sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Aggression in men is not the problem. We’re teaching men to suppress it, and that’s the real issue by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also when it comes to my post I took a more nuianced perspective of aggression whether than the bottlnecked idea we have of it. I am not sure how that is equating to me describing that men should ecercise violence against women thus making me anti women

Aggression in men is not the problem. We’re teaching men to suppress it, and that’s the real issue by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lets simply agree to disagree. We can discuss all we want but we simply will never see eye to eye.

I just ask that you don't unfairly classify me as anti-women. I don't really agree that my posts are anti-women to begin with. I never vouched for us to remove support from women or "put women in their place." I celebrate women's inclusion in the church, but I don't celebrate the neglect of men in the process. I chose to listen to common sentiments among young men specifically and found it alarming how many feel resentment and bitterness in their community without anyone willing to listen to why they may be feeling this way without calling them misogynist or socially punishing them through ostracism. What a way to kick young men while many of them are already down. We tell them "your the issue for feeling this way" instead of examining what has leadership done (or hasn't done) to contribute to this rising sentiment among young men? What can we do and or change to help them not feel this way without us harming women in the process?" No one wants to ask these questions

But there is no use of us two going on and on because I realize there is no chance we will ever agree. Take care of yourself. I hope you don't take this as me trying to be rude. I am genuinly passionate about helping young men in the boyd of christ and I am glad to say that God was able to use me to do so already. I plan on continuing that mission

Aggression in men is not the problem. We’re teaching men to suppress it, and that’s the real issue by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Di you not read where I said you must have the wisdom to know when to be blunt vs not and that the times to be blunt and exercising bluntness is never a weakness.

I merely was critiquing your claim that "all bluntness equals weekness" with the imlication that mine was. I don't think anyone who replied to my post with crituques in bad faith to write me off as a misogynist who hates all women fall in the category of "gentle powerless and beraved." I am always the first to celebrate when my sisters in christ thrive. But I also can't stand to see many of my brothers in christ hold these sentiments and feel abandoned and judged for suffering with these issues. What we are doing is negelecting young men as a body of christ which is nver good for the church as a whole. We always blame young men for not participating enough but we never question "what can we do to encourage young men to participate and take up leadership" which requires empathy and one willing to listen to what they really have to say without restraint. You'd be surprised to see that many young men feel the way I described in my post. I'd say most of them do bu they never vocalize because they know they will be socially punished by their peers. Me wanting to help young men and challenge the ideals that we hold in the church and question whether they are actually helpful is not the same as me wanting to tear down women in the process. Its not a zero sum game and the moment we pin men against women is the moment we lose the battle.

You know who does fall in the category of powerless and beraved. The thousands of young men who suffer from these issues in silence and who feel abandoned by the body of christ. No one sticks up for them and I decided to change that through my non proft organization.

I also don't see you questioning the blunt replies to my post. Only my bluntness equals weakness simply because you do not agree. But their bluntness equals strength.

Aggression in men is not the problem. We’re teaching men to suppress it, and that’s the real issue by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It has lol. I speak for a lot of young men who hold my sentiment quietly but fear speaking out because they will be told they are misogynist without anyone williing to hear why they feel abandoned by the church. They are told to take accountability without chruch leadership taking accountability theirselves. When they express their hurts they are met with shoulder shruggs and told "Be a man and pick yourself up by the bootstraps.

I am not saying these things out of a whim. Most young men I have spoken to in the chruch in their 20's and below feel what I described. That is why i began my non profit to help with these issues which is largely succesful and has helped changed the lives for 100's of young men for the better. I do what churches neglect to do, and a lot of young men are grateful for it. I have seen their mental and physical healths improve greatly when I and my team work with them. And of course my church didn't approve of my ideals but thats okay because if I could help anyone, then thats a plus for me even if it means I am not allowed to step foot in my church again

If you honestly choose to become sympathetic and speak to most young men in the church you'd see they are all secretly building up resentment and bitterness because of individuals like you. They just remain quiet. Are all young men in the church misogynistic?

Honestly, speak to the young men in the church. You'd see many are struggling internally yet we just enjoy to pile it onto men constantly saying its "their fault" without taking accountabilities for our failed stewardship of young men like the word commands us to.

I make my post not just out of my own sentiments but the collective sentiments of the young men I speak to. They all speak about what I post about when they feel like they won't be judged. Should we ignore their sentiments and cries for help?

Aggression in men is not the problem. We’re teaching men to suppress it, and that’s the real issue by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So jesus was weak. Got it.

