Why are so Many Women Unhappy?

[LynnDel]

Regular forum users tend to be thankful for such mild comments as, "Thank you for sharing that," because they could be ever so much worse than that. Easily skipped over, IMO. If you think someone is purposely trying to rile you, please, please, please don't let them know they have succeeded!

LD

[The Searcher]

Gail,

Why was there a need?

I believe the need arose because a people have ignored their God. Satan supplies the lack with a counterfeit, and he uses enough truth in order to sell the false. People ignore the Biblical principles to their hurt. There is a secular world which does not desire for God to rule over them. The result is, in the long run, unhappiness. I believe this is why there is so much unhappiness among the women of the world.

I believe so much in the love of God that I see in His words and commands to us, a truly loving Father who desires only the very best for each one of His children. I know that God has only our supreme welfare in His heart. He has committed everything for our happiness. We ignore His words, and we will reap what we have sown. If it is to the flesh, then, in the end, we will only reap heartache, pain, and sorrow. Feminism has brought sorrow and heartache because it has ignored the basic principles which result in a complete life even in a sinful world.

We, as Christians, do a disservice to God's principles when we subscribe to the principles of the world. A life lived according to God's ideal is a very full, complete, and peaceful life amid a world torn by strife and heartache. It is this message which the world needs, but refuses to accept. We need to live our lives according to God's word in order that the world might see the peace which attends those who follow in God's paths. We do not need to follow in the footprints of the secular world. We need to be the head and not the tail; we need to follow God faithfully and let the secular world live in its morose and misery. When we follow God; the world can see a life lived well and to its fullest.

I guess the saddest song I have ever heard, which is the theme song for a secular world, is "I did it my way." God has given to us the way to supreme peace and contentment, but it means giving up to His leading and listening to His word and following what He has laid out. We cannot do it our way and have true happiness; only as we surrender to God's way can we know real happiness.

No, feminism did not meet the need; it promised what it could not deliver because it is based in rebellion against the principles set forth by God. It told us that by disobeying the commands of God women could be free. But they are now learning the true end of the feminist philosophy. What both men and women needed was a return to God and His principles. Real happiness is in obedience and submission to those principles. It is not found in anything else.

God is love is a very profound statement and reaches to depths so totally unexplored. We need to spend time learning what those three words mean. It would change our lives, and it would bring us the true happiness we desire.

Sincerely,

The Seeker

[The Searcher]

Dear Teresaq(sda),

I sense a very deep hurt; a pain which was caused by those who were to be a model of God, but, instead, were driven by the philosophies of a secular world. I am sorry for your pain; there is nothing I can do which will relieve that pain.

God knows what pain sin brings, and He bends close to each one of us, and He says, "Surrender to me, and I will give you peace." All of us have suffered much at the hands of those who betrayed their love for us. I know what it means to be betrayed by one who was my deepest love; it hurt. And it brings pain as I remember. I know what it means to have your very soul ripped apart because of another's actions. I have had to go to God and ask Him to help me cope with a sinful world where love is betrayed; where selfishness resides; where the passions of men and women are subscribed and the result is pain for the innocent. I see the hurt caused by a world in rebellion. Both Christians and non-Christians are guilty of causing more pain and bringing more pain. It is hard to grapple with such pain.

But I have to remember there is a God who has promised a new world where all which causes pain and sorrow will be gone. The tears will be wiped away, and all the former things will be no more. The veil of tears will be gone; and the openness of the light of God's love will surround us on into infinity. And I have to remember that eternal life begins here and now.

And I also must remember that I do not want to add to the pain. I must let God take my pain and replace it with a peace which comes from knowing that God loves me so much that He poured out all of heaven just so that I can live with Him, not as a slave, but as His son or daughter. There is an intimacy which God offers to us in His love for each of us. He knows our deepest hurts, and pains, and heartaches. He knows all of our sin, but He does not reject us. Rather, He says to us, "Come unto me and learn of me for I am meek and lowly in heart." There is nothing that He cannot in His time and way make new. He can replace the pain with joy, heartache with peace, our hurts with a sublime happiness.

