PATRICK VIEW- 8 ARGUMENTS TO DISPROVE THE FACT THAT WOMEN BELONG IN THE KITCHEN
Here is an essay i saw a couple of weeks ago on the internet. i was so annoyed by the essay that i have to deduce some error and inconsistency in the essay.
I DO NOT support these views. From the essay i have been able to bring out 8 argument towards the essay with my own proves and opinions.His essay is below.
WOMEN BELONG IN THE KITCHEN
“Yes,
women DO belong in the kitchen, especially those in the tech field. Those are
the true dullards...they can't program worth beans, and always get in the way,
and always bring those hormone laced emotions to work and... Need I say more?
Please women...stick to the kitchen or teaching those preschool kids, because
you just haven't earned it yet baby...”
“Since
when are women allowed in the workplace? …there ain't no bitches in my office,
for damn sure except the secretaries, of course. Mmmmm... Secretaries.”
Firstly,
women and men are different. They are not equal. There are obvious underlying
biological differences between the two sexes, which is the reason for
segregation of sexes in places like schools, toilets, and sports. Women are
better at something while men are better at other things. In a firm you
separate the accountants from the marketers, the economists from the engineers.
You wouldn’t let a marketer do the job of an accountant because a marketer is
not the same as an accountant. Similarly, you wouldn’t let a woman do the job
of a man. For example, women are designed for childrearing.
They have breasts.
Breasts provide milk for babies. Women are better at childrearing than men are,
so they should stay home while men go to work and do what they are good at,
which is making money.
The
statistics say that hardly any stay-at-home parents are male. The vast majority
of them are women, which is good because it shows that most women know their
role. However, because of the efforts of a powerful feminist lobby there has
been pressure on this traditional system of female subordination. We are
witnessing the crumbling of traditional roles. Women are trying to assert
themselves in the office. The media is awash with feminist propaganda,
portraying the career woman’s lifestyle as glamorous. This is bad because it
effects an atmosphere of uncertainty. Young people start to get confused over
their roles in society. This creates tension between the sexes. This creates
the 50 divorce rates we see today. It is important for women to understand
their role as homemakers and child carers. If they accept these roles without
question, society will be better off. It is important to stop women from
getting jobs for their own good, to prevent them from being victims of their
own savagery. It is important for the good of society.
Another
reason why we should prevent women from working is because of the bible.
Certainly the bible doesn’t say that women are inferior to men. That is not
what I am trying to argue. But the bible does say clearly that roles for women
are different to roles of men. The Holy Bible in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 states
that “as in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in
the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the
Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own
husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
The bible also understands the importance of hierarchy. If women and men kept
arguing then there is conflict and chaos. For the sake of harmony there needs
to be a clear idea of who is in power. Ephesians 5:22–24 says the following:
“Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of
the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the
Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to
their husbands in everything.”
Some
people are prone to believe that whatever is in the bible is wrong. Just
because something is in the bible, just because something is religious it
doesn’t make it immoral. Atheists often go on about how it is wrong to use the
bible to back up the segregation of women but why are the atheists criticizing
our opinions when they have opinions themselves? Those who cry out for equality
between male and female are just expressing opinions, just as those who cry out
for inequality between male and female are doing.
Let me
talk about some of the arguments feminists use. Often a feminist will say that
it’s not important what happens to society. What is important is individual freedom.
A woman is an individual and as such she deserves the freedom to do such things
as pursue a career. It is not about what is good for society but what is good
for the individual. Individual freedom is what matters. But why go on about
freedom? Nobody has perfect freedom. Whenever you do anything in life you have
to follow rules. You can’t just do anything you like. When you sign a contract
with someone else for gas service or electricity service you are bounded by
contractual obligations. You don’t have the freedom to just break the contract.
Men
discriminate against women, which is good. Within society there are conventions
and norms. The convention of segregating women and assigning them to certain
tasks is deeply ingrained in our society. You cannot just ignore the power of
these social influences. If a woman walks into a job interview wearing a suit
and tie, she is breaking the rule of society and will be looked down upon for
this reason. Social conventions are what most people generally believe is
correct, and they are enforced on individuals to create harmony in the whole
society.
I
understand that what I’m saying is controversial. This is because many people
have been brainwashed by feminism. I am just giving my opinion. If you give
your opinion and disapprove of my opinion, then you are giving an opinion as
well. How can you criticize me for giving my opinion when you are giving your
opinion?
To
conclude, a woman in the office is disgusting. It goes against God’s law. It
goes against the laws of nature. It is unnatural. It is wrong.
MY PERSONAL ARGUMENT AGAINST THE ESSAY
Speaking as someone who knows a thing or
two about social contracts, moral obligations, philosophy of government, and
feminist philosophy, which was seriously the most pathetic - laughably pathetic
- essay I have ever read in my life - so much so it does not even deserve any
further refutation.
He even refutes his own essay in the
statement "those who cry out for equality
between male and female are just expressing opinions", because he concedes that nothing in his essay is
morally binding, because it is nothing but an expression his opinion.