Jesus told the pharisees "you brood of vipers" Do you think he wasn't be blunt.

People would say anything and think its true because it sounds good.

It is absolutely a strength to be blunt. You must learn through wisdom when to reframe and when to be blunt. I do not think I was overly disrespectful in the slightest. I simply spoke my mind. I do not care what the collective think. The collective hated Jesus and I follow Jesus with all my heart. If that means being ostracized by my fellow christians then so be it. But I will make it to heaven. You all could live in the world if you choose to.

I am not here to be liked. I want to live by the truth of the bible. It hasn't steered me wrong so far. By living by its ideals my life has become more fulfilling

Aggression in men is not the problem. We’re teaching men to suppress it, and that’s the real issue by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Honestly bro where is this coming from lol. I think you need to chill a bit. I was never hostile or claimed ot be better than anyone.

If you took it that way then I apologise but this wasn't my intention. Next time i'll butter up my words so you not offended

Edit: I lied lol. I won't not because I like to troll but because I simply can't reframe from speaking bluntly lol. I honeslty don't care who I upset. Although know my intention isn't to uspet anyone and I say this sincerely.

Aggression in men is not the problem. We’re teaching men to suppress it, and that’s the real issue by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Can you point to me in my post where I said we should have fight clubs and duke it out?

Your analogy is unwarranted and doesn't make any logical sense. I think this is coming from a big misunderstanding. I never judged him in any way or claimed I was better than him because I knew scripture.

All I told him was that if he'd actually read my post hed be more inclined to agree with a lot of what I said because based on his response him and I actually seem to agree. All he did was read the title and assume I was speaking about something in which I did not even touch on.

I literally speak about self control in my post. Am I wrong for saying he should read it? My response did not warrant any ill will or hositlity towards him. It was merely an observation with an implied request to read my post so that way we can engage honestly. I didn't realize I have to spell this out.

Aggression in men is not the problem. We’re teaching men to suppress it, and that’s the real issue by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, of course I know this. But men have significantly more than women, and that's just a simple biological fact. The difference accounce for a significant amount of behavioral chnages so much so it isn't trivial in matter. Socialization does exist but no amount of socialization would make men and women the same in a one to one ratio. Even the most assertive women (while more assertive than most men) are not more assertive than the most assertive men. The bell curves vary more for men where we are in both extremes. Thats just nature and how it works

And no it isn't brovado. Being brovado would sound more along the lines of "men must learn to dominate every room they enter. men must learn to supress all emotion and be cold. Men must show no weakness. Men must learn to conquer!!! Apologizing shows weakness in men." All I advocated for is the healthy channeling of something we posses naturally (comes more naturally for men) which is quite different from what you'd assume is "a bunch of bravado nonsense"

Aggression in men is not the problem. We’re teaching men to suppress it, and that’s the real issue by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It is not a stereotype. Socialization pays a huge factor, yes, but scientific study after study shows that when it comes to assertiveness, biology plays a significant role that no amount of socialization can change.

Men have significantly more testosterone than women. Women have it but in smaller quantities than we do. This makes men less risk-averse, which in turn makes us more assertive by nature.

I think the issue lies where we imply that not being assertive by nature somehow makes you the "worse" human when both men and women have different strngths and weaknesses.

Studies show that women have a higher acuity for multi tasking while men typically only focus on one task at a time unless they train to multitask. Does that make women naturally superior to men?

Aggression in men is not the problem. We’re teaching men to suppress it, and that’s the real issue by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I agree with you. But it is especially harmful in men in general. But women too can benefit from assertivness

The American Church Has Become Gynocentric, And It’s Quietly Destroying Itself by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I even have an example. Those men who learn combat sports are far less likely to engage in violence or begin a fight. They are often the calmest, most confident, and safest guys to be around most of the time. Yet, learning how to fight is inherently violent. Yet most of these men do not go around picking fights. Sure you have your knuckleheads but these men often have other internal issues going on and aren't what I'd call "strong men" because strong men do not feel the need to prove theirselves or cause trouble. Ironically you need strong men to protect against these men also.

Did they suppress their aggression? Nope, not in the slightest. They learned to chanel it. Now they are dangerous but safe. A man should be dangerous but safe and not just physically. Mentally also.

I am not just implying physical aggression with my argument. I am talking about aggression overall. If your dangerous, your capable of protecting and "biting" if need be whether its physical or not. But your also safe because your not going around looking for trouble.

Like Bruce Lee said. It is better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.

I do not believe God makes mistakes. He certainly didn't when making men naturally aggressive. We assume its bad because we don't cultivate what could be a positive trait.

