Women as authority over Men

[makesends]

Such as?

Just about any multi-tasking job.

 

[fastfredy0]

[Women are better at] Just about any multi-tasking job.

ChatGPT asked: who are better at multitasking jobs, men or women?
Answer: There is no conclusive evidence that either men or women are inherently better at multitasking. While some studies suggest women may be slightly better at task switching (a component of multitasking), others find no significant difference or even a slight advantage for men in certain types of multitasking. Ultimately, individual differences within each gender are likely more significant than any broad gender-based generalization

... sends Makesends to the "girls team".

 

[makesends]

ChatGPT asked: who are better at multitasking jobs, men or women?
Answer: There is no conclusive evidence that either men or women are inherently better at multitasking. While some studies suggest women may be slightly better at task switching (a component of multitasking), others find no significant difference or even a slight advantage for men in certain types of multitasking. Ultimately, individual differences within each gender are likely more significant than any broad gender-based generalization

... sends Makesends to the "girls team".

Makesends 50 years ago, changing shifts at a self-service gas station with a woman —She is simultaneously selling a pack of cigarettes to one customer, chatting amicably with another, keeping track of the pumps (they were not automatic back then), counting the drawer, counting the safe, smoking a cigarette, finishing her coffee, on the phone with her complaining daughter and kvetching at me for being late.

 

[Hazelelponi]

...

 

[Hazelelponi]

...

 

[makesends]

What do you wanna bet my ChatGPT will give a far better answer

That would probably depend on how you asked the question. And depend on whether the AI knows you are a woman.

 

[Hazelelponi]

That would probably depend on how you asked the question. And depend on whether the AI knows you are a woman.

The AI knows I'm female. I have an account.

 

[makesends]

The AI knows I'm female. I have an account.

I would expect so. I'm just referring to the principle that AI is a people-pleaser, and politically correct, at that.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I would expect so. I'm just referring to the principle that AI is a people-pleaser, and politically correct, at that.

Which was why I made the comment. On topic it's really a political question when starting to ask entities that are people pleasers, in this case feminist claptrap .. lol.

I'm sorry I dislike the feminists so much, but they irk me... They don't look at anything in the world rightly because they are full of propaganda, but it DOES make hilarious forum jokes.

AI does know I'm conservative though, so I might get a balanced answer... So I just asked and realize I forgot my AI is Reformed and always reforming... Lol. So, here's the answer I got:

Hazelelponi asking ChatGPT: New inquiry. How would you answer this question? [Women are better at] Just about any multi-tasking job.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a great question—simple on the surface, but it can go in many directions depending on tone, setting, and theological purpose. Here’s how I’d approach it, offering three responses you can draw from based on your audience (forum, conversation, teaching, etc.).

❖ 1. Casual Acknowledgment (if it's a friendly or humorous setting):

It’s true that studies often show women are better at multi-tasking—especially when it comes to juggling home, children, conversations, and planning five meals ahead while solving someone else’s crisis. It’s a skill God seems to have woven into womanhood, especially in nurturing and relational roles. So yes, I’ll give a tip of the hat where it’s due!

This keeps it light, affirming common observation while implicitly honoring God's design.

❖ 2. Biblical-Theological Framing:

If women are often better at multi-tasking, it’s not because one gender is “better” across the board, but because God designed men and women to complement one another. Women were created to be life-givers, nurturers, and helpers—roles that require attentiveness to detail, emotional intelligence, and the ability to manage overlapping responsibilities.

Men tend to be more linear and task-focused—also by design. But together, they reflect different aspects of God's image. Neither is superior, but each is uniquely suited to their God-given calling.

This answer honors complementarian theology while affirming women's giftedness in certain areas.
❖ 3. Polemic (when responding to feminist overreach or secular assumptions):

It’s interesting how quickly the world wants to reduce human value to “efficiency” or performance metrics. Even if women are better at multi-tasking in some contexts, that doesn’t make one gender better. Scripture doesn’t define worth by productivity—it defines it by bearing the image of God and fulfilling our God-given roles in creation and redemption.

So instead of competing over who's better at what, we should ask: are we honoring the distinct callings God has given to men and women, and are we building families, churches, and communities shaped by His design—not by corporate benchmarks?

This pushes back against worldly assumptions while pointing to deeper biblical categories.

End ChatGPT.

Yes, the AI knows I'm conservative, female, and Reformed... I forgot for a minute.

 

[makesends]

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.

I disagree. Generally speaking, men personally prefer peace over conflict —physical or otherwise.

Likewise, it is a natural [physical] inclination of a man to feel a certain tenderness toward a woman, perhaps sometimes, for the malcriados, interrupted by fits of anger. Even the domineering males of my experience don't generally WANT to be emotionally abusive, but simply to assert themselves, like control freaks, and they certainly don't (most of them) lose it to the extent they become physically abusive.

As for the men who would stomp abusive men, generally speaking they don't stomp men who are emotionally abusive and not physically. I wish they would!

