Re: OT gender (was: spring 2004 wise traditions mag - disappointed with a few comments)

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

1. which Bishop in the orth. church?

2. i read a book about a year ago by a Jungian therapist, called

Addiction to Perfection.

it basically said, that, a lot of women are having emotional and

psychological problems because...

....well, men tend to be producers and women, nurturers. men measure

themselves and are measured by what they DO. women are more measured by

who they ARE. there is the mix of both in each one of us, of course.

anyway, our culture has become more 'male', meaning, society judges you

more by what you DO in life, what you produce, rather than who you ARE.

and women being forced into this dominating societal force can, well,

suffer nervous breakdowns as a result, among other things.

i think this is fascinating. and i can definitely relate to it.

As an Archbishop of the Orthodox Church has said, historically, relative

value has been placed on the roles of men and women, with men's roles

typically being assigned a higher value. That's why, IMO, feminists of

the

70's were offended when it was suggested they couldn't do the work of

" higher value " (typical men's work). When I was much younger, I too

bought

into the " men's work is more valuable " paradigm and did mostly " men's

work "

in my 20's and did it well as a means to get the respect and sense of

self

worth that it seemed men are accustomed to. It was only later that I

realized that I bought into a paradigm with a false premise, and that was

simply flat out wrong. I realized that the undervaluing of womens' work

wasn't because it was inherantly less valuable than men's work, but

because,

as the Archbishop said, it was falsely construed to be so by my society.

THAT was a very important lesson that I learned the hard way.

[Guest guest]

>It was only later that I

>realized that I bought into a paradigm with a false premise, and that was

>simply flat out wrong. I realized that the undervaluing of womens' work

>wasn't because it was inherantly less valuable than men's work, but because,

>as the Archbishop said, it was falsely construed to be so by my society.

>THAT was a very important lesson that I learned the hard way.

Wise archbishop! Now of course the question is, are the female

archbishops? ;-) I find it really odd that " mothering " -- the ONE thing

that really determines the outcome of the next generation -- is

totally unpaid and unvalued in our society. Whether it is done by

a male or female. But being a CEO is so highly valued that they make

millions.

I'm a little in tune with this right now because I've been reading

" The DaVinci Code " which brought out the feminist in me .. the

basic premise that society should be balanced between the male

and female aspects is interesting!

>

>That is my observation as well, based on the people I've known and come into

>contact with my whole life. Within each gender, there's a BROAD spectrum of

>qualities, skills, gifts despite an underlying shared gender experience.

I kind of think it's a survival thing ... if there aren't enough males, the

women can draw on their " male " side and become fighters etc, and

vice versa. Diversity and flexibility are generally good things!

I don't know how much is nurture though. As the mother of a boy

and a girl, and treating them the same as near as I can, they were

different from day one. Neither is " typical " for their sex, and I try

to make the girl as independent as I can and the boy as empathetic

as I can, but shoot, their brains are different!

>

>Along those lines, someone posted some info to the amalgam list recently

>about a study that found that mothers who had high levels of PCB tended to

>have offspring that didn't engage in stereotypical gender play. IOW, girls

>engaged in less girl-type play and boys engaged in less boy-type play. I

>always thought it was mostly nurture. I wasn't nurtured to be girly or

>non-girly and my play ran a spectrum from playing with my friend's Barbie

>dolls to playing smash up derby that I asked for on a birthday or x-mas. My

>parents gave me the freedom to choose the type of play *I* was interested

>in, not the type THEY thought was most fitting for me (other than not

>allowing me to have Barbie dolls. Other dolls were fine). And I enjoyed all

>of it! LOL. Is it because my mom was contaminated with PCBs? I have no idea,

>and I don't really care. I yam who I yam, as Popeye would say :-)

From a statistical point of view, the one trend is that the more intelligent

or higher class a person is, the more traits they tend to have of the OTHER sex.

So your average PHD, male or female, is generally not a " girly girl " or a " macho

male " .

Programmers tend to be high-IQ people (whatever THAT defines) and I've found

the guys are more " feminine " and the women more " masculine " . But heck if I

know why.

> Aside from

>that, most of my friends were just like me in their play, and their parents

>had similar parenting beliefs as mine did. I suspect we played as we did due

>to the freedom our parents gave us, not because OUR moms were contaminated

>with PCBs and the neighbors, who made an effort to raise their girls

> " girly " , weren't. But when I first readabout this, it occurred to me that

>this is similar to the " margerine may cause homosexuality " issue. It could

>well be a sensitive subject too.

