Thursday, September 30, 2010

Women are More Spiritual: A Lie

We know churches and the Christian market are dominated by women. In turn, this leads to the idea that women must be more spiritual. I believe this is a dangerous misconception. Dangerous in that it is a subtle and manipulative technique used by women to feel more important or righteous than men. It gives them a feeling of power and a sort of bargaining chip to cause division in the home and relationships. On various blogs and comments, I have seen women waive their 'deeper' spirituality in men's faces, because, don't you know, women are more emotional, more intuitive, etc. Therefore, they are more in tune with God and must have the upper hand on spiritual matters. Case in point is the following Anonymous comment from my last post:
"Women buy all kinds of books dealing with relationships, because women care deeply about relationships. In fact one could say that women are about relationships. Christianity is about relationships. It is about our relationship with God and our fellow human beings. Remember the two great commandments. Women are drawn to Christianity. Two-thirds of those who attend church today are women. Women go to church more than men. Women pray more than men. It should come as no surprise then that more women buy Christian books than men."
By this, it implied that men must not care deeply about relationships and that men are not about relationships. Typical feminist thought.  Men too, of course, are drawn to Christianity! They may just not show their faith in the way women do, by devouring Christian books, Christian music, plastering crosses everywhere, getting involved in every church activity, etc. Women like to show off all their pretty Christian things and create Christian appearances, whether they truly are or not (not for me to decide). Men seem to like their Faith straight-up, just a Bible, please, without all the bells and whistles. Their faith is more private, whereas a woman's is more public. Does this make men less spiritual? Of course not. In fact, the irony may be that "less is more".  That is, if one wants to play the "more" game.

The great thing about the Bible and churches (before they became marketed businesses) is that they are sex neutral. God did not market to just men or women.

Suggesting that women pray more than men is crazy. Only God knows a person's heart.  Prayer is a highly personal and intimate matter that is only between that person and God.  Frankly, I don't care who is praying more or even if they are praying, because again, it is a personal matter. Each should be primarily concerned about the state of their own soul, then they can be concerend for those around them. It is kind of like the oxygen mask that drops down from an airplane. The flight attendant spiel is something like,"please place the mask on yourself first before helping others". The idea being you can't be of much a help to others if you first don't tend to your body and instead pass out from lack of oxygen. Same thing for Christianity; you can't be much help to others, if you first don't tend to your own soul.  

By the way, I can just picture a wife nagging her husband to pray more! The nerve. I'm sure it happens. 

I am not surprised that women buy more Christian books, especially when such books are marketed toward them and not specifically to men. Just as I am not surprised why kids want "happy meals" or certain candies that are marketed towards kids. Most churches these days are big on marketing and rather see themselves as businesses. They market toward women, because they know women still hold the purse strings. If you can get the woman into church, you will get the family money and the children for their preschool. It is just as likely that if the churches marketed toward men, they would get the same result eventually,but men take longer to come around, which is a GOOD thing. They don't rush into things by being wooed by some flashy sermon or church building. So, if you want instant church attenders and givers, focus on the women.
"In today's Christian churches, women do the bulk of the work. They are the backbone of many churches. If it were not for women's presence and involvement, the doors of many churches would have to close. Yet there are people here at your blog who harshly criticize these devoted Christian women for their involvement claiming it turns the church into something feminine and drives men away. With all those women flitting around doing this and that in the service of the spiritual community, the church becomes too "pink" for certain men. But in the Bible the church is referred to as the "bride of Christ." Is that not pink?"
This is a feminist notion; if it weren't for women, churches would shut down or the world in general would fall apart.  Women do most of the work and have saved the day. 

The "bride of Christ" refers to the body of believers, which is the church. The church is not supposed to be "pink" and  in turn, women only, just because it is symbolized as a bride. The assumption comes in again that only women can be believers due to their alleged more spiritual nature. Therefore, the church being referred to as a bride, gets women all giddy and empowers the idea that women are more spiritual and should rule the churches. Women would love to think that Christ chose just them to be his bride, and not men. That would make them feel like princess brides who are above associating with the common human man.
"The truth is that most men are not interested in going to church. Once upon a time there was social pressure that caused them to attend church. That has disappeared. Most men do not want to give up their Sunday mornings. They'd rather golf on Sundays or sleep in. Besides, they think church is for women. In spite of this lack of interest of the part of most men, Jesus is true to his promise. He lovingly provides for his bride the church through mostly women. You should thank God."
Men are not interested in going to church because they are nagged to death about going. When a man has to be dragged into church, it is not by the Lord's calling, but the wife's forcing. Sometimes he is just there to please her and to paint the picture of a perfect Christian family. Once he has been forced into church by the wife, he will start to fall under her spiritual authority and look to her for direction in spiritual matters. My traditional readers know this is not the order God intended.  Once there, the wife has him where she wants him and she can start to lead or manipulate him in other ways as well. A man has got to come to Faith and church by the calling of the Lord, not by the calling of the wife.

Plus, just going to church does not automatically make one spiritual and one's church attendance should not be used as a measuring stick as to whether or not one is saved or not.  Salvation is by grace and through faith, not by grace and through church. Church is a great supplement for your spiritual life. It builds up, encourages, and supports one's faith, but it is just that--a supplement. It is the potatoes to the meat.

Men did not go to church simply because of social pressure. They go because they are just as spiritual as women. If anything, the reason they aren't going now is because of wife pressure. The constant nagging makes anyone not want to do something. Plus, the "pinkness" of church is an issue. If women really wanted men to be involved in church, why can't they be more sensitive to their needs and welcome them in, instead of nagging them in.

Now, what is the woman to do who wants to go to church, but her husband does not? Wants the husband to lead in spiritual matters, but he does not? I am not clear on this yet and will defer this to my male readers for advice. All I know is that nagging is NOT the answer. I feel the best thing to do is to continue to be a good help meet by revering and respecting your husband; including, respecting his wishes to not go to church.

Further implied in this comment is the stereotype that men are a bunch of lazy bums who just want to sleep in and watch the game. Men can't possibly care about anything deeper than that. We have seen this before.

In summary, this cultural meme that women are more spiritual is feminist driven. It is a power tool meant to shame men into submission. The men are supposed to cave and accept that her 'feelings' must know God better. Men--do not fall for this.

107 comments:

Terry @ Breathing Grace said...

Amen, amen, amen Laura! I agree on all counts.

I can't think of a thing to add.

And that's saying something coming from the likes of me, :)

Anonymous said...

I don't go to church because I am an Atheist. I occasionly read some of the bible. I do respect true believers who are sincere in their belief for having a moral conscious. I have seen though some women shame their husbands in public for not going to church as if this will help. Something like "He needs to" or "If he would only" etc etc. Many churchgoers seem to be elderly too.

Cat Lady said...

I've seen quite a few articles complaining about the "feminization" of the church - therefore, the men quit going as the entire setup only alienates them.
Solution: ladies stop attending church! Let the men reclaim the churches and remake them into something more palatable to them.

Could the women not gather in one another's homes and have separate services/bible study for women and girls only? I myself, do not attend church or even consider myself a Christian, but this seems like a possible solution if the Christian community wants men to become more dominant in their churches.

I believe this is how the Muslims conduct things and whether you like them or not, they seem strong in their faith, esp. the men.

Anonymous said...

Men sound like such weak, sniveling cowards in your analysis. Is this what you intended? Take a look:

1. "If you can get the woman into church, you will get the family money and the children for their preschool."

I see. Men have no say over how money is spent, or where their kids go to preschool. Interesting.

2. "Men are not interested in going to church because they are nagged to death about going."

So men allow women's "nagging" to control whether or not they go to church. They don't make that imprtant decision themselves, based on their spiritual needs.

3. "Sometimes he is just there to please her and to paint the picture of a perfect Christian family."

Wow. Mem go to church to impress others.

4. "Once he has been forced into church by the wife, he will start to fall under her spiritual authority and look to her for direction in spiritual matters.

Men allow women to force them to church. Men are so weak they allowed themselves to follow women's spiritual authority. Men are so lacking in backbone that they look at women for direction spiritually.

5. "Once there, the wife has him where she wants him and she can start to lead or manipulate him in other ways as well."

Translation: Simply through "nagging", men are now dominated by their wives. Men let their wives lead and manipulate them.

6. "It is a power tool meant to shame men into submission."

Laura's point: Men can be shamed into submission. Interesting.

Wow, men sound so weak, powerless and simple-minded in your post.

Anonymous said...

I thank God for good Christian men who value women and the work women have been doing in today's Christian churches.

Of course, men are as capable as women of spirituality. But they are not indicating as much maybe because men have been conditioned to keep their feelings to themselves. As one writer put it, when men need to be spiritual they go out and work in their garage.

Pastors across this country and elsewhere in the world are painfully aware of the fact that they are not attracting men in numbers equal to women. They do not know why exactly. They do not know exactly what to do about it either. Some prominent pastors (Mark Driscoll for one) think that they need to "repackage" Jesus, as if our Lord and Savior were a commodity, and get rid of that "gentle Jesus" that the gospels so eloquently portray, the Jesus that encourages us to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us. They think it may be time to present a "macho" Jesus, one that real men who don't eat quiche can identify with.

