Zone1 We Know Men’s duties and obligations to women, but what are women’s duties and obligations to men?

[Hafar1014]

How do you know they were telling the truth

 

[ding]

How do you know they were telling the truth

Because that’s what history recorded and because each piece of evidence confirms every other piece of evidence and because history did not record any contradicting accounts.

 

[ding]

There is no evidence Jesus didnt exist there is none that he did. But we can say in context the belief and idea of Jesus does exist

24,000 written manuscripts, non-Christian historical accounts and the Babylonian Talmud say otherwise.

 

[ding]

View attachment 1146556

That’s exactly what I would expect someone who had no evidence to support his beliefs would post.

 

[Hafar1014]

Because that’s what history recorded and because each piece of evidence confirms every other piece of evidence and because history did not record any contradicting accounts.

Who is history is that person. You do know how lies create patterns of lies that are repeated. The Gnostics contradicted them and were slaughtered. Problem solved. You see there was a movement that denied Jesus as god.
Historical Context:

• • Early Christianity:
    Gnosticism developed alongside early Christianity, and many Gnostic groups considered themselves Christians.
    
  • Conflict with Orthodoxy:
    The Church Fathers, like Irenaeus and Tertullian, actively wrote against Gnostic teachings, which they viewed as heretical.
    
  • Suppression:
    Gnostic groups were largely suppressed by the Church by the end of the sixth century, but their influence can be seen in later mystical and esoteric traditions.

 

[Hafar1014]

That’s exactly what I would expect someone who had no evidence to support his beliefs would post.

I dont need evidence to support a belief. Didnt you learn anything in graduate school

 

[ding]

Who is history is that person. You do know how lies create patterns of lies that are repeated. The Gnostics contradicted them and were slaughtered. Problem solved. You see there was a movement that denied Jesus as god.
Historical Context:

• • Early Christianity:
    Gnosticism developed alongside early Christianity, and many Gnostic groups considered themselves Christians.
  • Conflict with Orthodoxy:
    The Church Fathers, like Irenaeus and Tertullian, actively wrote against Gnostic teachings, which they viewed as heretical.
  • Suppression:
    Gnostic groups were largely suppressed by the Church by the end of the sixth century, but their influence can be seen in later mystical and esoteric traditions.

And how does this dispute the evidence of the 24,000 written manuscripts, the historical accounts of non-Christian historians or the Babylonian Talmud recording that Jesus was put to death for sorcery and inciting Israel to apostasy?

 

[ding]

I dont need evidence to support a belief. Didnt you learn anything in graduate school

Of course you need evidence to support beliefs. It’s evidence which proves things as being true or false.

But that’s exactly what I would expect someone who had no evidence would say when confronted with evidence that disproved his beliefs.

 

[Midnight FM]

We’ve all heard the slogans and demands of modern women these days

You're making a generalization about "modern women" (as opposed to any other women) which I don't think you can substantiate.

, the ones who outwardly and unashamedly say “Where are the REAL men?”, “Men are trash” etc. (Imagine if we said that about any other group for a second.. A white guy saying “Where are the REAL blacks? Black People are trash”). Yet, these slogans are completely accepted and happen constantly in mainstream society amidst the feminist cultures that are supported on social media, in the mainstream media, on pretty much all of the left, and even a bit on the right too (Tomi Laughrin, for example).

Some random person on social media using a slogan doesn't substantiate what you're claiming. On the same token, one could argue that there are many examples on social media of people using slogans which degrade women.

But, Let’s talk about duties and obligations of the sexes to society and to one another. Men’s are well known for 3 reasons:

1. We want to do them for the good of society and to love those we seek
2. It’s in our behavioral psychology to provide them
3. Modern women complain about and list them constantly

What are those duties and obligations?

This is going to be good:

1. Protect women from harm

The reality is that women, especially if firearms are involved, are capable of protecting themselves from harm. And it's rare in modern society that people have to regularly fear being in physical altercations.

2. Provide most of your resources to them, pay for them, court them.

Wrong. No one is "obligated" to get married or be in a long term relationship if they don't want to. And you're assuming that "most of your resources" go to them, when I would view it as them going to the entire family, assuming the couple has children to support. You're also ignorantly assuming that women aren't capable of working and procuring resources. In some families, the woman earns more income than the man does, or the man may even be a stay-at-home dad.