However, here are my personal 8 arguments
against his essay:
FIRST ARGUMENT
Starting with the first paragraph-
"Firstly, women and men are
different. They are not equal. There are obvious underlying biological
differences between the two sexes"
This is a superficial fact - that men and
women are biologically different and have different general abilities, and
therefore not "equal" to one another in the physiological sense. If
this is his reason for refuting women's equality, then it is wrong for 3
reasons:
1) When people talk about being
"equal", they don’t care about the physical differences. The word
"equal" means equal treatment before the law, equality of
opportunity, and equal consideration of interests. So, the author completely
misses the point of equality. I guess he is totally wrong in this aspect of
equality.
2) The whole argument/essay begs the
question, because he says that women and men are unequal, but never explained
how this physical inequality implies that women should be lesser than men and
not the other way around. Why shouldn’t the physical differences imply men's
sub ordinance?
3) According to a popular literature book
""". We should all be feminist """
FEMINIST Adichie Chimanmanda Ngozi she says in
her book:
----------Men and women are different. We
have different hormones and different sexual organs and different biological abilities—women
can have babies, men cannot. Men have more testosterone and are, in general, physically stronger than women. A
man and a woman are doing the same job, with the same qualifications, and the
man is paid more because
he is a man. So in a literal way, men rule the world. This made sense a thousand
years ago. Because human
beings lived then in a world in which physical strength was the most important
attribute for survival; the physically stronger person was more likely to lead.
And men in general are physically stronger. (There are of course many
exceptions.) Today, we live
in a vastly different world. The person more qualified to lead is not the
physically stronger person. It is the more intelligent, the more knowledgeable,
the more creative, more
innovative. And there are no hormones for those attributes. A man is as likely
as a woman to be intelligent, innovative, creative. We have evolved. But our
ideas of gender have not evolved very much. -----------
This idea of women being subjected too low
make me feel bad. With some proves
above, I guess I have answered and argue some troubled thoughts about the
author/writer of the essay based on equality.
The whole first paragraph should be
crossed out for those reasons.
SECOND
ARGUMENT
Another annoying claim the guy was trying
to present to back up why women belong in the kitchen is stated below-
“””””””The statistics say that hardly any stay-at-home parents are male. The vast
majority of them are women, which is good because it shows that most women know
their role. However, because of the efforts of a powerful feminist lobby there
has been pressure on this traditional system of female subordination. We are
witnessing the crumbling of traditional roles. Women are trying to assert
themselves in the office. The media is awash with feminist propaganda,
portraying the career woman’s lifestyle as glamorous. This is bad because it
effects an atmosphere of uncertainty. Young people start to get confused over
their roles in society. This creates tension between the sexes. This creates
the 50 divorce rates we see today. It is important for women to understand
their role as homemakers and child carers. If they accept these roles without
question, society will be better off. It is important to stop women from
getting jobs for their own good, to prevent them from being victims of their
own savagery. It is important for the good of society.
“””””””””
This backup is a fallacy and totally
incorrect. From what am seeing now, am able to bring out some funny points said
by the writer/author about why women belong in the kitchen-
Point
1
The statistics say that hardly any stay-at-home parents are male. The vast
majority of them are women, which is good because it shows that most women know
their role.
Point
2
However, because of the efforts of a powerful feminist
lobby there has been pressure on this traditional system of female
subordination. We are witnessing the crumbling of traditional roles. It is
important for women to understand their role as homemakers and childcarers. If
they accept these roles without question, society will be better off. It is
important to stop women from getting jobs for their own good, to prevent them
from being victims of their own savagery. It is important for the good of
society.
Point
3
Young
people start to get confused over their roles in society. This creates tension
between the sexes. This creates the 50
divorce rates we see today.
These points I guess are totally absurd to
me. Starting with
POINT 1
“The statistics say that hardly any stay-at-home parents are male. The vast
majority of them are women, which is good because it shows that most women know
their role. “
These point is totally wrong because no
reference was made or links that shows why women stay at home. The
author/writer claims that statistics of women who stay at home are high than
men but he does not offer the least amount of evidence to or reason to back up
this statement. Any women can stay in home base on some personal decision or
some cogent reasons been known to her. So women staying at home is not enough
reason to say that is a role of a women.
A woman can believe all this and still
say: Given the actual real situation of my life, they choose to stay at home. The “why” and
“how” of her life situation is still based on individual choices. But it doesn’t really matter when it comes
to what makes sense for her. This is about individual choice. Not societal
influence on the role of a women being at home.
POINT 2
“However,
because of the efforts of a powerful feminist lobby there has been pressure on
this traditional system of female subordination. We are witnessing the
crumbling of traditional roles. It is important for women to understand their
role as homemakers and child carers. If they accept these roles without
question, society will be better off. It is important to stop women from
getting jobs for their own good, to prevent them from being victims of their
own savagery. It is important for the good of society. “
This
female subordination which I termed oppression, subjugation and subjection has made women become less in
the society.
Society has set a lot of duties for men
and women alike and it’s even painful to see that in a children’s textbook, the
duties of a wife are “to cook for the family, to bring up the children, homemakers
and clean the house.” It’s a huge shame to this writer/author if in this 21
century you still gender bias women base on homely duties. The author need to wake up and stop this
nonsense.
For me personally, I kick against the fact
that women are weak and less important in the society (female
subordination). We
are equal. No body have the right to detect if a person is less or weak.
Society has made it look like that. Even some of the women has accepted this
fact that they are weak and less important. There by making them weaker vessels
and making them not to have the equal right with men.