I think freedom really HELPS ... at least the kid isn't trying to hide half

of who he/she IS. Good diet helps too. I lived the first part of my life

(until 5 years ago or so) in a brain fog/depressive state and now I'm

amazed I survived it. But if my Mom hadn't been a nurse and fed us lots

of meat and vegies (we didn't eat all that much bread and pasta, because

she felt it was not nutritious) then I doubt I'd have made it to adulthood.

Also she never made us " clean our plate " so I got away with having these

food aversions that, in retrospect, probably saved my life. So a combo of

her permissiveness and my own innate sense of preservation worked

more or less. I'd guess a similar mechanism would work with sexuality

and gender preferences.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

I think you mean " Suze " ... this was her response (a neat one, I think!).

>

>...well, men tend to be producers and women, nurturers. men measure

>themselves and are measured by what they DO. women are more measured by

>who they ARE. there is the mix of both in each one of us, of course.

>

>anyway, our culture has become more 'male', meaning, society judges you

>more by what you DO in life, what you produce, rather than who you ARE.

>and women being forced into this dominating societal force can, well,

>suffer nervous breakdowns as a result, among other things.

I've seen a big shift in my lifetime. Women can DO more now, and " sexism " is

less

accepted. But it's harder now for a woman to NOT work, and most kids are raised

in daycares. Money got more important, mothering less important. Money has

really become a god of sorts, esp. in the libertarian camp (if it pays, it's

good!).

I'm not sure what to think. Adding women to the corporate world is a good

thing, I think. Raising kids in daycare isn't a good thing. The fact you have to

have a really good job to " afford " a non- " working " wife is kind of odd,

historically. The fact we get comments because we " can " do home-cooked

meals is rather odd too! I mean, we have to be rich to live like the average

Italian peasant did?

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>

> I think you mean " Suze " ... this was her response (a neat one, I

think!).

Yup. In any case, I recall the paraphrase from Archbishop Lazar's

article (the first one) in On Gender and Human Sexuality put out by

Synaxis Press. His website, I think, is www.orthodoxcanada.org, from

which you can link to the Press's website, and his email.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> From a statistical point of view, the one trend is that the more

intelligent

> or higher class a person is, the more traits they tend to have of

the OTHER sex.

> So your average PHD, male or female, is generally not a " girly

girl " or a " macho male " .

> Programmers tend to be high-IQ people (whatever THAT defines) and

I've found

> the guys are more " feminine " and the women more " masculine " . But

heck if I

> know why.

I don't know what my IQ is, but it must be relatively high (I took a

test in sixth grade from the school psychologist, and they wouldn't

tell me what my IQ was because they were afraid it would " get to my

head. " ) I've always been a pretty unmasculine male. (I had bad

nutrition [allergic to everything] AND no father). Since I've been

working out, I'm a little bit more masculine in my personality. I

think part of that is hormones (squatting and deadlifting makes for

more testosterone), and part of it is psychological (I just LOOK more

like a " manly man. " ) Still, it's a struggle for me to become a more

masculine man. I like being smart, and want to maintain my

intellect, but I really WANT to be an " alpha male, " if you will. I

want to be daring, strong, seductive, and smooth. Part of the

struggle is that I've never been any of those things for 20 something

years, and so it's a gigantic change; part of it is that I don't

really have any male figures, whether friends or fathers, in my life,

to transmit male culture; but part of it seems like being

intellectual is in conflict with the rest. To do those " male "

things, you kind of have to turn your " thinking " switch off, or they

don't work.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Where is Archbishop Lazar a Bishop? and in which orth. jurisdiction?

hope you don't mind my asking.

thanks.