I can offer you only this: In God is true peace which replaces the hurt. I suspect you know already what I am saying is true, but it does help to be reminded.

Sincerely,

The Seeker

[Twilight]

Regular forum users tend to be thankful for such mild comments as, "Thank you for sharing that," because they could be ever so much worse than that. Easily skipped over, IMO. If you think someone is purposely trying to rile you, please, please, please don't let them know they have succeeded!

LD

Thank you LD.

That is the wisest counsel I have had on this thread.

Mark

[WayneV]

Quote:

...it seems certain that yadda-yadda-yadda is a variation of a phrase used in pre-1940 vaudeville.

Source

[WayneV]

Quick Response to all:

Here are some thoughts on the topic.

"Perhaps the subordination of women occurred as a result of the fall rather than as a part of God's creation (Gen. 3:16); just as we seek to overcome the other effects of the fall, we should seek to overcome the subordination of women." It may also be argued "that biblical principles promote equlity (Gen. 1:27-28; Gal. 3:28)." Moreover, "Since the Bible promotes a just society free from any kind of oppression, Christians should promote equality between men and women (1 Peter 2:13-14, 18; 3:1)." Additionally, "Although much of the Bible suggests a hierarchical relationship between men and women, the trajectory of Scripture promotes the equal opportunity of men and women..." (Thorsen, Don. pg. 346. An Exploration of Christian Theology. Peabody, Massachusetts. Hendrickson Publishing. 2008).

Agape`

[Tom Wetmore]

TU

[Woody]

Quick Response to all:

Here are some thoughts on the topic.

"Perhaps the subordination of women occurred as a result of the fall rather than as a part of God's creation (Gen. 3:16); just as we seek to overcome the other effects of the fall, we should seek to overcome the subordination of women." It may also be argued "that biblical principles promote equlity (Gen. 1:27-28; Gal. 3:28)." Moreover, "Since the Bible promotes a just society free from any kind of oppression, Christians should promote equality between men and women (1 Peter 2:13-14, 18; 3:1)." Additionally, "Although much of the Bible suggests a hierarchical relationship between men and women, the trajectory of Scripture promotes the equal opportunity of men and women..." (Thorsen, Don. pg. 346. An Exploration of Christian Theology. Peabody, Massachusetts. Hendrickson Publishing. 2008).

Agape`

Excellent. Thank you.

[John317]

The question I have is this:

If the statement that man would rule over his wife was just a mention of consequence in Genesis, then why did Paul state that the woman should be subject to the husband (in the Lord)?

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Maybe he was just a "chauvanist" and this is how we deal with inspired counsel?

We diminish the counsel, rather than look at ourselves and ask honest question.

In 1 Cor. 14: 34, Paul says, "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are also to be submissive, as even the law says."

Question: what is "the law" Paul refer to? The margin in most study Bibles directs the reader to Gen. 3: 16.

Concerning that very verse, God has also blessed us with the inspired testimony of Ellen White in Patriarchs and Prophets 58, 59:

Quote:

Eve was told of the sorrow and pain that must henceforth be her portion. And the Lord said, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" (Gen. 3: 16). In the creation God had made her the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God--in harmony with His great law of love--they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband. Had the principles joined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them; but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter and made her life a burden.

Eve had been perfectly happy by her husband's side in her Eden home; but, like restless modern Eves, she was flattered with the hope of entering a higher sphere than that which God had assigned her. In attempting to rise above her original position, she fell far below it. A similar result will be reached by all who are unwilling to take up cheerfully their life duties in accordance with God's plan. In their efforts to reach positions for which He has not fitted them, many are leaving vacant the place where they might be a blessing. In their desire for a higher sphere, many have sacrificed true womanly dignity and nobility of character, and have left undone the very work that Heaven appointed them.

See also The Adventist Home, pp. 211-243.

On the basis of the above (as well as what she wrote in AH), what is Ellen White's answer to the question posed by this thread?

