Boats or Votes? | Boundless Line

Boats or Votes?
by Heather Koerner on 07/10/2008 at 4:59 PM

Were the men on the Titanic heroes or sexists?

Some thought (and think) them heroes. In fact, a memorial still stands in Washington, D.C., reading, "To the brave men who perished in the wreck of the Titanic, April 15, 1912. They gave their lives that women and children might be saved. Erected by the women of America."

Some thought (and think) them sexists. The very idea that women needed protection was a symptom of patriarchy run amok. In an article titled, "The Titanic Riddle," one author wonders:

You're on the Titanic II. It has just hit an iceberg and is sinking. And, as last time, there are not enough lifeboats. The captain shouts, "Women and children first!" But this time, another voice is heard: "Why women?" Why, indeed?

"Boats or Votes?" asked one prominent newspaper at the time, seeming to indicate that women needed to choose between equality (the right to vote) and protection (the boats).

That dichotomy--either choose protection or choose equality--is a difficult one. On one hand, I want it to be known and acknowledged that I am not inferior, that I am absolutely of equal worth as a man. On the other, I know deep down that I am more vulnerable to harm in this life, and I long for safety and security.

Thankfully, it's a choice that Christianity does not demand I make. Certainly, the world will tell me that accepting protection from godly men is the same as affirming my inferiority to them. But the Word tells me different. It acknowledges both truths--my worth and my vulnerability--without making me choose between them.

God tells me that I am an equal heir to His kingdom. But He also commands that my Christian brothers, my husband in particular, act to me as Christ acted toward the church. That he be willing to give himself up for me.

As I write in today's Boundless article, "Nurturing Protection," "the world's masculinity either demands to be served or refuses to be bothered." But biblical masculinity acknowledges both my worth and its mandate to serve sacrificially by laying down his life for mine.

To me, those Titanic men were unquestionable heroes. They didn't demean a woman's worth by protecting her; they esteemed it.

Boats or Votes? Equal Worth or Protection? I'm very thankful God gives me both.

Worldview | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Craig said the following at 6:01 PM on Jul 10:

"I know deep down that I am more vulnerable to harm in this life, and I long for safety and security."

Here's the thing, though....men and women on a sinking ship are absolutely equally vulnerable to the harm threatened by the bottomless, icy sea. When the ship sinks...everyone drowns. So it was NOT an actual unique physical weakness or vulnerability that justified the expectation that men would act to protect women on the Titanic. It was, rather, a felt moral obligation rooted deeply in the then-universal understanding of the discrete responsibilities of men and women to each other.

This is an important distinction. Most of us would agree that if a thug approaches my wife and I on the street, I have an obligation to step forward and place myself between her and the threat. But is this because I am bigger, stronger, and a better fighter than she is, or because I am a man? The former reason is more limited than the latter. If, for instance, my wife were a martial arts master with an equal or better defense ability than mine, I would be excused from my responsibilities if they are based on my superior physical strength, but not if they are based on my manhood.

The actions of the men on the Titanic indicates that they believed their obligations were based on something more significant than their greater physical capacity. Specifically, it was understood at that time (though not always spoken about) that men and women had mutual obligations and responsibilities. This was an era in which men were expected to provide for and protect their women, period. And a society in which women were expected to obey their husbands--the "love, honor and obey" wedding vow was commonly used without irony. This committment and obligation had an explicit spiritual root in the Judeo-Christian tradition, which had evolved through the medeival chivalric era and into the gentlemanly codes of the 18th and 19th centuries.

In other words, the obligations of men and women had spiritual substance, and were not based primarily on physical skills. The authors of "Votes or Boats" were likely reflecting on this reality, and their logic is quite sound. Preferential and protective treatment of women in circumstances in which the physical capabilities of men were of no real significance was based on strong societal beliefs about what each sex owed the other. A very real, very significant and very long-running part of those beliefs was that the devotion of women to their families, husbands and homes precluded them from taking part in the affairs of men. When that part of the "contract" was broken by the entrance of women into the voting booth, the workplace and the public political "space" of the nation, the reciprocal part of the contact became much, much harder to sustain. Men began to ask themselves, "how can I be expected to protect and defer to women when they are making every effort to compete with and displace me politically and professionally?" This was a subtle conversation, but a very real one.

I respectfully submit that while Ms. Koerner is correct in her theological assertions regarding the equal value and different responsibilities of men and women, she is missing the long-term significance and effect of the suffrage and women's rights movements. Today we have women in dangerous military and police positions and have become dependant on their service for national function. When the British sailors were kidnapped by the Iranians, the Iranians scoffed at the "barbarism" of a nation that would place a young mother into harm's way on a warship. I found myself agreeing with Iran for the first time in my life. The result of a national and cultural rejection of the traditional "contract" between men and women on the part of women has been a mirroring rejection by men of their old responsibilities. Koerner focuses on her physical fragility because that is the only argument left for those who "feel" that men ought to protect women but continue to reject fundamental aspects of the civilizational cultural contract that for centuries justified that "feeling." But her reference to physical weakness while describing a situation in which that weakness is utterly irrelevant (because ALL would be equally certain to drown) makes it clear she is struggling to endorse a result she likes while rejecting its foundation.

This is not to say that I disfavor women's suffrage or other recent changes. On a personal level, I strongly favor the changes of the past century, as I generally enjoy women as professionals, and appreciate the more thorough common life I can have with a beloved woman via our common professional and educational experiences. But I cannot help but suspect that my feelings here are selfish, and that on the whole society was more just and less barbaric when the old contract was in force.

2. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:27 PM on Jul 10:

I've been wondering about that very thing lately.

I was trying to get there in a different way, though =p

I agree, though. We trade protection for equality...and I personally don't like it. I'd rather have the protection.

3. brx said the following at 10:37 PM on Jul 10:

Vulnerability in the sinking Titanic? Well, generally, women have an overall higher percentage of body fat. So, perhaps the women could have survived in the icy cold water longer than the men?

Another thought - women and children are generally smaller than men. So, you can fit more women and children in the boats than you can men...

Maybe they were a bunch engineers who realized they made a few big miscalculations that got 'em into the mess and then had to weigh the practicalities of saving as many as possible.

Grace & peace

4. Kelly said the following at 5:47 AM on Jul 11:

Last weekend a 'believing' man I went on a date with took advantage of me. Thankfully not all the way, but things happened that made me extremely upset.

Worst of all, it started in a public area, and do you think even one person asked if I was okay? I was in a state (I don't know if my drink was spiked or not, or maybe he just lied and gave me stronger alcohol than he said it was) but what would you do if you saw a drunk-looking woman upset with her date?

Would you intervene when he started touching her inappropriately, or would you just look away? Society tends to assume that women 'get what they deserve'.

As for me, I've learned a very hard lesson about trust (it was someone I'd known for a long time) and that you really cannot rely on anyone to rescue you.

5. Bruce said the following at 7:21 AM on Jul 11:

There is also a very significant and non-theological reason most cultures expect men to be willing to sacrifice themselves to protect women.

A society with more women than men can grow without trouble, but a society with more men than women is in trouble. In ancient societies, when men had multiple wives, it was less of a problem for large numbers of men to die than for large numbers of women. And even in modern Western societies, such as England and America at the time of the Titanic, women often died in childbirth. So, while we didn't have polygamy, we had men who could have multiple wives in their lifetimes because women had shorter life expectancies.

Even today, hunting laws often allow more males of a species to be killed than females. This type of law has nothing to do with theology or sexism; it is a practical law for the conservation of the species.

6. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:47 AM on Jul 11:

Bruce (#5)

Along with your assessment, its also the caring for offspring.

To go with the hunting season theme, the young of the female species would likely not survive without their mothers.

7. Heather Koerner said the following at 8:49 AM on Jul 11:

Kelly (#4),

I am so very sorry that happened to you.

If you haven't yet, I encourage you to talk this over with someone within your church fellowship (a pastor or maybe an older woman you respect).

If you don't have someone you feel you can trust but would still like to talk, Focus on the Family (the parent ministry of Boundless) has trained, Christian counselors available for free by phone at (719) 531-3400 x. 7700 from 8am to 4:30pm mountain time.

Heather

8. Noelle said the following at 8:50 AM on Jul 11:

I think the men of the titanic were heroes who deserve our honor and respect. They died that others might live - not that men might be exalted above women. And that's the real problem here:

If women had died instead, it would have been out of selfish ambition, a desire to prove that we're "equal" and a twisted sense of macho-ism.

As women, our concern should be for others - as the men of the titanic - not for proving ourselves.

9. Rachael said the following at 9:10 AM on Jul 11:

(****just my thoughts w/out being in the situation so who knows how I'd actually feel if push came to shove...in reality I may be very selfishly desperate to get on a lifeboat*****)

That would be absolutely absolutely hard to get into a boat knowing there are others who wouldn't make it. (Though I suppose if I got in a lifeboat I might tell myself: "maybe a lot of them will make it...") I don't know if I could do it. If I had a kid, maybe. But what a yucky yucky yucky feeling getting into a boat while seeing others - male or female- who may not get the luxury of getting into a lifeboat. I think I'd just feel absolutely guilty guilty (and blessed at the same time) being saved while others were not. I think it would be respectable if people hid themselves and did not get on the boat so that others could get on and live. But when there's children and loved ones involved, that would highly complicate matters because you wouldn't want them to leave themselves behind....and at the same time you don't want to "waste" the lifeboats -- someone should get on!! How complicated and how fortunate that we or most of us are that we will never have to deal with such a situation!! Wow....

10. Jo said the following at 11:29 AM on Jul 11:

Craig (#1)

That comment is going to take some very serious mulling over. Really interesting and thought provoking... thanks.

11. Heather Koerner said the following at 11:37 AM on Jul 11:

Craig (#1),

You raise some great questions.

First, I absolutely agree with your assessment that a man's duty to protect is rooted in the plain fact that he is a man--physical strength aside. Scripture doesn't say for strong husbands to give themself up as Christ did, but for all husbands.

I do think that men's general strength is reflective of God's assignment, but not it's reason. I also think that God has equipped men in many other ways for the task--emotionally, biochemically and spiritually.

So, because of that I would quibble a little. Yes, all were facing death on the Titanic. But that doesn't mean they were all vulnerable in the same way. I don't believe that the men and women were equal and that God just randomly assigned the men to take the risk. I think He instructed and equipped them to take the risk, even though it would probably end in death. In the same way, He doesn't randomly assign men to lead and provide, He designs and equips them to do both.

As to suffrage, I don't equate suffrage with women in the military--nor do I necessarily think that the latter is an inevitable consequence of the former.

Suffrage recognizes that women are independent moral and intellectual agents, capable and deserving to participate in choosing those who make, enforce and interpret laws.

I think the Word does this as well. It recognizes that a woman makes her decision for Christ, not through her husband or father, but on her own. Her husband is to be the spiritual leader in the home, if he is a believer, but, in the end, she will be judged alone.

Does Scripture mandate suffrage? I don't think so. But I don't think it negates it either.

Were things better in the "old social contract"? I'm not sure. There was sin then, just as sin now. The law gave certain men a covering for abuse then, just as both women and men have strayed from their biblical mandates today.

Still, we probably agree on more than we disagree on.

12. Craig said the following at 1:20 PM on Jul 11:

Heather--I think we agree generally as well, but I wanted to press you a bit on what has actually happenned societally and culturally in the West.

Here, I agree that you're directly on point: "So, because of that I would quibble a little. Yes, all were facing death on the Titanic. But that doesn't mean they were all vulnerable in the same way. I don't believe that the men and women were equal and that God just randomly assigned the men to take the risk. I think He instructed and equipped them to take the risk, even though it would probably end in death. In the same way, He doesn't randomly assign men to lead and provide, He designs and equips them to do both." Definitely true. My point was that the old "contract" recognized this reality implicitly, and accounted for it broadly in social arrangements. I'm not arguing that those particular social arrangements were "mandated by scripture" or any such thing, but only that they were a logical, coherent and accepted system that effectively protected women by imposing felt obligations on men. The "system" or "contract" did that in part by imposing countervailing obligations on women as well. The issue isn't that it would be "impossible" to construct a system or social contract that was different in some respects but accomplished some of the same things, but rather quite simply that we haven't done so. Instead, the old contract was torn to the ground and the earth was salted. Devotion to absolute equality between men and women in every sphere of life--professional, personal, athletic, military, educational, political--is now required of all, on pain of accusations of sexism.

Again, here you are on point: "Suffrage recognizes that women are independent moral and intellectual agents, capable and deserving to participate in choosing those who make, enforce and interpret laws." As I said above, I'm not "against" women's suffrage. I agree with your assessment here, and on the whole I think the extension of the franchise is a good thing. And certainly it would not have been logically impossible for the "contract" to survive in an altered form after the women's suffrage movement. But I think that might have required our society to have stopped demolishing the public differences between the sexes shortly after the suffrage movement--far, far short of where we are now.

Again, I appreciate the spiritual and intrinsic equality of all human beings in the eyes of God. But that has been Christian doctrine for millenia without mandating the sort of equality in public life that all of us--even on this website, including myself--are most comfortable with today. What we are dealing with here is not religion or spiritual truth but societal reality, which depends partly on underlying religious beliefs but partly on the law of incentives. It is extraordinarily difficult for a man who spends his days competing with women for professional jobs and promotions, wrangling with women in political debate, running against women in military training or athletic competition, voting for or against women candidates for office, and watching women action-heroes on nightly television...to nevertheless believe he has an obligation to accept an icy death so that a woman can live. Without SOME countervailing public expectations of women, this balance of power begins for him to feel less like chivalry and more like slavery.

Again, I think we agree more than we disagree. But I want to push you on the subject of your article--"what is required of me [as a woman]" in response to the man's societal obligation to sacrifice himself? What would your response be to the man who sees the world as I describe it in the paragraph above? You and I would of course agree about the power of scriptural mandates, but direct quotation of scripture is not a societal system that "makes sense" to most people, believers, moderately believers and unbelievers alike. Assuming that we do not wish to go back to the days before women's suffrage, what public, societal countervailing obligations on women do you propose SHOULD be in place to balance the sacrifices men ought to make on their behalf? Are you comfortable with the full extent of modern women's empowerment in politics and the professional world, and do you think this can be maintained while also managing to re-ignite in men a felt obligation to step forward sacrificially?

13. Louise said the following at 1:28 PM on Jul 11:

Ms./Mrs. Koerner I respect your opinions and even enjoy your financial advice articles.

However, your articles and posts that include references to "sneering feminists" (consider "The Masters and Me" on this blog or "My Inner Mommy War" on www.boundless.org) I could live without.

If you honestly believe, though, as you stated at the end of this article that "God gives you both" rest assured that "having it both ways" is immensely easier said than done.

Louise

14. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:55 PM on Jul 11:

Louise,

I understand you to be on the liberal side of things, believing that women can do anything a man can do without question.

But please read what Craig had to say in his posts.

You do understand, don't you, that in staking our claim for social equity between the genders that we are essentially telling men they aren't wanted, needed, or desired, right?

Its frustrating. And I'm sick of living in a society that claims that. And dealing with women that believe that.

In the destruction of masculine authority, women have forfeited all claims and rights to any protection that men could've or may've offered.

Think about that.

