News-Record.com

There's little mystery about female discrimination. Regardless of who invented it, the motive is universally the same:

Men would rather give orders than take them.

What could be simpler than to understand from where gender discrimination comes from? It works the same between blacks and whites.

The mystery is why, when God handed out brains, he didn't give men a few more so that they could see the wisdom beyond the act of giving orders to what can be accomplished regardless of who gives the orders. That lesson was either never given, or it never sunk in.

If America could manage to look beyond who's in charge, she might be able to get something accomplished. And, isn't that the Christian philosphy: that harmony produces cooperation that produces prosperity?

If men are always focused upon who's in charge, how can anything ever get accomplished? It matters little whether this is an addictive preoccupation in the private or in the public sector, or even in the religious sector.

For all the military training they've been offered, men do not seem willing to take orders from women. So much for military training to produce order and organization. Now we know! It's only about dominance, who wants it, and who gets it, and how.

It is not just about "dominance;" it's about divine order, and Intellignet Design in creation. While there is not a disparity of brain power between men and women, there is a definite difference in maleness and femaleness. It involves biological/reproductive issues, basic urges and inclinations, thinking style,temperament,etc. Men and women are most definitely NOT the same, and to expect them to just be unisex automotons is absurd at best.

The problem comes when fiminists try to assert that gender does not make any substantial difference in most all areas of human endeavor. In many this is true. But in others it does make a difference. In order for women to take over many traditionally male jobs/positions they have to become very "masculine," and assertive, which undermines and erodes their fimininity. But they seem to not mind that they are becoming masculinized, just as long as they can compete with men and show them a thing or two.

Rather than embracing their God-created role as homemakers, wives, and mothers,(while being teachers, nurses, doctors,on the side) they have become preoccupied with invading all the traditionally male positions they can, to the neglect of thier highest calling. Consequently, many women find themselves, lonely, childless, frustrated and "male;" having sold their precious womanhood birthright for the feminist mess of pottage.

My point is not that women should not, or cannot expand their horizons beyond homemaking, but that they will pay a heavy price if they demean that calling, or neglect it if they marry and have children. The seminary course legitimately addresses this calling and is a much-needed addendum to its curriculum.

The Scriptures teach and proclaim different roles for men and women, calling men to shoulder the bulk of leadership in the marriage, home and society (generally). Leadership doe NOT mean dominance; it simply menas just what the word implies - leadership. The Bile does not tell men to "lord it over" their wives or women, but to exert loving, cooperative headship.

This may not sit well with those who have been duped by feminist extremism, but it does WORK - when done wisely and lovingly. To oppose God's ways is to invite more and more divorce, broken homes, child-neglect: some of which can be laid at the feet of feminism in America.

All well and good for those who buy into bronze-age superstition, but for the rest of the world.. they see that it's all about retaining the power and dominance over the rest of humanity ( women, children and non-aggressive men) that some insecure men desperately need. And which apparently bolsters their flagging masculinity.

You can almost hear the shrinkage of a certain body part of those insecure men when they go off on their " explanations".

Alice, your shallow obscurantism is astounding. The proof is in the pudding. I'll let the divorce rate, broken homes stats,and ALL the social rot that flows from this great American feminist debacle do the talking for me. It's in the news every day, ad nauseam. Role confusion and feminist negativity twoard the biblical family model are not the only cuases in these areas, but it IS a major one.

There is a major difference between domination and leading in love. But no matter how hard you humanist/Marxist types try, you will NEVER destroy the intrinsic male/female differences and polar dynamics. It's in the genes: created by the Intelligent Designer for the blessing and good of all mankind. All attempts to stifle and destroy it will only end in social dissolution and misery.

Alice, there it is; "...for the blessing and good of all mankind." See, women have no lead in this.

Let us take for a moment the time period roughly 1940-45. During this time, more women than ever before worked in factories, etc. (out of the home). Now if we follow the basic premises set forth both from posts in this blog and from that being pushed by one of the great dividers (Patterson), then the Allied would have lost the war and this discussion would not be taking place! See what you get when a group of people are liberated from oppressive ways? It is a life-changing experience. More people should experience those.

