But tell us again how women are too emotional for __________.

I personally am too angry to drive a car. Too many idiots out there. Am I the only one who knows how to drive?

not treating women as equals in this country is unamerican and unpatriotic.

I need to make an oblique statement at this point: Denmark has opened up its military draft to 18 years old females. This will go a long way in the future to giving girls power to fight and protect their country and additionally the internal fortitude (and training) to protect themselves from male aggression. That is, 'next' generation males will see the women of Denmark in positions of power and expertise. . .and able to defend themselves. . . against anybody. Who can second-guess "her" status in society then?

This country needs to open the draft to women

Really? I would really like to read more about this, from a woman's perspective.

Yes, really. If we want true equality then women need to be ready to defend their country. Many women already volunteer and that's great. I want those women who think they are too fragile for the military to step up and be willing to walk a fence line with a loaded rifle. Or serve in the rear where medical personnel are highly needed

I want women to have equality, and similarly I want it for all minorities in this country. That way male dominance and majority 'rule' critics will see the power and feel the impact that we undeniably have within and outside of ourselves. And let's just face it: a male (and Christian) dominated society does not want that girls, women, and minorities should know the fullness of the power they possess. Thus, daily they strive to hold 'us' back and tamped down. We are led to believe that this is as good as it gets.

If I'm not mistaken, Israel has drafted women since forever.

I need to make an oblique statement at this point: Denmark has opened up its military draft to 18 years old females. This will go a long way in the future to giving girls power to fight and protect their country and additionally the internal fortitude (and training) to protect themselves from male aggression. That is, 'next' generation males will see the women of Denmark in positions of power and expertise. . .and able to defend themselves. . . against anybody. Who can second-guess "her" status in society then?

While there are exceptions, as a general rule the Scandinavian/Nordic countries tend to treat women much better than most other countries.

Yeah, I really do not understand why it is so hard for people to be fair to people ("Others"). But, the evidence is clear, people are loving, indifference, and/or cruel from inside the same 'vessel.' 

I need to make an oblique statement at this point: Denmark has opened up its military draft to 18 years old females.

There are probably other countries who have drafted women.For example, Israel drafts women-- in fact they started doing that way back in 1949!

in fact they started doing that way back in 1949!

More as a matter of survival than an attempt at womens rights imo

I personally am too angry to drive a car. Too many idiots out there. Am I the only one who knows how to drive?

I'm freaking out about parking my car in the senior community where I live. I've seen 3 fender benders, just in the parking lot, from my balcony. every vehicle here looks like the drivers emptied a 5th and went out on a side-swiping spree ...

Old people can't see. And there are some that shouldn't be driving

I definitely no longer wish to be the first one thru the intersection ...

Not only do I drive well, I can drive a standard transmission vehicle. 

I used to be able to. Is it like riding a bike?

[✘]

I tend to think so. If you can drive a stick, you can drive anything.

Used to drive standard exclusively but can't any longer and had to go automatic, I miss it

I've been noticing this more that even truck drivers are getting their CDL but have a standard transmission restriction, they can only drive automatics.  The automatics don't always shift when the driver feels they should like a standard.  When I'm driving an automatic trans. truck I anticipate the hill and shift down one before the automatic does it itself, because the automatic waits for the engine to come down to the point that the truck has lost it's momentum so a hill slows you too much letting the auto. take care of the shifting.

I learned on farm tractors and an old dump truck that had 3 shifting levers, your standard 5-speed, a 3-speed auxiliary, and a 2-speed power divider, if you wanted to, you could double clutch and run through all 30 forward gears and 6 reverse.

It always liked the better control i have over a vehicle with a standard transmission, both in terms of when to shift and provide better acceleration and deceleration. It helps save the brakes too. 

I did too. I drove my standard for 14 years and kept it well maintained with regular basic maintenance (always go with full synthetic oil and a high quality oil filter). The car didn't owe me a thing. When I finally sold it, a few people who came to look at it either didn't know what I meant when I said its a standard or stick shift and they didn't know how to drive a standard. 

