A Question for Egalitarians . . .

I guess at the end of the day many of us who consider ourselves egalitarians can’t figure out how we make the logical leap from this.

“men and women are different”

to this

“women can’t or shouldn’t be senior pastors (or any many cases pastors at all)”

It’s a logical leap I just don’t understand. I just find no evidence which would allow me to get from A to B here. Is it because women aren’t good at defending the truth? Nope, most of the Christian women I know are just as willing and in some cases more willing to defend the truth then the men I know. Is it because they don’t make good leaders? Nope, every study I have seen indicates that women make just of good as leaders and in some cases better leaders then men. Is it because they can’t handle the intellectual rigor required in theology? Again I think anyone who has gone to grad school of any kind and had women in their class would answer this with a no. So what is it? Short of just saying “the Bible says it (which is disputed) and I believe it” I can’t find a logical reason for this leap.

Maybe you could provide some kind of easy to understand proof as to how we get from A to B here??

Michael,

I would say that there is a logical leap from differences to the complementarian belief that men and women will often be, generally speaking, more proficient at certian types of roles. If you can go with me there, I am satisfied for now. Can you?

I attended a major and quite mainstream church that was affected badly by complementarianism in the last 20 years. No more women on the ministry team, in the pulpit, and women missionaries now relegated to the back room to present. It was a steady diminishing of the visibility of women in spiritual leadership.

I saw no positive changes for womenm but ironically lots of influence by a few wealthy women who did not work for a living, but busied themselves with the pragmatic doings of the church.

Women were out of the pulpit, but unofficially running certain things, and there was no help or ministry for women in crisis, because in the wisdom of the ministry team, there were no women in crisis in that church.

There was no celebration of the feminine. It was rather downhill.

I am trying to resist, but no, men are not more proficient spiritual leaders and are often unfit to attend to the needs of the women in the congregation.

The most influential parent is the same sex parent. Girls copy moms and boys copy dads. If a dad is distant and lacks affection, boys will grow up looking for that affection, that nuturing. That’s one idea. Same with girls. Girls identify with other girls and guys with other guys. Each tend to strongly observe the same sex parent from birth and are shaped by age 6. The problem arises when there is neglect from a parent or even indiffference to the child. Disclaimer here: this does not apply to all, only to some.

However, if a girl is neglected by her dad, upon adolescence if not before she will be more promiscuous in order to feel close to a male. Also, either sex is at risk of becoming a victim to a pedophile is neglected by either parent or both.

Now I have watched my boys want to play with baby dolls. That’s because they saw my husband very nurturing to their siblings, very interactive, feeding, changing diapers, pushing the stroller, tending to bo bo’s. I’ve seen my daughters play with cars and trucks. Their dad loves NASCAR. But not all daughters were into cars.

So what’s the conclusion? I don’t have a clue.

Michael,

Here is your fallacy. You write,

I am not sure what you are missing. It is very basic soft or evangelical complementarianism. Women cannot be in leadership over men in the church or in the family, but this does not mean that women cannot be in leadership over men period or that all women submit to all men at all. There will be many times when males, based on biblical principles, will have to submit to women.

The point is that if there are essential characteristic differences in males and female and, therefore, we are to instill and celebrate these differences, these will often predispose one sex above another in certian areas.

If you state that women are restricted in leadership in the church and in the home, then you must be saying that women are less proficient in leading spiritually and in the home. You must be declaring that the essential characteristics of the male are better at leading in church and in the home.

What characteristics of the male make him better at leading in church or in the home, but, do not make the same difference in the secular realm?

How is the female, a person who is equipped and disposed to running a school, or being a hospital adminstrator, or an exec. or a nurse, somehow NOT disposed to be a leader in the home.

And how is a single women less fit as the head of a household, than a single man?

What exactly are these characteristics that women do not have that corelate positively with leadership in the home and church, but mysteriously, do not hamper women from functioning as full adults in the workplace?

No one was interested in my negative take on the issue, but let me supply just a couple more details and connect a couple dots.

The statistic that murders commited by females went up 15 years after the introduction of violent female role models on TV comes from “On Combat” by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. I don’t have the book to reference the page number, and I don’t know my way around stats sites well enough to find a direct reference. Daphne Lavers seems to be quoting the same stat as Grossman, if you’d like to know a little more about the influence of TV on violent behavior.