Because of this it gave rise to gender
equality that is been declared by feminist.
According to a popular literature book
""" Dear ijeawele or a feminist manifesto in fifteen suggestions
"""
FEMINIST Adichie Chimanmanda Ngozi she says in
her book:
""""""“Teach
her, too, to question the idea of women as a
special species. I once heard an American politician, in his bid to show his
support for women, speak of how women should be ‘revered’ and ‘championed’ – a sentiment that is all too
common. Tell Chizalum that women actually don’t need to be championed and
revered; they just need to be treated as equal human beings. There is
a patronizing undertone to the idea of women needing to be ‘championed and
revered’ because they are women. It makes me think of chivalry, and the premise
of chivalry is female weakness. """"""
Going further in to reading, the author/
writer made a very absurd statement:
“”””” If they accept these roles without question, society will be
better off. It is important to stop women from getting jobs for their own good,
to prevent them from being victims of their own savagery. It is important for
the good of society. ””””
I feel personally the author is a misogynist or
sexist. Despite that statement, Women
are the greatest pillars of society, yet they are being pulled down to dusts (female
subordination).
For me personally, Patrick --- I strongly
believe in equal rights and opportunity for all, regardless of gender (or skin
colour, ethnicity etc.). I believe
everyone should be respected as a unique individual and not judged on the basis
of being a woman or man, black or white etc.
My point is that we are all people and not
defined by preconceived notions of delegated roles assigned by gender
(especially upbringing of a child) which the writer/author termed as traditional roles.There are so many successful women who have achieved things that I can
only dream of, and it matters not to me if she is married, single, divorced,
young, old or strong and loud or soft and gentle. Their accomplishments added
to our world.
We have various women in our world today
who have accomplish much in term of education, science and technology. Whether
married, single, divorce, old and young. They all add benefit to the society at
large. No one should be neglected base on gender.
Putting women down to the dust, shows that
women don't have values and this lead to gender role perception which the
society still practice. As an individual who support GENDER EQUALITY and
agitate for HUMAN RIGHT, I feel women have suffered a lot in this patriarchy based society.
The idea of gender role (cooking,
domestic, child bringing and chores are meant for women) I don't agree with it
personally. Therefore this statement (we are
witnessing the crumbling of traditional roles. It is important for women to
understand their role as homemakers and child carers. If they accept these
roles without question, society will be better off. It is important to stop
women from getting jobs for their own good) made by the
author/writer I don’t agree also with it.
The following are the 9 backups to counter
the writer/author in support of what am saying;
1. FIRST BACK UP
Here is a little draft from our renowned
feminist.
According to a popular literature book
""". Dear ijeawele or a feminist manifesto in fifteen
suggestions """
FEMINIST Adichie Chimanmanda Ngozi she says in
her book:
Second Suggestion
“””””” Do it together. Remember in primary school
we learned that a verb was a ‘doing’ word? Well, a father is as much a verb as
a mother. Chudi should do everything that biology allows – which is everything
but breastfeeding. Sometimes mothers, so conditioned to be all and do all, are
complicit in diminishing the role of fathers. You might think that Chudi will
not bathe her exactly as you’d like, that he might not wipe her bum as
perfectly as you do. But so what? What is the worst that can happen? She won’t
die at the hands of her father. Seriously. He loves her.
It’s good for her to be cared
for by her father. So look away, arrest your perfectionism, still your socially
conditioned sense of duty. Share child care equally. ‘Equally’ of course
depends on you both, and you will have to work it out, paying equal attention
to each person’s needs. It does not have to mean a literal fifty-fifty or a
day-by-day score-keeping but you’ll know when the child-care work is equally
shared. You’ll know by your lack of resentment. Because when there is true
equality, resentment does not exist. ””””””
2. SECOND BACK UP
Here is a little draft from our renowned
feminist.
According to a popular literature book
""". Dear ijeawele or a feminist manifesto in fifteen
suggestions """
FEMINIST Adichie Chimanmanda Ngozi she says in
her book:
Third Suggestion
""""""“Teach
her that the idea of ‘gender roles’ is absolute nonsense. Do not ever tell her
that she should or should not do something because she is a girl. ‘Because you
are a girl’ is never a reason for anything ever “""""""
3. THIRD BACK UP
Here is another quote from our own
feminist.
FEMINIST Adichie Chimanmanda Ngozi she
says in her book: We should all be
feminist
--------The knowledge of cooking does not
come pre-installed in a vagina. Cooking is learned.
Cooking – domestic work in general – is a life
skill that both men and women should ideally have. It is also a skill that can
elude both men and women. We also need to question the idea of marriage as a
prize to women, because that is the basis of these absurd debates. If we stop
conditioning women to see marriage as a prize, then we would have fewer debates
about a wife needing to cook in order to earn that prize. It is interesting to me how early the
world starts to invent gender roles. --------
4. FOURTH BACKUP
Another excerpt/draft from her book also
about gender role.
FEMINIST Adichie Chimanmanda Ngozi she
says in her book: Dear ijeawele or a
feminist manifesto in fifteen suggestions
Third suggestion:
“””””” Gender roles are so deeply
conditioned in us that we will often follow them even when they chafe against
our true desires, our needs, our happiness. They are very difficult to unlearn,
and so it is important to try to make sure that Chizalum rejects them from the
beginning. Instead of letting her internalize the idea of gender roles, teach
her self-reliance. Tell her that it is important to be able to do for herself
and fend for herself. Teach her to try to fix physical things when they break.
