Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Masculinity is a social construct and does not exist in nature....sorry, but I disagree there.Neither the man or woman should be dominant. I do not beleive that anyone in any couple, whether it be man/woman, man/man, or woman/woman should dominate thier partner and lover.
To dominate is the role of a parent, not a spouse.
I couldn't have said it better.
It does exist in nature in many species. It depends on whether the species is patriarchal or matriarchal. Humanity, if you believe in evolution, is patriarchal like primates. In matriarchal species such as the angler fish, the opposite is true. However, it can be a social construct, but not necessarily, there is a genetic component to it.
You are right, domination is wrong, but submission and domination are different are they not? If a man loves his wife as commanded, he will respect her wishes and the marriage will be one of equals. However, the man socially represents the family in many cases as the primary provider. Since this is not as common in North American society, it is not a big deal. This whole issue of marriage is very culturally subjective based on Biblical principles. Fidelity is really the only full restriction put on marriage.
Originally posted by Nellinator
It does exist in nature in many species. It depends on whether the species is patriarchal or matriarchal. Humanity, if you believe in evolution is patriarchal. In matriarchal species such as the angler fish, the opposite is true. However, it can be a social construct, but not necessarily, there is a genetic component to it.
No it does not. You are confusing terms...
Masculinity is simply a social construct, and does not exist in "human nature" much less animal nature. Lionesses have many a time rebelled against, even killed, male Lions who were supposed to be incharge of thier pride.
There is nothing fixed in nature in terms of the role of gender. No one knows why animals behave the way the do, what we cannot understand we simply refer to as "instinct"...but since we do not live as the wild animals do, since we cannot look into thier minds, we cannot factually know why they do what they do, or behave how they behave.
And regardless of our conclusions, there are numerous anomalies that exist, INCLUDING the presence of homosexuality found in many many species, in mammals, reptiles, and birds alike.
"Masculinity" according to the social definition (as far as majority perception goes) is the behavior of dominance, insensitivity, and aggression in men. Obviously, not all men are like this, in fact, most men are cowards.
The standards of masculinity have changed throughout History. I suggest you do some research on the Victorian Era....even as far back as Ancient Greece...what they considered "masculine" back then is not what we consider masculine today.
WE made it up....it's not real bro....its an illusion, a standard we teach our children in hopes they will become what we percieve as "strong."
Originally posted by Nellinator
You are right, domination is wrong, but submission and domination are different are they not?
Bro, they are two ends of the SAME spectrum 😬
Originally posted by Nellinator
If a man loves his wife as commanded, he will respect her wishes and the marriage will be one of equals. However, the man socially represents the family in many cases as the primary provider.
This is no longer true, as many women are taken charges of thier families.
Since this is not as common in North American society, it is not a big deal. This whole issue of marriage is very culturally subjective based on Biblical principles. Fidelity is really the only full restriction put on marriage.
What exactly is your point in this quote ? I thought we were talking about the existance of masculinity.....
Masculinity is a psychological fact that I've had to learn about many times. It is part genetic as one sex in the species is genetically attuned for certain roles. In humans this includes men being, generally, genetically more inclined to be stronger, that is to be able to protect and provide for the family. This is not just a social construct. Of course rebellions occur and of course there are anomalies, but in general that is how it works. I'm not referring to the masculine image of being insensitive and whatnot, but rather a genetic predisposition to be a provider. Because of technological advancement, this is changing, but masculinity is still important. Even the socially constructed idea of masculinity is important as it helps can contribute to stable society.
Submission of wives to their husbands, how the Bible describes it in Ephesians 5:24 is the same way the church submits to Christ. I can tell you that it far different than domination.
It is still true in many cases in North America and outside of North America (and Europe?) it is even more prevalent. The domination of the service industry in the first world is not really applicable to the situation in Paul's time.
We are talking about how Biblical principles work in a marriage. Fidelity is one I thought I would mention.