Unfortunately I think standards are going the way of the dodo, eventually there may be none available to buy

Descending Pikes Peak there is a place where you are made to pull over and they will have you stop for awhile if your brakes are too hot. 

I have had to train both men and women in how to avoid overheating their brakes on both manual and automatic transmissions on Pikes Peak.

I actually don't trust anybody's driving but my own on mountain roads.

I don't trust anyone's driving, period. People are idiots on the road. I her nervous if im a passenger and not the driver.

Unfortunately,  I think you're correct. Standards might still be available for muscle or sports cars. But not for "regular" vehicles.

standards will continue to transition to being a cost added option.

Hopefully an option but not with much added cost.

standard transmissions are cheaper than automatics, but the sales ratio doesn't justify an additional production line.

Am I the only one who knows how to drive?

No.

I have never understood misogyny. But I'm not a religious nut. 

I've experienced it. The military was one place where it's rampant. I don't experience it as much anymore but 2 of brothers-in-law don't treat women very well. I think they secretly hate women. But they treat me fine it's the comments I hear coming out of their mouths

35 years ago I was the first contractor to have female installers in the state. I took a beating from my superiors over it, but after these women had proven themselves, guess who was first in line to take credit for being so diverse. it wasn't me ...

of course not

I wasn't the first to have black installers, but after they'd been trained, the installation manager from the local cable system would hire them away to satisfy the city's diversity requirements in their workforce.

I have never understood misogyny. But I'm not a religious nut. 

The fact is they don't see it as misogyny; they see it as a commandment from their God to treat women as second-class citizens with reduced rights and reduced influence, to be considered a "weaker vessel" to be protected and cherished, but certainly not given much authority. The headship rules in most evangelical Churches is God/Jesus is the head of the household, then the husband, so he gets to rule on anything else Jesus didn't already rule on, then the wife.

The misogyny is baked in, and if a woman in the church tries to stand up for herself, she becomes the pariah in the community. Not the often verbally or emotionally abusive husband demanding she do as he says because he's the head of the household and God says she has to, and the church and the community are going to ostracize her if she doesn't.

Sadly, I have to admit that a little over 30 years ago I was one of those pastors advising some of the wives in my church who were complaining about their husbands who, in general, wanted to control their wives every move. I counseled them to listen to their husbands, that this was Gods will, and they should submit to their husbands in both body and soul to be good Christian wives. I would always speak with the husband as well and council them to work on whatever the specific issue it might have been, most often jealousy issues, but some were repeat offenders and were clearly emotionally and verbally abusing their wives and using the churches headship rules to control their wives.

And even though they were clearly the worst offenders, they were the only ones whose wives complained about the control and the headship rules. The rest either loved it, that's how they grew up and that's what works for them, and they praise their husbands and some practically worship them, or they stay tight lipped, and stern faced refusing to complain about the life they live, accepting the good with the bad and likely rationalizing that continuing to live the tradwife lifestyle while raising their kids is easier than trying to stand up for themselves and leave their asshole husbands.

I do think over the last 30 years since I left the church they have changed, there has been far more even evangelical women standing up for themselves and they have been given more of a platform to speak out and up for themselves, but the headship rules haven't really changed, and the abuse still exists in many of the deeply conservative communities. It's even worse in some other fundamentalist religions like the FLDS who consider themselves Christians, live in compounds and still marry off young girls to their elder men to be one of many sister wives.

And let's not leave out the other religious fundamentalists like Muslims who have an even harsher view on headship rules which are pretty close to Christian rules, 'Allah first, the husband second, the son third, then the wife'. So please don't think I'm just bashing Christians, I'm sick of the fundamentalist grip on women worldwide, from Iran, Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, the conservative Christian deep red States, even in many Asian countries, anywhere that they are denying women the 'fundamental' right to a quality education, right to work, right to own property and right to live on their own free of abuse and free of violence, sexual or otherwise. Sadly, most of the places on the earth where fundamentalist religions rules or have great influence continue to support policies intended to limit women's rights and equal access.

