Gender roles in the 21st century

[teancum79]

I was just reading Doug's post and figured this topic needed it won thread.

I'm going to be cheep and make use of a nice statement that my family really values is determining Gender roles.

"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed."



Link

Most of the role defining is at the end but the first half sets a stage for it.

In response to Doug's statement
I don't think a women gives it all up if she stays home. Money and fame are not everything.

Modify Note: I can't ever get those links to work the first go round.

[doug]

Hey Teancum,

I don't think money and fame are everything either and if a woman wants to be a stay at home mum then good on her and may she be happy.

What I find intolerable is the idea that a woman should -based on her gender alone- be required to stay at home when she may not want to and the subsequent condemnation some apply to her when she does not.

I don't think patriarchy is divinely ordained-its a human creation based on one powerful group keeping holding of that power through various methods. I don't mean individual men are power hungry maniacs out to scam women by any means possible but that ideas like the one expressed (IE the social order is divinely inspired) is an example of how "common sense ideas" can be engineered to suit the status quo. This encourages men and women to continue to live by standards that control rather than free them.

Am I saying families shouldn't love and care for their children? Of course not, parents have a duty to their children, but thats parents plural. If a couple marry and Mr earns the minimum wage whilst Mrs is earning good money as a lawyer, for example, and they decide someone should stay home for the new baby; why not have Mrs go back to work because she earns more and can provide a better standard of living? Mr can look after the child. It doesn't make him less of a man and doesn't make her less of a woman but it does make good sense. For society to say Mr should try to provide for a family on less money than his wife could potentially earn is society cutting off its nose to spite its face.

Of course if Mrs really wants to stay at home I'm sure they'd make it through as a family but this is what feminism is about-choice.

[robl]

this is what feminism is about-choice.

Feminism is about cutting the man's balls off and givin em to the woman. Thats all im gonna say about this topic. Cause feminists seriously tick me off.
Gender roles are set in place for a reason. Men and women are different. Common sence would then tell you that they have different roles in the family unit. And feminists do nothing but try to tear down the family values that keep a family together.

[jedivelariuskenobi]

I just want to add one thing.

traditional Christian Patriarchy - unbalanced, gives man all the power

Equality - a loving and sharing of decisions and responsibility, not based on however, on the putting down of one sex in defined roles or one being the head.

Feminism - Matriarchy and to far the other way "your a man you won't understand" attitude

namaste,

Jedi Velarius Kenobi

[dianaholberg]

That should be "traditional patriarchy".

The truly Christian approach actually elevated women from being essentially property under Middle Eastern (primarily Jewish and Arab) tradition to having an equal voice. This is documented several places in the Bible.

Also it should be noted that the most highly regarded person in traditional Christianity -- other than Jesus Christ Himself -- is a woman;, that among the "Doctors of the Church" there are three women; not to mention innumerable Saints.

[teancum79]

True feminism is about equality. Sadly many who clam that title are feminazi's who are seeking to oppress men.

I'm quite fine with women who choose to work and such (I work in an office with about 20 women and only one other male who is the big owner boos guy and only there once in awhile).

What really bothers me though is when the women power groups insult and demean those women who put their families first. I've yet to see a women (or a man) who can work 40+ hours and still be as devoted to their children as one who puts those 40+ toward the children.

The lack of full time parents is a major problem in our society and contributes to almost all the others. This however is not popular because we are so busy getting our 4th home and taking luxury vacations that we can't let taking care of kids get in the way of our fun.

[calyrelf]

teancum79 said:

The lack of full time parents is a major problem in our society and contributes to almost all the others. This however is not popular because we are so busy getting our 4th home and taking luxury vacations that we can't let taking care of kids get in the way of our fun.

I will agree with that, and I also agree that there are too many "radical" feminists who think that women who stay home to raise children are somehow "betraying" their cause.

I was a stay-at-home, home schooling mom for 8 years, until my son entered the 9th grade for High School. He wound up in honors class every year, and he just graduated ASU last week with a degree in Computer Science, summa cum laude. I am proud that his homeschooling foundation all through elementary school gave him a good start in life.....nothing I have ever done in the workplace has given me as much satisfaction as that has. Now I have a younger son, in 7th grade, who went back to school this year after being home-schooled last year. Although he is very socially active at school, he has asked me if he can go to home-school again next year for his last elementary grade. He likes the fact that he learns more in less time in home school.

I am considering quitting my job and doing that for him. I haven't decided yet. But if I do, I don't believe I should be denigrated for it by radical feminists.

On the other hand, I believe in absolute and full equality. If I were able to support the family on my salary, I would have no objection to my husband being the one to quit HIS job and do homeschooling. As it is, he makes more than I do, and we could live on his salary. It would be a tight squeeze on mine. So logic dictates that it would be me....but it has nothing to do with who SHOULD stay home.

[doug]

In general, feminism is not about "cutting the man's balls off " nor is it about introducing a matriarchal society. Calyref is correct to use the term "radical feminist" in her piece because whilst there is a common thread running through most feminist thought there are of course differing perspectives ranging from the radical to the liberal and back again.

I see feminism as about women, surprisingly enough, their place in a male dominated society and what efforts can be made to change long standing prejudices about and against them. Including those prejudices held against women by other women. Its not about emasculation.

I appreciate that at its time, Christianity may have given women more equality than they had experienced in other cultures during the time period your talking about, Diana. However, we've had a similar discussion re Christianity and women before and I recall being told God ordained men alone with the wit and ability to teach God's word. How is that Christianity giving women equal voice? If Teancum's excerpt sums up the Christian view on the matter then its still referring to the "traditional patriarchy" you mentioned and is not really about equality at all.