15. Sara said the following at 2:13 PM on Jul 11:

Hel-lo.... simple explanation: for reproducing, women are needed in greater numbers than men are: one man can father dozens of children in a short period, whereas women can usually only have one child or so per year. It follows that it's conventional to save women and children first in emergencies.

16. Louise said the following at 2:14 PM on Jul 11:

Green One, I wasn't commenting on Craig's posts or whether men and women should be "equal".

I was merely pointing out to Heather Koerner that one usually can not "have it both ways."

And it is just too bad if you are
"sick of living in this society and dealing with women" who disagree with your opinions.

People who desire to live on this earth must somehow find a way to deal with the outrageous existence of people who have differing opinions.

Think about that.

17. Adam said the following at 2:25 PM on Jul 11:

I suppose that I don't mind either system. If society is pushing towards women needing help and protection, that's cool. If society is moving in the direction towards absolute equality, that is cool too. What I will fight against is half-and-half or both.

I worked for years for a huge coffee chain (with a green mermaid). There were a couple supervisors there that felt that certain aspects of the job that males were better suited for. As a matter of fact they would have no problem saying that they were having me do something "because you're a guy." When it comes to pay, status, authority, or anything else, they wanted total equality. That I refuse to stand for. Fortunately, upper levels of management dealt with the problem immediately when I brought it to their attention.

The whole issue has been a struggle for me because I moved from an area that leaned very heavily towards equality to an area that leans towards a more Titanic form.

Women are able to get jobs not only based on skill - but also affirmative action. Women tend to come out the winners in most divorces and child custody cases.

Congratulations to women who have found the best of both worlds! You have been fortunate to be living in perhaps the best time for women. But let me tell you that men won't sit idly by and let you have your cake and eat it too. There will be a tipping point where women in society will choose what they want more: true equality or "protection." And for this man, the time can't come soon enough.

18. Louise said the following at 2:46 PM on Jul 11:

Comment 17,

THANK YOU!

19. IMO said the following at 2:54 PM on Jul 11:

Hi Adam,

You said, "As a matter of fact they would have no problem saying that they were having me do something "because you're a guy."

I guess the loaded question would be, what did they mean when they said 'because you're a guy?'

For instance, maybe they asked you because it would be an easier task for you to do (as opposed to a female doing it). Therefore, they don't want to pay you more for doing an easier task.

(So I guess then if they had a female do that same task, they should pay her more...seeing how it is harder for her to do...)

Just some random thoughts..

20. Heather Koerner said the following at 3:42 PM on Jul 11:

Adam (#17), For a Christian, it shouldn't matter which way society is leaning. It should matter what God's Word says. Therefore, a godly man will protect, whether society tells him to or not. A godly woman will submit, whether society tells her to or not.

You sound frustrated by how "women's rights" have played out in society and I can understand why--sometimes the equality is not so equal.

But just as Scripture tells us that a believing wife can influence her unbelieving husband through her submission--I believe that godly men can show Christ to all the females in their lives by obeying His commands to be a servant leader and protector. My prayer is that they won't sit idly by.

Louise (#13)--Am I going to have to come to Chicago and introduce myself to get you to call me Heather? :)

As to the "sneering feminist," I had to go back and read the articles. I did say I heard feminists sneering in the Inner Mommy War. I was describing the tone I hear many feminists use when describing a woman's decision to stay at home. And, trust me, I have been sneered at. (I said "ridiculous" in the other blog you mentioned, but that referred to that feminist's argument, not her personally.)

But I don't want to be a name caller--I believe that's the last defense of those who have no other argument. So, please, call me out if you see that.

That said, though, I do want to point out that there are serious, serious differences between a feminist worldview and a biblical one. I think that feminists are wrong and I truly believe that women, all women, will only find true happiness and peace with our Lord Jesus Christ.

21. Craig said the following at 5:01 PM on Jul 11:

Heather,

Adam (#17) is the perfect exemplar of my theory. Absolutely perfect. You're right that his assessment of society "shouldn't " matter for a committed Christian. But really committed Christians are--what?--maybe 20% of the larger population? Maybe? And it takes a fairly heroic effort even for a strong Christian to live out sacrificial love in the face of the factors Adam cites. Lesson: the societal "contract" matters. It defines the world you live in--you can't get past that with an appeal to scripture. I'd still love to hear what you (and everyone else) think its terms ought to be....

Sara (#15): Your reasoning strikes me as conclusory and somewhat specious. You could just as easily say that since each individual man has far more reproductive potential (in terms of numbers of future children) than any individual woman, a man is justified in saving himself in order to maximize population. Seems like absent deeper philosophical or religious constraints, that's what men WILL say.

22. Mike said the following at 5:41 PM on Jul 11:

Heather said:

"...feminists are wrong."

My dear lady, you hit the nail on the head. And, unfortunately, they have been corrupting women's ideals of the "strong" woman for decades with their wrongheadedness.

Allow me to relate a story. A friend of mine, many years ago, while attending graduate school, was leaving one of the classroom buildings through the automatically-closing doors. These particular doors were equipped with panic hardware (the crash bars you see on many doors in public buildings). As he was leaving, preoccupied with his duties for school, he allowed the door to begin closing. Realizing what he'd done, he glanced behind him. There was a young lady approaching the door, so, not wanting to be rude, he whipped around and grabbed the edge of the door with his hand, intending to pull it open for her. After all, it's essentially rude to drop doors in people's faces, especially for a man to do it to a woman, no?

Well, what does this young "lady" do? She grabs the crash bar and yanks the door closed on his hand. As he's nursing his crushed fingers, she comes through the door, puffed up and smug. He asks, "What'd you do that for?" She replies, "I can open the door for myself. I don't need a man to do it for me."

Now, I seriously doubt anyone who posts here would pull a stunt like that. However, It's instructive to realize that it's not only men who behave like pigs sometimes. Personally, I don't believe chivalry is dead...but feminists are doing their darndest to kill it.

23. Kellie said the following at 6:13 PM on Jul 11:

I don't think the scripture (which refers to husbands and wives) asks any man to give up his life for any woman. I thought the Time article has a pretty good point. I would like to agree with Heather, that we can have the best of both worlds, but I don't think we really can...we want equality, we have accept the good with the bad.

24. Craig said the following at 6:55 PM on Jul 11:

Kellie (#23) is just another example. She's a faithful Christian no doubt, and a good person, and acknowledges you can't have it both ways. She likes equality and says she's willing to let the old chivalry die so long as her husband loves her individually.

I'm not sure she really believes it though. Would she be willing to fight in combat on an equal basis with men? Or be drafted to do so? Would she really feel no indignation were a man (not her husband) to throw her to the wolves to protect his own hide? The question is--how comfortable are we, really, with the world we've created? Is it a more just, honorable, noble world on the whole than the one we've dismantled?

I think a civilization in which men can without shame shove aside women--any women--in a rush to the lifeboats is teetering into barbarism. I don't know what price is necessary to reconstitute a social contract that could really stop that downward slide. I would think it could be done without sacrificing women's suffrage. But some serious things would have to change, and there would be tradeoffs. Sadly, if a conservative Christian message board doesn't have the votes for that sort of change, it's going to be a while before you see any of it. It's going to get worse before it gets better.

25. Tasha said the following at 7:54 PM on Jul 11:

What has failed to be mentioned is in fact a simple math problem. If any man had taken a seat on board a boat, he would be taking the seat from a wife or child, negating the sacrifice the husband/father would have made for their survival. In order for the men to fulfill their duty to lay down their life for their families, every one of them had to remain on the ship so that as many wives and children could get out as possible.

26. Louise said the following at 10:45 PM on Jul 11:

Comment 20, I've been "sneered at" too, ma'am, by stay-at-home moms.

But I would never presume to imply that all SAHMs sneer, as you presumed to imply about feminists in your Mommy War article.

I'm going to give the same advice to you that I gave to Mr. Slater, SIMPLY IGNORE anyone who "sneers" about SAHMs not "pulling full weight!"

Why is it not enough for you people to say to yourselves "It's a shame these people don't realized the worth of a SAHM" and just go about your private business?

27. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:54 AM on Jul 12:

When we debate this whole women should be silent in the church stuff, people against it always like to point out that he was talking to a specific church with a specific problem...

I'd like to point out that our churches nowadays suffer from the exact same problem as those churches did: Feminism and heretical teachings from women. So, you see, the command still stands.

28. Ann said the following at 10:40 AM on Jul 12:

I think many of you have gone over-board on the differences between male/female roles. Scripture does not command MEN to lay down their lives for WOMEN; it commands HUSBANDS to lay down their lives for their own WIVES. Men are not expected or required to protect all women...and frankly, as a woman, I don't want or need the protection of most men. In the same way, Scripture does not command all women to submit to all men; women are to submit to their husbands and in the church, to be submissive in such a way that they are not in authority over men. Suppose I, as a single woman, were on the Titanic with my brother and his wife and their 3 children. If their were 4 seats in a lifeboat, his wife and their children should take those seats, and he should stay behind and lay down his life for his wife and children. However, if there were 5 seats, I would insist that he go with his wife and children...because his family needs him, and as a single person, I can choose to make that sacrifice.

29. Louise said the following at 11:52 AM on Jul 12:

Comment 25, not all women are wives.

In the competition for lifeboat spaces, should married women be given precedence over single women?

30. Jessi said the following at 11:57 AM on Jul 12:

I think that the point here is not women's suffrage or whether or not the men had a right to seats in the lifeboats (of course they did). The point is that those men who gave their lives were gentlemen in the truest sense of the word. And a gentleman will always be a gentleman whether the women around him chose to be ladies or not.
If Christian men chose not to be gentlemen, it says more about them as individuals than it does the women around them. That would be the equivalent of me choosing not to behave like a lady because the men I'm surrounded by don't treat me as one.
I hope that doesn't sound harsh... I didn't mean it to be.

31. Heather Koerner said the following at 12:08 PM on Jul 12:

Craig,

Sorry. Haven't been ignoring you, but was giving your question some thought (while making a honey cake with my kids--like Winnie the Pooh, you know--and going to the park).

So, here goes. I have little faith in the old social contract and here's why.

The old social contract depended upon the benevolence of men. Men were given the authority (right to educate themselves, take on legal responsibilities, have bank accounts, etc.). Women were given none of these, with the idea that they didn't need them because either 1) they were too stupid (which, of course, I disagree with) or 2) the men would take care of all that and look out for the interest of the woman.

But that's the critical question: Would the men really take care of them? I think that much of the bitterness of the "women's rights" movement came from one reason: The men didn't. This isn't to say that some didn't or even that many didn't. But there were enough men who abused their authority, who disregarded the biblical dignity of women and who used the system for their selfish gain--to make many women stand up and say "not only are these men not protecting us, we need protection from them." (Even on the Titanic, with the social contract, there were men ready to break it and push their way to the front)

Say Joe Schmo out there says "Girls, you're getting what you deserve. You want equality? Well, take it and enjoy it, but you'll get nothing from me."

Sad, yes. But I don't think this man--in the old contract--would suddenly convert to a model of biblical manhood. That since he had pressure from some societal rules and some other men to protect and provide, that he would do it. He may go through the motions, but his selfishness now would not be defeated by reverting to the old contract, it would simply make him selfish with more authority.

The Bible gives men authority, but is careful to guard against authority's abuses by dictating what kind of leader (like Christ) and describing what kind of attitude to have toward the led (equal heir, treat her with respect and gentleness).

The old social contract gave the authority, but did not demand the rest--or, at least, did not demand it beyond social pressure. (Though some, like many men on the Titanic, gave heroically)

You point out (and, rightly, I think) the quandry of today's Christian man: "Without SOME countervailing public expectations of women, this balance of power begins for him to feel less like chivalry and more like slavery." Can you imagine the feelings of slavery of having an authority which feels no obligation to answer to our Lord? And of being left to the mercy of that authority by other men and the law?

I think, in a nutshell, that's it. I don't want to go back to a system that depends upon the benevolence of men, because we've seen what ungodly men can do. That social contract was rife with sin, just as today's is--it's just different sin.

And I don't agree that I have to go back to the old contract to expect leadership and protection from my Christian brothers, in the same way they don't need the old contract for my submission.

I think the key for us as Christians is to 1) model a biblical worldview in our own lives; 2) encourage our brothers (you) and our sisters (me)to embrace our biblical roles, and 3) continue to point out the world's ridiculousness.

Will it be difficult? Yes. Difficult for you as a man, for certain reasons. Difficult for me as a woman, for others.

But by practicing the perfect social contract--God's--for the world to see; I think we'll prove our point far better than either the old contract or the new.

32. BDB said the following at 1:16 PM on Jul 12:

Mike (#22) wrote:

>>Now, I seriously doubt anyone who posts here would pull a stunt like that. <<

Naw...but if I was distracted by my hand hurting, I might accidentally put my foot in such a place that the door would open only 2 inches when she walked through it...I wonder if her head would sound like a cocconut when it hit the glass...if nothing else, it might create a "teachable moment" to discuss how common courtesy makes it easier to get through life...

Seriously, though, in the real world, no one complains about door opening. Especially since 9/11. Maybe you remember speaking to strangers on the street about that time.

33. Mike said the following at 2:45 PM on Jul 12:

Heather (#31) -

Your argument, in a nutshell, is: "Men didn't (or don't) live up to their end of the bargain, so the old contracts are null and void." That sounds an awful lot like radical feminism to me. Probably not what you intended, but it sure sounds that way from this side.

The feminists got a lot of changes put in place based on that notion - but the changes only went one way. The argument was, "Men don't live up to their end of the contract, so we have to turn to the courts and legislatures." Of course, there was no requirement on the women's part to behave themselves, mind their manners, etc. That would be sexist, limit a woman's freedom, her dignity, or whatever. Right now, there are legal requirements for men to "live up" to the old contracts - and it's getting worse - but there are no demands being placed on women to do the same.

Your complaint that some men are ungodly has validity. But we've replaced it with a system that gives ungodly women vast, nearly limitless power - and presumes all men guilty of the sins of their fathers. So, let me pose a few questions: Would you support criminal charges - say, assault and battery - for the young "lady" who did exactly that with the door to my friend at the college? Would you support legal reforms that would eliminate a presumption of custody for the mother in a divorce, and allow equal time with both parents - with the father retaining the right of at least some decision-making? Would you support legal reforms that would eliminate no-fault divorce? Because, right now, men ARE at the mercy of women and the law in a lot of areas today, thanks to attitudes like "men broke the contract". And it's only getting worse.

Further, despite the complaints that men don't stand up to protect, consider this: The legislatures that put these systems in place are composed primarily of men. Most of the judges that mercilessly separate men from their children and finances are men. Most of those who resist change are men.

I'd say there are lots of men out there who are still willing to stand up and defend women, even at the cost of other men who haven't done anything wrong. Are the women in the audience willing to do a little standing up for their brothers and sons?

34. Christina (in green) said the following at 3:08 PM on Jul 12:

Heather -

THANK YOU!!!

lol. That was enough to bring tears to my eyes. Lol. And some sense of relief.

ESPECIALLY this part:
Say Joe Schmo out there says "Girls, you're getting what you deserve. You want equality? Well, take it and enjoy it, but you'll get nothing from me."

Thanks :)

35. Mike Theemling said the following at 4:58 PM on Jul 12:

Interesting discussion. I wanted to read over Heather's article, all the comments, and digest them for a bit before commenting. I will say that overall the discussion is intriguing.

