-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Meat Patriarchal wannabe catfishers
- Thread starter steve
- Start date
You figured me out.
Thanks for making me laugh!
I recognize the arrogance of making such an offer, but if you identify such a situation, I volunteer to communicate directly with the individual in a private message. I believe I can guarantee that I can navigate the fine lines you're describing, and I'm even willing to provide you with a draft of what I would say in advance for your approval, @FollowingHim. You could even run it by the entire Star Chamber, as far as I'm concerned.
As an organization that includes as one of its dynamics being staunch believers in a practice that is more taboo among civilized society than the producing of babies out of wedlock or torturing cats, which at its foundation makes it difficult enough to find women interested in being part of plural families, I see it as crucial that we address member behavior that does nothing to edify the member in question and makes life more difficult for the rest of us. So I volunteer to take the slings and arrows, and I offer as part of my credentials that I used to be sought out around the country for university residence life positions and conference presentations for my expertise/track record regarding creative and effective discipline (some of my better stories, for those of you who want to hear them in person). Another credential offered is that I'm Aquarius sun sign, Virgo moon sign, with Aries rising, so I have a tendency to be relentless no matter how mixed up everything seems to begin with.
Difficult to explain never means impossible to explain.
P.S. @steve, maybe now we're getting into the realm of that what don't y'all know about me stuff . . .
Back to the OP.
I believe unintentionaly I may fall into this category. I've had 2 actual courtships in the past that fell apart. Those who know us know that my wife is propoly. Sometimes I think she's too enthusiastic, other times self conscious. There have been a few women that mistook my willingness to speak openly and bluntly about poly to them and the friendship they have with me and my family as a courtship. I've previously taken the stance that as long as God has me teaching in a Corprate Church setting that poly is not a sin I had to be above reproach, whether or not the reproach was warranted, meaning I would not marry another until He let me out of the Church. Thus taking away the argument that I was just trying to justify me having more than one wife. Even though I explained this, I came to realise that there was an expectation that when I left the corporate church I would marry them despite the fact I specifically said we were not in a courtship. Now that my stance has changed and I'm willing to marry regardless of if I'm teaching about poly or not because I owe no justification to Babylon and I'm in a courtship (well still waiting on her fathers blessing, its important to me and a deal breaker) The women who I befriended feel kind of betrayed. I guess what I'm getting at is be careful in your interactions. Sometimes the words you say dont sound as clear to someone's feelings.
I believe unintentionaly I may fall into this category. I've had 2 actual courtships in the past that fell apart. Those who know us know that my wife is propoly. Sometimes I think she's too enthusiastic, other times self conscious. There have been a few women that mistook my willingness to speak openly and bluntly about poly to them and the friendship they have with me and my family as a courtship. I've previously taken the stance that as long as God has me teaching in a Corprate Church setting that poly is not a sin I had to be above reproach, whether or not the reproach was warranted, meaning I would not marry another until He let me out of the Church. Thus taking away the argument that I was just trying to justify me having more than one wife. Even though I explained this, I came to realise that there was an expectation that when I left the corporate church I would marry them despite the fact I specifically said we were not in a courtship. Now that my stance has changed and I'm willing to marry regardless of if I'm teaching about poly or not because I owe no justification to Babylon and I'm in a courtship (well still waiting on her fathers blessing, its important to me and a deal breaker) The women who I befriended feel kind of betrayed. I guess what I'm getting at is be careful in your interactions. Sometimes the words you say dont sound as clear to someone's feelings.
Last edited:
Wow
The conversation has gotten increasingly complicated and I have become increasingly overwhelmed. I just cannot address all of the points being made.
Here is where I am coming from.
In my first two or three years on this site I reached out to several single ladies, to no avail. So I simply continued the process that I/we had been on of building relationship with Yah and each other.
Then Yah brought D and every one of us recognized His hand in it. That’s all that I am going to say about that.
With the full knowledge that I was still married to an estranged wife, I wasn’t seeking. I just had my eyes open. (I had never accepted an upper limit on the family size)
Karin had felt (and reasonably so) that with her widowhood Yah had released her from all of men’s crap. Cutting the story to the basics, when a third party introduced us on a three-way call she felt that Yah told her that I was to be her teacher. Later He told her to find her Boaz. When she told me about it I knew straight up who he was but I purposed in my heart that I would do absolutely nothing to convince her of it. All along we had been having good conversations about what we believed.
She finally asked who I thought her Boaz was and I turned it back on her and asked who she thought he was. She asked if it was me and the best way that I could honor my decision was to say that I would like to be. With that we were betrothed and never looked back.
All of that to say that if Yah isn’t in it, it is simply the arm of flesh.
So that’s where I am coming from.
Look, we are not a dating site. Why the pressure for men to act in a dateable way?