We are quick to assume girls can’t do many things. Let her try. She might not
fully succeed, but let her try. ””””””
5. FIFTH BACK UP
Another back up based on cooking from
FEMINIST Adichie Chimanmanda Ngozi
According to a popular literature book-- We
should all be feminist
FEMINIST Adichie Chimanmanda Ngozi she says in
her book:
"""”””” I know a woman who
hates domestic work, but she pretends that she likes it, because
She
has been taught that to be “good wife material,” she has to be—to use that
Nigerian word—homely. And then she got married. And her husband’s family began
to complain that she had changed. Actually, she had not changed. She just got
tired of pretending to be what she was not. The problem with gender is that it
prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how
much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if
we didn’t have the weight of gender expectations. Boys and girls are undeniably
different biologically, but socialization exaggerates the differences. And then
starts a self-fulfiling process. Take cooking, for example. Today, women in
general are more likely to do housework than men— cooking and cleaning.
But
why is that? Is it because women are born with a cooking gene or because over
years they have been socialized to see cooking as their role? I was going to
say that perhaps women are born with a cooking gene until I remembered that the
majority of famous cooks in the world—who are given the fancy title of
“chef”—are men.
But what matters even more is our
attitude, our mind-set. What if, in raising children, we focus on ability
instead of gender? What if we focus on interest instead of gender? I know a
family who has a son and a daughter, a year apart in age, both brilliant at
school. When the boy is hungry, the parents say to the girl, Go and cook
Indomie noodles for your brother. The girl doesn’t like to cook Indomie, but
she is a girl and she has to. What if the parents, from the beginning, taught
both children to cook Indomie? Cooking, by the way, is a useful and practical
life skill for a boy to have—I’ve never thought it made much sense to leave
such a crucial thing—the ability to nourish oneself—in the hands of
others. '''''''''''''
6. SIXTH BACK UP
According
to a popular literature book """. Dear ijeawele or A feminist
manifesto in fifteen suggestions
"""
FEMINIST
Adichie Chimanmanda Ngozi she says in her book:
From
the first suggestion
“”” I
have no interest in the debate about women ‘doing it all’ because it is a
debate that assumes that care-giving and domestic work are singularly female
domains, an idea that I strongly reject. Domestic work and care-giving should
be gender-neutral, and we should be asking not whether a woman can ‘do it all’
but how best to support parents in their dual duties at work and at home. ”””
7. SEVENTH BACK UP
According
to a popular literature book ""“Dear ijeawele or A feminist manifesto
in fifteen suggestions
"""
FEMINIST Adichie Chimanmanda Ngozi she says in
her book:
From
the Sixth Suggestion
“””””””””
Teach her to ask questions like: what are the things that women cannot do
because they are women? Do these things have cultural prestige? If so, why are
only men allowed to do the things that have cultural prestige? It is helpful, I
think, to use everyday examples. Remember that television commercial we watched
in Lagos, where a man cooks and his claps for him? True progress is when she
doesn’t clap for him but just reacts to the food itself – she can either praise
the food or not praise the food, just as he can praise hers or not praise hers,
but what is sexist is that she is praising the fact that he has undertaken the
act of cooking, praise that implies that cooking is an inherently female act.
“””””””””
8. EIGHTH BACK UP
According
to a popular literature book ""“Dear ijeawele or A feminist manifesto
in fifteen suggestions """
FEMINIST Adichie Chimanmanda Ngozi she says in
her book:
From
the Tenth Suggestion
“””””””””
She can counter ideas about static ‘gender roles’ if she has been empowered by
her familiarity with alternatives. If she knows an uncle who cooks well – and does
so with indifference – then she can smile and brush off the foolishness of
somebody who claims that ‘women must do the cooking. “””””””””
This
should give men a little rethink about cooking and house/domestic chores. Which
I personally are meant to be shared equally between the two partners. As for me
(UNIQUE RESEACHING) cooking,
domestic chores- cleaning sweeping, mopping are supposed to be shared equally.
Cooking was never meant for women. Anybody can cook whether male or female.
9. NINETH BACK UP
Here is the quote I formed early
this year to support my argument against the above point
2
PATRICK QUOTES
""""" I hate when
society subject people to a particular
assault or being grouped as "women and children" while there are lots
of things that show that they have
quality features to make as valuable as
a strong individual, not being grouped as weak because they are female. Maybe
physically, intellectually, etc. """""""
Finally, child upbringing, cooking,
domestic chores- cleaning sweeping, mopping are supposed to be shared equally.
Cooking was never meant for women. Anybody can cook whether male or
female.
As for me I have been given the
orientation about Gender equality right from the onset.
Firstly-
I was brought up by a mother who
inculcated in me a deep respect for women. I believe that the inequality that
women have faced through the centuries and today as well is a failure of all
societies, and especially the mindset of male patriarchy. I cannot call myself
anything other than a person who believes strongly in justice and gender-rights
for women everywhere.
Secondly-
Though I believe strongly in the cause of
the emancipation of women in all societies that repress women and pursue the
same practices of male domination.