Where to begin? I suppose I'll start by saying that despite the "theory of equality", that there are certain tendancies (be it instinctual or otherwise) that favor certain sexes. For example, even though our military is now all voluntary and that except for a select few specalities any task can be performed by a man or a woman, there are significantly more men in the military. The same can be said of other like "protection" professions such as the police and fire fighters. Regardless of any possible physical or mental requirements of these jobs, there seems to be something about men which draws them into these lines of work more than women. On the flipside, there are more female elementary school teachers than male, as well as more nurses. Could it be that societal expectations aside the protector/provider role of the male and the supporter/nurturer of the female is hard-wired into us?

Heather raises a good point regarding having laws in place because of the lack of benevolence of many men. The fact is we have so many laws because some people out there don't do the decent, respectable thing. But one must be careful with this line of thinking; that one particular law can be the end all and be all to solving societal problems. It's akin to saying, "We need affirmative action because there are those who are not fair in their selection process" (regardless of your position on the matter, it's undeniable that AA has in fact created resentment on the other end).

Heather you said:

"I don't want to go back to a system that depends upon the benevolence of men, because we've seen what ungodly men can do. That social contract was rife with sin, just as today's is--it's just different sin."

Perhaps I'm taking these words out of context, and if I am, I apologize and would like clarification. But it sounds on the surface that this is saying (in essence), "I don't want to go back to the exclusively SAHM days because I don't trust men." Yet you would probably agree that most men back then were probably decent fellows who did treat their wives/family with respect. I would ask then (somewhat hypothetically), how is today's system any "better" than yesterdays? We may no longer have as much blatent male oppression, but we have our own set of problems. Higher divorce rates, the 2 income trap, etc. I am not suggesting that we turn back the clock or that we shouldn't strive for societal progression, but understand that any era has its share of problems. It's easy to criticize another culture or time period in which you are not assimilated in.

One thing that I will say regarding men/women equality that I have brought up before and Craig mentions here (good contributions Craig, by the way): We speak in favor of equality but do we want true equality or just a situation where we can have our cake and eat it to? If you had true equality in the military (which I don't have anything against women in uniform), women would need to register for selective service just like men are required to by law (as it was used as a way to draft people). There wouldn't be a 'men' or 'women' category for physical fitness tests, just one unisex test.

Finally regarding societal expectations and norms, I find it interesting that there appears to be a disparity, at least in the Christian community, between men and women (anecdotally, contrast the tone of a Father's Day sermon and a Mother's Day one). Men are expected to "take it like a man" on certain issues, while women can get a free pass on the very same issue. Take this example here regarding relationships. Men are expected to answer these questions like a man. Yet when it is the woman's turn the author clearly states that she is under "no obligation" to answer these questions (it makes it sound like men should be made publically accountable but women are not). Personally, I have no problem answering the questions, but I did have a problem with the apparent double standard.

Just some things to think about.

36. Adam said the following at 5:12 PM on Jul 12:

Heather, Craig, et al;

Let me lay down a challenge:

I would like to see anyone show us Biblically (that means from the Bible) - where it is the mens responsibility in society to protect the women.

I'm not saying within the home, I'm not saying within the church. I'm saying within society.

Why should I protect a woman in society more than a man? Is my responsibility greater when I see a woman on the side of the road with a flat tire when it is 3 degrees outside than with a man in the same situation?

37. Heather Koerner said the following at 6:59 PM on Jul 12:

Mike (#33), I'd say my point was more that returning to the old contract does not guarantee that men will behave as Scripture mandates. It's not radical feminism to say that ungodly men acted ungodly or that ungodly women act ungodly. It's radical feminism to say that God's Word is wrong about male/female roles. I do not--and would not ever--say that.

Mike T. (#35), What's with all the Mikes? Okay, you're just making me laugh if you think I'm arguing against SAHMs. That's the first time I've ever been accused of that.

I'm not arguing for a strict social equality of the sexes. I don't think that giving women certain rights (vote, legal contracts, education, etc.) means that we as a society can't recognize the different gifts and limitations of both sexes (military, etc.). Nor do I think that having those certain rights is in opposition to my role as a submitting wife and mother.

A couple of you guys have brought up "having your cake and eating it too." I have to confess, from my standpoint, it sounds a little harsh. I don't think that's what your Christian sisters are asking for. Yes, you face unfairness in this world. We, women, do as well. We can get into a debate about who faces more or about which generation faced more, but I don't think that's going to be really productive in the end.

My bottom line in the article is that I want to encourage my sisters in Christ today to affirm, receive and nurture biblical manhood. I hope that you, my Christian brothers, will do the same and spur each other on to embrace your biblical responsibilities.

38. Craig said the following at 7:44 PM on Jul 12:

Heather,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I so enjoy reasoned debate, and I think this has been a particularly good discussion. I'm glad we live in a world in which a man and a woman can discuss this sort of thing openly. I do think that you were unfair to my argument in one respect, and simply wrong in another respect. One at a time:

1) A fair reading of my comments makes it clear that I do not have a rose-colored, pollyanna view of the "old world" I've described. I understand that there were grievous injustices to many women prior to the rights revolution. No era, and no social contract, is perfect. I am not recommending that we reinstate an uncut social system from 1912. It's impossible to do anyway, even if we wanted. I was not advocating a specific system but rather describing what I believe the old system accomplished--namely, it promoted and affirmed the "chivalry" that you wrote this story to affirm. I asked if you would reflect on what changes might re-ignite chivalry--in essence, asking you to try to grasp with me towards a more perfect arrangement, acknowledging that BOTH the modern arrangement and the old contract have serious flaws. I'm afraid to say that I agree with Mike that your response to my specific point and question amounts to "I don't trust men generally, so I refuse to grapple with the effect that the change in social arrangements has had on our culture. To do so might open a door towards alternatives less comfortable to me than the absolute equality of modern society. Instead I will just invoke scripture and tell the minority of devoted Christians that they should behave with Christian charity."

2. My second complaint is related to my first. You vastly underestimate the effect of incentives and the "social contract" on society at large. Your response that we should respond to the modern problem by simply trying to be good Christians and by "continuing to point out the world's ridiculousness" is no answer at all if you actually want anything to change. Like it or not, society changes with the rules and expectations of civilization. You know that's true, because you acknowledge that while some men failed to meet their obligations in the Titanic era, chivalric behavior was far more common under the contract we've since discarded. You have not in any way disputed the "cause and effect" I've described--you've only highlighted the aspects of the old system you dislike. Your solution (trying to be good Christians, pointing out the "world's ridiculousness" ) will have no real affect on the world in which you live. It will allow we conservative Christians to feel smugly superior to a world that we have allowed to slip into barbarism and pagan ethics. That's all it will accomplish. Committed believers are not a significant enough percentage of Western civilization to change the way society behaves simply through personal self-reflection. You're right that in the "old days," some men failed to meet their obligations. But all decent men were expected to protect women. Today MOST men--including decent men--don't even recognize they have obligations; society has told them the opposite their entire lives. There is simply no way to pretend that doesn't make a tremendous difference. If you really want all decent men in the West to reflexively protect women the way they did in the past, a public, long-running (decades, centuries), coherent case has to be made, appealing to the intellect and conscience of the common citizen, without the direct invocation of scripture (which many do not accept as authority). The first step in making a case is deciding exactly what you're advocating for, which is what I was trying to ask. Simply saying "I want nothing in the modern contract to change, except men should give more" is not going to be a big seller today. Which leads me to one last thing...

I have to ask one last thing. And I really don't mean this disrespectfully--I ask because I really don't know the answer. Exactly what part of the world you've described is it that you find "ridiculous"? From reading your response you seem essentially comfortable with the modern way of thinking. You emphatically endorse not just suffrage but really the whole feminist project (abortion excepted, of course) through to today. You want absolute equality politically, are presumably comfortable with female senators, governors, presidents and generals, and don't want women to have any real dependence on men--because of the bad apples amongst them. For all intents and purposes, you want full, formal equality for the sexes in every public respect. That is what the world has given you--so what is it that you find ridiculous? IS it only the reaction of men to the world you endorse that you find absurd? Are you sure that there's anything absurd, illogical, ridiculous about their reaction? Undesirable, maybe...unChristian, yes....but ridiculous?

Appeals to the authority of Christ and scripture work fine on me. Heather, you would get no argument from me personally about my personal responsibility to protect women as a Christian man--Adam's question (which I think myopic) aside. But I wouldn't argue about my duty to accept death by torture rather than deny Christ (I'd rather not test my mettle on that, by the way)--and you'll never get a voting majority for that in society at large. If you really don't like this aspect of the modern world and want it to change, more thinking is required.

Thanks for your excellent post and a very thoughtful discussion. I hope you've found my comments respectful and civil.

39. Christina (in green) said the following at 9:24 PM on Jul 12:

Mike, you said:

I'd like to propose that a woman who doesn't want the old system, but is in favor of male leadership and female submission would rather have the woman say:
"I don't want to go back to the exclusively SAHM days, because there was no protection for a woman when her husband took advantage of his authority."

That seriously was a problem. Maybe not for the majority of women, but as Heather mentioned, enough of them to make it an issue.

Its not that we shouldn't trust men - I mean, seriously...I wrote on my blog that if your gonna marry someone, you better damn well trust 'em. And if you trust them, you don't treat them with distrust. However, when the trust is abused, there needs to be a way to protect oneself.

Yeah, the liberties given to women to protect themselves have been taken advantage of...that's simply a consequence of having a liberty...it can be taken advantage of.

Thing is, both genders have done it. And that's not a new thing. And it will never be a new thing.

40. a sister said the following at 2:23 AM on Jul 13:

Christina:

Do you believe someone has to be inferior to you in order for you to be wanted or needed?

Why do you say:
"You do understand, don't you, that in staking our claim for social equity between the genders that we are essentially telling men they aren't wanted, needed, or desired, right?"

I don't see that at all. Two people can be equally needed in a partnership between equals. Equality doesn't preclude different contributions at all and it doesn't imply sameness either. One person may be great with words; the other with numbers. One may be analytical; the other spontaneous. Both are valuable. and leadership / submission or authority / submission don't need to come into the picture.

Consider a boardroom or business partnership. One person doesn't feel unnecessary because of the equality of someone else, socially or otherwise. If they are so easily threatened, I submit that they are finding their worth in a false cultural definition rather than in being made in the image of God.

Heather -- you are probably a bit more devoted to the traditional side of the gender roles debate than I am but I really appreciate your statement here:

"Say Joe Schmo out there says "Girls, you're getting what you deserve. You want equality? Well, take it and enjoy it, but you'll get nothing from me." "

His character flaws may be restrained by today's laws in certain ways and perhaps obviated by social pressures in another culture but they won't go away -- he'll still be a very selfish man. In the old culture, he may be contented with controlling his wife's every move. Today, he may only refrain from abuse because of fear of the law. I don't know -- bottom line, as this discussion shows, neither law nor culture can change hearts. Only Christ can write the perfect law of love on our hearts - both men and women - and make us more concerned for God's glory than our own power or reputation.

So, you have that exactly right. The law is intended to restrain evildoers. Only grace can make new men and women of us.

Craig and some of the other posters on here seem to join folks like Doug Wilson and Doug Phillips in echoing Robert Lewis Dabney (Stonewall Jackson's chaplain and a devoted proponent of female subjugation as the only biblical way of viewing the world). See the URL link.

Oh, and Craig, I would absolutely support the abolition of no fault divorce. And I would support assault charges against a woman who assaulted a man just as against a man who assaulted a woman. I wouldn't necessarily support equal time custody decisions but I would support the same presumptions for both parents in custody decisions. That is, I would support allowing the judge to consider fault in making custody decisions.

Back to some of your comments, Heather, and those of other posters on the subject:

Thing is, I don't believe that a man's general obligation to protect is all about his gender. I think it's based on the biblical principle that those who are strong ought to protect the weak and not serve themselves. Each individual person ought to protect those weaker than themselves as a way of emulating their self-sacrificing Savior and those who are weaker ought to receive the help humbly and gratefully as a sign of their ultimate dependence on their Creator. But ultimately, that's not a gender thing -it's about Christlikeness.

Scripture says that those who are strong ought to consider the weak and not do what is most convenient for themselves (Rom 15:1)

Is not this a fundamental biblical concept? Wherever one person is stronger than another, s/he ought to protect and care for the weaker one using biblical wisdom that is appropriate to the relationship they share, rather than being selfish. Where any man is stronger than a woman (most frequently the case – at least physically), he should protect her. Where a woman is stronger than a man, she should protect him. Wherever a man or woman is stronger than a child, they should protect the child. Strength here might be physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, intellectual, etc… In any relationship, each person is likely to be stronger in certain areas than the other and should consider that strength as an opportunity to serve the other rather than himself / herself. If we acted that way, would not a watching world marvel at how we love one another?

Behind this biblical concept is the example of Christ himself, who, though he was God, did not consider equality with God something to be held onto, but made himself nothing – taking on the form of a servant and humbling himself to the point of accepting death on the cross at the hand of sinners (Phil 2:6). In other words, the principle of Rom 15:1 is based on the character of God as demonstrated in Phil 2:6.

41. BDB said the following at 11:52 AM on Jul 13:

As for your original article...it does kind of matter WHERE the reporter was trying his experiment. Some bars are very unsafe, and respectable people, particularly respectable men, will never go there. It also depends on the time - people who might go somewhere for drinks after work might not be there at 11pm (or 1am).

It's kind of like the date-rape statistics on college campuses. Last time I checked, more than 80% of the time at least one of the two parties was consuming alcohol. If you don't drink, and stay away from people who are drinking, you cut your odds by 80%.

If the reporter had joked around about that at, say, a church BBQ...let's just say I know who the off-duty cops are at my church, and which ones always keep their gun in their trunk. The guy wouldn't make it out of there without a "conversation." And if he was ornery, he might "trip" and "accidentally" hit his head against the patrol car roof 10-12 times...

And, for the record, broadcasting the image people without their permission is against the law in some jurisdictions, particularly if they are not public figures. It would be very interesting to see what the news organization would do if the tape captured some guys beating him to a pulp. How'd you like to be the jury deciding whether to let off the guys who beat up a reporter for pulling such a stunt?

42. Craig said the following at 6:19 PM on Jul 13:

To "a sister": Some good comments, I think. But your characterization of me as an advocate of "female subjugation" is patently unfair and baseless. I've suggested no such thing, and any fair and educated reading of my comments would bear that out. I've simply described what I think has happened--the reasons for the modern situation that Heather is decrying. My core point is that people (in this case men) react to social incentives and societal rules. And I'm asking people to think about how we could work to alter those incentives to promote better behavior. I don't want, and have NEVER said that I want, a return to the "women as second class citizens" world. I think your accusation towards me amounts to uninformed name-calling. That's sad considering that the rest of your post had good points.