I apply this trivia to this subject because murder is one of those things to which women are not supposed to be inclined, what with the whole maternal instinct thing and the estrogen-heavy hormonal chemistry. And yet, when violence is modeled to girls, guess what they become.

In maternalistic cultures, women are feared just the way men are feared in paternalistic cultures. When a woman speaks, men listen.

I said in my first comment that I did not know whether I could raise my son to be a man and my daughter to be a woman. I don’t. I can raise my son to be an American man, but can I really raise him to be a man? That’s a tough question – much tougher than your wording makes the question sound.

For a mind-bending moment, let me accept your unpalatable assertion. You say I must believe there are no differences between men and women if I’m to be a consistent egalitarian. OK. What am I if I don’t know what the differences are between men and women outside the influence of a Christian culture that’s misinterpreted scripture for 1800 years or so?

Sue, we would be going in a really big circle is I answered your questions. You would have to go back to my original post with the two illustrations. That is an attempt to explain the “why” of Paul’s admonition.

But when push comes to show, even if we don’t produce a sufficient why (which, in my mind, I have) they Bible tells us such. We don’t really have to have the “why” as I explained it, but I am glad I can explain it with some degree of confidence.

code,

“I said in my first comment that I did not know whether I could raise my son to be a man and my daughter to be a woman. I don’t. I can raise my son to be an American man, but can I really raise him to be a man? That’s a tough question – much tougher than your wording makes the question sound.

For a mind-bending moment, let me accept your unpalatable assertion. You say I must believe there are no differences between men and women if I’m to be a consistent egalitarian. OK. What am I if I don’t know what the differences are between men and women outside the influence of a Christian culture that’s misinterpreted scripture for 1800 years or so?”

That says enough. Thanks for your honesty. I did not think we would have so many who would come straight out and admit this much relativization on the subject.

However, to be fair, I don’t know how representative you and the others who have answered the same here on this blog are. I get the impression from the poll I put up that most Egals would not agree with you, but they just don’t know how to answer these questions without taking it to its logical conclusion.

Either way, this is somewhat informative.

Regarding your Facebook post: This has gotten to be a really biased question, IMO.. Am I as comp-eglatarian left to believe if I don’t think there is a God given heirarchy in the sexes, then I automatically believe that homosexuality is okay? Isn’t that what you said there?

Please, that is an insult to my intelligence!

Let’s get real here. You are being completely unfair. Please state your opinion here like you did on Facebook so everyone also knows where you really stand!

So your argument stands as this

1. Men and women should do what they are better disposed to do.

2. Men and women are equally disposed to be leaders.

Therefore, men should lead in the church and the home and women are allowed to lead alongside men in the workplace.

Sue, Hopefully you are addressing CMP not me. 🙂

mbaker,

I don’t think I am the one being unfair here. I did not say that egalitarians automatically accept homosexuality. I don’t appreciate that since the majority of the people here cannot check my Facebook account.

I said:

“I often find it hard 2 c a difference between some arguments of Egalitarians and the homosexual left.”

Now, you might have gotten offended and read that into my post, but that is not what I said

This is the exact same thing I said in post #50 HERE:

“The arguments that I am hearing from you all is very much the same as I hear from the homosexuality community. What is the difference?”

Now, that still stands. I don’t remember how you answered these questions, but my response in #50 is responding to what is very typical here and does sound like the same REASONING that the homosexual left give to justify their position that God created them as homosexuals and we should not attempt to intervene in “human nature” to adjust this.

I am welcome to a correction. You may look at #50 and say, “That is not my kind of egalitarianism,” but it is very evident that it is representative of a very popular form of Egalitarianism.

* Is there any way for us to train boys to be “men”?
* Is there any way for us to train up girls to be “women”?

I guess I just do not understand the question, CMP. You are talking about socialization here.

Is it possible that the characteristics of the unique path that you suppose (along with us complementarians) will have qualities that make one sex more capable than another in certain areas? Therefore, one sex could quite possibly be leaders over the other in some areas? Is that possible?

Sure, if those qualities are a matter of socialization. But over the last 40 years, we have seen that changing the way our daughters are “trained” has, if not totally erased, certainly profoundly diminished any legitimate distinctions in “capability.”

So no, I do not understand your question.

Sue, not really. Kind of…

Here is yours:

“1. Men and women should do what they are better disposed to do.