The male religious leaders of all these groups and the millions of men under their banners have used ancient writings and the supposed 'words of God' to establish and maintain their rule for millennia. Only now are there pockets of 'almost' equal rights in most western democracies. It's not everywhere, but definitely pockets, but even in those western democracies women are still paid 22% less on average, then men. In the US I think the women's movement has grown to where there are now just pockets of the fundamentalist communities. But, overall, women in America have more rights, and certainly a much louder voice, one that some rightwing conservatives say is 'too loud', but they're still having to fight for equal rights to this day.

The Hasidim Jewish Community has specific rules for wives/women, also. Women are tightly controlled in those communities

I'm suspicious of any religions that have their own additional subset of rules, dress codes, etc ...

It's called 'controlling.' And if you listen to Evangelical ministries they sell girls and women on the fear of not pleasing God if they do not 'honor' the God-head establishment of 'covering': God-Man-woman.

It is precisely what Trump is doing: Trump and MAGA supporters see women as having a place in the pecking order and, their churches have been complaining for decades that decadence is causing girls and women to 'wander' off into "the world" and leave the (home-) training they were equipped with in the church. 

But. There is something else that is problematic, in general. Girls and women may like having their sensibilities 'stroked' by the males that surround and they 'immerse' themselves. And some men use that knowledge to their advantage  (politically and propositionally) when they point out every insult, indecency, or cause of worrying about self-defense and protection girls and women need from (other) predator males. 

(I probably will need to 'clean' this one up, later.)

Emphatically. You're okay, DP. You know you are. 'Perfect' comment. 

My favorites are the Pentecostals

I like the viper handlers and poison drinkers ...

you could say that I'm more results oriented ...

My favorites are the Pentecostals

Awwww, I'm blushing

lol

were you raised Pentecostal? Coz I won't believe that you are now

Only till I was 12 and that was only to keep moms side of the family happy.  Once she passed, me, Dad and my brother stopped going.  But gotta say there were some interesting characters and practices while we were there

I was raised Baptist, then left the church-world, returned in my late thirties as a Pentecostal. . . had a great time in the 'services' too. . . but, after several years I moved on and actually away from all affiliation with the corporate church body of believers. Essentially becoming that which we are supposed to be not: "A lone Christian." 

(Since MAGA's advent I have become even more at odds with the corporate body of believers as I find MAGA Christians to be obnoxious and 'dodgy.')

I find MAGA Christians to be obnoxious and 'dodgy.'

ie: fake

I'm suspicious of any religions that have their own additional subset of rules, dress codes, etc ..

What is the difference between the "regular" rules of a religion, and the "Additional subset" of rules?

try to think of all the various abrahamic sects as HOA's in gated communities, only for your soul. follow all the rules and pay all your dues ...

But I'm not a religious nut.

That's good to hear.

Velveeta Voldemort....

i like it

That's actually pretty weak, and it definitely doesn't roll of the tongue. Cheeto Benito is funnier. plus it rhymes 

Tangerine Tyrant

Mango Mussolini

The Pumpkin who wants to Pump kin...

Commander Carrot

Horny Hitler

Horny Hitler

I like Adolph Twitler better

Darth taxeVader is also good.

[✘]

What a very interesting read. Very, very interesting. What I would really like to know (investigate/research) is. . . how far back does this worldview goes that women are second to (inferior) to men. I can see it in everything that we 'are' in the past and even in some areas of the present. . . I can see Trump trying to 'trick' girls and women into thinking they need defense from 'those men' who will do them. . .a DIFFERENT kind of harm, but it is a farce; a manipulation designed to keep girls and women WEAK and RELIANT on 'alpha male' dominance as the only way to surely have autonomy under males. 

In other words, I need to know which came first actual male dominance over the mind of girls and females (Troglodyte era) or religious male dominance over the spirit of women leading to the control over the mind of girls and women. . . whom came to rely on their male children to keep they safe from other 'dangerous' and dangerous men.

(Something like that up there, is what I wish to look into in a matter of days.)

Let's start here and see where it goes (for me): 

The origins of sexism: How men came to rule 12,000 years ago

Human societies weren’t always male-dominated. The switch came when we became farmers – and that suggests ways to roll back towards a more equal system

newscientist

I always thought it started with the Church. The Druids and Celts had warrior women

The church or the bible, you mean?

