an extent that men no longer realize that they are desperately needed to lead women. Duh.

Anonymous said...

Irresponsible, nahhh. Not wanting to anyone to dominate over you? Yes. Solution, work for yourself, hang out with people just like you, date guys who NEED a mother figure always telling them what to do or how to do it, he'll be so use to being control by a female, that you would fit right into his life. If you happened to meet a guy who is resisting you a lot, its probably because he has detached himself from his mother and now wants to be a independent, decesion making ,caring, responsible member of society, something his mother has taught him how to be and his father has help further along without his mother's help. He'll be looking for a smart woman who wouldn't mind him being in control, because she knows if has nothing to do with her, but him doing what God has created him to do, lead, protect and provide, for HER! Oh, and he does loves women, you can always tell it because he will always laugh at you when you try to control him. Its not a competition between male and female thoughts. After you have come to your senses, he will give his life for you. Really! Lastly, for you, by all means, never, never, get marry. NEVER!!!!!! The statistics for divorce among church attendies is too high, which only points to some people don't believe what God said about males and females roles and the two becoming one. Please don't add to the divorce numbers. Please! Enjoy being single, it suits you.
Who should you submit to? well... I think you know that answer.

One final comment. You might want to talk to you dad as why you think the way you do.

ding said...

if there is no intercessor in our faith but christ why even look to some guy to give me some hidden insight into spirituality that i can't get because God won't deal with me because i'm a woman?? that's crap.

my spiritual relationship (whatever the quality ) already exists. so if all people of faith already have a direct line to God through the Holy Spirit, what's the use of the biblical chain of command other than a tacked on gender code?

now, if in the context of that particular scripture the writer is talking about married women and their relationship with their husbands, then i trump out on that, too! i'm not married! bwah-ha ha ha!

and so we're back to where we were: Me + God

see? the chain of command is rather short.

ding said...

but see, anonymous, i have no problem with people caring and providing for one another at all. as long as it's mutual.

i believe in partnership. companionate relationships. complementary relationships. not some weird situation where some man is trying to pretend the home is the garden of eden and his wife is just another weed to be subjugated.

so i think men who think that women have a 'place' are safe from me. if that's what so-called real men are looking for, women who know their place, then we're all better off not coming into contact with one another.

we all find our level, don't you think?

Anonymous said...

You said"

Of course I don’t think my life is irresponsible at all. I just define my responsibilities differently, according to my values. I put a very low priority on resting in my 'place.' You may even call me uppity. In this particular case, my irresponsibility stems from the fact that I ignore the ‘natural’ hierarchy established in the bible (God/man/woman on the bottom). I don’t just ignore that hierarchy; I think it’s irrelevant and bogus.

Irrelevent bogus? Why is it THAT to you?

Is a man providing for a woman really mutual? What if his wife makes more money then he does, is it mutual? No,it isn't! Now, that's irrevalent, don't you think so?

Another question," some men do think like that,"so i think men who think that women have a 'place' are safe from me. if that's what so-called real men are looking for, women who know their place, then we're all better off not coming into contact with one another."

Chavanistic males, insecure males or????? What does any of that have to do with the roles of male and females defind by the the bible? If a man is secure his role as a man, assumming that he knows what that means I don't see a problem comming from him on roles. He wouldn't need to see a woman beneath him. If a woman have a problem with men,then I can see what the problem may be. Refer to my comment at the end of my post above.

Anon-above

ding said...

irrelevant because, as a person of faith, then i have my own relationship with God and really don't see what that middle translation point is for.

that's why i think it's irrelevant. why structure this triangular relationship when the basis of our salvation is a one-one relationship with christ?

and hey, i do think the bible even says that in Him there is no male or female, no gentile nor jew.

so...gender roles are rather irrelevant. and, hey, my dad's a great guy. you'd get a kick out of him.

Anonymous said...

i don't think it's a man in particular that we women must submit to (excepting, of course, fathers and husbands, for those who have them). i think it's "the man" in general. the patriarchy. the ultimate "decisioners" and guiding voices for our feminine weakness and emotional frailty. sigh.

or how about this:

back when paul was writing his epistles, women were not educated. the men made the decisions because women were not allowed to be formally educated, and therefore were not qualified to speak up in church, have a profession, or generally "run things".

i'm not saying that men and women aren't different and differently-abled, but to say that a woman must keep her place below the man is misguided. men have used scripture to repress women for centuries. i doubt that's what jesus had in mind.

also, ding, i know you're a straight female and so am i, but... can i have your children?