In an interview recently Pastor Driscoll said "In Revelation, Jesus is a prize fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up."

Not all pastors are on board with this repackaging Jesus business.

I know women would be tickled "pink" to have men join them in service to the spiritual community (body) of believers known as the bride of Christ.

Keoni Galt said...

Wow, men sound so weak, powerless and simple-minded in your post.

Good lord Anon, Laura is simply generalizing about the kind of man that IS nagged into going to church.

Church's everywhere have boatloads of this kind of men. I know, cuz I used to go to one.

She's not saying ALL men.

Joseph Dantes said...

You are a wise woman.

As for advice to women whose men don't want to go to church:

Use the seductive mystery of religion. Let him realize on his own, unprompted, that taking religious leadership is a way to exercise authority over her.

See the movie "Last Man Standing" to see what I mean about this mystique. The Spanish Catholic belle. A man can be quite powerfully attracted by it.

Kristen said...

It's not the men who sound bad in this post. The whole post says over and over that all women want is to control men. That having a man under her thumb is to have him "right where she wants him."

Bah. So much for "full of grace." Not seeing much grace here for women as a group. They're to blame for everything, it seems.

BTW, did you know that women have nearly always been the majority church-goers? If you read some church history, you'll see that this issue has been around since the beginning of the church and has nothing to do with modern feminism. I'm not saying this means women are more spiritual-- I think it's more likely that Christianity has always been most attractive to those on the lower rungs of social hierarchy. This is why the Roman authorities in the first century called it "the religion of women and slaves."

Christ opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. Those who are lowly find it easier to let go of pride. But with Him all things are possible.

Justin said...

Great analysis, Laura. This should be required reading in Christian Gender Roles 101.

I call this the problem of Churchianity, a superficial appearance-based form of Christianity, found especially in megachurches across the land.

Your post also points to the importance of spiritual compatibility BEFORE marriage.

Anonymous said...

Christ was neither "macho" nor a "wimp". He was a complete man. A man can be firm as well as kind. It is a false dichotomy to think that Christ has to be either "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" or "a tough guy". It is also a recipe for endless and fruitless debate. Christ did what was right. Sometimes people liked it, sometimes they didn't. That remains true today.

David Collard

Anonymous said...

It is not necessary for a person to attend a formal church service regularly to be included in the body of Christ. The body of Christ represents all who believe in him. I believe in Jesus, but I do not wish to attend church every week. Instead, I have regular contact with a fellow believer in another state, and we talk about spiritual things and the Bible. This is often much more uplifting to both of us than attending a church service. I prefer smaller assemblies of believers, such as the small-group fellowships on my college campus, over large churches. I've gone to a lot of Bible studies in a friend's home, too, and I liked that a lot more than church. A church building is not necessary for salvation, and it is not necessary for the assembly of believers. Indeed, there are countless Christians all over the world who cannot attend church due to government oppression, and they are no less Christian because of it.

Anonymous said...

How does one measure how "spiritual" a person is? What is it to be "spiritual?" Is it to think of spirits? Is it to be a spirit? No one on earth is a pure spirit, because we are flesh and blood.

Is the amount of times a person prays important? Is there a magic number? If a person prays a certain number of times, does that automatically kick him up into a higher righteousness bracket? How could it make sense to say that women pray more than men? Which women, and which men, and in what group and location? How could anyone know how much anyone prays? Jesus instructed us to pray in private.

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men..."

"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen."

Think of it this way: if you were having a romantic conversation with your partner, you wouldn't want anyone else to hear it. The conversation is between two people only, and is not to be conducted in public. A conversation with God is even more important and more personal than a conversation with another human, and should be treated with the utmost respect.

Anonymous said...

Do all of the books that western women read do them any good? Remember when Dr. Laura published a book called "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands," and it revolutionized the way some western women treated their husbands? After reading that book, they found out that they were supposed to be calm and friendly when their husbands got home from work, and cook healthy foods. It was a revelation. Everyone who is married to a Japanese woman just shrugged though, because their wives had already been doing this for years.

It is not necessary to read many religious books besides the Bible in order to be a true Christian. In fact, the reason why many people may not need all of those books is because they are already living out the moral lifestyle that the books exemplify.

Novaseeker said...

It isn't in *all* churches, actually.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church (I am EO), we have no real problem attracting men to our liturgies. Most of our converts (and we have a steady stream) are men, and the women are generally (with some exceptions) coming along as girlfriends or wives of men who are drawn to Orthodoxy.

I think there are quite a few reasons for this, many of them having to do with Orthodox distinctives (the article linked below may be of interest in that regard). From my own perspective, it's mainly that the Orthodox Church is not ashamed of having overtly masculine elements be prominent in its worship and spiritual life, co-existing with what could be considered more feminine elements. In any case, our approach has a definite appeal to the masculine that many contemporary churches seemingly do not.

I would say that the "Traditional Latin Mass" communities in the Catholic world are in some ways similar, but also in some ways different.

Anyway, here is the link: http://www.frederica.com/writings/men-and-church.html

Anonymous said...

I don't agree that women are "all about relationships" or care more about relationships than men do.

From Wikipedia: American women initiate 70% or more of all divorces.


According to a study published in the American Law and Economics Review, women currently file slightly more than two-thirds of divorce cases in the United States.[49] There is some variation among states, and the numbers have also varied over time, with about 60% of filings by women in most of the 19th century, and over 70% by women in some states just after no-fault divorce was introduced, according to the paper. Evidence is given that among college-educated couples, the percentages of divorces initiated by women is approximately 90%.

Professor Hale said...

A few thoughts:

1. "spiritual" can mean a lot of things. It is generally used to denote someone who wants full credit for holiness but without doing any of the work for it. Such a person doesn't understand the basic teaching of any religion and what he/she does know is often wrong. I have seen it used most often to describe a person who has no specific religious practices but easily embraces fad du jure. Such a person most closely resembles a Pagan, but lacks the education to know what that means.

2. I have seen instances of women claiming leadership because they husband would not. But in reality, they simply did not like where thier husband was leading or did not agree with his leadership.

3. I don't attend any church because I have come to the conclusion that church attendence is incompatible with keeping the Sabbath. The modern church is not what is was intended to be, but are shells still emulating the practices of fuedal Europe.

Scott said...

Spot on Laura! If I might add, men get very tired of going to church on Mother's Day and hearing how terrible men are. They get tired of going to church on Father's Day and hearing how terrible men are. I get tired of seeing the videos of the men who are "addicted to porn" being shamed before the church while the women sit there with their fake boobs hanging out of their clothes. Amazing! As for the men who are "addicted to porn", could there possibly be another reason why? It couldn't be that their perfect little Christian wives aren't using sex as a tool, could it? And could it be that those same wives are now using the church to control him sexually? I realize that both of these are sins but churches only make issue of one.

As for the repackaging of Jesus, I believe the "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" routine has been taken a little too seriously and too far. Keep in mind feminist, Christian women, Jesus Christ is probably the most politically incorrect person to ever walk the face of the earth. As a man, this is how I look at Jesus. He knew evil and had no problem facing it down. He was not the go along to get along type. He knew nothing of social pressure. That is the man I aspire to be.

Persuaded said...

Laura... I think you might be over-generalizing both men and women, and doing both groups a disservice in the process. I'm curious.. do you think women are better than men at anything? (other than breastfeeding and childbirth, obviously;-}) Do you think that we women have anything good and beneficial to add to life and faith? (other than supporting men, that is.)

Persuaded said...

and David Collard... I really loved what you wrote.♥

Anonymous said...

Like the poor and the enslaved, women have been attracted to Christianity through the years because it is a liberating religion in which all believers are equals before God regardless of race, gender, or social status.

Church is a natural habitat for women. Church with its larger community is an extension of the home where the family constitutes a smaller community but one nonetheless.

In today's churches you will find young, unmarried women in attendance. But rarely do you find young, unmarried men in attendance.

One male author who has written about the problem of low church attendance by men, says that many men mistakenly have made masculinity their religion. Is it possible that too much emphasis is being placed on masculinity today?

Anonymous said...

Christ was neither "macho" nor a "wimp". He was a complete man. A man can be firm as well as kind. It is a false dichotomy to think that Christ has to be either "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" or "a tough guy". It is also a recipe for endless and fruitless debate. Christ did what was right. Sometimes people liked it, sometimes they didn't. That remains true today.

David Collard

September 30, 2010 11:59 PM

Gee David, I guess that means I cannot be Christlike because Jesus came as male in the flesh. Who is MY model for Christlikeness then?

This is the problem with the focus on gender and non biological roles among believers.

The precious spiritual things given to us transcend gender. There is no pink or blue way to salvation. But some are certainly trying to get us to believe there is!

Lydia

Anonymous said...

The guy who drove the money changers out of the temple is a guy I can relate to. They don't seem to talk about that one much though.

Anonymous said...

