Featured Is effeminacy a problem?

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?

 

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

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?

 

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

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:

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 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.

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.

 

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.

 

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

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.

I concur.