Anonymous said...

i don't think it's a man in particular that we women must submit to (excepting, of course, fathers and husbands, for those who have them). i think it's "the man" in general. the patriarchy. the ultimate "decisioners" and guiding voices for our feminine weakness and emotional frailty. sigh.

or how about this:

back when paul was writing his epistles, women were not educated. the men made the decisions because women were not allowed to be formally educated, and therefore were not qualified to speak up in church, have a profession, or generally "run things".

i'm not saying that men and women aren't different and differently-abled, but to say that a woman must keep her place below the man is misguided. men have used scripture to repress women for centuries. i doubt that's what jesus had in mind.

also, ding, i know you're a straight female and so am i, but... can i have your children?

Anonymous said...

i forgot to put my name on my comment. sorry!
steph

john patrick said...

God is pretty smart, knows what He's doing.

Paul was smart; made some mistakes, dedicated his life to God. Paul wrote letters to certain churches to help them form their worship.

There are things that I noticed in a mainstream Protestant church that didn't exist back in Paul's time: wireless handheld remote microphones, in-focus projector, Bette Midler's "Wind Beneath My Wings," bass guitars... lot's of things. Another thing they didn't have back then were educated women with the right to vote.

I am not picking and choosing scripture that I like as if they were buffet items; I am reading them in the context they were meant to be understood.

We live in a different context that is different from Paul's. Perhaps some day if I ever belong to a Christian community where women were uneducated and didn't have legal status, I would insist that women take their "place" as Paul described.

I might even get uptight about Paul's prescriptions on hair length and whose hair is their "glory." (If you can explain that hair length is a matter of universal faith and not just a culture-specific guideline, then you should high five someone... and throw out your pictures of dreamy long-haired Jesus).

I don't live in the cultural context that Paul was addressing, so I won't ask women to subjugate themselves to me on account of gender. God gave us his Word to set us free, not to give us an excuse to oppress each other.

And if God's law is meant to restrict us, then maybe those disciples shouldn't have picked and eaten those heads of grain on the Sabbath.

Wasp Jerky said...

"how is it that you choose to "ignore" the god/man/woman model set forth in the bible? just because you don't like something you just pitch it? i don't think it works that way."

And what of the slavery model set forth in Philemon? Should we bring that back or is it OK to pitch?

jesus chick said...

first of all, holy crow there are 13 posts on this already???
second of all, why do i feel like you guys are lying in wait for me. . . ;)

Anonymous said...

Ding, are you attractive to the one thing you don't like, Men who make an issue of roles in relationships and why they must be in charge? Obviously those types make you very mad!
Your thinking is normal for a single woman, at least I think it is,but I must agree with Janet, Feminism has hurt, not help men and women relationships. Every man is not a brute looking to bring harm to women.

Christianity is not a bunch of rules and regulations, true! The scriptural references that the bible give us on roles in the church and home are for our protection. When we fail to obey them, disaster and unhappiness is bound to happen.

Look, I would be highly offended too, if some chavanistic, bible carrying religious male thought he could supress my originality too! However, because I know who I am and why God called me in the first place, then it really is matter of choice. I decide what type of male that will enter the picture.In choosing, I will also deal with the consequences of that relationship.

Do you think you might be attracting males that maybe are something you really want or maybe your used to having in your life. You know something your already familiar with, like attitudes, ways of thinking?

I told you earlier to enjoy being single because your thoughts ARE between you and God. I just hope you sift them through the word of God. You're probably saying "How much of me will I lose if I submit myself to a man"? None of yourself, because the man or men that you deal with will love you for YOU without trying to fix or dominate you. There will have to be some compromising though, life must have some balance. That is why we're told in the bible to, "trust in the Lord with all our hearts , leaning not on our own understanding. In all of ways acknowledge Him and He will direct our paths. Proverbs 5


Responsiblity means, choosing wisely and owning up to the consequenses.

Anonymous said...

"and hey, i do think the bible even says that in Him there is no male or female, no gentile nor jew".
John Patrick and Ding, context. Paul was referring to our salvation not roles, Ding.

John Patrick...
'
We live in a different context that is different from Paul's. Perhaps some day if I ever belong to a Christian community where women were uneducated and didn't have legal status, I would insist that women take their "place" as Paul described."

Go back and read the whole chapter. Context , context.

ding said...

(dagnabit. i had a whole reply and then the fracking thing didn't post! damn you blogger!)

shorter ding: you proved my point, anonymous. it's not about gender roles but about salvation. so why are we so hung up about women's place being a reflection of her relationship with christ?

hence, bogus-ness.

when a guy says that a woman needs to learn her PLACE he's not talking about her salvation; he's talking about her gender. he's making a comment based on gender bias, nothing else.

ding said...

steph,
if i could give you all the eggs in my ovaries, i would.

jc,
all i meant was that it's interesting that women+responsibility tranlates into marriage and babies - and nothing else. i don't know about other women, but my responsibilities aren't about childrearing or a gold band on my finger - i have work responsibilities, family responsibilities, social responsibilities.

when i say progress, i meant that it's a shame that we still can't think about a woman's world beyond domesticity.

