Active Now

Randy D
Discussion » Questions » Family » Whose job is it to teach a son how to treat women respectfully? His father's or his mother/s? Why?

Whose job is it to teach a son how to treat women respectfully? His father's or his mother/s? Why?

Posted - October 13, 2016

Responses


  • 3907
    Hello Rosie:

    This would be a lesson better taught by EXAMPLE.

    excon
      October 13, 2016 8:17 AM MDT
    4

  • I agree, it's how Mom treats Dad, the kids are watching. If one or the other is out of the picture, then it's a bit more complex. 
      October 13, 2016 8:38 AM MDT
    2

  • 113301
    It starts in the home to be  sure Angel but it has to be reinforced in the community too to make it work. Thank you for your reply and Happy Friday! :)
      October 14, 2016 4:52 AM MDT
    0

  • Ach, I reversed it. Meant to say how Dad treats Mom, but it is a 2-way street, so the idea still stands.
      October 14, 2016 8:40 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Yes m'dear. That is IMPLICIT in my question. Thank you for your reply excon.
      October 13, 2016 8:59 AM MDT
    0

  • Both .. and as excon says ... taught by example. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at October 14, 2016 4:51 AM MDT
      October 13, 2016 8:54 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Thank you for your reply LC and Happy Thursday to thee! :) This post was edited by RosieG at October 13, 2016 9:35 AM MDT
      October 13, 2016 8:59 AM MDT
    1

  • 2500
    The father sets the example and the mother sets the expectation. Which do you think fell down on the job with the likes of Bill Clinton, Anthony Wiener and Ted Kennedy?
      October 13, 2016 9:14 AM MDT
    0

  • 10449
    The father the mother and the community they live in. Cheers!
      October 13, 2016 9:39 AM MDT
    1

  • 2500
    The "community"? So it does take a village (idiot) to raise a child?
      October 13, 2016 5:21 PM MDT
    0

  • 113301
    That pretty much covers everywhere m'dear. Remember years ago Hillary Clinton said something about "it takes a village". She was talking about raising a child and she got alot o flak for that from the right. As usual. But she was right and you are too. That's what you just said too and it is just as appropos. Sure it starts in the home but it has to be reinforced outside the home too. Thank you thoughtful reply Nanoose! :)
      October 14, 2016 4:51 AM MDT
    0

  • 411
    The father is a role model for the child.
    So, now you see why men are disrespectful with women. Many never had a father figure in their lives to teach them properly.
      October 13, 2016 4:55 PM MDT
    2

  • 113301
    Certainly how he treats his wife is of great importance.  I think the wife must require being treated well. She is not a silent partner. She can point out that all women deserve to be treated with respect...not just mom.  But I think the community is responsible too.  Don't you? Thank you for your reply Oscar and Happy Friday! :)
      October 14, 2016 4:58 AM MDT
    1

  • 3680
    Should be both parents, not just the father - though I take the point about no father figure in some children's lives. remember though that some children lack a mother figure.

    If you regard it being the role of either, but only one, parent, you diminish that of the other, calling him or her secondary and subservient.

    It does mean of course that the role has to be worth genuine respect - not fear or copy-catting - and frankly some things I've heard and seen in public show those parents involved are utterly useless as role-models for children one would hope to grow into responsible, sociable, valuable and independent adults.  .
      October 14, 2016 2:41 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Thank you for your thoughtful reply Durdle. Of course it starts in the home but it has to be reinforced in the community too or it won't work. Happy Friday! :)
      October 14, 2016 4:54 AM MDT
    0

  • 3680
    Thank you Rosie! Oh yes, the community itself has a lot of influence, good or bad.
      October 14, 2016 7:34 AM MDT
    0

  • 22891
    both of them
      October 16, 2016 9:28 PM MDT
    0

  • 1326
    Raising children is a God given responsibility to  both parents. 
      November 6, 2016 11:01 PM MST
    0

  • 3680
    I Agree, Authumnleaves, whether "God-given" means anything to the family or not. I have no time for those who think it's for one parent alone when both are together and present, usually the father, an antiquated notion promulgated by the "Head of Household" goons. Unfortunately it can fall more or less to one unfairly by the other being present but useless.

    As for "God-given", although I have a few active Christians among my friends, including one who has become ordained as a vicar, most of the people I have known would no more credit any deity for their parental abilities, nor conversely slide their responsibilities off onto it, than would I.


    Whether all parents are good at raising their children is another matter. From what I've seen in public, or have learnt through news reports when things really turn nasty or from some of the darker themes on AM, they are good at breeding, or bad at limiting breeding, and that's it. Some are at best utterly incompetent, and if being a parent was a form of employment they'd never be taken on.

    Fortunately most seem to muddle through together one way or another, and those who do make a decent job of it probably had good parents and other relatives themselves as exemplars and support. Perhaps I have been lucky in that I can't think of more than a handful of any of the many relatives, friends & work colleagues I've known over the years who were bad parents in any way.

    The first exception (another was similar) came to light in my teens, still at school. During a row between the teacher and the one girl in my small A-Level Technical Drawing class, she tearfully said she was taking the subject only because her father had ordered her to do so, wanting her to become a draughtswoman. She didn't say why. Perhaps she didn't know. Anyway, I think this wrong-footed the teacher because he intemperately snapped that she ought to at least show some loyalty to her father. I've no idea if he later realised his was a heartless and stupid remark, but I hope she succeeded in making her own way in life, free from a stupid, selfish parent's petty dictats. By the same token, I hope her father eventually grew up and realised he'd been a selfish fool.