2. Men and women are equally disposed to be leaders.

Therefore, men should lead in the church and the home and women are allowed to lead alongside men in the workplace.”

Mine:

1. If we recognize that men and women are different by design…
2. And we recognize that these differences will predispose one sex to be more proficient in certian areas than others…
3. Then we should capitalize on this and celebrate it as a way to display more fully the image of God in both sexes.

The implications come after the acceptance of this philosophy…

These three are all I am concerned with right now. Everyone else wants to jump to the specific implications because it is those that most have trouble with. But if we can just agree on these three, then we can move to the next step. But then we would have both accepted the foundational elements of the complementarian worldview as I see it.

Once this is done, the nature, experience, and the Bible will help us to discover the implications more definitely.

”I would say that there is a logical leap from differences to the complementarian belief that men and women will often be, generally speaking, more proficient at certian types of roles.”

But the complementarian belief is not that, but rather regardless of proficiencies one gender is restricted from following their proficiencies.

In the end all, proficiencies are very dependent upon allowing people from an early age to follow their preferences. And reality is that in every nation throughout the world there are pressures put upon both genders to seek certain preferences and not others. And religion is most often the culprit behind this type of channeling of men and women’s activities.

Take a look at the U.S. for instance. 100 years ago women were not inclined to play golf, ski jump, be a policeman, etc. And it was a rare woman that was a pastor or preacher, although I suspect they’ve existed in every era since Christ came. When pressure was taken away from preventing women in these activities MANY more women became interested and proficient. So what does that do to your observations of generalities?

ahunt,

You have answed my questions sufficiently there. Thanks.

You are saying that both “men” and “women” are relative depending on the culture. And you are saying that there is no timeless way to define them either here on earth or in the eyes of God.

TL, I am not concerned with whether or not you believe my statement is representative of complementarianism right now (I believe it is, see my last post).

However, do you agree with this statement:

“I would say that there is a logical leap from differences to the complementarian belief that men and women will often be, generally speaking, more proficient at certian types of roles.”

If we do indeed agree here, I would be very satisfied. I just can’t get any Egal to actually go with me here, meeting on this very reasonable ground of “compromise(?)”.

CMP asked me to post here this comment I made in reply to his facebook remark on the similarities between some egalitarian arguments and the homosexual left:

It’s not unreasonable. If you get to egalitarianism by arguing that the only differences between men and women are false social constructions (or some variation thereof), then that argument logically leads to viewing men and women as completely interchangeable in all areas including marriage. (After all, there is not really any such thing as men or women. Only individuals on a gender spectrum.) Combine that with a low view of scripture and that’s how my tradition, the Anglican church, got from women’s ordination to its current predicament.

That’s not the only route to egalitarianism, however. For instance, there are many egalitarian pentecostals not on that trajectory because they get to their position from an argument based on the exclusivity of the Holy Spirit in qualifying for church roles. That trajectory creates its own set of issues, but it is completely different.

““I would say that there is a logical leap from differences to the complementarian belief that men and women will often be, generally speaking, more proficient at certian types of roles.”

Well, I don’t believe humans are proficient at ‘roles’ and kind of don’t understand that statement. And I believe proficiency is necessarily tied to interest. And interest is cultivated by parents and the society one lives in. Different cultures steer people according to class, race and gender all the time. This in turn steers what one is allowed or not allowed to follow one’s interest into becoming proficient at.

Go ahead, give a big exasperated sigh! We’ll understand. 🙂

CMP,

Then give us the real differences you have presented on Facebook and presented here publically. Shouldn’t they be the same if you are to be believable?

If they are different, then please remove me from your Facebook friends.

Thanks TL,

You find some bedfellows here on these posts as it is very characteristic for egalitarians to believe that the terms “male” and “female”, “masculine” and “feminine” are relative terms.

mbaker,

I don’t want it to get to that. I am sorry you are going in such a direction with this. However, you have to remove me from your facebook friend list I think. I don’t really know.

As for the clarification, you will simply have to read post #50. I simply believe that many (if not most) of the arguments for Egalitarianism here argue for cultural relativism. This is the same argument that the homosexual right makes, especially in the “gay-Christian” community.

I am NOT saying you believe that the gay-Christian left is in the right. I don’t know what you think. I don’t know you. I am simply drawing the parallel here in the arguments.