(and, yes, jc. we wait for you!)

i also think it's interesting that no one wants to talk about women's wage inequity, but hey, talk trash about church guys and there's all sorts of action.

sigh.

ding said...

and, Anonymous, thanks too for supporting my point about responsibility.

though your sentence is constructed in a way to make consequences the inevitable bad conclusion to any choice, i agree but with a difference.

because one is responsible, one only makes choices with consequences one can bear.

Anonymous said...

Okay, Ding.
You know of men who say that women must learn their PLACE? If you do then I can now understand your fustration. What place? I thank God everyday that he allows diversity in his creation. EGO!!! Singlesness should be celebrated without making others feel guilty because they are not marry producing eggs or even want too! Didn't the apostle Paul say, I wish you all were like me when he was talking about marriage? He was single at one time wasn't he?
Just make sure that your life's work is for the kingdom to come.
Since your not marry, who do you submit to? God first, your earthly father, you are still under his protection believe it or not. Your boss, you got to get paid! And , as far those egomaniacs who happen not to be any of the above mentioned keep doing what you do.

I didn't mean to make the choice consequences statement sound like a doom situation. I just think that whatever anyone chooses rather to marry or be single its their choice, and whatever you choose, that is what you will deal with in your life. I am sure some marry people would love to be single again at times, these are the types who should have never gotten married in the first place.

Ding, you are such a strong analytical thinker that I do admire you for speaking out on things that fustrate you so much.
Let me just say this, there will never be equality between men in women, never! People take the scripture and out of context especially on roles. Just because ones single doesn't mean you have to subjugate yourself to every male around you. However, what is meant be said abut roles in marriage is clear. What God has said about singleness is clear as well.
Equal pay,ones gender should not determine pay. I agree hands down with that one!

john patrick said...

Um, anonymous,

When I said "Perhaps someday... I will insist that women take their place..." I was being facetious. Whoops. Maybe you shouldn't lecture me about context.

To be clear: I will never insist that a woman take her "place." It's a value I have. Besides, I have strong interpersonal skills. "Woman, take your place" is a rhetorical strategy that is beneath me.

(Paul: I do remain puzzled about what the length of my hair has to do with salvation.)

If I've missed your point, then I suggest that you articulate it more clearly than 'context context context, go back and read.'

Just for the record, "go back and read" is a very lazy way to argue. It's kind of frowned up on in this forum.

Anonymous said...

John Patrick,

Perhaps you can help me understand you better. My question about context has to do with Paul's letter on men and women roles in the church?
You said:
We live in a different context that is different from Paul's. Perhaps some day if I ever belong to a Christian community where women were uneducated and didn't have legal status, I would insist that women take their "place" as Paul described.


Okay, we do live in different culture unlike Paul's. What does what you said have to do with what God wants women and men to know today? He wants us to understand something? What is it?

"Place"? Was he saying that?

john patrick said...

Anonymous,

I will be very clear: Paul and Peter in their letters to the churches call for wives to submit to their husbands. This does not constitute a call for us, 2000 years later to have gender-based dominance relationship between husbands and wives.

Now if you want to talk about the husband/wife metaphor for Christ and the Church, as in Ephesians; or if you want to talk about the submit and obey similes as they appear in Colossians; or the evangelistic nature of Peter's call... If that's what you want to talk about then go ahead. None of these passages constitute God's call for me to be in a dominance/sumbission relationship with my wife. No. Nope. No.

Now I have made my point three times; the first time, facetiously, and the second and third times, explicitly.

Anonymous said...

I don't think John Patrick he was writing that all! Why would you even go there?? I'm talking about gender base dominance?

Okay, so your saying there is no submission ( not a bad word)or shouldn't be any between male and female or anybody?

You said you're married, so what Paul wrote in the scripture that you are referring to is address to you, correct? You're saying your wife does not have to submit to you, and you do not have to submit to her? correct?

You are also saying this is 2000AD not the year that Paul wrote that book(I don't have my bible in front of me) so submission would not apply to you and yours today?

Correct?

Wasp Jerky said...

Anonymous,

Paul was writing a specific letter to a specific church with a specific problem in a specific geographical and historical context. He was not writing to all Christians at all times. He was not issuing a new Law for Christians to follow.