I must say, that as a woman I have never seen any man in the Books-A-Million standing there pouring over *how to* books about how to make a marriage better. Women are the targeted audience/scapegoat for marriage woes. Even if a woman thinks she has a good marriage, she will always feel (in the back of her mind) that there could be something that she could do to make it even better.

Women have not taken anything (spiritually) away from men. They can have just as much, or just as little of God as they desire to have.

Kristen rightly states that Christianity has had a special attraction for women, slaves and those that are considered to be the ones with the least cultural power. Christianity elevated the Gentile, Slave, Female alongside, the Jew, Freeman and Male. We have moved from the Jew/Gentile division and accept that God desires them to be one new man. We have rejected slavery as not God's plan for humanity (God made man, man made slaves. God had nothing to do with slavery.) The toughest hurdle has always been and will always be the male/female divide.

Terri Tippins

Anonymous said...

>From Wikipedia: American women initiate 70% or more of all divorces.

Most certainly, that is because they are unhappy with the way they are being treated, and they are seeking a good relationship.

Anonymous said...

There is enough spirituality for everyone. There is enough prayer for everyone.There are enough churches for everyone, and enough room in those churches.

What point are you trying to make, exactly? If men want more spirituality, they are free to seek it out.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I get fed up with seeing all the fat people at church. I follow the passage that says the body is the temple of God, and I take care of myself like I would God's temple. I limit the amount of unhealthy foods that I eat, and exercise daily.

I'm also tired of seeing all the women with their hair chopped short like boys. I can't count the number of women in church who stopped exercising and started eating junk foods after marriage, and who are now fat and have short hair. Yuuuuuuuck! Even most of the younger girls have their hair bobbed short. There must be a glass panel in the wall that says "break glass in case of long hair" and they can break the glass and grab the emergency clippers and chop that hair off right away before it can start to get long and feminine.

That may not be a deal-breaking reason to go to church or not go to church, but it is quite discouraging to know that it is astronomically unlikely that I will ever meet a girl in a church in the western hemisphere who is wife material. I also have been to 14 churches along the northeastern coast of the U.S. and Ontario. In most of these churches, the young men outnumber the young women significantly. It is usually at least 5:1. Ontario was the only place where I went to a church where the young women outnumbered the young men. And, all of the good, feminine women I've met in church were already married or engaged. The ones with long hair and who take care of their bodies get snatched up like winning lottery tickets and are married before I can even get a chance to say hi. If I ever decide to start a family, I will use some of my leave to go to China, Philippines, Japan, or Vietnam to find someone who is actually slender and womanly.

Another thing I'm fed up with is bossy women in church. It's usually the older ones with short hair who talk constantly with unnecessarily high volume and come off as domineering and mannish. So unfeminine. I do not even want to be around them. At times, a fat woman has come barreling down the hallway and bumped into me, not even saying "excuse me." Gross.

Anonymous said...

>>Anonymous said...

>> >From Wikipedia: American women initiate 70% or more of all divorces.

>> Most certainly, that is because they are unhappy with the way they are being treated, and they are seeking a good relationship.


Good try, Ms. feminist, but no cigar. This is the standard feminist lie. Men are such jerks that women can't stand to be married to them.

This is extremely self-serving and false.

I supplied no-fee counseling to more than 1,600 men and a few non-custodial women in the mid 80s and early 90's. I do not claim all men are saints, but except for a small percentage of men who are ornery people, most divorce filed by women came shortly after she met the other man and did not involve any special misconduct by the man at all. She was not h-h-h-happy so it must be a different husband will make her happy.

There is a stage in marriage where women get bored. There are gamesters who can spot these women across a large office building, and turn on the charm, telling them how wonderful they are and how if he were her husband, he'd treat her better than that. These women, just as Eve was tempted by the serpent, fall for this pack of lies, and suddenly cannot tolerate their husbands, and divorce them. Then, they find real pain.

In the late 90's, a significant study noted women who said their marriages were very unhappy, and checked back a few years later. Those unhappy wives who divorced were still unhappy. Those who stayed married now reported they were very happy in their marriages, though it was still the same 'disgusting' husband.

I worked until retirement in a large factory which had a lot of divorce. Most of the women there could not think of one good thing to say, ever, about any man. The problem wasn't how bad the men were. The problem is called misandry, and it was socially normal to bash anything male.

Anonymous age 68

Laura Grace Robins said...

"BTW, did you know that women have nearly always been the majority church-goers?"

Please provide references. I am skeptical, but interested. Usually what I hear from feminists is how the church has oppressed women for so many years, so I find it peculiar that women would then be the majority of church-goers.

______________


"Indeed, there are countless Christians all over the world who cannot attend church due to government oppression, and they are no less Christian because of it."

This is a good point, thanks.

____________

Thanks for the link, Nova. I will explore EOC in our area.

___________

"I don't attend any church because I have come to the conclusion that church attendence is incompatible with keeping the Sabbath."

Interesting point. I think Orthodox Jews have one of the better understandings of the Sabbath.

______________

Scott,
You are spot on too! I can't tell you how many young women I have seen sporting their mini skirts, and bra straps showing in church. It has been very distracting.

"He was not the go along to get along type" I think that explains me as well. I also echo the thoughts of David Collard.

Laura Grace Robins said...

"I'm curious.. do you think women are better than men at anything? (other than breastfeeding and childbirth, obviously;-})

I think each sex is best at their own sphere. You could say women are better than men with homemaking, but that does not make them a better person per se. Same thing for men. Outside of each sex's sphere, its all fair game. Both men and women will excel at different things. I kind of feel uneasy using the word "better" and now have that song.."Anything You Can Do, I Can do Better" stuck in my head! When we start pinning the sexes against each other with who is better at what, that leads to how this whole battle of the sexes got started. There was not a battle when women stuck to their sphere and excelled and men stuck to their. The weren't competing against each other, but amongst those in their own group. I don't think I proclaim that men are better than women. Men are better or best sticking to their sphere, just like women are. But again, that does make one a better person. I guess there is a a moral type being better and a practical type (as in a skill). If that makes any sense....

Do you think that we women have anything good and beneficial to add to life and faith? (other than supporting men, that is."

I think supporting men and being a help meet is the good and beneficial that women add. Being a help meet is like the umbrella and under such falls all the other good things women can offer. The trick being that she stays outward focused. Being a help meet, focusing on men, I think it keeps her from becoming self-absorbed. Men do the same thing, they focus on providing for their wife and family (out of love), they are not focusing on themselves.

Women add a lot through church and life in general. Please, don't get me wrong.


____________

"Christ was neither "macho" nor a "wimp". He was a complete man. A man can be firm as well as kind. It is a false dichotomy to think that Christ has to be either "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" or "a tough guy". It is also a recipe for endless and fruitless debate. Christ did what was right. Sometimes people liked it, sometimes they didn't. That remains true today."

David Collard

September 30, 2010 11:59 PM

"Gee David, I guess that means I cannot be Christlike because Jesus came as male in the flesh. Who is MY model for Christlikeness then?

This is the problem with the focus on gender and non biological roles among believers."

I think David just used the word "man" as an example. I don't see any problem with swapping in woman or human. It still works.
________________

"The guy who drove the money changers out of the temple is a guy I can relate to. They don't seem to talk about that one much though."

True enough. That's cause the "sunshine and lollipops" version of Christianity doesn't like troublemakers or what appear to be not 'nice' people. If you rock the boat at all in church, re challenging policy or their theology...you get shunned.

_____________________

"Most certainly, that is because they are unhappy with the way they are being treated, and they are seeking a good relationship."

So, why did that many women get married in the first place? Did they not know what they were getting into? Are women just blindly lured into bad relationships? Surely not all men change after marriage, while the women stay the same.

Anonymous said...

Over the years, I have learned one can tell what is happening in the marriage, if the woman is in church and the man is not. It is a sure sign the woman is living in rebellion against the man.

Anonymous age 68

Laura Grace Robins said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Laura Grace Robins said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Laura Grace Robins said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

It's a false dilemma that men are "better than" women or women are better than men. Both have their spheres. I'm not a feminist, so I'm not into the whole men-vs-women thing.

AnonyMouse said...

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa weighs in on why women are more religious:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201009/why-are-women-more-religious-men-i

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201009/why-are-women-more-religious-men-ii

"If men are more risk-seeking than women, and if religion is an evolutionary means to minimize risk, then it naturally follows that women are more religious than men."

Persuaded said...

Laura, you wrote: "Women add a lot through church and life in general. Please, don't get me wrong."

I'm glad to hear that you feel that way and I'm sure you never meant to give any other impression:-} Often, when one is trying to advocate a certain viewpoint, we can be so strident that our true thoughts can be distorted by our enthusiasm. An unsympathetic reader of this piece might get the impression that you feel women have nothing of value to add and are only motivated by a desire to overshadow and control the male of the species. I suspected your true thoughts were more balanced;-}

A very thought provoking piece, as always Laura~☺~

Anonymous said...

Do all of the books that western women read do them any good? Remember when Dr. Laura published a book called "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands," and it revolutionized the way some western women treated their husbands? After reading that book, they found out that they were supposed to be calm and friendly when their husbands got home from work, and cook healthy foods. It was a revelation. Everyone who is married to a Japanese woman just shrugged though, because their wives had already been doing this for years.

