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.” 

I believe that women should keep out of the office and stay in the kitchen. I will explain to you why I think this and then I will refute all the argument used against the subordination of women.

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

University of Benin

www.facebook.com/uniqueresearching