Women as authority over Men

[Tambora]

Do you believe that giving women positions of authority over men has helped or hindered society more?

 

[Tambora]

I voted it has hindered society more than helped society.

One of the reasons I voted this way is the silly notion that women, in general, can be just as efficient as men, in general, when it comes to jobs that use force (such as military, law enforcement, security guard, etc.).

 

[makesends]

Can't remember which comedian:
"If women ran the world, there would be no wars. Just a lot of countries not talking to each other."

 

[Fred]

A few thoughts:

1. Why is it that it is always the men pretending to be women that dominate female sports activities and never a woman that pretends to be a man being able to dominate male sports activities?

2. Are there any examples of churches that allow for homosexual 'marriages' that didn't first begin with allowing female preachers?

 

[makesends]

A few thoughts:

1. Why is it that it is always the men pretending to be women that dominate female sports activities and never a woman that pretends to be a man being able to dominate male sports activities?

2. Are there any examples of churches that allow for homosexual 'marriages' that didn't first begin with allowing female preachers?

3. Why is it that when someone has a sex change operation, it is usually one of only two basic options —not one of the other 250 genders?

 

[XrzrX]

It's recent enough to be painfully, empirically measurable... and therefore, rhetorical.

 

[Tambora]

A few thoughts:

1. Why is it that it is always the men pretending to be women that dominate female sports activities and never a woman that pretends to be a man being able to dominate male sports activities?

2. Are there any examples of churches that allow for homosexual 'marriages' that didn't first begin with allowing female preachers?

1. Since most sports require strength and since men, in general, have more strength than women.

2. I don't know because I'm not familiar with any studies about it.

 

[Tambora]

How about women being in authority over men at a work sites?
Has that helped or hindered society?

I believe it has hindered society.
In fact, I believe that any women at work sites hinders society; but that goes down a rabbit hole deeper than just women being in authority at a work site.
I can't think of any business where I ask to speak with the manager that I would not prefer a man to settle my complaint.

 

[Arial]

What gets me on this particular subject within the Christian community, get a hold of the husbands headship over the wife. So often, the men assume it means they make all the decisions, all the rules, and dominate, and consider the wife a lesser being (and women in general). And often the wife thinks that means she is to be a meek little door mat and accept everything he says and does. IOW completely remove all partnership and help mate aspects of the design.

 

[Tambora]

What gets me on this particular subject within the Christian community, get a hold of the husbands headship over the wife. So often, the men assume it means they make all the decisions, all the rules, and dominate, and consider the wife a lesser being (and women in general). And often the wife thinks that means she is to be a meek little door mat and accept everything he says and does. IOW completely remove all partnership and help mate aspects of the design.

I haven't found that to be the case in my marriage.
Nor have I found that to be the case in the majority of marriage couples that I have personally known.
Is that the case in your marriage?

Let's face it, girls; it would easy for a man to abuse a woman in the way Arial has mentioned. You couldn't physically stop him.
So what keeps MOST men from abusing women?
What I have noticed in my lifetime and the culture I grew up in (I'm in my 70's) is that the only thing that kept most men from treating women that way is other men that would stomp those men who abused women.
Without the protection of men, women would be up a creek without a paddle.

 

[XrzrX]

What gets me on this particular subject within the Christian community, get a hold of the husbands headship over the wife. So often, the men assume it means they make all the decisions, all the rules, and dominate, and consider the wife a lesser being (and women in general). And often the wife thinks that means she is to be a meek little door mat and accept everything he says and does. IOW completely remove all partnership and help mate aspects of the design.

Like all forms of spiritual or physical abuse promulgated in the name of the bible, it's always from ignorance, misinterpretation or plain rebellion to the scripture. Men are the head of the family, as in the buck stops there, but women are said to have "despotic authority" (different meaning than now, but still "total") over the children, so that's pretty much equal authority (in that specific regard) And with regard to sex (the act), all decisions to engage or refrain are to be mutual, fully mutually agreed upon by both husband and wife. Both are considered "sons of God" in Christ, and in Heaven are not distinguished in authority by sex. So yeah, here.. we hold "office" of slightly more authority, for now.. and it's in service of Christ, not ourselves. Men that abuse this "office" corrupt the office. That said, women that defy the given offices, corrupt the word.

 

[Fred]

What gets me on this particular subject within the Christian community, get a hold of the husbands headship over the wife. So often, the men assume it means they make all the decisions, all the rules, and dominate, and consider the wife a lesser being (and women in general). And often the wife thinks that means she is to be a meek little door mat and accept everything he says and does. IOW completely remove all partnership and help mate aspects of the design.

I found quite the opposite to be true, at least in the West.
That's why I married a woman who was not from here. I got tired of this "What about my rights!" attitude.

 

[Fred]

Husbands
a. Are you ravished with love for your wife (Proverbs 5:19)?
b. Do you attempt to love your wife as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25)?
c. Do you hold any kind of bitterness against your wife (Colossians 3:19)?
d. Do you have a special honor for your wife in your heart (1 Peter 3:7)?

