( click on title to go to article page ) (comment space at very bottom of this page)
Please NOTE: Users are now included on my separate email list: If you do not wish to be on it, email me and I will remove you from the separate list (It is apart from Word Press direct)
It is ridiculous to think our world can be run by one sex. In In
OK, throughout history variations in culture and tradition make things appear that people have lived (and some may still live) within a society dominated by one sex: either male or female. I am referring to what societies considered norms not the exceptions: there always seems to be a person (or persons) who is (are) unique and as an exception to the pattern of the society they have lived in. How people see what is normal is dependent on the milieu they were born and nurtured in, and this may become so firmly embedded within their being that to them it is the only way it can be. So within the world and at various times people have come to accept a variety of traditions that define roles for Men and Woman: then, what seems to be the standard is actually just the prevailing view. What is the predominant view from within my society? From the historical frame of reference I was taught: “it seems to have always been a male dominated world.” Really?
Sometimes I believe women let men believe they are in charge. I think there is much evidence to support the view that despite differences in appearance, humans cannot function without a close partnership between the sexes. Each has characteristics making them important to survival. When there are few people and the priority is to multiply and populate, the traditional family unit becomes vital for a group of humans to survive. There is limited time and resources available for anything but sticking with what enhances the prospects for survival. In that circumstance what each is more suited for cast them into particular jobs in general but, that is not where the story ends. Variation in both sexes confuses stereotypical classification; the brain power is virtually identical and physical prowess (or lack of it) is subject to individual specialization. It may be that the only real difference is women bear our children and have the ability to nourish infants with breast milk and men cannot. Almost all other differences are just apparent differences; this is because humans chose to believe how things should be and then act out what is assumed to be correct. Often people are motivated predominately by what they like; each sex enjoys the differences between the sexes in some way, and so for the most part the accepted norm continues. So what does history indicate to me, concerning the role of the sexes in society over time?
Sometimes men seem to be in charge and sometimes women seem to be.
When there are few people and the priority is to multiply and populate, the traditional family unit becomes vital for a group of humans to survive. There is limited time and resources available for anything but sticking with what enhances the prospects for survival. Obtaining food, shelter and physical security is paramount.
New opportunities arise.
Gradually as the basic needs become assured some individuals can pursue endeavors beyond mere survival: Specialization is then possible. Political leadership, religious leadership, career warriors, health-care specialists all become possible; the group initially affords them by sharing resources willingly but as the society expands the need for taxing may then become necessary.
Some of the leadership roles can be assumed by women and they may even choose not to bear children. This is fine as long as the group as a whole has sufficient population growth to fill vacancies as people age and become less productive: in good times even elderly members may be cared for despite their inability to contribute much in the physical sense. The society develops a tradition concerning roles for males and females and then after a time the pattern becomes the social norm resisting further change unless dire circumstances force it.
Change can evoke fear in some people.
Humans tend to fear change and reject it when there is too much of it, when there is too wide a variation, or if change happens with too rapid a pace. This aversion to alteration usually persists long after survival needs had been met, and when patterns mature to become in grain they acquire a sense that “we have always done it that way, so why change?” Social innovation may be slow in coming without strong influences pressing for it.
And so today we are living in a multi cultural world with extensive global trade, extreme specialization and rapid social change challenging almost all the people on the planet. The pace and amount of change varies in different degrees but the influences of easy travel, social networking and technological advances is irresistible . What was normal is challenged; what is normal is challenged ; what could become normal is challenged,. All these challenges force humans to adopt and adapt now, if they have not done so already – this is done in spite of the risk of “growing pains”.
Examples of woman rising up to meet a challenge are not so rare.
Throughout history regardless of when or where women have arisen to leadership – even within a male dominated tradition – some have led, defended, defined or discovered in important ways. I see only more opportunity in the times ahead for women to expand their influence and their roles. To gain an understanding of what women are capable of doing just examine the list via the link below and read the stories of notable women from throughout history:
See “100 Important Women of History” http://www.angelfire.com/anime2/100import/
When survival becomes a dim memory non-traditional roles abound: Does it matter? What aspects of human progress do we depend on most?
