Women. You have men by the balls.(...)

[Mystical]

See I don't mind religious beliefs, I actually like you frOdo It's just that religion becomes inter-twined with politics by default.

Do I think religion is the main force driving what is holding women back from leadership roles? No. I agree with Rythm and JohnV's line of thinking that it's more biological. Or rather, society's view on biology.

Because to be honest, women are not holding themselves back they are being held back by themselves and men and have been since oh, always. It's never going to change, in my opinion, without radical new thinking on both sides. And in the last decade things have actually gotten worse (according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University).

Both sides can point to positive and negative leadership qualities in women but at the end of the day the main reason why there's only six female US Governors and 8 female Mayors has nothing to do with how strong or tall or weak someone is, it's estrogen.

Case in point every single woman I know has dealt with this dismissive assertion during an argument, "oh you're just PMS."

Yeah, I said it You know it's true and you know it's the biggest reason why men (and women) wouldn't want a woman in a leadership position. Biologically, we're inept /susceptible to emotional skew ism. Or so we think.

In my opinion that's the main thing holding women from taking leadership roles. Here's the thing though: Women might get emotional, but it's a good thing. Just like teenagers who are all whacked out on hormones: evolution put them there for a reason. To overcome the status quo. How else are kids expected to overcome the overbearing (or god forbid, abusive) parents of the world and get out on their own? Most arguments during a womans' cycle are actually based on real grievances that she may have the ability to mask any other day of the month. But should she have to mask that which bothers her? Well, yeah. For the peace of the household, yeah. But during that one week of the month you're going to hear everything that's jacked up about everything and is that really wrong? I don't think so. Personally I prefer not to let anyone notice my altered state and make a conscious effort to pay attention to my surroundings and behaviors more. But, that's just me

I'm generalizing of course, I mean just ask the women in power now if it affects their leadership roles and see what they say? Not every woman is unreasonable or unable to make decisions during this time, it's just a stigma put upon women due to our biological susceptibility. Who are we to say, nuh uh if we are damn near painted as mentally incompetent on a monthly basis? Problem is, has anyone ever wondered if the same happens to men through dropping or overcompensating testosterone levels? It's a new idea but it's so credible that the world renowned pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca is actually doing a study on it. Three words:

Irritable male syndrome.

I shit you not, I found this tonight

---

Irritable male syndrome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2010)
Irritable male syndrome (IMS), sometimes called Del syndrome, is defined as a state of hypersensitivity, anxiety, frustration, and anger that occurs in males and is associated with biochemical changes, hormonal fluctuations, stress, and loss of male identity.[1] This term covers symptoms thought to be caused by a drop in testosterone levels in male mammals.[2] It is a striking feature in mammals with seasonal breeding patterns at the end of the mating season.

A doctor from a Medical Research Council's Human Reproductive Sciences Unit in Edinburgh, Scotland, coined the term after studying the mating cycle of Soay sheep. In autumn, he found that the rams' testosterone levels soared and they mated. In the winter, testosterone levels fell and they lost interest in sex. He also found that as testosterone levels fell, rams became nervous and withdrawn, striking out irrationally. Dr. Lincoln has observed these same changes in behavior in red deer, reindeer, and Indian elephants.
[edit]IMS in humans

In humans, irritable male syndrome is referred to as the andropause, defined as symptomatic of hormonal, physiological, and chemical changes that can occur in all men. These changes are considered[by whom?] to affect physical, psychological, interpersonal, sexual, and nutritional aspects of men's health. Stress tends to be a common trigger, especially when combined with rapid hormone changes later in life.[3]
[edit]Symptoms
Symptoms, in humans, caused by a drop in the male hormone testosterone include:

Anger and social withdrawal[4]
Irritability
Hypersensitivity
Anxiety
Hot Flashes
Mood swings
Depression
Lack of libido
Back and head aches

[edit]External causes
External factors that can cause testosterone levels to fall include certain forms of medication, poor diet, excessive alcohol consumption, illness, lack of sleep, lack of sex, stress or surgery.