Wives
a. Barring sin (Acts 5:29) are you willing to submit to your husband in everything (Ephesians 5:24)?
b. Do you have a godly fear for your husband (Ephesians 5:33)?
c. Do you treat your husband as the God appointed master of your marriage (1 Peter 3:6)?
d. Do you have a gentle and quiet spirit (1 Peter 3:4) speaking the law of kindness (Proverbs 31:26)?

 

[Arial]

I haven't found that to be the case in my marriage.

That's good. Some men and women get the balance right. And when I said what I did I was not presenting it as common---just that it does exist and I have witnessed it.

Is that the case in your marriage?

I am no longer married. And my ex claimed to be a Christian or I wouldn't have married him, and I myself was newly Christian when we married. But he wasn't and isn't a Christian. He was abusive and cruel and a narcissistic sociopath. I did not want to be another Christian divorce statistic, but God had better plans for me and brought me out, one foot in front of the other.

Without the protection of men, women would be up a creek without a paddle.

Oh I am all for strong, protective men. My father was one of those. I think that is the man's role in a marriage, (one of them) to provide for and protect his family. A mother will protect her children if he isn't around. Remember all those discussion we had on TF and White Horse Theology Forum with members who were anti violence of any kind, even for protecting others? And I see "Annie" you still got your guns. Neither you or I would be up a creek without a paddle if no man were around when needed! But I agree with your point.

 

[Carbon]

I'm not going to vote because the questions do not really cover enough.

I will answer like this. I have 5 daughters and one step-daughter (a bonus daughter), and I would not like in any way if any of them were to serve in the military during an active war. So in this case, I would vote that women should be under a man's authority in the home, and I sure wouldn't want my wife going either.

In the church, God set men as leaders, as well as in the homes.

But in society, I see many women who are much more capable at many jobs than men are.

I believe if we followed Jesus words,

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. Eph 5:25-33.

We would be experiencing many fewer problems.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Do you believe that giving women positions of authority over men has helped or hindered society more?

I'm an anti-feminist—not because I despise women (how could I when I am one!), but because I cherish what God has designed. Everything modern feminism has touched has deteriorated: marriage, motherhood, men, and even the dignity of womanhood itself. Far from liberating, it’s leading society not into progress, but into ruin—a moral dark age dressed up as freedom.

If man were left to his flesh, without God’s restraint, history shows what he becomes: brutal, selfish, unrestrained. In the pagan world, women are treated like property, marriage is transactional, lust rules without consequence, and strength makes right. That’s man as beast—unregenerate, untamed, and godless.

But Christianity broke into the world.

Nearly two thousand years ago, God did something radical. The gospel called both men and women to holiness. It told men to curb their appetites and to love their wives as Christ loved the Church—sacrificially, tenderly, faithfully. It gave women honor, voice, and purpose in Christ, not as competitors, but as beloved co-heirs of grace. This wasn't feminism—it was something far better. It was redemption.

Godly households, shaped by the Word, are places where women are cherished and protected, and men lead with humility and strength, under the Lordship of Christ. One man, one woman, joined in covenant—not in competition, but in complementarity. That’s not the flesh; that’s fruit of the Spirit.

So when feminism tries to undo this—when it rejects the distinctions between men and women, or the beauty of biblical roles—it doesn't liberate women. It abandons them. It sends them back to the serpent, uncovered and unprotected.

Christianity dignified women by restraining sinful man. Feminism tears that down—and leaves us all vulnerable.

 

[Tambora]

I am no longer married. And my ex claimed to be a Christian or I wouldn't have married him, and I myself was newly Christian when we married. But he wasn't and isn't a Christian. He was abusive and cruel and a narcissistic sociopath. I did not want to be another Christian divorce statistic, but God had better plans for me and brought me out, one foot in front of the other.

Glad you are away from that monster.
Although I would have preferred that he got stomped so he could never abuse another woman.

Oh I am all for strong, protective men. My father was one of those.

YAY for your dad!

I think that is the man's role in a marriage, (one of them) to provide for and protect his family.

I agree.
And it does seem as though the majority of men throughout history have had that instinctual nature.
And that most women have been more attracted to men that have that nature.

Dumb stupid feminists have tried to ruin that for everyone.
Let women flood the workplace and now it takes two salaries to sustain a lot of families, not to mention that divorce rates went sky high because women would hit on the men there.
Had to lower standards of the military and law enforcement so some broad could join in.
Shoot, don't get me started on all the shenanigans feminist have caused.

Remember all those discussion we had on TF and White Horse Theology Forum with members who were anti violence of any kind, even for protecting others?

Yes, the stupid people.

And I see "Annie" you still got your guns. Neither you or I would be up a creek without a paddle if no man were around when needed! But I agree with your point.

I think we should have a law that no feminist can own a gun.

 

[Tambora]

But in society, I see many women who are much more capable at many jobs than men are.

Such as?

 

[Tambora]

I'm an anti-feminist

YAY!

So when feminism tries to undo this—when it rejects the distinctions between men and women, or the beauty of biblical roles—it doesn't liberate women. It abandons them. It sends them back to the serpent, uncovered and unprotected.

Well said.

 

[Tambora]

Can't remember which comedian:
"If women ran the world, there would be no wars. Just a lot of countries not talking to each other."

Another joke .....

Because of feminist the Olympics had to change one of their event names from Broad Jump to Person Jump.