I believe the cause of many women's unhappiness is shared by both men and women; the men for largely abandoning their role and responsibilities, and the women for doing exactly as Ellen White wrote in the above paragraphs.

Anyone have any thoughts they'd like to share on this question?

[John317]

No theological stretch in Aldona's read of Scripture. It is most clearly the pronouncement of the curse of sin. God was simply identifying the consequences of their disobedience. It certainly wasn't proscriptive and was hardly a statement of His ideal for them. Those who seek to keep women under the thumb of God's curse, or more exactly, their own thumb, will ignore the full statement for what it really is - a curse upon us all.

So do you prefer to set your standards at the level of a curse or look a bit higher?

Question: what is "the law" Paul refers to in 1 Cor. 14: 34? The margin in most study Bibles directs the reader to Gen. 3: 16.

Concerning that very verse, Ellen White wrote the following paragraphs in Patriarchs and Prophets 58, 59. Please notice her words:

Quote:

Eve was told of the sorrow and pain that must henceforth be her portion. And the Lord said, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" (Gen. 3: 16). In the creation God had made her the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God--in harmony with His great law of love--they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband. Had the principles joined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them; but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter and made her life a burden.

Eve had been perfectly happy by her husband's side in her Eden home; but, like restless modern Eves, she was flattered with the hope of entering a higher sphere than that which God had assigned her. In attempting to rise above her original position, she fell far below it. A similar result will be reached by all who are unwilling to take up cheerfully their life duties in accordance with God's plan. In their efforts to reach positions for which He has not fitted them, many are leaving vacant the place where they might be a blessing. In their desire for a higher sphere, many have sacrificed true womanly dignity and nobility of character, and have left undone the very work that Heaven appointed them.

See also The Adventist Home, pp. 211-243.

What is your understanding of above paragraph?

For instance, the following words in red:

1) "sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other."

2) "Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction."

3) "It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband."

4) "Had the principles joined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them; but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter and made her life a burden.

5) sphere than that which God had assigned her

6)unwilling to take up cheerfully their life duties in accordance with God's plan.

7) In their efforts to reach positions for which He has not fitted them,

8) many are leaving vacant the place where they might be a blessing.

9) In their desire for a higher sphere, many have sacrificed true womanly dignity and nobility of character,

10) and have left undone the very work that Heaven appointed them.

[John317]

This truth should not be presented, though, without the balancing truth that man's responsibility to woman actually exceeds the converse. Man is to be prepared to give Himself for woman, even as Christ gave Himself for the church. That is a higher level of sacrifice than submitting. And, a woman can truly submit to a man like that.

You make a beautiful point here about man's responsibility to woman, karl. Ellen White has a lot to say about this very thing, in The Adventist Home, pp. 211-228.

[John317]

: The topic is interesting.

Some of the responses have been supercilious, sarcastic and inappropriate.

That is my opinion anyway.

Originally Posted By: Woody

Yes. Perhaps a moderator will come by and take appropriate action.

Speaking as the moderator:

Up to this point in the thread, there has been nothing said that is against the rules of the Forum.

Do we want to make rules against being sarcastic per se?

Personally, as I go through this thread very carefully, I am noticing some things that I find disturbing. I am finding that people are not being objective in their judgments of who is saying things that need moderator's attention. Many flagrant things are done by members to other members on this Forum, yet they often go without the attention of moderators and administrators, but what I've seen so far on this discussion is nothing in comparison.

To be honest with you, it's very apparent to me that it all depends on who is saying it, and what that person's views are. We have to stop this and only consider the rules, objectively, not whether we don't like what someone believes or say, but how they say it and whether they are making personal attacks and doing other violations of the rules. Remember that people can say all kinds of things we don't agree with. That is not the problem. The problem is when they don't discuss the topic but instead talk about the person in negative ways.

For instance, it is OK to say you think that someone's theology is dangerous or that people who believe certain things will lose their salvation. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS. But it is not OK to make negative remarks about people's motivations and character.

There should be no-name calling and no harrassment and no spreading rumors and "back-stabbing" etc.

