Is effeminacy a problem?

[Luke2427]

I shared several quotes from this passage that bothered me and they were ignored. Seems you would just rather stick to your own script.

And your statement that builders in the bible were men is incorrect. Try reading through Nehemiah sometime.

I've not seen you make a case that anyone's position is sad. I've just seen you make a claim that it is without supporting that claim.

That's the easiest thing in the world to do.

There may be a passage in Nehemiah that I do not recall which specifically says that women were actually doing some of the building work on the wall. But even if there is, it would be the an EXTRAORDINARY exception.

What is your verse reference?

 

[TadQueasy]

I don't appreciate the insinuation that I don't read the Bible, Luke. Can you not post in a single thread without arrogantly insulting other people?

The Proverbs 31 woman specifically "strengthened her arms" and worked willingly with her hands. She considered property and purchased it. Ruth labored in the fields, gleaning grain. Rebekah drew water for camels--all of which required great strength to accomplish. David played the harp and sang songs, and was small compared to King Saul. Instead of using heavy armor, he used a sling and stone to kill Goliath. Yet God chose David to be King of Israel over all of his "manly man" brothers.

Excellent points all around!
Luke insinuates that you do not read the Bible and yet I am the one flaming around here.

 

[TadQueasy]

I've not seen you make a case that anyone's position is sad. I've just seen you make a claim that it is without supporting that claim.

That's the easiest thing in the world to do.

There may be a passage in Nehemiah that I do not recall which specifically says that women were actually doing some of the building work on the wall. But even if there is, it would be the an EXTRAORDINARY exception.

What is your verse reference?

Of course you haven't because you choose to ignore it. I am not going to repost it. If you are interested you can go back and find it.

Read through Nehemiah 3 and the builders of the wall, you will see it. Also, abcgrad just made a great point regarding Prov 31.

 

[Luke2427]

I don't appreciate the insinuation that I don't read the Bible, Luke. Can you not post in a single thread without arrogantly insulting other people?

You're right. I should not have stooped to return fire. But make no mistake: I was responding to your insulting demeanor.

The Proverbs 31 woman specifically "strengthened her arms" and worked willingly with her hands. She considered property and purchased it. Ruth labored in the fields, gleaning grain. Rebekah drew water for camels--all of which required great strength to accomplish. David played the harp and sang songs, and was small compared to King Saul. Instead of using heavy armor, he used a sling and stone to kill Goliath. Yet God chose David to be King of Israel over all of his "manly man" brothers.

I cannot think of any way that a single phrase in this paragraph even addresses anything I have said heretofore- much less refutes it.

What about these things do you think has anything to do with our conversation?

 

[TadQueasy]

You're right. I should not have stooped to return fire. But make no mistake: I was responding to your insulting demeanor.

Attention to Luke, attention to Luke: ANOTHER statement in this thread that is sad. You gloss over an attempt to say you shouldn't say something and then take ANOTHER shot at her?

Let's be honest about what you are doing here. You come with this supposed question, yet you really do not want an answer, you have it already figured out. You want people to simply agree with you and your conclusion. Anyone that disagrees is flaming or insulting.

Sad.

 

[abcgrad94]

You're right. I should not have stooped to return fire. But make no mistake: I was responding to your insulting demeanor.

What about these things do you think has anything to do with our conversation?

My insulting demeanor? Me thinks you're imagining things there. :laugh:

The points I made have everything to do with this conversation. To the prophet Samuel, David's brother's were strong manly men. Samuel thought for sure he was to anoint one of them as king. Instead, God instructed him to anoint the runt, the ruddy little singing shepherd who was the youngest of the family. That story alone should show us that we humans make mistakes and false assumptions based on outward appearance.

 

[Luke2427]

Of course you haven't because you choose to ignore it. I am not going to repost it. If you are interested you can go back and find it.

I don't think you have made an argument in this thread until your last post.

Read through Nehemiah 3 and the builders of the wall, you will see it. Also, abcgrad just made a great point regarding Prov 31.

Now you have an argument. That's how we make progress. Not by pointless, insulting, inflaming drive-by posting.

Now I will address your argument and offer a counter argument. That's the way this thing is SUPPOSED to work.