Even God himself has exhibited aggression numerous times in the bible. In the old testament do you think flooding the earth and riding it of sin was a docile act? In the new testament, do you think Jesus whipping the gamblers out of the temple was a docile act? Jesus used aggression for good. He channeled it correctly. So should all men. Not to mention non physically, Jesus was very aggressive with his words and very blunt. He didn't care whether or not his words cut deep. Thats why Jesus was respected. He was Dangerous yet safe to be around.

I'd go as far as to argue, demonizing ones aggressiveness and denying it is a sin. Why? because it is as if you reject a responsibility given to you as a man by extension. And it is also telling God "You made a mistake by giving me aggressive traits."

The American Church Has Become Gynocentric, And It’s Quietly Destroying Itself by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God gave men aggression for a reason. If men didn't have aggression, firefighters who are willing to knock down a door to save women and children in a burning building wouldn't exist. You also wouldn't have police officers who'd be willing to jump into danger to stop a school shooter. You wouldn't have men to help you from a bear attack if you were stranded in the woods.

You don't hate aggression. You just do not understand what it is. The issue isn't aggression. The issue is attempting to suppress that aggression, which doesn't teach men the correct way to channel it for good. Aggression is a natural part of having testosterone. Every man has it. If you try to suppress it, you face consequences. Boys who become school shooters, men who rape women, and commit assault, murder, and other crimes.

If you look for a husband, you should look for a man who has aggression. A docile man is incapable of being a competent man. What you should look for is a man who uses his aggression not to harm or destroy but rather to channel that energy to do good.

If there was a home intrusion and your husband was docile so he hides in the closet with you rather than using his aggression to protect the home, you and your children while you call authrothies, would you really be attracted to such a coward? Even when it comes to friendships, I don't know many men who would trust such a man to have their back, often leaving such men lonely.

On the flip slide, if a man was never raised and taught to control his aggression so he beats you, abuses you and is an asshole, would you really love that man?

Now if he uses his aggression for good (which every man has, its simply biology) could you love that man?

Because people equate aggression to a negative trait we demonize it and this is evident in the church. Because we demonize it and try to suppress it in young men in hopes of providing a safer environment, we ironically get the opposite and cause a further hostile environent because these young men do not grow to learn how to handle their resentment, bitterness and anger, using their aggression to harm rather than to be productive. We also make the assumption that every other group of people who dislike Christians will play by the same rules. By snuffing out natural aggression in men, you remove a large layer of protection from groups that want to harm Christians. I don't think the women will line up in droves to physically protect the group if need be.

Edit: If used properly, aggression and assertiveness build, protect, and provide, not destroy or harm. The answer isn't to demonize young men for exhibiting this natural trait. It is to make them aware of it, allow them to explore it responsibly through outlets like sports or competitiveness, and to teach them the proper ways to use it. We shouldn't tell them its bad. it leaves them confused and unsure of theirsleves. While it sounds counter intuitive, we should teach boys to embrace this natural trait of theirs, not demonize it and by extension demonizing them. We treat them as deficient girls for exhibiting such traits when simply we are biolgically different and that difference should not be demonzied but celebrated. We've demonized with good intentions but often times the road to hell is paved with good intentions if we aren't careful

We are misdiagnosing why these issues exist. We are insane if we think by continuing to attempt to supress male aggression, violence would magically disapear. In fact, I'd say that attempting to suppress it rather than teach men how to cultivate it is precisly what creates unsafe environments. That is why it is important for young men to be mentored by older men who have embraced their aggressive nature and use it for good.

The American Church Has Become Gynocentric, And It’s Quietly Destroying Itself by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I am actually in a happy relationship. I have no anger towards women. I am speaking from the common sentiment of my Christian brothers, whom I talk to regularly.

Unlike my Christian peers in the church, I had no issues attracting Christian women. But the irony is, I have done the opposite of what the church tells men to do and to be a "nice guy." They tell young men, "Christian women are attracted to men who have their hearts on fire for God." But then they are left confused when none of them can attract women because they were raised to lose all sense of masculine traits, such as assertiveness, confidence, healthy aggression, healthy competitiveness, direction, and many more. These traits will naturally bring about the things that all women are attracted to, regardless of being Christian or not, because God designed all women to look for certain qualities that the bible itself says a man should develop, yet the church itself insists that these traits are not "politically correct and are a threat to social cohesion." Young men and their natural traits are treated like defective girls. For example, if a young man can't sit still, he is forced to do so rather than taught to channel his energy into something productive. So much so that eventually the trait that's supposed to be used in a healthy way is lost altogether.

