Announcement

Collapse

Sorority Guidelines

Here is the Hen House. We gather and talk about men, shoes, clothing, and if those wings are all they are cracked up to be.

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

Your Views on Patriarchy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by QuantaFille View Post
    Wow, Wildflower. You seem to have only started this thread to tell us complementarians how we should modify our beliefs to conform to what you (mistakenly) think complementarians should believe, if only we thought it out logically. I have to tell you that I am a very logical and analytical person, and if ever there was a complementarian who would have come to the conclusions you do, it would be me.
    I don't doubt that you are a logical and analytical person. I just think you are missing the difference between "funcitonal" and "ontolgoical" inferiority. And, for those who understand the difference, I wanted to ask them how they cope believing in a God who deliberately made them ontologically inferior to males. It's an identity issue that touches on both God's and our identity.

    There are roles open only to women, and ones open only to men. The relationship between them in marriage should mirror the one between Christ and his church.
    Oh, I'm quite aware about certain "roles" being open only to women. Like nursery duty and women's ministry. But feel called to help guide the church, to teach His people (not just women and children)? No, you are most definitely not hearing from God if your a complementarian woman. No, much worse...you must be power hungry or something...but def not hearing from God.

    The logical conclusion of your position is that the church can overrule Jesus if she sees fit. Do you honestly believe she can?
    If I were still a complementarian, I wouldn't believe that the "church can overrule Jesus" by allowing women to take up roles such as Deborah, Priscilla, and Junia. But I wouldn't accept the complementarian answers given to those questions, either...so I'd have to search the issue out. Actually, I did all that and I'm now egal. BTW there is a thread started in Christianity 201 if you wanted to discuss the scriptures.



    My point in asking about bearing children is that God made men with certain abilities and roles, and women with others. That the one can't do what the other can doesn't make that one less valuable as a person. That a man cannot get pregnant does not make him worthless as a human being. That a man cannot have the church leadership role of children's minister does not make him worthless. That a woman cannot "wear the pants" at home doesn't make her worthless, either.
    There are certain biological functions that are limited to the sexes, true. Yes, 100% true. Are you saying that spiritual leadership is a biological function? Does biology have a bearing on spirituality? So men are created spiritually superior (as in the boss) and women are biologically created spiritually inferior (in a spiritual chain of command)? So women CANNOT lead men due to her biology? So Deborah...


    As Celebrian pointed out, decisions have to be made together.
    Which is an egalitarian position.

    In a complementarian model, the man doesn't *have to* ask his wife for her input (but "should" if you are a nice complementarian). In a complementarian model the man gets the "final say" in any and all matters, even if his wife disagrees (though he "should" be very nice about it while he does it). In a complementarian marriage the man has to decide and enforce what is best for his wife, even if she doesn't agree, though he "should" be sensitive to her while he takes this authority over her. Just softening up the language doesn't negate the facts. In a complementarian marriage the husband decides for the wife, even if she disagrees, but he "should" do this with grace, love, etc.

    You seem to think that if we were really practising complementarians, we stupid women wouldn't give any input to our amazing husbands when it comes to making decisions.
    No, indeed. I'm sorry you have not understood what I'm been saying, I really don't think you are stupid. Not at all. I think that you and all women have been just as potentially gifted as men with intelligence, competence, and leadership ability. No, I do not think you are stupid at all.

    And, I am also sorry that you somehow think that egalitarians wouldn't give any input to our amazing spouses. We would, and do. It is the complementarians who think men should-but-don't-have-to allow their wives to give input. Egals are all about equal input and working things out. Comps are about one gender being in ultimate control over the other even tho they "should" (but don't have to) allow input from the other. But I am glad that in your particular complementarian marriage that you function more like egalitarians. That's so important to your well-being as a woman.

    For instance, I'm better with money than my husband is. When it comes to that, we discuss our options together. He gives a great deal of weight to my words because I have more experience there, but he is responsible for the final decision. The vast majority of the time, he agrees we should do what I suggest.
    That's great that he listens to your input. But in the complementarian model that you espouse, he doesn't have to. It's great that you have such an egalitarian leaning husband and home.

