To quote MCD - gender semantics discussion

SMorriso · March 2011

amelianguy:
SMorriso:
amelianguy:
SocialWorker2B:
Diamond_Doll:
SocialWorker2B:
Diamond_Doll:

I look at gender, sex, marriage from a more religious, conservative standpoint, so no I don't agree.
This isn't a statement against gay marriage, but I believe that you're made either male or female and that there are certain "roles" that come along with that, both from society and religion. Fluid gender is hogwash to me. Then again, I also believe that marriage is designed to be a commited lifelong relationship between 2 people. I find it a little sad (for lack of a better word) that society forgets religion's role in gender and marriage.
Okay.
So, what do you say then to people who are transgendered? They are biologically male but feel, in their minds and hearts, female.
I completely disagree about roles. Just because I have a vag doesn't mean I have to cook, clean or stay home with the kids. But, I can see where you're coming from on the roles as the good books do tell us about them.
Have you ever kissed a girl? Because if you have, you've proved that sexuality is fluid. I don't remember what your answer was in MB's post.
Actually, I was one of the few who haven't kissed a girl. Gender roles, in a biblical sense, do not mean having to "cook, clean, and stay home with the kids." There's much more to it than some sterotypical view of a "woman's place." I won't waste my time arguing with you about transgendered people or fluid sexuality or open relationships. Our views are obviously very different, and we've all learned that we can't have a real discussion with you, not in any type of respectful way. Just wanted to let my peace be known.
I am honestly curious. And, my response to you showed I CAN have a discussion.
I understand that there are biblical roles. I honestly thought that those were what women were responsible doing in biblical times. I am sorry.
Biblical text indicates that Man is the head of the household. In layman's terms, the husband figure is the boss, so to speak. His word is law. The Woman, on the other hand, is to sumbit to the Man's will. A wife exists to serve her husband and to bend to his will.

It's not about who cooks, cleans, rears children, or who brings home the bacon. It's about who is the head of household and who is there to serve.

Not quite. The wife is called to submit to her husband. Submission, means the man has a mission for the family, and the wife is there to aide him in that mission. I don't think, I could be wrong, but I don't think there is any New Testament scripture that indicates that a wife is to serve her husband and bend to his will.
The husband is equally if not more responsible to love his wife as Christ loved the church. (which is the following scripture to the wives submit to your husbands) If Christ was willing to die for the church and do all that he did, the husband should never be in a place of authority that is a threat or a negative to the wife or family.
I'm not there to serve my husband any more than he is to serve me. God made Eve from the rib of Adam, to be by his side, not behind or in front. As a team.
I never indicated that the husband should be a threat or treat the wife in a negative manner. And yes, while the husband is called to love his wife as Christ loves the church, the wife is called to be a support system to the will of her husband, who is called to lead his family in God's will.

Nowhere did I say that if the wife disagrees with the husband that the husband has the right to inflict punishment on her. My intent was to explain to SW2B that biblical roles are more broad than just "husband makes the money, wife takes care of the house and kids." I'm sorry if I was not clear enough.

What you wrote came across a bit differently to me. It almost had a tone of servitude in regards to the wife's role biblically. Bending to someone's will is not what the Bible calls us to do, male or female. We were given free will.

To me: will =/= mission.

Mrs. Mo · March 2011

SocialWorker2B:
Mrs. Mo:

Actually, no I'm not. I know that MB has enough social class to know when is the proper time & place to correct someone. Just as Neuner said, you wouldn't start a discussion like this at a party just like you shouldn't in a post where someone needs support. Also, the way you worded the OP with "Does everyone know that gender and sex are two different things?" came off as very condescending. If you wanted a proper discussion, you should have worded it more in a non-threatening/call-out way.

I already apologized for doing it in this post. So, let that go.

And, yes, I could have worded it better - I think I was still so surprised. I was also thinking that maybe it was only MB and everyone else did know.

So, you made this post as a way to call-out MB? Klassy.

steeser03 · March 2011

MBMcC421:
steeser03:

i cannot get over the fact that just because MB and Tara and KelKlump and myself and whoever else, use sex and gender interchangebly that means we will go out and kill gay high school students and rape pre-op transgender patients.

literally. you made me LOL.