Cooking healthy food = being a good Christian?

Congratulations! Craziest post yet!

Read a bit about Dr. Schlessinger. Proven liar with a crazy son, hypocrite, racist. If you believe only half of what is shown about her, you'll run from her screaming.

I like a man to be "calm and friendly", too. I am calm and friendly to those whom I want to be--there's no obligation about it, no faking, no lies.

jfr said...

Anon@Oct.1 4:08,

Here is a link to a YouTube clip featuring a Christian woman that matches your description to a T:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2STDH14aJVk

Anonymous said...

What has happened in your life to cause you to hate yourself and other women?
Your posts over and over state how women nag, are hateful, full of sin etc.. do you ever have a day that you see the beauty of being female?
I understand you have a strong faith and you think you know.
But, no one knows another persons heart.
You may consider some therapy. From a professional mental health person.
The self hate and the hate of women in general is not normal nor healthy.

Laura Grace Robins said...

"But, no one knows another persons heart."

How do you proclaim to know mine then...?

Laura Grace Robins said...

"Often, when one is trying to advocate a certain viewpoint, we can be so strident that our true thoughts can be distorted by our enthusiasm."

True enough. If I was to be fair in all of my posts, they would be novels. I zero in on one single aspects. I assume that most people know that just cause I say something critical about women, I am not dismissing the entire sex. It is hating the sin, but not the sinner. But as usual, our culture doesn't understand that concept and if you say anything negative about anybody, that must mean you hate the whole person.

Kristen said...

"Over the years, I have learned one can tell what is happening in the marriage, if the woman is in church and the man is not. It is a sure sign the woman is living in rebellion against the man."

So if he turns away from God, she's supposed to follow him rather than Christ? 1 Peter 3 says a woman married to an unbeliever is supposed to continue her Christian behavior. I would say that includes going to church.

Women are not to blame for everything. How can they be to blame for their husband's decision not to go to church? If she's submitting to his decisions, surely his bad decisions are his own fault, not hers. But she must follow Christ before him.

Does the Proverbs 31 woman ask her husband's permission for every move she makes? Manifestly, no. She is someone whom her husband can trust to make her own good decisions about how to spend money she herself has made. Her husband is not her god.

Making your husband a god instead of Christ, is not what "submission" means.

Anonymous said...

Actually, cooking is an important part of Godliness for a woman (Proverbs 31:14).

Let's look at two hypothetical women. One is an American woman who goes to church every week and sings in the choir. The other is a young woman in China who has never heard the gospel.

The Chinese woman is slender, has long hair, keeps a pleasant physical appearance (1 Corinthians 6:19), cooks and sews (Proverbs 31:13), is humble (Matthew 5:5), is submissive (Ephesians 5) and is a virgin, which is the will of God (1 Thessalonians 4:3-4).

The first woman, the American, is overweight, can't/won't cook or sew, is not a virgin, and is not meek or mild. This is the type of woman I encounter is churches. Even in churches, most women in my generation aren't virgins, yet they are singing songs about following in Jesus' footsteps and living a life for God.

The reality is that the Chinese woman who has never heard the gospel is closer to God than the American woman singing hymns in church every Sunday.

Anonymous said...

>Making your husband a god instead of Christ, is not what "submission" means.


Yes, and "submit" is not the same as "respect and revere" (as Laura says we should do in her post).

You can submit without respecting your husband, and the Bible certainly does not tell us to revere him! We are to revere the Lord.

Submitting does not mean "think everything he does is perfect."

As for the poster who is so focused on long hair on women--maybe the women are not trying to please you. Maybe they are trying to do what is comfortable and convenient for themselves. If you are having trouble meeting women, maybe you should look to your own appearance. And if you are selecting a wife based on length of hair, maybe that is why women do not seek you out. Most women want to be valued for their inside as well as their outside.

Anonymous said...

>most divorce filed by women came shortly after she met the other man and did not involve any special misconduct by the man at all. She was not h-h-h-happy so it must be a different husband will make her happy.

Exactly. Thank you for proving my point. Women file for divorce, or have affairs, when they are being treated badly and become unhappy.

Sometimes a different husband makes a world of difference! During the first marriage, the woman finds out what she doesn't want in a husband, and she seeks out something better the second time around.

Thank goodness, divorce is readily available to all women in this country. That is one real blessing!

Though it's not necessarily good new for those of you who want to see women trapped in unhappy marriages; or who want the right to treat women poorly and let them have no recourse.

The truth is, any unhappily married woman in this country can leave her marriage. And can also vote for those leaders (men and women) who make divorce easy and quick.

Anonymous said...

>The first woman, the American, is overweight, can't/won't cook or sew, is not a virgin, and is not meek or mild. This is the type of woman I encounter is churches. Even in churches, most women in my generation aren't virgins, yet they are singing songs about following in Jesus' footsteps and living a life for God.

>The reality is that the Chinese woman who has never heard the gospel is closer to God than the American woman singing hymns in church every Sunday.

By "closer to God", I think you mean, "more pleasing to me." Or maybe you mean, "That's the kind of chick I like". But more pleasing to you does not mean more pleasing to God. You are not God, you are just some guy who gets turned on by a certain kind of women. It's always better not to confuse yourself with God.Maybe that's part of your problem meeting women.

And with regard to appearance, take care of your own appearance and you will have less difficulty.

Anonymous said...

"True enough. If I was to be fair in all of my posts, they would be novels. I zero in on one single aspects. I assume that most people know that just cause I say something critical about women, I am not dismissing the entire sex. It is hating the sin, but not the sinner. But as usual, our culture doesn't understand that concept and if you say anything negative about anybody, that must mean you hate the whole person."

Laura, you use the term "women." By that, I understaood you to mean "women." If you mean "some women", then say so. That is more about your poor writing than anything else. Don't blame others for your poor writing.

Anonymous said...

Jesus said that he had not come to call the rightous, but the sinners.

Regardless of how much cooking or sewing the little China woman does, regardless of her lean body and long hair, she is a sinner in one way or another just like us all. Man or woman, we all fall short of the glory of God. Only one is good and perfect. That one is God. There is forgiveness for the rest of us through Jesus our savior. Had you not heard the good news?

As you can see now, Church is for sinners.

Kristen said...

". . . but it is quite discouraging to know that it is astronomically unlikely that I will ever meet a girl in a church in the western hemisphere who is wife material."

I would not encourage any woman to marry a man who was looking at her in terms of whether or not she was "wife material" rather than seeing a human being for whom Christ died.

Perhaps if you would stop looking at women in such a self-serving way, you might see that such an attitude hardly makes you good "husband material."

The Christian ideal is not to be looking at what others are supposed to be doing for you, but to examine what the scriptures say you are to be doing for them. You want a wife to submit and meekly serve you. Paul said your attitude was supposed to be that of Christ when he "gave himself." He did not seek to be served but to serve.

Kristen said...

"The Chinese woman is slender, has long hair, keeps a pleasant physical appearance (1 Corinthians 6:19), cooks and sews (Proverbs 31:13), is humble (Matthew 5:5), is submissive (Ephesians 5) and is a virgin, which is the will of God (1 Thessalonians 4:3-4)."

So being right with God for women is all about physical appearance, cooking and sewing, submissiveness and virginity. Actually trusting Jesus Christ and His blood for your salvation isn't nearly as important. In fact, we can forego it if we just do all the right things.

Wow.

Anonymous said...

Yes, everyone is human, and is a sinner. What does that have to do with anything? That's just another one of the feminists' fallbacks for when they encounter something like scripture, which they can't argue with. Well we're all human, so lah de dah, let's forget about everything and go eat ice cream. I guess no one bothered to look up the Bible verses I cited. I think the Bible is just a roadblock to most American women. The darn thing actually gives rules, like staying in shape and remaining pure until marriage. But let's just forget about rules because we're all sinners anyway. It's easy to go to the church social club and sing hymns, but it's an entirely different thing to actually read the Bible for what it is, understand it with logic instead of subjective emotions, and follow the guidelines it sets out. And yes, no one is perfect, but we're not expected to be perfect. We're expected to live Godly lifestyles according to those guidelines. I haven't met many women in church who do that.

My requirements for a mate are not mine; they come from God. Hence the scripture I cited. Western culture has become so worldly that even women in churches do not meet the standards laid out in Proverbs.

This ties in with the original discussion, which was why women in America appear to be more active in churches than men. One reason why men do not appear to be involved in churches as much as women in America or Canada is because there are few potential mates there. Churches here are filled with bossy women who have no intention of being quality wives. And I'm expected to donate money to such places, to keep them up and running? For a woman to be a woman and go to a social club church is not enough to meet my standards, and it's not enough to meet God's standards, either.

I know it's futile to argue with feminist women in this country. My target audience is men who may be reading this. Read 1 Corinthians 7, then get plugged in to MGTOW, and start exploring options in other countries. There are a lot of real Christian women outside the USA who are actually feminine and virginal.

Laura Grace Robins said...