    But I truly am sorry that both you and he believe that though you are the one better with money and have more experience that he still gets the "final say" because of his superior rank as husband in your complementarian marriage. He bears this ultimate responsibility because of his biological function or the order of man's creation?

    You mentioned several times that we must believe that we have to have a husband to be our "king and priest". This is false. I haven't met a complementarian yet who didn't believe in the priesthood of the believer, except Mormons (they are a different story altogether though).
    Good, I am very glad of this. I wouldn't want you believing that. Even so, you function as if you do believe it as you believe that your husband is your "head" who rules over you (makes decisions for you even if he's nice about it and gets your input before he makes the final decision).

    As for how all of this makes me feel, I feel like I am what God intended me to be. He gave me certain gifts and qualities and I should use those in his service, to the best of my ability. How that fact could cause depression is beyond me.
    You have obviously not felt a call to those ministry functions that are forbidden to you as a woman. I have, and it IS depressing. So much so. Not only to be rejected out of hand because I'm a woman and therefore couldn't be hearing from God if I believe I'm to fulfill this particular call in ministry, but then suspected on top of it. "Why" does she want to be an elder? "Why does she want to be a teacher (not just in the nursery or women's-only studies) Oh--she must be _______. Fill in the blank, I've heard it all.

    I have never, ever ever ever been taught in church that I am "inferior" to men.
    I'm truly grateful for this, QuantaFille. Your're not inferior. You may have understood the inferiority inherent in the complementarian position better if you ever felt like you were called to teach a mixed group of men and women or if you felt you were called as in elder.


    The fact that you keep using that word tells me that you do not at all understand our position.
    I put the dictionary definition in an above post. I've used the word correctly. Men are superior in rank to women in church and home (as evidenced in holding the "final say" and the head leadership positions at church), therefore, according to the definition of "inferior" women are inferior in the complementarian model. If you wish to counter this, please use the dictionary definition and apply it to how males and females are to relate to each other church and home in the complementarian model.

    All are the same in Christ; there is neither male nor female. We are valued equally, that is all. We have different roles, and women do not have to answer to God the same way men do. Men carry the greater burden there, and I for one do not want it myself. One gender is not better than the other. It seems like all you really want is to have input in decision making, and I tell you, we have that here.

    Why do men need to carry the greater burden? Are you not capable enough to share equally in carrying the burden? Do you need men to carry this for you instead of carrying equally together? I believe women are just as capable as men to share the burden of leadership. In fact, its part of our original commission. No "final say", no "greater burden of responsibility".

    The extreme version of this is practised by some groups, true, but they should be corrected to practise it the way it was intended, not be persuaded to give it up entirely (as I suspect is your motive, if I've read between the lines correctly).
    Corrected, how? That men should be *extra nice* when they exert their authority? Sure, that's a step in the right direction but it doesn't solve the inequality problem.
    Last edited by Wildflower; 09-13-2017, 10:37 AM.
    Aragorn: What do you fear, my lady?

    Eowyn: A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them and all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire.

    Aragorn: You are a daughter of kings, a shield maiden of Rohan. I do not think that will be your fate.

    Comment


    • #77
      Every time I type a reply, my phone eats it. I want you to know I'm not ignoring you, just waiting until I get a minute to sit down at my computer.
      Curiosity never hurt anyone. It was stupidity that killed the cat.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by QuantaFille View Post
        Every time I type a reply, my phone eats it. I want you to know I'm not ignoring you, just waiting until I get a minute to sit down at my computer.
        I understand, totally. Please, as you are able. I appreciate your interest.
        Aragorn: What do you fear, my lady?

        Eowyn: A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them and all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire.

        Aragorn: You are a daughter of kings, a shield maiden of Rohan. I do not think that will be your fate.

        Comment


        • #79
          I've stayed up way past my bedtime to type this. If there are typos, I blame that. Also, I did see one disjointed paragraph in preview mode, but when I went back to fix it, it disappeared...
          Anyway, here you go. A subsequent reply will probably have to wait until I have computer time again as my phone will eat any reply that I have to work on in sessions, e.g. in bits and pieces during breaks at work.

