Though None Will Lead
When Jason was home for Spring Break, we got the chance to practice swing dancing for a little while; he tried to show Jeremy different moves (using me as a prop). I have a hard time dancing with experienced male partners. Usually, I take the lead because (a) I am dancing with another woman and have to take the man's part - there is always a lack of males at dance functions - or (b) the guy has no clue what he's doing, so I lead. Being the pensive person that I am, I had to spiritualize this...
What happens when men do not take their God-given task of leadership? What happens when there is a lack of strong (yet gentle) male leadership in a woman's life?
I can speak, with much experience, from the woman's point of view. My dad was mostly absent the first fifteen years of my life, working minimum-wage jobs so the family could survive. He often worked 16-hour days, 6 days a week; when he was home, he slept. After Dad was laid off and came home on Social Security Disability - he has CMT/Muscular Dystrophy - he didn't know how to establish a relationship with his teenage daughter. To make a long story short, my dad has a hard time with relationships and communicating with people.
Growing, Mom was my anchor. She ruled the home. She was the one I established a close relationship with. Dad and I didn't know what to do with each other. Still not quite sure, but we work things out as best we can. The first couple of years Dad was home and no longer working were really hard. He didn't have a personal relationship with Jesus until a year ago, so things were very difficult to work out. (As everyone knows, when you are in close quarters with people, you get to know them - bad and all - really well.)
Because my dad wasn't saved he did not know how to be a strong, godly leader. Inherently, I was bitter about this. Why? I was used to a household where women were the leaders. Why did I care if my dad took charge or not? I inherently knew this was his job. All women know this and expect it to a certain degree. Many times (as in my case) the leadership was not there, and required the woman to take charge.
This, I believe, is the underlying premise of the Feminist movement -- causing many women to become "tougher" and more independent (not necessarily a bad thing) for the lack of a man to depend on. Out of sheer emotional survival, women put up a facade of confidence and strength. We can be - and are - but beneath the confident, strong, and aggressive exterior, we women are still essentially women - strong yet fragile at the same time.
The strength acquired from lack of godly male leadership can actually be a good thing. I have friends who grew up with a strong father-figure and knew no need in this area of their emotional lives. I envied them sometimes, but what I lacked only drove me closer to God in my formative teen years. They may have ideal relationships with their earthly fathers, but I have learned to cling to my heavenly Father.
My dad said once, "I am not your Father... only your dad." This is probably one of the most poignant statements he has ever made, and this is true. My Father resides in heaven. My Father is the King of Kings.
To return to my earlier question... What happens when men do not take their God-given task of leadership? Women must take it up. I hope and pray that every Christian man realizes his duty and takes it seriously. Leadership is a privilege that many abuse. Christ was a servant first. He was (and is) a wounded Leader.
"He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces He was despised, and we esteemed Him not. Surely He took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered Him stricken by God, smitten by Him, and afflicted. But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed." (Isaiah 53:3-5)
posted by Carey @ 4/14/2006 10:38:00 PM
17 comments
17 Comments:
Sorry if my thoughts are not very coherent. If you look at the time stamp, I wrote this at midnight. Will make edits if necessary.
That is a really great post, Carey.
Thanks, Matt.
"What happens when men do not take their God-given task of leadership? What happens when there is a lack of strong (yet gentle) male leadership in a woman's life?"
There is a leadership vaccum.
Something must fill it, either annarcy or some form of leadership. In a family, it is generally the mother, although if a adolescent guy is around, he should step up.
Although it does sound like your father did the best he could. Working hard provides a great example, and although he was not saved, you seem to have come out well. :D
"I can speak, with much experience, from the woman's point of view."
Lol. It funny how those of us under the age of 40 can speak of having a lot of experiance.
"This, I believe, is the underlying premise of the Feminist movement -- causing many women to become "tougher" and more independent (not necessarily a bad thing) for the lack of a man to depend on. Out of sheer emotional survival, women put up a facade of confidence and strength."
I think the feminist movement may have its main roots grounded in World War II, when we had a very large portion of the men fighting, bleeding, and dieing on forign soil. The women stepped up at home, and started doing more outside the house work.
So, most women gladly gave back the responsibilities. Others started a movement to change humanity, in one of the worst ways possible. They began a war on men. They're intentions may have been good, 'lets be equal with men, even though we're different' idea sounding wonderful, until the side effects come around.
Remeber the old westerns, or the old war movies, where the hero was a man? Not just a male, but a real man, who was willing to give all for his beliefs and what was important to him. If a woman was to be equal with a man, that kind of man had to go. The man, his leadership, his toughness, his devotion to his beliefs, and his lack of care of 'what the other guy thinks'. Once those were gone, our society has plummeted downhill.
I continueing with the cause of this femminism, I think it is because after some women began a career, they enjoyed the power that came with it. So, they rallied around a flag that said 'men are holding us back', and began artificially leveling the playing field. Once they had the power of a job, and the freedom to take shots at men, who for whatever reason they were bitter at, they organized a movement, mostly with young, angry women, who also wanted the power of a job, and never realised the benifits of a man.
