This post has become very popular with people "googling" for answers to The Roles of The Sexes. Thank you for choosing this site to answer your question. I realize you are probably in a rush to answer some burning question and I believe this post will answer it. However, I would like to make you aware this post is part of a Series that covers the roles of both men and women according to the world, the definitions used in the Bible, and God's non-contradictory explanation. Please mark this post and take time to come back and look at the following links to get a bigger understanding:
Definitions of the words for "Man" that are used in the Bible
Definition of "Man" according to the World
Definition of "Man" according to God's Word
Definitions of the words for "Woman" that are used in the Bible
Definition of "Woman" according to the World (This post)
Definition of "Woman" according to God's Word
Also, if you are looking for an explanation of how to become a woman, I have found the issue is most women don't know what a man OUGHT to be. Here is a link to the beginning of a Series from February 2011 that, believe it or not, has helped women: HOW to become a man.
We began this month covering the first Universal Stronghold: Leadership.
We found that we are eventually all Unprofitable discussing "Leadership" because too many people are actually describing BOSSES.
Last week we covered half of the second Universal Stronghold: The Roles of The Sexes.
We found that we are all Unprofitable discussing "men" because we are actually encouraging males to act in their NATURE and be PERFECT BOSSES.
The world and the church of today are ENCOURAGING males to act in their NATURE and be Unprofitable.
I believe the Bible PROVES God wants us to choose to act apart from our NATURE by allowing Him to flow through us so that we are ALL Leaders and so that the males of our species focus completely on the causes, regardless of the effects.
EVERYTIME A MALE DOES DAMAGE IT IS BECAUSE HE IS FOCUSED ON THE EFFECTS.
This week, we began looking at the definition of "woman"...
In a previous post, I asked for your definitions of "man" and "boy". The guidelines were that the definition ought to be stated in terms of a cause AND Jesus ought to be the Ultimate example of the definition.
Please reread this previous post for more background on the guidelines for determining your definition.
Likewise, the definition of "woman" ALSO ought to be stated in terms of a cause AND the Ultimate Woman ought to be the Ultimate example of the definition. In the previous post, we saw the Ultimate Woman is The Bride...Jesus' Wife.
In the previous post, we looked at the man-made definitions for the Hebrew words for "woman" and "female" and within this excerpt we asked the following questions...
"Now look at the definition for "female" again and tell me if this is God's definition (a cause) or man's definition (an effect):"
"Strong's #5344 naqab - "to puncture, lit. (to perforate, with more or less violence) or fig. (to specify, designate, libel): - appoint, blashpheme, bore, curse, express, with holes, name, pierce, strike through.""
"Jesus very definitely marries a "female". I can't imagine Jesus calling His Wife by this definition. Clearly the definition is an effect. Clearly it is man-made."
"However, why don't you decide this issue for yourself..."
"Feel free to call a linguist, if necessary. Do you think that this Hebrew definition of "female" is from God or do you think this definition was made by a human? Take time to state your will about this definition..."
"Notice, IF this definition was made by a human, THEN twenty-seven verses into the Bible we see the beginnings of the second Universal Stronghold..."
"One more question: Is this Hebrew definition of "female" different than how the world defines "female"?"
Today, we will look at the definition of woman according to the world...
WOMAN ACCORDING TO THE WORLD
When it comes to the world, the definition of "woman" is close to the Hebrew definition for "female".
Women are the physically weaker sex that is used for sexual intercourse, committing violence against, and blaming for the ills of the world.
This is an example of "IS vs. OUGHT". We covered this in the post titled, "Man According to The World":
"The world's definition of "man" is Right-Wrong. It has a Right WHAT with a Wrong WHY/HOW. I have also referred to this difference as OUGHT vs. IS."
"The world's definition correctly states WHAT a "man" NATURALLY IS..."
"Men are visual. Men are single-tracked...deal with one issue at a time. Men are Physically focused. Men are not verbal. Men are logical. However, when Men are stressed, they are quick to respond to a situation with emotions and force. In short, men are naturally focused on effects. In fact, men naturally make PERFECT BOSSES."
"The issue becomes: OUGHT men to act this way."
Back to today's post...
The same could be said for "woman". We have seen a definition for "man" that is Right-Wrong...it does describe the way it IS. However, the issue becomes whether God intended men to continue in their fleshly nature or choose to act apart from their fleshly nature, let God flow through them, so that they can be what God intended. Again, the same could be said for "woman".
In that post titled, "Man According to The World", John Eldredge was referenced in an excerpt from "Modeling God's Wills". John Eldredge is a Christian author who states that men were created to:
1. Go on an adventure
2. Fight a battle
3. Save a beauty
We saw these things are true for a man's fleshly nature, but are NOT true for a man in eternity. This ought to have shown us that God does NOT desire men to act this way. We will see next month how husbands who believe this man-made doctrine that Eldredge presents actually make their marriages Unprofitable. For now, let's look at what John Eldridge and his wife (Stasi) say about "woman"...