          Originally posted by Wildflower View Post
          I don't doubt that you are a logical and analytical person. I just think you are missing the difference between "funcitonal" and "ontolgoical" inferiority. And, for those who understand the difference, I wanted to ask them how they cope believing in a God who deliberately made them ontologically inferior to males. It's an identity issue that touches on both God's and our identity.
          God did not make anyone inferior to anyone else. All are equal in God's sight. Period.

          Oh, I'm quite aware about certain "roles" being open only to women. Like nursery duty and women's ministry. But feel called to help guide the church, to teach His people (not just women and children)? No, you are most definitely not hearing from God if your a complementarian woman. No, much worse...you must be power hungry or something...but def not hearing from God.
          What do you tell the man who wants to be a children's minister? That is not his role, so you tell him no. Does that make him inferior to women?

          If I were still a complementarian, I wouldn't believe that the "church can overrule Jesus" by allowing women to take up roles such as Deborah, Priscilla, and Junia.
          That is not what I meant by "overrule". Pastors and ministers etc. do not "overrule" Christ in the course of their duties. I meant, can the church tell Christ "I don't like the way you're doing that, we need to sit down and talk about how it should be done"? Marriage mirrors Christ and his Church, where Christ is the head and the church submits to his will. Egalitarians believe that there is no head in marriage, so in what way does marriage mirror Christ and the church? Does the church have the ability to veto Christ's decisions regarding her well-being?

          (By the way, what denomination did you come out of that has left you so scarred?)

          There are certain biological functions that are limited to the sexes, true. Yes, 100% true. Are you saying that spiritual leadership is a biological function? Does biology have a bearing on spirituality? So men are created spiritually superior (as in the boss) and women are biologically created spiritually inferior (in a spiritual chain of command)? So women CANNOT lead men due to her biology? So Deborah...
          My point in bringing up biology is to demonstrate that God made men and women different, and that even on a biological level we have roles. Was he wrong to do so?

          Originally posted by QuantaFille
          As Celebrian pointed out, decisions have to be made together.
          Which is an egalitarian position.
          And a complementarian one. We are to submit to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, with the man having responsibility for the final decision as head of the home as Christ is head of the church.

          In a complementarian model, the man doesn't *have to* ask his wife for her input (but "should" if you are a nice complementarian). In a complementarian model the man gets the "final say" in any and all matters, even if his wife disagrees (though he "should" be very nice about it while he does it). In a complementarian marriage the man has to decide and enforce what is best for his wife, even if she doesn't agree, though he "should" be sensitive to her while he takes this authority over her. Just softening up the language doesn't negate the facts. In a complementarian marriage the husband decides for the wife, even if she disagrees, but he "should" do this with grace, love, etc.
          He does have to. Niceness has zero to do with it.

          Originally posted by QuantaFille
          You seem to think that if we were really practising complementarians, we stupid women wouldn't give any input to our amazing husbands when it comes to making decisions.
          No, indeed. I'm sorry you have not understood what I'm been saying, I really don't think you are stupid. Not at all. I think that you and all women have been just as potentially gifted as men with intelligence, competence, and leadership ability. No, I do not think you are stupid at all.
          I worded that in a way that seems to come from your perspective. As if that is how you see my point of view. Like I must think I am of inferior intellect, abilities, etc.. It wasn't meant to sound like I think that you think I am actually stupid.

          You are implying that if I follow my position to its logical conclusion, and still hold to that position, then I should think I am stupid if I am to be consistent. You asked how do we complementarians cope with the belief that we are either inferior to men, or not allowed to function as if we were anything else. I'm saying we don't believe we're inferior, and that we are allowed to function as if we're not.

          And, I am also sorry that you somehow think that egalitarians wouldn't give any input to our amazing spouses.
          I didn't say that, or even imply it anywhere.

          We would, and do.
          Good.

          It is the complementarians who think men should-but-don't-have-to allow their wives to give input.
          No.

          Egals are all about equal input and working things out.
          I know.

          Comps are about one gender being in ultimate control over the other even tho they "should" (but don't have to) allow input from the other.
          You have strange ideas about us.