JustMe said...

ding, i agree with you, mostly. I have very often expereinced the "irresposible" comment from my father, who was angry that I questioned his superiorty over my mom and her serving him, like a servant. I recently read A Celebration of Discipline by Foster, who has an interesting reading of Paul. I wish I had the book in front of me...I think that we are called to submit to God. And we really should think about how we are defining submission...

Anonymous said...

Um... so ALL scripture is not imspire by God? Is that what you saying (WASPJERKEY-) So you guys pick and choose what is relative? Which means you must throw out the whole counsel of God.

JustMe- your father was angry at you because the relationship was between him and your mom, not you.

If your mom didn't have a problem with submitting to her husband, what was your problem?

Anonymous said...

and-

Waspjerky- paul wrote that cute little story for us to read but "don't take it serious"!??

Verlch said...

I'm actually Patriarch Verlch.

Verlch said...

Anyways this text rings true.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (KJV) 1 Corithians 11:3

Even though Christ and God are one, the Father is still the Head. We all submit to the Will of the Father, Christ is given great authroity in His sacrifice and death on the cross.

The bible clearly states how women are to be. Here is a text.

Titus 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Just because 2000 years has past, some guilty women choose to have careers, some even over children, doesn't mean that God has not stated that the home is the best place to raise a child, betwix a man and a woman.

My blog spot says it all verlch.blogspot.com.

Its my opinion, again, I do not hate women, I think feminism was created by the hounds of hell, to ruin God ordained marriage betwix men and women. If women only knew how much I was attracted to them, or how much chivialric protection I have in me, they might humble their venoumus attacks.

Men are not the cause of all womans woes. The fall was, and you can read the punishment dolled out by God Almighty, the Alpha and Omega.

3:16 To the woman he said,

“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth.
In pain you will bring forth children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
3:17 To Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to your wife’s voice,
and have eaten of the tree,
of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground for your sake.
In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
3:18 Thorns also and thistles will it bring forth to you;
and you will eat the herb of the field.
3:19 By the sweat of your face will you eat bread until you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken.
For you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”

The woman would greatly have pain in childbirthing, and the man would have to till the ground. The woman being subject to her own husband, because she sinned first, and not man.

"For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. " 1 Timothy 2:13

"And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. " 1 Timothy 2:14

Sarah even called the Patriarch of old lower case "lord" when addressing him, lord Abraham.

ding said...

you know, verlch, the old ding would have been super pissed off at you, but the new ding (the new ding who's gotten a lot of sleep) is simply fascinated.

your actual title is 'patriarch verlch'? really?

what kind of religious community do you live in? that's a totally serious question. since it was your comment that started this whole i think it would be good to share.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Patrarch Verlch. Nothing like the good old word of God to set the record straight!
Ding, you see, there ARE good men out there.

Loved this post.

john patrick said...

Anonymous,

you said:
I don't think John Patrick he was writing that all! Why would you even go there?? I'm talking about gender base dominance?

Anonymous, you are not "talking" about anything. You have yet to make a claim or state your position against what I've written. All you do is ask questions incredulously. You presume that I and the other readers of this forum share your biblical perspective. Also, what you have inferred about me, specifically, is pretty off-base.

I, once again, will restate my position. God is not calling me to have a dominant/submission relationship with my wife, or any woman.

In addition, the mentality that calls ding "irresponsible" is misogynistic. She doesn't deserve it. I find it dispicable that some people try to base their misogyny in scripture.

You and the patriarch have a perspective of the Bible that I don't share. Perhaps you can go to his anti-feminist website and high five each other.

Anonymous said...

Noooo, John Patrick, I now know you could not share my bibical frame of reference, earlier I was only trying to make sure I understood YOU correctly. That's all! Now,

What did Paul write to you regarding your relationship with your wife base on those scriptures that Verlch so clearly pointed out?
You're not being clear- "I do not have dominance over my spouse"? Dominance? ok, What do you have? What are saying? Explain those scriptures JP, that Mr. Velrch pointed out to you all.
Attacking me only makes it looks worst! I am not attacking you,I want you explain yourself that's all.

Anonymous said...

John Patrick- I left this out,
" I am reading them in the context they were meant to be understood"
That is what you said

- Oh, really? By all means please explain to ME how you arrived at your contextual conclusion.

ding said...

anonynous (and can't you make up a name so i can keep all the anonymouses separate?) i hesitate to think that you and verlch share the same, uh, view of things.

if i'm interpreting verlch correctly, not only does he think that a literal domination of women by men is biblical, he seems to also not want women to work, to earn money, he thinks that a woman who is independent in thinking or means is nigh to communism and that i should actually call my husband 'lord.' perhaps he even thinks that marrying child brides is ok since they did that way back then, too!

i'm sure PV's relationship with christ is a sweet one, but i think that his positions are utter crap. for verlch, again if i'm interpreting him correctly, a physical and psychological domination over woman IS aligned with spirituality.

his view is unrealistic given we live in an industrial society and that women have access to education, economic empowerment - even political enfranchisement.

he's certainly taking the bible literally, but my issue has always been how this sort of hierarchal order actually works in reality.

if his position is correct, then what IS a woman's life to be?

ding said...

oh, and to the Anonymous who says "see, there are good men out there" re: Patriarch V.:

i would rather set myself on fire than meet/live with a man like him.