By "wife material" I picture the Proverbs 31 woman. I don't see why seeking such qualities should be discouraged. Those qualities are human.

"He did not seek to be served but to serve."

Exactly, so why do you think so many traditional women want to selflessly serve their husband. They are not seeking to be served but to serve as a way of modeling Christ. Men do the same thing. They selflessly serve their wife and family everyday by working hard and providing a home and love.

Scott said...

Laura, You have really touched a nerve here I think. Keep up the good work and don't let these women who disagree deter you. The cat is coming out of the bag on feminism and the American woman. They will fight to the death to keep the irresponsible and unaccountable privilage they have attained for their vote. Men are forced by our churches and society to look at themselves in the mirror everyday. Some comments here are proof of who women think they are when you so much as ask them to do the same.

As for the divorce debate, I tell my wife all the time that if divorce was as easy for a man as it is for a woman most wives would be completely different people in their marriages. Women love the privilage of being able to hold this over their husband (and children) yet they scream for equality. Ladies, I will give you equality but you just don't really care for it, do you? I think you just want privilage, irresponsibility and unaccountability. You know your nation is in deep doo-doo when society holds 15 yr old boys more accountable than 40 yr old women. Isn't it funny the places women fight for equality and the places they do not?

Racer X said...

Men and women approach religion and spirituality differently, as they do relationships. Islam's mosques are filled with men; most Christian churches today are filled with women. Protestant churches tend to have more men in them than Catholic churches, because the Protestant churches feel on the surface to be more masculine, even though they really aren't.

As a man I can attest to one's need for religion and spirituality.

Cat Lady said...

"One reason why men do not appear to be involved in churches as much as women in America or Canada is because there are few potential mates there. "

Wow, as a former Christian, I never knew church was meant to be a dating or hook-up venue! Always thought it was a place for: worship, quiet meditation, or simply a ritual to confirm your beliefs - all fine and good, I just never had any interest in organized religion.

Now, if I knew it was where eligible singles were to be found, maybe I would have stuck with it!

You go dude, you'll find a bride-for-purchase in one of those third world foreign countries, for sure. Just remember, you'll have lots of fellow Americans competing for the young "virginal" (ha ha!) babes (prostitutes/bar girls/con artists) so save your bucks!

Kristen said...

"Exactly, so why do you think so many traditional women want to selflessly serve their husband. They are not seeking to be served but to serve as a way of modeling Christ. Men do the same thing. They selflessly serve their wife and family everyday by working hard and providing a home and love."

Laura, I commend you for looking at the scriptures and applying them to yourself. I do not see Mr. Annonymous who is looking for "wife material" doing the same. That's all I was saying.

None of you know my life, my 22+ years of happy marriage where I have selflessly served my husband as he has selflessly served me. You are quick to judge and jump to conclusions about someone you've never met, just because she disagrees with you about the way you interpret Scripture.

Yes, let's look at the Proverbs 31 woman. The word used to describe her (often translated "virtuous") means "valiant" or "courageous" in the original Hebrew. Here is a woman who commands servants in her household, who earns her own money, considers a field and buys it (apparently without her husband supervising or giving permission, or even feeling a need to supervise or give permission, because he "trusts in her") with her own money, and plants a vineyard. She is not bound to the house, for she goes out to "bring her food from afar." She gives to the poor and needy without needing her husband to tell her what to do. She clothes herself with silk and purple, apparently feeling no need for complete self-denial, but considering herself worth enjoying the good things she has worked for. She runs her own business among the merchants. She opens her mouth in wisdom, and in her tongue is the law of kindness-- she apparently does not feel it encumbant on herself to be silent. Interestingly, though she rises early to give meat to her household and a portion to her maidens, the passage does not actually say she's the one who does the cooking. I expect her servants do that, for this is a description of a ruling-class household.

Today's Christian woman should look at the industry of this woman, yes, but also at her independence and autonomy, and how her husband trusts her and does not rule her. Today's Christian woman should look at how this woman also cares for herself and does good things for herself without shame, and that her husband and children want to "give her the fruit of her own hands" and do not expect her to give, give, give with nothing in return.

Today's Christian woman should also be aware that the description is of an upper-class woman with servants, and that as middle-class or lower-class women we should not beat ourselves over the heads at not being able to accomplish all this woman does.

Most of all, today's Christian woman should recognize the governing power of verse 30 over the rest of the passage-- that what makes the Proverbs 31 woman strong is that she fears the Lord, not that she conforms to some externally imposed law of what she's supposed to be, do and look like.

Let's let Proverbs 31 tell us what it was designed to tell us-- that women are strong, can make decisions for themselves and have their own lives and autonomy, can be trusted to function as full adults, and are not meant to be sucked dry by constant demands that they give to others with nothing in return. Let us understand this woman's strong relationship with God and not hold her to empty law. Most of all, let's stop bashing women as a group, look at them as human beings, praise them for their accomplishments and stop blaming them for all the world's woes.

Kristen said...

One more thing about the Proverbs 31 woman-- have you noticed that nothing is mentioned whatsoever about her physical beauty, whether she is thin, whether she has long hair, or anything like that? Presumably in that culture she would have had long hair, but the Proverb really has no interest in such matters. In fact, the only thing it says about physical beauty is that it is "vain" or useless. So why all this focus on outward appearance? Is there not a bit of self-serving in "I want a thin, beautiful, long-haired wife"?

Anonymous said...

"You go dude, you'll find a bride-for-purchase in one of those third world foreign countries, for sure. Just remember, you'll have lots of fellow Americans competing for the young "virginal" (ha ha!) babes (prostitutes/bar girls/con artists) so save your bucks!"

And remember that those mail-order third world brides are really only marrying your wallet. If you didn't have money and U.S. citizenship, they wouldn't look at you at all. If they had money of their own, they'd stay in their country of origin and never give you a second look. It is poverty, oppression, war and suffering that makes these young women look abroad for a "wallet" to marry. Enjoy!

Anonymous said...

" I think the Bible is just a roadblock to most American women. The darn thing actually gives rules, like staying in shape and remaining pure until marriage."

Really? Where does the Bible speak of women staying in shape? Actually, in Christ's time, being overweight was a sign of wealth, and was considered more desirable than the starvation-thinness that was common to many.

Does the Bible say only women should work out? Does it tell me to hit the gym, too? Does it say which gym?

Anonymous said...

"Is there not a bit of self-serving in "I want a thin, beautiful, long-haired wife"?"

I think it's OK to want that. It's ridiculous, though, to say it is mandated in Scripture. It's silly to say that women the poster finds attractive are closer to God than those that are fat and dumpty. Those fat and dumpty women may be out serving their community in many ways, but that doesn't matter to the poster. If they don't turn him on, they are not Godly.

Honestly, that post sounds ike it was written by a 15-year old boy. Most adults learn to value people from their actions and from within.

I'm still waiting for the cite to the passage that refers to long hair or slenderness. It may be the first time that poster has cracked a Bible in a while.

Paula said...

"So why all this focus on outward appearance? Is there not a bit of self-serving in "I want a thin, beautiful, long-haired wife"?"

You said it. It's obsession with the flesh, and the world's chain of command as the ideal order. But Jesus said "not so among you" and "the first shall be last". Paul said that God shames the strong by the weak and that love does not demand its own way.

There are too many control freaks already; let's live in the freedom Jesus bought for us all and live by the Golden Rule.

Anonymous said...

Ah, there it is, the last resort of feminists. All Asian women are bargirls and prostitutes who are only out for money, and can be ordered through a Sears catalog. Didn't I just read something about Dr. Laura being a racist? I guess feminists can't be racists. Let me just ask you: did they teach this in the third year of Womens' Studies in college, or the fourth? This should tell the men reading the blog all they need to know about American women.

Nope, I never said that being right with God only includes taking care of one's body. That is part of it though, according to the Bible.

"Where does the Bible speak of women staying in shape?"

Not just women, but men as well. 1 Corinthians 6:19.

"Actually, in Christ's time, being overweight was a sign of wealth, and was considered more desirable than the starvation-thinness that was common to many."

Actually, being overweight was associated with ungodliness. See Luke 16:19-31.

"I'm still waiting for the cite to the passage that refers to long hair or slenderness."

A slender person is a healthy person, provided the person does not have a disease or cancer. Generally, overweight people tend to be less healthy. This is common knowledge. Again, refer to 1 Corinthians 6:19.

"Does the Bible say only women should work out? Does it tell me to hit the gym, too? Does it say which gym?"

Did I say that it did? I wouldn't be lauding a woman who keeps in shape if I didn't do it myself.

"You said it. It's obsession with the flesh, and the world's chain of command as the ideal order. "

Nope. I'm not obsessed with physical appearance. However, when most churchgoing women in the USA treat their bodies like trash, it indicates that there is a problem with western culture and values.

Good health and attractiveness is necessary to begin a relationship with anyone. True love does not involve physical beauty, but there must be some attractiveness to get a relationship going. Really, no one would marry or fall in love with someone who they were not attracted to. It works the same way in the animal kingdom. It's a law of nature. Also, the Bible says that the body is the temple of God, and we are to take care of it.