The Bible. But wasn't it Paul who said that women should submit to their husbands? Then again, that's what the Bible says he said and we all know about ancient men with pens (h/t to TiG)

I'm using circular logic

I'm using circular logic

Is that an educated halo?

Yes. Paul came out of a patriarchal society and culture rooted in the Old Testament. . .forming the foundation he build his letters on the coming churches. The Old Testament was (is) a patriarchal society. . . leading me to question if that is the start of women being secondary in status to men or if it goes further back than this! 

Researching. . . . 

lol

From the article: "The Origins of Sexism"

excerpt

Restoring and strengthening equality will require effort on multiple fronts, she says. If patriarchy originated in sedentary social structures that formali[z]ed male ownership and inheritance, then laws that give women the right to own property in their own name, for instance, can help.

But such laws exist in many 21st century societies – so why does the patriarchy persist ? Ultimately, real change will only come when societies embody the values espoused by the laws, argues Lise Eliot, a neuroscientist at the Rosalind Franklin University in Chicago: “The laws are the first step, the internali[z]ed values come lat er.”

newscientist

There are forces at work (and have been all our lives intent on keeping women "chained" to male dominance ideology. This, indeed, may be the best time for girls and women to change that for the future. But, girls and women have to 're-discover' how to change hearts and minds. It can not be accomplished, . . . in fact, it will be delayed in coming to fruition if girls and women just continue to operate in the shadow of a "good" man. . .or men.

In other words, I need to know which came first actual male dominance over the mind of girls and females (Troglodyte era) or religious male dominance over the spirit of women leading to the control over the mind of girls and women.

I'm not sure its a question of "which came first'-- IIRC, there have been extremely sexist societs going back for centuries--- and probably societies that treated both sexes equally-- also going back for centuries.

I suspect that male domination and religious justification have been feeding on each other since forever. The degree to which women submit is terrifying... but then in the most misogynistic cultures, they've been brainwashed since birth, and physically abused if they ever think of rebellion.

Lots of Muslim women say they are proud to wear their hijabs or whatever. The Quran recommends that they cover themselves - it is NOT a law - because men cannot be trusted to contain their lust at the sight of feminine flesh. That's monstrous: "Women! You must be less than you might, because we men hae no restraint."

And Mormon women docilely accept polygamy.

And women are forbidden to speak in some "Christian" denominations.

And......

I get the might makes right mindset and how men are largely stronger and more powerful than females—physically. However, has it always been that men 'lorded' over women? Which society (e.g.. Amazons. "Zena" : Kings and Alpha males) is recorded as first.  Some of what I have read (posted) states that a change came with agarian (farm) culture.

The question comes full circle:

Are world societies more peaceful when and due to female upbringing (domestication), or in general is female societal diversity not only better overall but essential to a proper sense of female happiness?

 is female societal diversity not only better overall but essential to a proper sense of female happiness?

I don't understand this proposition. 

Lots of Muslim women say they are proud to wear their hijabs or whatever. The Quran recommends that they cover themselves

There seems to be a misconception that the Koran mandates women wear a hijab-- or even that they wear a  niqab or the burqa,.

IIRC, the only thing it says on the subject is something  like "women shall dress modestly". 

What is "modestly"?

That's open to interpretation!

It just means. . . if females had the chance to 'reset' society without overpowering male influences and generational control over their lives, could women finding their own variations (diversity)  fair better than women who are 'managed' throughout life? 

(I am fully aware that many women appear to be happy with the status quo-which is their male 'sons' in-charge of society and predominately making the rules for this life. . . it does not offend them.)

Another question comes up: Is conservativism a form of brainwashing for the 'masses' of girls and women? (That is, does conservativism demand female conformity or compliance or else?) We can all look around the world and see how girls and women are 'manipulated' in conducting themselves (garbs, head coverings, burkas, "make-up," high-heels even); would these women choose this manner for themselves if it was not 'the way of the world' customarily?

It just means. . . if females had the chance to 'reset' society without overpowering male influences and generational control over their lives, could women finding their own variations (diversity)  fair better than women who are 'managed' throughout life? 