The beautiful thing about this site is that women can view men in their natural habitat. Discussing, wrasslin, and yes, fighting.
Should we have standards? Of course!
But this ministry is intended for families. Families Biblically led by males. So the focus of this ministry has to, of necessity, be male-centric/friendly. The only way that I know to do that is sit down with the unwashed and rougher sort, breaking bread and crossing swords with them, all the while hoping that they pick up some bits of refinement by osmosis. Driving them away whilst making this the Nice Boys Club is a failure to minister. A failure to affect those who would affect society.
The churches already have a corner on the Female-centric market. In the process they have driven off males by the score. Do we really need to duplicate that?
If Yah has a plan and a purpose for a family and an additional member for it, will it all fail because the man is too aggressive with his opinions on this site? Maybe because he didn’t PM enough of the single women? That would be too weak of a god for me to follow.
If Yah doesn’t have a plan and purpose for your family, that just might mean that you are not, as yet, useable/trainable. This isn’t a put down, it’s an exhortation to be open to becoming who He desires you to be.
The conversation has gotten increasingly complicated and I have become increasingly overwhelmed. I just cannot address all of the points being made.
Here is where I am coming from.
In my first two or three years on this site I reached out to several single ladies, to no avail. So I simply continued the process that I/we had been on of building relationship with Yah and each other.
Then Yah brought D and every one of us recognized His hand in it. That’s all that I am going to say about that.
With the full knowledge that I was still married to an estranged wife, I wasn’t seeking. I just had my eyes open. (I had never accepted an upper limit on the family size)
Karin had felt (and reasonably so) that with her widowhood Yah had released her from all of men’s crap. Cutting the story to the basics, when a third party introduced us on a three-way call she felt that Yah told her that I was to be her teacher. Later He told her to find her Boaz. When she told me about it I knew straight up who he was but I purposed in my heart that I would do absolutely nothing to convince her of it. All along we had been having good conversations about what we believed.
She finally asked who I thought her Boaz was and I turned it back on her and asked who she thought he was. She asked if it was me and the best way that I could honor my decision was to say that I would like to be. With that we were betrothed and never looked back.
All of that to say that if Yah isn’t in it, it is simply the arm of flesh.
So that’s where I am coming from.
Look, we are not a dating site. Why the pressure for men to act in a dateable way?
The beautiful thing about this site is that women can view men in their natural habitat. Discussing, wrasslin, and yes, fighting.
Should we have standards? Of course!
But this ministry is intended for families. Families Biblically led by males. So the focus of this ministry has to, of necessity, be male-centric/friendly. The only way that I know to do that is sit down with the unwashed and rougher sort, breaking bread and crossing swords with them, all the while hoping that they pick up some bits of refinement by osmosis. Driving them away whilst making this the Nice Boys Club is a failure to minister. A failure to affect those who would affect society.
The churches already have a corner on the Female-centric market. In the process they have driven off males by the score. Do we really need to duplicate that?
If Yah has a plan and a purpose for a family and an additional member for it, will it all fail because the man is too aggressive with his opinions on this site? Maybe because he didn’t PM enough of the single women? That would be too weak of a god for me to follow.
If Yah doesn’t have a plan and purpose for your family, that just might mean that you are not, as yet, useable/trainable. This isn’t a put down, it’s an exhortation to be open to becoming who He desires you to be.
Last edited:
I appreciate the openness of your post, my brother.
Steve for president!
There ya go!
Find a woman that marries you in spite of your failings, not because of how perfect you are.
That way you can’t let her down.
First, I do not think there is any incongruity at all between patriarchy and women approaching men. And second, you're arguing against a caricature of patriarchy, not really understanding the dynamics at play in such marriages. I for one highly prize self confidence and initiative in women. For example....
I would not at all feel that way about a woman who sent me a PM expressing interest. And I am quite picky about which women I feel are suitable.
Now to be sure, it is very hard for women to approach men. And there are many reasons for this. But the above quoted reasons aren't one of them; to the extent they are, it is born of misunderstanding not reality.
But it is reasonable to teach women to approach men. It is a good solution to several issues and it is well within their capability (many women do it).
To try and change men's theological discussions wouldn't mean an egalitarian utopia of equal male and female participation, it would just mean we won't have much discussion at all. There are reasons why some women sometimes don't feel comfortable contributing to theological discussions; but they're mostly unavoidable. But the main reason there aren't a lot of women contributing is it just isn't their thing. As evidenced by the lack of theological debates in the Ladies Only section.
And this is just plain ridiculousness. I can only think of anything even remotely like this coming up once, and it was clearly in jest. (and it was only very remotely like this)
I see he has already complimented your post, @Kevin, but I don't think I'm out of line to assert that @steve wouldn't consider what you're describing as being an example of patriarchal wannabe catfishing.