3. Build society, infrastructure, and do the hard jobs/labor that are difficult, dangerous, etc. so they don’t have to

"Hard labor" jobs are a minority of the modern job sector, and they don't pay very well compared to more intellectually-demanding jobs such as computer programming. The majority of the modern job industry is made up of service sector jobs.

4. Protect society, be the enforcement (Police, military, etc.) so they are safe

Likewise, these jobs make up a minority of the entire job industry. And most people who serve in the US military don't directly participate in combat.

5. Be a leader and “step up” aka improve to attain them

"Leaders" are a minority of society. Most people are followers.

Self-improvement is good for anyone, man or woman, who values their life and doesn't take it for granted.

6. Put up with mistreatment, get slapped/hit and don’t retaliate because “men just aren’t supposed to do that”

Wrong. People have a legal right to defend themselves. The reality is simply that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman, and is more likely to injure her in a physical altercation.

7. do things for her, sweep her off her feet

If a relationship is two-way, then she is going to be doing things for the man or for the family as well, such as a stay-at-home mom doing housework and taking care of the kids.

Assuming all of these are true (and it’s hard to argue they aren’t)..

It's not hard to argue they're not. I just did. Most of what you said is rubbish.

in return, what are women supposed to offer to society and to their boyfriend, husband/partner? What does our feminist society say what a “Real woman” should be?

Okay, you're losing credibility really fast.

Many of the things you cited above have nothing to do with "feminism", but have more to do with traditional notions of gender roles and expectations. Such as assuming that a man is always more capable of being a protector or working in jobs like law enforcement than a woman

That's not "feminism", that's more akin to the anti-thesis of feminism. The "feminist" view would be that, if women meet the requirements to serve in the military or law enforcement, they should be allowed to.

I really can’t think of anything. Traditional women have some answers, but that’s not the what our society promotes (it actually demonized it with references to slavery, Handmaids tale, etc.).

You haven't defined "traditional women" at all, and many of the things you're complaining about to begin with (such as men being expected to protect and provide for women) are based on traditional notions of sex and gender roles.

The "feminist" view would argue that, if women are capable of doing those things, they should be allowed to, rather than arbitrarily viewed as unable to do those things simply because they're a "woman". And that men shouldn't necessarily be expected to do those things simply because they're a "man".

Modern women regularly publicly tee off on men, while simultaneously being blind to the protections and support men provide them (Feminism can only exist in a 1st world country).

Meanwhile, society, leftists, and feminist speakers offer no things women SHOULD do for their men, or for society, at least I don’t see any of it in the mainstream.

It’s usually about what women should receive.
1. Be a girl boss! Get yours girl!

Um, being in a leadership role offers many benefits to society.

2. You’re fine the way you are.

If what you're saying is that women who are physically healthy should be happy with their body type, and not envy body types in the media that they aren't born with, then this is definitely of benefit to women, and men as well.

3. Don’t put up with any commanding or leading, it’s abuse (while saying find a “real” man who can lead)

In addition to being a strawman, those two things are contradictory.

4. He should pay, he should be a gentleman. Chivalry.

Again, not "feminism". That's a "traditional" role and expecation. The feminist view would be that women are capable of earning their own money and providing for themselves.

5. He should make me feel safe.

Again, not feminism. That's traditionalism. The reality is simply that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman, but that doesn't mean a woman is never capable of defending herself, especially if she has a right to own a gun.

Much, if not most, of what you're complaining about is traditional gender roles and expectation, not feminism.

The latest data shows bad trends.. We see a massive growth in young single men, men who aren’t seeking women, etc. And it sadly makes sense.

No, we really aren't. And it makes very little sense whatsoever.

Why would they seek a group that has been largely inspired by an ideology (Feminism) to hold disdain for them, accuse them of conspiring to oppress them in a mythical “Patriarchy”, and even if a man provides protections and provisions to them personally or in society, it’s completely ignored and it’s completely acceptable to degrade them, mock them, etc.

You've failed to substantiate that this strawman applies to the group in question at all, and as I've pointed out above, much of what you're complaining about to begin with isn't feminism. It's you complaining about traditional gender roles and expectations.