What is familiar gives us comfort and furnishes a sense of identity, a place called home, a recognizable society and a reassuring cultural (a lens for understanding). Brave new worlds are challenging for most people, upset many people , generate fear and prompt insecurity in some people. So overall while some people welcome change many do not (at least not easily). Perhaps a slow pace of change can allow more people to adopt, and adapt because rapid change often is unsettling and reaction to it prompts a counter productive risk. And yet change still can occur anyway. Having said that, I recognize change is an ongoing process that cannot be stopped; it cannot be stopped because it is part of a natural progression that is the way reality works on our planet (and probably for all of the cosmos). Since the echoes from the distant past often still reverberate within us, this legacy helps us make sense of it all; how we come to judge what works and what does not is recognized by the realized outcomes of past change? What is now, is compared to what once was, and the process never stops.
Observing more women in roles that were traditionally taken by men should not automatically be rejected or instill fear in our culture. The socioeconomic structure can handle it (in fact it may be necessary: i.e. during World War II women replaced men in factories for example). Humanity has much less need for what was established during a period when population growth was paramount, and what roles were adopted when they were essential for survival. Still, I must interject that the foundation layer of the human experience really has not changed and, still is important though not so much to increase the population, but as an emotional foundation for well-balanced individuals who will join the society.
My bottom line:
Yes there is another side to this progression of change in my opinion: though we can see the merits of change and embrace some of it quite well, I believe we still need to cling to the traditional family unit – no vision of Aldous Huxley for me or for many other people I suspect is acceptable. We should cling to the family unit because children benefit and therefore society benefits: people are less emotionally challenged, learn right from wrong early, have a sense of identity and a place to call home. This is in my opinion of course, but if I had time I probably could produce some evidence for the positive effects derived for those nurtured within traditional families and the benefits for society.
People nurtured from within a traditional family unit are less likely to violate social rules or be abusive; more likely to be law-abiding, civil and productive. Families that are fostered in love, promote caring and peace that often spreads well beyond the family unit itself. Families grounded in true Christian principals experience much comfort and are the example for what the good side of humanity can demonstrate. It proves that our existence within this dispensation can improve because we have the knowledge, means and motivation for doing so.
So, how are women rising?
Woman are rising because with more specialization, understanding and the recognition that the female mind is as competent as the male mind, more woman can contribute to society in more ways than what some traditions limit them to. So not only should they be considered equal contributors to men, they should be paid at the same rate as men are paid, for the same job when they do the same work. Women have always been as vital as men for the survival of humans and it is time to see in what ways they are similar and in what ways they are different for real. This knowledge will allow us to get the maximum good from both sexes: symbiotic and complementary scenarios together ensure people get the best of what life has to offer. Yes similarities and differences both can be harnessed for the advantage of our total and complete society.
Achieving our goals is more enjoyable when the partnership of the family unit (a man a woman and their children engaged in a social partnership) are extended to other aspects of society in my opinion. So not only do the children raised in a traditional family unit have a better chance for a better outcome, so do the men and women embedded within a secure personal relationship as well. Exceptions are expected but I am convinced the benefits go far beyond the individuals and it offers “the good” to all people.
What guidance do Christians obtain from God’s Word about this?
What Christians are taught amounts to “realistic common sense“; division of labor that makes use of the advantages each sex brings into the relationship and the recognition of different emotional and physical requirements for each: man and woman become one unit. The relationship is to be governed by the spirit of unconditional love and dwell within a permanent loyal commitment to each other. The fruits of the man-woman relationship do change over time but these changing needs associated with age can be met within the traditional framework quite well. Yes, each can meet the needs of their partner throughout their entire life from child rearing years on through to the years of old age. Nothing can replace the joy and fulfillment of a close relationship that has accommodated these changes over a lifetime.
In conclusion, all this love and the relationship’s beauty, demonstrates to all and, interacts with the people who live it and the people who come in contact with it.
Excerpts from scripture that define roles for Men and Woman:
Galatians 3:28 ESV (Equality)
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.and
InEphesians 5:21,22,25 ESV (Relationships)
21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. . . . 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, . . .
Judges 4:4 ESV (Leadership)
4 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time.
Genesis 1:27 ESV (In God’s image)
27 So God created man (I see this as “people”)* in his own image, in the image of God he created him (“them”); male and female he created them. (*my words in italics)
(comment space at very bottom of this page)