POINT 3
“Young people
start to get confused over their roles in society. This creates tension between
the sexes. This creates the 50 divorce rates we see today. “
After talking about the crumbling of
traditional roles, the author states "This
is bad because it effects an atmosphere of uncertainty. Young people start to
get confused over their roles in society."
Not only does the author refuse to explain
why gender roles are ought to be maintained, he does not explain why the
crumbling of gender roles is a bad thing. He simply says the crumbling of
gender roles is a bad thing because it confuses people about their roles.
Finally he didn’t give a clear roles of young people in the society.
Am
been made angry by this statement:
“This creates tension between the sexes. This creates the 50 divorce
rates we see today. “
The above statement made by the
author/writer is a big smug. The author claims that the divorce rate is so high
due to women not keeping their place, but he does not offer the least amount of
evidence to or reason to back up this statement. There are lots of reasons
people get divorced which can include infidelity, loss of intimacy, failure to
resolve important differences and unrealistic expectations.
I just felt the author was just drifting
apart. Nowhere will you ever see on an article or a paper to be presented that
explain the reasons for divorce as something along the lines of "gender
role confusion". Furthermore, the author doesn’t even explain why divorce
is bad thing. I guess he is totally
confused.
THIRD ARGUMENT
As
I went further in to reading, another statement made by the author/writer
caught me again
------------- Another reason why we should prevent women from working is
because of the bible. Certainly the bible doesn’t say that women are inferior
to men. That is not what I am trying to argue. But the bible does say clearly
that roles for women are different to roles of men. The Holy Bible in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 states that “as in all the
congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They
are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they
want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home;
for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” The bible also understands the importance of hierarchy. If women and men
kept arguing then there is conflict and chaos. For the sake of harmony there
needs to be a clear idea of who is in power. Ephesians 5:22–24 says the following: “Wives, submit to your husbands as
to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of
the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to
Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” ---------------
In
reference to above statement- "Another reason why we should prevent women from working is
because of the bible."
Unfortunately, when people say "I believe such and such because of the bible", there is nothing you can say to reason with such
a person. I have personally studied bible years and years, and I have been able
to persuade people that some of the bibles commands have no rational
explanation. And, I have frequently noted that morality is zilch if it commands
are left unjustified. But, I personally have never been able to persuade a
bible-believer to say that the commands in the bible are wrong.
The closest I have ever seen is someone
say that we should not follow some commands in the bible is when they argue
that some commands are outdated or not applicable to the modern era, or that we
humans are so simple that we couldn’t possibly fathom the explanations whatever
they may be. But I personally have never seen anyone say the commands are
wrong.
At the very least, the only
counter-argument to the "bible" argument is that there is no reason
why the commands in the bible (or any holy text for that matter) ought to be
considered morally binding without a reasonable explanation. If no explanation
is given to obey the command, then obviously no explanation is needed to
disobey the command, making the unexplained moral prescriptions in the bible
completely moot.
In
reference to the quotation from the bible made by the author in the above
statement. Here he talks about submission.
1. The Holy Bible in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 states that “as in all the
congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They
are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should
ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in
the church.”
2. Ephesians 5:22–24 says the following: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church,
his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so
also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” –
For me
personally, I have to give my own argument to counter that statement.
"""" However, the only separate duties
occur in marriage where the husband should love and the woman submit but
submission does not equate to slavery. This verse of the Bible has been
misinterpreted and men think ALL women should subordinate before them just
because they have a bigger build. I think God didn’t give men that build for
oppression but for security.
"""""
This submission/submissiveness has been
turned the other side and men take advantage of it which I termed personally as
oppression, subjugation and subjection and have made women become less in the
society.
Am
still getting my own view from the bible which you claim to use to back up WHY WOMEN BELONG IN THE KITCHEN
Here is
an exposition of Genesis chapter 1-3, I hope to graciously point out some major
flaws and inconsistencies about the writer/author so I can prove to him that
the bible gave women authority and nothing like gender role attached to it.
BACK UP
1 (DOMINION, AUTHORITY, EVE’S
IDENTITY AND AUTHORITY)
I found
Genesis 1:26-27 interesting. Verse 26 does say “let them have dominion” some of
the emphasis is also elaborated upon in verse 28. It says that God blessed them
and said to them, that they are to subdue and rule over the earth. The creation
mandate is given to man and woman together. There is no hint of distinct roles
or job descriptions here. Adam and Eve are commanded together to co-rule the
earth.
An
additional point is that in Genesis 1:26-28, there are only 2 authority
structures: God over all creation, and man and woman’s joint authority over the
earth. Their dominion was directed towards creation, and not toward each other.
Remember that this was before the fall, and harmony characterised their
relationship – not tension or intention of overthrow.
Again,
there is nothing in Genesis 1 and 2 to indicate that Adam was the responsible
one, the leader, or authority figure. There was joint authority and they were
to co-rule the earth as God’s representatives.
EVE’S IDENTITY AND AUTHORITY
In Genesis 3:20, Adam calls his wife by
the name “Eve” for the first time, because he now understands that she will be
the “mother of all the living.” Yet I have seldom heard anyone say that being
the “mother of all the living” was Eve’s defining role.
It seems that Eve had more than one role
and that her roles changed as circumstances changed.