Here is the text you cited:

1Then Eliashib the high priest rose up with his brethren the priests, and they builded the sheep gate; they sanctified it, and set up the doors of it; even unto the tower of Meah they sanctified it, unto the tower of Hananeel. 2And next unto him builded the men of Jericho. And next to them builded Zaccur the son of Imri.

3But the fish gate did the sons of Hassenaah build, who also laid the beams thereof, and set up the doors thereof, the locks thereof, and the bars thereof. 4And next unto them repaired Meremoth the son of Urijah, the son of Koz. And next unto them repaired Meshullam the son of Berechiah, the son of Meshezabeel. And next unto them repaired Zadok the son of Baana. 5And next unto them the Tekoites repaired; but their nobles put not their necks to the work of their Lord.

6Moreover the old gate repaired Jehoiada the son of Paseah, and Meshullam the son of Besodeiah; they laid the beams thereof, and set up the doors thereof, and the locks thereof, and the bars thereof. 7And next unto them repaired Melatiah the Gibeonite, and Jadon the Meronothite, the men of Gibeon, and of Mizpah, unto the throne of the governor on this side the river. 8Next unto him repaired Uzziel the son of Harhaiah, of the goldsmiths. Next unto him also repaired Hananiah the son of one of the apothecaries, and they fortified Jerusalem unto the broad wall. 9And next unto them repaired Rephaiah the son of Hur, the ruler of the half part of Jerusalem. 10And next unto them repaired Jedaiah the son of Harumaph, even over against his house. And next unto him repaired Hattush the son of Hashabniah. 11Malchijah the son of Harim, and Hashub the son of Pahathmoab, repaired the other piece, and the tower of the furnaces. 12And next unto him repaired Shallum the son of Halohesh, the ruler of the half part of Jerusalem, he and his daughters.

13The valley gate repaired Hanun, and the inhabitants of Zanoah; they built it, and set up the doors thereof, the locks thereof, and the bars thereof, and a thousand cubits on the wall unto the dung gate.

14But the dung gate repaired Malchiah the son of Rechab, the ruler of part of Bethhaccerem; he built it, and set up the doors thereof, the locks thereof, and the bars thereof.

15But the gate of the fountain repaired Shallun the son of Colhozeh, the ruler of part of Mizpah; he built it, and covered it, and set up the doors thereof, the locks thereof, and the bars thereof, and the wall of the pool of Siloah by the king's garden, and unto the stairs that go down from the city of David. 16After him repaired Nehemiah the son of Azbuk, the ruler of the half part of Bethzur, unto the place over against the sepulchres of David, and to the pool that was made, and unto the house of the mighty. 17After him repaired the Levites, Rehum the son of Bani. Next unto him repaired Hashabiah, the ruler of the half part of Keilah, in his part. 18After him repaired their brethren, Bavai the son of Henadad, the ruler of the half part of Keilah. 19And next to him repaired Ezer the son of Jeshua, the ruler of Mizpah, another piece over against the going up to the armoury at the turning of the wall. 20After him Baruch the son of Zabbai earnestly repaired the other piece, from the turning of the wall unto the door of the house of Eliashib the high priest. 21After him repaired Meremoth the son of Urijah the son of Koz another piece, from the door of the house of Eliashib even to the end of the house of Eliashib. 22And after him repaired the priests, the men of the plain. 23After him repaired Benjamin and Hashub over against their house. After him repaired Azariah the son of Maaseiah the son of Ananiah by his house. 24After him repaired Binnui the son of Henadad another piece, from the house of Azariah unto the turning of the wall, even unto the corner. 25Palal the son of Uzai, over against the turning of the wall, and the tower which lieth out from the king's high house, that was by the court of the prison. After him Pedaiah the son of Parosh. 26Moreover the Nethinims dwelt in Ophel, unto the place over against the water gate toward the east, and the tower that lieth out. 27After them the Tekoites repaired another piece, over against the great tower that lieth out, even unto the wall of Ophel.

28From above the horse gate repaired the priests, every one over against his house. 29After them repaired Zadok the son of Immer over against his house. After him repaired also Shemaiah the son of Shechaniah, the keeper of the east gate. 30After him repaired Hananiah the son of Shelemiah, and Hanun the sixth son of Zalaph, another piece. After him repaired Meshullam the son of Berechiah over against his chamber. 31After him repaired Malchiah the goldsmith's son unto the place of the Nethinims, and of the merchants, over against the gate Miphkad, and to the going up of the corner. 32And between the going up of the corner unto the sheep gate repaired the goldsmiths and the merchants.

