Fraternity Guidelines

This is a guy's only forum. No girls allowed. Male bonding time.

In here we can leave the seat up, drink from the carton and talk about manly things without fear of the ladies butting in. You know how they can be.

But remember, always play by the rules: here
See more
See less

Your Views on Patriarchy

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by MsJack View Post
    Wrong. It means someone left you. Not everyone who leaves formally seeks a divorce.
    If you want to split hairs that way the Bible still doesn't say you can divorce them, just that you should let them leave. I doubt they even had a formal divorce mechanism (the Orthodox church doesn't, for example).

    I asked for a separation so that he would see the financial side of the picture. His job wasn't making any money and he was forcing me to return to work to support the family; there was no way I was going back to work pregnant so that he could siphon off the money I was earning for himself and his not-quite-mistress. He was also making a lot of financial decisions that were making it impossible to run a household (like spending the rent money on work expenses just before rent was due and not telling me about it, signing up for expensive weight training lessons without telling me, etc). I asked for a separation to protect myself financially.

    He later chose to secretly begin a relationship with another woman all while acknowledging to me that our marriage was still intact and other women were off limit. When I found out, he was the one who filed for divorce.
    K, you don't have to justify your life choices to me.

    I also found out that he had an affair in the first year of our marriage; I'd have left him then had I known. So, no matter how you slice it, my divorce was biblical.

    The OT isn't relevant because a minority of Jews practiced polygamy? You know they were still doing that in New Testament times, right?
    The OT isn't relevant because God sanctioned, and in at least one case (brother's widow) MANDATED it. And Jesus explicitly states divorce was only given in the OT as a concession.

    You are welcome to find me some examples of first century Christians who thought it was acceptable for married men to spend excessive amounts of time alone with women who weren't their wives and wouldn't have called that adultery. I'll wait.
    lolno, you made the argument you demonstrate it. I'd be shocked if you could find a first century person who believed in modern nonsense like "emotional affairs". spending so much time alone with a woman would have been viewed with suspicion for the obvious reason that he would be suspected of ACTUAL adultery.

    Egalitarianism does not teach that women must always work outside the home. That my then-husband and I mutually agreed that he would work and I would stay home to care for our disabled child doesn't mean I was "advocating for patriarchy."
    Egalitarianism teaches that there are no gender specific duties. What you are now saying (that your husband broached a mutually agreed upon EGALITARIAN contract) contradicts your earlier claims (and your article) blaming patriarchy for your failure.

    Thank God! We've got thousands of years of human history to tell us what it was like for women in patriarchal society. If they did not have a direct male sponsor, their only options for supporting themselves were prostitution and menial labor for low wages. Feminism fixed that.
    Not really. Feminism now mandates that other people be forced to employ you (or support you for free). One of your points in your patriarchy articles was explicitly that the patriarchy does not support "single mothers" IE: people who make irresponsible decisions and now expect others to sweep up their mess. You have simply placed a tyrannical burden on men to support you without getting anything in return. By contrast, traditional Christian/Jewish patriarchy placed burdens on both sexes. The result has been a sharp increase in men like your ex, who will simply take what they want out of life and discard what doesn't suit them. Congrats.

    There never was anything to compel men in patriarchal societies to fulfill what you call "patriarchal duties." Male misbehavior was treated with a wink and a nod,
    Not true.

    and there was absolutely no social safety net for women who lost their male sponsor through no fault of their own.
    There was no social safety net for ANYBODY. You were useful to somebody, received charity, or died. That's because our current economic prosperity is very, very recent. People used to actually struggle just to exist.

    My marriage could have just as well imploded in a patriarchal society. The difference is, the egalitarian society we live in enabled me to get an education, get a job, and get away.
    Your marriage wouldn't have existed in a patriarchal society. I mean, you could have ran away, but then (like now) you'd have paid for the consequences of your bad decisions.