Let me give one example of what I'm actually suggesting, and then try to finally be quiet. Engage in a thought experiement with me: What if we kept society largely how it is, but 1) restricted military service exclusively to men, 2) required all able-bodied 18-year-old men to serve three years, and 3) in military training, emphasized the unique opportunities of manhood as reflected in the adventure of military service AND the unique responsibilities of a man to behave in a gentlemanly manner. Such a policy would have a relatively minor effect on women generally--every non-military right and opportunity would still be available. It would also powerfully tell all young men that their civilization recognizes something substantive and unique about manhood, and that it is inextricably linked to the physical sacrifices typical of soldiery AND the protection of women. I recall the Navy recruiting poster from the 1940's: "Be A Man and Do It." Over time, that relatively minor societal adjustment might have a real effect without fundamentally altering social equality between the sexes.

I'm not specifically advocating this example--it's only an example, a thought experiment. My point is not that we should close the military to women (there's no support for that right now anyway, and the services couldn't take the loss in personnel anytime in the next decade or two ), but rather that more creative thinking about how to better our country is needed. I don't think it's a good thing that most men in the West don't think they really have any obligation to protect women. But that creative thinking, to be effective, has to begin by acknowledging the factors that are affecting the minds of men today. And those factors include the extent of the rights revolution over the past 80 years.

I think it's profoundly dishonest and uncharitable to essentially accuse me of wanting to keep women barefoot in the kitchen because I'm worried about some of the negative consequences of some of our positive progress.

43. Richard said the following at 9:22 PM on Jul 13:

I recall these words written by Bible commentator Matthew Henry in the 1600's.

"God created woman out of man's rib, and not out of his feet to be trampled by him, and not out of his head to rule over him, but taken from his side to be equal with him, and from under his arm to be protected by him, and close to his heart to be adored by him."

Enough said.

44. Lynne-befuddled in Atlanta said the following at 9:29 PM on Jul 13:

Ok, maybe I'm a little off here...it certainly wouldn't be the first time, but Adam (#35) I'm a little confused as to why you need a Biblical reason to help a woman over a man stranded by the road in 3 degree weather....I'm not really sure it's a doctrinal issues, but doesn't basic politeness at least necessitate checking in on the woman?
I'm a native Southerner, and I expect to be treated as a lady. So, to me, it's just the polite thing to do. I often have doors opened for me, ask for assistance with heavy things, and I'm teaching my sons to be proactive in helping women and others (elderly, etc). Yes, they may get their hands crushed in a door, so be it. We do things because we've chose to do the right things, not because we get rewarded everytime.
Consideration....politeness....respect...
Please/Thank you...openning doors...calling adult by their last name...shaking hands...looking people in the eye when you talk to them. I don't have scripture to support it, and I don't feel like I need to, because it's just clearly the polite thing to do.

45. Adam said the following at 11:58 PM on Jul 13:

Heather: "For a Christian, it shouldn't matter which way society is leaning. It should matter what God's Word says. Therefore, a godly man will protect, whether society tells him to or not. A godly woman will submit, whether society tells her to or not."

I think we need to be very careful when we transplant roles clearly given in scripture from one sphere to another. There is plenty in Scripture to support the idea that the husband is supposed to protect the wife in a marriage relationship. Does that responsibility carry over to men (married or not) protecting in some form all women (married or not)?

Let me show you an extreme example (as I seem to be prone to do in this discussion). Probably no Christian would say that sex should go beyond the bounds of marriage. Such a thing would be considered heresy. But somehow this "protection" should go beyond marriage?

Now, I didn't read all 482 pages of Piper's manifesto, but I did read through the section on manhood. Piper seems to acknowledge that spheres exist but appears to almost treat them as a non-issue. I'm not sure they should be discounted so readily.

46. Adam said the following at 10:06 AM on Jul 14:

44. Lynne-befuddled:

Thanks for commenting! I'm a native Northwesterner where society has moved more from treating one as a lady to treating one as a equal.

I absolutely agree that politeness is something that should be taught to your children and doesn't need a Biblical mandate. However, the modes of politeness are not universal, they are cultural. What is considered polite in the USA might be very rude in Japan. Society determines what is polite.

In today's society, it is becoming less and less polite to treat women in the manner which you described. Perhaps in the South, it is still a rather black-and-white issue. In Missouri, there is some level of expectation of men towards women. In Oregon, the "polite" thing to do seems to be to treat men and women the same.

The reason I ask for a Biblical basis is that society seems to be changing. There seems to be a part of society that says that the old way is the right way. Another part says that the new way is better. But shouldn't Christians seek to follow the Word of God and not just society? And what does a Biblical view look like in 2008 in whatever part of the country we are in?

This country has seen radical shifts before. We went from slavery to anti-slavery. There has also been women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, and a dramatic change in child labor ideals. There was a point in time in our history that slavery was taught as being right. Slaves were considered 3/5 of a person for government purposes (US Constitution; Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3).

Given just the United States history, if I am going to break with the direction that society is going and embrace some older customs, then I'm going to need to see that it is right and not just tradition.

There are other areas of society - such as endorsement of homosexuality - that I clearly believe are wrong. There is a strong Biblical argument against homosexuality, and thus, I will fight societal trends on that issue.

I choose to embrace the cry of Martin Luther, "Sola Scriptura." So once again, what do the Scriptures say?

47. Heather Koerner said the following at 12:06 PM on Jul 14:

Craig--That was a good sandwich! I'll try to make this brief, for the sake of those who are very tired of me writing.

Point #1: I agree with you that 1) the old arrangement promoted and affirmed chivalry much more than today's arrangement and 2) it's good to grapple with these issues. You agree with me that the old arrangement had grievous injustices.

I think the question we're both trying to get at is: What now?

I think your frustration with me might run along the lines of "Heather, don't you see that at least the ungodly men then had an incentive to behave correctly? There's absolutely no incentive now--leaving all women more vulnerable." Then my frustration with you probably runs along the lines of: "It's not that a few bad apples ruined the bunch. It's that even though some, or even most, men outwardly agreed to protect women, most (the nonChristians) did not have the other half of the biblical equation--to treat them as equal heirs and with respect and gentleness. Therefore, it only accomplished half the goal (at most) and left women just as vulnerable then as they are now."

I wonder if we're both just arguing from the masculine and feminine perspectives of "let's figure out a way to really encourage men to be men without harming women." You seem to emphasize the first, I seem to emphasize the second, but we're not that far apart. Or perhaps you disagree.

Point #2: I'll shoot straight here. I feel like you keep demanding specifics from me but were hiding behind the old Seinfeld argument. You know "the old times were really good, and now women have the right to vote--not that there's anything wrong with that...but the old times were good, but now we have professional women--not that there's anything wrong with that."

Sort of fighting for the old while still trying to be a "nonsexist" guy. So, I was very pleased to see your thought experiment about the military. Really interesting stuff. And I think (your claims of me being a feminist aside) that that sort of thing might meld well into my solutions too.

Here's my answer: The ridiculousness of the world is not that it offers equal worth (in some societies, like the US), but that it equates equal worth with sameness. I think allowing me to get an education, to pursue work and to vote recognize my equal worth. I think that much of the military organization, Title IX requirements of equal participation in everything from football to science classes and the idea that a stay-at-home dad is as likely, or desireable, as a stay-at-home mom are some examples of their view of "sameness." I ascribe to the first without the second.

It's a difficult line to draw, I agree, and will require us to continue thinking and sharpening. But here's what I would encourage my sisters in Christ to do: educate yourselves and prioritize educating yourself in God's Word; make your spouse and family a priority now, even if you don't have them yet; make choices now that will enable you to stay at home to raise your children; pursue work from a "stage of life" perspective; embrace biblical manhood and womanhood; use your vote, as much as possible, to uphold godly values.

Okay, I totally stink at being brief. Ah well.

48. Heather Koerner said the following at 12:30 PM on Jul 14:

a sister (#40):

Thanks for joining the conversation!

And your comment made me smile again. I haven't had a blog yet where I was described as a traditionalist and a feminist in the same comment string. :)

I agree that the strong protecting the weak is a biblical concept. But we can't ignore other biblical concepts which deal specifically with male/female roles. In Ephesians 5, the parallel of Christ laying down his life is given specifically, but it is given to the husbands, not the wives. 1 Peter 3 specifically calls us the "weaker" partner.

Like I said before, Scripture doesn't call for strong husbands to protect, but all husbands. The difference there is important.

49. Craig said the following at 2:51 PM on Jul 14:

Heather,

Thanks for your thoughts. I don't think you're a feminist. I think you're understandably concerned about thousands of years of the maltreatment of women, and that's your focus. And you're right--I'm focused primarily on the declining quality of manhood. I really don't want to dismantle equal treatment, but I think some of the current trends are not just wrong, but will be disastrous for a country and a civilization that I love deeply. It's hard to defend not just women, but also freedom, justice, independence...if men don't know how to be men. People should read some history from before the past few hundred years if they're interested in what the result is when civilizations run out of manly virtue. It's never, never good for the women of that civilization. We need to keep in mind that the quality of masculinity in the West is directly related to our ability to keep at bay, for instance, Islamofascist misogynists who want a world in which a woman isn't allowed to feel sunlight on her face. The rights revolution is still pretty new, and these trends we're seeing amongst men are still pretty new--they could continue and get worse as the "old times" become ever more distant. I'm concerned about the future.

But since you're concerned I've been hiding behind the "Seinfeld" argument a bit, I'll just come right out and say it: I don't want to go back to the 1920's. I don't want women to lose the vote or the right to engage in essentially any profession they choose. I just want us to remember, and recognize, that the old times understood some things pretty well--including that civilization has to teach boys how to be real men, and has to give men a coherent reason to fulfill their unique obligations. And--perhaps more important--that failing to do that creates very real risks to everyone, especially to women. The lot of a western woman, in the 1920's or even in the 1790's, compares pretty favorably with the lot of a modern woman in Afghanistan in the year 2000 or even the forced-abortion Chinese dystopia of 2008. The end consequences of lost manliness could be brutal.

To that end, I'm glad you enjoyed the thought experiment. I really think society will need to do something to re-affirm the unique role of men if we are to remain a great civilization capable of protecting our values, our religious freedom, and the dignity of our weaker members.

People must be unbelievably tired of my comments by now. I'll try to let it go at this point. :)

50. farmer Tom said the following at 6:53 PM on Jul 14:

I bow in admiration of Craig,

If only I were as eloquent, as disarming and as calm as he is!!!

Of course I also think he's wrong about women's suffrage, I'd take away your vote in a heartbeat, but I'm not nearly as kind, considerate and compassionate as he is.

Heather,

I am afraid that even if we could do as you want and return to the day of chivalry, while at the same time allowing women greater freedom in their actions and associations, you still have a problem that you have not mentioned.

Men and women are sinners. And sinners will always act in ways that seek to satisfy their own wants and desires. Give a women more freedom and opportunity and guess what, they behave in sinful ways contrary to God's standard. Give women more freedom and opportunity and guess what, men will use the women who take advantage of that freedom and opportunity.

The sexual revolution is a perfect example. When women began to have sex outside the marriage relationship in larger and larger numbers, the men didn't protest, complain or attempt to stop the trend, no they, sinful self centered hedonists that they are, encouraged, begged and conjoled women to even greater sexual promiscuity.

You desire to return to chivalry, you must transform men from the heart first. They must be accountable to someone or something greater than just society. They must be accountable to the Creator who made them. So the solution for your dilemma is the radical transformation of lives through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Men who desire to be like Jesus Christ will treat women the way women ought to be treated.

51. Jethro said the following at 7:49 PM on Jul 14:

Farmer Tom,

Are you serious? You'd remove from women the right to vote?

52. Leah said the following at 8:02 PM on Jul 14:

Adam,

I think it's ok for a guy to be requested to do a job "coz you're a guy" and then for men and women to have equal pay, status, etc. SO LONG AS there are times when women are asked to do things "coz you're a woman".

Men and women are different but equal. We are entitled to the same pay and status and benefits, but are better suited to carry out different tasks.

eg. If I was doing the same job as a guy, I would expect the same pay. If he did extra things "because he's a guy", then naturally he should get extra pay. If, however, I was also doing extra things "because I'm a woman", then our pay should still be equal.

farmer Tom- you really think women shouldn't vote?? There's nothing in the bible that discusses voting, so you can't point to the bible to say women can't vote. That's absurd.

53. Kellie said the following at 8:32 PM on Jul 14:

Craig (in response to comment #24),

I'm not saying I'm completely comfortable with it, but that's the way the western world works these days. I would much rather have it this way than the way it was a hundred years ago.

54. Mike said the following at 9:58 PM on Jul 14:

Hmn. Okay, let's back up to the beginning for just a minute. This whole (very fascinating, entertaining, and occasionally out there) discussion got started with Heather's column about some social experiment where a security consultant demonstrated that at least some men are pigs who wouldn't protect a woman, in some specific conditions that were somewhat uncontrolled.

I don't think anyone would dispute that some men are pigs. But Heather's reaction can be boiled down to more or less a single word.

Fear.

She's basically afraid that men won't protect her. And she is perfectly justified to feel that way. Not only is it a legitimate fear based on the circumstances of today's society, it also strikes at the heart of a woman's need for security (a core emotional need for women). Then, she had the maturity to ask this question:

"let's figure out a way to really encourage men to be men without harming women."

(As an aside, I wish I had the maturity to handle my fears as well as she....but I digress.)

So what can be done? A man's core emotional needs are to feel respected and competent - to be needed. Now, that dovetails nicely with the woman's call to affirm, receive, and nurture, don't you think? (Just like her need for security dovetails with his call to protect.) Without getting into a "chicken and egg" situation, it's a downward spiral effect: the less men protect, the less women respect; the less women respect, the less confident men feel, so the less likely they are to take risks to protect. Combine that with the women reaching to other sources (i.e. the government), and you have the two sexes working at odds; instead of building each other up, they're tearing each other apart (as I myself have been guilty of; forgiveness needed there).

I don't know if anyone is familiar with John Eldredge, but he points out that all of us men have a heart desire, placed there by God, to be that knight in shining armor, to rescue the damsel in distress, but we're afraid. We're afraid of failure, or of not being good enough, or of being exposed as a poser. While the woman is afraid of not having a protector, we desperately want to be the protector, but we don't want to let you down. Or, sometimes, we've tried and have failed. That's where I believe Heather is right on the money with her three-pronged approach - affirm, receive, and nurture. Those three elements are perfect for what a man needs in order to calm his fears.

The wrong approach, though, is the approach that's been taken for the last several decades: To insist that she should look elsewhere when her man fails. That cuts out our hearts. That confirms for us that our deepest fears are true - that we're not good enough, that we are failures. That our women don't trust us to take care of them; they're really not fully committed to us. It can create a somewhat fatalistic view: If she's going to go elsewhere when I fail - and of course I will - then why bother trying? Good men will try to fight that. Worthless men won't care anyway. Think of it as emotional infidelity if you like; it has much the same impact.

It will be hard for women to do, because it means letting go of some of that emotional need for security - it means trusting him when he's not particularly trustworthy. But then, he's supposed to love you when you're not particularly lovable, right?

So, in the final analysis, what does all of this mean? I believe that both men and women need to face the ugly truth that their fears are real - and that their partners have fears too. Calming your partner's fears needs to be your primary focus, I believe. And if your partner fails, to whom should you turn? To the one source that will never let you down: our Heavenly Father - and no one else.

55. Anne said the following at 8:36 AM on Jul 15:

Wouldn't patriarchy require that the women stay behind and the men get on the boats because the men were "more important?"

May God send me a man who respects and values a woman enough to put her safety, happiness and well- being before his own.