"Wow, as a former Christian, I never knew church was meant to be a dating or hook-up venue!"

I never said it was. That is just one of many reasons as to why men in America do not attend corrupted churches in record-breaking droves as much as women do. And what's a "former Christian," anyway, someone who defies God? If you are more wise than God, please clue us in.

You'll notice that everything I say is backed up by the Bible.

Paula said...

""Where does the Bible speak of women staying in shape?"

Not just women, but men as well. 1 Corinthians 6:19."

Oh please... please tell me you aren't doing this level of proof-texting on other things too. Say it ain't so.

"I'm not obsessed with physical appearance. However, when most churchgoing women in the USA treat their bodies like trash, it indicates that there is a problem with western culture and values."

Make up your mind.

"You'll notice that everything I say is backed up by the Bible."

That's not what I noticed at all. But I did notice you IGNORE large portions of it, especially foundational principles like "not so among you".

For those who read and may be on the fence about this, just know that the egalitarian position is never fairly or accurately portrayed by the anti-egal position. If anyone wants to honestly discuss what egals actually believe and why, feel free to use the contact page on my blog and we'll talk. I've also got a small, free, online book called Nicolaitan about these issues too, though at the moment my site is down due to hardware issues at the host.

Paula said...

Site's back up, here's the book link:

Nicolaitan

Cat Lady said...

'Ah, there it is, the last resort of feminists. All Asian women are bargirls and prostitutes who are only out for money, and can be ordered through a Sears catalog. Didn't I just read something about Dr. Laura being a racist? I guess feminists can't be racists. Let me just ask you: did they teach this in the third year of Womens' Studies in college, or the fourth? This should tell the men reading the blog all they need to know about American women.'

I've never taken a single "Women's Studies" course in my entire life; nor am I a card-carrying feminist.
I did not specify Asian women, but typical that you mentioned it. I've heard from Asian women themselves that they are resentful of a certain type of American man that sees them as docile geisha girls, rather than individuals.

Don't you think they'd prefer, on the whole, to date and marry their fellow countrymen, being as they share the same language, customs and background?
The ones dying to marry foreign men tend to be poor and desperate and yes, you'll find many women from the "entertainment" field eager to hook-up with
Mr. Deep Pockets American Man. It's a living!

jfr said...

Bible quote. Bible quote. Bible quote. I must say I am learning my bible from reading this blog:)

Anyway,It's always the topic of submission that riles the most. Jeez...people completely over react to the word. The egaltarian sees it as something difficult to live within, while another finds the complete opposite. Fundamentally, I believe the former sees a relationship whole as two symmetrical halves, while the ladder as two sides of a coin, polar- opposite, yin yang, etc.

Anonymous said...

Iran, Iraq and Pakistan are in Asia. It surprises me that these Christian gentlemen would be in such a rush to have Muslim brides. Most certainly, these brides would want to continue to practice their religions--wouldn't that create a conflict? Do you think you can just tell someone to stop being Muslim?

Turkey, India and Armenia are in Asia. Plenty of Muslims here, too.

The Chinese women I know are staunch feminists. They are hard-studying go-getters planning for careers in competitive fields. Perhaps your readers don't know this, but since Mao, Chinese women have been treated equally with Chinese and they participate in all professions equally--even the hard, dirty ones. If you are looking for a submissive wife, China is not the place to look.

Anonymous said...

"Usually what I hear from feminists is how the church has oppressed women for so many years, so I find it peculiar that women would then be the majority of church-goers."
I have wondered about that myself, why women are the majority of church-goers when our corrupt and hypocritical edifices of Churchianity are more concerned with "gender roles" and "women must submit, submit, submit MORE" than they are with, say, feeding and housing the poor and homeless or trying to put an end to the devastation of the world we live in caused by the excesses of corporate capitalism...no, instead they THRIVE on it. Today's 'churches' (and I use that term loosely) have capitulated to the world.

"I think supporting men and being a help meet is the good and beneficial that women add."
I don't presume to know how you might understand the concept of "help meet", but I do know that in much of contemporary literature, it is quite wrongly understood as being a kind of sidekick or domestic servant. Ezer kenegdo is more than just a "help meet" or "helpmate" (as I have also heard it mistranslated), it is a strength or power suitable to or corresponding to [the man]. The noun "ezer" occurs approximately twenty times in the Old Testament, and mostly in reference to God. Woman was not meant to be a weak, passive follower of man, but a strength corresponding to(i.e., same species as) him.

"There was not a battle when women stuck to their sphere and excelled and men stuck to their. The weren't competing against each other, but amongst those in their own group."
YUCK, I really don't like this. True, there was not the externally noticeable battle that we seem to have on our hands today, but why must people be shackled to spheres that may not be compatible with their talents? Not all women excelled in what was deemed as their sphere, just as not all men did in theirs. In fact, great talent may have been wasted due to this narrow thinking. I don't believe that all women who work outside 'their sphere' do so in order to compete with men, perhaps they find what they do outside 'their sphere' more satisfying, or would like to be a little more independent or self-sufficient. Independence and self-sufficiency seem to be qualities to strive for if you're a man, but not so if you're a woman, and I think that that's just plain wrong.
The Proverbs 31 woman sure wasn't one who was cloistered in the home!

"Making your husband a god instead of Christ, is not what "submission" means."
It sure as heck isn't!! And over and above THAT, it's idolatry. Anonymous age 68 may be one (like many that I have encountered) who believes that "Your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” is PREscriptive of a good marriage relationship rather than DEscriptive of a poisonous marriage relationship.

"Actually, cooking is an important part of Godliness for a woman (Proverbs 31:14)."
Huh?? That passage doesn't say ANYTHING about cooking.

"I think the Bible is just a roadblock to most American women."
No, the mistranslations and misinterpretations are a roadblock to most women, and that was the intention. For example, the Greek word that Paul used to describe Phoebe in Romans (deakonon) was mistranslated as "helper" or "servant", when the same word used in reference to a man was translated to denote ministry or some form of church leadership (eg., deacon). Gee, I wonder why the mistranslation.

Anonymous said...

wow, just wow. Thought a blog with full of grace in the description would have some element of that in the writing. Lady, I'll say a prayer for you tonight that God will actually touch your heart.

Anonymous said...

The Protestant writer Mary Pride provides a good critique of the feminist take on the Proverbs woman. Worth a look.

David Collard

Paula said...

"Anyway,It's always the topic of submission that riles the most. ... The egaltarian sees it as something difficult to live within, while another finds the complete opposite."

Wrong. The egal sees submission as bi-directional instead of uni-directional. Scripture is filled with "one anothers", NOT "some over others". We are all for submission, as long as it's mutual, as scripture teaches.

"Fundamentally, I believe the former sees a relationship whole as two symmetrical halves, while the ladder as two sides of a coin, polar- opposite, yin yang, etc."

Backwards. It is comp, NOT egal, which does the yin/yang, male=good but female=bad thing. It is egal, NOT comp, which sees two equal opposites or "symmetrical halves", like the left and right hands. There is no hierarchy in symmetry, but comp demands hierarchy.

Will comps ever actually listen to the egal argument instead of burning all these straw men?

Scott said...

Just as little note for the men reading. We can debate all the meanings of Proverbs 31 and what it really says but one verse is not debatable at all. That is verse 10. It is pretty obvious it says that a good wife is hard to find. I would suggest that if she has any traits of the "modern woman" stay away. For starters, if she is 30+ watch out. She has been holding out for Mr. Rich, just divorced Mr. "Loser" or values her career more than she does a family. Women have high standards for husbands. I think it is high time for men to do the same.

Anonymous said...

I went looking for Mary Pride's critique of the feminist take on the Proverbs 31 woman, and only found a small bit about it in particular, but a whole lot about her being considered a pioneer in the Christian Quiverfull movement. That is enough for me to take anything she critiques with a huge grain of salt. Nevertheless, she is quite right in promoting that women should not place worldly careers ahead of home and family. But guess what, neither should men! What is it about men and women working TOGETHER as partners and companions, both in and outside of the home, that men find so appalling? Is it because men need to view reality, as they have defined it, as being necessarily dichotomous and competitive and espouse viewpoints that indicate that everything in the world somehow revolves around them? A woman can have no other reason to, for instance, wear pants instead of dresses/skirts or to not choose to have long hair other than because she wants to look like or even BE a man or a boy? A woman can have no other reason to want to work outside the home other than the fact that she wants to compete with men?
Men complain about bossy (i.e., short-haired, non-dress wearing) women who want to usurp man's authority, when the fact of the matter is, men usurped God's authority! 'And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." ' God did not give men and women different spheres to occupy (i.e., women in the home and men outside of the home), men did when they created God in their own image.

More in keeping with the subject of the article to which I am commenting, the lie about women being more spiritual than men (and I do agree that it is a lie), the impetus behind this was yet another man-made reflection upon the true nature of women. Women were formerly viewed as completely immoral, and gateways to hell even. The most hilarious thing about this reversal from 'women as gateway to hell' to 'women as gatekeeper of morality and spirituality' is that while this 'new view' was being touted, women were still bound to OBEY their husbands (or fathers/brothers/whatever male relative), if single. John Stuart Mill in his classic "The Subjection of Women" quite aptly points out this disparity when he wrote, "They are declared to be better than men; an empty compliment, which must provoke a bitter smile from every woman of spirit, since there is no other situation in life in which it is the established order, and considered quite natural and suitable, that the better should obey the worse."