Yup. In any case, I recall the paraphrase from Archbishop Lazar's

article (the first one) in On Gender and Human Sexuality put out by

Synaxis Press. His website, I think, is www.orthodoxcanada.org, from

which you can link to the Press's website, and his email.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

there are no women archbishops in the Orthodox Christian world.

the Orthodox believe that if Jesus had wanted women priests/bishops, then

he would have appointed at least one woman as an apostle. and it's more

complex than that; theologically it has something to do with His

Incarnation.

this COULD be construed as Jesus acting in tune with the culture of the

time.

but think about it.

our culture, as i described the book Addiction to Perfection, makes the

case that we live in a MASCULINIZED culture that puts 'doing' over

'being'.

and women have been trying to rise to the occasion ever since. women in

our culture are trying to be what they are NOT. instead of being

nurturing, they have been duped into thinking they need to compete to DO

along with the men. this has created a lot of the imbalances and

problems you see in our society.

i have never been a womens' libber. i have never understood it. i have

also felt that i am a PERSON, a HUMAN first who just happens to be

female.

i had many masculine tendencies before i became a Christian and i was

very unhappy.

when i became i Christian it's like in my relationship with God, i became

whole in my relationship to myself and i accepted my womanhood and

learned to revel in it.

now i am the most fulfilled creature on this earth as rich's wife and

john's mother. i would never choose to be anything else but.

i now tend to be a 'be-er' rather than a 'do-er'.

and my husband accepts me for who i am, not what i do. if the house is

dirty for one day when he comes home, he doesn't berate me for what i

haven't 'done'. he still loves me for who i AM.

probably Jesus didn't appoint woman as apostles cuz he know most women

would want to tend to wifing and mothering. this is how it has ALWAYS

been and it is NOT demeaning or slavery. i choose to live this way and i

am so blissfully happy and fulfilled it is NOT funny.

women's roles have been denigrated in our society and it's a darn shame.

i wish every women could feel how i feel; a stay at home wife and mom,

loved and loving, and fulfilled to the teeth.

i say this with respect and without judgement.

i just think women's libbers are sadly missing out and don't know the

pure blessed bliss of giving oneself to the man who loves you and your

children you love with all your heart. for me it's the way life was

meant to be...and i am so, eternally grateful.

i hope i have not offended anyone or stepped on anyone's toes. if i have

I'm sure someone will let me know!

blessings to EVERYONE. and to each his own!!!

laura

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:52:26 -0700 Heidi Schuppenhauer

<heidis@...> writes:

>It was only later that I

>realized that I bought into a paradigm with a false premise, and that

was

>simply flat out wrong. I realized that the undervaluing of womens' work

>wasn't because it was inherantly less valuable than men's work, but

because,

>as the Archbishop said, it was falsely construed to be so by my society.

>THAT was a very important lesson that I learned the hard way.

Wise archbishop! Now of course the question is, are the female

archbishops? ;-) I find it really odd that " mothering " -- the ONE thing

that really determines the outcome of the next generation -- is

totally unpaid and unvalued in our society. Whether it is done by

a male or female. But being a CEO is so highly valued that they make

millions.

I'm a little in tune with this right now because I've been reading

" The DaVinci Code " which brought out the feminist in me .. the

basic premise that society should be balanced between the male

and female aspects is interesting!

>

>That is my observation as well, based on the people I've known and come

into

>contact with my whole life. Within each gender, there's a BROAD spectrum

of

>qualities, skills, gifts despite an underlying shared gender experience.

I kind of think it's a survival thing ... if there aren't enough males,

the

women can draw on their " male " side and become fighters etc, and

vice versa. Diversity and flexibility are generally good things!

I don't know how much is nurture though. As the mother of a boy

and a girl, and treating them the same as near as I can, they were

different from day one. Neither is " typical " for their sex, and I try

to make the girl as independent as I can and the boy as empathetic

as I can, but shoot, their brains are different!

>

>Along those lines, someone posted some info to the amalgam list recently

>about a study that found that mothers who had high levels of PCB tended

to

>have offspring that didn't engage in stereotypical gender play. IOW,

girls

>engaged in less girl-type play and boys engaged in less boy-type play. I

>always thought it was mostly nurture. I wasn't nurtured to be girly or

>non-girly and my play ran a spectrum from playing with my friend's

Barbie

>dolls to playing smash up derby that I asked for on a birthday or x-mas.

My

>parents gave me the freedom to choose the type of play *I* was

interested

>in, not the type THEY thought was most fitting for me (other than not

>allowing me to have Barbie dolls. Other dolls were fine). And I enjoyed

all

>of it! LOL. Is it because my mom was contaminated with PCBs? I have no

idea,

>and I don't really care. I yam who I yam, as Popeye would say :-)

From a statistical point of view, the one trend is that the more

intelligent

or higher class a person is, the more traits they tend to have of the

OTHER sex.