    That was nearly 50 years ago, long before my own siblings started turning me a multiple uncle, but it helped initiate the principles by which I still live but which circumstances and choice have meant I've never needed to put into personal practice! 

      November 7, 2016 2:47 PM MST
    0

  • 1326
    The bible offers solid counsel as to how to raise a child. unfortunately many  don't value the bible for the book that it is, including those that consider themselves Christian. mahatma gandhi  (a non-christian)once admitted that if the world lived by what the Bible taught,  the world would solve its  problems. this includes knowing how to raise a child. thanks for your opinion. 


    This post was edited by Autumnleaves at November 7, 2016 11:25 PM MST
      November 7, 2016 11:22 PM MST
    0

  • 3680
    With respect, you are falling into traps common to many religious people.

    The first trap is one of conflating belief and truth then monopolising that assumed but spurious truth; of assuming that a religious belief and its texts are somehow "true" however logically far-fetched, and sometimes even more "true" than other religions, simply because they are the beliefs of an ancient society. This error of unfair comparison, is the one you point out as touched on by Mahatma Ghandi, though he has not given a satisfactory solution. At worst is the litany of misery, death and destruction down the ages and still continuing, as religions seek to overthrow competitors in venal power-games between foolish, selfish men pretending to speak for their invented deity.

    The Bible, like any ancient religious text, is no more than the expressions of its authors' and societies' religious beliefs in the context of their own time.  All religions of any significance share fundamental attractions (primarily giving some sort of meaning to human existence, alleviating the natural fear of death and supporting the bereaved), and the commonality of those attractions have ensured each faith's survival over those of shallower versions. Yet they are all human inventions and none have any right of "truth" over others, let alone over agnostics and atheists.

    These lead to the third, main trap: assuming that if someone in some society long ago says his social and parental theories were inspired by some god or other, then it must be correct. This leads to a false but too-common axiom that the non-believer in that god is automatically in the wrong and so mistaken or even immoral.  (I used "his" deliberately. The main religions and their sects and cults are all patriarchal, and even in 21C Western societies sometimes degenerate into downright male chauvinism.)


    Well, I am sorry but I refuse to accept the implicit accusation that my trying to be kind and caring is worthless because I do not credit my personal qualities to a Late Bronze Age, Middle-Eastern tribal society's invented god. Let alone one I must worship in a particular way because other ways are "wrong" in someone else's imagination - or worse, use it to justify my being a cruel parent! (NB By "cruel" I go far beyond the obvious use of physical or sexual assault, into mental, academic, professional, cultural and social areas.)


    I reject utterly the thesis that a Bronze Age tribal elder's wafflings can be even thought "solid advice" to parents in a modern society, even if human nature itself has not changed, especially because they are credited wrongly to an unproveable "god". Jesus' teachings, maybe, but the OT is a rich source of encouragement for the darker side of human behaviour. Frankly, what I do recall from a vaguely Christian background, have seen quoted from the Bible including elsewhere on AM, or written by Jehovah's Witness apostates, suggests the OT's ideal family life was  a Man's World and rich in misery and cruelty to that end. 

    The original question is about parental ability. Many genuinely Christian parents are indeed good people, but some of the worst parents are so due to their deep, intransigent "religious" beliefs. They may use the Bible but are certainly not fundamentalist Christian despite the label, because the Prophet Jesus Christ* taught the very humanity despised by the more miserable para-Christian, OT-based cults like the "Wee Frees" of Scotland, or the Jehovah's Witnesses. The latter's amateur fascism has led to umpteen "I escaped" blogs etc. A value also rejected for centuries by the Vatican, with its black history of hatred and ill-treatment of women and children, for the same reason: God's Law. B+++++ks! Such reliance on the Bible is Man's Law blamed by Men on their God - the law of stupid, vain , selfish, cruel, male cowards who assume power over family or state by invoking a god their ancestors conveniently invented for them to use as they wish.

    Proper Christianity - set by the followers of a particular Jewish prophet - teaches kindness and humanity even to women and children; values held by those of my friends who are genuine Christians. It's tragic that some self-styled "Christians" are anything but kind and humane, with many of the men among them male chauvinist pigs par excellence over women and children afraid to stand up to the bullies - but that's not the faith's fault. All religions, by being based on something utterly non-proveable, provide an easy cop-out for the ignorant, selfish, cruel and inhumane.  

    You do NOT need to be religious to be a good, kind, caring, moral parent and member of society. If anything religion encourages the opposite! 


    *Like the Muslims and Plymouth Brethren, I am prepared to accept the Biblical character of Jesus was at least based on a real man who was a very able teacher, but I cannot accord him any special divine attributes for two reasons. Nor can I believe he was a parthenogen: his father was Joseph. Firstly, I don't believe in God so the divinity of Jesus is meaningless to me anyway. Secondly, if there is a god, which no-one can possibly prove as there exists no evidence, then It (not Him or Her) must be a unique, ineffable, all-pervasive, super-natural power as essentially defined by Islam. This post was edited by Durdle at November 8, 2016 4:57 AM MST
      November 8, 2016 4:49 AM MST
    0

  • 1326
    You just proved my point. thanks again and have a nice day.
      November 8, 2016 9:05 AM MST
    0

  • 3375
    Both.  I think if a child is brought up in a home where both parents treat each other with love and respect, he will have a better chance of being a good man himself.
      November 8, 2016 9:12 AM MST
    1

  • 46117
    The parents.  BOTH of them. 
      November 8, 2016 9:14 AM MST
    2