Verlch said...

what kind of religious community do you live in? that's a totally serious question. since it was your comment that started this whole i think it would be good to share.

4/29/2006 11:57 AM

I am a sinner first off, and a protestant second.

I might add, its a shame we are living in a culture of divorce. As I've stated before, 85% of criminals come from broken homes. With women filing for divorce 70-80% of the time.

Its no wonder they leave, when they can get alimony and child support, which are major under miners of the Patriarchy. Why should a woman get the same amount of financial care, when she withdraws her services?

Why should children go to those that can least of all provide for them, and need money from the ex to sustain the children and herself?

This website says it all.

http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Library/Amneus/garbage/index.html

The divorce rate has been increased by radical feminist women, that despise the free will captialism generates.

It has started with child support, alimony, no fault divorce (divorce rate went from 20% to 40% in 2 short years.

Next all they need is tax funded abortion and tax funded child care, with tax funded health care. There will be nothing left a woman needs a man for, except maybe paying here taxes, but what woman needs that? The state will pay her child support in the event her husband might die from the stress at a young age.

You women claim to be church women in here. Why do women trade a loving husband, for handouts from a cold Uncle Samuel and his taxathon henchmen? What husbandry thrills do Samuel and his bankers do for you? He can't give you children, he can't snuggle with you on cold winter nights. Tell you how much he loves you and values your contribution to the family.

Happy resurrection day people! I've got about 45 years left!

“Daughters of Jerusalem, don’t weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 23:29 For behold, the days are coming in which they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’ 23:30 Then they will begin to tell the mountains, ‘Fall on us!’ and tell the hills, ‘Cover us.’* 23:31 For if they do these things in the green tree, what will be done in the dry?”

I think that last text has some relevance today. In fact a lot of relevance considering it is Revelation. (I'm almost 99% sure)

Verlch said...

ding said...
oh, and to the Anonymous who says "see, there are good men out there" re: Patriarch V.:

i would rather set myself on fire than meet/live with a man like him.

4/29/2006 4:16 PM

Luckily if I even think your a feminist, you wouldn't have to worry about it.

Before you think this will shorten my list of potential mates. There is a world full of women that would kill to be in your shoes.

Its funney, feminists what a man they can boss around. Then when they get him, they beraid him for being a wimp and unable to protect her family from danger.

Then she runs of anyways. So I tell all men, stand your ground anyways, you have the bible to back you.

The bible tells men to love your wives as you love yourself. To be good to her, etc.

Remember man was created first, and woman was the last of His creation, to complete a man, to be his helpmate. To share in joys and sorrows, so that both of them would not have to die alone, like feminists do with all their "grrl power" and their cats.

Verlch said...

his view is unrealistic given we live in an industrial society and that women have access to education, economic empowerment - even political enfranchisement.

he's certainly taking the bible literally, but my issue has always been how this sort of hierarchal order actually works in reality.

if his position is correct, then what IS a woman's life to be?

4/29/2006 4:12 PM


Your empowering yourselves away from men that would last you into old age.

I want a woman, and have one, that wants a family over work and a 9 - 5 job chasing paper money all over the office, and paying taxes to the same banks that profit from the printing of our money.

Ever heard the song "American Woman, stay away from me."

That is fine, you don't need men, just the child support from the three babies fathers some women allow to father their children.

What to see a Matriarchy in action. Look at Haiti. Women work, men do nothing. The country is a wreck, men will do nothing to support the fly's that land on their heads.

There is alot of opportunity in America, the rest of the world would kill for. Don't take it for granted, it will not last forever.

john patrick said...

Anonymous,

I do not beleive that the bible calls my wife to submit to me.

You want me to address PV's quotes? Ok. (Also, given his latest comments, if you'd like to distance yourself from him, I do understand.)

Paul was writing to the church in Corinth that their communion services should be more orderly.

He told them that in order to preserve order during services, the wives should submit to their husbands at church and not be argumentative. This made a lot of sense in a society where female submission was normal.

None of that *NONE OF IT* is a command from God telling me that my wife is supposed to submit to me.

Nor do any of the Adam and Eve references.