56. IMO said the following at 10:05 AM on Jul 15:

Mike #54

So true, so true. Amen brother.

57. Craig M. said the following at 11:23 AM on Jul 15:

First of all, just a note--I'm "Craig," and I'm going to write as "Craig M." from now on to avoid confusion with "Craig" from the "If God Can Use It" post. I found his comments bothersome and don't want the association.

Second, thanks for the compliment, Farmer Tom, but I really do disagree with you about women's votes--I'm not just being "compassionate." I think that including women in the electoral process is a step towards justice and fulfills the promise of the American vision. I just believe that a lot of the other changes to society that came along with the rights revolution have had serious negative consequences--consequences that may endanger ALL of our rights in the distant future if nothing changes. I'd like us to recognize that the "old timers" were not idiots--they understood some crucial things that we may have forgotten in the comfort of modern civilization, including the qualities necessary to maintain civilization.

58. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:53 AM on Jul 15:

Anne, # 55:

Misogyny is the women stay behind and the men get on the boats because the men were "more important?"

Do be more accurate, it is hatred or strong prejudice against women.

Patriarchy is where a father figure and males have authority...which is biblical.

Its different words for different meanings. And mysogyny doesn't need patriarchy to exist. Just ask a number of men living in an incredibly more feminized country.

59. Kellie said the following at 5:58 PM on Jul 15:

Christina (comment #58),

Patriarchy is in the bible, but that doesn't mean it's biblical (in the sense that we should be following it).

60. farmer Tom said the following at 8:10 PM on Jul 15:

Women's Suffrage

Before you all get overly excited, these comments are about what I believe, based on study of the Biblical pattern and historical evidence.

It would be impossible for me to include all the arguments against womens suffrage in this forum. So this is going to be a very brief summary. I would encourage some of you to do your own research and at least consider the evidence for your self. Some of you will have a immediate reaction of total revulsion to the very idea. Fine, even I will acknowledge that the possibility of this country putting the genie back in the bottle is smaller than the chances that I'll become a billionaire, so in other words both my thoughts and your reaction are irrelevant to reality.

One more thing, if we were to go to the system I envision, I would currently be ineligible to vote as well since I am not currently a property owner.

I believe that the first institution ordained by God was the family unit. I believe that the husband is the head of the wife, patriarchy if you will. And that the husband/father is accountable before God for his family.

Since I think a clear Biblical pattern exists for male leadership in the home, the idea of giving women the right to vote, has the effect of negating the authority of the husband. Unless the wife votes the same as the husband, she has in effect canceled out his vote, ie one no and one yes equal an actual zero vote. If the first reaction is that if they vote the same then his action is multiplied. But I would argue that if no women could vote then the higher vote count is unnecessary. If the male head of a household were the only one eligible to vote it would be impossible for any woman to negate her husbands vote, and I think that's a good thing.

If would appear that when God established a system of governance among the children of Israel in the OT, that the male head of the home was the one to vote on the judges, to offer sacrifice for the family, in other words he was accountable before God for his family. That seems to me to indicate that God's plan is for men to have a role that women do not have.

Many of you here are single women, what about your right to vote. First, I believe that you should still be under the authority of your father. Second, and more importantly, I believe that your independence in the voting booth actually leads to lower levels of marriage. You see a single women votes for government to meet the needs that are the role of the husband, namely to provide the security that women desire. It is in womens very nature to desire security over freedom. When they have no husband, it is a simple thing to expect government to offer protection, security, and validation by voting to enable government to provide those things.

I can't get my computer to copy the link, but I can point you to work by John Lott called "Freedomnomics" which describes the huge increase in the size of government since women achieved the right to vote.I've read other research which shows a direct link between the advent of womens suffrage in Germany and Hitler's rise to power. Hitler offered security to the people of Germany and women want security. This research showed that without the womens vote Hitler might never have come to power. I can't remember the link to that right now.

Without going into more detail, let me describe what I would like. I would allow only the male head of households, who are property owners (stable, not transit playboys) to have the franchise. Since I do not currently own property I would be ineligible.

Who could not vote. Women, public employees, ie government employees, (they are voting for increasing taxes on the productive members of society while all government is a cost to society), school teachers, they are government employees. Anyone taking a payment of any kind from the government, ie farmers who get farm subsidies, owners of businesses which contract to do government services, etc. Those people also have an incentive to vote for those who will take money from the public coffers then transfer it to those taking money from the government.

For the record, yes my wife votes. Usually she asks me who should she vote for. I told her what I'm writing about. She said she would gladly give up her right to vote if it meant that we would have to pay less taxes and have less government intrusion in our lives.

One more thing. Ladies, ever heard of Ann Coulter? google her articles about women's suffrage, she has stated that she would give up her right to vote.

I know some of you will not be convinced, fine, again this is more of a mental exercise than anything else since it will never happen. We have become a social welfare state where everybody votes for the people in office to give them something. The system is broke and the changes to correct it will never happen, the Lord will return first.

61. Amanda Huginkis said the following at 9:42 PM on Jul 15:

Wow!! Ms Koerner knocks this out of the ball park. I am truly amazed at the blogging being done here. I believe your article is based on Christian principals and Craig above just does not seem to get. I do find his writing to be intelligent, but I do not think he gets the bigger picture. I hope he is as good of a husband to his wife as he is a blogger. I do not know if I would want to be stuck on a sinking ship with him though. Just glad that he did not say that women need to stay home and clean the house, do the dishes, and put on a pretty face when the man of the house comes home. Some of the others on this blog just have way to much time on their hands. I look forward to your upcoming articles. Thanks for your thoughts Ms Koerner.

62. BDB said the following at 10:23 PM on Jul 15:

Fun Fact on Voting:

The Secret Ballot is a modern invention.

Back when the U.S. was founded, those little New England town meetings had voting all right - you raised your hand in a group meeting to vote. So, even with sufferage for both men and women, you'd be in a situation where everyone could see everyone else vote. If your spouse voted differently than you...well, depending on the family, it might not change the overall result of the particular election. It would certainly create conflict if spouses voted differently.

And there were a few states that allowed widows who owned their own property to vote. So it was kind of one-family, one vote. The husband if he was alive, the widow if he wasn't.

Education and literacy rates are much higher in the U.S. than they were in 1900; a time when most people didn't finish high school. The importance of literacy and voting really jumps off the page in Cambodia. We were there during campaign season. Since literacy is so low, each parlimentary party has it's own color, and they have pictures (logos) for each party. They campaign with loudspeaker and street demonstrations that were very orderly, but blocked traffic pretty bad. If the population is not literate, what are they basing their vote on?

I did see one campaign sign from the Cambodian People's Party that had pictures of all sorts of civil engineering projects: new roads, schools, hospitals, etc. Even not speaking the language, I could tell that their campaign ad was bragging about pork-barrel spending projects...

We now return you to your debate...

63. Leah said the following at 10:44 PM on Jul 15:

Farmer Tom: re Comment 60-

A man being the head of the wife does not mean she has to agree with him. It does not mean they must have the same opinion. A woman is perfectly allowed to vote differently to her husband. That is not being unsubmissive, because he does not command her to vote the same as her. And if he were to, I'm sure that comes under not being loving and considerate, which God commands the husband to be. Nowhere does God say women must agree with everything their husband thinks.

Also, you claim that if the wife votes the same as the husband, the vote is multiplied, and the higher vote count is not necessary. What about a man who has a wife and, say, three daughters? What if they all vote the same? That would be 4 votes for Party A. Say the bloke next door had three sons, and they all voted for Party B. Under your plan, your preferred Party would only get your vote, whereas Party B would get 4. The idea that there's no point in a woman voting, even if it's the same as the man of the house because it simply raises the vote count, is just silly.

And of course a husband is accountable to God for his family. Your OT examples don't mean anything, because voting for the government is not something God has said is a husband's representative role for his family.

You also claim that the government replaces a husband's role in a woman's life, and that by voting, women are somehow supporting this. You appear to be missing the point that whether women voted or not, the government would still be providing security etc for single women. Not to mention, the government can never completely fulfil the role of a husband, and I think scores of single women on this forum will vehemently reassure you that the presence of a security-giving government does nothing to quash their desire for a husband.

Your entire argument has holes all through it. The idea that teachers shouldn't vote, simply because they receive payment from the government, is ludicrous. Do you think that just because someone is employed by the government means they will vote for that same government? No matter who is in power, the teachers will still get paid. You might say that they are biased and will simply vote for whoever offers them the most money. I would say everyone is biased and votes for whichever government gives them the most benefits. That's what a democracy is all about.

Kellie (59)- Patriarchy IS biblical. I'm sure dozens of people on this forum could inundate you with verses supporting the idea that men are to be the head of a household and are in charge of their families and wives. If you're really that disbelieving, I'll be glad to do it.

64. Tami said the following at 10:46 PM on Jul 15:

Amanda Huginkis...

Looking for Amanda Huginkis...

Appropriate for this blog, no?

;)

65. Tami said the following at 10:59 PM on Jul 15:

farmer Tom (60) -- not all of us unmarried ladies are so blessed as to still have our fathers with us. Or our mother's or father's fathers. So the question of whose "headship" we would be under would still be in question, unless we became wards of the church or something.

And personally, on another note, I don't think you'll gain much ground in this particular discussion by using Ann Coulter as an example... she is not exactly the epitome of genteel, submissive femininity. Regardless of whether or not she gave up her vote, I am *quite sure* she would make her opinion known. ;)

66. Louise said the following at 5:52 AM on Jul 16:

Farmer tom, my father died when I was twenty-three years old.

In your opinion, who should have taken over as my "authority figure?"

Also, I am just curious sir, are your twin daughters identical?

You mentioned them on the "Congratulations" post.

67. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:27 AM on Jul 16:

Kellie, #59

It is biblical for men to be in authority.

ergo, Patriarchy IS, indeed, biblical.

68. a sister said the following at 8:31 AM on Jul 16:

Thanks for proving my point, Farmer Tom, and for the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. I just don't get enough of those these days...

Heather,
Thank you for the response. You are being quite thoughtful and I value your fidelity to Scripture. You note that Scripture calls for all husbands - not just strong ones - to protect and that it would be a mistake to negate / ignore Scripture passages that specifically address male / female roles.

Please know that is not my intention. While some may disagree with what I've seen on this subject in going to Scripture, the most helpful thing for me to do is seek to find the character of God in each passage. It's not just that the Bible makes more sense to me with that perspective but that I am motivated to follow hard after my Creator, Savior and Heavenly Father when I see Him in the pages of my Bible rather than just things I'm supposed to do to be a good Christian.

For instance, I haven't yet heard a sermon on the fruits of the Spirit that addressed them as such. Frankly, if one reads about being patient and kind and gentle and longsuffering as a list of things good Christians are, I at least am prone to waiver between condemnation and legalism. But, if I recall that I am made in the image of God - made to incarnate Christ to the world as Christ incarnated the Father, made to, dependent on His grace, grow into who I am supposed to be as an image-bearer - which will always mean better displaying His communicable attributes, then I will see new things in that passage. I will not see a 'to do' list but I will see that the fruits of the Spirit are, quite literally, a Holy window into the character of God.

He is patient - how has he been patient with me? He is peace - oh, and he brought me peace with Himself through Christ at such a cost. He is Joy - and how? he rejoices over me with singing, for the joy set before him he endured the cross (he takes joy in having saved me!). He is kind, yes, kind. How has he been kind to me? And he is good - oh, why do I doubt it - he has been so good to me. He is love - and John repeats this over and over - His love is immeasurable and yet so concrete. And, what aspect of God's character has been more precious to me personally than his faithfulness? He is so faithful - and His mercies are new every morning. That's the fruit of the Spirit, and by grace I have the opportunity to image God in displaying each of these communicable attributes that characterize Him.

That's doing a bit of theology. I hope it's doing theology well. I certainly leave that passage more excited about God when I read it that way.

So, what does that mean for strong / weak; men and women? I guess it means that I look for the principle in the passage - what does it say about God. Now God has every right to say that women are weak and men are strong and men, specifically husbands, are supposed to protect their weak wives. Maybe he did that, but I'm not convinced that is the point of those passages.

If I'm reading my Bible correctly, the principle here is that the strong ought to consider / protect / serve the weak rather than using their strength(s) to serve themselves. Why? Not just an item on the to do list - another commandment among many, but because no one is stronger than God and none weaker than his rational image-bearers in their rebellious slavery to sin. And yet, God served us at the greatest cost -- when Jesus washed the disciples feet, that was but a small example of the ultimate way he would serve them. So, for the strong to serve the weak is God-like, it is image-bearing at its finest.

And, if men and women bear the image of God equally (which I know some have disputed), then bearing his image in this way is not the sole province of one sex. No, when the apostles exhort husbands to serve wives as the weaker vessel but yet a joint heir, we don't have a chance to ask them to define weaker. But we do have a chance to seek out the character of God in the passage. We can observe that a man is God-like in using his strength to serve his wife, wherever he is stronger than she. And, husbands are usually physically stronger than wives, so that application is at least clear (and very important, as the most fearsome of abuses in intimate relationships are usually abuses of the man's physical strength). But that's not all - in those cultures (ancient Greece and Rome and most legal systems since, including many today), the woman was legally weaker than her husband and was often powerless. To tell him he should use that strength to protect her is revolutionary. But what about today? What's the application? The physical strength still applies in most situations. The legal strength does not (though Farmer Tom wishes it did - and I might note to him that these verses are not a biblical mandate to make husbands as strong and wives as weak as possible socially, culturally and legally). But in an individual relationship, there are many times where a husband has opportunities to use his strengths - skills, character, etc., to serve his wife in the areas or at the moments when she is weak. He images God in so doing. But because that behavior on the part of the husband is an application of a far bigger principle, he is not the only one who can image God in so doing. Where she is strong, she is also called to image God in serving her husband rather than herself. And the principle hardly stops in marriage. It was clearly articulated in the epistles as one for application in the church. It is applicable to parents and children, employers and employees and even between strangers, though there are differences of degree.

And, I think that is the answer to the man who asked why he would have any special responsibility to help a woman with a flat tire by the side of the road. If you take the passages about husbands protecting wives as a simple command - a divinely ordained "to do," he doesn't. But if you consider that all of us have the responsibility to use our strengths for the benefit of those who are weaker, he may indeed have some responsibility to at least to inquire whether his help is needed (and accept if it is not - maybe she's quite good at changing tires).

:-)
Soli Deo Gloria!

69. Craig M. said the following at 9:00 AM on Jul 16:

Amanda Hugikins,

Honestly, what is your problem? I state explicitly no less than five times that 1) I think men have a responsibility to protect women, particularly in Titanic-style situations, 2) I'm in favor of women's rights, despite that, and 3) my concerns are driven by the way that social incentives affect the behavior of non-Christian men. How do you go from that to accusing me of wanting women in the kitchen and not being reliable on a sinking ship? Am I a misogynist because I'm concerned about this stuff? That sort of flamethrowing is just intellectually pathetic.

70. Heather Koerner said the following at 9:14 AM on Jul 16:

Amanda (#61),

Thank you. I'm glad you enjoyed the discussion.

Just glad that he did not say that women need to stay home and clean the house, do the dishes, and put on a pretty face when the man of the house comes home.

