• Semi-OT: Sex roles in life, religion - and celebs

    From Lenona@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jul 9 19:06:34 2024
    The celebs/actors, of course, are why this is not COMPLETELY off-topic.

    I was flipping through a 2008 book: "Lies young women believe : and the
    truth that sets them free" by Nancy DeMoss Wolgemuth and Dannah Gresh.
    (It's very religious in a shaky way; practically every paragraph has
    "God" "Christian" or "godly" in it, when the authors are addressing the reader.)

    Anyway, this part caught my eye. (I don't know why India is in the URL,
    but this was the fastest way to find the page and copy it. However, this
    does not include the photos, so the page number - 185 - may not be the
    same as in the book itself. It might be better to start reading from
    page 183, though.)




    http://hcf-india.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Lies-Young-Women-Believe-And-the-Truth-That-Sets-Them-Free-by-Demoss-Nancy-Leigh-and-Gresh-Dannah.pdf


    "Sadly, these two roles—wife and mother—have come under attack in our culture. The result is that even the church isn’t committed to
    protecting them. In
    1987, only 20 percent of Christians felt that women should not emphasize
    these
    two roles. In 2007, just twenty years later, this had grown to 47
    percent who felt
    that the roles of marriage and motherhood should not be emphasized for
    women. That survey was over a decade ago. Our experience suggests that
    this
    trend has continued to grow.

    "A lot of young women today fear marriage (perhaps because they’ve not
    seen
    a lot of great examples). And increasingly, young married women are
    choosing
    not to have children or to delay motherhood until they’ve had a chance
    to do
    everything else they want to do in life.

    "Who will protect these vital roles? We hope you will. We hope you can
    see
    that they are worth protecting. Now, we realize that your feathers may
    be a bit
    ruffled right now. Given the way we’re programmed by the world, God’s
    Truth
    is a stark contrast. So, let’s see if we can soften it up a bit by
    getting a unique
    perspective.

    "I (Dannah) sat down with my (17-year-old) son, Rob, and his best
    friend, Ryan, to get a
    guy’s perspective on all this. What these two godly guys had to say was compelling."

    Dannah: What do you guys think makes a woman a woman?

    (Nervous laughter followed by dumbfounded silence!)

    Dannah: OK, let’s try another approach. Do you think it is OK for a
    woman to
    want to be a wife and mother?

    Rob and Ryan in unison: Yes! Definitely!

    Dannah: Do you think girls in your generation feel the freedom to want
    that?

    Rob and Ryan in unison: No. Not at all.

    Ryan: It’s so wrong, because girls feel pressure NOT to be a wife and
    mother. It’s
    not like they feel pressure to be a career woman. It’s a negative thing. It’s bad.
    Society puts this pressure on them.

    Rob: It’s not like she CAN have a career. It’s like she SHOULD have one.

    Dannah: Do you think that’s fair?

    Rob: Not at all. If a guy had that attitude about not wanting a wife and
    kids, he’d
    be considered a jerk. I don’t get it. Just like we’re supposed to want
    to protect a
    wife and be a great dad, girls should want to have a husband and be a
    great
    mom.


    "Eureka! That’s it, isn’t it? If there were a men’s movement to absolve them of
    their right to be a great husband and dad, it would quickly be shot
    down. No
    woman would want to marry a man who said, 'Babe, you’re cool and
    everything, but I’m not that into the family thing. The most important
    thing in
    my life is going to be my career. If you want to hang out while I pursue
    it,
    whatever!' No way! We want someone who is hook, line, and sinker in love
    with us and wants to make our relationship the most important earthly
    love they
    ever pursue.

    "In my conversation with Rob and Ryan, Ryan said, 'The world is telling
    girls
    that they don’t have the freedom to even choose to pursue being a wife
    and a
    mom.'

    "We are telling you that you do! You do have the freedom to choose to
    live out
    God’s designed role for you and the adventure, romance, love, and
    blessings that
    come with it.

    "Not only do you have the freedom to fully embrace God’s design for
    women
    —not only is it an incredible privilege—but as a child of God, you have
    a
    responsibility to fulfill His calling and His purpose for your life as a
    woman.
    And for most women that means embracing marriage and motherhood as a
    vital
    and God-given mission and calling..."

    _______________________________________________________


    So, what I'm getting at is:

    1. While the boys didn't say anything about the role of the HOUSEWIFE,
    per se, there still seems to be a bit of confusion on their part between growing up as a girl and becoming a housewife.

    2. More importantly, how is anyone "considered" a jerk for having
    certain attitudes, so long as he keeps those attitudes secret? In other
    words, if you only want to date certain people in a way that eliminates
    80% or so of the dating pool, that is your right. You just have to be
    polite and discreet about it.

    3. And, more to the point, think of these 17 famous MEN.

    https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/other/17-male-celebrities-who-are-proudly-child-free/ss-AA1kEqZx

    Does anyone really think that their decision not to have children
    automatically makes them "jerks"?

    I very much doubt it. What WOULD be jerkish would be if they dated
    people who WANT children - and managed to mislead them, just for the
    sake of sex. (Or money.)

    Thoughts?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lenona@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jul 9 19:44:44 2024
    Also:

    The authors of the book NEVER discuss the elephant in the room. Namely,
    even if every woman in the world wanted to be a housewife, that wouldn't
    change the fact that not every woman is "marriageable"; accidents and
    diseases happen, so a wife has to be prepared to be the SOLE breadwinner
    at a moment's notice; death and divorce happen too.

    Yes, it's too bad the role of the housewife got such a bad rap in the
    1970s and afterward, since that didn't encourage boys to hate housework
    any less, but something drastic clearly had to be done to get girls born
    to conservative parents to think twice before throwing away their
    educations.


    Also:

    "No way! We want someone who is hook, line, and sinker in love with us
    and wants to make our relationship the most important earthly love they
    ever pursue."


    Funny. While romantic love as a basis for marriage has been in vogue for
    more than five centuries, up until the 1960s or so, it was considered
    perfectly normal for MARRIED men to put their careers first - even to
    the point of staying away from home 80 hours a week. After all, they
    were just supporting their families and avoiding making messes at home
    for their wives to clean up, right? When did people like the authors
    suddenly decide that wasn't good enough?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lenona@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jul 9 19:29:09 2024
    The reason I chose that particular article about the 17 men was that
    they are relatively RECENT celebs.

    Whereas with this (much longer) list, many young people might say "who
    are they? I never heard of them."

    https://www.childfreebychoice.com/history.htm

    Trouble is, the list needs updating. Elton John is on it, for one - and
    he clearly shouldn't be, ever since 2010. Also, there's no distinction
    between those who didn't want children and those who did but never had
    them.

    Besides that, there's no way to rearrange the list to make it, say, chronological. Or divided by vocation.

    But otherwise, it's quite an eye-opener.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)