See post #70.

You are saying that both “men” and “women” are relative depending on the culture. And you are saying that there is no timeless way to define them either here on earth or in the eyes of God.

Not at all, CMP. Hormones, muscle mass, and pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood are pretty gender-specific. Just as it does us no good to minimize genders distinctions, it is manifestly harmful to God’s giftings to exaggerate the differences into rigid lines of conduct, endeavor and calling.

Timeless implies “immutability.” Here’s the thing…if the potential is inherent, and exists across the genders, then no, the qualities that make for good leadership do not reflect timeless gender distinctions.

“You find some bedfellows here on these posts as it is very characteristic for egalitarians to believe that the terms “male” and “female”, “masculine” and “feminine” are relative terms.”

Hate to say this but I don’t understand what you mean by that. How can male and female be relative? As well, that sounds suspiciously like an insult. 🙁

“I simply believe that many (if not most) of the arguments for Egalitarianism here argue for cultural relativism.”

Gender is not determined culturally. ROLES are determined culturally. I suspect that because in your thinking gender is equated with hardwired roles it sounds confusing to think that culture influences the roles that each gender should be proficient in.

ahunt,

This goes back to the original question and focus of this thread. Is there anything beyond strength and reproduction that make men and women different?

Again, you have reiterated, “no.” All other characteristics are relative?

Then you are entirely wrong, and need to look your own beliefs there. I am saying that we as comp-eqalaritians, are looking at the big picture here. Please try to do us the sames the same favor.

I am hanging with this here folks, even if I have to say the same thing over and over because I think the implications need to be realized and that this thread serves as a great illustration of how difficult it is to consistantly hold to a truly egalitarian system.

TL,

Try replacing “masculinity” and “femininity” for “male” and “female.” If I am not mistaken, I have continually used both these designations for clarification.

TL,

Is masculinity and femininity culturally relative?

Then by all means, tell us what you think are the timeless and immutable distinctions that render men more qualified for leadership in the home and in church?

mbaker,

My link in argumentation is entirely fair and needs to be responded to.

Please correct me. How would your argument differ for those who say that they were born gay? (Again, if you would argue against this position—I don’t know).

If you don’t want to answer and are offended, I am sorry. I am just truly attempting to teach AND understand. This is part of my method of learning…dialoguing with those who differ from me so that I am more accurate in my understanding. The “offense” is sometimes necessary to overcome misunderstandings.

ahunt,

That is not where I am going at this point. This has to do with specific implications of which, at present, I am not interested.

I just simply want to know if you believe that there is a timeless way to define masculinity and femininity, male and female, that goes beyond physical strength and reproduction.

I think you already said you don’t. That is all I need. No arguments.

(I am sure that I will soon write something about the implications to this though)

Is masculinity and femininity culturally relative

Wrong question. The question is…are distinctions in the activities, appearance, habits, ambitions, etc… that define masculinity and femininity..culturally relative?

1. If we recognize that men and women are different by design…
2. And we recognize that these differences will predispose one sex to be more proficient in certian areas than others…
3. Then we should capitalize on this and celebrate it as a way to display more fully the image of God in both sexes.

Are you saying that I as a single parent am different by design from a man, and therefore, I am less predisposed to be a proficient leader of my household. Are you saying that because my children live with their mother and not with their father, that they are receiving a less proficient parenting?

I fully agree that the two parent family is the ideal. But given that many men and women died young, single parents have been with us forever. Should single women live with their fathers, and let him be the final decision-maker? What are your real life recommendations? Do you really think that women are not predisposed to be good parents? I find this incredible.

I just simply want to know if you believe that there is a timeless way to define masculinity and femininity, male and female, that goes beyond physical strength and reproduction.

No prob. I think the major hangup lies in the focus on “roles” as THE reflection of the timeless and immutable characteristics of masculinity and femininity.

“Roles” are a product of socialization, and you are going to have to look outside the concept of gender roles if you are to honestly explore your own question.

ahunt,

Good enough. I will not continue to push. I think I know where you stand. Thanks.

I am not saying that women are not different, but rather that this difference does not relate to leadership of a household.

Sue,

Did I say that women are not predisposed to be good parents? I did not even insinuate this.

You answered your own question: “I fully agree that the two parent family is the ideal.”