I know right? Clearly it is from our lack of education that will never amount to hers...

right now im picturing you assaulting antoine dodson...

MBMcC421 · March 2011

SocialWorker2B:
MBMcC421:

SocialWorker2B:

And, yes, I could have worded it better - I think I was still so surprised. I was also thinking that maybe it was only MB and everyone else did know.

.... seriously?

As I said, I thought everyone knew.

When you didn't knew.......well, you know my opinion of you.........I thought everyone else did.

And you STILL think I don't know...

Amazing.

SocialWorker2B · March 2011

MBMcC421:
SocialWorker2B:
MBMcC421:

SocialWorker2B:
And, yes, I could have worded it better - I think I was still so surprised. I was also thinking that maybe it was only MB and everyone else did know.
.... seriously?
As I said, I thought everyone knew.
When you didn't knew.......well, you know my opinion of you.........I thought everyone else did.
And you STILL think I don't know...
Amazing.

No, I don't.

My problem with you is that you think using them, in the wrong way, DOESN'T MATTER.

Unfeeling callousness is what's going on right now.

SocialWorker2B · March 2011

Mrs. Mo:
SocialWorker2B:
Mrs. Mo:

Actually, no I'm not. I know that MB has enough social class to know when is the proper time & place to correct someone. Just as Neuner said, you wouldn't start a discussion like this at a party just like you shouldn't in a post where someone needs support. Also, the way you worded the OP with "Does everyone know that gender and sex are two different things?" came off as very condescending. If you wanted a proper discussion, you should have worded it more in a non-threatening/call-out way.
I already apologized for doing it in this post. So, let that go.
And, yes, I could have worded it better - I think I was still so surprised. I was also thinking that maybe it was only MB and everyone else did know.
So, you made this post as a way to call-out MB? Klassy.

Nope. Did I mention MB at all? Nope again.

I was interested to see what everyone else knew about this topic.

Again, I've said this a million times now.

MBMcC421 · March 2011

SocialWorker2B:
Mrs. Mo:
SocialWorker2B:
Mrs. Mo:

Actually, no I'm not. I know that MB has enough social class to know when is the proper time & place to correct someone. Just as Neuner said, you wouldn't start a discussion like this at a party just like you shouldn't in a post where someone needs support. Also, the way you worded the OP with "Does everyone know that gender and sex are two different things?" came off as very condescending. If you wanted a proper discussion, you should have worded it more in a non-threatening/call-out way.

I already apologized for doing it in this post. So, let that go.

And, yes, I could have worded it better - I think I was still so surprised. I was also thinking that maybe it was only MB and everyone else did know.

So, you made this post as a way to call-out MB? Klassy.

Nope. Did I mention MB at all? Nope again.

I was interested to see what everyone else knew about this topic.

Again, I've said this a million times now.

You've also made it a point to attempt to call me out a million times now.

I beg you to go back and re-read through these 96+ posts...

SocialWorker2B · March 2011

MBMcC421:
SocialWorker2B:
Mrs. Mo:
SocialWorker2B:
Mrs. Mo:

Actually, no I'm not. I know that MB has enough social class to know when is the proper time & place to correct someone. Just as Neuner said, you wouldn't start a discussion like this at a party just like you shouldn't in a post where someone needs support. Also, the way you worded the OP with "Does everyone know that gender and sex are two different things?" came off as very condescending. If you wanted a proper discussion, you should have worded it more in a non-threatening/call-out way.
I already apologized for doing it in this post. So, let that go.
And, yes, I could have worded it better - I think I was still so surprised. I was also thinking that maybe it was only MB and everyone else did know.
So, you made this post as a way to call-out MB? Klassy.
Nope. Did I mention MB at all? Nope again.
I was interested to see what everyone else knew about this topic.
Again, I've said this a million times now.
You've also made it a point to attempt to call me out a million times now.
I beg you to go back and re-read through these 96+ posts...

She was talking about the OP.

lneuner09 · March 2011

SocialWorker2B:
lneuner09:

SocialWorker2B:

I don't think ANYTHING is more important than my responsibility to educate others.

clearly. This is why you have the social skills of a wet mop. You have no idea when it is socially appropriate to provide education, which is why you're constantly offending people.

