Hannah Thomas

I read his second article to men.

It seems to me they clearly don’t have a clue what to do about the apathy he speaks about in his article, and that could be why they don’t answer the questions.

The model they speak of will work for people if they approach it in the proper attitude, but when apathy is used instead I don’t think they have figured out the proper approach to it yet.

When you state for women: If it is God’s design, then women need to find their joy and contentment in that design and not rebel against it.

Then mention the apathy towards God’s design towards men, and then state: “Those husbands that despise the word of God and live in willful ignorance do not only despise their own souls, but their families also.”

You need to have a different approach to that problem besides: it is God’s design, then women need to find their joy and contentment in that design and not rebel against it. Why? I would assume that the man’s apathy hinders their joy and contentment in the design, and they are clearly rebelling against it.

Banging the roles and the design is all fine and good, but where is the bang towards the apathy? When you spend to much effort towards asking a person to find their joy and contentment in their role, and basically ignoring the apathy that is clearly present in the home? It basically enables it to continue, and you can’t find to much joy in a design that is clearly not present unless you use denial.

We need to find solutions to the apathy, and I would hope that issue wouldn’t be placed squarely on feminism as well. To me at times? That is used as a scapegoat for not wanting to truly LOOK at something squarely in the eyes. Its an easy out, and blame shifting isn’t going to help one darn bit.