          But I am glad that in your particular complementarian marriage that you function more like egalitarians.
          We don't.

          That's so important to your well-being as a woman.
          No, I don't think so. Why would it be? If my marriage turned out to be egalitarian, it would damage my well-being because I would, according to my understanding of scripture, be living outside of God's pattern for my life.

          That's great that he listens to your input. But in the complementarian model that you espouse, he doesn't have to.
          In the complementarian model that you used to espouse, you mean.

          It's great that you have such an egalitarian leaning husband and home.
          We really don't.

          But I truly am sorry that both you and he believe that though you are the one better with money and have more experience that he still gets the "final say" because of his superior rank as husband in your complementarian marriage. He bears this ultimate responsibility because of his biological function or the order of man's creation?
          Because God says so. Why does it make you sorry that I am following my understanding of God and scripture?

          Originally posted by QuantaFille
          You mentioned several times that we must believe that we have to have a husband to be our "king and priest". This is false. I haven't met a complementarian yet who didn't believe in the priesthood of the believer, except Mormons (they are a different story altogether though).
          Good, I am very glad of this. I wouldn't want you believing that. Even so, you function as if you do believe it as you believe that your husband is your "head" who rules over you (makes decisions for you even if he's nice about it and gets your input before he makes the final decision).
          You kept mentioning it like it was a standard part of complementarianism. Why do you think my husband and I function as if he is my priest? That's a really odd claim to make. "King", I can reasonably see thinking that, but priest? What?

          You have obviously not felt a call to those ministry functions that are forbidden to you as a woman. I have, and it IS depressing. So much so. Not only to be rejected out of hand because I'm a woman and therefore couldn't be hearing from God if I believe I'm to fulfill this particular call in ministry, but then suspected on top of it. "Why" does she want to be an elder? "Why does she want to be a teacher (not just in the nursery or women's-only studies) Oh--she must be _______. Fill in the blank, I've heard it all.
          God gives leadership skills to a lot of people, not just men. There are leadership positions open to women but not men, and there are those open to men but not women. There are some that are open to either/both. For the record, I am not a fan of the idea of a micro-managing God who calls people to do ultra-specific things (most of the time, anyway. For exceptions, see: Noah, Moses, et al). I think he just dumps skills and aptitudes into you and expects you to do the best you can with what you get. If you have leadership skills, then look for opportunities to use those skills. God won't fault you for doing what you can with what you have.

          Originally posted by QuantaFille
          I have never, ever ever ever been taught in church that I am "inferior" to men.
          I'm truly grateful for this, QuantaFille. Your're not inferior. You may have understood the inferiority inherent in the complementarian position better if you ever felt like you were called to teach a mixed group of men and women or if you felt you were called as in elder.
          The idea that a woman can't do certain things in church on account of being "inferior" isn't even a concept in my church. If a man wanted to teach a high school girls' Sunday School class, and he's told "That's not a role God gave men", would he be justified in thinking he was made to feel inferior?

          Regarding elders, I think it depends on what you mean by the term. Different traditions use it differently. If you mean it in the capacity of a mentor or advisor (officially designated or not), approachable by members of the congregation, then not having female elders is just irresponsible. As for teaching, I think it depends on what you wanted to teach and in what setting. If it's, for instance, a class on marriage, then not having a complete couple teaching it together would be weird and kind of awkward. If it's a home ec class, call me sexist but I would hope that a woman would be teaching that one.

          I put the dictionary definition in an above post. I've used the word correctly. Men are superior in rank to women in church and home (as evidenced in holding the "final say" and the head leadership positions at church), therefore, according to the definition of "inferior" women are inferior in the complementarian model. If you wish to counter this, please use the dictionary definition and apply it to how males and females are to relate to each other church and home in the complementarian model.
          I don't think the word even applies. The word "inferior" should never even come to mind. Is the church worth less than Christ? Then why would he bother redeeming her?

          Why do men need to carry the greater burden? Are you not capable enough to share equally in carrying the burden? Do you need men to carry this for you instead of carrying equally together? I believe women are just as capable as men to share the burden of leadership. In fact, its part of our original commission. No "final say", no "greater burden of responsibility".
          The word used in Genesis to describe Eve as Adam's "helper", is only elsewhere used in the Bible to refer to God's help to mankind. Men can't carry the burden completely alone; they need women to help them. But we are helpers, not co-carryers.

