« Explain Textual Criticism to Your Friends | Main | Links Mentioned on the Show »

April 11, 2012

Comments

At what point will we have to instruct people that they have to breathe, because they don't get it that it is an obvious biological necessity? I see this going tack to the A..B..C's of common sense time and time again and that is exactly what is going on here with the concept that both mother and father have something distinctly unique to bring to the family table. Are we as a society so mentally dense that we can't even hammer down the basics? What Amy is saying here is so basic that I'm getting flashbacks from kindergarten.

I do not get this. I mean my dad didn't "enforce standards" (whatever that even means) My mother is a hard nosed, practical, and opinonated woman.My father was (he has passed on) more emotional and easy going. Unless you are going to define what you mean my "push you to mature" or "nurture" I think this post makes no sense. For example, my mother pushed me to mature when it came to money and bills and getting a job. My dad was far more nurturing when it came to problems at school or sports.

This is so the problem with them argument when it comes to gender roles. Christians are stuck in an episode of "Leave it to Beaver" when it comes to this topic. All fathers are big, stung guys with high paying blue collar jobs. And all mothers are simpering, stay and home moms who know nothing of money or work, but are perfectly able to kiss a child's boo-boos. Considering that my family life is not reflected in this post, unless you are able to define your terms a little better. This post says nothing.

Can't wait to see what Dan Trabue has to say about this.

Should be interesting.

Here's some of the latest form Dan
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/03/can-homosexuals-change-their-orientation/comments/page/7/?cid=6a00d83451d2ba69e2016303fae48c970d#comment-form

Oops. Scroll to the top of that page.

"This is so the problem with [the] them argument when it comes to gender roles. Christians are stuck in an episode of "Leave it to Beaver" when it comes to this topic."

Broad brush you're wielding, topher. Do you know any Christians, or are you stereotyping? I'll agree that the post could be better. I think the writer might not be clear about her point, which I believe is this: you can't rewrite the laws of nature, or of nature's God. She was trying to say that most women share similar qualities which are not so pronounced in men, and that most men share similar qualities not so pronounced in women.

Since men and women share qualities, an individual of the opposite sex certainly can be more masculine or feminine than is usually observed for her/his gender. Just a variation.

Individual variation is not what the Huffington Post piece was proffering. It was promoting, bulling, and threatening a point of view that arrogantly contradicts nature's law, using such phrases as "Whether we acknowledge it willingly or not . . ." People who employ that tactic have nothing more than their hopes and wishes to support their contention. It's as if the writer has determined (who knows by what power) men and women are going to be just alike, gender will disappear, and if we don't like it, well, it's because we aren't as informed and sophisticated as she. At any rate, we'd better get used to it because the gods have spoken.

You can suppress identifiable gender qualities in either sex (but generally it's the male who bears the brunt of this suppression) but only for so long before problems manifest themselves in unimagined ways. For instance, women will never be as strong as their male counterparts. When it comes to defense, men are the champs. Without men stronger than females and nurturing of the masculine trait to defend his territory and family, women and children, indeed nations, would be at a disadvantage from invaders.

Why does it bother some homosexuals that men and women are different and that that difference is a necessity for marriage- just from a biological point of view? Why demand recognition and respect for homosexual relationships, which are unholy to God? Christianity doesn't exclude anyone of any gender. They just aren't to do unholy acts.

I know many men and women who don't conform to your stereotypes at all. Many men, myself included, are more in touch with connecting with their children. I'm very much interested in the emotional maturity of my kids and in our connection as human beings - much more so than if they learn to tow the line in terms of rules, etc.

Men and women are different - in generalities - but people are different. That's the point entirely.

I certainly agree that a specific woman may have more masculine strengths than a specific man, as I've qualified many times before. I'm speaking in generalities. In general, you give a little girl a truck to play with, and she gives it a name and puts it to sleep. Does that mean every girl will do this? Of course not. That doesn't change the fact that, in general, there are real, unique contributions made by both men and women to the family.

I certainly did not characterize this as "All fathers are big, stung guys with high paying blue collar jobs. And all mothers are simpering, stay and home moms who know nothing of money or work, but are perfectly able to kiss a child's boo-boos." Please.

When I can just walk into a Women's gym shower and claim that I don't accept gender stereotypes, I'll agree that society is truly gender blind and see no difference between the sexes. I expect to be prosecuted if I tried.

Can't wait to see what Dan Trabue has to say about this.

Well, I had no plans to comment on this, but since you ask...

If someone wants to teach their child to ride a bike and she's female, she should go for it. If he's male, go for it. I don't think there is an objectively "right" gender to teach bike riding.