And if the Original Sin of Eve and Adam really was the reason we men were supposed to rule over women... then, guess what, I have some Good News for you.

ding said...

jp,
call me naive.
i sort of thought PV lived in a real religious community, kind of like the Amish or something - one that actually had a structure built around this very literal interpretation of the bible.

i thought it was sort of homespun, separate from the materialistic world. again, like the amish or any of the other dutch agrarian communities we know of. you know: bonnets, no zippers, buggies, plain living.

but no.

it seems PV is coming from someplace entirely. someplace that sounds awfully similar to the whiny BS of the Men's Rights Movement.

now i'm sorry i asked.

Verlch said...

it seems PV is coming from someplace entirely. someplace that sounds awfully similar to the whiny BS of the Men's Rights Movement.

now i'm sorry i asked.

4/29/2006 8:56 PM

You claim equality. I think we should give it to women. All cases of divorce should be joint custody. There should be no money trading hands, as women "can do anything" a man can do.

Alimony is soon to be a thing of the past, as I'm sure equal women don't need such a thing, when they decide to leave.

Pre Nupt's need to mandatory.

There should be Child Nupts as well for women that want children, with plan X Y and Z, how to pay, if and when a divorce happens. In this culture of divorce.

"I do not beleive that the bible calls my wife to submit to me."

John than you must be reaind the I hate the Patriarchy version, done by feminists. The Living bible fits in that catagory as well, they took He's and what not out of the bible, gender neutered it so to speak.

There is another version out there you might as well as be reading as well.

Too bad the PC squad can't completely burn all copies of the bible, I'm sure that would make them happy.

Anonymous said...

PV- can you please address Ding on being a single christian woman and what her responsiblities should be, keeping in mind we are under grace not law.

John Patrick, PV may sound a a little dated but he really is bringing up a lot of information that any man who is a bible believing christian should believe. Christians do not adopt to the culture. We are the culture.
PV, how cute bringing up the scriptural reference to sarah calling Abraham lord. You really struck a nerve with that one. Let me bring her language to the 21st century- she respected Abraham.
Which should be the attitude of women towards their husband.

Now, as PV pointed out- he wants to love his woman. She's a lucky woman PV!

Ding, I believe one day this all will make sense to you. "remember hold fast to that which true"

"remember the things you were taught in thy youth"

ANON-#1

ding said...

actually, i don't think we should be encouraging PV to, uh, share anymore of his crazy (cough)- i mean, interesting ideas.

his lack of understanding of history, politics, sentence structure and basic argumentation puts him, let's say, far afield of what this conversation should be like.

PV? i really don't think this is the space for you. you have a website so, enjoy continuing this conversation waaay over there!

Verlch said...

Ding,

Do you enjoy talking into an echo chamber?

I may not be an English Major like you, but I am good at math, go figure.

From what I can tell, a single woman in the church is called to minister to other women, teaching them how to look after a home, and family.

I know the older women are called to teach the younger women how to be ladies in the church scene.

If our Christian women will not show the world how a Christ filled marriage works, after scripture. They cannot minister to other women in need of the lessons of how to be a Godly woman.

The greatest joy you can think of, is watching your son grow up. Watching your child grow from the size of a pea, to that of a child, is staggering to watch.

Why would women, with such command of the english language, choose career over mothering children, is evil, and beyond me.

Anonymous said...

PV, you lost me.
Are you saying that God has called every woman to motherhood? What if Ding and others, are not called to motherhood, what then should their responsibilty be to God's kingdom?
Anon#1

LutheranChik said...

Ding, I am giving you major points for keeping your cool in the midst of this patriarchal nonsense -- I'd have subjected your correspondence to verbal slappage long ago.;-) And I feel like getting down on my knees right now to thank God for being in a denomination, and in a parish, where this conversation wouldn't be taking place because we are so OVER this issue.

What is a single woman's responsibility in the Reign of God? The same as a single man's...or a partnered woman's...or a partnered man's...to live Christ into the world around them as each life situation suggests. There's nothing gender-specific in being Christ for other people.

LutheranChik said...

That should have read "correspondents." It's late.

Verlch said...

Anonymous said...
PV, you lost me.
Are you saying that God has called every woman to motherhood? What if Ding and others, are not called to motherhood, what then should their responsibilty be to God's kingdom?
Anon#1

4/30/2006 7:45 PM

I don't know, If I was a woman I would look into it.

If she is going to be barren, she should maybe look after the sick, the poor, etc.

I really should look into it. Maybe you can help me, from a scripture side of things.

Thaks.

john patrick said...

Ding,

Él que te había dicho que tú eres irresponsable es misógeno. Yo no puedo creer que haya gente que insiste que su misógeno remonte a la santa biblia. Feísimo.

