Homer wrote:Christopher wrote:
Interesting theory Homer. But it would seem to me that history tells us that the cruelest people of all time have been men in leadership.
But would not their exceptional cruelty have been the result of opportunity, opportunity most often not available to women?
This makes sense, I suppose. You seem to be saying that given the opportunity both men and women are capable of cruelty. Would your premise, then, be that women, given the same opportunity for evil that men have historically had, would have been much more cruel?
Also, didn't Paul tell us why men are appointed to leadership?
1 Tim 2:12-14
12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
NKJV
It appears Paul is saying it has something to do with 1) the creation order, and 2) the curse placed on Eve (and by extension, her gender) at the fall.
But Adam had personally received a command from God, prior to Eve being created, warning him not to eat of the tree. He abdicated his leadership role in regard to the command, Eve took the lead, Adam followed though he knew better, and the role reversal led to disaster. It appears the curse came after the leadership role was established.
I'm unclear about why you started your reply with 'but.' What did you say that is in contrast to what Christopher, quoting Paul, said?
But I don't know that I could necessarily agree with the generalization that women are more emotional and men more intellectual.
Whoa. I do not mean to imply men are more intellectual, but that they are less emotional. Here is a quote from C. S. Lewis that sums up my thoughts nicely:
"If your dog has bitten a neighbor's child, would you rather face the mother or the father to discuss the issue?"
Okay, then, I'll say it. Men are both more and less intellectual than women, based on IQ scores. Both genders average out to the same level, but men span the spectrum more, having a higher percentage in both the higher and lower ranges, and women cluster more at the average.
Of course the owner of the dog would rather reason with the father, but the who does the child run to?
Michelle wrote:
Homer, why do you feel the need to find something in women's nature that would exclude them from leadership?
I believe, contrary to the feminist ideology, that there are real differences between men and women other than the obvious anatomical differences, and that God made men and women with these differences to complement each other. The sum is greater than the parts. What I am interested in is what those differences are. A theodicy, perhaps.
Homer, I've said before that I agree with you. Your posts spur my thoughts, and as much as I agree with your basic ideology, your argumentation chafes me a bit. In the opening post of this thread, you began and ended with positive statements about women (at least I THINK you meant to be positive.) You said:
I believe that if you consider men and women in general, women are both better and worse than men.
And later:
But perhaps not and is the reason God has chosen men for the responsibilty of leadership while women excel at nurturing.
I'll assume that you consider nurturing as an awesome responsibility as well. (If you don't, you should, I'm just throwing that out there...) In between those two somewhat positive statements, you made women sound absolutely horrible. I choose to believe this was not your intention, but that is how it comes across because in your zeal to make your point you used a couple of anecdotes which illustrate the extremes.
You characterize leadership as a responsibility, which it is, I suppose. It's a responsibility that I don't really want. Apparently some women do, however. Since I was widowed when my children were very young and have never remarried, I had the responsibility as the head of my household for many years. I hate it. That was leadership of just two children, now adults, who are younger than me. I would REALLY hate the responsibility of a whole assembly of people. Men, however, whether they like it or not, are supposed to assume leadership, not all of them in the church, but in their households, for sure. They are supposed to do so, whether they like it or not - just like I had to. See? I feel more sorry for men than for women. It's easier to be nurturing, at least for me.
I get a little uncomfortable when generalizations are made about men vs. women because I tend to end up on the male side of things...
But generalized conclusions are all we can make.
God bless! Homer
As long as the generalizations do not harden into solid slabs of gender rules used to condemn those of us on just that side of the norms. While I am fully in the complementarian camp, I do have a few abilities that are sometimes assumed that men are better suited for. While I was married, my husband often acknowledged those strengths and sought my assistance in those areas. I would hate to think that because of the 'generalized conclusions' we make, my abilities had been disregarded as inappropriate, especially since at times they helped us avert minor disasters.
), and he was in his early sixties, an old man to me at the time. Chick was what we would call a "cracker barrel philospher". One day he commented that in regard to being mean, men could not compete with women. Recently I have been reminded of his words. We recently met a man, John, who is sick with pancreatic cancer, a deadly disease. He is a Christian man, and his wife claimed to be. But after he was diagnosed with cancer his wife took the kids and left him. This is almost unbelievably cruel. Needless to say, John is devastated, and struggling to hold on to God.
