I sat there in math class last year arguing with the guy behind me... he kept saying that women shouldn't be in the white house. That we are inferior to men. That we cannot make decisions. That we would be too soft. That we wouldn't defend our country. I asked him, "Why?" Why are we so inferior to men? We spend 9 months carrying our children and then we give birth to them. Labor is excruciating. Yet we can't be in the white house and we can't give orders for war? It doesn't make sense.
Now that the time has come for us to have a life altering election I refuse to vote for that woman which i want so much in the white house. He found me in the halls at school and asked if I would vote for her. I said no. Her ethics aren't clean. While she could help in many ways I believe our president needs ethics. She has none. And I believe in a bigger and better future than that.
I see in our future a woman who is the image of motherhood. And with that image she will protect this beloved country and raise it back to the way we were. Our country is falling and falling fast. I believe that a woman will pick us back up, and I see her teaching our kids the importance of honesty and trustworthiness. The kids need a mother figure. Our president will be that and more. But that is the future. In several years perhaps... but not now.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I believe women should not be in the White House because they are too emotional. That and the more important reason - because God did not give us (women) positions of authority. In church, men are to lead; at home, men are to lead. A woman president scares me to death; especially Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Margaret Thatcher, Margaret Sanger, Susan B Anthony, Queen Elizabeth II (anyone claiming her to be too emotional needs to look over what happened when Princess Di died), Rosa Parks. And those are just within the past 100 years, and only in Great Britain and the US. Look here for a list of other women leaders throughout history: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0801534.html
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
It baffles me that there are people (and young people) out there who are still so ignorant about men and women. All women are too emotional?? What a sweeping stereotype!! Have you read NO American Literature at ALL?? Let alone British Literature. Of course, most of them are men, which is part of the point that I'm making, in ALL of them, EMOTION WAS PREVELANT. In Romanticism? Hellooooo, all about feelings and connecting with nature and men being okay with crying. And have you never read Walt Whitman? Seriously and emotional dude, dude. Look around you - the only reason the men you see seem to be NOT emotional is because they have been taught to be "masculine" - whatever that means. So you are living in one dangerous lie, young grasshopper, if you think that all women are too emotional and not capable to be the president of this country.
Now, as far as your interpretation of the Christian church - you need to read your Bible a little more closely. Of course, if you can't read simple American literature, I suppose I shouldn't expect you to understand such complexities as you will find in the Bible. But there is LOADS of evidence to suggest that Christ never ever intended for men to be above women in the way that it has grown to be today. Men are not supposed to be the only leaders in church; read the book of Acts. Paul works with many men and women couples who SHARE the responsibilities of leading the churches. At home?? I think I know what passage you are thinking of. You need to read THE ENTIRE CHAPTER, maybe the entire book where that is found. Husbands and wives are to submit to each OTHER - it is not a one way street.
A woman president should scare you. In fact, all women should scare you if that is really what you think of them. I dare you to be a woman for a day. I dare you. You couldn't handle it.
You make me sick to my stomach.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kariskoett
Let me start by saying the fastest way to lose the other person's interest when debating is to yell at them. Thanks for using all CAPS; you just yelled at me.
I have read American and British Lit. It makes me sick to my stomach. I can't stand reading rationalism, romanticism, naturalism, secular humanism, and postmodernism in print. Blah!
Yeah, couples share the responsibility of ministry. I understand that view point. But the elders of the church are to be men.
As for your "husbands and wives submitting to each other" statement, I have to say that you have not read your Bible too carefully. Let me bring you back to Genesis 3:16 - "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." There's also the chapter of Titus 2... and 1 Tim. 3. Don't tell me I haven't read my Bible. I know God placed the man over the wife, and she is called to submit to him, just as Christ is the groom/head of the Church and we, the Church, are to submit to His headship. (Eph. 5:22-25: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;) I don't see any dual-submission in 5:22-25, and I don't think dual-submission is even technically possible. Can a king submit to his "subjects" just as they are to submit to him? If so, where's the authority?
Genesis 3:16 - "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
That doesn't necessarily mean that man is supposed to rule over a woman. When my boyfriend studied it, they came to the conclusion that it meant a woman had to 'ask' to have sex, because the man kinda needs to be ready in order to have sex, so he kinda controls sex in that way...
So basically, that line goes with the phrase before it (they desire shall be to thy husband), and doesn't apply outside of the bedroom, according to some interpretations.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
The best interpretation is that "thy desire shall be for thy husband" means "You will want the position God gave your husband as head of household." Which adequately explains why women can be so domineering and manipulative.
Try reading up on other interpretations before deciding on one.
Try reading up on other interpretations before deciding on one.