Shalom

Utter nonsense! The post-war generation is the one that ended up embracing the hippie world of drugs and occultism, and Marxist propadanda - and then went on to become a sex-crazed President.

The exit of mothers into the factories during and after the war played no small part in this decline. Women were NOT oppressed by being mothers at home. The oppression has come through being drones in large corporate offices and sold a bill of goods that has left them husbandless and childless, in all too many instances.

And the ones that did buy into the garbage concept of working and being moms at the same times are the ones that are suffering the oppression and misery of seeing their kids on drugs, run-aways, and immorality and STDs.

The propaganda during the 60's - 80s was to make homemaking look like slavery and drudgery, and impel women to buy into the fiminst delusion. That's were the opopression and anguish are; not in loving, joyous and successful Christian homes, where affection and commitment make it a pleasure - even with all the practical challenges and inevitable life problems we ALL face.

The TRUE Christian home (not the nominal one - or one where sin and neurotic depravity are a hidden reality - as in the other blog)) is the bedrock of all that is good and holy and fulfilling. But if you are dead in trespasses and sins, and filled wiht bitterness and guilt, you have never known this glorious contiditon, and never will, until you repent of your godless beliefs and life-styles.

Nikos, is your family a two-income family; meaning do/did you and your spouse both work jobs? Do you/did you purchase your own home? If so, would this have been possible on just one income? Could your family's standard of living have been accommodated on just the one income?

And I did NOT bring up post-WWII (post-war generation) America. I noted 1940-45! So you see Nikos, the point was totally missed. Just as I believed it would be. Thanks for settling things even more for me!

Shalom4

"Nikos, is your family a two-income family; meaning do/did you and your spouse both work jobs?"

NO! Not during our children's years at home. I worked as many as three PT jobs while in graduate school just so that my wife could be the mother God called her to be, and she desired to be. We raised two happy, well-adjusted, Christ honoring children becasue we invested the time, love, prayer, teaching that such an enterprize demands.

When a couple have children it is the husbands calling to spiritually guide and provide for them. My wife and I made a solemn covenant before God that we would obey His Word and live according to His divine order - and put our covenant children first: above money, house, status - Only God was higher and his calling on our lives.

"I noted 1940-45! So you see Nikos, the point was totally missed"

No Darryl, the point was NOT missed. My point was that the pattern of women going into the factories and workplace during the war years set a bad precedent for family life, which eventuated in the lack of family-centered marriages (in the biblical sense), which at substantially contributed to the national debacle of the sixties (subculture, drugs, leftiest politics, free sex, etc.) I realize there were other causative factors, but the superficially stable and materialistically focused homelife of the fifties was more a cultural phenomenon than a genuinely biblical model.

Certainly, the two-income thing is more a 80s-on phenomenon than a fities one. Now that feminist ideology has permeated our social milieu, we are REALLY reaping the bad fruit of the whole absentee mom thing. Either we abandon the failed policies of humanism or we contiue the slide into national decline and obscurity.

Until the sanctity and joy of biblical motherhood is restored, women will continue to choose money, career and gender competition over homeamking and godly, happy children.

But then, I realize that none of this makes any sense unless you have the burning love of God in your heart, and a passion to live your life in accordance with His divine Guide to true happiness. It's not justa viewpoint; it's a radical inner transformation!

So I should just sit on my butt and waste my education in hopes that Prince Charming is going to come along and support me while I pop out babies for Jesus?
If he dies, becomes disabled or runs off with some fundamentalist floozy, what then? Just find myself Prince Chaming 2.0 to support me and the kids?

Alice, you mean you went to COLLEGE? How dare you! It appears that you are well above the proper marrying age. There may be no hope for a prince charming now. I do not know what we are going to do with you!

Alice, if Nikos’ philosophy were followed, Japan, Italy, and Germany would have been ruling a large part of the world now; in all likelihood.

