Comments on: Real Men and Women

By: Amanda

Amanda — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:17:39 +0000

Yeah, I can stil read it.

I’ve discovered that if you hit return TWICE between paragraphs, it spaces them correctly.

By: IAMB

IAMB — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:38:00 +0000

Wow… that really came up screwy compared to the composition box. Hopefully you can make heads and tails out of it.

By: IAMB

IAMB — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:36:47 +0000

Okay, here’s the ones that are a pisser for me:”…does not compete for equality with men or chafe at God’s design for
male and female, but delights in and understands the importance of her
calling to complement man’s role.”"…does not wallow in self-pity or make a habit of voicing complaints, but radiates cheerfulness and joy.”"…appreciates her father’s protection, and respects and submits to his
authority. In so doing, she is preparing herself to exercise the
Biblical role in her relationship with a possible future husband.”"…uses her years of singleness to seek and serve God without
distraction, and is content to leave the details of her future to Him.”#1 Because religion has historically been used to subjugate women and “God’s design” has been the excuse. Screw that.#2 Because, while pity parties and self doubt annoy me, one should voice one’s complaints rather than bottling them up until they become a serious issue. Say what you think and feel, dammit!#3 Because, while respecting your parents is good, this one leads right back into #1 by implication.#4 Because you should plan for your own future and take steps to bring about that end whenever possible. Leaving it all up to fate is gambling with your happiness. Thanks, but no thanks.

By: IAMB

IAMB — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:30:02 +0000

Can’t swear? Guess I’m not your type of guy then

By: Amanda

Amanda — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:02:16 +0000

It's funny that's the one you pinpointed on that list, since the word "submissive" was used in regards to her relationship with her father, not her husband (although it did say it would help her exercise the Biblical role she would have with a husband).

In all honesty, I don't really see anything on that list that I wouldn't think shouldn't be there. I may not like all of them, per se, but I do see the wisdom in all of them and the Biblical precedence for them.

The men's list was a little different. I wish there were more men who had at least some of the characteristics in that list, but no one could possibly have all of them.

Especially this one:

…has no desire to be gross in order to impress other men. He doesn’t burp, swear, or tell disgusting stories. (Proverbs 13:5, Ephesians 5:4)

If he can't burp, does that mean I can't either?

By: IAMB

IAMB — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:44:47 +0000

A couple of items on the “real women” list make me think these kids need to be removed from the breeding population. That “submissive wife” thing really gets my blood boiling. Biblical or not, subjugating women in any way is just plain fucked up. P.S. Apologies for the language. Did I mention the whole subjugation and control thing irks me?

By: Vimal

Vimal — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:09:06 +0000

well, I think in some of the biblical quotes they were trying to summarize the ideas expressed, but if they did that, I think they shouldn’t have put references in.I think it is unrealistic to expect a guy to have all these traits. I do know some guys who fit most of these, but we’re not perfect. I could come up with an equivalent list for women and none of you could measure up.I’m not saying it’s bad to want a guy who exhibits these qualities, but don’t dream up castles in the air that will never come true. Instead work on improving yourself while you wait. If the guys have a teachable attitude, willing to listen and willing to change, I think that’s more important than them having a bunch of dog tags.

By: Buffy

Buffy — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:15:05 +0000

Although I can’t agree word for word with them I do appreciate the attempt to create models for masculinity and femininity which are not dependent on the mainstream and on what the media are selling to people right now.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 04:07:14 +0000

You have a point. I'll admit that I didn't read them all that closely before I reposted them.

But I really liked the idea of them.

By: Scott Hatfield, OM

Scott Hatfield, OM — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 03:53:29 +0000

Well, I not only think that ‘real men’ like this don’t exist, but I think the Bible verses they cite don’t say what THEY say they do. For example, they write that a real man: “…can look a girl straight in the eye without communicating any impurity. (Proverbs 20:11)”But when I check said verse, it reads “Even a child is known by his actions, by whether his conduct is pure and right.” Huh? It doesn’t say anything about looking anyone in the eye, much less a guy, or that such a quality makes somebody a real man, or makes the distinction between actions and what is felt internally. Yeah, right. As if players can’t look a girl straight in the eye and avoid communicating impurity! Basically, this is one long attempt to redefine ‘manhood’ in terms of chastity toward the fair sex. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but it’s ahistorical and not what the passage’s author intended! Keep in mind that in the days of the Partriarchs “girls typically
married at age 12 or 13, immediately after puberty.” Given the other ways in which women in the OT were subjugated by men, just how much credence should one give any vision of ‘real manhood’ cultivated by cherry-picking verses here and there?