---

My point with all this is in my opinion shooting to the heart of what keeps women out of leadership roles, and opening a conversation on what may be a remedy to it. We're all human and bound to our biology. The more we understand it, the more we can overcome current brackets of social stagnation. I think the OP here is an idiot for thinking if we just "network" then we can save the world. We have to talk about that which is unthinkable and understand that which we do not comprehend. Seeing the recent Sequester as proof that bipartisanship is desperately needed, I'd say it's actually a genuine need to have women in more political roles to balance out the current imbalance of power between the sexes, nevermind the political party.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudrea...rah-palin/

[John V]

No, why?

You follow up with appropriate Scriptural support yourself.

Since you didn't specify I'm going to go ahead and put my next point in here, Have you ever heard about Joyce Meyer's Ministries?

No.

Growing up, it was frowned upon that she 'dared' preach. She's been dis-communicated from her own church as a result of her endeavors. Still, she's been able to do the following which I feel is worth far more to the credit of her religion than speaking when told she shouldn't be. I always respected her husband highly. Despite verses such as this she still teaches, and I respect her too for overcoming the sexism of her religion.

1. From my reading of the Bible, a ministry should be judged by the truth it holds, not by its worldy results. Jesus said some would perform miracles in his name, yet in the end he would declare that he didn't know them.

2. That's between her, God, and her church.

GAL 3: 28
There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free, there is neither
male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

I think this verse and others like it argue against your position. In the next life there will be no distinction between male and female. In this world, God has set roles for men and women. If some don't like them, they should consider this eternal condition. As Paul said, our temporal sufferings are nothing compared to our eternal reward.

What if she disagrees with your judgement?

Asked and answered. She's my advisor, so she advises me, then I have the final word.

What if your judgement is wrong? It happens, you know

Then it's wrong. Won't be the first time, or the last.

Here's what the Bible says to do in such a case:

"If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go." (Eccles. 25: 26)

I don't study the Apocrypha.

Then it gives an answer but is it not foolish for a wife to let her husband continue down a path she knows is wrong, in silence?

1. What if she's wrong? It happens, you know.

2. Advisors aren't silent.

1 Peter 3:1
Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives,when they see your respectful and pure conduct.

Not every argument can be waited out in respectful pure conduct,[/quote]
Why do you speak of arguments? My wife and I agree that things get discussed, then if we don't reach the same conclusion, I make the final decision. That model doesn't give rise to arguments. Arguments flow from two completely equal partners.

sometimes decisions need to be made immediately. What is she to do if she disagrees with you? Answer: be silent. Right?

That makes no sense. If the situation is that urgent, then it's even more important that one party be designated as the decision maker.

How would the race die out? I'm not saying women should not make babies, I'm saying that the only place for a woman is where she wants to be, and if it isn't in the kitchen so be it. Opposite of what the Bible says on the matter, no?

No. I gave you a verse from Prov 31. Go read the chapter from v. 10 to the end. There's not much that a Biblical wife doesn't do.[hide]

4. If she ran for congress would you have any objections?
Yes, seems like it would be a big waste of time as she's never held office of any kind.

Fair enough. Soooo if she was competent and able to hold office, would you object?

My wife in particular? Yes. I don't want a wife in DC. Women in general? No, I don't object. Ever hear of Deborah, the judge? She ruled Israel for a time.

I am coming to the belief that you are a moderate when it comes to the bible, but you are by far in the minority then.

I don't try to be liberal, moderate, or conservative. I try to be accurate.

Fair enough, you got me there. I merely quoted a religious persons personal opinion on subject I guess.

Yes, it seems more like you're continuing an argument with your father, then that you've seriously studied the Bible on these issues.

I ask because these verses have been thrown in my face my entire life

Paul puts the blame on Adam:

Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

The bible seems to contradict your beliefs, and is it not the living word of god in your eyes? Or do you concede that it is written by fallible men and that you need to temper that knowledge with what you believe from the Bible?