Also Alice, I hope that you read my previous posting for what was stated fairly clear and succinct.

Nikos, thanks for the chuckle this morning! You can bring a smile to my face more easily than anyone at the current time!

Shalom

Yes, Darryl- I AM
'Christmas cake"!

" . . . if Nikos’ philosophy were followed, Japan, Italy, and Germany would have been ruling a large part of the world now; in all likelihood."

I did not say that the infusion of women into the workforce was bad or unnecessary during the war; simply that it began a bad precedent of breaking down the home life of America, which only in the latter part of the 20th century has born its inevitably destructive fruit.

I did not say that women should not pursue their personal goals in career, work or art. Only that, if they chose to marry and have children, THAT becomes their PRIMARY career. Career interests can be managed - as possible.

If women choose to become corporate Vestal Virgins, that's their choice - career now, regret later. To not choose to put home and children first is worse than irresponsible, however. I do not think a children/husband first is oppressive, or unreasonable - just the opposite: it is responsible, loving and wise! Only feminist bitterness and myopia sees it otherwise.

"So I should just sit on my butt and waste my education in hopes that Prince Charming is going to come along and support me while I pop out babies for Jesus?"

Noblody EVER said or suggested that. I detect no small amount of bitterness and regret in your protestations. For that I am sorry. All the scenarios you propose in this paragraph are born of sin. There are sinful, unfaithful and unloving men AND women around. This in no way refutes the biblical model of righteous and responsible marital fidelity - rather it validates it by obvious contrast.

Your knee-jerk reactions, Alice, reveal a prejudice that ignores reason and the key importance of loving, 3-D child care and homemaking. Children have become expendible commodities in the new feminist "utopia" of working moms - both before they're born, and then aferward as well.

NO ONE cares for your children the way you do. Therefore they will NOT (esp. in daycares) receive the intimate attention and loving nurture they crave and deserve. Is this reasonable concept now beyond the comprehension of feminist ideologues?

Daycare only further enslaves working class women, with another payment that eats up the pecuniary advantage it proffers. It erodes the mother-child bond, so necessary for effective parenting, and exposes the children to all sorts of anti-social language and behavior - not to mention viruses. The whole arrangement is one of the primary blights imflicted on our nation by radical feminism.

All the more reason to teach women biblical, loving child care and homemaking skills!

oh alice,
comprehension is critical here.......nikos has generally been speaking of "married" women and their role in a Christian marriage and of the intrinsic differences between male & female. i believe one may be able to read between the lines and assume that nikos' wife may have joined the ranks of the working AFTER the children were reared. it does not appear that he is adverse to women working, rather he supports the biblical structure of women and men in relationship to God, family and humanity. if you understood the biblical model of husbands and wives you would find that to a husband, God is preeminent then the wife is next to receive honor, then your children and so down the line it goes. there is some mysterious thing which happens between husband and wife...the two become one flesh in Gods sight. so counter to what you and darryl think about a Christian husband viewpoint on their wives, they (i.e. the wives) are next in line to God in a husbands devotion if he is following the scriptural model.

buz, "reading between the lines" and making "assumptions" should not be expected of others regarding Nikos when it is VERY clear that Nikos had to have it spelled out in a very simplistic way to even begin to comprehend my comments regarding the workforce of 1940-45. Then look at the manner in which it was finally addressed, some 2-3 day post!

And I fully believe that is a family has committed themselves to God, BOTH male and female spouses CAN work without sacrificing the nurture and care needed of any offspring. In today's climate, generally, unless both spouses work, affording a home and supporting a family is not very feasible.

That has been a point that I had hoped would be gleaned from my prior postings. It seems that some are expected to "read between the lines" and make "assumptions" from some postings. Yet is seems that is not the case with all here.

Basically, I see this entire blog focusing on interpretation. There is yet to be a concrete, totally correct interpretative method for scripture.

That is why I seek to follow a command that is attributed to be the words of Jesus the Christ; Love God with all that you are and love others as you love your own self (paraphrased).