Craig may not say that, but it's pretty close to how I live my life (you don't mention the fun and blessing of raising my kiddos--and as to the pretty face, I do try but on the harder days sometimes the ball cap is still firmly in place at 6pm). And it's a life I highly recommend.

Blessings!

71. Jo said the following at 9:42 AM on Jul 16:

farmer Tom:
Thanks for a well reasoned and thoughtful explanation of your stance on the voting issue (#60). Really interesting. I do disagree. :) But I understand your position and I don't think it's unbiblical or sexist from the reasons you've given.

72. Louise said the following at 11:57 AM on Jul 16:

Comment 70, Heather no one on this blog would dispute your right to live your life the way you see fit.

And you certainly have the right ma'am to recommend any course of action to anyone you wish, but can you not understand that lifestyles do not fall under the category of "one size fits all?"

Please let me know too, Heather, if this comment contains a "sneering tone."

Louise

73. farmer Tom said the following at 5:18 PM on Jul 16:

Please let me know too,.... if this comment contains a "sneering tone."

Yes, yes it does!!!

Any questions????

74. IMO said the following at 6:15 PM on Jul 16:

farmer Tom #73

he he I was thinking the exact same thing...

I believe it's very clear that Heather does "understand that lifestyles do not fall under the category of "one size fits all."

75. BDB said the following at 6:19 PM on Jul 16:

Tami (#64)

Took me a minute, but yes, that IS a funny way to look at it...

(And if that's the "Real Name," sorry for laughing!)

76. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:01 PM on Jul 16:

Farmer Tom (#73)

As someone very special to me would say...

"U da best"

77. Louise said the following at 7:17 PM on Jul 16:

Farmer tom, is "Heather" your middle name, by chance?

The question in comment 72 was clearly addressed to Heather Koerner and not to anyone else.

Any questions????

78. farmer Tom said the following at 10:00 PM on Jul 16:

77. Louise,

Yes as a matter of fact "Heather" is my middle name, and since the other Heather is far to polite to respond, I, who have on more that one occasion used crass, sarcastic and sneering tones in my missives wanted you to know that it was clearly evident.

A question for you! Why are you so offended by those who suggest that the traditional role of SAHM, wife, mother, chief cook and bottle washer, domestic engineer is in fact a useful and admirable thing. Are you prejudiced against traditional motherhood??
Now a suggestion, you will come across as far less bitter and angry if you quit whining every time someone writes something which triggers your ??guilt gland???

79. Chris said the following at 10:00 PM on Jul 16:

farmer Tom writes:

How do you define property? Is it ownership of land only, or can it be something else, too? After all, my car is property. What about intangibles such as stocks and bonds or copyrights?

If it's land only, you do realize that you're advocating a pseudo-feudal system, right? What's to stop those with property (and, hence, the only ones who can vote) from establishing a system that makes it almost impossible for those without property to acquire some and thus be eligible to vote?

She said she would gladly give up her right to vote if it meant that we would have to pay less taxes and have less government intrusion in our lives.

If this were to happen, what's to stop those with the vote from simply reinstituting said intrusion? You're essentially giving up an inalienable right for some temporary money and convenience.

I'm also curious as to what you think about jury duty. If I take your argument to its logical conclusion, women should not be allowed to serve on juries since they could effectively "negate" any authority of their husbands (on a larger scale since, obviously, they would not be serving on the same jury as their husbands).

80. BDB said the following at 11:00 PM on Jul 16:

Chris (#79) wrote:

>>What's to stop those with property (and, hence, the only ones who can vote) from establishing a system that makes it almost impossible for those without property to acquire some and thus be eligible to vote?<<

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms...

I'm actually not kidding. If you look at countries with very rich and very poor people, and no middle class, the wealthy people typically control all the firearms, either through the standing army on their payroll, or through their private security army.

In those countries, if someone does start to accumulate money, someone with the guns shows up and demands a cut. Or a bribe, or both.

Try to extort money from a business owner in Texas and see what happens...

And getting back to the topic, the safest communities to live in also tend to produce juries that acquit people for self-defense. In a recent case here, an Air Force guy was shot after driving with his buddy over 100 mph (160kph) on city streets. The black deputy sheriff was caught on tape shooting him. The Air Force guy has mostly recovered from his injuries. And while the sheriff's department did fire the deputy, the jury acquitted him pretty quick; saying something like, "well, he was probably nervous after the car chase, he was alone, etc. etc." People in other states are stunned that he got off. But here...I guess there's a long history of cowboy law enforcement.

In fact, it's one of the few jurisdictions where the SWAT team will shoot from the helicopter. And they make sure the potential criminals know it: the Emergency Vehicle Operations Center, where they practice shooting from the helicopter at vehicles - is across the street from the jail. You can HEAR the firing range from the yard of the jail. (I took a tour once.) That's why you never see car chases televised from out this way - they're all in L.A. or Orange county. They've actually had people running from L.A., come into San Bernardino County, pull over and give up, citing the helicopter-shooting policy.

In communities where people want their "stuff" protected, they tend to also have juries that are lenient on the use of deadly force. It's an interesting phenomenon. I suppose someone that's grown up with negative experiences with law enforcement might feel very uncomfortable in such an environment. The city I live in is 40% non-white but extremely pro-law enforcement. And I wouldn't worry a bit about my sister walking outside alone at 3am here. Heck, I was lost once in the middle of the night, in my car looking at my map, and someone stopped to ask if I needed directions...

81. farmer Tom said the following at 11:38 AM on Jul 17:

If I take your argument to its logical conclusion, women should not be allowed to serve on juries

I refuse to waste the time to answer that one with a long and detailed argument. Instead I'm going to say two things which are irrefutable proof that no woman should ever be allowed to sit in judgment for a trail by jury.

O.J. Simpson

Lyle and Eric Mendez One of the stupid women who was on that jury actually said after the trial, "I felt sorry for them, because they are orphans".

They were on trial for shooting their parents with a shotgun to collect on the life insurance. They emptied the gun, went to another room and reloaded and came back and shot their mother several more times.
NO KIDDING THEY WERE ORPHANS, THEY MURDERED THEIR PARENTS YOU STUPID MORON

82. farmer Tom said the following at 11:52 AM on Jul 17:

To Tami and Louise,

No fun and frivolity now. I'm being serious.

I believe that if your father and or you mother or both are no longer living,

that you need even more than some of these other women posting here to find a husband. I'm more and more convinced that God ordained the family as an institution to provide the kind of protection and security that Heather was writing about in this post. See the Biblical account of Ruth. Her desire for a man to fill that role was answered. I believe in a God who is capable of doing the same for you.

I sincerely hope that this does not sound trite. I really do pray that you will find a husband. Having a husband to fill that role in the answer to your question.

83. Tami said the following at 12:27 PM on Jul 17:

Thanks, farmer Tom (82). I appreciate what you had to say.

Trust me, that's my prayer for myself as well! :)

84. Louise said the following at 1:24 PM on Jul 17:

Farmer tom, I may not always appreciate what you have to say but you have a right to your own opinion.

I assure you however, sir, that if you pray for me to find a husband you are wasting your time since I already had one and have no desire for another one.

Of course, if you want to waste time, that is also your right.

85. Heather Koerner said the following at 1:26 PM on Jul 17:

Well, I see there's been some discussion while I was off at VBS last night.

Louise (#72)

Hey! You're calling me "Heather" now--nifty!

As to the lifestyles thing: No question that thousands of different lifestyles exist. One of the purposes of this blog is to ask: What should the lifestyle of a Christian look like?

If I believe that God is my creator, that Jesus Christ is my savior and that the Bible is the inspired Word of God--how should my life look?

So my purpose isn't to say "this is what Heather K. says to do," but, rather, to point out the specific (and important) instruction that Scripture gives women.

When I give my own personal experience, the purpose is not to point with glory to myself or my husband, but to point the glory to God. To say, hey, you know what, gals? God's instruction to us works! And it works unbelievably well! That's my testimony--that God is good, true and faithful.

There will still be variety on the micro level (my family won't behave exactly like other Christians in my church, in a different country or on a different continent). But there are macro truths which Scripture gives to all of us.

86. Louise said the following at 2:06 PM on Jul 17:

Farmer tom, your middle name is not "Heather."

Please do not insult my intelligence by claiming that it is, sir.

Now, to the "real" Heather:

Thank you for your reply. It's nice when the person whom you addressed responds to your question, and is in fact, much more polite than those to whom the question was never addressed in the first place!

I have a secular rather than a biblical worldview, so I see things differently re lifestyle and "biblical instructions."

87. Kellie said the following at 2:41 PM on Jul 17:

Heather,
Do you (and/or Boundless) feel that a woman cannot be following God unless she stays home with her childrn? A man cannot be following the Lord unless he maks enough money to suport a family on his income alone?

88. Chris said the following at 3:29 PM on Jul 17:

BDB writes:

Chris (#79) wrote:

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms...

Said right can be removed via the amendment process with, of course, only those with property allowed to vote on removing it. (I'm not saying it would happen, but a right really doesn't offer a defense when said right can be removed without your approval or at least opportunity to fight the removal.)

The second you link voting to property, you essentially allow one group, based only on ownership of something of value, to make the rules. When only the "propertied" class can make the decisions, they will inevitably make decisions to protect their property, even at the expense of those without property.

Inherent rights (such as the right to vote in a democratic form of government) cannot be linked to ownership or any other unrelated status or condition. Rights exist free of any conditions having to do with economic status.

89. Louise said the following at 3:35 PM on Jul 17:

Re comment 87,

The question in this comment is addressed to Heather Koerner.

Fellow commenters, let's be patient and kindly allow Heather Koerner to answer said question, shall we?

90. Chris said the following at 3:47 PM on Jul 17:

farmer Tom writes:

I refuse to waste the time to answer that one with a long and detailed argument. Instead I'm going to say two things which are irrefutable proof that no woman should ever be allowed to sit in judgment for a trail by jury.

O.J. Simpson

Lyle and Eric Mendez

And I offer the Scottsboro boys as an example that no white man should sit on a jury in which a black man is accused.

We can play this logical fallacy game all day if you want......

91. Christina (in green) said the following at 4:30 PM on Jul 17:

Louise,
I have a secular rather than a biblical worldview, so I see things differently re lifestyle and "biblical instructions."

That's always been something I find a bit confusing about you (and others that have commented in other areas).

Its like debating with an un-believer about how I live my life when I live my life from a biblical perspective. They end up attacking me for being self-righteous, when I'm not being self-righteous at all, but simply living a life that was laid out for me via scripture. Yeah, someone (as a christian) chooses to live according to God's word. You don't. Why argue about that?

Now, Kellie has a much more valid question - she's asking if Heather believes that living biblically requires a certain life pattern, because she wishes to live biblically as well, only is in disagreement on what that actually means.

Kellie,

I'm not Heather, and I most certainly haven't as much room to talk as she does (she's married, I'm not), but I think that what Heather originally wrote about is clear in scripture. Meaning, the wives submit to their husbands.

I think it a bit backward that a man would order his wife out into the workplace to be the primary bread-winner, but I'm not going to argue that.

As to your two actual questions:

woman cannot be following God unless she stays home with her childrn?
I don't exactly think that God explicitly claims this in scripture. However, the things he does explicitly claim make it a bit impractical for the woman to be the primary breadwinner and the hubby stay home with the kids. Having babies and caring for newborns is not conducive to pursuing a successful career that supports a growing family. I do think it is biblical that the wife's primary responsibilities are to her husband and her children. If you can do that without staying home, good for you. However, I don't know how likely that is...and judging from my own work experience, I don't know how a woman can keep her husband and children a priority while working full time.

As for the second half of your question:
A man cannot be following the Lord unless he maks enough money to suport a family on his income alone?
Seriously, practicing good stewardship (biblical) can oftentimes be enough to support a family.

So yeah, that's biblical. Trust me on that. If my dad can raise 3-4 kids on his salary alone during the 80's recession while working as a gardener at a plant nursery, I think its possible.

92. Craig M. said the following at 4:41 PM on Jul 17:

It's very interesting that some folks seem MORE offended by idea of juries without women than the idea of revoking suffrage. My understanding is that suffrage for women pre-dates female jury service by some 40 years in most locales; hence the title of one of the greatest law/trial movies of all time from approximately 1960, "12 Angry Men" starring Henry Fonda.

93. Tom Neven said the following at 6:30 PM on Jul 17:

Craig M (#92)

Reminds me of a cartoon I saw in The New Yorker. A juror is giving the lunch order to the bailiff: "We'll have 11 ham on rye and one turkey on wheat; 11 iced teas and one lemonade ..."

94. BDB said the following at 7:27 PM on Jul 17:

Chris (#88) wrote:

>>Inherent rights (such as the right to vote in a democratic form of government) cannot be linked to ownership or any other unrelated status or condition. Rights exist free of any conditions having to do with economic status.<<

That's a very, very modern concept. The sad reality is that a handful of riots and rebellions across history is what forced America to expand the voting franchise - by bringing more people into the democratic process, it made them stakeholders in "the system." If ten people vote for something that messes over the other 90 people, and those 90 people are armed...well, that policy isn't going to be implemented before a certain amount of civil disobedience is going to stop it. In those jurisdictions that "banned" private ownership of firearms, people just hide them.

Cops do this, too. It's not unusual for an office to have 3-4 guns that are appropriate for their job. If they're involved in an on-the-job shooting, their gun is immediately taken into evidence for the duration of the investigation (could be six months.) They'll have a few more. If they come to their home and say, "we need all your guns until you are cleared." They give up two more under protest. And keep 1-2 hidden. I have no doubht that some regular citizens in places like Washington D.C. decided to keep unlawful firearms hidden in their homes for protection. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in their favor, they're not breaking the law any more. But the U.S. population is so heavily armed (estimates of 250 Million firearms in the population)that I don't think that it will ever be realistically possible to "take away" that right, even if the U.S. constitution did get changed one day.

I haven't been to Texas in a few years, but I saw a lot of bumper stickers to that effect. It can be kind of scary to tease someone like that...

Remember that U.S. law enforcement tends to be 500:1 in safe cities, and closer to 1000:1 in the unsafe ones. If 50% of the population is armed, they could easily overwhelm official law enforcement if they got really ticked off.

Is that good or bad for long-term freedom? There are passionate people on both sides. But (trying to get back to the topic, here), I know a number of women who own guns because they recognize that they are physically too small to defend themselves unarmed. But statistically, women are better shots than men.

This gender issue actually came up in the recent Supreme Court decision.

95. Kellie said the following at 7:31 PM on Jul 17:

Christina,

My life has just never been as simple as Boundless would make a Christian's life out to be. There's so much more gray than black and white. And this seems to be one of those areas.

96. Craig M. said the following at 9:21 PM on Jul 17:

Tom Neven...I don't laugh often reading Boundless, but that made me smile. Thanks.

I wonder if maybe women wouldn't all be in favor of excluding them from jury service...just as a way to not have to sit on juries. As a trial attorney, I have to say that being stuck in a courtroom watching me for weeks doesn't even strike ME as a very good time....

97. Heather Koerner said the following at 10:27 PM on Jul 17:

Kellie (#87),

Ah, it's the million dollar question.

As a believer, I have to use God's Word as my guide. What does it commend, specifically to women?