I believe the lack of male leadership in this culture is because of the femminist movement, and a militant assult on men. This is a vicious cycle, as each generation becomes more pilatable.
That's a hard act to follow Palm Boy,
It was very good though
So I'll just say this...
When the men fail to take the lead,
Society collapses.
Good grief, Robert. That was a long comment. The US Feminist Movement (originally the Women's Suffrage Movement) actually began in the 1840s alongside the abolitionist movement. Feminism began 100 years earlier in Europe during the Enlightenment.
The lack of leadership came before feminism. We had to have some reason to revolt.
Jason, when men fail to lead, society begins a downward spiral, but does not completely collapse (instantly). Just think of Deborah from the book of Judges.
Women are equal with men in every respect, except that God gave us different tasks. In an ideal world, men should provide and protect and women nuture. But that is rarely the case nowadays. Women should be able vote, be involved in political leadership, have higher education, and careers if they so choose.
A woman's first priority should be God, and then everything else falls into place - whatever God has planned for her life. Same for men. God first - then everything else.
"Good grief, Robert. That was a long comment."
Heh, I suppose it was. Its longer then 90% of my posts, acctually. :D
"The US Feminist Movement (originally the Women's Suffrage Movement) actually began in the 1840s alongside the abolitionist movement. Feminism began 100 years earlier in Europe during the Enlightenment."
Womens Sufferage and Feminism are to very different things.
With the sufferage, they had valid reasons. Women were treated as without brains, and only to sit around and look pretty. They had no say, and could only do as they're husbands or fathers said. Or, they worked sewing 70 hours a week. That was changed by the turn of the century.
Feminism is the mission and goal of making women get higher in society, though bullying, affermative action, and quotas, while at the same time degrading men and leadership. Another facet is the 'freedom to chose' for a woman, which leads to a whole mess of problems. This was not the case until the feminsit movement became large.
"The lack of leadership came before feminism. We had to have some reason to revolt."
I must be missing something. There was a lack of leaders in the Civil War? In the west? In the industrys? No, we did not have problems with leaders until after the feminist movement, and then we had a lack of male leadership. Once being a man was no longer a virtue, the society took a very bad turn south.
"Jason, when men fail to lead, society begins a downward spiral, but does not completely collapse (instantly). Just think of Deborah from the book of Judges."
Its a leadership vaccum, and with out the proper leadership, the spiral is very, very quick. I do belive Jason is correct.
"Women are equal with men in every respect, except that God gave us different tasks".
That a complete lie. Women are not equal to men in every respect, and niether are men to women. That would be compleatly dumb.
Why is it that men are not allowed to play in womens sport leagues? Because they would compleatly dominate the court, field, or rink. And for the same reason, women should not play in a mens league, as the likely hood of them getting hurt is far, far greater.
However, can a man give birth? No.
"In an ideal world, men should provide and protect and women nuture. But that is rarely the case nowadays. Women should be able vote, be involved in political leadership, have higher education, and careers if they so choose."
But why is that rarely the case? I belive that it is the feminist, and its parent movement, humanism, that have caused this. Yes, women should be able to vote. How long have they been doing that? Decades, so why is that an issue? And if they should vote, they should have political leadership. That also is not an issue. A woman has always been able to have a career. Remember Lydia, who Paul stayed with? She had a tent making buisness. And we have nearly as many men in careers as men, and look where we are. Children are without parental attention, because both parents want to pursue their careers. Why is this?
And the idea that a woman is payed less then a man for the same work is a crock. If you look at the entire work force and compare the 2 genders, then there is a gap. Why is this? Because so many of the top executives are men, and are earning copius amounts of cash. Women generally do not reach that far, although some do.
I think I just wrote another really long comment.
Ok, wow, I think I struck a chord here. Great. More discussion!
I am going to write a book (or at this point, you are, Robert).
Women's Suffrage was the root of American feminism. I think the view you have of feminism is the same that many people have -- feminists (dubbed Feminazis by Rush Limbaugh - don't get me started) are bullying, man-hating b*****s that are out to promote abortion and lesbianism. NO NO NO. Only 10% of self-proclaimed feminists are this way, but since they are the most verbal, this is who we have to represent feminism.
I agree with you, Robert, that there really isn't anything to squibble over in the US. We have every freedom we could want (and then some). I do not argue with this at all. However, in other countries, women are still treated like dirt. This is what American feminists need to focus on.
Don't be so quick to blame feminism for all the wrongs of society. It was a Pandora's box, I will not argue that. Good and bad things came from the Women's Lib Movement.
Robert, men and women are equal. We are not equal in physical strength -- or abilities -- but WE ARE EQUAL in all other regards.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Carey, this is an excellent post and there is sooooooooo much truth to what you are saying. I fully agree with you. We have a lot in commom...long lost sister.