To Laura,
I can appreciate your journey of renewing your mind from worldliness to Godliness. In large part, that is why I no longer attend any church of organized religion, as I find that they are now pillars of worldliness as opposed to Godliness. You also stated that "Part of that shedding involves critiquing and exposing the philosophies that I found to be so damaging. I am not afraid to speak out against feminism and those who support its ideas". Again I can appreciate this, I simply do not agree that feminism in particular (and women, in general) are the cause of ALL the ills in the world, and I tip my hat to you for the fact that you allow persons like myself and others, who may have opposing viewpoints to a certain degree, to comment within your blog. Might I add that I also do not believe that masculism in particular (and men, in general) are the cause of ALL the ills in the world, but I do zero in on that because I do believe that it/they needs to take credit for some of the ills, rather than deflect and blame it on women (and God) as Adam did when God called him to account for what he had done.

Anonymous said...

Mary Pride? You mean the author, magazine founder, editor, and businesswoman who runs a profitable website?

She has certainly benefited a lot from feminism!

And I'm sure that writing about Proverbs 31 makes her even more money!

AnonyMouse said...

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

"helpmeet: as two words in the 1611 Bible, a noun-verb phrase; hyphenated and mistaken as a modified noun by 1670s; see helpmate.

helpmate: "companion," 1715, a ghost word, altered from helpmeet, from the Biblical translation of L. adjutorium simile sibi [Gen. ii.18] as "an help meet (i.e. fit) for him" (Heb. 'ezer keneghdo), which was already by 1673 being printed as help-meet and mistaken for one word."

Source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=helpmeet&searchmode=none

Anonymous said...

"For starters, if she is 30+ watch out. She has been holding out for Mr. Rich, just divorced Mr. "Loser" or values her career more than she does a family."

Here we go, just as I said, men defining what is the reality of things.
Hmmmmmmm......let's see.......I am currently not married, and being that I am 30+, in that I am 56, I must have been holding out for Mr. Rich, just divorced Mr. "Loser" or value my career more than my family. The reality just could not be that I am widowed (so much for just divorcing Mr. "Loser"), supported my husband including financially (so much for holding out for Mr. Rich) and almost died myself taking care of him during his illness while still working to pay the bills that he had no problem ringing up to the point of bankruptcy (so much for valuing my career more than my family).
But yes, please, stay the heck away from me, as my standards are obviously too sky high.

Laura Grace Robins said...

Scott,
I agree with you re finding a good wife. However, what the feminists always say back to that is something like, "a good husband is hard to find too, you know", to which I do not necessarily agree. In looking back on my dating life, I realize how much my sin clouded my judgment. I passed over many good men, because I thought I was better than them! I see my still single female friends doing the same thing. It wasn't until God changed my heart and saved me, did I realize that I was surrounded by good men. It is no conicidence that I married shortly after. I still had standards, but godly ones. I cared more about finding a good future father than anything. Find a man who has those traits and he will naturally be everything else you are seeking. I ditched the worldly standards of looking for Mr. Rich, Mr. Hot, Mr. clothes not right, Mr. teeth not straight. And I hear amongst my single friends and especially via chatter on facebook, that these are the reasons women dismiss men.


Anon 10:49,
Why thank you for your kindness. Believe it or not, I do not believe women cause ALL the world's problem. It it sin the causes the world's problem. I think though a women's emotional/sensitive nature (and I do not mean that in a bad way) makes her more susceptible to sin or at least blinded by it. Women need to be very self-discerning to stay one step ahead of the roaring lion. I focus on women, because as a women, I was once in the trap I see so many around me in. For the same reason you ZERO in on men, is the same reason I zero in on women.

Anon 3:08,
With all due respect, I am sorry for all you have been through, but since you volunteered that information, I will point out something:
Your tone sends off the vibe that you think you did marry "Mr. Loser", given your remark, "...still working to pay the bills that he had no problem ringing up to the point of bankruptcy." A real man, a good man, would not have done that to you, is what I normally hear. Regardless, he was still you man to love/respect for better or worse. It just sounds like you are still mad at him for making you go through so much. I am sorry if I misinterpreted.

Laura Grace Robins said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Laura Grace Robins said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paula said...

"...what feminists always say..."

"I think though a women's... nature... makes her more susceptible to sin or at least blinded by it."

::facepalm::

MarkyMark said...

If the women commenters on here are the 'shining lights' of modern Christianity, then all I have to say is TGIS! Or, as the Bible says, better to dwell on the corner of a roof top than in a mansion with a contentious woman...

MarkyMark said...

Paula,

You might want to consider this, Darlin': there's a REASON the serpent went after Eve first-duh! Think about it...

MarkyMark

Paula said...

SnarkySnark,

You might want to consider this, Sweetie Pumpkins: there's a REASON the serpent had to take out Eve before he could get to Adam-duh! Think about it...

(are we having fun yet?)

MarkyMark said...

Yeah, but he went for Eve first, my dear. Why? Because women are more easily misled, more easily fooled. That's why they have to be under the authority and protection of a man, Baby... :)

Paula said...

Riiight...

Adam sins with his eyes wide open but Eve has to be fooled. So Adam was a pushover, a wuss, a jellyfish. Without Eve around he was easy pickins. What need is there to trick somebody who won't even put up a fight?

So then God REWARDS the guy who wouldn't lead, couldn't stand, with being in charge of the one who had to be tricked. God HONORS Eve with promising the Savior THRU HER SEED ALONE (i.e. "who needs a man?"), then turns around and makes her the wuss's slave?

Riiiight.

And that's why it's pointless to try and talk sense to people who crave preeminence and ignore "not so among you". I hereby shake the dust from my feet and leave Male-anity behind to follow Jesus who freed me and loves me as one made in God's image.

Ta-ta sweetie punkins!

MarkyMark said...

Paula,

Hey, Sweet Pee, you're PROVING Laura's point! You're carrying on like you're more spiritual, like you're superior to men. That's in keeping with your feminazi upbringing.

I also noticed that you NEVER addressed my fundamental point; you never addressed the point I raised. Why do you suppose the serpent went after Eve first, hmmm? Why would the serpent select her as a target, Toots? I'll tell you why: because she was more VULNERABLE, that's why! She was the easier target! THAT is why the serpent went after her first. Guess she wasn't so superior, huh?

MarkyMark

MarkyMark said...

Uh, Paula,

The serpent went after Eve, so he could ultimately get to Adam. If he'd come at Adam, Adam would have fought. But, by getting the woman to sin first, the serpent knew he could run a sneak attack on Adam. Adam was his ultimate target; Eve was the vehicle to attack said target.

It's axiomatic that, if you want to change society, you get the women first. Karl Marx said that great societal upheaval is IMPOSSIBLE without getting the women involved. Hitler said something similar. He said that if you get the women, you get the men; once you have both men & women, you'll have the children too.

What's the common theme here? Women are the weak link; women are most easily undermined and fooled. Again, that's why they need to be under the authority and protection of a MAN, Darlin'...

MarkyMark

Alte said...

Wow... Just dropping by to say congratulations on your blog's progress! I've been writing over at the Spearhead (latest article: A License to Wed), and hadn't heard from you in a while. Very interesting conversation, and a good topic.

Now, what is the woman to do who wants to go to church, but her husband does not? Wants the husband to lead in spiritual matters, but he does not? I am not clear on this yet and will defer this to my male readers for advice.

Not a male reader, but I've never let that stop me before...

That's something we sort of struggled with, in my house. I'm all gung-ho on the religious stuff, and he's more reserved. For a while I was trying to stuff Jesus down his throat (my poor husband), but then I cooled off and stepped back for a while and just completely let go of the whole topic. For a long, long while (nearly 2 years!) nothing happened. And then he just started up and took over.

Now he leads the way he wants to, and without comment or direction from me. As it should be. No more nagging about Jesus.

It was hard though. I prayed and went to Mass on days of obligation, and occasionally to confession, but that was all. I still studied my Bible and Catechism, but I didn't discuss it with him, anymore.

Laura Grace Robins said...

Hi Alte,
I did see your post and it was good, as usual! Just have not had the time to comment..as things are hopping around here. I might submit something there at some point.

Your story is just the point I was driving at. It's just back off and let him come to such decisions on his own timing, or what is really God's timing.

Anonymous said...

"A real man, a good man, would not have done that to you, is what I normally hear. Regardless, he was still you man to love/respect for better or worse. It just sounds like you are still mad at him for making you go through so much. I am sorry if I misinterpreted"

Laura, what you are hearing is emotion.

The Bible doesn't forbid emotion.

You detected some anger in her tone. So what? Being angry is not a crime, and it is not against Scripture. If we, as women, try to suppress all anger, we will become very ill and unhealthy indeed.

And you weren't even trying to suppress your own anger. You were trying to stop someone else's.