          Corrected, how? That men should be *extra nice* when they exert their authority? Sure, that's a step in the right direction but it doesn't solve the inequality problem.
          No. Like I said, niceness has zero to do with it. I think the view of complementarianism that you have been taught is twisted. If I've not yet conveyed what I see as a more biblical (if not more workable) version, then please ask me to clarify.
          Curiosity never hurt anyone. It was stupidity that killed the cat.

          Comment


          • #80
            Did I kill the thread?
            Curiosity never hurt anyone. It was stupidity that killed the cat.

            Comment


            • #81
              Question for the women on this thread who think "the husband gets to be a tie-breaker":

              I got divorced in 2014 after 11 years of marriage. There were a lot of reasons for that, but the beginning of the end occurred when my then-husband became infatuated with his co-worker. I never found any evidence of anything physical between them, but he was spending an intense amount of time with this woman.

              You see, she lived in Chicago proper, and she took a job at my then-husband's place of business 27 miles away in Northbrook. The problem? She had no transportation to the job, and there were no public commute options that could get her to her shift and back on-time.

              My then-husband's solution was to offer to drive this woman back and forth to and from work. Every. Single. Day. It took him 3 hours a day to do this and was costing us hundreds of dollars extra in gas, to say nothing of the wear-and-tear on our aging vehicle. He did not consult with me before making this decision, he just started doing it. There was no time frame on the rides, either; this wasn't temporary help. He intended to keep giving her the rides until she got her own car, and there was no sign of that happening any time soon.

              I eventually told him point blank that I wanted the rides to stop, that she was a grown woman who needed to be responsible for her own transportation to work. I told him that I felt it was inappropriate for him to be alone in the car with this woman for 3 hours a day, and we couldn't afford these rides, and I needed his help at home. (I was 4 months pregnant at the time, trying to finish a master's degree, and our first child together was disabled.)

              He responded that he had prayed about it and God had told him not to stop giving this woman rides, so he wasn't going to stop, and I didn't get any say in the matter.

              What do you think I should have done in this situation? Should I have submitted myself to his tie-breaker vote?

              I have thick skin and won't take your answers personally, I promise.
              "It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

              Weighted Glory | Christians for Biblical Equality | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable

              Comment


              • #82
                The Bible is pretty clear that we should avoid even the appearance of wrong-doing, and if it looked like he was having an affair, you were right to confront him. The course of action is:

                If your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained back your brother. But if he doesn’t listen, take one or two more with you, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly. If he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector.

                There are roles in marriage. If either one fails to fulfill their duty, they should be corrected. People like to harp on and on about women having to submit to their husbands, while neglecting to mention that men are supposed to be someone worth submitting to.

                In your specific situation, without knowing all the details I can't say for certain, but the way you've laid it out it seems likely to me that he was having an affair, or as close to the appearance thereof as to make no difference. That's pretty much the worst way a man can abdicate his responsibility as head of the household. Adultery is the only exception God gives to the no-divorce law, so in your case I think you did the only thing you could. If he refused to stop seeing the woman (which is a red flag) and had no interest in repairing your marriage, then I think you were in the right.
                Curiosity never hurt anyone. It was stupidity that killed the cat.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by QuantaFille View Post
                  The Bible is pretty clear that we should avoid even the appearance of wrong-doing
                  Thanks for your answer. For the record, that's a mistranslation in the KJV. 1 Thess 5:22 actually reads, "Avoid evil of every kind."

                  But, I do think that ignoring your pregnant wife and disabled child so you can spend an extra 3 hours a day with your co-worker is evil for sure. (He was also staying out with her until 6 AM on Friday nights, partying with her and their friends. He refused to stop because he said they were getting drunk and needed rides home, and he was their designated sober driver, so partying with them was what Jesus would do. For real.)