My own rule is "be nice and kind and thoughtful to everyone, no matter matter what they say," but this is not a rule that is enforceable. We can't make rules about people's attitudes. We have enough rules-- we just need to enforce evenly the ones we already have. It should not matter one whit whether people are "libs or cons" or anything else or whether they express a view we agree with.

Back to the posts. :-)

[John317]

Well Mark. I'm glad I don't live in your household.

Speaking as moderator:

This is a good example of something that is not against the rules but which could be called inappropriate and is probably going to be offensive, but it must be allowed because otherwise we don't permit people to express their opinions and feelings.

A moderator could still edit it or delete it, however, if he or she thinks that it changes the tone of the the discussion in a negative way. But I prefer more freedom and therefore I would allow it under most circumstances. The freedom of members to express themselves-- even in ways that we wish they wouldn't--- is more important than the attempt to protect everyone from feeling offended in any way.

PS. If anyone wants to reply to these moderator's remarks, I encourage you to send me a PM, but please don't "debate" or "argue" about them on the public threads.

[Tom Wetmore]

But this topic is Townhall which has no moderator.

[John317]

I see the name, John317, at the bottom of the discussion. Does that show on your computer? Anyway, Stan or Gail can change it if they like. I really don't care. I am just trying to do what I believe Stan wants me to do.

[teresaq]

i will repost this after all comments to former posts have been made.

[Tom Wetmore]

I see the name, John317, at the bottom of the discussion. Does that show on your computer? Anyway, Stan or Gail can change it if they like. I really don't care. I am just trying to do what I believe Stan wants me to do.

That seems to be a recent change that I was not aware of. Moderate onward as you wish. But I had always understood Townhall to have less strict boundaries of propriety, that there is a bit more allowance for open discussion and give and take.

[John317]

Again ... I would call upon any moderator present to please relocate the comments that are not on topic.

Let's get back to the topic at hand. If you want to discuss me ... you can start a new thread.

Originally Posted By: Gail

And it would be helpful if you took your own advice as well.

Thank you, Gail.

Speaking as moderator:

We have to allow people the right to post what they believe the Bible teaches. For instance, if I say that I work as a waitress every Sabbath and that I also make a practice of looking at porn, members have a perfect right to say that as long as I continue doing those things, and do not repent of them and stop those practices, I cannot rightfully consider myself saved.

I can't imagine the rules on an Adventist Forum keeping someone from doing this. Of course, the other person also is able to reply that he or she is right to willfully break God's law and be saved. But as long as both sides say these things within the rules of the forum, they both have the right to express their views on this matter. Neither side can tell the other to be quiet. Both views should be allowed to be expressed as long as posters stay away from personal attacks and remain on the level of ideas, evidence, reasoning, etc.

In the context of this discussion, the posts regarding "willful sin" weren't on topic, but on the other hand, the one who wants the conversation about it moved is the same one who brought it up in the first place. Before that, the conversation was generally on topic, or at least headed back that way.

[John317]

I see the name, John317, at the bottom of the discussion. Does that show on your computer? Anyway, Stan or Gail can change it if they like. I really don't care. I am just trying to do what I believe Stan wants me to do.

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

That seems to be a recent change that I was not aware of. Moderate onward as you wish. But I had always understood Townhall to have less strict boundaries of propriety, that there is a bit more allowance for open discussion and give and take.

Yes, it does. I'm only responding to complaints about this discussion that were posted on the Moderator's Forum. You'll notice that I'm only going through the thread and making comments about it. I haven't edited or deleted anything yet, but I was told by some moderators that certain people posting on this discussion need a vacation. So I came to look at what was posted and make some comments about the rules of the Forum.

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D:

How do you know that Woody wasn't appologizing with the above statement? In fact, how do you know WHAT the tone of the response was??? Are there some 'magical' words that must be uttered to be an apology? Or some ritual rite that must be printed out for it to be real???

I would suggest that this is rather vague....and your past experience is clouding your interaction with Redwood.

My suggestion- get a grip and place him on ignore...