I disagree that it seems to contradict my beliefs. Again, read Prov 31. That woman manages people, runs businesses, and does real estate transactions. Seems pretty competent to me.

Perhaps not you, but others agree that these verses mean that should she divorce her husband that makes her an adulterer. This is the paramount reason why I have seen religious women stay in abusive marriages. Because in the Bible, adulterers have a special place in hell.

First, we're pretty much all adulterers according to Jesus in the sermon on the mount. We have salvation. So, even if one concludes that divorce is adultery, it doesn't mean hell.

Second, a woman in an abusive marriage who feels this way should separate for her own safety, but not remarry. It's the subsequent relationships that triggers adultery, not the leaving.

Thank you for answering me btw, I appreciate the honesty and look forward to any input you have to offer. I don't have any qualms with what you're saying thus far, I merely wish to relay to you the view that others of your religion hold as true.

No, you wish to relay to me views that others hold that you find objectionable, because you hold a grudge regarding past treatment. For example, you mention a church that discommunicates a woman for preaching, but don't mention the churches that ordain women. You C&P lists of verses that can be taken as detrimental to women, but aren't aware of sections favorable to women.

---

See I don't mind religious beliefs, I actually like you frOdo It's just that religion becomes inter-twined with politics by default.

Do I think religion is the main force driving what is holding women back from leadership roles? No. I agree with Rythm and JohnV's line of thinking that it's more biological. Or rather, society's view on biology.

Because to be honest, women are not holding themselves back they are being held back by themselves and men and have been since oh, always. It's never going to change, in my opinion, without radical new thinking on both sides. And in the last decade things have actually gotten worse (according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University).

Both sides can point to positive and negative leadership qualities in women but at the end of the day the main reason why there's only six female US Governors and 8 female Mayors has nothing to do with how strong or tall or weak someone is, it's estrogen.

In my experience a lot of it has to do with child rearing. Women do more of it than men. Women tend to want to do it more than men. In my profession, time and again I've seen women rising as rapidly as men, but then taking years off or going part-time to raise children. They lose more in earnings than daycare would cost, but they actually want to raise their children. They can't then continue to rise as fast as those who don't make that choice.

People tried telling women they could have it all. They were wrong. There are choices and trade-offs in life. Women in general seem more hard-wired to desire raising children than men, and so fewer of them reach the top.

[fr0d0]

People tried telling women they could have it all. They were wrong. There are choices and trade-offs in life. Women in general seem more hard-wired to desire raising children than men, and so fewer of them reach the top.

I don't think they were wrong. Sure, choices, and the choice to raise kids as a woman is incredibly tempting, if not the best thing any human could do.

Also, advisors can be in control. Hence women ruling the world. The penis is simply her tool.

[John V]

I don't think they were wrong.

There are only so many hours in a day, and only so many years in a career. Someone who chooses to devote a significant number of hours/years to child rearing (or anything else than their career for that matter) is at a significant disadvantage in their career path compared to someone who devotes that time to their career.

ETA: Just to make sure we're on the same page, by women could have it all, I mean each individual woman could have it all.

[fr0d0]

Well, some people can have it all, and do. And that's a good thing, that we don't prevent people doing stuff.
Conversely, a man can't have it all. He can't also bear children.

[Mystical]

1. From my reading of the Bible, a ministry should be judged by the truth it holds, not by its worldy results. Jesus said some would perform miracles in his name, yet in the end he would declare that he didn't know them.

2. That's between her, God, and her church.

GAL 3: 28
There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free, there is neither
male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

I think this verse and others like it argue against your position. In the next life there will be no distinction between male and female. In this world, God has set roles for men and women. If some don't like them, they should consider this eternal condition. As Paul said, our temporal sufferings are nothing compared to our eternal reward.

1. How forward thinking of you.
2. Please expound on your interpretation of Gal3 and what you say with regards to Paul?

What if she disagrees with your judgement?
Asked and answered. She's my advisor, so she advises me, then I have the final word.