I am relatively sure that if you check all the science books in all the world, there is not one that will provide you a definitive answer as to which gender "should" objectively teach a child to ride a bike. God has never weighed in on the topic. The Bible offers no opinions.

I'm inclined towards human liberty on that point.

I think the best men/women for any given job are the ones who do it best. Man or woman.

I'm a very nurturing parent, for what it's worth. As is my wife.

My lesbian friends who are parents are also generally quite nurturing.

And, interestingly enough, we're all appropriately "hard" on our kids, raising them in the right ways.

You should meet our kids, they're some of the greatest in the world.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

Does anyone here think there is an objectively "right" gender for teaching bike riding or money management or for disciplining children or for comforting a sad or sick child?

I'm just not sure what the point is, if we are all agreed that it is okay for women to teach bike riding or men to comfort a sad child and so on.

Is it just me, or are most of the posts here deliberately avoiding the point Amy was making?

Focus...focus...focus...on...the...point. If you missed it, reread Amy's clarification post above.

It is obvious. And it isn't about whether a woman can teach a child to ride a bike or not.

Sheesh.

It is about removing a woman's right to choose, if she happens to be gay. Right? ;-)

I'm more interested in topher and his lack of ability to understand what enforcing a standard means. Not that women being stoned or ostracized from society with a big "B" branded into their foreheads so people know what they did for teaching kids how to ride a bike is a standard,(which since Christians are such woman hating bigots, that's what we do right?) but actually not knowing what that means. Obviously not a person with any sort of technical job or training.

I just think it's funny (and sad) that the HuffPo article assumes that their's is the majority situation. Bottom line: gay/lesbian individuals, parents, etc. represent a miniscule minority; this is a fact beyond dispute. There are several scientific studies that have determined that far less than 10% of the population falls into this category, and yet the tone of this article suggests "it's the wave of the future". Talk about a spin job...

The US is less than 10% of the world population but it is generally presented as being the norm.

Xianity is growing in numbers, in many formerly atheist societies. Soon Korea, China and Africa will send missionaries to the states.

Dan

"If someone wants to teach their child to ride a bike and she's female, she should go for it. If he's male, go for it. I don't think there is an objectively "right" gender to teach bike riding."

This is where folks get it wrong. It is not a question of teaching a child what to do, but what to be that is in view. A woman cannot teach her son how to be a man any more than a man can teach his daughter how to be a woman. The reason for this is so obvious, that I would treat all the folks here like idiots if I insisted on going into detail and I have no wish to insult the good folks here. I think that even folks who disagree with me, know better.

But if there is really no difference between genders other than social stereotypes, all you need to do is teach the, to be a person. Right?

Does anyone here think there is an objectively "right" gender for teaching bike riding or money management or for disciplining children or for comforting a sad or sick child?

I doubt it.

As I said, "Of course either parent can do any task, but what they teach their children in and through the completing of each task will be different."

Don't believe me that men and women in general are different, look at things differently, value different things differently, stress different things? Go to a men's retreat and then a women's retreat.

"Don't believe me that men and women in general are different, look at things differently, value different things differently, stress different things?"

I'm a man, and I agree with Amy. :-)

And, interestingly enough, we're all appropriately "hard" on our kids, raising them in the right ways.

You should meet our kids, they're some of the greatest in the world.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

Yes, I wanted to see how you'd compromise biblical moral principles and you haven't disappointed.

I guess the sheep and the goats metaphor rarely ever applies, right?

Cory...

1. That is really an ad hom attack, making this a personal issue about me, which seems inappropriate here.

2. It is also a false charge to suggest I've compromised biblical moral principles, or at the least, a wholly unsupported charge.

3. Nonetheless, I'd ask you if you're going to engage in this sort of personal attacks rather than on topic, that you'd not make a snide and false charge, but support what you mean with something like actual evidence. Where have I, in what I said here above, "compromised biblical moral principles..."? And, given that it appears we all agree that women can teach their boys to ride bikes and dads can teach their daughters to bake cakes, etc, are you saying that everyone here has compromised biblical moral principles? If so, why single out one person?

Besides being unsupported and an ad hom attack that is off topic, it sounds like you have a political axe to grind and so you've gone on the attack thusly. Could that be the case?

On topic, Louis said...

A woman cannot teach her son how to be a man any more than a man can teach his daughter how to be a woman. The reason for this is so obvious, that I would treat all the folks here like idiots if I insisted on going into detail and I have no wish to insult the good folks here. I think that even folks who disagree with me, know better.