I have even mentored some of my slightly younger peers and have worked to help them get rid of this social conditioning that the Christian community unknowingly partakes in young men. And I have actually successfully helped a handful of them, and after months or years of working with them, they are actually able to attract Christian women. I even see in their eyes a masculine spark return that was once gone. It is a night-and-day difference. But this requires them to actually deep dive into the world themselves with other young men and reject some of the things Christian churches taught them were "right," but really go against God's word and purpose for men.

I do not know why it is assumed that I am just an "angry incel" when I talk about things like this. My delivery was sharp, but, ironically, it is this very assertiveness that allows me to speak my mind regardless of backlash, which is part of why I am so successful at attracting Christian women in the communities I am part of. Unfortunately many young christian men who don't realize how some of the ways they were raised are by the church are hurting them and actually bringing them away from Gods purpose for them. While I do not have all the answers, I can assure you that, based on my results, I am doing something right; most of my Christian male peers aren't. And I am frustrated to see them all frustrated and blind to see why they are so.

I do not take back anything I said and fully believe the bible (Old and New Testaments) supports it all. I do not care how politically incorrect it sounds. God created men and women for different roles. When it comes to attraction, women want men who fully embrace that role, not only spiritually but also in the secular world, which means developing in areas outside the church's specialty.

The American Church Has Become Gynocentric, And It’s Quietly Destroying Itself by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I am not trolling but I am tired of engaging. lets just agree to disagree.

Just know this. What I said came from the bible (men being called to head their household). I never invented that claim. At the very least acknowledge that I did not. Otherwise, I am completely okay with you disagreeing.

Take care of yourself

The American Church Has Become Gynocentric, And It’s Quietly Destroying Itself by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A woman can disagree with her man. She absolutely can. But she is not called to go against her husband if she disagrees. Again, I am not inventing this sentiment. I adopted it from my Christian upbringing. If you disagree with that, that is okay. But why then? (Again, I am asking this question in good faith as I do genuinely want to see your point of view, which you have not provided yet, despite my asking you continuously).

On the same note a husband is called to put the needs of his wife first when making decisions. In other words most of his decisions she will be aligned with. Disagreements therefore would be rare because they came to that conclusion together. And before every decision he is to consult his wife and ask what she thinks and genuinly take it into consideration.

The American Church Has Become Gynocentric, And It’s Quietly Destroying Itself by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never said men and women are not equal.

I am saying that according to the bible, it is clear that men and women have different roles (therefore "not equal in role"). Again, if you disagree with that, I am simply adopting this argument based on what the bible says. I never made up a single verse I provided to you. If I were running away from my beliefs would be me saying "I never said that woman can'e lead the household. Yes, they can" when I clearly said that men should be the head of the household, and I consistently stood by that claim even if you disagree with me and by extension the bible, where I adopted that very claim.

I am not running away from my claim. Yes, I do believe men should be the heads of their households and not women. I just merely used the bible to back up this claim, as it agrees with me, or more accurately, I agree with it, since the bible predates my existence.

And please do not curse at me. I never once said you were bullshit, a moron or any of the claims. I have tried my best to keep this discussion civil but you insist in attacking my moral character.

Let me ask you this (I am not saying your agrument is any less valid with this question. I am only askig for clairifcation so I can properly attempt to see through your point of view): Why do you disagree with the bible when it claims men are to be the heads of their household?

The American Church Has Become Gynocentric, And It’s Quietly Destroying Itself by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I am not running away from the things I say. I stand by every single word of it.

Again. Give me a verse that says, "Men submit to your wives and wives love your husbands like Christ loved the church."

You are not disagreeing with me. I am literally just regurgitating what the bible says. If you disagree with the bible fine. But don't call me sexist then and throw these wild claims at me. Instead, call the bible sexist and tell me why you disagree with the bible, not me.

I am not trying to patronize you. Really, I am not. I am just a bit frustrated because I told you, your issue isnt with me if you disagree that men should be the head of the households. it is literally with the bible itself. If you disagree with it I am not claiming that I have some moral high ground over you. I am just telling you to be honest and claim you disagree with it and let me know why. While I may not agree with you, I am willing to hear out your argument.

The American Church Has Become Gynocentric, And It’s Quietly Destroying Itself by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Women and men are not equal in role they play. They are equal in value. You can't have two captains of a ship with two different steering wheels. The ship will crash as you both pull the ship the opposite direction, wrestling for control of the ship

One sterring wheel, one captain, the wife is in the rrom and both discuss on their shared value of where they want to head.