I can't help but think about mormons right now, don't ask me why.

What if your judgement is wrong? It happens, you know
Then it's wrong. Won't be the first time, or the last.

So you're not infallable yet you see yourself as the end all be all of decisions?

Here's what the Bible says to do in such a case:
I don't study the Apocrypha.

Fair enough. But not all the verses were from that book.

Then it gives an answer but is it not foolish for a wife to let her husband continue down a path she knows is wrong, in silence?
1. What if she's wrong? It happens, you know.

2. Advisors aren't silent.

If she's not your equal, how is she to not be silent? If she has no right to argue a subject with you, then how can she properly advise?
Argumentation is not as bad as you seem to think it is. If she's wrong she's wrong, it wont be the first time or the last

Not every argument can be waited out in respectful pure conduct.

Why do you speak of arguments? My wife and I agree that things get discussed, then if we don't reach the same conclusion, I make the final decision. That model doesn't give rise to arguments. Arguments flow from two completely equal partners.

Your wife is not your equal. Gotcha. No wonder you never argue, she doesn't have the right!

sometimes decisions need to be made immediately. What is she to do if she disagrees with you? Answer: be silent. Right?
That makes no sense. If the situation is that urgent, then it's even more important that one party be designated as the decision maker.

There's plenty of historical references I could bring up here refuting that assertion, but as philosophically I don't quite know what to say to you regarding this right now, I'd like to pick up this conversation at a later time. I'd like to hear what my fiancee has to say on the subject.

How would the race die out? I'm not saying women should not make babies, I'm saying that the only place for a woman is where she wants to be, and if it isn't in the kitchen so be it. Opposite of what the Bible says on the matter, no?
No. I gave you a verse from Prov 31. Go read the chapter from v. 10 to the end. There's not much that a Biblical wife doesn't do.

I am aware of all of Proverbs 31 with regards to the wife's duties and abilities, I read it the other night. From what I can see it's just a whole bunch of air blowin up skirts for doing household/landhold duties and some good points on how a woman should support her husband. I'm not denying the good here, I do however condemn the absence of any substantial rights.

Fair enough. Soooo if she was competent and able to hold office, would you object?
My wife in particular? Yes. I don't want a wife in DC. Women in general? No, I don't object. Ever hear of Deborah, the judge? She ruled Israel for a time.

So if it's what she wanted to do, you wouldn't support her in it. Gotcha.
At least you don't object to women in office but then, it's not really a problem you gotta deal with much is it?

Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

Oh okay. Bible contradiction 2,533,356,865,000,000,000,000

I disagree that it seems to contradict my beliefs. Again, read Prov 31. That woman manages people, runs businesses, and does real estate transactions. Seems pretty competent to me.

Just one instance of something written down in your bible does not excuse the blanket sexist submissive comments that are within.

Perhaps not you, but others agree that these verses mean that should she divorce her husband that makes her an adulterer. This is the paramount reason why I have seen religious women stay in abusive marriages. Because in the Bible, adulterers have a special place in hell.

First, we're pretty much all adulterers according to Jesus in the sermon on the mount. We have salvation. So, even if one concludes that divorce is adultery, it doesn't mean hell.

No, it just means submit to my control or go to Hell. I highly doubt that a being as superior as god would give a flying elephant, if a woman remarried. And lets just be clear here, I'm taking this personally because my mother in your eyes (the most Jesus lovin self sacrificing in the name of her lord woman in her state), is bound for hell and will be sent there by her lord. She knows this and she still praises him.

Second, a woman in an abusive marriage who feels this way should separate for her own safety, but not remarry. It's the subsequent relationships that triggers adultery, not the leaving.

Control.

People tried telling women they could have it all. They were wrong. There are choices and trade-offs in life. Women in general seem more hard-wired to desire raising children than men, and so fewer of them reach the top.