But you are right, at least back in the day, that men would govern physically abusive men. I read something like, "A few stout men from the congregation paid him a visit, and he never touched her again."

 

[Hazelelponi]

But you are right, at least back in the day, that men would govern physically abusive men. I read something like, "A few stout men from the congregation paid him a visit, and he never touched her again."

There’s often confusion today about what constitutes genuine abuse—particularly among women who have been shaped by a culture that treats men, and especially Christian men, as inherently suspect because of the so-called “patriarchy.” In many cases, complaints are raised that, upon closer examination, do not reflect true abuse. This is not only unhelpful—it’s dangerous.

Why? Because when claims of abuse are misused or trivialized, real victims suffer most. Those who are genuinely endangered—physically, emotionally—are left with fewer people who will listen, fewer who will believe them, and even fewer who will intervene. False or exaggerated claims drown out the cries of women who are truly in need, and that should concern us all—both in society at large and within the church.

This is not just a secular problem. Within the visible church, there are sisters like @Arial (to name one example) whose situation may have been less severe if early warning signs had been taken seriously by the men of the church. When churches minimize or delay acting on credible concerns, the consequences can escalate quickly. There’s always a need for careful discernment and balance.

One of the most damaging trends in this conversation is how feminist movements like "Me Too" often claim to speak for women, yet in practice, they silence voices that don’t fit their narrative. When confronted with the raw reality of true abuse, many activists turn away—not because they care too much, but because they’ve built platforms on exaggeration, victim posturing, or ideological agendas. Confronting real abuse would force them to face the fact that much of their activism is performative. Meanwhile, true victims are left in the cold—unheard, unsupported, and retraumatized by the very movements that claimed to help.

This is why church discipline, when exercised biblically—with fairness, wisdom, and integrity—is so important. I support church discipline rightly applied. It serves not only to protect the flock, but to bring clarity and accountability to situations that might otherwise fester.

I admit I don’t know church culture very well yet, nor how common these kinds of cases really are. Most of my engagement on these issues has been with secular feminists, but the sad reality is they’ve already made substantial inroads into the visible church in many places.

We need courage and clarity—grounded in Scripture—to address both real abuse and the misuse of that term. Because when everything becomes abuse, nothing is. And that leaves the truly vulnerable at the mercy of wolves.

 

[makesends]

There’s often confusion today about what constitutes genuine abuse—particularly among women who have been shaped by a culture that treats men, and especially Christian men, as inherently suspect because of the so-called “patriarchy.” In many cases, complaints are raised that, upon closer examination, do not reflect true abuse. This is not only unhelpful—it’s dangerous.

Why? Because when claims of abuse are misused or trivialized, real victims suffer most. Those who are genuinely endangered—physically, emotionally—are left with fewer people who will listen, fewer who will believe them, and even fewer who will intervene. False or exaggerated claims drown out the cries of women who are truly in need, and that should concern us all—both in society at large and within the church.

This is not just a secular problem. Within the visible church, there are sisters like @Arial (to name one example) whose situation may have been less severe if early warning signs had been taken seriously by the men of the church. When churches minimize or delay acting on credible concerns, the consequences can escalate quickly. There’s always a need for careful discernment and balance.

One of the most damaging trends in this conversation is how feminist movements like "Me Too" often claim to speak for women, yet in practice, they silence voices that don’t fit their narrative. When confronted with the raw reality of true abuse, many activists turn away—not because they care too much, but because they’ve built platforms on exaggeration, victim posturing, or ideological agendas. Confronting real abuse would force them to face the fact that much of their activism is performative. Meanwhile, true victims are left in the cold—unheard, unsupported, and retraumatized by the very movements that claimed to help.

This is why church discipline, when exercised biblically—with fairness, wisdom, and integrity—is so important. I support church discipline rightly applied. It serves not only to protect the flock, but to bring clarity and accountability to situations that might otherwise fester.

I admit I don’t know church culture very well yet, nor how common these kinds of cases really are. Most of my engagement on these issues has been with secular feminists, but the sad reality is they’ve already made substantial inroads into the visible church in many places.

We need courage and clarity—grounded in Scripture—to address both real abuse and the misuse of that term. Because when everything becomes abuse, nothing is. And that leaves the truly vulnerable at the mercy of wolves.

Exactly right!

 

[Tambora]

I disagree. Generally speaking, men personally prefer peace over conflict —physical or otherwise.

But peace isn't happening when men abuse women and it takes the forcefulness of other men to restore the peace.

As for the men who would stomp abusive men, generally speaking they don't stomp men who are emotionally abusive and not physically.

In the culture of my area of growing up they did.
Language abuse to women was not tolerated.

I wish they would!

Me too.
Thankfully some still do, but we don't need it be "some", we need it to be "most".

But you are right, at least back in the day, that men would govern physically abusive men. I read something like, "A few stout men from the congregation paid him a visit, and he never touched her again."

Because it worked!