Trying to stop someone's feelings is like trying to stop the tide.


And the Bible may say submit, but it does not say to respect or love someone who has behaved foolishly. Since you don't know this woman, you cannot judge whether her husband behaved foolishly or not.

Anonymous said...

"A real man, a good man, would not have done that to you, is what I normally hear. Regardless, he was still you man to love/respect for better or worse. It just sounds like you are still mad at him for making you go through so much. I am sorry if I misinterpreted."

Laura, I've often detected the anger you feel about having to support your husband. Why shouldn't anyone else be allowed to be angry? Perhaps God gave us feelings for a reason--to guide our judgment and help us make wise decisions.

AnonyMouse said...

"If we, as women, try to suppress all anger, we will become very ill and unhealthy indeed."

Anger is the most powerful and most dangerous human emotion because it can override all other emotions. Letting your anger out only feeds the beast, better it be bottled up and starved than let out and fed.

The philosopher Seneca pointed out that anger is:

"...wholly violent and has its being in an onrush of resentment, raging with a most inhuman lust for weapons, blood, and punishment, giving no thought to itself if only it can hurt another, hurling itself upon the very point of the dagger, and eager for revenge though it may drag down the avenger along with it....it is equally devoid of self-control, forgetful of decency, unmindful of ties, persistent and diligent in whatever it begins, closed to reason and counsel, excited by trifling causes, unfit to discern the right and true-the very counterpart of a ruin that is shattered in pieces where it overwhelms."

Men's long tradition of philosophy offers far better advice than the modern know-nothing pop spirituality mass marketed today.

Alte said...

And the Bible may say submit, but it does not say to respect or love someone who has behaved foolishly.

Yes, it does. Nobody's perfect, and husbands aren't an exception. People make mistakes, people screw up. Deal with it without acting like a jerk.

There is a place for righteous anger, but complaining about your husband is not righteous. Not by a long shot.


Ephesians 5:33

However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Anonymous said...

"Your tone sends off the vibe that you think you did marry "Mr. Loser", given your remark....A real man, a good man, would not have done that to you, is what I normally hear."
Actually the reason that I phrased my remark the way I did was in keeping with dispelling the myth that Scott had put forth, drawing conclusions based on observations and putting them forth as fact. Some of the great philosophers did just that, and some of the conclusions that they drew were erroneous, but the "facts" that they derived from these erroneous conclusions still, in large part, prevail.
Regardless of whether or not I thought that I had married "Mr. Loser", the fact is that the reason that I am over 30 and not married is not because I divorced "Mr. Loser" (not to give the impression that that's what I thought, still just in keeping with the way Scott phrased his conclusions), nor had I intentions to do so.

"Regardless, he was still you man to love/respect for better or worse."
Yes, and I did so, even up until death did us part.

"There is a place for righteous anger, but complaining about your husband is not righteous. Not by a long shot."
Stating a fact is not complaining, even if it is an inconvenient truth, and the man is no longer my husband.

Laura Grace Robins said...

Thanks for clarifying, Anon.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Collard, can you please tell me the title of that essay or book about Proverbs 31, by Mary Pride? I can't find it on google.

Scott said...

Let me clarify my position while we are all clarifying. Anon, do you honestly think I was refering to women who had been widowed? Did I need to list all of the exceptions that would be legitimate? I think anyone could have understood what I was trying to say. I think we all know why women are waiting until their 30+ to get married.

I think what you did is to be admired and I believe any good person would. In fact I think what you did would be one of the higher standards I was suggesting men to hold women to. It is far better than stories I have heard of late where women are leaving their husbands because they have lost their jobs in the feminist/marxist engineered "mancession".

Kristen said...

MarkyMark said,

"It's axiomatic that, if you want to change society, you get the women first. Karl Marx said that great societal upheaval is IMPOSSIBLE without getting the women involved. Hitler said something similar. He said that if you get the women, you get the men; once you have both men & women, you'll have the children too.

What's the common theme here? Women are the weak link; women are most easily undermined and fooled. Again, that's why they need to be under the authority and protection of a MAN, Darlin'..."

MarkyMark, your conclusion does not follow logical from your premise. Marx and Hitler said you couldn't affect social change without convincing the women. Neither of them apparently said it was easier to convince the women.

A review of church history shows that the vast majority of heretical sects were founded by men. There is simply no historical data that would indicate women are more easily deceived.

Further, in both Marx and Hitler's times, women were under societally institutionalized male authority. Apparently this did not keep the entire society from being deceived.

You certainly have not demonstrated that just because you are a man, you are more logical than a woman. I would suggest that both men and women humble themselves as Jesus taught, and cease arguing over who is greater.

Kristen said...

Laura, would you mind fixing my typo in my last post? I meant to say, "your conclusion does not follow logically from your premise," not "logical from your premise."

I appreciate your gracious posting of dissenting opinions. Thanks!

MarkyMark said...

Kristen,

If women weren't more gullible and easily fooled, then riddle me this: why did the serpent go after Eve first? You and your feminazi sisters STILL haven't answered that question! Just like your feminazi heroines and mentors, you dodge, you bob, you weave, you sidetrack, and derail the discussion. Why? Because you cannot deal with the fundamental point I raised...

MarkyMark

Kristen said...

MarkyMark, I do not bob and weave out of answering questions. I will answer your question. The serpent approached Eve because Eve was created later and had less experience. Adam had named the animals. He should have known what a serpent was and what one should be acting like, and that something was very wrong. Eve had no such knowledge.

This is why Paul begins the part about Adam being created first and Eve being deceived, with the statement, "Let a woman learn." Because most men in that culture were educated, and most women weren't, and women needed to learn before they could teach.

For the rest, I don't recall giving you any insult. All I said was that your argument was not logical. So why do you call me names? What happened to "as far as it depends on you, be at peace with all?" The Scriptures also say, "If you bite and devour one another, take care lest you be consumed by one another."

I'm not the one doing the biting or devouring here.

Anonymous said...

1 Timothy 2:12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

Anonymous said...

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Anonymous said...

"If women weren't more gullible and easily fooled, then riddle me this: why did the serpent go after Eve first?"
Guess if I answer this, that means that I'm one of Kristen's Feminazi sisters. Ah well, I've got thick skin, I'll take the bait...

Look at how the serpent phrased the question that he asked of Eve:
He [the serpent] said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
Eve was not yet created/formed when God told Adam that the fruit of all the trees, save for the one, could be eaten. So to ask HER that question sowed the seeds of doubt. She had NOT heard it from God, so she would be unsure of whether God had actually said it.

Kristen said...

I'm not sure what's the point of posting direct quotes of Scriptures we all already know.

I hope none of you believe women are actually saved by having babies and not by the blood of the Son of God. . . .

Anyway, I've said what I feel I needed to say here. I hope that some of you will at least consider that not everyone who uses a different hermeneutic than yours is a "feminazi," and that it's possible someone might actually have reasons for reading the Scriptures differently than you do, without being your enemy.

I pray that the love of God which surpasses knowledge, will work deep inside us all, for knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. And the wisdom that comes from above is sown in peace by those who make peace.

God be with you.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:51 am, what an adorable attempt to shut women up. But it hasn't worked before and it won't work now, dear. Twisting Scripture never does.

Mark, you're not going to get anywhere with that logic. Don't you know that Adam was there on the scene the whole time? Yep, right there with Eve, standing like a dummy and not saying anything, certainly not FIGHTING. "She ate the fruit and gave some to her husband with her, and he also ate of it". Adam apparently didn't do a good job of telling Eve what God said, nor did he put up a fight there with her, nor did he take the blame for himself! He blamed the wife, whereas she at least had the guts to lay the blame of STARTING the trouble on the serpent, instead of blaming her gutless husband for not instructing her clearly enough. Eve was deceived, Adam KNEW what he was doing; Eve told the truth, Adam blamed her. So, even if you take from this that women are more easily deceived, based on one woman, by the same logic you'd have to conclude that men being in charge of women is NOT a good thing because men do wrong DELIBERATELY even while knowing it's wrong. And then blame women. Truth hurts, don't it? Kind of like the pansies on your blog call women the C-word and then blame women for their own nastiness. O, sons of Adam, sons of Adam..

"Women like to show off all their pretty Christian things and create Christian appearances, whether they truly are or not (not for me to decide). Men seem to like their Faith straight-up, just a Bible, please, without all the bells and whistles. Their faith is more private, whereas a woman's is more public"

Says who? Just because women accessorize? Is this a put down of women, that they "love to show off their Christian things"? I really don't appreciate what you're saying here. It's always better that men take longer? A woman should refuse church because hubby says so? You have a knack, it seems, of automatically giving men more credit and seeing women as falling short on a given subject. Maybe women are told they're more spiritual because someone got sick and tired of hearing another cockamamie lie, that men are their "prophets, priests and kings". Women are more likely to tap into their spiritual wells more quickly; this doesn't make them stupid, it's simply an observational fact and difference, not a feministic lie.

Anonymous said...

What a creep you are, Joseph. Leading is not authority, or wives leading in example would be ruling their husbands.