And even if it IS a socially appropriate situation, you deliver it in such a manner that it still offends people.

I deliver it that way on here, since it doesn't matter enough to me to take the time to deliver it in a socially approriate way.

95% of the time, it's appropriate to do so, in my life.

The other 5% of the time, I do it in the most appropriate way possible - yes, people don't often like it but oh well.

but see, you ALWAYS have to take what is socially appropriate into account. You just said that it doesn't matter enough to you to be socially appropriate here. But as has been demonstrated, if you don't, then people won't listen. If this issue really is important to you, and it sounds like it is, then you always have to consider the most effective way to get that message across. And as shown, this thread is a FAIL because you didn't do so.

And THAT is how I handle my social responsibility and get people to listen. You have to account for your audience. Or people won't listen and you'll get nowhere.

SocialWorker2B · March 2011

OKay, so in this situation - what would have been best?

To start a completely new thread with an actually open discussion, right?

As I said, I didn't think I needed to which I already apologized for.

But, my problem with you is that if it's hard to be socially appropriate while educating people, you would choose being accepted. People may not like you but they will hear you.

lneuner09 · March 2011

SocialWorker2B:

OKay, so in this situation - what would have been best?

To start a completely new thread with an actually open discussion, right?

As I said, I didn't think I needed to which I already apologized for.

But, my problem with you is that if it's hard to be socially appropriate while educating people, you would choose being accepted. People may not like you but they will hear you.

There is a time and place for everything. There's a difference between social acceptance and sociallly appropriate.

I want people to like me so they are more likely to listen to me.

SMorriso · March 2011

amelianguy:
SocialWorker2B:
amelianguy:
SocialWorker2B:
Amelia -
See, I disagree that the wife is to support the husband while the husband supports the church/christ.
I support my husband in his career and my husband supports me in my work and school.
That's how it should be, I think.
I disagree with certain aspects of Christianity as well, which is why I no longer attend church. But, I had it shoved down my throat for 20 years, so I can discuss it until the cows come home. Moo.
So, are you referring to the old testament?
And, Smo is referring to the new testament?
And, that's the difference?
I don't know that much about the bible's specifics.
Precisely. I was referring to old testament law, Smo was referring to new testament law. A certain sect of Christianity believes that the old laws (old testament) has passed away, and is only there for reference. They believe that the new testament is the new "guidelines", so to speak. I would venture to say that Smo probably belongs to one of these denominations. Nothing wrong with that, of course.

Others believe that the entire bible should be followed. It really depends on what denomination you take your teachings from.

SW2B -

I believe in the Bible, as a whole. Along with the part that Christ's death, and resurrection freed us from the Old Testament laws and doctrines. Otherwise we wouldn't be Christians. When He was resurrected, we had freedoms unlike the OT. Things including not having to slaughter lambs as sacrifices, not being able to eat pork or shellfish, etc. (most of the book of Leviticus).

It's kind of like a recipe. You can't put the frosting on an unbaked cake.

SocialWorker2B · March 2011

Smo -

Thanks for the clarification. I'm with you now. :-)

SocialWorker2B · March 2011

lneuner09:
SocialWorker2B:

OKay, so in this situation - what would have been best?
To start a completely new thread with an actually open discussion, right?
As I said, I didn't think I needed to which I already apologized for.

But, my problem with you is that if it's hard to be socially appropriate while educating people, you would choose being accepted. People may not like you but they will hear you.
There is a time and place for everything. There's a difference between social acceptance and sociallly appropriate.
I want people to like me so they are more likely to listen to me.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

I would just rather lose friends and get the education out there rather than make friends and maybe be a little less effective.

I can dig what you're saying, I think I'm just a little more committed to activism work.

Riss91 · March 2011

SocialWorker2B:
I would just rather lose friends and get the education out there rather than make friends and maybe be a little less effective.
I can dig what you're saying, I think I'm just a little more committed to activism work.

Hey! haven't caught up with everything here, but I thought I'd chime in on this. I think Neuner's point is that you will not be able to educate people about anything, if the method of your communication causes the people you are targeting to shut themselves off to you. So, if you truly want to open people's minds, you need to first consider the audience and then adapt your method of communication, your tone, etc in a way that will allow the audience to receive it.