                  I never found evidence of a physical affair with the co-worker. Anything is possible, but my evidence is limited to "he was spending lots of time alone with her and was clearly obsessed with her." A little over a year later, I easily caught him cheating with another woman by checking his phone, so I really do believe the co-worker was "just" an emotional affair.

                  If your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained back your brother. But if he doesn’t listen, take one or two more with you, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly. If he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector.
                  Interesting. I've never heard this passage applied to a marital dispute. This was pretty much what I did though. Friends and family talked to him, my doctor talked to him (it's written all over my delivery charts, "husband is unsupportive"), and his church leaders talked to him. When he still wouldn't stop giving the co-worker rides, I asked for a separation.

                  Yes, the Bible says you can divorce over adultery, but it's rather fuzzier on the subject of emotional affairs.

                  There are roles in marriage. If either one fails to fulfill their duty, they should be corrected. People like to harp on and on about women having to submit to their husbands, while neglecting to mention that men are supposed to be someone worth submitting to.
                  So, a woman has veto power on submission if she decides that her husband is acting sinfully?

                  If he refused to stop seeing the woman (which is a red flag) and had no interest in repairing your marriage, then I think you were in the right.
                  Thanks. There were other factors, but it started with the co-worker. I have told my story here and here.
                  "It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

                  Weighted Glory | Christians for Biblical Equality | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Darth Executor, since you are taking such a great deal of interest in my reasons for divorce over in the Fraternity, as I mentioned before, I have told my story in detail elsewhere. Here it is again:

                    Originally posted by Darth Executor
                    It's not fuzzy at all, it explicitly prohibits divorce except for adultery.
                    Your knowledge of what the Bible says about divorce is deficient. As far as the New Testament goes, adultery and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse are both given as acceptable reasons for divorce (1 Corinthians 7:15), so I'm covered on both counts. The Bible isn't entirely coherent on what is acceptable for divorce though; for example, God commanded the Israelites to divorce their foreign spouses in Ezra 9-10, for no other reason than that they were foreigners who followed foreign gods.

                    First century Christians wouldn't have recognized a difference between an "emotional affair" and a physical one. A married man who spent hours upon hours of time alone with another woman and chose to support her rather than his own family absolutely would have been charged with committing adultery---which is why I say that the Bible is fuzzier on the subject.

                    Originally posted by Darth Executor
                    It's his job and his money, if she's living off him she really does have no say whatsoever. You can't reject the Patriarchy and then demand your husband support you while you mooch off him.
                    Behold what patriarchy really thinks of women! It tells women to stay at home and let a man support them, and then calls them "mooches."

                    In reality, I was staying at home because I had a disabled child to care for (which has already been mentioned). We had jointly agreed on me quitting my full-time job to care for her after she was born and we learned of her disability. I don't think that makes me a "mooch;" I guess patriarchy doesn't think disabled children need caregivers.

                    But telling women that they have no 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. How was I supposed to feed my family and pay rent with our rent and food money going to this other woman? We can't eat "charity rides to a co-worker."

                    Bottom line, never marry a feminist. They're not honest about what they want, and they routinely aim their attacks at the people trying to accommodate them the most. They are never satisfied and the extra effort isn't worth the lesser reward.
                    I really, really don't think men like you have to worry about feminists marrying them.
                    "It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

                    Weighted Glory | Christians for Biblical Equality | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                      Abandonment means someone divorced you.
                      Wrong. It means someone left you. Not everyone who leaves formally seeks a divorce.

                      Originally posted by Darth Executor
                      I believe you said you separated yourselves (which sounds like a stupid idea when he's chasing another woman, if you really want to save your marriage).
                      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.

                      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.

                      Originally posted by Darth Executor
                      The OT isn't even relevant at all considering the completely different marriage structure.
                      The OT isn't relevant because a minority of Jews practiced polygamy? You know they were still doing that in New Testament times, right?

                      Originally posted by Darth Executor
                      Your implausible interpretation of what "First century Christians" would have done has no bearing on what the Bible says.
                      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.

                      Originally posted by Darth Executor
                      I am only calling you a mooch because you advocate for feminism when it suits you and patriarchy when it doesn't.
                      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."