There’s nothing in it for men, at least when dealing with the modern woman, leftist woman, and even some right wing women who are too caught up in societal norms.

Nope, not buying it. It's just another strawman about "modern" women, probably based on some ridiculous, romanticized notion about "traditional" women.

Even though the reality is that it's a "traditional" woman who'd be more likely to expect you to be the sole protector or provider, not a "modern" woman who is capable of earning her own income.

Before I offer any prescriptions, confirm that I’m not saying men should NOT do their duties and obligations (or at least try), and without having to explain why it’s necessary for both sides to sacrifice and offer their duties/obligations to one another (leftists, that equality/equity rhetoric can come back to bite you here).. can anyone on here think of a duty or obligation our feminist modern society demands of modern women? Are there any lectures or pressures on them of what they “ought to do” to be considered a “Real woman”? And do so for their man or for society? By all means, the floor is yours.

I would say yes. Feminism, for example, encourages women to self-actualizes and offer their benefits and talents to society, such as in the career field.

But, again, you don't know what feminism is to begin with. Chivalry is not "feminism". Expecting men to be the sole protector or provider is not "feminism". Much of what you are complaining about is the opposite of feminism - namely that some aspects of "traditional" roles and expectations are oppressive to men as well as women, which is something that many aspects of feminism would agree with.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

You had better hope you are right.

LMAO. Out trots the ole "fear and scare" tactic of the cultists."If you don't believe what we tell you is true, that's cool. You just watch out because eternal torture awaits those who reject our beliefs. I mean, reject 'God'."

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Well you will certainly discover whether or not Jesus existed one day......

I'm ascared,

 

[jbrownson0831]

I'm ascared,

You are, or you wouldn't be whining so hard pretending you aren't.

 

[jbrownson0831]

LMAO. Out trots the ole "fear and scare" tactic of the cultists."If you don't believe what we tell you is true, that's cool. You just watch out because eternal torture awaits those who reject our beliefs. I mean, reject 'God'."

Cults are of the devil, not Christ, atheist.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

my case is you cant prove the existence or nonexistence of god. I havet said what I believe.
If you claim god does not exist as fact then you have to prove it. If its your belief then you dont.
Atheists fall into this trap all the time. They claim its fact then cant prove it and then the tap dancing starts.

I fall into no trap. When you cultists talk about "God", it's a lie. You really mean Christianity and not some vague entity that created a universe. It is disingenuous sleight of hand to use "God" in place of Christianity.

The question of God or no God having created the universe is one that no one here can prove is true or false. When the cultists then say that something cannot come from nothing, that too is their lie because in the next breath, they say "Oh, but our God can because he always was and when asked how that can be we get <chirp, chirp>

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Using your logic we can claim anything that happened before we were born is unsubstantiated.

We have George Washington's house to prove he was real. We have photos of dead people to prove they were real. The cultists don't even know where the alleged tomb of Jesus was. Never mind that he was real and resurrected.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

How so?

Because there is no proof that he was sent here to save anyone or was divine or resurrected. It is all claims and many decades and centuries after the supposed events.

It would be like all of the writings of the civil war being written today and expect that they are 100% accurate.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

You are, or you wouldn't be whining so hard pretending you aren't.

LMAO. OKeeeyyy buddy. I'm going to hell and YOU are the special one cause you drank the Kool-Aid.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Cults are of the devil, not Christ, atheist.

Christianity and Islam are just two large cults, is all. You don't for a minute believe in Islam and won't call them a cult because you know they would point the finger right back at you.

 

[ding]

Because there is no proof that he was sent here to save anyone or was divine or resurrected. It is all claims and many decades and centuries after the supposed events.

It would be like all of the writings of the civil war being written today and expect that they are 100% accurate.

Maybe read the accounts? But does that even matter. The evidence (accounts by non-Christian historians) shows the first Christians worshipped Jesus as God. They didn’t do that because of why he came. They did that because he performed miracles and rose from the dead.

It is 100% accurate that the first Christian’s worshipped Jesus as God.

 

[ding]

I dont need evidence to support a belief. Didnt you learn anything in graduate school

I’m skeptical that you were taught that you don’t need evidence to support a belief in graduate school.