Reply To: Male characters question

Forums Fiction Characters Male characters question Reply To: Male characters question


This is what I come back to…? Like I just came to reply to Noah…😁✌️


*So, seeing as I started this debate up again it is possible I may have started something*


Ok ok, guys, a lot of arguments just spark from misunderstanding what the other people say. Lets look unpack this!




Once I reply to Camirvablahblah 😉

Not usually. Both the men and women I know judge situations. In public restaurants with many unknown people, we might go in pairs. In friendly situations, they do not. Having some level of care everywhere one goes is wise, but paranoia is not. None of the men or women I know are always worried about or talking about dealing with dangerous men. In fact, they rarely do. Everyone I know just gives a proper amount of forethought before entering a given situation, nothing major. Plus, we actively eschew gratuitously dangerous situations unless necessary for some reaosn.


I do struggle with paranoia a lot but I’ve just kinda come from that kinda environment I guess.

Tough luck. xD

Shut up! 😉

Nice. As I said, rapping is a very impressive art, and I am impressed.

It is impressive. Not very useful, but still impressive lol. 😌👌

Yes, yes, well, first youtube kicked me of my account and made me log in again with verifications codes for absolutely no reason, then it started eating my comments and occaoinally spitting them back out until I had responded to a person like four times. Uncool.

Ok that’s legitimately awful and uncool. I’ll go murder it for you 🥰




Lona: I believe your big point against what Mr Brian was saying was that you didn’t think those particular verses are applicable and that PHYSICAL strength and protection isn’t necessary for a man. Before I get to argument my points I want to be sure I know I’ve got everybody’s points correct so I won’t give my opinion until everybody confirms their’s.

Instead, you say men should be the spiritual “strong man/leader”, correct?

Ok (I’m going by order of comments XD)

Mr Brian: you are holding firm that IDEALLY men should physically and spiritually protect and that a household is not receiving its fullest good if either are lacking, yes?

I know I said I wasn’t going to give my opinions yet but I do want to know to everybody that I think quoting verses is great and it’s a good way to saturate people in the overall beliefs but trying to cite a particular verse to support a particular thing just doesn’t really work because there’s just so much context in the Bible so like it can help but it can’t prove so I don’t really care whether those particular verses are applicable or not. Overall I’d just say yes strong man and strong men’s roles, that works, it’s observation not hard evidence because we live by faith and probabilities XDD.

Anatomy: you were trying to connect the physical and the mental aspects of male and female to give a fuller picture, right?

I know you didn’t mean to be offensive but I can see how that’d sound really patronizing, I come from a very blunt and neurodiverse family so like it takes a lot for something that sounds insensitive to offend me so I’m not offended by I can see everybody’s point there.

But the main point was that God designed men and women to be suited for different tasks. And there’s some confusion with everybody using the words equal and different, I think you define equal as same in purpose while everyone else is defining it same in status and when I say status I mean inalienable rights as a human being.

And different, I’m gonna define as like different roles generally or “all things being ideally situationed”

Now on further examination, you define, ideally, men’s role as providing physically – financially, property-security-wise, and in final-decision-making and spiritually – child-rearing, role-modelling, and guiding.

And women’s role, ideally (by ideally I mean in the most ideal conditions) as caretaking – dispensing of money, use of prudence and caution, advising and alerting her man to her needs and the needs of others. And physically caretaking and providing for children, role-modelling and guiding.

About like that?

Now, effeminizing, this is the biggest one here I think because I don’t think everybody is on the same page with what their identifying as effeminate. So. Everybody give me their strict definition I don’t even dare to guess. This definition needs to state what defining categorizations is being used and whether or not there are exceptions.

Now I think we’re also working with purpose verses dispositions, like people are getting edgy and not hearing a clear definition of what is the role and how it is acted upon individually.

Like if a man cannot say, provide financial support, say the woman is richer and they marry and he doesn’t get a job coz they’ve got all the money they need, he’s not failing his role right? Even if he’s not fulfilling the “physically provide financial support” part.