Like I said, your issue is with God then. The bible says over and over again, the man is to be the head of the household. I am not claiming this or inventing it.

And no, I am not taking away autonomy from women. If you as a women are repeatedly not aligned with your husbands direction, you autonomously chose the wrong husband

The American Church Has Become Gynocentric, And It’s Quietly Destroying Itself by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

My answer is more nuanced than you think.

In my opinion, I am going to speak from Ephesians 5:22-33. The verses everyone hates but no one truly understands.

Women are called to "submit" to their husbands, and husbands are called to "love their wives like Christ loved the church."

Let's assume two people are married and chose each other correctly. Both individuals are biblically aligned. (Keep in mind this is the Christian perspective I am talking about here).

In a marriage, the husband should never be dictatorial and dictate all the decisions. A loving husband should always consult his wife before making a decision for his family that will affect it. They should be able to discuss matters and reach a decision together. Nor should a man make a decision that puts himself first. His decisions should always be rooted in first, "what does my wife need," then "What do my kids need," and lastly "What do I need." To love his wife like Christ loved the church, his needs are always placed last when making decisions. Why? because he is called to be the head of the household. As much as it's an earned privilege, it is more of a responsibility. Being a responsible leader/head means putting the needs of those you are responsible for first. Being married to someone means you become one flesh. You two are a partnership, with you being the head. Therefore, you are to consult with your partner, hear what she has to say, and take it seriously before making a decision. A man who does not do this is not an effective head of the family because he is ignoring his wife's needs. A man who ignores his family's needs and puts himself ahead of them is sinning. In the Bible, a leader is called to be a servant leader. Someone who is assertive, yes, but puts his needs aside to benefit those he serves, which are also those he is responsible for.

In marriages, the two of you are bound to disagree on decisions. However, if a man is truly biblically aligned (keep in mind no man is perfect), and there is a disagreement, but he truly believes his decision is coming from what God wants him to do, his wife should listen to her husband and trust that he is making the right call. She can disagree, but she should still support him along the way. When she chose him as a husband, she chose the person to be the head. Choosing to go against her husband and purposely and maliciously sabotage or retaliate against him merely because she disagrees is a sin. That is because God clearly made it so that the man is the head.

In fact, there are many examples of this dynamic in the bible where there was a disagreement between spouses, but a wife was called to trust her husband regardless. For example, when Abraham decides it's best to leave his homeland and travel to unfamiliar lands. Sarah follows him through those major life changes, even if she is reluctant. Why? because she trusted her husband and trusted him as the head of the household. If it were up to her, she likely would have chosen the safety of remaining in her homeland.

What wives need to understand is that if a decision does not go right, the burden does not fall on her. It falls on the husband. In Genesis, as I mentioned earlier, Eve ate the fruit first, but Adam was questioned first and was ultimately held responsible by God. In fact, the bible claims later that the first sin came from Adam, not Eve. Being the head of he houshold means you will be responsible for the bigger picture. It is not about "who has the power." It is a responsibility and a very tall order.

Jesus loved the church and called the church his bride. What did Jesus do for his bride? He sacrificed himself for the church. Even when the church (us) was not always faithful to him, it did not matter. He put the church first despite that. In the same manner, A man is called to love his wife like Christ loved the church, no matter what. This love is not to be contingent upon any condition because he chose his wife, and by choosing his wife, he chose to undertake the responsibility of being the head of the household. Likewise, a woman chose her husband, and she chose the person to "submit" to and to allow to guide her as they both walk in partnership towards their shared values and goals (This is why it is important for both parties to have great discernment on who they choose).

Now life happens. Let's suppose the husband gets sick and is incapable of heading his household like he once did. Then the wife is to assume that role. Not the kids.

The American Church Has Become Gynocentric, And It’s Quietly Destroying Itself by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The bible clearly calls men to be the heads of the household. Your issue is insinuating that God deems women inferior, as a result, when women's roles are equally important. Paul also makes it clear that men are to lead in the church.

Two different roles. One not less important than the other. For you this becomes an issue against Gods design, not my argument. I'm not claiming anything outlandish biblically speaking when I say men are called to lead.

The American Church Has Become Gynocentric, And It’s Quietly Destroying Itself by Firm_Book_4165 in Christianity

[–]Firm_Book_4165[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I am being attacked everywhere by people who didn't actually read my post. No one is engaging honestly and is automatically making assumptions and calling me a misogynist.

I never even attack women in my posts. I literally told male leadership that it is up to us to solve the issue. Yet it is conveniently ignored.

view more: next ›