Even if it means being over-the-top nice to someone you might not like so much. It's not easy, but if you want to educate, that's what you gotta do. I have this discussion a lot on the Catholic board, as there's a very knowledgeable lady there that cannot seem to share information without sounding condescending (she claims she is speaking neutrally). People feel insulted and are turned off to her and she sets a bad example for her own cause.

Just something to think about.

SocialWorker2B · March 2011

Riss91:
SocialWorker2B:
I would just rather lose friends and get the education out there rather than make friends and maybe be a little less effective.
I can dig what you're saying, I think I'm just a little more committed to activism work.
Hey! haven't caught up with everything here, but I thought I'd chime in on this. I think Neuner's point is that you will not be able to educate people about anything, if the method of your communication causes the people you are targeting to shut themselves off to you. So, if you truly want to open people's minds, you need to first consider the audience and then adapt your method of communication, your tone, etc in a way that will allow the audience to receive it.
Even if it means being over-the-top nice to someone you might not like so much. It's not easy, but if you want to educate, that's what you gotta do. I have this discussion a lot on the Catholic board, as there's a very knowledgeable lady there that cannot seem to share information without sounding condescending (she claims she is speaking neutrally). People feel insulted and are turned off to her and she sets a bad example for her own cause.
Just something to think about.

I completely agree.

And, I do this in real life, which is why I don't experience the backlash that occurs here in real life.

I guess I should start doing it here as well.

Riss91 · March 2011

Just to add to/clarify what others have said re:biblical roles, since you said we might be interested in understanding better. The Bible's words call for a kind of mutual submission, wives submit to their husbands as they would for God (not as if her husband were God), and husbands lay down their lives for their wives (and family). It's not 50/50 giving. It's more like 100/100 giving.

If you want to understand further, I'm happy to discuss off-line or at least in a different post.

SocialWorker2B · March 2011

Riss91:
Just to add to/clarify what others have said re:biblical roles, since you said we might be interested in understanding better. The Bible's words call for a kind of mutual submission, wives submit to their husbands as they would for God (not as if her husband were God), and husbands lay down their lives for their wives (and family). It's not 50/50 giving. It's more like 100/100 giving.
If you want to understand further, I'm happy to discuss off-line or at least in a different post.

I think what I have a problem is that submit =/= lay down their lives.

So, wives submit but husbands protect? Why not the other way around? Why not wives protect and husbands submit? I NEVER hear the words 'husband submit.'

SMorriso · March 2011

SocialWorker2B:
Riss91:
Just to add to/clarify what others have said re:biblical roles, since you said we might be interested in understanding better. The Bible's words call for a kind of mutual submission, wives submit to their husbands as they would for God (not as if her husband were God), and husbands lay down their lives for their wives (and family). It's not 50/50 giving. It's more like 100/100 giving.
If you want to understand further, I'm happy to discuss off-line or at least in a different post.
I think what I have a problem is that submit =/= lay down their lives.
So, wives submit but husbands protect? Why not the other way around? Why not wives protect and husbands submit? I NEVER hear the words 'husband submit.'

That is sort of the ultimate display of love. There is no greater love than to lay your life down for another.

It is what Christ did for us (by our faith), and it should be lived out daily in a way that you're virtually living for the other person as the highest form of love. Like Riss said, it should be 100/100.

The wife being the submitter isn't as negative as you're making it out to be. I know it isn't how you feel about marriage. I can totally respect that, I'd just ask that you'd respect the same of us who do feel that way about marriage.

Riss91 · March 2011

Yeah, I guess I would say that you have to excuse the term submit, as it isn't the best term for what is meant.

Many people get hung up on the term because in today's world it has a connotation for being a slave or something. The idea is that both husband and wive give to each other equally. In fact, I believe there are about 3 more pages of "requirements" for the husband than the wife....not that it means any more effort on his part than hers, but it discredits the idea that the wife is the servant of the husband.

To quote MCD - gender semantics discussion

Re: To quote MCD - gender semantics discussion

Choose Another Board

Search Boards