Most people have many roles in life, and
these change as our circumstances change and as we go through different life
stages. Nevertheless, some Christians think that Eve and, by extension, all
women are fundamentally defined to be the auxiliaries, or subordinate helpers,
of men.
Furthermore, the scriptures give us no
reason to think that Eve’s station in life was marked by a one-sided help or
service to her husband, or that Adam’s station in life was to receive his
wife’s help without also helping her.
Genesis 1:26-28 indicates that men and
women were created to work together to do what is necessary to act as God’s
regents, which includes ruling the earth and having dominion over the animals.
In Genesis 1, men and women are given the
exact same commission from God, and they have an identical status, authority,
and function. Gender roles are not mentioned before the fall. In Genesis 1, men
and women have an identical status, authority and purpose.
BACK UP 2 (PRIMOGENITURE NATURE)
Because
Adam was created first, some see this as evidence of the man having special
status and privilege (primogeniture). Yet, there is no evidence of
primogeniture until a considerable time after creation, moreover nothing
primogeniture during the creation account. Furthermore, it was after the creation
we started seeing primogeniture nature using those born later such as Isaac,
Jacob, Joseph, and David.
BACK UP 3 (AUTHORITY
AND NAMING ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE)
Some
will also state that because Adam named Eve that this shows him having some
special authority. However, in the Bible, the act of naming does not
necessarily imply authority. For example, Hagar (the Egyptian slave of Abraham
and Sarah) gave God a name! Does that mean Hagar had authority over God? I
hardly think so. And both men and women named children in the Old Testament.
There are 25 instances of women naming children, and twenty by men. If this
demonstrates authority, it is a joint or shared authority by men and women.
BACK UP 4 (MEN AND WOMEN NEED EACH OTHERS)
It doesn’t make sense to suggest that the
first woman was created to help the solitary man, and thus all women are
auxiliaries with the function of perpetually serving and assisting men who are
not solitary as Adam was. It also doesn’t make sense to suggest, as some do,
that men have no reciprocal obligation to help women because of the creation
order of Adam being made first, before his wife.
Paul corrects this faulty thinking in 1
Corinthians 11:8-9:
“Nevertheless (or, except that), in the
Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as
woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from
God” (1 Cor. 11:11-12 NIV).
Paul states here that men and women,
particularly those “in the Lord,” need each other, and that the creation order
has no significance in Christian relationships because both men and women
ultimately have God as their source.
BACK UP 5 (LOVING AND HELPING ONE ANOTHER)
To say that one sex has a greater
obligation to help another sex does not sound like Paul. It also doesn’t sound
like Jesus. Jesus told his followers to love one
another. Love is his greatest command. Surely love is most clearly expressed
when we help one another, irrespective of the gender of the person helping and
the gender of the person being helped.
Let me spell it out. Depending on the need
and the circumstances, men should help men, women should help women, men should
help women, women should help men, mixed groups should help mixed groups, etc.
Everyone should help anyone with a need, according to their ability and
situation.
The Bible simply does not indicate that
being a helper is a special obligation or duty of women. Being a helper is not
a gender role. Helping is what considerate and caring human beings do.
I want the writer/author to stick these quote to
his head
“Being a helper is not a
gender role. Helping is what considerate and caring human beings do.”
BACK
UP 6 (END
NOTES)
The writer/author
who claim to back up some point with the bible should take some notes of theses
few end notes using the bible as backup also.
1. The Hebrew word for “Eve” means
“living.”
2. The phrase ezer kenegdo, in the
original language of Genesis 2:18 and 20, does not mean “subordinate helper.”
The Hebrew word ezer is always used in the Bible the context of a vital,
powerful and rescuing help, and it is usually used of God’s help. It does not
refer to ordinary assistance. More on this here.
3. Note that Paul asks Christians, both
men and women, to help certain women ministers in Romans 16:1-2 and Philippians
4:2-3.
4.
We each have a particular obligation to help those in our family, and to
help the weak, vulnerable and disadvantaged, regardless of gender.
FOURTH AGRGUMENT
"””””” Atheists often go on
about how it is wrong to use the bible to back up the segregation of women but
why are the atheists criticizing our opinions when they have opinions
themselves? Those who cry out for equality between male and female are just
expressing opinions, just as those who cry out for inequality between male and
female are doing. "”””””
First, not all atheists believe everything
in the bible is wrong. I personally find that the bible gives practical advice
sometimes, but if the bible cannot say the right things for the right reasons,
the bible is not a reliable moral guide for anything. And given that, there are
some Christians who believe that the men and women are equal despite what the
bible says.
Second, by admitting that cries for
equality are nothing more than expressions of opinions, the author refutes his
entire essay. The point of his essay to provide reasons for why he believes
women should be subordinate, by stating that he has nothing more than opinions
then obviously the purpose of his essay is necessarily not achievable. Because he
is just saying his own opinion also.
FIFTH ARGUMENT
“”””” Let me talk about some of the arguments feminists use. Often a
feminist will say that it’s not important what happens to society. What is
important is individual freedom. A woman is an individual and as such she
deserves the freedom to do such things as pursue a career. It is not about what
is good for society but what is good for the individual. Individual freedom is
what matters. But why go on about freedom? Nobody has perfect freedom. Whenever
you do anything in life you have to follow rules. You can’t just do anything
you like. “””””””
In
reference to pursuing a career, freedom and argument from feminist in the above
statement.