So your average PHD, male or female, is generally not a " girly girl " or a

" macho male " .

Programmers tend to be high-IQ people (whatever THAT defines) and I've

found

the guys are more " feminine " and the women more " masculine " . But heck if

I

know why.

> Aside from

>that, most of my friends were just like me in their play, and their

parents

>had similar parenting beliefs as mine did. I suspect we played as we did

due

>to the freedom our parents gave us, not because OUR moms were

contaminated

>with PCBs and the neighbors, who made an effort to raise their girls

> " girly " , weren't. But when I first readabout this, it occurred to me

that

>this is similar to the " margerine may cause homosexuality " issue. It

could

>well be a sensitive subject too.

I think freedom really HELPS ... at least the kid isn't trying to hide

half

of who he/she IS. Good diet helps too. I lived the first part of my life

(until 5 years ago or so) in a brain fog/depressive state and now I'm

amazed I survived it. But if my Mom hadn't been a nurse and fed us lots

of meat and vegies (we didn't eat all that much bread and pasta, because

she felt it was not nutritious) then I doubt I'd have made it to

adulthood.

Also she never made us " clean our plate " so I got away with having these

food aversions that, in retrospect, probably saved my life. So a combo of

her permissiveness and my own innate sense of preservation worked

more or less. I'd guess a similar mechanism would work with sexuality

and gender preferences.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>> for me it's the way life was

meant to be. <<

, yes.... FOR YOU, as you said.

I don't think anyone (and I speak as a very strong feminist) wants you to

live a life you find distasteful. The idea behind feminism or any other

philosophy of personal freedom is that we each should be reasonably free to

live as we wish, and not how someone else's faith or cultural mores dictate.

There is no reason that I, as a non-Christian, should be bound to live my

life by the principles of your faith. I certainly don't object to you doing

so, but I will object adamantly if you try to jam me into the mold that

makes you feel fulfilled and blessed. One man's meat is another man's

poison, as they say.

Christie

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Where is Archbishop Lazar a Bishop? and in which orth.

jurisdiction?

He's currently with the OCA. He was with the Ukrainian church but

moved to the OCA due to the " iffy " status of the Ukrainian church

among other Orthodox churches. He head the New Ostrog Monastery,

which is in Canada, I think in British Columbia iirc, but in any case

the address is on his website.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> this COULD be construed as Jesus acting in tune with the culture of

the

> time.

After all, who could expect the GOD-MAN " in whom dwells the fullness

of divinity " and who " is the same yesterday, today, and forever " to

transcend transient cultural expectations?

Chris

[Guest guest]

well, you're right, of course! of course you are being sarcastic.

when i meant 'construed', what i meant, but what i DID NOT SAY was, 'this

could be construed by those who are NOT interpreting what Jesus did and

say as the Son of God...

does this make sense? I'm not just trying to CMA on this one.

i truly meant that some could make that argument. whether they were

believers or not (and probably or possibly not).

having said that, God DOES respect our culture. but, of course, not when

our culture goes against His laws.

of course i believe Jesus is the God-Man in whom dwells the fullness of

divinity and who is the same yesterday today and forever and i wasn't

trying to imply otherwise.

i was simply saying what OTHERS might be saying. how OTHERS might

construe, or misconstrue things.

does that make sense?

laura

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:10:10 -0000 " chrismasterjohn "

<ChrisMasterjohn@...> writes:

> this COULD be construed as Jesus acting in tune with the culture of

the

> time.

After all, who could expect the GOD-MAN " in whom dwells the fullness

of divinity " and who " is the same yesterday, today, and forever " to

transcend transient cultural expectations?

Chris

[Guest guest]

> i was simply saying what OTHERS might be saying. how OTHERS might

> construe, or misconstrue things.

>

> does that make sense?

Yes, . Chill. :-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

Christie,

one of the main tenets of Christianity is freedom, choice, and free will.

a true Christian would never do that, what you suggest.

only misguided 'Christians' who don't understand the true meaning of

Christianity do that.

and i'm sorry if that has happened to you.