1 Timothy 5:10 tells me a few things. It commends the widow who is "well known for her good deeds." What good deeds has she done? It lists them: "such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds."

There are numerous Scriptures which discuss a woman's gifts and roles (e.g. Proverbs 31, Titus 2, Ephesians 5). What I see in all of them is that a woman is to make her home, husband and family a priority.

Does that mean that a woman isn't following God if she doesn't stay at home to raise her kids? The tough, and probably unsatisfying to you, answer is that I don't know.

What I do know is that a SAHM devotes the majority of her time and energy to those things that God commends in 1 Tim, Prov. 31, etc. By definition, their job involves home, husband and family and has much more flexibility for hospitality and service. A full-time working mom devotes most of her time (and, most likely, at least a whole lot of her energy) to her job.

I do not know if being a SAHM is the only option for Christian women. I do believe the totality of Scripture teaches that it is the best option. And the question I wonder is, shouldn't we women do everything we can to make sure that we can choose, and then do choose, God's best?

My hope is that all our readers will give serious consideration to what God's Word says when making decisions about their family.

98. IMO said the following at 1:57 PM on Jul 18:

Kellie #95
"My life has just never been as simple as Boundless would make a Christian's life out to be."

I haven't gotten that impression from Boundless.

Is there specific blogger(s)or string of articles/blogs you that make you believe this?

99. Christina (in green) said the following at 2:52 PM on Jul 18:

Kellie,

The answers I gave were answers that would go to a woman who wants to be married and having children (or is married and has children...)

When you are single (and planning on remaining that way) or you can't/won't be having children, some things change a bit, but not much.

As the single person (planning to remain that way), as Ted and others have pointed out, there's a lot of freedom here...but that doesn't excuse you from living a biblical life. I find that scripture is much more palateable if you are coming from this perspective vs a married or wants-to-be-married woman (you don't have to deal with gender roles). Your questions are kind of void in this situation.

The single woman (who wants to be married) and the married woman need to question what she wants to emphasize. And yeah, it is a BIG deal to a man if the woman would rather make her job a priority rather than him (as her husband) or her kids. It really is unbiblical to not make your husband a priority in your life. God, husband, kids. Those are your priorities. And scripture is clear that the husband is the wife's authority.

This is where the gray area comes in. HOW you do that is between you and God (and if your married, your husband). It will be DIFFICULT (I seriously mean this) to be successful enough at work to beat out your husband's salary (or even compete with it). Its difficult being successful at my job when I'm simply trying to FIND a husband (or date a guy to that result).

What I notice the most when it comes to women complaining about making husband and kids a priority vs working their own job outside of the home is the question of gifts, talents, and intelligence. Aren't we just wasting those things if we choose to make husband and kids such a priority that we end up staying home? Thing is, how often have you asked yourself what you can be doing that USES those gifts, talents, and intelligence? And how often has the answer been to figure out how to use those where you are now? Isn't that the rule of thumb outlined in the most recent Boundless show? Isn't that usually what we're told to do when we are getting dissatisfied and feeling useless?

Here's the thing. Very few things are made perfectly clear concerning how God wants to use us and our gifts. One of the things he has made crystal clear is that mothers and wives should learn to use their gifts while making their families their priority. When God has given you a husband, learn to use your gifts in such a way that your husband can remain your priority. When God has given you children, learn to use your gifts in such a way to keep your husband and children a priority.

But do it in such a way that you don't kill yourself from trying to do it all.

Like Heather said, you may actually find that the SAHM life is actually the BEST way to do that. You may discover differently. You may find that serving your husband and kids first still leaves room for utilizing your gifts in other ways that you find more enjoyable than staying at home. THAT is your gray area.

The following is NOT the gray area:
Husband and children are the priorities in a wife and mother's life.

100. Kellie said the following at 5:49 PM on Jul 18:

100

IMO,

I haven't found their advice regarding living on one income to be very practical: ie. the "Eat Your Car" article (my car is worth less than my monthly income), Motte's advice to a reader who lives in a costly state: "move" (never mind if that's where job and family are...apparently extended family is unimportant?), don't buy a house if it means the wife can't stay home full-time (though it seems all of the married Boundless staff are homeowners...and probably wouldn't care much for raising their kids in an apartment) and the general tips about cutting down on expenses (there's only so much you can cut). Besides, there are more options besides a husband working and the wife being a housewife. There are part-time jobs, jobs with flexible hours, ones that allow some work from home. I'm not saying that it's ideal, but there are other options.

Contributors

About Us

Relevant Boundless Articles

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

Newer Post | Older Post

Boats or Votes?
by Heather Koerner on 07/10/2008 at 4:59 PM

Were the men on the Titanic heroes or sexists?

Some thought (and think) them sexists. The very idea that women needed protection was a symptom of patriarchy run amok. In an article titled, "The Titanic Riddle," one author wonders:

You're on the Titanic II. It has just hit an iceberg and is sinking. And, as last time, there are not enough lifeboats. The captain shouts, "Women and children first!" But this time, another voice is heard: "Why women?" Why, indeed?

"Boats or Votes?" asked one prominent newspaper at the time, seeming to indicate that women needed to choose between equality (the right to vote) and protection (the boats).

To me, those Titanic men were unquestionable heroes. They didn't demean a woman's worth by protecting her; they esteemed it.

Boats or Votes? Equal Worth or Protection? I'm very thankful God gives me both.

Worldview | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Craig said the following at 6:01 PM on Jul 10:

"I know deep down that I am more vulnerable to harm in this life, and I long for safety and security."

2. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:27 PM on Jul 10:

I've been wondering about that very thing lately.

I was trying to get there in a different way, though =p

I agree, though. We trade protection for equality...and I personally don't like it. I'd rather have the protection.

3. brx said the following at 10:37 PM on Jul 10:

Vulnerability in the sinking Titanic? Well, generally, women have an overall higher percentage of body fat. So, perhaps the women could have survived in the icy cold water longer than the men?

Another thought - women and children are generally smaller than men. So, you can fit more women and children in the boats than you can men...

Maybe they were a bunch engineers who realized they made a few big miscalculations that got 'em into the mess and then had to weigh the practicalities of saving as many as possible.

Grace & peace

4. Kelly said the following at 5:47 AM on Jul 11:

Last weekend a 'believing' man I went on a date with took advantage of me. Thankfully not all the way, but things happened that made me extremely upset.

Would you intervene when he started touching her inappropriately, or would you just look away? Society tends to assume that women 'get what they deserve'.

As for me, I've learned a very hard lesson about trust (it was someone I'd known for a long time) and that you really cannot rely on anyone to rescue you.

5. Bruce said the following at 7:21 AM on Jul 11:

There is also a very significant and non-theological reason most cultures expect men to be willing to sacrifice themselves to protect women.

6. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:47 AM on Jul 11:

Bruce (#5)

Along with your assessment, its also the caring for offspring.

To go with the hunting season theme, the young of the female species would likely not survive without their mothers.

7. Heather Koerner said the following at 8:49 AM on Jul 11:

Kelly (#4),

I am so very sorry that happened to you.

If you haven't yet, I encourage you to talk this over with someone within your church fellowship (a pastor or maybe an older woman you respect).

Heather

8. Noelle said the following at 8:50 AM on Jul 11:

I think the men of the titanic were heroes who deserve our honor and respect. They died that others might live - not that men might be exalted above women. And that's the real problem here:

If women had died instead, it would have been out of selfish ambition, a desire to prove that we're "equal" and a twisted sense of macho-ism.

As women, our concern should be for others - as the men of the titanic - not for proving ourselves.

9. Rachael said the following at 9:10 AM on Jul 11:

(****just my thoughts w/out being in the situation so who knows how I'd actually feel if push came to shove...in reality I may be very selfishly desperate to get on a lifeboat*****)

10. Jo said the following at 11:29 AM on Jul 11:

Craig (#1)

That comment is going to take some very serious mulling over. Really interesting and thought provoking... thanks.

11. Heather Koerner said the following at 11:37 AM on Jul 11:

Craig (#1),

You raise some great questions.

As to suffrage, I don't equate suffrage with women in the military--nor do I necessarily think that the latter is an inevitable consequence of the former.

Suffrage recognizes that women are independent moral and intellectual agents, capable and deserving to participate in choosing those who make, enforce and interpret laws.

Does Scripture mandate suffrage? I don't think so. But I don't think it negates it either.

Still, we probably agree on more than we disagree on.

12. Craig said the following at 1:20 PM on Jul 11:

Heather--I think we agree generally as well, but I wanted to press you a bit on what has actually happenned societally and culturally in the West.

13. Louise said the following at 1:28 PM on Jul 11:

Ms./Mrs. Koerner I respect your opinions and even enjoy your financial advice articles.

However, your articles and posts that include references to "sneering feminists" (consider "The Masters and Me" on this blog or "My Inner Mommy War" on www.boundless.org) I could live without.

If you honestly believe, though, as you stated at the end of this article that "God gives you both" rest assured that "having it both ways" is immensely easier said than done.

Louise

14. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:55 PM on Jul 11:

Louise,

I understand you to be on the liberal side of things, believing that women can do anything a man can do without question.

But please read what Craig had to say in his posts.

You do understand, don't you, that in staking our claim for social equity between the genders that we are essentially telling men they aren't wanted, needed, or desired, right?

Its frustrating. And I'm sick of living in a society that claims that. And dealing with women that believe that.

In the destruction of masculine authority, women have forfeited all claims and rights to any protection that men could've or may've offered.

Think about that.

15. Sara said the following at 2:13 PM on Jul 11:

16. Louise said the following at 2:14 PM on Jul 11:

Green One, I wasn't commenting on Craig's posts or whether men and women should be "equal".

I was merely pointing out to Heather Koerner that one usually can not "have it both ways."

And it is just too bad if you are
"sick of living in this society and dealing with women" who disagree with your opinions.

People who desire to live on this earth must somehow find a way to deal with the outrageous existence of people who have differing opinions.

Think about that.

17. Adam said the following at 2:25 PM on Jul 11:

The whole issue has been a struggle for me because I moved from an area that leaned very heavily towards equality to an area that leans towards a more Titanic form.

Women are able to get jobs not only based on skill - but also affirmative action. Women tend to come out the winners in most divorces and child custody cases.

18. Louise said the following at 2:46 PM on Jul 11:

Comment 17,

THANK YOU!

19. IMO said the following at 2:54 PM on Jul 11:

Hi Adam,

You said, "As a matter of fact they would have no problem saying that they were having me do something "because you're a guy."

I guess the loaded question would be, what did they mean when they said 'because you're a guy?'

For instance, maybe they asked you because it would be an easier task for you to do (as opposed to a female doing it). Therefore, they don't want to pay you more for doing an easier task.

(So I guess then if they had a female do that same task, they should pay her more...seeing how it is harder for her to do...)

Just some random thoughts..

20. Heather Koerner said the following at 3:42 PM on Jul 11:

You sound frustrated by how "women's rights" have played out in society and I can understand why--sometimes the equality is not so equal.

Louise (#13)--Am I going to have to come to Chicago and introduce myself to get you to call me Heather? :)

But I don't want to be a name caller--I believe that's the last defense of those who have no other argument. So, please, call me out if you see that.

21. Craig said the following at 5:01 PM on Jul 11:

Heather,

22. Mike said the following at 5:41 PM on Jul 11:

Heather said:

"...feminists are wrong."

My dear lady, you hit the nail on the head. And, unfortunately, they have been corrupting women's ideals of the "strong" woman for decades with their wrongheadedness.

23. Kellie said the following at 6:13 PM on Jul 11:

24. Craig said the following at 6:55 PM on Jul 11:

25. Tasha said the following at 7:54 PM on Jul 11:

26. Louise said the following at 10:45 PM on Jul 11:

Comment 20, I've been "sneered at" too, ma'am, by stay-at-home moms.

But I would never presume to imply that all SAHMs sneer, as you presumed to imply about feminists in your Mommy War article.

I'm going to give the same advice to you that I gave to Mr. Slater, SIMPLY IGNORE anyone who "sneers" about SAHMs not "pulling full weight!"

Why is it not enough for you people to say to yourselves "It's a shame these people don't realized the worth of a SAHM" and just go about your private business?

27. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:54 AM on Jul 12:

When we debate this whole women should be silent in the church stuff, people against it always like to point out that he was talking to a specific church with a specific problem...

I'd like to point out that our churches nowadays suffer from the exact same problem as those churches did: Feminism and heretical teachings from women. So, you see, the command still stands.

28. Ann said the following at 10:40 AM on Jul 12:

29. Louise said the following at 11:52 AM on Jul 12:

Comment 25, not all women are wives.

In the competition for lifeboat spaces, should married women be given precedence over single women?

30. Jessi said the following at 11:57 AM on Jul 12:

31. Heather Koerner said the following at 12:08 PM on Jul 12:

Craig,

Sorry. Haven't been ignoring you, but was giving your question some thought (while making a honey cake with my kids--like Winnie the Pooh, you know--and going to the park).

So, here goes. I have little faith in the old social contract and here's why.

Say Joe Schmo out there says "Girls, you're getting what you deserve. You want equality? Well, take it and enjoy it, but you'll get nothing from me."

The old social contract gave the authority, but did not demand the rest--or, at least, did not demand it beyond social pressure. (Though some, like many men on the Titanic, gave heroically)

And I don't agree that I have to go back to the old contract to expect leadership and protection from my Christian brothers, in the same way they don't need the old contract for my submission.

Will it be difficult? Yes. Difficult for you as a man, for certain reasons. Difficult for me as a woman, for others.

But by practicing the perfect social contract--God's--for the world to see; I think we'll prove our point far better than either the old contract or the new.

32. BDB said the following at 1:16 PM on Jul 12:

Mike (#22) wrote:

>>Now, I seriously doubt anyone who posts here would pull a stunt like that. <<

Seriously, though, in the real world, no one complains about door opening. Especially since 9/11. Maybe you remember speaking to strangers on the street about that time.

33. Mike said the following at 2:45 PM on Jul 12:

Heather (#31) -

34. Christina (in green) said the following at 3:08 PM on Jul 12:

Heather -

THANK YOU!!!

lol. That was enough to bring tears to my eyes. Lol. And some sense of relief.

ESPECIALLY this part:
Say Joe Schmo out there says "Girls, you're getting what you deserve. You want equality? Well, take it and enjoy it, but you'll get nothing from me."

Thanks :)

35. Mike Theemling said the following at 4:58 PM on Jul 12:

Interesting discussion. I wanted to read over Heather's article, all the comments, and digest them for a bit before commenting. I will say that overall the discussion is intriguing.

Heather you said:

Just some things to think about.

36. Adam said the following at 5:12 PM on Jul 12:

Heather, Craig, et al;

Let me lay down a challenge:

I would like to see anyone show us Biblically (that means from the Bible) - where it is the mens responsibility in society to protect the women.

I'm not saying within the home, I'm not saying within the church. I'm saying within society.

37. Heather Koerner said the following at 6:59 PM on Jul 12:

Mike T. (#35), What's with all the Mikes? Okay, you're just making me laugh if you think I'm arguing against SAHMs. That's the first time I've ever been accused of that.

38. Craig said the following at 7:44 PM on Jul 12:

Heather,

Thanks for your excellent post and a very thoughtful discussion. I hope you've found my comments respectful and civil.