Originally posted by Alliance
Its not really that true in the historical sense. The framework has remained similar, but the house has been gutted and rebuilt.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Fidelity? I think that's a bit outdated for today's standards.
Originally posted by Alliance
"todays" standards......one can make an arguement that fidelity is only "lower" today because its more accepteable to divorce.
Infidelity has ALWAYS been there.
Originally posted by Nellinator
But you agree that scientifically humans are a patriarchal society?
Scientifically? I have problems substantiating that. There have been many successful matriarchial societies throughout history. And todays societies are dealing with "equality" quite fine.
I've learned well enough from previous "scientific" movements in history not to attmept to base social conceptions on science. I'd have trouble saying that society is patriarchal and I think it would be an uphill battle to prove so.
I will say that traditional "male" characteristics are more higly prized in many Western societies than traditional "female" characteristics. However, that doesn't make a society patriarchal, it makes it masculine....lets say animus (to take this out of gender constructs)instead. Both males and females can exhibit these qualities equally well, regardless of thier traditional roles, hence not patriarchal.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Masculinity is a psychological fact that I've had to learn about many times. It is part genetic as one sex in the species is genetically attuned for certain roles. In humans this includes men being, generally, genetically more inclined to be stronger, that is to be able to protect and provide for the family. This is not just a social construct. Of course rebellions occur and of course there are anomalies, but in general that is how it works. I'm not referring to the masculine image of being insensitive and whatnot, but rather a genetic predisposition to be a provider. Because of technological advancement, this is changing, but masculinity is still important. Even the socially constructed idea of masculinity is important as it helps can contribute to stable society.Submission of wives to their husbands, how the Bible describes it in Ephesians 5:24 is the same way the church submits to Christ. I can tell you that it far different than domination.
It is still true in many cases in North America and outside of North America (and Europe?) it is even more prevalent. The domination of the service industry in the first world is not really applicable to the situation in Paul's time.
We are talking about how Biblical principles work in a marriage. Fidelity is one I thought I would mention.
Women can provide just as well as Men. And technology has less to do with it, than the fact that women have been given more freedom and rights this era than before.
Women have been oppressed for countless ages, and given very little power, how do we expect women to provide when they have been forced to submit for centuries ?
You are using Masculinity out of context....again....Masculinity and Feminity are behaviors constructed by society. There is nothing genetic about Masculinity or Femininity. We are simply taught to behave a certain way, and nothing more...as I've stated before the standards are ever changing.
A man being physically stronger is not a masculine aspect. Some men are very physically weak...does that make them less masculine ? Does that make them less of a man ?
If a woman is not a mother, does that mean she is not feminine ?
You are trying to disguise a social construct as a natural phenomena, and it isn't working. A woman should not be punished for speaking on hehalf of her husband. If it was nature's law that women submit to men, then women wouldn't have the ability to speak out against, or for their male partners, now would they ?
Originally posted by Lord UrizenI defined the context that I was working in so pulling it out of the defined context doesn't help the discussion. Yes, they would be able to, it comes with the ability to speak and with social constructs. Speaking for someone is wrong, women were allowed to speak for themselves, they screwed up, they got it back, it was cool. Paul pwned them.
You are trying to disguise a social construct as a natural phenomena, and it isn't working. A woman should not be punished for speaking on hehalf of her husband. If it was nature's law that women submit to men, then women wouldn't have the ability to speak out against, or for their male partners, now would they ?
Originally posted by Nellinator
I defined the context that I was working in so pulling it out of the defined context doesn't help the discussion. Yes, they would be able to, it comes with the ability to speak and with social constructs. Speaking for someone is wrong, women were allowed to speak for themselves, they screwed up, they got it back, it was cool. Paul pwned them.
No offense Nellinator, but that was a desparate summation of what could have been a great argument 👇
Social constructs are unnecessary, and only serve in inequality and nothing more.
Paul pwned the women for speaking on hehalf of thier husbands ? Oh wow, as if men haven't been speaking for woman centuries before and since 🙄
Sexist......