Me too. One parent of either sex is not as good. The implications of one parent families have no bearing on my argument and are tragic, yet sometimes necessary in a fallen world. We strive for ideal aways, but this does not mean we should always expect it.

I don’t want this post to turn in such a direction.

Again, I am good with your answer as well. I think I know where you stand.

Did I say that women are not predisposed to be good parents? I did not even insinuate this.

No, you did not. I phrased this very poorly.

You are quite clear that men are more predisposed to be leaders in the home than women.

This means that those children who live with the mother as single parent, are living with the parent who is less predisposed to be a leader in the home than those who live with the father as single parent.

I can come to no other conclusion.

……. Is masculinity and femininity culturally relative…….
Wrong question. The question is…are distinctions in the activities, appearance, habits, ambitions, etc… that define masculinity and femininity..culturally relative?”

I’m in agreement ahunt.

Different cultures are always seeking to define how masculinity and femininity is shown in activities. Religions do the same.

But the basics are that men are masculine and women are feminine even if they don’t act it according to their culture. Leave people alone and men will express themselves in masculine ways and women in feminine ways. But these ways of being masculine men and feminine women do not require us to deny women certain activities and privilege men certain activities. Women are perfectly capable of being an excellent sharp shooter and remain feminine…. Same with most other activities. Leadership, preaching, teaching, evangelizing are all spiritually influenced activities and have nothing to do with gender. Neither gender hinders the HS from using either gender. Only people seek to hinder.

AMEN ahunt #75 and TL #77
CMP, you say:
“1. If we recognize that men and women are different by design…
2. And we recognize that these differences will predispose one sex to be more proficient in certian areas than others…
3. Then we should capitalize on this and celebrate it as a way to display more fully the image of God in both sexes.

The implications come after the acceptance of this philosophy…

These three are all I am concerned with right now. Everyone else wants to jump to the specific implications because it is those that most have trouble with. But if we can just agree on these three, then we can move to the next step. But then we would have both accepted the foundational elements of the complementarian worldview as I see it.”

I get that the above is your POV. PROBLEM: #2 is not one with which I can agree. (It is not a “very reasonable ground of compromise”). Instead I would say that the differences between the sexes bring different qualities to how we would carry out various tasks/roles but those do not make one gender’s way better than the other. AND having access to BOTH points of view/methods would be superior to only having one of them! (Sort of like having two parents in the home is better than only one). In other words I reject your characterization of the egaltarian POV and do not agree that scripture supports a complementarian (AKA: patriachal) standard.

As to your original question for this post:
“Is there any way for us to train boys to be “men”?
Is there any way for us to train up girls to be “women”?”
My question is this–short of training either to “fit in” culturally or socially to what we think is “correct” is there any way we CAN train boys to be men or girls to be women? Do we need to train humans to be humans as opposed to being dogs or apes or…? Are we not simply what we are? My son who loves to cook and dance is not less masculine than my son who likes to wrestle and watch sports on TV, even if some parts of society might think one activity is more masculine than the other. My daughter who likes to rock climb and whitewater raft is not less feminine than my daughter who likes to dress in pink lace and sparkles and paint her nails, even though some parts of society might lable her such. In their areas of giftedness I hope I am training all my children to be leaders. I hope they are also learning how to be part of a bigger whole. I hope they are all generous and compassionate, humble and committed. I hope they love well and willingly bare one another’s burdens. And, when they meet their Maker I pray He greets them with, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

CMP,
I’m trying to wrap my head around what your trying to get at and failing miserably.

Ahunt said this “Wrong question. The question is…are distinctions in the activities, appearance, habits, ambitions, etc… that define masculinity and femininity..culturally relative?”

I don’t know how the statement that the activities, appearance etc. etc. etc. which define masculinity and femininity in any given culture can be anything but relative given the simple fact that they change and vary so much from culture to culture. I’m just really confused here at what your getting at. There are obviously some similarities, but vast differences at the same time.

Also you said this earlier
“I would say that there is a logical leap from differences to the complementarian belief that men and women will often be, generally speaking, more proficient at certian types of roles.”

and then said that no egalitarian here would agree with you. I did in fact agree with this statement in the last post as far as probabilities are concerned. I would agree that there are certain tasks which a female will be more likely be predisposed to then a male and vice versa. Yet again I don’t see why this should logically in the case of a individual that is gifted in a field typically dominated by the other sex, prevent that individual from exercising their gifts. In other words if it were proven (and I don’t think it has been) that men typically make better senior pastors then females, this still shouldn’t bar a gifted and passionate female from being a senior pastor. Do you see where I’m coming from?? I do believe in differences and that these differences due lead to probabilities of being gifted in a certain area, but these stereotypes become useless when dealing with the individual.