I guess I'd ask you to humor me, because I honestly don't know what you mean.

1. What does it mean to you when you say to "it takes a father to teach their son to be a man" or "a mother to teach their daughter to be a woman..."? What do you mean by that?

2. Are you saying that a woman can't teach a son to be a good, responsible adult male (or a dad can't teach his daughter to be a good responsible adult female)? If so, what makes you think that?

Thanks.

What do you mean by what do you mean?

Show me a man who claims to understand women enough to teach a girl everything she needs to know, I'll show you someone who is deluded or lying.

There may be an 80% overlap, but the 20% is rather significant.

Show me a parent who claims to understand their child enough to teach them everything they need to know, and I'll show you someone who is deluded.

How about this question... What does it mean to you (anyone) to "be a man..." or to "be a woman..."?

Myself, I learned to "be a man" by the combined teachings of my parents, my extended family, my church family, dear old Sister Marie, my 5th grade Sunday School teacher, my pastors, my youth ministers, my friends and wife. But I'm not sure what you all mean by that, so I'm asking for clarification.

Thanks.

Oh, and to clarify, by "be a man," I mean simply to be a grown up human being. Like my wife learned to "be a woman," meaning "a grown up human being."

What do you mean by it?

To reference Andy's comment, would you find it acceptable on the basis that you mere an grown up human being? Would the police?

Are you speaking to me, Trent? Would I find "it" acceptable...? What acceptable?

I'm sorry, the typos are making it hard to figure out what the question is, Trent, if that is addressed to me.


It is clear if you read Andy's comment.

I always wonder about a man who asks what you mean by being a man. Thousands of generations of conditioning have given most men I know an inate understanding of what society expects a man to be like.

Like it or not, society expects different things from males and females, and biology agreed with different bodies, with different hormones and some differences in the brain.

? Whose society? Not mine.

Alex, what do you mean by "being a man..."? Something beyond "an adult human being who happens to be male..."?

re...

I always wonder about a man who asks what you mean by being a man.

And...

What do you mean by what do you mean?

Just in case it isn't clear, I ask questions because I don't know for sure and would like clarity so that we are speaking of the same thing. I also ask questions to help clarify and sharpen the conversation.

Lots of back and forth. But here is, perhaps, the key point:
"Men and women are complementary. The lessons learned from both parents are valuable and unique to the strengths of each sex, and children are in desperate need of both."
I think this is where the action is... sure, some families may have different formulations but a marriage, family and parenting rely on maximizing the strengths of each person, and women and men do have different strengths and weaknesses. So, a mom (female) and a dad (male) do each play an important part in raising our kids. As Trent suggests, there is overlap... but significant learning often occurs at points of friction, and gender differences are important.
Maybe the "traditional" family is the new "family nouveau"? And we should all bear in mind that we ought to celebrate the diversity found in this new "old fashioned" tradition.

It seems like Dan lives in a different society than the rest of the world.

Most of the world lives in a society where men are treated as somehow less if they act indistinguishable from women. In his even biology ignores the differences.

He still hasn't addressed Andy's point.

Dan,

Cory said, "Yes, I wanted to see how you'd compromise biblical moral principles and you haven't disappointed."

I'm guessing this is an attack on the fact that you have lesbian friends.

And on a technicality Cory try out Mathew 7:1-5

This discussion is not about the physical differences between Male and Female and neither was the article.

So as to Andy's post, " When I can just walk into a Women's gym shower and claim that I don't accept gender stereotypes, I'll agree that society is truly gender blind and see no difference between the sexes. I expect to be prosecuted if I tried."

Were not talking about biological differences and the neccesity of laws that protect personal privacey. You wouldn't be arrested for your view, you'd be arrested for violating publicly protected personal privacey.

So Andy's post was true but not applicable.

It seems to me that there is a focalization on gay and lesbian couples raising children and the dangers of gender identity. This is a small percentage of our population. The larger view and still comparitive is the amount of children being raised by single mothers (myself included in this bracket.)

If we are to say that gay and lesbian couples are the sole propagators of the role confusion.

The article says in the opening paragraph

" Gay and lesbian couples and single moms and dads by chance or choice embody changing ideas about sex and sex roles, they are also transforming the gender based definitions of parenting."

The largest percentiles of the subjects would be the single moms and dads.

My question is this.

If we believe that it is wrong to raise children in a gay and lesbian home based upon the fact that it challenges the development of gender identification, you would have to level that same claim against single parents wouldn't you?

? I must say that these seem to be odd responses.