Try not being so rude when another interpretation is offered to you. Just because an interpretation isn't the one YOU would choose for a given verse doesn't mean it's wrong, and I put a lot more faith in my boyfriend's interpretation than yours. Unless, of course, you've studied the traditional Jewish interpretations of Genesis, rather than just listening to a Christian pastor.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
In any case, I'm not going to get into a religious debate with you (although, your interpretations no doubt are from one viewpoint, so whatever). We are not talking about a church here - we are talking about the country. The United States is not a Christian nation - we are a free nation, not under the dictate of any religion, hence, religious freedom and the separation of church and state. The separation was put into place so that no religion could delegate morality based on personal or religious morality. The Buddhists believe we should bow before the ruler of the state, so what shall we do when the best leader available is Buddhist? The truth is, it doesn't matter what the Bible says in this case, or what any religious text says, because the Bible does not rule the U.S., and it is that way for this very reason: the interpretations of it are very broad, and range from me to you, which is clearly quite different. You may sit and say that there is only one right interpretation, but that doesn't really matter, because whether or not you believe a woman would be a good or bad leader does not change the fact that anatomy does not dictate leadership skills or the ability to be in a position of leadership or the ability to excel in that position. You can believe all you want about women being submissive and men being the dominant gender, but it won't make a bit of difference in terms of the government, or the fact that women are equal to men in humanity (whether or not they are treated that way). But mostly the topic on hand is the role of the president, so it's quite irrelevant to bring up religion and the Bible. I apologize for encouraging that discussion. Regardless of your religious preference, it is very sad that you still believe that women could not be president simply because they are women. You, I imagine, miss out on a lot by limiting yourself to believing only men should be leaders, in and out of your church. It is possibly why you are still so ignorant. Good luck in college.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kariskoett
Ugh. If there is one most abused phrase in political discussions, it’s the stupid argument about the phrase “separation of church and state,” which isn’t even in the Constitution. The phrase "separation of church and state" came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote.
The first amendment said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances." It only says Congress can't establish a state religion, like England's Church of England. It says nothing about religion not delegating morality (which the government should never do in the first place). And actually, even if a person say he or she has no religion, that in itself is a religion, so there is no way religion cannot influence government. And, actually, if you want to bring up Amendment 1, I have the freedom of speech, or press, or free exercise to say what I want regarding my faith. My faith shapes my worldview just as your religion shapes yours.
The Bible may not rule the U.S., but it rules every realm of my life, including politics. My original post was only stating my view - and I will not be voting for a woman, ever, period. I don’t care if it’s Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi.
No, I don’t miss out on a thing. It’s quite fulfilling to not fight with men for positions of leadership.
One more thing. While I am quite pleased that you chose not to yell this time, to make your side more effective, I suggest not making your argument ad hominem.
I definately think that a woman could make an excellent president. When I think about it, I do wonder if there are some characteristics that could ususally make men a better leader. Gender issues are always a fun topic.
although i may not agree with that man's statements.
i'm not sure a woman leader would be so GREAT.
+mspin
It has nothing to do with men or women or gender. It has to do with the person. One woman may be good, another man may be bad, but their gender has nothing to do with it. If Hillary Clinton is not the PERSON for the job, it isn't because she's a woman. And if Obama is the PERSON for the job, it isn't because he's a man.
I wish we could get away from all this generalization!!!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kariskoett
I'm not trying to be sexist, but really, I could be genetically disposed to have my legs broken every month, does that make me a better leader, because I suffer every once in a while? Its not that I'm trivializing child birth, or agreeing with the fact that women are too soft for politics (Hillary is as calculating, if not more so, than any male politician). I just saying why should gender, creed or color play any part on who could run this nation better. On one hand you say that "Even though Hillary could be the first woman in office, I just don't like her politics." Fine, fair enough. Then you come in with "we need a mother to protect and raise this country like all good women should." Wait, what?
Frankly, I'll vote for the first president who breaks up the monopoly the economy has on federal policy.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mattsez i.e. "go to"
A woman's role doesn't always have to be mothering, just like a man's role doesn't always need to be fathering. I don't think that a "mother" role is what our country needs, regardless of whether or not a woman is the president. Her job would not be to be a "mother" - her job would be as a President. Your generalizations are almost as bad as your opponents. And anyway, I think a man could do what you think only a woman could do, in terms of saving our country. These stereotypes are what makes it so difficult for women to be in leadership in this country. If a woman is not motherly, she is mean and hateful. If a man is motherly, he's a sap. So what are we to do?? "Be yourself" - that's the most bogus slogan every, because no one is allowed to actually do it. 90% of the citizens of this country are still stuck in the genderilaztion of everything.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kariskoett
I agree with your views on Hillary. I definately believe that a woman can be president and I agree 100% with the statement that you made about her being a mother figure. Unfortunately, that woman has not appeared to our country yet. Hopefully that time will come soon!
What I intended by saying that our country needs a motherly figure is that through out history and even today mothers are charged with the upbringing of our children. They teach morals and important lessons. It's still true today. Our president needs to be concerned about the future and I think that a mother figure whether it be female or male is needed. However I feel females can do that better just because of the nature that they have.
And also, have any of you who say that women should submit to males talked about that with your friends? It's rediculous. In fact my boyfriend submits to me. I know more than he does so naturally he lets me pick. Women are just as important as men are. I'm an avid christian. I go to church every sunday. I sit in the front of the pews and I attend bible study. Not once has it ever been discussed in my church that women are to submit to their male counterpart. In fact our youth director is female. We've had more female assoicate pastors than male. The heads of most of the commitees are female. I think you need to stop thinking so much about emotion and focus on the ideas that each individual has.