I'm guessing you've never been married to a woman, so I don't fault you for this misconception that men are the ones exerting control.

Well Jack, factually true: I have never been married. That is not the issue of my comment, nevertheless. My comment is about society-at-large—not inter-relationships. I can imagine in the 'worst' of patriarchal societies individual girls and women have (extraordinary) input to their 'man.' Makes sense to me. Indeed, I have seen such cases. Still, the 'castleowner' in the conservative own is well-established as being the man/male.

That's open to interpretation!

And since men decide...

My comment is about society-at-large—not inter-relationships.

I understand.  But society at large is made up of millions or hundreds of millions of interpersonal relationships.  Societal trends don't emerge from a vacuum, anymore than stereotypes do.  I always find it humorous when one of my married female friends rants about "the patriarchy" and then can't name a single man she personally knows who is oppressing women in any way.

I can imagine in the 'worst' of patriarchal societies individual girls and women have (extraordinary) input to their 'man.' Makes sense to me. Indeed, I have seen such cases.

That's just it, though.  We're not talking about the "worst" of patriarchal societies.  We're talking about the United States, which is one of the least patriarchal  societies on earth.

Still, the 'castleowner' in the conservative own is well-established as being the man/male.

OK, and for thousands of years, it was well established that the earth was the center of the universe.  That doesn't make it true.  Humans believe all sorts of ideas that are demonstrably nonsensical.  

I can give you hundreds of examples of that, but an easy one for a couple of guys like us who read the Bible is the silly interpretations of it we see every day.  

Nobody in the conservative circles you describe controls or persecutes women more than other women.  It has always been that way.  It stems from agrarian economies, where women lacked the physical strength necessary to provide for and defend themselves.  They depended upon their husbands for their very existence.  The 40 year old women were not about to let the 18 year old women move in and take their husbands. 

The existential crisis we're having now is the lingering of those social customs long after the economic needs have gone away.

I understand.  But society at large is made up of millions or hundreds of millions of interpersonal relationships.  Societal trends don't emerge from a vacuum, anymore than stereotypes do.  I always find it humorous when one of my married female friends rants about "the patriarchy" and then can't name a single man she personally knows who is oppressing women in any way.

I am confident that you know what the usage of the phrase, "society-at-large" means in context of this discussion. It's societal, cultural, and community policy-making. That is what we are discussing 'there.' Anecdotal stories are personal and limited in scope. And, out of necessity, not policy based. Still: There is this attitude that is percolating, that women can be 'managed' differently because of some inherent "deficiency" within by well, society-at-large. Case in point: See Hegseth below.

That's just it, though.  We're not talking about the "worst" of patriarchal societies.  We're talking about the United States, which is one of the least patriarchal  societies on earth

You may need to rethink that statement: Our society is in the clutches of ("alpha") males telling women to stand down. Such males are erasing women and attempting to remove women from military service in combat roles:

twitter  

Aaron Rupar

Pete Hegseth  "I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles."

It has always been that way.  It stems from agrarian economies, where women lacked the physical strength necessary to provide for and defend themselves.  They depended upon their husbands for their very existence.  The 40 year old women were not about to let the 18 year old women move in and take their husbands.  The existential crisis we're having now is the lingering of those social customs long after the economic needs have gone away.

Many farm widows can (and do) continue to manage their family business after death of their spouse—despite the challenges. They are hardy individuals too—maybe even more so depending on age and attitudes.

I have no understanding of why women should suppress other women's expectations of rights, liberties, and privileges.

"Lingering" is not quite how I would describe what is happening right now, it is more like re-adaptation. Let's be clear and honest: conservatives and the GOP are legislating 'for' and about girls and women not holding onto the rights and privileges they have been striving for (and winning) through the courts. To be fair, the conservatives and GOP literally think that rights and privileges should be granted by congress. . .not courts. 

Nobody in the conservative circles you describe controls or persecutes women more than other women. 

True. And horrifying.

FGM (female genital mutilation) is mostly executed by the girl's female relatives.