Shalom

darryl,
it seems you are arguing for argument sake only.
you say nikos can't comprehend your post concerning 1940 -1945 - for when he addressed it he called out post war and argued his point. what exactly were you trying to convey when you called out the years between 1940 - 1945? many times there is a delay between cause and effect.drop a pebble in the center of a still pond and watch how long it takes for the ripples to reach shore. so it could be with women out of the home from 1940-1945. maybe the effects were not as noticable until post war and by that time women had slowly begun to move from homemaker to bread winners. you state "male and female spouses CAN work without sacrificing the nurture and care needed of any offspring.".........are you speaking from experience or observation ? i can speak from personal experience on this subject. i have a 37 yr. old son whom i have not seen or heard from in years, he is a product of a broken home and a divorce. i raised him alone since he was 8 yrs. old and did i ever make too many mistakes ( i am glad God is merciful and forgiving ). he spent way too much time alone while i was working or out catting around - i ( and he ) are both paying the price for my neglect and lack of attention. i am told he has become a recluse and only leaves the house to work - he orders his food in and will not associate with his friends. i feel i have to assume some of the blame for that but he also is a man who makes his own choices. in contrast to this son - my second son from my second marriage is a polar opposite of my first son. my wife and i committed before he was born to never place him in any type of child care. we agreed to work different shifts ( wife worked nights and i worked days ) until he was about 16 (now going on 20). we wanted his values to be instilled by us his parents and not by a child care provider. he never did stay in child care. he finished school last year at the top of his class, he is outgoing, caring super giving, loving and is a believer. he was just given a brand new pizza store ( a large chain operation ) to manage - he is nineteen yrs, old he has 15-18 employees under him and is the youngest manager this pizza chain ever had. and yes we as parents take some reponsibility for his success - we invested our lives in him, we committed that he was more important than carrer and money and we sacrificed to make it happen - and we are proud of him and neither of us regret making these concessions in our life in order to give him the tools necessary to prosper in life. this is a not an ego trip for me, rather a contrast in the manner in which a child is reared. we all know there is no guarantee that our investments in our children will pay dividends - but we trusted God and followed our instincts and praise God it was successful ! i have persoanlly seen too many instances where children are turned over to care providers at a very young age and literally grow up in that environment - only to become rebels and unruly - but in fairness i've also seen children in the same circumstances turn out well adjusted. but for me and my wife, we would do it all over again in a heart beat - our son is the 'apple of our eye' and we thank God for him, Amen !

buz, why do people consider it "arguing" when they disagree? Can it not be a discussion on a matter/topic/issue?

I believe that from the posting of 3:42 PM, my point is made. Thanks for helping me to do so.

Just because parents work does NOT mean that children in that family are not/cannot be cared for and nurtured in a loving and faith based way.

As for the son of your first marriage, I believe that you, like God, should continually be making contact with him. You never know what might happen.

Shalom

darryl,
"I believe that you, like God, should continually be making contact with him."................you are presumptuous to think for one moment that i have not and am not making efforts to contact my son and heal the relationship with my him, just as his mother is also doing.
you haven't said but i suspect that you have no children - over the past three years or so i've not heard you mention being a parent. a little advice, if you've not raised your own children and understand all that it takes and what is involved, then if i were you i would hesitate on giving too much advice to real parents. i could have easily been offended by your statement but i choose not to be - i just chalk it up to your inexperience and ignorance.

on the other issue..... i was simply stating my pov from a personal experience and the path that my wife and i choose to take in rearing of our son. i did state that i had seen some successes in the child provider environment. my personal choice was to have a child, to make whatever sacrifices were necessary to insure that my child had our values and as he grew up he always knew we where there for him and he knew he needn't consult strangers for important life lessons - he consulted us his parents because WE WERE THERE FOR HIM AT ALL TIMES.if people want to warehouse their kids in nurseries, after school programs, day care/child care or any other care and give up many opportunities to provide for you childs need then that is their choice and they must live with whatever consequences arise from that type of situation.