Basically what your saying seems to be that “God doesn’t EVER give the gifts necessary to be senior pastor to females”.

Also one more thing, in you’re earlier post you tried to provide a reason “why” women can’t be senior pastors. In doing so you only looked at one trait, willingness to defend the truth vehemently, that one needs to be a good senior pastor. However, I think you would admit someone that only has this ability would not make a good pastor (all you need to do is read all the “discernment” sites that criticize you to see this). Furthermore, I think you would have to admit that their are MANY women who are more then willing and able to contend for the faith. So if we started looking at other traits such as ability to empathize with the struggles of those in your church, ability to teach, ability to organize (this was a big one with a pastor of my church growing up – church fell apart because he was so disorganized) I think we would find that a greater proportion of women then men have these gifts. Should men be excluded from being senior pastors because they tend to not be able to empathize with the struggles of their flock as easily as women can??

Michael,

“Basically what your saying seems to be that “God doesn’t EVER give the gifts necessary to be senior pastor to females”.”

No, I am not saying that. In fact, at this point, for what I am trying to do and help people to understand, this is not THE issue. We can deal with that some other time. It is but one application that MIGHT apply. It is the principles that are important.

If you were to concede that men and women are different. Check
Then you concede that these differences are are given by God. Check
Then you concede that these differences often predispose one sex to be more proficient in one area more than another. Check

So far, nothing extrodinary, that outside this debate just about all people would be happy to concede.

The next logical step (not “leap” if that is how I put it last time…opps) would be to ask if we are to celebrate these differences by instilling them in people and teaching them to capitalize on these areas. If you say yes, I would say that you have embrased everything that complementarianism essentially stands for.

Only after this, do we get into questions of what are these predispositions and questions of the “exceptions” and how exceptional they truly are. There is a spectum of belief here in the complementarian worldview.

But, if we only agreed on the principles, my opinion would be that this becomes a non-issue to a very large degree. There would be a greater appreciation for roles and role distinctions to be celebrated and the exceptions are not seen as an attempt to overturn God’s design in favor of some odd sort of fairness.

I hope and teach for ideals, knowing that there will be exceptions and very sinful applications. Either way, my job, as I see it, is to proclaim what I see to be these ideals, not change or alter then based upon what could and does go wrong.

“Should men be excluded from being senior pastors because they tend to not be able to empathize with the struggles of their flock as easily as women can??”

Well, that is a good question. And it all comes down to what Paul had in mind when he was discussing this issue. I would contend that there are certian ways that men should not be allowed to disciple other women, especially when the form of discipleship requires introspective intimacy. I am sure you would agree. Same goes for women over men.

But what I argue for is that Paul is not talking about general education, but ehortation, rebuking, and preaching doctrine. In this, as I have said, there is a combative nature that men are, generally speaking, much more able to accomplish due to drive AND, more importantly, the respect that they will command.

Will there be times when there is no man to do it? Certianly. Look in Judges. So there are exceptions. However, all things being equal, men should always be sought and chosen for this role. As should women over men in other roles.

CMP
“The next logical step (not “leap” if that is how I put it last time…opps) would be to ask if we are to celebrate these differences by instilling them in people and teaching them to capitalize on these areas.”

Well I’m going to maybe turn this question back on you. To you what does this look like? Does it simply mean that you dress you infant daughter in pink dresses and give them dolls to play with well you put blue jeans on your boy and give them toy cars? Does it mean we tell women straight up in school that a woman’s place is in the home taking care of the children and wanting to do anything else is simply a sign of rebellion? Does it mean that when your teenage daughter comes to you and say “I want to be a pastor” you tell her that that isn’t a woman’s place? What does the statement of “celebrating and capitalizing on these differences” mean from your perspective and how does it look in terms of child raising and education?

I’m just trying to understand what your are saying here looks like on the practical level to see whether or not I can agree with you. Cause there are ways I could take your statement that I would agree with and other I wouldn’t.