Here In
my view, feminism is not necessarily about just letting women do whatever they
want, as women can be oppressive but instead feminism is about liberty from
oppression. It's a complicated movement with a lot of goals and a lot of
layers.
I personally kick against this statement
made by the author/writer, every human have freedom to choose a career, freedom
to work. Freedom should not be limited to only women. Men and women have
freedom to choose a career. Feminist are not only after freedom but after
equality of both sexes.
Why are we talking about freedom, the last
time I checked freedom was not part of the agitation made by the feminist.
Feminism
obviously has a lot to do with examining gender roles, and women are under
constant judgement for their decisions. Whether they take more traditional
roles or more non-traditional roles, someone always has something negative to
say about it, including misinformed feminists sometimes.
Feminism is about freedom and liberty from oppression to me,
not freedom and liberty to do anything in the world.
Most of my female friends (and many of my
male friends) would self-identify as feminists. Some work, some stay at home to
care for the children (yes, some men stay at home with the kids, too!). There
is no contradiction there.
Questioning whether one can be a
“housewife” and a feminist is blurring things:
1. Individual choice vs. societal influence
2. Making money vs. controlling money
1. Individual choice vs. societal influence-
Feminism generally pushes for equal
opportunities. It does not demand that a woman work or it demands that a woman stay at home. Being a
housewife is not necessarily oppressing yourself. I personally think it is individual choice, if you look at
these traditional housewife roles, fully aware of the implications, and decide
you want to do it because that's what you want to do.
With
that being said, you can be a feminist no matter what your living situation is
because it's a movement. You can go out and work 70 hours a week with no family
and be anti-oppression and pro-social justice. You can scrub floors and stay at
home to make dinner for your children/ kids. You can be poor. You can be rich.
Most of us are oppressed in some way anyway, so if oppression couldn't coincide
with a movement to end oppression, it wouldn't exist.
As long
as you're aware of your privilege and your marginalisation and you advocate for
oppression on many levels to end, you can be a damn good feminist regardless of
what path you've chosen in life. If
you are self-identify as a
feminist, you almost certainly believe that women shouldn’t be forced to stay
at home.
You also probably believe that society influences women
to stay at home in various
ways—e.g., signalling that childcare is for women, having worse career options
open for women, offering better maternal leave than paternal leave, etc. This
is all about societal influence.
A woman can believe all this and still
say: Given the actual real situation of my life, they choose to stay at home. The “why” and
“how” of her life situation is still based on individual choices. But it doesn’t really matter when it comes
to what makes sense for her. This is about individual choice.
As an extreme example, a woman in the
1950s hasn’t had access to the same career opportunities that her husband has.
But given that her husband earns 5x what she does, or given that she just
happens to enjoy spending time with the children more than her husband, it makes a lot more sense for her to stay at
home.
There is nothing like feminism attached to sit
about that decision. It’s just about individual choice.
2. Making money vs. controlling money
Moreover, her choosing to stay at home—to
not collect a salary—does not mean that she is submitting control to her
husband. I know plenty of men who are the sole/primary breadwinners as well as
a few women who are. They do not “control” the money. Money is a team effort.
The breadwinner may collect the salary, but their partner at home contributes
as well.
I do know a few couples where, in
practice, one partner has more control over the money. This has to do with the
dynamics of their own situation—one partner being more of a better planner. It
has no particular correlation with who’s earning the money.
SIXTH ARGUMENT
“””"When you sign a
contract with someone else for gas service or electricity service you are
bounded by contractual obligations. You don’t have the freedom to just break
the contract."”””
What contract? I'd love to see the
"contract" that woman signed consented to that which says "we will make babies and never work in the office".
SEVENTH ARGUMENT
“””””” Men discriminate against women, which is good. The convention of
segregating women and assigning them to certain tasks is deeply ingrained in
our society. You cannot just ignore the power of these social influences. If a
woman walks into a job interview wearing a suit and tie, she is breaking the rule
of society and will be looked down upon for this reason. Social conventions are
what most people generally believe is correct, and they are enforced on
individuals to create harmony in the whole society.””””””
This statement is a fallacy and totally
incorrect. From what am seeing now, am able to bring out some funny points said
by the writer/author:
POINT 1
Men discriminate against women, which is good.
POINT 2
The convention of segregating women and assigning them to certain tasks
is deeply ingrained in our society. You cannot just ignore the power of these
social influences. If a woman walks into a job interview wearing a suit and
tie, she is breaking the rule of society and will be looked down upon for this
reason. Social conventions are what most people generally believe is correct,
and they are enforced on individuals to create harmony in the whole society.
POINT 1
Men discriminate against women, which is good.
In reference to discriminating against women in the above statement made
by the author/ writer.
Firstly, I still believe that the writer is a misogynist and also a
sexist which I said earlier during the Second
argument-point 2
POINT 2
“””However,
because of the efforts of a powerful feminist lobby there has been pressure on
this traditional system of female subordination. We are witnessing the
crumbling of traditional roles. It is important for women to understand their
role as homemakers and child carers. If they accept these roles without
question, society will be better off. It is important to stop women from
getting jobs for their own good, to prevent them from being victims of their
own savagery. It is important for the good of society. “””
The writer still repeat this statement in seventh
argument point 1
POINT 1
“”” Men discriminate against women, which is good. “””
Secondly, I feel is not good to discriminate any one. I guess the writer
gave some clue from the bible backing up about wife submission to her husband,
I guess personally he should be a Christian. The last time I check the bible
talks about love.