    I have a boyfriend who is already planning on proposing to me, so you can rest assured that the fair men of this forum are safe from me.
    Looking forward to rehashing this conversation in 5-10 years.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.


    • #62
      *talking about divorce by Christians*
      *links to divorce by jews and pagans*

      Even for the latter the link shows how informal the whole process was.

      It was entirely possible for a spouse to leave without going through a divorce process, leaving the Christian to decide whether to make the divorce formal or wait, hope, and work for the unbeliever's return.
      Again, it doesn't say you can divorce just because someone leaves, it says you can let them leave. You know, since you want to get hyperliteral.

      Sorry Marcion, there is nothing in the New Testament commanding us to dump the whole of the Old Testament. Jesus said that men writing their wives certificates of divorce was no longer relevant. Ezra 9-10 is about God specifically commanding men to divorce for non-adultery. BIG difference.
      Alright so I can now marry multiple women? Thanks for the clarification Joseph Smith.

      Nice to know that "put up or shut up" scared you into agreeing with what I said in the first place.
      I never agreed with what you said in the first place. Nice to know "put up or shut up" reveals you had nothing to begin with.

      My husband was raised in a heavily patriarchal culture, then agreed to marriage with me on egalitarian terms, then decided to practice patriarchy in the marriage without my consent. Not sure why that's so hard for you to grasp other than your inhuman need to blame women for everything.
      "let's you and them fight", typical tactic of women like you who can't live up to her wonder woman fantasies and has to drag others (in this case an entire sex ) into the conversation. Unlike the losers at your church (or your husband's church for that matter) I am willing to hold your feet to the fire and demand some consistency in your behavior, rather than just nodding my empty head and feeding your ego and victimhood complex as you attempt to spread blame on everybody but yourself.

      Your husband was raised in a heavily egalitarian culture (it is impossible to raise someone in a patriarchal culture without becoming a full blown cult that cuts off most contact with the outside world in a western country). He decided to practice egalitarianism in the marriage, just not the egalitarianism you agreed upon (which just so happens to closely resemble the patriarchal ideal). Seems to me he wasn't much of a fan of the patriarchy at all.

      Yes, every woman who was raped and chose to keep the baby, every woman whose husband cheated on her and walked out on her, and every woman who is a widow simply made irresponsible decisions and now expects others to clean up her mess. That is how the world works.
      lol all those are extreme outliers, overwhelming majority of single mothers are "I'll do what I want" idiots who had sex with the wrong man and now expects everybody else to sweep up after them.

      Who made you marry a Mormon? And by your own account a man who barely got married to you before he started cheating, which shows he was rotten from the beginning, and didn't suddenly become a monster near the end of your marriage. Where WAS your family and your church when you made this colossally stupid decision? My guess is that like all egalitarian (or complementarian for that matter) churches they just nodded their head along afraid to offend Grrl Pwr

      full disclosure, in case people think I'm being too rough on you: I was also in a disastrous relationship, though no kids were involved (thankfully). would never have happened if I didn't live in an egalitarian society. But ultimately it was my fault for getting involved with this person. And I'm not trying to extract cash prizes from strangers for it.

      BTW, you do know that the Bible contains dozens of admonitions to care for widows (who were often single moms), right? Sounds like God expects you to "sweep up their mess," too.
      Where does the bible contain admonitions for creating a "safety net"? I must have missed the part about wealth redistribution by force. Obviously Christians should be charitable but I'm not sure what that has to do with patriarchy specifically. If anything a patriarch would be more generous than an egalitarian since he has an honor bound obligation to show off his generosity whereas egalitarians can simply claim nobless oblige does not apply to them.