Bueno. No juzguen a nadie, para que nadie los juzgue a ustedes.

Verlch said...

Misogynist is a world that fly's freely around here.

Is that a picture of you John?

Anonymous said...

"What is a single woman's responsibility in the Reign of God? The same as a single man's...or a partnered woman's...or a partnered man's...to live Christ into the world around them as each life situation suggests. There's nothing gender-specific in being Christ for other people"


Lutherchick, I don't agree with you. Unless, I'm not understanding you clearly- Ding is not married so her concerns should be different as how she should relate to members of the opposite sex and how she is to live for the Lord. Now, if she wants to be married one day,then she should think about what God has written for her to follow about marriage. Singleness and Marriage is not the same. No, no and no. Thank God I know the difference. Each holds differenct responsiblities. Each role should not be frown upon either.
For example- there are single people in my church along with marry people- we each are a part of the body of Christ each serving the Lord. However, each of us are called to obedience in our different roles. You know the scriptures for marry people and the scripture for single people. The only equality is our salvation. Our functions will be different.
Dings devotion should be about totally devoting herself to pleasing the Lord. She has no distractions in the way,like a husband and some babies.

Women have made great advancements in society. However, as christian women with all those advancements at your disposal, how should you serve the Lord. Downing marriage? Critizing women who choose to submit to their men and make lots of babies? Please! Spare me, there is only equality in salvation,(joint heirs in the grace of life,for marry people and for single people, too!) there is NO equality in a marriage, why would that even be and issue of concern? The roles are different and MUST be different. Yes, there should be a loving husband who is not occuppied with dominance over his wife, but his chief concern is how he will lead her. A wife's concern shouldn't be how she can have some equality, but how she can best respect her husband by serving him. As a woman, I know the power I really have. You'll be suprise how much you really have as a woman in a godly relationship. Our influence on homes and society is huge! It's really a beautiful picture, marriage that is, how God has place each person together to create a perfect picture of Christ and the Church. Aaah...there it is, Christ and the church, this is how marriage should be, Christ is the head of the church, and the church submits to Christ- same in a marriage relationhip. It's foolish to think about worldly thoughts of equality when the God head being Christ, is in perfect harmony with His church."upon this rock I will build MY church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it". God hasn't change, we have or some of us have.

50/50 good luck, or should I say, there goes another christian adding to the divorce statistics. Anyone who's been married long enough will discover, there is no 50/50. Sometimes a woman may have 80 and a man 20, sometimes a man will have 90 and a woman 10, All of this 50/50 equality, is really foolishness. Really! Who really has time keep track to see what percentage they're getting?

As my wonderful parent told me once, my dad, "everyone cannot be a chief". A good indian understand this and no their role is to help the chief. A good indian knows the chief only looks good because the indian MAKES them look good, and a good chief knows that as well.

No two things can occupy the same space. Or," no one can serve two masters, either they will love one and hate the other"! So, we must choose which role we will serve,or which master we will serve, rather being marry or single. Either we choose what God has ordain from the time of creation, or our new ideas that fight for equality!
Anon#1

ding said...

JP is a long time friend (be careful what you say) and the furthest thing from a woman-hating chauvinist.

LC, it's amazing what having a sense of humor can do for one's temper. PV's train of thought is so Other i can't help but treat it like a joke!

Anon #1 - you bring up a good point. i don't ever want to be a mother. i'd be horrible. but it's clear that PV thinks biology is destiny. (if a woman has a uterus, she must use it or she's 'evil.' is this something christian men should be hearing - that their women are nothing but sequestered breeders? i find that appalling.)

don't you think that's just a teeny bit extreme, Anon #1?

ding said...

clearly, there's a huge gulf separating those who think culturally defined gender roles somehow convey aspects of salvation and those of us who think that gender roles are simply that - roles. they're fake, they're bogus, they are artificial. it's two totally different ways of looking at culture, language and gender itself.

Anon #1, what do you mean? that, because i'm single, i have a different type of spiritual duty? beyond my initial salvation and the grace that's been given to me?

you're gonna have to give an example because i have no idea what you're talking about.

Anonymous said...

Anon #1 - you bring up a good point. i don't ever want to be a - that their women are nothing but sequestered breeders? i find that appalling.)

don't you think that's just a
teeny bit extreme

Yes, yes and yes! This is why we have a problem between men and women in our churches
You have those extreme types who believe in definite absolutes for everyone. "I man, you woman, DOWN!"

And, you have women who feel they must obey and do everything a man tell them with out objecting to anything their husband say or do, no thought process, scary thought. "what would the other girls at church think about OUR marriage if I don't display attitudes of submission"
Um... Solution, be concern with how you could best love and serve each other and you should arrive at a happy medium."the two should become one", interdependence is more like it!

john patrick said...