To say “””
Men discriminate against women, which is good. “”” It
also doesn’t sound like Jesus or a Christian brother or a follower of Jesus. Jesus told his followers to love one
another. Love is his greatest command. Surely love is most clearly expressed
when we don’t discriminate one another,
irrespective of the gender of the person.
POINT 2
The convention of segregating women and assigning them to certain tasks
is deeply ingrained in our society. You cannot just ignore the power of these
social influences. If a woman walks into a job interview wearing a suit and
tie, she is breaking the rule of society and will be looked down upon for this
reason. Social conventions are what most people generally believe is correct,
and they are enforced on individuals to create harmony in the whole society.
In reference to social influence, societal norms and social convention
in the above statement made by the author/ writer.
There is not an inkling/writing of
explanation why today's social norms dictate the moral way we should treat
people. What the writer is saying if the society norms says child marriage is
good, we should accept it, despite knowing it’s totally wrong to do it. That is
stupid. Most of the societal norms are wrong sometimes, like the idea of the
cooking or women place in kitchen which you feel is the best is still totally
wrong.
We are in the 21 century, some people have
drop that absurd idea about WOMEN BELONG IN THE KITCHEN. Change is constant, so societal norms and
social conventions must have change.
In
fact, it could be just the opposite, it could be that certain societal norms
are very immoral (for instance, in some ancient societies using Nigeria as
reference, it may have been considered the right thing to do by killing live
infants twins, and in other African societies like it is considered acceptable
to take a pre-pubescent girl and make her your wife and I call that child
marriage).
Now I want to ask the writer/author a
simple question- Is child marriage or killing of
twin wrong or right according to social conventions or societal norms? Please
ponder on that.
EIGHT ARGUMENT
“””””” I understand that what I’m saying is controversial. This is
because many people have been brainwashed by feminism. I am just giving my opinion.
If you give your opinion and disapprove of my opinion, then you are giving an
opinion as well. How can you criticize me for giving my opinion when you are
giving your opinion? To conclude, a woman in the office is disgusting. It goes
against God’s law. It goes against the laws of nature. It is unnatural. It is
wrong. “”””””
The point of his essay to provide reasons
for why he believes women should be subordinate and the placement of WOMEN BELONG
IN THE KITCHEN. By
stating that he has nothing more than opinions then obviously the purpose of
his essay is necessarily unachievable. Because he is just saying his own opinion
also.
Another annoying statement made by the
writer/author above says:
“””” To conclude, a woman in the office is disgusting. It goes against
God’s law. It goes against the laws of nature. It is unnatural. It is wrong.
“””””
This statement is a misogynist and sexist statement, this is the third
time he made us of misogynist statement which go against God law also if he is truly
a Christian.
Finally I stand to conclude that the writer/author is just a RENOWED MISOGYNIST AND SEXIST because
of the following statements he made during his write up/essay.
Statements 1
If they accept these roles without question, society will be
better off. It is important to stop women from getting jobs for their own good,
to prevent them from being victims of their own savagery. It is important for
the good of society.
Statements 2
Men discriminate against women, which is good.
Statements 3
To conclude, a woman in the office is disgusting. It goes against God’s
law. It goes against the laws of nature. It is unnatural. It is wrong.
CONCLUSION
If I was that author's philosophy
professor and I read his essay, I would have given him an F
And if it makes any difference, I am happy
to say that I am single, am a physics lecturer, am also a blogger, a
freethinker, I learn how to cook for myself, is a skill I acquire personally
and I never ever succour to societal norms, social conventions and social
influence.
I will like to ask a simple question
for my fellow readers and viewers.
1. What is your own views and
contributions on this articles?
2. Should cooking be a skill
for both men and women or a designated role for women?
3. Do you agree the society
perception about gender role designated to male and female is wrong or right?
4. Do you
agree the society perception about cooking is gender role toward women?
Please let me know all your
reactions, views and insights in the comment box below!
Written
by:
Kogwuonye Patrick Onyeka
Writer/Blogger/Educator/Tutor
First, I want to point out I am a conservative, not a feminist. Having said that, the article that is critiqued here is so ludicrous that I find it hilarious! I love how you exposed the fallacious views printed there. I have never felt less than because of my gender, and I don't believe God created us to be subservient to men. I have been, among other things, a budding auto mechanic, I've built oil coolers for Fram filters (I was in research and development), I've been a line cook, a fast food manager and trainer, and I've been a medical records clerk and an insurance claims processor. I have never felt inferior to my co-workers and I have held my own. I have advanced through the ranks and even acquired some employment awards. My gender had nothing to do with it. As for cooking, I've been disabled for awhile, and the joke in our family is that I sing and he does everything else. If he didn't cook, I fear he'd have starved to death! We believe in doing what we're capable of for the benefit of our family. My husband does the laundry, much of the cooking, some of the dishes....does that make him less of a man? The Man who served the most is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I like to think my husband follows in His footsteps. The worth of a soul isn't determined by their gender nor by the work they do. We are meant to complement one another, not be superior/subservient.
ReplyDelete