I asked very well-educated woman guide in Egypt about her "career". How did she see the future? "I'm thirty, so I have about ten years before I must wear black and withdraw from public work." That was a well-educated woman.

Girls in patriarchal societies are brainwashed from birth. 

For years Republicans have denied the war on women but it has always been there in plain site.

The massive women's march to the Capitol when Trump was elected the first time was an appropriate response. Women knew that war against women would hit overdrive.

The massive women's march to the Capitol when Trump was elected

Actually that wasn't the first time:

On March 3rd, 1913, with the national movement for women’s suffrage stagnating, Alice Paul and the National American Woman Suffrage Association organized a huge parade down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC, led by Inez Milholland on horseback, to put the movement back on center stage.

But a crowd of drunken men who had gathered for Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration crashed the parade, hospitalizing over 100 people and driving the parade to a standstill. The 5,000 women who had gathered for the march were forced to fight their way through the chaos. Their persistence marked an important chapter in the fight for the 19th amendment.

Trump and MAGA supporters are "hellbent" on turning women backwards through male machismo expressions. They are betting that girls and women 'want' it: to be 'kept' and pretty, and not in charge of anything substantially weighty on the mind. 

Girls and women continue on your way to full empowerment. MAGA men, girls, and women are a distraction.

Critical Overview of Patriarchy, Its Interferences With Psychological Development, and Risks for Mental Health

Advocates and apologists for patriarchy have used the sexual division of labor to explain the gender roles propagated by patriarchy. According to Lerner, the progression of civilization from tribal existence into larger communities required different individuals to attend to varying necessary life activities [16]. The female was seen as the birthgiver and child-rearer, while the male was seen as the hunter, provider, and protector. The latter set of roles was perceived as the more highly valued one in society, which led to a sort of excuse for the legitimization of female inferiority. Apologists' views of gender continue to reference this idea of higher male value perpetuating male supremacy in society as an attempt to explain gender relations.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih

Critical Overview of Patriarchy, Its Interferences With Psychological Development, and Risks for Mental Health

(excerpt.)

Although scripture states God created men and women as equals in his image, giving them both dominion over the earth and all living things, the writings of noted theologians declare otherwise. St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, q. 92 a.) writes: "Woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active force or some material indisposition…" [ 13 ].

St. Augustine (De Genesi ad litteram, 9, 5-9 ) writes: "I don’t see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with if one excludes the purpose of procreation. If a woman was not given to a man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be…?" These writings influenced the development of Western philosophy and Western Christianity.

Likewise, in Eastern theology, the ancient Sanskrit scripture Manusmṛiti dating back from the 2nd century BCE to the 3rd century CE was a systematic legal text of written codes establishing Brahminic (caste-based social order) patriarchy. The text discusses denying women the right to bodily integrity, marriage rights, contraception, divorce, etc. [ 14 ]. Women are objectified and considered sexually promiscuous in a deeply disturbing misogynist set of rules (dharma) in which subordination is celebrated to propagate the patriarchy as natural.

In the rules of medieval common law in England, widows were usually automatically entitled to a third share of their late husband's wealth. However, it change d with the Statute of Westminster II (1285) c. 34, when property holders may claim exceptions citing elopement and adultery to oppose widows’ attempts to claim their share [ 15 ].

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih

If you’re triggered by this article, there’s a strong chance you’re part of the problem.

[✘]

I find it notable that while Trump can't be 'told' anything that much deters him from his course(s) of actions. . . that he thinks girls and women can be Made to accept his "protection" of their sexual wellbeing, child-bearing years, and bodies!

Originally, I told myself I would not address this seed with a ten foot pole. but since it has been so persistent, I seem not able to stick with that sentiment. So, here's my two cents and it constitutes my thoughts on the subject, for whatever worth you choose to assign it. I admit I haven't bothered to read the actual seeded article, as I don't think whatever it has to say will be relevant to what I have to say, since what I have to say comes more from the comments rather than whatever the seed says. That said...

