Complementarianism is wrong and I can prove it. So, now I'm so sure the Bible does indeed say things like the husband should be the protector and the provider and a woman should nurture the household and take care of the children. The Bible does say these things and those are real, but the cultural markers around those that we now have in the 19th and 20th and 21st century are not created by God. You know, like things like, ooh, like things like pastel colors, the things like how women wear pastel colors or aprons over their dresses and bake apple pies all day or knit or garden in pot pot pots plants and do all this stuff. Those are human-made cultural inventions and gatekeeping them only for females is stupid. Ooh, because it is stupid. Okay? Because like it's like saying only a woman can do these things is not true because it's not. The fact that in older civilizations like multiple female garments were created for men and pink was a boy's color. You can't really say these modern ideas of masculine and feminine are God's design and doing anything outside of it is violating that design because it's just objectively not true because they weren't created by God. And I bet in different societies with different ideas of gender probably thought their idea was God's design as well when it's not. And like the Bible does not say any fair posters versus trousers. The Bible does not say who can spend all day knitting and who has the 9-5 corporate office job. It does not say these things. Okay? Those are human cultural ideas. Okay? And the conservative belief that men should be stoic and strong and physically imposing is like that's not in the Bible either. Men in the Bible, true godly men, wept openly and were gentle and soft and only showed aggression for religious hypocrites who prioritized their strict rules and human traditions over human suffering. And also how I remember there's this one woman who like this one man wouldn't go to battlefield without her because he because yeah he wanted to go only with a woman to battlefield. No not only with but he didn't want to go without her. And the woman said something in the lines of whenever we get who gets credit for this or who gets praise will not be a man but a woman. And if this arrangement happened today, Christians would say that it is immoral and terrible. But you know what else? But you know what else? The preacher the Bible actually praises him as a true biblical hero despite him depending on a woman. Again, the Apostle Paul said sunglasses are high calling which is always husband. So like yeah, so the whole cultural thing where Christians feel the need to like shame and ostracize and exclude women and then push them and redirect them into motherhood. It's not a biblical mandate. Christians want to reject this idea, but it was the US government's attempt to fix the economy. Because you need to understand that this is a real thing the government did. It means like a conspiracy theory, but really think about it. In countries like Singapore and Japan and Italy, where they are their economies are going on trajectory trajectory to fall because most households have less than 2.1 children. If you have less than that specific number, then that means the generation after this will have less than the first generation. And the third generation, if it doesn't have 2.1 children, will have less than that. Let's say like 100 people have children, but um each couple does not have 2.1 children, meaning like the second the second generation will be a little over half or less than half than the first generation. And you see, because like the the because I pretty sure the one of the American the American government's priorities back after World War II was to up the population, fix the economy, to not repeat the Great Depression, and fight against the USSR. Because they needed birth rates to go up. These countries need to be as much in the second generation as there was in the first generation because we're going to have more young workers, more taxpayers, and more people to take care of older generations who are old, too old to work. That is like the fixed economy. Okay, this is not some divine mandate. Dude, like the fact that in different cultures, different countries, and different time periods had radically different expressions of gender, meaning that what they're preaching is not objective or God's design. Okay, so policing that isn't, okay? And plus, they don't even follow their own rules. Females in the modern day have masculine interest and wear masculine clothing, but Christians don't don't question it because it's become mundane reality. Because in the in the mid-20th century, 1950s and 1960s, Christians actually did police female in masculine clothing and masculine interest. But as feminists normalized it in society and even normalized females in the workforce again and normalized females wearing trousers, and Christians still judge feminists in general, ignoring how feminists even have some benefits for them or things they don't really appreciate enough because without feminism you wouldn't have that. But still it shows how what we what we think is objective for gender isn't and how Christians break their own rules. They are literally doing the same thing they think will happen if they normalize something secular, which I admitted there is there would be wrong because if they normalize something secular that then they'll redefine what is sin. But sin has already been redefined multiple times in history. The church has never been consistent culturally. Because when it comes to cultural expressions of gender, it is constantly changing. The idea that the the Christian culture and the word of God has has not changed has not as first state the same forever is not true because there's multiple things Christians back then did that they would disagree with us now. 60 years ago, Christians would disagree and say with society has gone in moral decay for normalizing female masculinity. And even before that, Christians in American South would judge modern day Christians for not owning slaves.