1. I never said that men and women aren't different. Clearly we are. Who says otherwise?

2. Andy's "point" does not appear to be on topic, since the topic was about parenting. But I don't think men should routinely go into women's showers because men and women are different and we respect the privacy of the different genders to bathe. What does that have to do with raising children?

3. On the other hand, I agreed with the author and others who all appear to agree that it's okay for parents of both genders to teach all manner of lessons to our children, including ones that don't fit into stereotypes.

4. But since some have suggested that this is not the point, that the point is we "need a man to teach boys to be men and we need a woman to teach girls to be women...," I asked the reasonable question...

What do you mean by "teach boys to be men..." and "girls to be women..."?

Or conversely, what do you mean by "be a man" or "be a woman..."?

The consensus here appears to be that it's okay for adults to teach non-stereotypical lessons, so by "be a man" it isn't the learning of non-stereotypical lessons. Given that, I was/am a a loss to what anyone here mean by "be a man." Therefore, an answer to that question would be helpful in communicating your collective points.

JustChatting summed it up with this...

Men and women are complementary. The lessons learned from both parents are valuable and unique to the strengths of each sex, and children are in desperate need of both.

I guess I might ask you, since the consensus here is that adults can teach non-gender-stereotypical lessons, what lessons are needed specifically from a man or a woman?

Thanks for any answers to help clarify what you mean.

Steve...

I'm guessing this is an attack on the fact that you have lesbian friends.

Well that might be a good guess, but there are no "biblical morals" that require us to not be friends with lesbians and surely Cory knows this, so I doubt that is it. Maybe Cory could address it? Or conversely, just admit that it was both off topic and an ad hom attack and move on to the topic at hand.

Thanks, Steve.

Alex...

Most of the world lives in a society where men are treated as somehow less if they act indistinguishable from women. In his even biology ignores the differences.

I'm not sure what the "biology" comment means. Clearly men and women are different genders.

Nor do I know what you mean that most of the world treats men as somehow less if they are indistinguishable from women. Are you speaking of dressing in drag or transgenderism or something else? Are you suggesting that it is acceptable or moral to belittle or mock or harm effeminate men and/or "butch" women?

Your comment is not clear to me. If you'd like me to understand your point, you might want to clarify.

Thanks.

Oh, and as a bit of clarification of my own, where Amy/others make the point...

1. The lessons learned from both parents are valuable
2. and unique to the strengths of each sex,
3. and children are in desperate need of both.

I agree strongly with the first and third clauses. Children need good parenting and support and each person in the family (and extended family) can add uniquely to that parenting, based upon their strengths.

But what I'm asking is, what do you mean by "unique to the strengths of each sex..."?

Fathers in the lives of sons and daughters.
http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/magazines/2007/may-jun/fatherless-families

Dan,

I completely lack understanding on how you can not understand how society has certain gender expectations.

Can you explain, exactly how no one who has any understanding can see how society sees gender roles as meaningless?

BTW, I believe Andy's comment(if I understand it) is that you can talk about there not being any gender differences in theory but it causes issues when you put it in practice as society quickly tells you that the differences are still there. And it isn't a personal privacy issue, if one group is allowed access and another isn't purely based on gender.


On another note, wasn't there a book a few years back showing an increased likelyhood of atheism among children who lacked strong father figures?

Alex...

Can you explain, exactly how no one who has any understanding can see how society sees gender roles as meaningless?

Can you answer my question so I know what you're speaking of? What "gender roles" are you talking about?

I see SOME society gender roles as harmful. For instance, in ancient Greece (I'm told), the Man role was expected to have a wife for producing children and a boy lover for intimacy. I find that gender role unhealthy. In some cultures, the Man role is responsible for beating his children if they get too disrespectful or for teaching his children how to fight. I find those less than healthy models.

What "gender roles" are you speaking of and in what way are they gender specific?

That is, if you mean simply that we need parents to teach their children to be responsible, that is not gender specific. If you mean that we need parents to teach self-reliance, being respectful, acting with compassion, baking cakes, fixing cars, repairing furniture, having a giving personality, being responsible with money, being generous in time and money, devotion to family, etc, etc, none of those teachings are gender specific.

So, if you'd answer with some specifics about what you mean by "be a man," or "be a woman," that would help us in this coversation. As it is, I simply don't know what you're speaking of, specfically. Just some vague ideal of "it's important to learn to 'be a man...'"

What does that mean to you?

Is there some reason you can't answer that question?

Perhaps we should all just sit down, take a breathe, and get in touch with our inner godess.