They say that "the core desires every woman shares-to be romanced, to play an irreplaceable role in a grand adventure, and to unveil beauty" should be encouraged. (The Synopsis to Stasi Eldredge's "Captivating Heart To Heart Leaders's Guide")
More specifically, John Eldredge states in "Wild at Heart":
-"Every woman yearns to be fought for. She wants to be more than noticed – she wants to be wanted. She wants to be pursued." (p. 16)
-"Every woman also wants an adventure to share. A woman doesn't want to be the adventure; she wants to be caught up into something greater than herself." (p. 16)
-"And finally, every woman wants to have a beauty to unveil. Do you see me? asks the heart of every girl. And are you captivated by what you see? What if those deep desires in our hearts are telling us the truth, revealing to us the life we were meant to live? A woman must know she is beautiful, she must know she is worth fighting for." (p. 17)
-"Every woman needs to know that she is exquisite and exotic and chosen. This is core to her identity, the way she bears the image of God. Will you pursue me? Do you delight in me? Will you fight for me? And like every little boy, she has taken a wound as well. The wound strikes right at the core of her heart of beauty and leaves a devastating message with it: No. You're not beautiful and no one will really fight for you. Like your wound, hers almost always comes at the hand of her father." (p. 182)
Stasi Eldredge specifically states in "Captivating" (p. 33):
"She has an irreplaceable role to play. And so you'll see that women are endowed with fierce devotion, an ability to suffer great hardships, a vision to make the world a better place."
Now look at this definition of "woman" again...
It is an effect and COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on the man! According to this definition of "woman", she is unable to be a woman WITHOUT a man! Being fought for, sharing an adventure, and revealing a beauty that is valued by another (specificially, a "man") are three things the woman CANNOT do by herself. Yet, the man can go on an adventure, fight a battle, and save a beauty ALL BY HIMSELF!
(Realize, the "beauty" that the Eldredges talk about can also be seen as "attraction". This is an important point. Over two years ago, I have wrote John Eldredge twice and never got a response. We have seen there is a HUGE difference between beauty and attraction. However, rather than project MY definition of "beauty" onto the Eldredges use of the word "beauty" and declare them wrong, even after giving them an opportunity to explain themselves, I try to see how they could be right. While I still believe the Eldredges belief that the definition of a woman requires someone else, I can see how their use of the word "beauty" can sometimes also mean "attraction". However, the following paragraph is not focused on "beauty". It is focused on the worldly belief that a female can't truly be a woman without another person, especially a man.)
For over thirty years, I have noticed this worldly belief that a female is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on others for her ability to be a woman. Well before I got married, I told people that females are raised to be dependent and NOT IN CONTROL. My example thirty years ago was to ask people what they compliment a little boy on when he walks into the room. "He's strong!" and "He's smart!" Two things that are in that boy's control to get better at. Now look at what we compliment little girls on: "She's so pretty!" This is something she has NO CONTROL over. In fact, the reason that beauty products are a multi-billion dollar industry the world over is because we brainwash half the population of the world into being valued for something that REQUIRES them to use these products AND end up disappointed when it doesn't make them BEAUTIFUL...BECAUSE it it ultimately out of their control.
However, when you define 'men", you are really determining the definition of "women" because these two definitions can't have ANYTHING be the same...otherwise you are defining people, NOT men or women. This is a huge point, so I will state it again: When you state the definition of "men", you are also beginning the process of determining the definition for "women" BECAUSE you can't use ANY of the definition of "men" in order to define "women", otherwise, you are really defining "humans".
The Eldredges realized this and their response was to define "woman" as the sex completely dependent on the man by making the definition of "woman" be the response to the definition of "man". Even though it is wrong, it seems better than other alternatives...
For example, remember this definition of a "Real Man" from the post titled, "Man According to The World":
"At the beginning of this year, a person from Chicago gave me a card that states:"
"The Definition of a... R-E-A-L MAN
Rejects Passivity
Expects a Greater Reward, God's Reward
Accepts Responsibility
Leads Courageously"
Back to this post...
What is the definition of a "Real Woman"?
Accepts passivity OR rejects aggression...
Doesn't expect a greater reward...doesn't expect God's Reward(?!?!)
Neglects responsibility OR delegates responsibility...
Follows courageously OR leads cowardly...
SUMMARY
The world's definition for "woman" is the same definition that is prevalent in the traditional church:
Women are the physically weaker sex that are used for sexual intercourse, committing violence against, and blaming for the ills of the world.