So like there’s a give and a take there for both ends I think. Everybody here needs to listen to see what’s really being argued, is it really necessary for every guy to seek every single aspect of the “ideal conditions role”? Is it any less valid as a role for how men should behave by enlarge?

just throwing some questions first, I’m still not opinionating until I get everybody’s arguments fully explained…this time 😉

This is probably because we have different viewpoints on women’s subordination to men. I for one, see men and women created as equals and believe they should be treated as such.

Alright, HERE’S a key phrase; subordination vs equality, are they necessarily incompatible opposites? Does obedience make you inferior to the one you obey even when you freely choose to obey them?

What I mean is…does being freely subordinate to someone in any way take from your dignity as a human being? This is very status-oriented, and is status really important to equality?

I’m not giving my opinion until I ask all my questions so don’t imply my answer I ain’t giving it!

Simply put, not every household has a “strong man”. Some households have men who are ill or disabled. Some households have single mothers. But, I believe the ill and disabled men still love their families just as much as any other man. I believe the single mothers still love their children just as much as any other mother. To say that ill and disabled men (who may have  gotten sick or injured through no fault of their own) have failed as the protectors of the family is extremely insensitive. Even more insensitive is implying that single women are incapable of raising children.  I have a male friend who was raised by a single mother. He is intelligent, kind, respectful, and passionate about the Lord. His single mother (who is neither an imbecile nor a fool) raised him better than many young men who were raised by both a man and woman.

Ok so the main argument here is exception versus rule, I think. Like ya’ll are both fixed on your sides – which isn’t necessarily bad – but let’s sit and decide whether the one invalidates the other or if they can both be valid but to what extend? What can you pull from both ideas? What do you have to reject as a hard rule but still keep as a soft rule? What is genuinely uncompromisable here?

To comment on the ‘strong man’ deal, I think I concur. As Cathy and I discussed, the definition of a Godly man is not a big, strong, gun bearing fellow. It is a humble, meek, self-sacrificing man who provides for his family.


That’s not to dismiss big strong gun-bearing fellows as a stereotype, because like it is a big thing just like women who want to marry and be moms is a big thing and many/most of each gender has that comparably more than the other gender.

But that does not define them, meaning if a male or female lacks these attributes they are not any less male or female.

Guys want to be tough.  It is only women who try to shame them for it.

Alright, this is a good statement to unpack.

Do ALL guys want to be tough?

And do all girls want to be tough as well? (coz I know I wanna be tough that was a big deal for me growing up)

And do ONLY women shame them for it?

And is wanting to be tough necessarily an acceptable trait depending on how you act on it?

Wanting to acquire the strength to be a strong protector is excellent, wanting to acquire strength for its own sake is acceptable, wanting to acquire strength for prestige is well not that great.

So very often guys prioritize “wanting to be tough” over personal safety and the safety of others, over decency to friends and family and over a million different more important things, in which case, women rightly try to alert them, and yes, shame them by calling them out when they do something blatantly wrong with that natural urge.

Whoo, I’m getting heated now, this is a topic that provokes a lot of emotions and trauma from both genders. Didn’t mean to get angry, but still hear my point? <3 XD


And @k-a-grey, she’s pointing out all the points that I’d’ve wanted to point out if she didn’t do it so well already. So I’m nOt sTatInG mY oPinIon but I completely agree there. Thanks girl! *highfives*

On that topic, this IS a very hot topic because there is still sexism and people are so used to extremes that the moment something crops up that “sounds similar” to the worse part, they’re “obviously opposing believes”.

Men who don’t want to wear guns and be tough don’t diminish men who do. There is no opposition. We’re just different and that’s the same with different genders. The exceptions don’t diminish the general inclinations of each gender.

I think it’s important to see that both of your sides have something to offer and also both your sides are a little too extreme when you don’t take the other side into account and actually HEAR what they’re saying.


So. Deep breaths everyone.


, @lonathecat, @noah-cochran, (ok I THINK I tagged everyone throughout the post now…)

To be a light to the world you must shine in the darkness.

Pin It on Pinterest