Christians are Christians by their choice, by their free will. God

created us to be free. ALL of us.

when you truly love someone, as God loves us, you give that person

freedom to choose.

i judge no one. i foist on no one.

best to you, Christie. :-)

laura

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:48:36 -0700 " Christie "

<christiekeith@...> writes:

>> for me it's the way life was

meant to be. <<

, yes.... FOR YOU, as you said.

I don't think anyone (and I speak as a very strong feminist) wants you to

live a life you find distasteful. The idea behind feminism or any other

philosophy of personal freedom is that we each should be reasonably free

to

live as we wish, and not how someone else's faith or cultural mores

dictate.

There is no reason that I, as a non-Christian, should be bound to live my

life by the principles of your faith. I certainly don't object to you

doing

so, but I will object adamantly if you try to jam me into the mold that

makes you feel fulfilled and blessed. One man's meat is another man's

poison, as they say.

Christie

[Guest guest]

what are you SAYING? what are you IMPLYING?

*I'M* getting a chill here!!!!!!!!!!

laura

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:28:31 -0000 " chrismasterjohn "

<ChrisMasterjohn@...> writes:

> i was simply saying what OTHERS might be saying. how OTHERS might

> construe, or misconstrue things.

>

> does that make sense?

Yes, . Chill. :-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately, a large portion of the feminist world now looks down

on a woman who chooses to be a homemaker. Any profession *but*

homemaker is acceptable most of the time. I have gotten

considerable flak from my husband's highly feminist family because I

chose to stay home with my children when they were little. And not

just them, but very feminist friends as well. Until I decided to

stay home with the babies, I considered myself one and I was

promptly informed that I was a pathetic traditionalist and a shame

to modern womanhood.

> >> for me it's the way life was

> meant to be. <<

>

> , yes.... FOR YOU, as you said.

>

> I don't think anyone (and I speak as a very strong feminist) wants

you to

> live a life you find distasteful. The idea behind feminism or any

other

> philosophy of personal freedom is that we each should be

reasonably free to

> live as we wish, and not how someone else's faith or cultural

mores dictate.

> There is no reason that I, as a non-Christian, should be bound to

live my

> life by the principles of your faith. I certainly don't object to

you doing

> so, but I will object adamantly if you try to jam me into the

mold that

> makes you feel fulfilled and blessed. One man's meat is another

man's

> poison, as they say.

>

> Christie

[Guest guest]

that's a shame they treated you that way.

speaking of freedom and giving people freedom of choice and not foisting

your values on others...

I'm sorry you were given such a hard time.

i used to let other women make me feel like a 'loser' when i stayed home

with my precious baby boy. (he's 13)

but i guess i got over it.

a lot of women in my town stay home, so now i don't feel like such a

freak.

but when i was the only one in the neighborhood that i knew of, that was

hard.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:51:51 -0000 " ladyserenia1 "

<j.p.recktenwald@...> writes:

Unfortunately, a large portion of the feminist world now looks down

on a woman who chooses to be a homemaker. Any profession *but*

homemaker is acceptable most of the time. I have gotten

considerable flak from my husband's highly feminist family because I

chose to stay home with my children when they were little. And not

just them, but very feminist friends as well. Until I decided to

stay home with the babies, I considered myself one and I was

promptly informed that I was a pathetic traditionalist and a shame

to modern womanhood.

> >> for me it's the way life was

> meant to be. <<

>

> , yes.... FOR YOU, as you said.

>

> I don't think anyone (and I speak as a very strong feminist) wants

you to

> live a life you find distasteful. The idea behind feminism or any

other

> philosophy of personal freedom is that we each should be

reasonably free to

> live as we wish, and not how someone else's faith or cultural

mores dictate.

> There is no reason that I, as a non-Christian, should be bound to

live my

> life by the principles of your faith. I certainly don't object to

you doing

> so, but I will object adamantly if you try to jam me into the

mold that

> makes you feel fulfilled and blessed. One man's meat is another

man's

> poison, as they say.

>

> Christie

[Guest guest]

>> Unfortunately, a large portion of the feminist world now looks down

on a woman who chooses to be a homemaker. <<

Considering that I'm a total cooking/cleaning/Home and Garden TV

watching/gardening/flower arranging/makeup wearing/clotheshorse kind of

lesbian feminist, believe me... I know the stigma of which you speak. <G>

But I would say this is LESS true today than it was in the earlier decades

of the modern feminist movement.