                      Originally posted by Darth Executor
                      But you don't live (and never lived) in a patriarchal society
                      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.

                      Originally posted by Darth Executor
                      You live in an egalitarian society where there is no culture or law to compel him to fulfill sexist patriarchal duties.
                      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, and there was absolutely no social safety net for women who lost their male sponsor through no fault of their own. 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.

                      Originally posted by Darth Executor
                      In a patriarchal society your father (or some other close female relative) wouldn't have even allowed you to marry a Mormon in the first place.

                      Originally posted by Darth Executor
                      You'd be surprised. But there are some desperate souls out there, many on this very board, that might consider making that mistake. My warning is for them, not me.
                      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.
                      "It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

                      Weighted Glory | Christians for Biblical Equality | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                        I doubt they even had a formal divorce mechanism [in the first century]
                        Your ignorance is on display again.

                        http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstud...ewishWomen.htm
                        http://www.womenintheancientworld.co...ncientrome.htm

                        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.

                        Originally posted by Darth Executor
                        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.
                        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.

                        Originally posted by Darth Executor
                        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.
                        Nice to know that "put up or shut up" scared you into agreeing with what I said in the first place.

                        Originally posted by Darth Executor
                        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.
                        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.

                        Originally posted by Darth Executor
                        "single mothers" IE: people who make irresponsible decisions and now expect others to sweep up their mess.
                        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.

                        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.

                        Originally posted by Darth Executor
                        By contrast, traditional Christian/Jewish patriarchy placed burdens on both sexes
                        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.

                        Pretty apt analogy for how patriarchy treats women though. It turns them into conduits for men's crap.

                        You want modern day examples? 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.

                        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).

                        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.

                        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.

                        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.

                        Originally posted by Darth Executor
                        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.
                        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.

                        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.

                        Originally posted by Darth Executor
                        Looking forward to rehashing this conversation in 5-10 years.
                        Looking forward to necro'ing this thread and laughing at you when you're wrong (again).
                        "It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

                        Weighted Glory | Christians for Biblical Equality | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                          *talking about divorce by Christians*
                          *links to divorce by jews and pagans*
                          Christians still abided by the marriage laws of their land, just like they do today.

                          Originally posted by Darth Executor
                          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.
                          It says you can divorce if your unbelieving spouse abandons you.

                          Originally posted by Darth Executor
                          Alright so I can now marry multiple women? Thanks for the clarification Joseph Smith.
                          *shrug* There's not technically anything in the New Testament against polygamy. 1 Tim 3 talks about an elder being "the husband of one wife," but that isn't an injunction against polygamy, and even if it was, it's about church leaders, not all members.

                          Originally posted by Darth Executor
                          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.
                          Let's review here. I said:

                          "First century Christians wouldn't have recognized a difference between an 'emotional affair' and a physical one. A married man who spent hours upon hours of time alone with another woman and chose to support her rather than his own family absolutely would have been charged with committing adultery."

                          Then later you said:

                          "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."

                          Nice hepeating though.

                          Originally posted by Darth Executor
                          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).
                          LOLOLOLOLOL. No.

                          Mormons openly identify as patriarchal. They teach that a wife must "hearken" to her husband, that the husband is the head of the family, and that women will be subordinate to men in heaven. That they aren't patriarchal enough for you doesn't make them egalitarians. Patriarchy means "rule by men." That is it.

                          But telling your wife that you get your way and that's that is ALWAYS an act of patriarchy. There's nothing egalitarian about it. Egalitarianism is mutuality and consent. Everything else is just degrees of patriarchy.

                          I honestly do not care about your personal attacks on my 21-year-old self, my church, blah blah blah. You argue with personal attacks because you can't argue the facts. Speaking of which . . .

                          Originally posted by Darth Executor
                          loverwhelming 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.
                          Um . . . You do know where babies come from, right? You're not under the impression that women reproduce via parthenogenesis?

                          So why are you blaming women exclusively for taxpayers having to subsidize single mothers?

                          For every single mother on welfare, there's a man out there who had sex, then either cut and ran or failed to pay up. Men are just as responsible for the problem of single mothers as women are, if not more so. At least the single mothers are sticking around and trying to support their children with their own earnings. The men are just sticking other men with the tab via taxes.