I'm pretty sure it's assumed that if you're working you're not with your children. Can men not have it all then? What the hell is 'all' anyways?

"People tried telling women they could have it all. They were wrong."

Wow. What a blanketed sexist statement that I have sadly heard word for word before. Humor me: what people, and where did they say this then? I don't doubt that some ahole did, I'm just interested in your sources.

For example, you mention a church that discommunicates a woman for preaching, but don't mention the churches that ordain women. You C&P lists of verses that can be taken as detrimental to women, but aren't aware of sections favorable to women.

So in other words, I'm putting forth evidence against, and you think I'm being unfair by not posting the evidence that's favorable?
Here's the thing: I know the evidence for, I disregard it because it is overshadowed by the verses and evidence against. Just as in the case of slavery and the bible: just because it says "treat your slave well" does not change the fact that it's advocating slavery.

Yes, it seems more like you're continuing an argument with your father, then that you've seriously studied the Bible on these issues.

You caught me again! Oh, you're good. I am indeed using you as a sounding board to collect my thoughts for when I have this conversation with my dad: something I consider to be one of the biggest social and emotional brick walls I have yet to face. Considering you both hold the same beliefs on these subjects.
As for studying seriously these issues: Well I did grow up going to a Christian private school so it was sorta serious that I did study the bible. Am I seriously studying it now? Yep. Don't get why you'd think otherwise unless you disagree with the conclusions I'm drawing with my studies.

No, you wish to relay to me views that others hold that you find objectionable, because you hold a grudge regarding past treatment.

Do I hold a grudge over past treatment? Oh yes, yes I do. With good reason. But only to do what I can to prevent it from happening again. Do I blame anyone? Nope. Sometimes in life the blame lies nowhere.

[KichigaiNeko]

[John V]

1. How forward thinking of you.
2. Please expound on your interpretation of Gal3 and what you say with regards to Paul?

Can you be more specific?

So you're not infallable yet you see yourself as the end all be all of decisions?

For my family, yes.

If she's not your equal, how is she to not be silent?

That’s a false dichotomy. People with unequal authority frequently discuss things.

As to overall equality, Biblically we’re one flesh. That’s pretty equal. Personally I believe from this concept that a man who doesn’t love his wife doesn’t love himself.

If she has no right to argue a subject with you, then how can she properly advise?

Right to argue? We have no desire to argue with each other. We discuss things.

I am aware of all of Proverbs 31 with regards to the wife's duties and abilities, I read it the other night. From what I can see it's just a whole bunch of air blowin up skirts for doing household/landhold duties and some good points on how a woman should support her husband. I'm not denying the good here, I do however condemn the absence of any substantial rights.

You’re being disingenuous. Before you knew of this passage you thought buying land was a substantial right, and you probably thought running businesses was substantial.

Just one instance of something written down in your bible does not excuse the blanket sexist submissive comments that are within.

You didn’t provide any verses that indicated women were incompetent. You provided verses warning against keeping the company of immoral women. There are plenty of verses warning against keeping the company of immoral men, too, but you’re either ignorant of these or purposely ignore them in order to charge sexism.

No, it just means submit to my control or go to Hell. I highly doubt that a being as superior as god would give a flying elephant, if a woman remarried. And lets just be clear here, I'm taking this personally because my mother in your eyes (the most Jesus lovin self sacrificing in the name of her lord woman in her state), is bound for hell and will be sent there by her lord. She knows this and she still praises him.

You haven’t shown Biblically that adultery is not forgiven. I doubt your mother could either. Yes, sometimes people believe wrong things about Christianity.

Control.

Seriously? If that’s all you have, why bother?

Do you even know what marriage represents Biblically?

I'm pretty sure it's assumed that if you're working you're not with your children. Can men not have it all then? What the hell is 'all' anyways?

No, men can’t have it all, either. My children are closer to my wife than they are to me. They spend much more time with her. There’s no way I can compete with that.

"People tried telling women they could have it all. They were wrong."