Christie

[Guest guest]

Huh? As a former systems engineer turned stay at home mom, that has not

been my experience. Although a very good friend of mine that is a

christian, is married, has a beautiful daughter, has a thriving law

practice and a wonderful husband, is adopting a baby and was told by

several members of her church that she doesn't deserve to adopt a child

because she is a working mom. Just goes to show there are nasty people

everywhere and it doesn't mean anything about people in general.

Irene

At 10:51 AM 6/23/04, you wrote:

>Unfortunately, a large portion of the feminist world now looks down

>on a woman who chooses to be a homemaker. Any profession *but*

>homemaker is acceptable most of the time.

[Guest guest]

At 10:51 AM 6/23/04, you wrote:

>Unfortunately, a large portion of the feminist world now looks down

>on a woman who chooses to be a homemaker. Any profession *but*

>homemaker is acceptable most of the time.

Apologies for perpetuating this offtopic thread, but the notion that feminists

are against homemakers is a media myth. It wasn't true in the past for the

entire feminist movement, and it's not true now. One of the really happening

areas in feminism right now is maternal feminism - including radical ideas like

that caretaking is work, not leisure and thus deserves the same attention to

economic risk as other kinds of work, and thus should be counted in economic

measures like the GDP, and that people should not be penalized for combining

caretaking and market work - it shouldn't be possible to fire someone for having

caretaking responsibilities, it should be possible to have part time work with

prorated advancement and benefits, etc. etc. etc.

Check out www.mothersandmore.org or http://www.mothersoughttohaveequalrights.org

for two groups doing work in this area. Check out

http://www.mothersmovement.org/features/mhoodpapers/conundrum.htm to learn more.

Joan Cole

[Guest guest]

Hello , I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, and this will be my

only post in this thread, but I just had to comment on this one thing you said:

>i just think women's libbers are sadly missing out and don't know the

>pure blessed bliss of giving oneself to the man who loves you and your

>children you love with all your heart. for me it's the way life was

>meant to be...and i am so, eternally grateful.

Like the other folks who responded to this, I really don't think it is true. I

consider myself to be a fairly " hard core " feminist (compared to most other

people I meet anyway), and I am also a stay-at-home mom who loves my children

and husband with no desire to have a career in addition to or in place of taking

care of home and farm. I happen to know of quite a few other feminists like me,

who also are very " domestic " . I don't think that " being feminine " is God's

plan for women though or that " being feminine " really means a whole lot. I

respect and admire women who don't have children and choose a career or whatever

instead and don't believe that they are " trying to be what they are not " . I

think that is extremely judgmental and maybe a little haughty to say that you

know what everyone else should be doing or how someone else " should be "

behaving. It is really a hasty generalization to classify " women's libbers " as

hating women who take on traditional roles. It just isn't true out there in the

real world. Maybe on TV, like another poster mentioned. Maybe it is time to

kill your television?

Rebekah Fechner-

[Guest guest]

>probably Jesus didn't appoint woman as apostles cuz he know most women

>would want to tend to wifing and mothering. this is how it has ALWAYS

>been and it is NOT demeaning or slavery. i choose to live this way and i

>am so blissfully happy and fulfilled it is NOT funny.

Actually there are people who believe there was a woman apostle,

but that was suppressed some time after the fact. But that's another

story ...

Women in the past DID wife and mother, but they also worked.

They were half, or more than half, of the " breadwinning " side of

things ... they worked the gardens, made the clothes, ran the

household, bossed the slaves and servants around. It's our

modern economy that is fouled up. Since we don't raise our

food or make stuff at home anymore, a person has to " go to work "

which is not conducive to childrearing. A wife who doesn't work has

no money or power of her own, because she doesn't produce anything,

she just raises kids and cleans the house. THAT is totally abnormal,

historically speaking. Also abnormal is that there is usually only one adult

female in the household, no aunts, grandmas, or other wives to

pal around with. So many women go to work for the social life.

A person who works at home, male or female, can still be a mother

or father. A person travelling around as a missionary shouldn't be

a mother OR a father. But most Jewish men at that time were

married, so you can assume that the apostles had stay at home

wives who were running the farm or the store or whatever.