It does say in one phrase that a man's daughters worked with him. We do not know ANYTHING about the nature of their work. The text does not say. They might have been there providing water for thirsty men or they might have been lifting heavy bricks. Since we do not know, we cannot make a case with this phrase one way or the other.

But let's assume for a moment that these women were doing some serious heavy lifting here.

1- I've not said that a woman can never do tasks that are usually ascribed to men. That's not part of my argument in this thread.
My point about the shoulders of a woman which might have been broadened by doing manly tasks only has to do with the fact that apparently, for her, those shoulders and physical features caused her to walk, talk and move like a man.
If a woman can occasionally do some manly tasks without becoming manly themselves- more power to them.

2- We know nothing about these daughters. We have absolutely NO REASON to think that they were, by trade, builders. We only know that they helped their father this one time.
I don't know of anyone in the WORLD who would have a problem with this.

If there is a problem with women doing manly tasks, as I figure there is, it is only if they do them by trade- not on occasion.

3- Even in your own text this is the EXTRAORDINARY EXCEPTION- as I said before. Note all the references that specifically identify men as opposed to women working on this wall.

4- The rebuilding of this wall was a unique and extreme circumstance which invites extreme measures like employing women to do the tasks God generally intended for men to do.

In light of these facts I think your argument is completely invalid.

 

[Luke2427]

Attention to Luke, attention to Luke: ANOTHER statement in this thread that is sad. You gloss over an attempt to say you shouldn't say something and then take ANOTHER shot at her?

Let's be honest about what you are doing here. You come with this supposed question, yet you really do not want an answer, you have it already figured out. You want people to simply agree with you and your conclusion. Anyone that disagrees is flaming or insulting.

Sad.

There you go- very good! You are making a claim and supporting it with a warrant that I can critique.

That's the way we're SUPPOSED to do it. It takes courage, but it's the right thing to do.

I asked a question to find out how many people felt like it was a problem and how many felt that it is not.

I was not asking for information. I was asking if it is a problem to the members of baptistboard.

So you're mistaken.

 

[Luke2427]

My insulting demeanor? Me thinks you're imagining things there. :laugh:

The points I made have everything to do with this conversation. To the prophet Samuel, David's brother's were strong manly men.

David was perfectly manly. There is no indication that he was at all less manly than his brothers.

That reference is meaningless as it pertains to this conversation in my opinion.

 

[TadQueasy]

Thank you for approving of my posts now. I can end this day with my head held high.
You still owe a genuine apology to abcgrad. But I am not going to hold my breath on that one.

 

[Luke2427]

Thank you for approving of my posts now. I can end this day with my head held high.
You still owe a genuine apology to abcgrad. But I am not going to hold my breath on that one.

You slid back into your old ways here.

Make a case for what you claim. That's what you are supposed to do in a debate.

 

[TadQueasy]

Nice work man, avoid what you need to do.
You called her out for having insulting demeanor in this thread which led you to made a bad statement to her. You take no responsibility for your actions at all, it is all on her. If she has not had such an insulting demeanor you wouldn't have made such a remark. Guess that is being manly.

 

[Luke2427]

It's just like a Deterministic Calvinist to hold men accountable for something they have no control over. :tear:

Does a man control the size and pitch of his vocal chords? Does he control his height or bone structure? Can he help if he has a lisp?

No one has said anything about voice pitch or physical stature so I cannot see how this has anything to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Luke2427]

Nice work man, avoid what you need to do.
You called her out for having insulting demeanor in this thread which led you to made a bad statement to her. You take no responsibility for your actions

I did take responsibility. You can take no more responsibility than by saying- "You're right. I shouldn't have done this."

So I don't think you have a point there.

at all, it is all on her. If she has not had such an insulting demeanor you wouldn't have made such a remark. Guess that is being manly.

You may have a point here. I looked back over the posts and she was not insulting.

Sometimes these posts run together on here and you get people mixed up.

You have been very insulting along with a couple of others and I got her mixed in with you guys.

So ABCGRAD- I am sorry- truly. You were not insulting at all and it was my mistake to claim that you were.