First, the idea that this issue is about control or freedom of women is ridiculously simplistic. In fact, the idea that this is primarily about women is ridiculously simplistic. Women do not exist in a vacuum any more than men do. That is, treating the issue as if women were the primary focus and that men are simply an unfortunate complication in need of some satisfactory solution. The truth is, both sexes exist together and the issue concerns both of them. 

Second, it's completely stupid to think that men and women are equal, generally speaking, in anything except the legal sense. This should be obvious. Heck, not even all women are equal, just as not all men are equal. If that's true, why would anyone think men and women are equal? For one, we want different things, are suited to different things. There's no barrier from women being bricklayers, yet there are few of them. Why? Because most women don't want to be bricklayers. Technically, there's no barriers to men working in daycare facilities, but few pursue that career. Why? Because most men do not want to. It is simply a fact that women in general cannot keep up with men in combat arms in the military. A woman will not beat a man in the 100 yard dash. Point. We're simply not equal in everything. 

Third, and most importantly perhaps, is what the role of women and men should be begins with what your personal world view is and not everyone shares your worldview. For instance, a fourth wave feminist may see the woman who advocates that the best thing a woman can be is a homemaker as enemy number one. Men who think Andrew Tate is the second coming may think men who treat their wives as equal partners as some form of cuck. In other words, women who think men are an accessory and men who think dominating women is proof of manhood. In reality, life is a bell curve, as I have said about various subjects many times before. And all of it stems from a person's worldview. This is not an either/or issue. 

Forth, for all the religious detractors in here. That's a bell curve, too. I have little doubt that there are those within Christianity who think Islam has a good idea when it comes to women, but I also believe they are on the far end of the curve, by my own observations. I think, though, that most of them, representing the middle, and therefore, most populated part of the curve, treat each other as equal partners. That the man is the head of the household, Biblically speaking, doesn't mean the woman doesn't have any say. In fact, I know that quite often, it is the woman who holds the man to a certain standard more than the man holds himself. That is, the motivation of the man is his wife, not his own desires. He tries to measure up to what she expects of him. This dynamic seems to decrease the less she seems to depend upon him. In that sense, she has more control than the man does. Where the man's dominance comes in, in Christian relationships, is if she desires or demands something he knows goes against God's desires for them. In other words, he puts his understanding of what God desires over either of theirs. That is what it means to be the spiritual head of the household. 

Lastly, value. Some think gender is a social construct. I think that's not just stupid, but evil as well. What is actually a social construct is the notion of what makes a person valuable. I'm just a worker in the warehouse for the company I work for, yet even so, without me, or the rest of the people under him, the CEO of the company could not do his job. He would be without value. I know I don't have the talent, or even the desire to do his job. Does that make me less valuable? Does the person collecting my garbage on Friday mean, because he collects garbage, he/she is less than I am? Less ambition? What would my life be like if I had to be responsible for my garbage? If a woman doesn't want to lay bricks, does that make her less valuable than a man who does? If a woman decides to stay at home and raise the children she and her man produced, does that make her less valuable than the woman who heads a multi-million dollar corporation? If so, who decided that? By what authority? 

Of all that I've said, the most important point is worldview. What one thinks about this subject starts from there. What you have to ask yourself is, what makes your worldview better than someone else's? I don't mean that they are all equally valid, as I don't think they are. The Islamist view of women , for instance, which despite the views of some here, are nothing like the Christian view. The point of this post is simply to get you to consider that your own views are simply based on your assumptions about the world and the issue at hand. There are others. It's not all about what you may want. Others want different things. The goal shouldn't be your way or nothing. The goal should be, how do we figure out a way to move forward together? 

Where the man's dominance comes in, in Christian relationships, is if she desires or demands something he knows goes against God's desires for them. In other words, he puts his understanding of what God desires over either of theirs. That is what it means to be the spiritual head of the household. 

It strikes me that this affirms inequality under the guise of biblical instructions.  The woman has a "vote" , up to a point, then she doesnt because the Bible kicks in. 

It strikes me that this affirms inequality under the guise of biblical instructions.

That would probably be filed under the "worldview" point I made.  