Anyway, I do a lot of mothering, and food producing, and wifing ...

and I'm home most of the time, but I also earn a salary and run

a business. That feels more natural to me.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Rebekah,

to each his own. like Christie said, one man's medicine is another man's

poison.

i think self expression can be misconstrued as judgementalism. i was

just expressing how i 'felt'. i didn't mean to imply everyone should

feel as i do. (but if they don't...they're missing out! LOL! there i

go again!!)

just because i feel something really good and wish everyone could feel

that degree of bliss or happiness or satisfaction doesn't mean i want to

ram it down everyone's throat. that's not my style anyway.

it's more like a sadness. 'i wish everyone could feel this feeling of

wonderful i feel right now'. that sort of thing.

what people say can easily be misinterpreted in email. you can't see

facial expression or body language.

i truly want the best for everyone. i want everyone to be happy.

and yes, it's unrealistic or not right to think that how i feel, even if

everyone felt the degree of happiness i have, maybe my sort of happiness

would make someone unhappy!

i really just want what's best for everyone.

so please excuse my happiness. :-)

laura

p.s. the fact that i go on about how happy i am is a sure sign that I'll

be feeling totally miserable any day now.

actually, this bliss might actually be from all this raw dairy I've been

eating since i joined WAPF in march...:-)

p.p.s. did i actually use the word 'feminine'? i feel like i have been

misunderstood. (as usual)

what you said below: i didn't think i was doing that at all. it's all

to easy to misunderstand on line. so from henceforth, i think I'll just

shut up and not take the chance of being misunderstood!!

I think that is extremely judgmental and maybe a little haughty to say

that you know what everyone else should be doing or how someone else

" should be " behaving.

[Guest guest]

>> just because i feel something really good and wish everyone could feel

that degree of bliss or happiness or satisfaction doesn't mean i want to

ram it down everyone's throat. <<

OK, go back and read this post again.

Whatever you MEANT to say, what you ARE saying... in fact you said it

twice... is that you wish everyone could feel as happy, blissful, satisfied,

etc as you feel. And that's wonderful. But no one was talking about feeling

happy.

We are talking about what would make us happy, which varies from person to

person.

Being XYZ makes you happy and satisfied, and being ZXY makes someone else

feel happy and satisfied, but both are happy and blissful and satisfied. The

error is thinking that because XYZ makes you happy, it will make someone

else happy too.

Christie

[Guest guest]

heidi, great post!

thanks for writing it.

laura

p.s. you make so many good points!

Women in the past DID wife and mother, but they also worked.

They were half, or more than half, of the " breadwinning " side of

things ... they worked the gardens, made the clothes, ran the

household, bossed the slaves and servants around. It's our

modern economy that is fouled up. Since we don't raise our

food or make stuff at home anymore, a person has to " go to work "

which is not conducive to childrearing. A wife who doesn't work has

no money or power of her own, because she doesn't produce anything,

she just raises kids and cleans the house. THAT is totally abnormal,

historically speaking. Also abnormal is that there is usually only one

adult

female in the household, no aunts, grandmas, or other wives to

pal around with. So many women go to work for the social life.

A person who works at home, male or female, can still be a mother

or father. A person travelling around as a missionary shouldn't be

a mother OR a father. But most Jewish men at that time were

married, so you can assume that the apostles had stay at home

wives who were running the farm or the store or whatever.

Anyway, I do a lot of mothering, and food producing, and wifing ...

and I'm home most of the time, but I also earn a salary and run

a business. That feels more natural to me.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Ummm, I know I said I wouldn't post again, but I just have to say, " huh? " to

your reply. I mean no disrespect, but what does this have to do with what I

said? <scratching head> Anyway, I don't have any hard feelings, and I am not

upset in the slightest, I just wanted to point out that many feminists are

mothers and pro-stay at home mom at least to some degree, and that your

statement about women " trying to be what they are not " towards women who do

" men's " work to me sounds a little haughty and judgmental, but I don't think

you really understood these points. That is okay. Oh and I chose to use the

word feminine, and I put it in quotes because I don't think it really has a

whole lot of meaning, like it is relative to culture, upbringing, etc. Anyway,

maybe we should just move on.

Rebekah

----- Original Message -----

From: Busse

Rebekah,

to each his own. like Christie said, one man's medicine is another man's

poison.

i think self expression can be misconstrued as judgementalism. i was

just expressing how i 'felt'. i didn't mean to imply everyone should

feel as i do. (but if they don't...they're missing out! LOL! there i

go again!!)