She is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on the man. The woman is LESS than the man...
Does the Bible say that the Woman is "LESS" than the Man?
Tomorrow, we will determine the non-contradictory definition of "woman" based on our non-contradictory definition of "man"...
Next Post
2 comments:
Hi John,
You wrote, “For over thirty years, I have noticed this worldly belief that a female is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on others for her ability to be a woman. Well before I got married, I told people that females are raised to be dependent and NOT IN CONTROL. My example thirty years ago was to ask people what they compliment a little boy on when he walks into the room. "He's strong!" and "He's smart!" Two things that are in that boy's control to get better at. Now look at what we compliment little girls on: "She's so pretty!" This is something she has NO CONTROL over. In fact, the reason that beauty products are a multi-billion dollar industry the world over is because we brainwash half the population of the world into being valued for something that REQUIRES them to use these products AND end up disappointed when it doesn't make them BEAUTIFUL...BECAUSE it it ultimately out of their control.”
“he’s strong” and “he’s smart” are things that a boy can control and get better at, but, are these the things that we want to focus them on? Or are there better things “they are in control of and can get better at” that we should be focusing them on? My initial thoughts are community (helping) and compassion (sharing). Concerning the girls, since they are different, what ought we to be focusing them on? I have always felt that the focus on looks for girls was wrong, so to go opposite of what you stated girls are raised, should their focus then be independence and in control? Or something better?
For both, I assume that they should both be taught to focus more on hearing from God better, through understanding. This is something that they can do and get better at. Although, when they don’t hear “God’s voice” (because they only think literally and want a physical example, at this stage anyways), and they want to actually hear it, they get frustrated. On one hand I have heard people say that kids are to young to “get” things, and you shouldn’t overwhelm them with complicated thoughts, but if a child is intentionally asking questions, that tells me that they are looking for understanding, whatever age they may be! And it is our job to try and convey that understanding as best as we can to help them, instead of telling them something like, “you’re to young to get that, don’t worry about it, that is for adults” or something along those lines. When we say things like this, I myself, think this is damaging, but I could be wrong.
Anyways, what do you think?
Dave taube
Hi dave,
Great insights!
I agree with you. Clearly, "He's so strong!" is an "IS" comment. Your essentially ask what OUGHT we to compliment children on...
I would go back to the OUGHT definition of excellence: thinking for themselves, pursuing growth, and moral.
"Thinking for themselves" means answering THEIR "WHY?". I don't agree that kids are too young to get it. If they ask a question, we ought to give them an answer to their question and let them tell us if they are ready for more AND in what direction they want to learn. We tend to answer their question and then project on to them what we think they are really asking. The compliment looks something like this: You are a really good thinker!
Our brains are made to work according to causality...to find out the "WHY?". However, we get tired of answering a dozen "WHY?" questions in a row, so we begin to teach the kid to stop asking "WHY?"...we begin to teach them to damage their brain. If a person gets tired of answering the "WHY?", I tell them to say to the child, "WHY do you think that is?"
"Pursuing Growth" means complimenting them on handling being wrong in a healthy fashion. In "Modeling God", I use Proverbs 9:8 as an example of causality. "Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee". Yesterday I noticed that the world equates "wise" with "never being wrong". Likewise, we will tell a child they are "smart" when they are right. Actually, we ought to be telling the child they are "wise" when they are shown where they are wrong and handle it in a healthy manner. (The compliment is: You are so wise!)
Again, our brains are naturally made to detect contradictions. However, if we learn to celebrate being right, we can rewire our brains to NOT detect contradictions AND to celebrate like we did check contradictions. This damages the brain.
Our brains are made to follow two of the God-given principles and to do the opposite of the other two God-given principles. Our brains are made to detect contradictions and use causality. Our brains are made to pursue comfort (instead of growth) and think comparatively (instead of contrastively). These first two compliments keep the child's brain from being damaged by reinforcing causality and non-contradiction.
"Moral" means the child understands Justice. The child understands that EVERYTHING will eventually equal out. A child WANTS everything and doesn't want to GIVE anything. This is "One Way Justice". This is NOT moral. This is short-term. The compliment is: "You are so moral!"
This compliment is actually given to the child when they look Long Term...when they see that it is much better to choose to "pay" in the short-term in order to "reap" in the Long Term. The world tries to convince us to "get" in the short-term and "pay" in the Long Term.
OUGHT excellence isn't gender specific and these are ultimately the things God values about us.
I tell parents that they need to be extra careful how they raise their kids because it is an expression of their will to God on how the parents want God to deal with the parents!
The parents ought to model God to their kids. The parents ought to be right and just as much as possible.
dave, thank you for taking the time to clarify this issue. It lead to an answer that could have served as another post.
I owe you,
John
Post a Comment