      And, as I said, failed to punish men who violated patriarchal familial ideals. One need look no further than the history of prostitution to see this was the case. Thomas Aquinas reasoned that prostitution was a necessary evil because married men couldn't possibly be expected to limit sex to marriage, and young men couldn't possibly be expected to save sex for marriage, and it was better for lusty men to visit prostitutes than have affairs with married women. He compared this to the sewer system in a palace: disgusting, but without it the palace would overflow with sewage.
      Adultery was a serious criminal matter for most of Europe's history, and adultery laws only began being overturned with the advent of atheism and feminism (but I repeat myself). That Aquinas wanted to leave prostitution around as the lesser of two evils does not mean they failed to punish men who violated patriarchal familial ideas, and I'm not even sure how single men having sex with prostitutes violates "patriarchal familial ideals", though it does seem to violate the ideals of women like you who think that completely strange men should be compelled to support you instead of paying for prostitutes.

      Pretty apt analogy for how patriarchy treats women though. It turns them into conduits for men's crap.
      It's funny you word women's decision to become said conduit into something the patriarchy did to them. Almost as if you don't truly believe women have agency. I'm starting to think your patriarchy ideal is quite a bit more conservative than mine.

      You want modern day examples?
      I prefer statistics to anecdotes.

      Look at the Sovereign Grace Ministries scandal. Children were being raped and abused, C. J. Mahaney knew about it and covered it up, powerful evangelical leaders from Albert Mohler to D. A. Carson circled the wagons to save Mahaney.
      According to ultraliberal wikipedia it's not true. But even if it was, this article makes it sound like your grace doctrine.

      Look at the Village Church scandal. Male missionary confesses to looking at child porn, new wife decides to file for annulment. Which one of those did the Village Church side with and which one did they try to discipline? They sided with the man and tried to discipline the wife (AFTER she had already left the church).
      Sounds like your ideal of grace to me. The guy didn't actually rape anyone, confessed to his sin, and his wife divorced him despite not meeting your own biblical requirements for divorce.

      Look at all of the scandals in the Roman Catholic church involving known sex abusers who were quietly transferred elsewhere. Patriarchy looks out for what it values---and it only values men. [/.quote]

      They were quietly transferred elsewhere because psychologists at the time thought pedophilia was curable. Given that psychology was always a liberal, deviant field that pushes things like the normalization of homosexuality with gusto I'm having trouble figuring out how to blame the Patriarchy for this one. You could blame the fallible leaders of the RCC, but I'm not sure how that makes it the fault of the system itself.

      Look at Tullian Tchividjian. Guy confesses to adultery and calls out his then-wife for adultery; gets punished with a leadership position at yet another church. Which he only loses because of an earlier affair that he did not disclose, which had been covered up by his church elders.
      Sounds like your ideal of grace to me. And actually at this point it's obvious that there's something really wrong with the evangelical church because here at tweb we have a discussion on this very subject and you (and these guys' defenders) along with a surprising number of people here are all in agreement with it.
      Look at Josh Duggar. Josh molests his sisters and Josh's parents check him into therapy (but not his sisters). But hey, at least we can thank Anna Duggar's father for making sure she didn't marry a child molester or an adulterous jerk who would embarrass her on a national stage, right? Good job, Christian Patriarchy! You showed Egalitarianism how it's done.
      Lol they made him do physical labour, how many ditches do you think they should have made his sisters dig? Nevermind that as far as we know he hasn't molested anyone since, and it's absurd to call him a child molester when he was a child himself at the time.

      You mean patriarchy was impotent to come up with the means to help anyone for thousands of years, and that help coincidentally appeared at the same time as feminism? Hmm. Wonder why that is.
      No, it has nothing to do with "patriarchy", it was simply not as easy to set them up as it is today due to limited resources. Feminism predates social safety nets by quite a bit, and they started being enacted by conservatives to bleed support from socialists, not because women like you want strangers to take care of them for free.