39. Christina (in green) said the following at 9:24 PM on Jul 12:

Mike, you said:

That seriously was a problem. Maybe not for the majority of women, but as Heather mentioned, enough of them to make it an issue.

Yeah, the liberties given to women to protect themselves have been taken advantage of...that's simply a consequence of having a liberty...it can be taken advantage of.

Thing is, both genders have done it. And that's not a new thing. And it will never be a new thing.

40. a sister said the following at 2:23 AM on Jul 13:

Christina:

Do you believe someone has to be inferior to you in order for you to be wanted or needed?

Why do you say:
"You do understand, don't you, that in staking our claim for social equity between the genders that we are essentially telling men they aren't wanted, needed, or desired, right?"

Heather -- you are probably a bit more devoted to the traditional side of the gender roles debate than I am but I really appreciate your statement here:

"Say Joe Schmo out there says "Girls, you're getting what you deserve. You want equality? Well, take it and enjoy it, but you'll get nothing from me." "

Back to some of your comments, Heather, and those of other posters on the subject:

Scripture says that those who are strong ought to consider the weak and not do what is most convenient for themselves (Rom 15:1)

41. BDB said the following at 11:52 AM on Jul 13:

42. Craig said the following at 6:19 PM on Jul 13:

43. Richard said the following at 9:22 PM on Jul 13:

I recall these words written by Bible commentator Matthew Henry in the 1600's.

Enough said.

44. Lynne-befuddled in Atlanta said the following at 9:29 PM on Jul 13:

45. Adam said the following at 11:58 PM on Jul 13:

46. Adam said the following at 10:06 AM on Jul 14:

44. Lynne-befuddled:

Thanks for commenting! I'm a native Northwesterner where society has moved more from treating one as a lady to treating one as a equal.

I choose to embrace the cry of Martin Luther, "Sola Scriptura." So once again, what do the Scriptures say?

47. Heather Koerner said the following at 12:06 PM on Jul 14:

Craig--That was a good sandwich! I'll try to make this brief, for the sake of those who are very tired of me writing.

I think the question we're both trying to get at is: What now?

Okay, I totally stink at being brief. Ah well.

48. Heather Koerner said the following at 12:30 PM on Jul 14:

a sister (#40):

Thanks for joining the conversation!

And your comment made me smile again. I haven't had a blog yet where I was described as a traditionalist and a feminist in the same comment string. :)

Like I said before, Scripture doesn't call for strong husbands to protect, but all husbands. The difference there is important.

49. Craig said the following at 2:51 PM on Jul 14:

Heather,

People must be unbelievably tired of my comments by now. I'll try to let it go at this point. :)

50. farmer Tom said the following at 6:53 PM on Jul 14:

I bow in admiration of Craig,

If only I were as eloquent, as disarming and as calm as he is!!!

Of course I also think he's wrong about women's suffrage, I'd take away your vote in a heartbeat, but I'm not nearly as kind, considerate and compassionate as he is.

Heather,

51. Jethro said the following at 7:49 PM on Jul 14:

Farmer Tom,

Are you serious? You'd remove from women the right to vote?

52. Leah said the following at 8:02 PM on Jul 14:

Adam,

Men and women are different but equal. We are entitled to the same pay and status and benefits, but are better suited to carry out different tasks.

farmer Tom- you really think women shouldn't vote?? There's nothing in the bible that discusses voting, so you can't point to the bible to say women can't vote. That's absurd.

53. Kellie said the following at 8:32 PM on Jul 14:

Craig (in response to comment #24),

I'm not saying I'm completely comfortable with it, but that's the way the western world works these days. I would much rather have it this way than the way it was a hundred years ago.

54. Mike said the following at 9:58 PM on Jul 14:

I don't think anyone would dispute that some men are pigs. But Heather's reaction can be boiled down to more or less a single word.

Fear.

"let's figure out a way to really encourage men to be men without harming women."

(As an aside, I wish I had the maturity to handle my fears as well as she....but I digress.)

55. Anne said the following at 8:36 AM on Jul 15:

Wouldn't patriarchy require that the women stay behind and the men get on the boats because the men were "more important?"

May God send me a man who respects and values a woman enough to put her safety, happiness and well- being before his own.

56. IMO said the following at 10:05 AM on Jul 15:

Mike #54

So true, so true. Amen brother.

57. Craig M. said the following at 11:23 AM on Jul 15:

58. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:53 AM on Jul 15:

Anne, # 55:

Misogyny is the women stay behind and the men get on the boats because the men were "more important?"

Do be more accurate, it is hatred or strong prejudice against women.

Patriarchy is where a father figure and males have authority...which is biblical.

Its different words for different meanings. And mysogyny doesn't need patriarchy to exist. Just ask a number of men living in an incredibly more feminized country.

59. Kellie said the following at 5:58 PM on Jul 15:

Christina (comment #58),

Patriarchy is in the bible, but that doesn't mean it's biblical (in the sense that we should be following it).

60. farmer Tom said the following at 8:10 PM on Jul 15:

Women's Suffrage

Before you all get overly excited, these comments are about what I believe, based on study of the Biblical pattern and historical evidence.

One more thing, if we were to go to the system I envision, I would currently be ineligible to vote as well since I am not currently a property owner.

One more thing. Ladies, ever heard of Ann Coulter? google her articles about women's suffrage, she has stated that she would give up her right to vote.

61. Amanda Huginkis said the following at 9:42 PM on Jul 15:

62. BDB said the following at 10:23 PM on Jul 15:

Fun Fact on Voting:

The Secret Ballot is a modern invention.

And there were a few states that allowed widows who owned their own property to vote. So it was kind of one-family, one vote. The husband if he was alive, the widow if he wasn't.

We now return you to your debate...

63. Leah said the following at 10:44 PM on Jul 15:

Farmer Tom: re Comment 60-

64. Tami said the following at 10:46 PM on Jul 15:

Amanda Huginkis...

Looking for Amanda Huginkis...

Appropriate for this blog, no?

;)

65. Tami said the following at 10:59 PM on Jul 15:

66. Louise said the following at 5:52 AM on Jul 16:

Farmer tom, my father died when I was twenty-three years old.

In your opinion, who should have taken over as my "authority figure?"

Also, I am just curious sir, are your twin daughters identical?

You mentioned them on the "Congratulations" post.

67. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:27 AM on Jul 16:

Kellie, #59

It is biblical for men to be in authority.

ergo, Patriarchy IS, indeed, biblical.

68. a sister said the following at 8:31 AM on Jul 16:

Thanks for proving my point, Farmer Tom, and for the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. I just don't get enough of those these days...

That's doing a bit of theology. I hope it's doing theology well. I certainly leave that passage more excited about God when I read it that way.

:-)
Soli Deo Gloria!

69. Craig M. said the following at 9:00 AM on Jul 16:

Amanda Hugikins,

70. Heather Koerner said the following at 9:14 AM on Jul 16:

Amanda (#61),

Thank you. I'm glad you enjoyed the discussion.

Just glad that he did not say that women need to stay home and clean the house, do the dishes, and put on a pretty face when the man of the house comes home.

Blessings!

71. Jo said the following at 9:42 AM on Jul 16:

72. Louise said the following at 11:57 AM on Jul 16:

Comment 70, Heather no one on this blog would dispute your right to live your life the way you see fit.

And you certainly have the right ma'am to recommend any course of action to anyone you wish, but can you not understand that lifestyles do not fall under the category of "one size fits all?"

Please let me know too, Heather, if this comment contains a "sneering tone."

Louise

73. farmer Tom said the following at 5:18 PM on Jul 16:

Please let me know too,.... if this comment contains a "sneering tone."

Yes, yes it does!!!

Any questions????

74. IMO said the following at 6:15 PM on Jul 16:

farmer Tom #73

he he I was thinking the exact same thing...

I believe it's very clear that Heather does "understand that lifestyles do not fall under the category of "one size fits all."

75. BDB said the following at 6:19 PM on Jul 16:

Tami (#64)

Took me a minute, but yes, that IS a funny way to look at it...

(And if that's the "Real Name," sorry for laughing!)

76. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:01 PM on Jul 16:

Farmer Tom (#73)

As someone very special to me would say...

"U da best"

77. Louise said the following at 7:17 PM on Jul 16:

Farmer tom, is "Heather" your middle name, by chance?

The question in comment 72 was clearly addressed to Heather Koerner and not to anyone else.

Any questions????

78. farmer Tom said the following at 10:00 PM on Jul 16:

77. Louise,

79. Chris said the following at 10:00 PM on Jul 16:

farmer Tom writes:

How do you define property? Is it ownership of land only, or can it be something else, too? After all, my car is property. What about intangibles such as stocks and bonds or copyrights?

She said she would gladly give up her right to vote if it meant that we would have to pay less taxes and have less government intrusion in our lives.

If this were to happen, what's to stop those with the vote from simply reinstituting said intrusion? You're essentially giving up an inalienable right for some temporary money and convenience.

80. BDB said the following at 11:00 PM on Jul 16:

Chris (#79) wrote:

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms...

In those countries, if someone does start to accumulate money, someone with the guns shows up and demands a cut. Or a bribe, or both.

Try to extort money from a business owner in Texas and see what happens...

81. farmer Tom said the following at 11:38 AM on Jul 17:

If I take your argument to its logical conclusion, women should not be allowed to serve on juries

O.J. Simpson

Lyle and Eric Mendez One of the stupid women who was on that jury actually said after the trial, "I felt sorry for them, because they are orphans".

82. farmer Tom said the following at 11:52 AM on Jul 17:

To Tami and Louise,

No fun and frivolity now. I'm being serious.

I believe that if your father and or you mother or both are no longer living,

I sincerely hope that this does not sound trite. I really do pray that you will find a husband. Having a husband to fill that role in the answer to your question.

83. Tami said the following at 12:27 PM on Jul 17:

Thanks, farmer Tom (82). I appreciate what you had to say.

Trust me, that's my prayer for myself as well! :)

84. Louise said the following at 1:24 PM on Jul 17:

Farmer tom, I may not always appreciate what you have to say but you have a right to your own opinion.

I assure you however, sir, that if you pray for me to find a husband you are wasting your time since I already had one and have no desire for another one.

Of course, if you want to waste time, that is also your right.

85. Heather Koerner said the following at 1:26 PM on Jul 17:

Well, I see there's been some discussion while I was off at VBS last night.

Louise (#72)

Hey! You're calling me "Heather" now--nifty!

As to the lifestyles thing: No question that thousands of different lifestyles exist. One of the purposes of this blog is to ask: What should the lifestyle of a Christian look like?

If I believe that God is my creator, that Jesus Christ is my savior and that the Bible is the inspired Word of God--how should my life look?

So my purpose isn't to say "this is what Heather K. says to do," but, rather, to point out the specific (and important) instruction that Scripture gives women.

86. Louise said the following at 2:06 PM on Jul 17:

Farmer tom, your middle name is not "Heather."

Please do not insult my intelligence by claiming that it is, sir.

Now, to the "real" Heather:

I have a secular rather than a biblical worldview, so I see things differently re lifestyle and "biblical instructions."

87. Kellie said the following at 2:41 PM on Jul 17:

88. Chris said the following at 3:29 PM on Jul 17:

BDB writes:

Chris (#79) wrote:

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms...

89. Louise said the following at 3:35 PM on Jul 17:

Re comment 87,

The question in this comment is addressed to Heather Koerner.

Fellow commenters, let's be patient and kindly allow Heather Koerner to answer said question, shall we?

90. Chris said the following at 3:47 PM on Jul 17:

farmer Tom writes:

O.J. Simpson

Lyle and Eric Mendez

And I offer the Scottsboro boys as an example that no white man should sit on a jury in which a black man is accused.

We can play this logical fallacy game all day if you want......

91. Christina (in green) said the following at 4:30 PM on Jul 17:

Louise,
I have a secular rather than a biblical worldview, so I see things differently re lifestyle and "biblical instructions."

That's always been something I find a bit confusing about you (and others that have commented in other areas).

Kellie,

I think it a bit backward that a man would order his wife out into the workplace to be the primary bread-winner, but I'm not going to argue that.

As to your two actual questions:

So yeah, that's biblical. Trust me on that. If my dad can raise 3-4 kids on his salary alone during the 80's recession while working as a gardener at a plant nursery, I think its possible.

92. Craig M. said the following at 4:41 PM on Jul 17:

93. Tom Neven said the following at 6:30 PM on Jul 17:

Craig M (#92)

Reminds me of a cartoon I saw in The New Yorker. A juror is giving the lunch order to the bailiff: "We'll have 11 ham on rye and one turkey on wheat; 11 iced teas and one lemonade ..."

94. BDB said the following at 7:27 PM on Jul 17:

Chris (#88) wrote:

I haven't been to Texas in a few years, but I saw a lot of bumper stickers to that effect. It can be kind of scary to tease someone like that...

This gender issue actually came up in the recent Supreme Court decision.

95. Kellie said the following at 7:31 PM on Jul 17:

Christina,

My life has just never been as simple as Boundless would make a Christian's life out to be. There's so much more gray than black and white. And this seems to be one of those areas.

96. Craig M. said the following at 9:21 PM on Jul 17:

Tom Neven...I don't laugh often reading Boundless, but that made me smile. Thanks.

97. Heather Koerner said the following at 10:27 PM on Jul 17:

Kellie (#87),

Ah, it's the million dollar question.

As a believer, I have to use God's Word as my guide. What does it commend, specifically to women?

Does that mean that a woman isn't following God if she doesn't stay at home to raise her kids? The tough, and probably unsatisfying to you, answer is that I don't know.

My hope is that all our readers will give serious consideration to what God's Word says when making decisions about their family.

98. IMO said the following at 1:57 PM on Jul 18:

Kellie #95
"My life has just never been as simple as Boundless would make a Christian's life out to be."

I haven't gotten that impression from Boundless.

Is there specific blogger(s)or string of articles/blogs you that make you believe this?

99. Christina (in green) said the following at 2:52 PM on Jul 18:

Kellie,

The answers I gave were answers that would go to a woman who wants to be married and having children (or is married and has children...)

When you are single (and planning on remaining that way) or you can't/won't be having children, some things change a bit, but not much.

But do it in such a way that you don't kill yourself from trying to do it all.

The following is NOT the gray area:
Husband and children are the priorities in a wife and mother's life.

100. Kellie said the following at 5:49 PM on Jul 18:

100

IMO,

If you'd like to leave a comment, click here. I couldn't get the commenting feature to work correctly here, but it is available on that less user-friendly mobile version of the blog. Yeah, it's kludgy. Sorry. ~Ted.

Boats or Votes?
by Heather Koerner on 07/10/2008 at 4:59 PM

Comments

Post a comment*

External Links

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Contributors

About Us

Relevant Boundless Articles

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

Boats or Votes?
by Heather Koerner on 07/10/2008 at 4:59 PM

Comments

Boats or Votes? by Heather Koerner on 07/10/2008 at 4:59 PM

Comments

Post a comment*

External Links

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Contributors

About Us

Relevant Boundless Articles

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

Boats or Votes? by Heather Koerner on 07/10/2008 at 4:59 PM

Comments

Boats or Votes?
by Heather Koerner on 07/10/2008 at 4:59 PM

Boats or Votes?
by Heather Koerner on 07/10/2008 at 4:59 PM