                          Yet here you are moaning up a storm about women and their choices instead of telling your fellow dudebros to either keep it in their pants, cover up, or pay up. Like I said: you seem to have an inhuman need to blame women wherever you think you can get away with it.

                          Originally posted by Darth Executor
                          I was also in a disastrous relationship
                          I am glad that you kept the Lord's standards and did not have sex with this woman whom you had a disastrous relationship with.

                          If you want to know more about my marriage and why I married my husband, buy my memoir. It'll be out next year. Otherwise butt out, 'cuz no one asked you.

                          Now let's talk about what the Bible says about single mothers and charity, versus what you're saying.



                          The Bible has dozens of verses ordering believers to care for the fatherless and the widows (two groups that would have overwhelmingly included single mothers and their children in addition to orphans). Dozens. And God didn't give any craps that they didn't have what you call "economic prosperity." His order was to give and He would provide the economic prosperity.

                          Yet here you are, bemoaning the idea of helping single mothers, because how dare they expect someone else to clean up what you call "their mess." Read your Bible. It teaches all over the place that since God was gracious to you and cleaned up your mess, you should be gracious to others and do the same.

                          No one said anything about forced giving. It's God orders that are supposed to compel you to be charitable to single mothers and others---not the government. My point is that patriarchy was in control for thousands of years, and it never came up with any kind of a system that would care for the people that God had ordered his people to care for. It's best solution to the problem was to use women for menial labor or stick them in brothels.

                          Patriarchal society had its chance, it blew it, and it's not coming back. Get over it.

                          Originally posted by Darth Executor
                          Adultery was a serious criminal matter for most of Europe's history
                          Adultery laws were on the books for most of Europe's history. Was it actually punished? Not often.

                          Originally posted by Darth Executor
                          I'm not even sure how single men having sex with prostitutes violates "patriarchal familial ideals"
                          Indeed. If there are two things patriarchy has always been down with, it's fornication and prostitutes.

                          Originally posted by Darth Executor
                          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.
                          I think they should be compelled to support the prostitutes, too, when they get them pregnant. (Which happened in European history all the time.)

                          Originally posted by Darth Executor
                          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.
                          Their agency was limited to: (1) Become a menial laborer making a non-living wage, or (2) take up prostitution. One of those paid a lot more than the other. It's feminism that gave women more choices.

                          Originally posted by Darth Executor
                          According to ultraliberal wikipedia it's not true.
                          What's "ultraliberal wikipedia"? The Wikipedia clearly states, "the plaintiffs claimed that church leaders, including Mahaney, did not report accusations of misconduct to the police."

                          And Mahaney hasn't repented of what he did, so no, he meets neither mine nor the Bible's requirements for leadership.

                          Originally posted by Darth Executor
                          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.
                          The case met my biblical requirements for divorce, and remains an excellent example of how abominably patriarchy treats women.

                          Originally posted by Darth Executor
                          Lol they made him do physical labour, how many ditches do you think they should have made his sisters dig?
                          "Duggar's father reported to police that he had enrolled Duggar in a program consisting of physical labor and counseling."

                          Not surprised that an advocate of Christian patriarchy would think that what molestation victims need is physical labor though.

                          Originally posted by Darth Executor
                          women like you want strangers to take care of them for free.
                          I have a job. No one takes care of me "for free."

                          Originally posted by Darth Executor
                          Grace is about salvation, I'm not sure why you think it should absolve you of consequences
                          The persons I listed were all selected for positions of spiritual leadership in spite of their failings, or were allowed to keep a position of leadership in spite of their failings. That's grace.

                          And it runs completely counter to your attempts to say women like myself and Wildflower aren't qualified to lead in our homes.
                          "It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

                          Weighted Glory | Christians for Biblical Equality | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by demi-conservative
                            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!!!
                            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??
                            "It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

                            Weighted Glory | Christians for Biblical Equality | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by Thespia, 10-25-2020, 11:38 PM
                            4 responses
                            26 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Thespia
                            by Thespia
                             
                            Working...
                            X