• sophia animated womanThe Sophia Network exists to empower and equip women in leadership, and to champion the full equality of women and men in the church.

    The network is for all women who are in positions of leadership, who aspire to be leaders or who believe that women can be leaders.

    Registered charity: 1128538
Monthly e-news sign up

Become a Fan

Powered by Rollyo

« Exploring Equality - 21 June in Birmingham | Main | The need to re-member women in church leadership »

May 14, 2012


radical disciple

I agree that it misses the point - while agreeing that of course some men find themselves in structures that they find tough to break out of.

It did remind me of this article by Amartya Sen http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/gender/Sen100M.html

Women are, in reality, those who bear the brunt of poverty - those are the statistics worldwide. Yes, often we think of homelessness being male, as well as unemployment, but perhaps the reality is that we think of these as male phenomenon, because the women who bear the brunt are 'invisible'.



I am a struggling 'Separated' Dad, I am having EAM counselling and do love my Wife and Child. I would greatly appreciate the support of the Church because I do believe that family values are very important and for both Women and Children as well as Dad's. I don't care about Patriarchy and only wish to live in a World where men and women respect each other equally, but I feel that my voice is miss heard and I am being accused for being not the right kind of 'Man'. I do my best to provide a living to support my family but gender equal roles and responsibility's are not always easy to manage in the real world and that was not something I had a choice with. I have supported my wife financially to help her get her a visa and complete her corespondance course, take driving lessons. I have not been able to see my Son in 15 months. Can anyone help from a Non-'R' perspective? I have got nothing against Women's empowerment and I am willing to submit to 'God' and be a Good 'Man'. I just wish to be treated with the same rights as any Woman with regards to the family and not based on my Gender..


Richard, thanks for your comment. I'm not sure what a 'Non-"R" perspective is, but would like to suggest a couple of people to get in touch with. James Hawes runs One Minute Man which is about emotional fitness for men: http://www.oneminuteman.co.uk/ and Carl Beech runs Christian Vision for Men: http://www.cvm.org.uk/contact/contact1.php. We interviewed Carl here: http://blog.sophianetwork.org.uk/2012/03/interview-with-carl-beech-christian-vision-for-men.html and James here: http://blog.sophianetwork.org.uk/2009/05/interview-with-james-hawes-menwork.html


Thank you Jenny, I have a reviewed the links you sent me and they appear to be projects based on a Radical Feminist's assesement of what is wrong with men. I was hoping to get a woman's perspective that was genuinely Christian advice and not judgmental, on what might help me repair the wounds between me and my Wife that appreciates that this is not necessarily a gender issue, but likely to be an empowerment issue for each of us respectively, that we may both need to improve our emotional fitness.. I have found some information on 'normal' critical openess that teaches how traditional Christian values are not incompatible with equality between men and woman in a way that Critical Analysis, Radical Feminisum and other forms of Cultural Marxisum can not compare too. I am disappointed that leadership in today's church is now associated with winning the right to a be a hierophant in support of 'matriarchy' rather than looking on it as privileged responsibility towards the whole of society. I would really like there to be Woman Bishop's, in the future, however It mainly conserns me that Radical Feminist ideologies can only damage any genuine process between men and women in achieving equality, as this approach seems to be directed towards empowering women as part of some kind of 'socialist' revolution over men and not working towards mutual empowerment..


Women under 30 in the US earn 8% more than their male peers. Men are the majority of unemployed, but also the majority of primary breadwinners. Men are more likely to be homeless, but less likely to have access to social programs. Men die 7 years sooner than women, but less than half as much public money is spent on their health.
93% of workplace deaths: male. 70-85% of suicides: male. 95% of the incarcerated: male. More likely to be arrested, charged, prosecuted, convicted and serve time for ANY crime under equivalent circumstances: male. Minority of people alive today with high school diplomas and university degrees: male. Majority of people who lose custody of/contact with their kids after divorce: male. The only demographic in the west who can be forced into parenthood: male

You may have already seen data comparing how young American males and females are doing today, but one of the best comparisons comes from Tom Mortenson, a senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, in his oft-cited "For every 100 girls..." Here is a sampling of his statistics:

For every 100:

• women ages 25-29 who have at least a bachelor's degree, there are 83 men who do.
• women ages 25-29 who have a doctoral degree, there are 80 men who do.
• young women who earn a bachelor's degree, there are 75 men who do.
• females ages 15-24 who kill themselves, 586 males do.
• girls who are suspended from high school, there are 215 boys who are suspended.
• women ages 18-24 who are in correctional facilities, there are 1439 men who are.


The statement that "patriarchy is bad for everyone" is a sexist statement in of itself. A society run by men is not necessarily bad for everyone any more than a society run by women is not necessarily bad for everyone. If someone said that a "black-dominated society is bad for everyone," most people would call that someone a racist.

There are oppressive men and oppressive women. It is not who runs the society that determines whether the government is oppressive but how they are running it. Patriarchies have done a lot of good - the invention of technology, the creation of civil rights, the protection of women and children (to the exclusion of men in many cases) and much more. Why don't people talk about the successes and achievements of a patriarchal society?

And there have been a number of matriarchal societies that were oppressive. Look at what happened in India under Queen Victoria's reign. Queen Ranavalona of Madagascar killed half of her population by torture. Queen Mary was known for her cruel ways - she was called "Bloody Mary" and some say the drink was named after her. Queen Catherine forced Jews to live in ghettos so that it would be easier to conduct pogroms against them.

In fact, a higher percentage of female rulers were tyrants when compared with male rulers.

This article does not miss the point. The point is, all who are oppressed and suffering should be helped, not just those of a particular group. The notion that a particular group can't be oppressed is a sign of oppression because it means that people won't help that group even though they may be in need.

You need to look at each specific situation to determine if there is oppression, not to what group the oppressed belong.

The comments to this entry are closed.