      I accept that I made a bad decision with my first marriage, and I accept the consequences, but your attempts to say that my choices in life disqualify me from leadership are absurd and reflective of an unbiblical theology of grace. According to the Bible, I could be a violent insurrectionist (Simon), a serial Christ-denier (Peter), a liar who steals from the poor (Matthew), petty and power-hungry (James and John), an adulterer (David), a murderer (David), an accomplice to murder and persecutor of the church (Paul), and I STILL wouldn't have made any life choices that disqualified me from leadership.
      Grace is about salvation, I'm not sure why you think it should absolve you of consequences, though that suggestion is amusing in light of your earlier complaint that "the patriarchy" is too soft on sexual misconduct.

      Also you don't accept the consequences, you blame a phantom patriarchy that doesn't exist anymore and actually rail against that more than you do against your ex husband, of whom you claim you simply don't care about one way or the other anymore. This is not the kind of behavior I'd want in a leader.
      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.


      • #63
        Originally posted by MsJack
        My husband wanted me to go out and work and support family
        But equality!!! Egalitarianism! Why not?

        I don't want to go work when pregnant and taking care of kids and housework at home
        Guess what!! Under actual patriarchy, expectation in such situation is on husband to go to work, instead of you! But no, we have egalitarianism, so you, woman, have to!!!

        say in the household finances, even when a man is spending the household money on another woman instead of providing food and housing for the family, is exactly why patriarchy is an abject failure
        Attempts at patriarchy likely to fail when culture is egalitarian. Big surprise.
        Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.


        • #64
          My husband was raised in a heavily patriarchal culture, then agreed to marriage with me on egalitarian terms, then decided to practice patriarchy in the marriage without my consent.
          Then he decided to go egalitarian!!

          He asked me to go work
          So what's wrong??
          Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.


          • #65
            Some atheists are very angry at God, because they think He's not doing what he's supposed to.

            Reading of mine is the MsJack is like that, angry at patriarchy that it's not doing what it's supposed to, so that husband is irresponsible and she needs to go to work when pregnant etc. Sad news is, patriarchy is dead for quite some time in culture of West. Three cheers for egalitarians!!!!
            Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.


            • #66
              Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
              Also you don't accept the consequences, you blame a phantom patriarchy that doesn't exist anymore and actually rail against that more than you do against your ex husband, of whom you claim you simply don't care about one way or the other anymore. This is not the kind of behavior I'd want in a leader.
              What is there to say?

              Yes, MsJack wants benefits of both egalitarianism and patriarchy, to have cake and eat it. Yes, there is big inconsistencies of hers, yes, I don't think she accepts full responsibility of hers.

              Even so, she is right to want safety barriers. So that she won't marry good-for-nothing, so that she doesn't have to work to support kids while pregnant, and so that no separation needed. Yes, she is right to want this. Why?

              This is because in healthy society, which means patriarchy, society that is functioning good, there would be barriers that she wants. Safety barriers of patriarchy. Yes, to protect her and children! So that she won't be in state she's in, have to go through all she had. But patriarchy (in country of hers) is long dead.

              So really, what to say? I have real pity for her, but what can be done?
              Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.


              • #67
                Originally posted by MsJack View Post
                Guess what!! We had thousands of years of nothing but patriarchy! If you think it adequately cared for women, go and get your history book and show me!!! Okay??
                Translation: "just about all societies, because patriarchal, through history always never cared 'adequately' for women!!!!"

                Let's see, if we talk about this, what will happen: I give example, you point out that care for women is not perfect, I say lots of men also 'fell through cracks', you will ignore point, keep saying 'patriarchy sucks!!!'

                Why bother??? Edited by a Moderator
                Last edited by Bill the Cat; 09-27-2017, 08:50 AM.
                Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.


                • #68
                  Moderated By: Bill the Cat

                  Ok. This has gone on long enough and has drifted into the realm of blatant flaming. I am closing this thread. If you wish to discuss this further, open a thread in the Padded Room where everyone can participate.

                  ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                  Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

                  That's what
                  - She

                  Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                  - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                  I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                  Stephen R. Donaldson


                  Related Threads


                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by Zymologist, 01-30-2014, 08:00 PM
                  231 responses
                  Last Post Whateverman