Let's embrace our wholeness and give thanks for the emotional tethers that keep us bound in a loving community of holistic peacefullness, and giving thanks for the fact that outdated ideas that masculinity means being non-feminine have been completely removed from our society bringing world peace through the emanation of love.

About gender
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/fem-schools.html

Very non-manly Rob.

One would have to be very comfortable in their gender identity to say that aloud in a group of males.

Depending on the group that could elicit anything from a incredulous glance to a punch in the head.

Vsry classy. Stating that allowing societal gender roles would include pedophilia.

No one seriously is arguing that women teaching sons now to ride a bike and men taking young boys as lovers are in any way similar.

This is a very silly discussion.

One must be either very sheltered or be intentionally obtuse to believe there are no inherent differences between the genders. Repeated statements that one doesn't understand what these might be simply flags, for me, someone who is just looking to argue.

I am also bit surprised that there are no female voices insulted that a man thinks that they are perfectly capable of proper instruction and nurturing for a young woman. I know very few women who would allow even their spouse to shop for clothing for them ( or themselves, for that matter). I am assuming we are talking about a process a little more complex than that.

Interesting article, Daron.

If accurate, there was a definite bias and agenda at play. Not simply a desire to raise a neutral adult.

I once worked in a department store stockroom. We needed female workers, because grown men did not want to pull cases of boxes of certain plastic wrapped feminine hygiene products off of the back of a truck.

I would suspect that they would be reluctant to speak much in discussions of related subjects with their daughters.

Trent

"But if there is really no difference between genders other than social stereotypes, all you need to do is teach the, to be a person. Right?"

There is no better way to teach a child than by example. How can a man teach his daughter by example what it means to be a proper woman? How can a woman teach her son by example how to be a proper man? The very best methods are discarded to the trash heap when you adopt the notion that just being a person is good enough. No! It is not. To obtain the full potential of an individual, one must recognize that each of the gender possesses strengths that the other lacks because of basic biological and spiritual differences. Those differences matter and are a positive, not a negative and should be built upon for the good of the person. To build on an appropriate foundation is critical to raising a well adjusted and properly functioning adult of either gender. I don't think that doing it on the person-hood foundation (one size fits all analog of one foundation fits all) actually works. I see the train-wrecks of this kind of thinking everyday and it is not a pretty sight.

Dan,
I'll answer you question about the objective right gender to teach someone how to ride a bike if you'll answer these:

1) Is there an objective right gender to conceive a child?
2) How does the objectivity of teaching how to ride a bike translate to parenting in general?
3) Is there an objective right gender to use a urinal in a restroom?
4) Is there an objective right gender to a soprano and a baritone?
5) Is there an objective right gender to breast-feeding?
6) Do you have objective statistics on the bond between a child and its mother vs. father in the first 3 months of its life?

Christophe...

Vsry classy. Stating that allowing societal gender roles would include pedophilia.

I just stated a reality that some gender roles were like the Greeks used to have. I did that to make the suggestion that just because something is a societal gender role does not make it a good thing. I'm sorry if that point wasn't clear. Is it clear now?

...No one seriously is arguing that women teaching sons now to ride a bike and men taking young boys as lovers are in any way similar.

No, no one is. I certainly never made the suggestion.

This is a very silly discussion.

It's not really much of a discussion at all, insofar as the conversations towards me have been concerned. They've entailed me asking a reasonable question to clarify what you (collectively) mean. At this point, I have not made a judgment as to whether or not I agree with you. It all depends on what you mean by "be a man..." Which is why I ask the questions which remain unanswered. I'm trying to understand what point is being made.

What I don't understand is, why not just answer the question?

One must be either very sheltered or be intentionally obtuse to believe there are no inherent differences between the genders.

I have not said that there are no inherent differences between the genders. In fact, I stated quite clearly just the opposite. I'm speaking to the point of the post - is it necessary to have a male and a female parent to be good parents?

Repeated statements that one doesn't understand what these might be simply flags, for me, someone who is just looking to argue.

? Truly, this is odd. I'm saying I don't know what is meant by the people saying, "it takes a man to teach what it means to be a man," simply because it is a fact. I do not know what you or Louis or Amy mean by that. And, when I don't know an answer in a conversation with another person as to what they mean, I ask them questions.

What is weird about that? What raises red flags? Do you doubt that I truly don't know what they mean? Why would I make that up?

Instead of writing paragraphs to insult me for not having mind reading ability, why not just answer the question?

I must say, this "stand to reason" website seems to attract commenters who are not open to answering direct questions making you appear unwilling to stand to reason.

The comments to this entry are closed.