I believe in gender roles (but not in the way you think)

I absolutely believe in gender roles. There are simply some things men are better at, and some things women are better at.

But do not quote the above out of context with the rest of my view on gender roles.

Roles are things you audition for when you believe they suit you, not things you are born into. That count for gender roles too. More men than women, for example, audition for the work role of plumber, so it is fine that more men end up as plumbers. But those men chose the role of plumber, and a woman could, if so inclined, learn the same thing.

A role is something you leave when you get off the stage. The actor who plays Hamlet is not Hamlet any more when he gets off the stage. A mother may choose with the father, say, a stay at home role while her children grows up, but she may want a paid employee or small business owner role again when they are grown.

You can play very different roles consecutively during a movie career.  An actor who isn’t versatile, is a poor actor. Men are not meant to take the role of leader, protecter and provider in every situation. In fact, some of life’s movies does not have such a role in the cast. Women are not born to follow, to obey, and squash their own personality and gifts in every situation.

A gender is usually better at its own roles, but Linda Hunt won an Oscar for playing Billy Kwan in “The year of living dangerously. It is fine to note that, on average, men does better at some jobs- say disciplining teens-, and women better at others -say nurturing little ones, for example. But there are certainly great single fathers out there who nurture their little ones well, and great single mothers who’se teens are well-disciplined and well-mannered with a will to succeed in school. There are no hard and fast law that only one sex can be succesful at any given task.

Mostly, you would rather cast a woman as Cinderella’s stepsister, but in a pantomime you could cast a man. People often have reasons for choosing a certain person for a role- even if that is not how most of us think the actor for that role should look.

There are few, if any, laws about who the director should cast in his movies, but common sense keep him from casting a 74-year old man in the role of a 28-year old kindergarden teacher. Even with all the previous statements, nobody claims all actors (both sexes) are the same. With no hard-and-fast gender castes, gender roles will still exist. As people gravitate towards roles which suit them, there will always be more men in some tasks and more women in others. But that is no reason to make laws barring any gender from any institution, nor reason to make equity laws to help one gender.

One actor could replace another. A boy may originally have been cast as only one of the multitude of angels in his church’s Christmas play, but get the role of Joseph when another boy suddenly need to go to the hospital. In real world, a mother who used to stay at home could need to get a job when her husband lose his, or for any of a number of reasons.

It is foolish to underestimate an actor/ actress because he/ she plays only a supporting role in the current show. And a woman who seem to look right in a minor supporting role could still get large roles in God’s work in future.

In short, I believe in gender roles – flexible parts that you pick up when you are the best person for the job- but not in gender castes.


Note: The idea for this article comes from here: http://nolongerquivering.com/2010/01/27/the-god-card-subordinate-but-equal/

Women’s rights? Yes! Radical feminism? No!

Edit, added when rereading the post in 2014: This post is an example of the nonsense sprouted on feminism by people who have no idea what the dictionary meaning of feminism is. People like the 2011 me sprout such nonsense (being “against feminism”) because we hear the lies others tell.

Some of the people who lie to us are actually against women’s rights. Those are dangerous people. Others are normal, decent people who want all people to be treated justly – they just need a dictionary. Although I don’t agree with this any more, on several points nowadays, (I know for example that the courts do not take the woman’s side in divorce, and there are still some unequal rights in the Western world even though they are not legally enforced.) I am leaving it up as an example, and adding a screenshot of the dictionary meaning of feminism.




Long ago, well-meaning American founders wrote on the “separation of church and state.” They never meant that classrooms should disallow prayer. They never foresaw that decrees would be passed that forbid the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools. Similarly, what we say today can be used against future generations. We have to choose our words carefully.

On some anti-feminist/ Biblical womanhood/ manosphere blogs, people say they are opposed to women’s rights. That bothers me. Humans were made in the image of God with certain rights. For example, God is against murder, as murderers violate someone’s right to live the life God gave him or her. Humans have rights, women are humans, ergo, women have rights.

Do you agree with this sentence?: “A man should be able to rape and murder a women with no consequences whatsoever, as long as her husband/ father agrees that the murderer may do it.” If you agree, you can say you disagree with women’s rights. If not, you probably believe that women should have rights. And if you believe women should have rights, do not claim women’s rights are wrong. The word “rights” have a meaning. So use it.

The anti-feminist crowd, of course, misuse the term”women’s rights” because radical feminists misuse it. Radical feminists, for example, may claim that a pregnant woman has the right to murder her unborn child, as it is part of her body. No. The unborn baby is a human with a right to live. As the bumper sticker say, I support a woman’s right to be born. Another idea that find favor with radical feminists and other liberals is that divorce should be easy. Is the right to break promises, to get out of commitments and leave the other party to a contract (the spouse) without what you promised him, a part of any country’s bill of rights? Not as far as I know.

I am no radical feminist, but not because I oppose women’s rights. Women’s rights activism are good and right anywhere that women actually are denied rights. In the modern Western world, women are not legally denied any rights, AFAIK. People who fight for abortion, who hate men and are anti-marriage make society worse for the sake of their claims, which are not rights. But the anti-feminist crowd, with the best intentions possible, is paving the way for a terrible society too.

The building block of society is stable families, the sort where marriage is a beneficial situation for both men and women. Be critical of liberals who do not believe in marriage and family stability. Be critical too, of the nice, marriage-valuing, wishing-women-all-the-best, guy who say he does not believe in women’s rights. Because the words of people like him, the laws or local ordinances they write, will be twisted by not-so-well-intended despots in future. The pendulum may now be on the women’s side in divorce courts at least, but it will swing back. And because men are physically the ones with the power, it could swing back a lot further to that side. It could swing to the point where society reverts to barbarism because women are seen as having no rights or value.