Wow. What a blanketed sexist statement that I have sadly heard word for word before. Humor me: what people, and where did they say this then? I don't doubt that some ahole did, I'm just interested in your sources.

I’m not sure if the exact phrase was used, but the sentiment at least traces back to The Feminine Mystique, which came out in the sixties and sparked a new wave of feminism.

So in other words, I'm putting forth evidence against, and you think I'm being unfair by not posting the evidence that's favorable?

Considering your claim that you’re just trying to show me what other Christians think, yes. At first you presented yourself more as a seeker who might be open to opposing views. It’s now apparent that you’re pushing an agenda. As that’s clear, no, I don’t expect you to support opposing views.

Here's the thing: I know the evidence for, I disregard it because it is overshadowed by the verses and evidence against. Just as in the case of slavery and the bible: just because it says "treat your slave well" does not change the fact that it's advocating slavery.

I dount that you know the evidence for, as you didn’t even know about Prov 31 until this discussion.

You caught me again! Oh, you're good. I am indeed using you as a sounding board to collect my thoughts for when I have this conversation with my dad: something I consider to be one of the biggest social and emotional brick walls I have yet to face. Considering you both hold the same beliefs on these subjects.

1. Why confront him?
2. We don’t share all the same beliefs. We apparently disagree on divorce necessarily meaning hell, and that’s a huge difference.
3. You’ve noted that I seem more moderate or progressive than him. Yet, I’m a Bible-believing Christian. Why not confront him with the verses I use and try for a modification? If he believes that there’s a special place in hell for adulterers, confront him with the sermon on the mount. Seems more likely to be effective than a general assault on his belief system.

As for studying seriously these issues: Well I did grow up going to a Christian private school so it was sorta serious that I did study the bible. Am I seriously studying it now? Yep. Don't get why you'd think otherwise unless you disagree with the conclusions I'm drawing with my studies.

Again, it’s mostly the lack of knowledge of Prov 31. It’s a really well-known passage regarding women. Don’t see how you could honestly research women’s Biblical roles and not come across it, which leads me to believe you just collect negative verses you see posted elsewhere. The posting of long lists of verses bolsters this assessment. It’s common of people who don’t study the Bible, but rather study anti-Christian sources.

---

Well, some people can have it all, and do.

Who?

Here's an interesting piece on the subject:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...ll/309020/

Eighteen months into my job as the first woman director of policy planning at the State Department, a foreign-policy dream job that traces its origins back to George Kennan, I found myself in New York, at the United Nations’ annual assemblage of every foreign minister and head of state in the world. On a Wednesday evening, President and Mrs. Obama hosted a glamorous reception at the American Museum of Natural History. I sipped champagne, greeted foreign dignitaries, and mingled. But I could not stop thinking about my 14-year-old son, who had started eighth grade three weeks earlier and was already resuming what had become his pattern of skipping homework, disrupting classes, failing math, and tuning out any adult who tried to reach him. Over the summer, we had barely spoken to each other—or, more accurately, he had barely spoken to me. And the previous spring I had received several urgent phone calls—invariably on the day of an important meeting—that required me to take the first train from Washington, D.C., where I worked, back to Princeton, New Jersey, where he lived. My husband, who has always done everything possible to support my career, took care of him and his 12-year-old brother during the week; outside of those midweek emergencies, I came home only on weekends.

Her relationship with her children wasn't as strong as it could have been had she spent more time with them. Again, it just comes down to time, it's nothing against women.

[KichigaiNeko]

[fr0d0]

I had a quick look John. There were some women lawyers making a case, plus others saying about flexible working arrangements helping to balance a family life.

I guess at the extremes you need to spend so much time on something, and children being quite a commitment if you're trying to balance the two... that "having it all" is not humanly possible.

Talking about the rest of us tho... career breaks, changing careers, fast tracked progress through the ranks seems quite normal anyway for most people in most jobs. And childcare isn't without it's skills very valuable to employment prospects.

That's the imbalance that's being addressed IMHO.