Dear Ding,

You didn't deserve to be called "irresponsible" because you are a single woman. You are responsible only to God and yourself.

You are important. You are the image of God. You have been paid for. You are covered, by capital-G Grace.

ding said...

this is what's so interesting about what you say, Anon#1. you say there's no such thing as 50-50 in marriage, but you say 'interdependence' should be a common goal for marriage.

i think these two things are the same! no one, not even the most progressive of us, believe in a strict measure of marital duties down the line, like a series of tick marks. 'i did this 10 times so now you have to do this 10 times.' in all the best marriages i know (and i actually have a few friends who are happily married!), there is a sense of shared purpose.

for instance, my sister and her husband have a marriage that is so totally open in communication and shared burdens, they operate like one unit. he drops the kids off at school in the morning on the way to work; she picks them up in the afternoon when she gets off work; they juggle their kids' schedules, they teach catechism together, they each know what they're good at and their marriage works to their strengths so that they're united in everything.

the only thing they wish is that they had more time to spend with one another! (but they have two small kids so they can kiss that dream goodbye until someone goes to college.)

and never ONCE has my brother-in-law said that he feels my sister needs to 'submit' to him. it never crosses his mind to even think like that. to him, and to my sister, their relationship model is just the best way to do it - it's efficient, loving and completely different from how each of them grew up.

in other words, like JP, he looks at his wife as his companion, not his 'for breeding purposes only' servant or helpless girl-child who constantly needs to massage her husband's masculine ego by saying 'master' and 'lord' every other sentence.

ding said...

hey, thanks, JP!

y gracias por la otra comentario. ¿está loco, sí? pienso que es interesante ver que uno de ellos se parece ser más moderado pero que no puede ver donde su lógica se desliza.
y no me consiga comenzado en el craziness que es PV.
honesto no sé en qué clase de mundo él vive.

Anonymous said...

Anon #1, what do you mean? that, because i'm single, i have a different type of spiritual duty? beyond my initial salvation and the grace that's been given to me?

Because your not marry, Ding. Your single devotion is to the Lord and serving him alone. A married person devotion is divided between spouse, church, and children if any.
Imagine balancing all of that?
You have much more freedoms to serve the Lord. Do it wisely.

ding said...

¡gracias, jp!

¿esto está loco, sí? misogyny como tenet espiritual. nadie ve cómo su lógica se desliza y aún, nadie puede decirme lo que parece esta clase de relación realmente. ¡porque no puede existir! ¡estamos discutiendo sobre un fantasma!

y no me consiga comenzado en el craziness que es PV. no sé en qué clase de mundo él vive.

ding said...

oh, crappers on blogger! i just commented twice! argh!

Anonymous said...

Ding, I agree 100% in what you wrote about your sister's marriage. Good for her! They understand their roles. (smile) However, you could help your sister out so she can spend much needed quality time smooching with her husband without the kids looking in their faces asking for attention.
See, that is what a single woman can do for a marry one, help out when they can. That's not so bad, is it? What great service for the kingdom.

See what you can do being single and what she cannot do?

ding said...

that's exactly why i moved 2000 miles away from home. no babysitting! bwa ha ha ha ha!

see? this is what i mean by responsibility. you determine what it is you value and then act accordingly: i hate babysitting so i moved too far away to do it!

i win!

Anonymous said...

:( okay.

Verlch said...

Actually woman is created in the image of man.

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. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 1 Corinthians 11 7-9

Then goes on to add, despite the fall, humanity will be saved through child birthing. As was stated, man cannot live without woman, nor can woman without the man (sperm, protection).

Your right, when marriage happens, the man and woman become one soul, don't they? Or they become one, in the body of Christ, with the male as the leader.

15 but she will be saved through her childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.

Woman was saved through child birthing.

Anonymous said...

ok, here goes...
just as we are today, paul was condtitioned by his culture and bound by the limitations of his experience. since he grew up in a patriarchal culture, he viewed the roles of men and women through the lens of this culture. he applied this worldview to his teaching about man's headship. it was a reflection of his cultural prejudices, assumptions, and attitudes. we, as thinking people, should learn to separate paul's prejudices (yes, he had them - he was human) from his teachings in the bible and view his teachings on women as non-essential, while trying to discover the essence of the bible's message in the rest of his writings.

if religion addresses a genuine sphere of understanding and human necessity, then it should be susceptible to progress - not the recycling of past doctrines.

steph

Anonymous said...

damn. i spelled "conditioned "wrong. sorry.

Verlch said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ding said...

and, as usual, PV you don't listen.
i asked you not to post here and here you are again.

buh-bye.