Second, it's completely stupid to think that men and women are equal, generally speaking, in anything except the legal sense. This should be obvious. Heck, not even all women are equal, just as not all men are equal. If that's true, why would anyone think men and women are equal? For one, we want different things, are suited to different things. There's no barrier from women being bricklayers, yet there are few of them. Why? Because most women don't want to be bricklayers. Technically, there's no barriers to men working in daycare facilities, but few pursue that career. Why? Because most men do not want to. It is simply a fact that women in general cannot keep up with men in combat arms in the military. A woman will not beat a man in the 100 yard dash. Point. We're simply not equal in everything.

The point being that women are prohibited by their male 'elite' from being whatsoever they want to be when men decide what is 'good' for girls and women for them. That is the point I get from the article. Women are not 'just' happy because their males-men "children" tell them what happiness entails for them!

Third, and most importantly perhaps, is what the role of women and men should be begins with what your personal world view is and not everyone shares your worldview. For instance, a fourth wave feminist may see the woman who advocates that the best thing a woman can be is a homemaker as enemy number one. Men who think Andrew Tate is the second coming may think men who treat their wives as equal partners as some form of cuck. In other words, women who think men are an accessory and men who think dominating women is proof of manhood. In reality, life is a bell curve, as I have said about various subjects many times before. And all of it stems from a person's worldview. This is not an either/or issue. 

This paragraph. . . for purposes of being "most important" loses me (and maybe others?). I am not sure why it is here. Fpr instance, who is Andrew Tate and why does the paragraph not give us information about why he should count in this?

The goal should be, how do we figure out a way to move forward together? 

Perhaps you can share your "worldview" on how to 'grow together' as a nation. . . because, right now "we" are far apart.

The Islamist view of women , for instance, which despite the views of some here, are nothing like the Christian view.

Incidentally, it is telling that religionists do not resolve those issues between themselves (their distinct worldviews) before striving with "hedons" and "pagans" to alter their behaviors. Religionists across religions do not agree on whomsoever God is. Isn't it time to come to a (an enlightened) 'conclusion' on which God is the proper God? Why do people have Vishnu, Jews have G-d, Jehovah Witnesses have Jehovah,  Christians have Jesus. There still remains a 'host' of minority religions with their views about God.

Horrendously, there are even Christians "in here" do not properly engage with other Christians, because of a bias of one type or another. Shouldn't those 'brothers' in the same faith. . . settle (accept; agree) between themselves what truth is, before involving others? Can it be done when one out of the two 'brothers' fails at interaction and communication?

Horrendously, there are even Christians "in here" do not properly engage with other Christians, because of a bias of one type or another. Shouldn't those 'brothers' in the same faith. . . settle (accept; agree) between themselves what truth is, before involving others? Can it be done when one out of the two 'brothers' fails at interaction and communication?

I tried to. You rejected it. You, claiming to be Christian, wanted to try our differences before a pagan court. I will not be a part of that. 

Ah, but that is it. . .if you faith can not (with)stand scrutiny and questioning, how do you intend to persuade (win) others to your cause? After-all, you surrendered (any) significant discussion between fellow believers in the faith together. My personal opinion is you want to do the 'steering' and not allow the interaction between us to improve on its own accord.

Also, perhaps you can share your "worldview" on how to 'grow together' as a nation. . . because, right now "we" are far apart.  To do that very thing, it will require discussion—you chose not to commit to having such (with me). 

Another point. I will be fair and balanced with your religious worldview, and I will expect the same from you. That does not mean we will agree with each other. It does mean that we demonstrate we can talk, between believers to the onlooking 'world'. . . (because so far not actually discussing issues between us has gotten neither of us anywhere together). 

As this is the only forum we share together, we should use it openly. . . because "we," I assume, are not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Also, if one us is wrong. . . one or the other of us should humbly admit error (or desist in persisting to hold to error) and 'graduate' - 'evolve' to truth! I will commit to stating that when I agree with your viewpoint, I will say so (to the whole of the assemblage). By the same, if I do not we can continue to discuss or agree to disagree.

I am open to discussing matters of faith and this world with you. . . are you willing to do the same? We'll see.

I will not question if your Christianity is a claim or not. Perhaps you will do the same regarding me going forward!