[calyrelf]

doug said:

I appreciate that at its time, Christianity may have given women more equality than they had experienced in other cultures during the time period your talking about, Diana. However, we've had a similar discussion re Christianity and women before and I recall being told God ordained men alone with the wit and ability to teach God's word. How is that Christianity giving women equal voice? If Teancum's excerpt sums up the Christian view on the matter then its still referring to the "traditional patriarchy" you mentioned and is not really about equality at all.

This is absolutely true. We have to define equality by the times. I remember reading about the saying "rule of thumb" and its origins. It came about in the 1300's when the legal system changed to grant more rights to women. The "rule of thumb" said that the stick with which to beat your wife, in the interest of kindness and FAIRNESS to women, could be NO BIGGER in diameter than your thumb!

This was a radical concept. Of course, you could still beat your servants with a bigger stick, but not your wife because you had to give her her due respect.

So by this token, the lawmakers were quite enlightened for their day. But by our token, they were backward, cruel louts.

I'm not saying that Christians are bad....I have a great deal of respect for Christians, and Catholics specifically. I'm just saying that the hierarchy of the Catholic faith (and I was Catholic for many years) are not doing their best to promote equality between the sexes.

My dear mentor, Sister Charlotte, who has been a Franciscan nun for over 50 years, told me that she thought it was insane that women are still not priests. She thought it was one of the reasons why the Catholic church has lost so much influence since I was a child going to Catholic school, when she taught me. She did not lose her faith because of it.....but she was disappointed that the church was dragging its heels concerning equality.

[teancum79]

So would total equality attempt to eliminate the height and raw strength that the average man has more of than the average woman?

Would not total equality destroy some of the uniqueness of both male and female?

I'm all for allowing women the right to do as they choose, but I don't think that imposing an artificial sameness on the genders is any better than imposing artificial differences on them.

[calyrelf]

teancum79 said:

I'm all for allowing women the right to do as they choose, but I don't think that imposing an artificial sameness on the genders is any better than imposing artificial differences on them.

See, I think we need to work on something that is far more subconscious than most people realize. I know that you didn't mean it the way it sounded, but just saying "I think that women should be "allowed" to...." sounds like men are the ones doing the "allowing". It's something that is intrinsic in our society, and that is what needs to be changed.

No, I dont' think we should discount the fact that men are stronger than women.....we should not be ashamed to say that there are certain things that men are "better" at and certain things that women are better at. But look at it this way, if you had a group of leading heart surgeons and a group of leading brain surgeons in the same room, you wouldn't say that one group was "less equal" than the other simply because one does something better than the other one does. Men and women CAN have things that they are different in but not be looked down upon for it.

This society tends to devalue the things that women are good at, however, such as right-brain activities. These tasks usually pay less, but when you think about it are no less vital to the working of society. What could be more important than teaching our children, for example? That should be highly respected, not denigrated, and the pay should match (although I have to admit, I've met some teachers who don't even deserve minimum wage.)

We have to show respect for and value the unique gifts that each side displays, since all are vital. JMHO

[dianaholberg]

doug said:

I appreciate that at its time, Christianity may have given women more equality than they had experienced in other cultures during the time period your talking about, Diana. However, we've had a similar discussion re Christianity and women before and I recall being told God ordained men alone with the wit and ability to teach God's word. How is that Christianity giving women equal voice? If Teancum's excerpt sums up the Christian view on the matter then its still referring to the "traditional patriarchy" you mentioned and is not really about equality at all.

Hmmm... how about this:

Which is better to direct a child: praise or punishment?

Which is better to season food: sugar or vinegar?

Which is better for growing plants: light or water?

If you agree with me that "It depends", how about these questions:

Is praise "equal to" punishment? Sugar to vinegar? Light to water? Apples to oranges?

Just because men are ordained to different roles than women does not mean this is inequality. It just means that there are different roles.

Many women would argue that women have more influence than men, for wives and mothers have great influence over their husbands and sons. (Ironically, this is in many ways the basis for Marian doctrine in Christianity.)

[jedivelariuskenobi]

dianaholberg said:

Just because men are ordained to different roles than women does not mean this is inequality. It just means that there are different roles.

Indeed but there is a fine line between noticing differences in physical nature based on nature, and in defining roles for sexes based on tradition. There is nothing to say that a man cannot nurture or that a woman could not do "men's work." I think that many of these ordained and natural roles being assigned women here and elsewhere are mixing nature and tradition, holding still to patriarchy.

Many women would argue that women have more influence than men, for wives and mothers have great influence over their husbands and sons. (Ironically, this is in many ways the basis for Marian doctrine in Christianity.)

However, this still makes the women's power dependent upon a man's and thus inherently unequal.

This separate but equal doctrine didn't work for Racism, and i don't think it can solve sexism either.

with peace and love,

Jedi Velarius Kenobi

[teancum79]

I'm sorry if my wording came off wrong, but from what I recall women have only been able to own propriety for about 100 years in this country. Many places wither by law or costume do not allow woman many basic rights.

As far as I can tell our nations laws are doing pretty well, but culture is slow to change and there are a lot of different ideas as to which way things should go.

[calyrelf]

teancum79 said:

I'm sorry if my wording came off wrong, but from what I recall women have only been able to own propriety for about 100 years in this country. Many places wither by law or costume do not allow woman many basic rights.

I'm sorry if I was blunt. And you are right, there is a lot to change, and some changes that have been made are very good. We are doing much better than in the past.....there is just still so far to go.

It's funny, too, because I've never considered myself a "feminist"....I liked staying home and raising my children. I just believe in equality....or rather the ability to be blind to my gender when making assumptions about what I can or cannot do. I think there are some good women lumberjacks and some good male kindergarten teachers, and I wish it weren't "surprising" to others when they are encountered....but it is. (And if the truth be told, it is even surprising to me, and I am uncomfortable with that hypocrisy in me, as well.)