Here was Woody's statements which you refer to as possibly being an apology:

Oh. Thanks for sharing that.

(This last repeated twice)

Originally Posted By: woody

Have fun arguing with yourself Mark. I will not participate in your 'if's and revision of your ideas of who is going to Hell. But God did not appoint you to sit in judgment of me or anyone else.

Please though take this topic to another thread. I will call upon the moderator to move your comments from here on.

Could you explain where you see in either of those statements the possibility of an apology?

Here is the comment by Mark that caused you to post what you did above:

Quote:

An apology might have been more appropriate.

Please note that I am not criticising you, just your response.

Mark

For that, you said Mark should be put on "ignore" and that he needs "to get a grip."

Could you please explain this?

[John317]

Wow, this topic sure has deviated from its title!

Yes, it sure did, and it needs to get back on track.

Originally Posted By: Gail

I think this is a GREAT topic, but it's easy to get stuck in the blame game.

In the last few years, I've seen men being more helpful to women in the areas of child-rearing and helping with her with the household duties. I've always admired seeing men taking the kids to the park and being involved with their little lives.

I wonder if these are the unhappy women.

I believe you're exactly right. I think men are primarily responsible for women's unhappiness, and the reason is that men have abandoned their responsibiliteis of leadership and forced the women to do the work that God intended the men to do. I see that as repeating the same thing that Adam did in the garden. He was supposed to stay with Eve and protect her, and instead she wandered off alone, and he did what she told him to do. The roles were reversed in the Garden, and unhappiness, sin & death are the consequences. My experience is that women want men to do what God assigned us to do and they are naturally happiest when we do it. This is the message of Ellen White in Adventist Home, pages 211-254. Great counsel there!!

Is this an unpopular message in the world? You betcha.

[John317]

I know it! That is why I'd like to see some really constructive comments.

Here's a little of what a man can do (or rather ought to do) to make his wife happy:

(Coming from someone who's been married to the same woman now for 23 years and is entering a second honey-moon by God's power and grace.)

1) Communicate on a feeling level. (No, this does NOT mean yelling. It means stop talking about ideas and things, and talk about your feelings for her and for the family, etc.)

2) Be attentive and show attention. (Don't say, looking at the paper, etc., "yeah Ok... Ugh? What'd you say?,")

3) Sincerely show interest in what she thinks about everything.

4) Talk openly but intimately and romantically about sexual needs and desires. Keep this as far as possible like it was the first year of marriage.

5) Set aside one day out of the week just for her and you to be together. If you have children, arrange for them to be gone for a few hours during this time. Make this "a date." Don't let this time be taken over by anything or anyone else. Never.

6) Help her with her home chores.

7) Ask her how her day was, and be sincerely and honestly interested in hearing her answer.

8) Let her know you love her and value her not only as a wife but as a freind and lover. Let her know she's "good" and "turns you on." (Say this or show this any way you like.)

9) Leave "love notes" for her from time to time, as well as Bible texts that will encourage her throughout her day.

10) Never never "cheat" and most important, keep God in your relationship, praying and worshipping together at least once a day.

There are about five more very important ways to make you wife happy, but this wiil have to do for now.

[John317]

I think it is so clear, a lot of men here have a deep, deep understanding of women...

I get the impression-- tell me if I'm wrong-- that you may have said this facetiously.

Either way, could you tell what statements people wrote that cause you to feel that some either do or don't have a deep understanding of women?

[John317]

I would just like to apologise for this comment to Redwood:

In England we have a saying that deals with this type of behaviour:

Grow up and stop acting like a spoilt child.

I apologise to Redwood and all here for an unnecessary, un-Christian comment.

My flesh rose up and I did not give it to the Lord.

Thank you for this apology, Mark.

It definitely shows a good attitude, IMO.

[Bravus]

My question (at least 15 pages too late!) is about what evidence (if any) we have that women are, in fact, unhappy in any disproportionate way. It's anecdotal evidence, I know, but I live with three extremely happy women (and no, I'm not taking the credit for that!)

Is the discussion founded in anything solid?