 

[Jerome]

No one has said anything about voice pitch

Huh?

You don't recall Diamondlady bringing up the Wally Cox 'high pitched voice' to which you tried to respond by 'dishing' that:

By the way, Wally Cox has been largely rumored to have been gay in the closet. He may not have been gay, but the fact that it was an issue is more reason for Christian men to seek to behave distinctively masculine.

 

[abcgrad94]

So ABCGRAD- I am sorry- truly. You were not insulting at all and it was my mistake to claim that you were.

Thank you. Apology accepted.

 

[Luke2427]

Huh?

You don't recall Diamondlady bringing up the Wally Cox 'high pitched voice' to which you tried to respond by 'dishing' that:

Yes, I recall that. What's your point?

I did not say that Wally Cox simply having a high pitched voice makes him effeminate.

I did not say that Walley Cox was himself effeminate. He might have been- I don't recall. And I certainly did not say that just him having a high pitched voice equates to effeminacy.

I just noted that it was widely rumored that he might have been a closet homosexual which reminds us of the importance of pursuing masculinity.

I have repeatedly identified the ways in which I am concerned that many heterosexual men appear effeminate. I have said the way they walk, talk and move should be masculine.

This has nothing to do with the pitch of the voice but WAY in which the person chooses to pronounce his words.

A man with a high voice can speak perfectly masculine.

A man with a low voice can sound horribly feminine.

I'll give an example. Harvey Fierstein has a very low voice but it is HORRIBLY feminine because of the WAY he uses it.

A man cannot help if he is tall or short- large in stature or small in stature. He cannot help if his vocal chords are designed to produce a high pitch or a low pitch.

But a healthy man CAN control the WAY he uses that voice and the WAY he moves his body. For some it is more of a struggle than for others- but it can be done.

Most of us would be against men in drag. Dress is not the only thing that communicates masculinity and femininity. The way we speak and carry ourselves communicates these things even more than the way we dress.

If one would be opposed to a man dressing like a woman, he should be consistent and be opposed to a man walking and talking like a woman as well.

 

[Skandelon]

No one has said anything about voice pitch or physical stature so I cannot see how this has anything to do with the topic at hand.

I told you about a friend of mine who had a high voice and lisp, and you responded saying:

"I would suggest that the way men walk, talk and move should be distinct from the way women and girls do these things."

and...

"but WAY in which the person chooses to pronounce his words"​

So, maybe you can see how I was lead to believe you do think the pitch of the voice and a lisp matters.

Personally, I believe the focus needs to be on the content of what men say and believe. Though, in general, I agree that our culture has become much too effeminate. It bugs me to no end to see a guy leading worship wearing skinny jeans but maybe it bugs him that I like baggy cargo shorts, I don't know?! :laugh:

 

[Luke2427]

I told you about a friend of mine who had a high voice and lisp, and you responded saying:

"I would suggest that the way men walk, talk and move should be distinct from the way women and girls do these things."

and...

"but WAY in which the person chooses to pronounce his words"​

So, maybe you can see how I was lead to believe you do think the pitch of the voice and a lisp matters.

As I said, "It's not the pitch of the voice- it's the way one uses it."

Personally, I believe the focus needs to be on the content of what men say and believe.

I've affirmed this from the start. I said from the OP that this is secondary to such issues as men being leaders and providers, etc...

But just because something is not THE MAIN thing does not mean it ought to be haphazardly relegated to a status of unimportance.

If it is not good for men to DRESS like women- then for the same reasons it is not good for men to walk, talk and move like women.

Men ought to seek to be masculine. A blurring of manhood and womanhood, a disdain for distinctives is DOUBTLESSLY a factor in the rise of the acceptance of homosexuality in our culture.

This is not the MAIN thing. Teaching masculinity to our young boys is not the "focus" of our ministries by any means, but it is not unimportant either.

Though, in general, I agree that our culture has become much too effeminate. It bugs me to no end to see a guy leading worship wearing skinny jeans but maybe it bugs him that I like baggy cargo shorts, I don't know?! :laugh:

I concur.

 

[Skandelon]

I think the issue is differentiating between those things that can be helped or controlled by the individual and those things which cannot. I know that is not a distinction that is easy for a "deterministic thinker" to acknowledge, but I do believe it is the reason for much of this conflict.