One of my favorite authors, A.W. Tozer once said that the Crhistian walk is a very lonely one. That is why we keep our eyes fixed on Christ.
If it's any comfort, you are a great encouragement and you can teach a lot of young ladies to always remember their Heavenly Father.
Thanks for posting on this.
"I am going to write a book (or at this point, you are, Robert)."
Heh, sorry about being long winded. I think I'll try to convert those to posts someday.
"Women's Suffrage was the root of American feminism."
As I said before, the goals of Womens sufferage and feminism are different.
Womens Sufferage: Women are being oppressed, and we need to be able to freely enter the arena of ideas.
Feminism: Women are just as good or better at men at everything, and as such, should be allowed to participate in everything a man does. Also, women are still oppresed everywhere, so they need a helping hand to get into places that men are filling.
I think it should have ended with womens sufferage. Once the goals of that movement were accomplished, the movement should have died out. Rather, the goals shifted to that of feminism. This is a terrible thing, and has played a starring role in bringing about the lack of leadership that we now face.
"I think the view you have of feminism is the same that many people have -- feminists (dubbed Feminazis by Rush Limbaugh - don't get me started) are bullying, man-hating b*****s that are out to promote abortion and lesbianism."
Lol. Whats wrong with Rush? He is right.
"Only 10% of self-proclaimed feminists are this way, but since they are the most verbal, this is who we have to represent feminism."
Aye. Those who represent the movement are nuts. But they do have supporters, who agree with them. And others, who by not activly disagreeing with them, they are tacitly agreeing.
"However, in other countries, women are still treated like dirt. This is what American feminists need to focus on."
Yes! What about the arabian countries? Where has the outrage been on that? It has not been there, because there is absolutly no politcal capital in protesting it. There is however, capital in protesting men, leadership, and pushing women on a career path.
"Don't be so quick to blame feminism for all the wrongs of society. It was a Pandora's box, I will not argue that. Good and bad things came from the Women's Lib Movement."
I'm still trying to hear the good things that came from it after 1950. Women's sufferage had good things, and some bad. But the majority good. Feminism, however, I have yet to see something good that is anywhere near the ills that it created.
"Robert, men and women are equal. We are not equal in physical strength -- or abilities -- but WE ARE EQUAL in all other regards."
Then they are not equal in every respect. As human beings, we are equal. We each have God given rights, a path to salvation, and the ability to chose to do good or evil in the world. What we are not however, is equal in every aspects. Men are better at physical activities, and women are much better at relating emotionally to others.
There was a study a few months ago, where when a guy sees someone in pain, he may think its funny, act indifferent, or have the 'better him then me' additude. Women however, were almost universally in sympathy for the person.
Does that make one better then the other? Suppose the guy was a serial killer. Would you rather have a man or a woman adminstering the punishment?
Or suppose that it was someone who was in an accedent. Then who would you rather have passing by?
On earth, we are different. In heaven, we are the same, the soul of a human who worshiped God.
Woo-hooo. Long post 3!
Robert, you have thoroughly and successfully "ruffled my feathers."
"As I said before, the goals of Womens sufferage and feminism are different."
I have studied feminist history for years and have written on the subject many times, so don't go telling me about that, boy. You are entitled to your own interpretation of history, but I will most certainly disagree with you.
One thing I will say: I do not believe women should be participating in combat. Behind the battles lines - no problem - but I do have a problem with masculated GI Janes.
Gosh, this is fun. I wish we could do some debate thing this summer. You, Jason, Hannah, me, Morgan... oh that would be fun! I love debating!
"I have studied feminist history for years and have written on the subject many times, so don't go telling me about that, boy. You are entitled to your own interpretation of history, but I will most certainly disagree with you."
Lol. *looks around* *Sorry*
Then perhaps you can explain what the goals are, of both the Womens sufferage and femminism.
"One thing I will say: I do not believe women should be participating in combat. Behind the battles lines - no problem - but I do have a problem with masculated GI Janes."
Ditto. And thankfully, thats the way it is now.
Hehe. A four way cage match on something. China perhaps.
Round one! *ding ding*
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
*comes out bouncing* Haha... yeah, we need to have some sort of debate thing this summer. Maybe in conjunction with Jason's swing dancing. LOL
The original goals -- though now very skewed -- of women's suffrage and feminism were to attain sociological equality for women. For a long time, it was in step with the abolitionist movement and the Civil Rights movement. Now feminism has acquired quite an ugly face, I do not deny. I am an old-fashioned Victorian feminist and wish that Feminism would go back to its tamer roots. All this pro-choice, lesbianist, man-hating crud is a bunch of crud.
Ok. Out of those original goals, which have not been acomplished, at least in the civilized westren world?
I'm trying to understand why we need to go back to a movement that has compleated its goals.
We have completed our original goals, but need to carry it to other countries.
"We"... "our" LOL
I wasn't around back then. They completed their original goals.
Post a Comment
<< Home