Should I decline to co-lead a Bible study if there are men in the group? Should I cover my head (and if so, would an old towel do)? Should I keep silent during the public question time in church at the end of the Bible talk? To whom am I to submit, since I don’t have a husband—to all men? In everything? (more…)
In a recent SMH opinion piece, Adele Horin bemoans the choices made by two women of her acquaintance—a mother and a daughter, both highly intelligent, who opted out of the full-time career market to spend time at home raising children:
She topped the state in the final exams, a brilliant girl. But she married young and did what women did in the 1960s, stayed at home to raise her children while her husband climbed the corporate ladder. Much later she worked part-time. Now it’s her brilliant daughter’s turn. A lawyer in her 40s, she has pulled back, left the big firm with its killer hours to do home-based work, and to raise her own precociously bright daughters while her husband does the climbing.
In this article for women and their pastors, Jean Williams talks about discipleship, women’s ministry and how to become the sort of woman who has been shaped and moulded by the word of God. (more…)
Okay, so we Australian footballing types (that is, men) need to improve our sexual behaviour by learning to respect women. But it makes you wonder whether the non-footballing types (that is, women) also need to respect other non-footballing types. Would that improve their sexual behaviour too?
The thing about western individualism is it is just so individualistic. If I remember my ethics properly, there is an underlying ‘ethical egoism’—that is, ‘I’ (the ‘ego’ in ‘ego-ism’) make my moral decisions on the basis of what is best for me.
Apparently, if Australian men (with footballers as the focus and pinnacle of that group) learned to respect women, then they would have better sexual behaviour. I’m not sure of the connection between those two things myself, but, as I mentioned in the last post, it is certainly difficult to object to.
But perhaps there is another way out of my confusion. Rather than objecting to it, why not adopt it, and then demand some of the same treatment?
I don’t know what happened in Christchurch. I have never watched The Footy Show. And I missed the interviews on the television.
But I did hear a lot of conversations in the weeks after the latest football ‘kiss-and-tell’, both on talkback radio, in the press and (amazingly enough) even in real life.
It struck me as rather odd that the feminist lot seemed to expand it to all Australian men (of whom the footballer is apparently a subclass) needing to learn to respect women.
We read the Bible as a family each night after dinner. On this particular night, the story is the feeding of the 5000. Well, more specifically, the feeding of the five thousand men.
My daughter’s face told a story that her question confirmed: “Dad, why did they only count the men? Didn’t they care about women back then? Were women less important?”
What’s a dad to say to that?
Australia’s federal government is seeking to introduce a nation paid maternity leave scheme in this year’s budget.
I not sure whether I’m for or against the policy itself. But I know I’m against the reasons being advanced for the policy!
Basically the reasoning being advanced implies that (i) motherhood is unproductive and (ii) it gives aid to the now established dogma that the two incomes needed to pay off the mortgage are more important than quality and quantity time with the kids.
A vicar was travelling on the train one day when a scientist happened to sit next to him. The scientist was an astronomer, and he smiled as he saw the vicar reading his Bible. He said, condescendingly, “I like to think that religion can be summed up by the words, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’”. The vicar, having discovered the scientist’s profession, replied, “Yes, and I like to think that astronomy can be summed up by the words, ‘Twinkle, twinkle, little star, how I wonder what you are’”.