Learning recently that I was in a situation similar to the ones you describe probably unconsciously led me to provide the type of first response I did to @steve's OP, because I could have written almost exactly what you wrote: apparently the words I said didn't sound as clear to the woman and her feelings as I assumed they would sound.
That, though, is not catfishing; it's miscommunication in a world in which communication between men and women even in the most ideal circumstances is fraught with obstacles. You and I didn't communicate clearly enough, but it wasn't that we were repeatedly leading women on knowing that it wasn't in us to follow through with anyone ever.
Amen, I hadn’t even considered it.
Bear with me, brothers. More wrasslin' comin' up!
But I want to assure all of you brothers from the jump that we're much closer to being eye-to-eye on this that it might seem at this particular moment-in-time of the conversation. Especially you, @rockfox. The first thing to keep in mind is that, if it doesn't apply to you, then I'm not talking about you, so please, especially in a conversation like this in which we're talking about how some unsuitable males are turning off suitable females to the detriment of those of us who hopefully qualify as suitable males, contact me privately if you suspect I'm talking about you -- and that way I can fully assure you either that I've never experienced any unsuitableness about you or that, at worst, yours is just a particular brand of suitableness I might not recommend for my own daughters!
Strictly speaking, there is no such tangible thing as 'pressure.'
Removing zen from the equation, though, and assuming the existence of pressure, I will also agree with anyone that there is no requirement for men here to act in a dateable way.
I know full well what you wrote next, @steve, and I will get to that, I promise, but therein lies the rub: this ministry is intended for Families. Whoa, doggies, don't start down The-Church-Is-Already-Led-By-The-Vagina-Brigade road; I'm not going to talk about PG or family-friendly or any of that.
My point is that the ministry is for the support of . . . Biblical . . . Families . . . We understand the 'Biblical' to, of necessity, include that they be patriarchal, man-led, etc. But we are talking about 'Families' as well, as in, not just Lone Ranger Patriarchs with no wives, but men who are leading Families, and, in this organization, an emphasis is placed on the entire legitimacy of those Families being Plural. Which means that, up and until the point at which any given man reaches his Steve-Principled level of incompetence [search elsewhere for the inside joke], every man is available for dating. This is as opposed to the mainstream culture in which married men are supposed to behave as uninterested eunuchs except privately with their (sole) wives.
The ministry is for the support of Families, and most involved are quite interested in having Plural Families, so therefore we are all at least available to being on the make.
That's SubPoint One: we're all at least hoping to be dating, so at least it's worth consideration to be dateable/suitable/marriageable/desirable, just out of our own self-interest.
SubPoint Two, though, is more relevant: even if, individually, we're either full up on brides or uninterested in going poly ourselves (or temporarily but mostly on hold like me), as men we are still surrounded by brothers who are single or married to one woman and are pursuing the possibility of forming Plural Families. Let's hope this isn't going to make me sound like a Mush Pot, but I would assert that having sufficient compassion for our longing-for-plural brothers would inspire each and every one of us to first put what we write or say through a bit of a cave-man mental sieve to avoid running off the women who might be excellent 2nd or 3rd wives for those brothers. I know that might violate the Code of the Locker Room (or some such code), but I assert quite strongly that what I'm speaking of amounts to one of the most important levels of support men in Biblical Families can provide for each other.
Right now I'm convinced that the most likely lifetime outcome for me is that I'll never be married to two women simultaneously, and my other suspicion is that, if I am to find an additional wife, I am not going to find her on a dating site and likely not within the Biblical Families community, either. On top of that, I'm just on hold for the time being, which means I'm not actively looking. Others among us, like you, oh revered Ninja Zen Buddha Truck Wizard Steve, have some kind of mojo that draws women to you through elemental magnetism, so you're probably not worried about whether you'll find another bride within this community. But most of us don't have that gift, and we don't have a praise band in which female vocalists can fall in love with us as we provide their backbeat, so we're stuck wondering where on Earth all these poly-seeking women are going to come from. In that context, I believe this organization could become a lot more effective at inspiring poly-ever-after if we did a better job of inspiring single women to hang out long enough to acquire the comfort level to actually attend meatspace retreats, which many more than @steve and @andrew and @FollowingHim have pointed out are where most romantic and truly valuable relationships are initiated and cemented.
On the other hand, if you're getting the impression that I'm talking about the equivalent of everyone sitting on their hands, zipping their lips and wearing ties to match our carefully-combed haircuts, I most definitely am NOT! Let me repeat, I'm probably not talking about any of the men who are either currently participating in this discussion or even the ones who may be lurking without participating. And that even includes @ZecAustin, who, by the way, may be one of the only ones who is not only hearing what I'm saying but absorbing it, because he demonstrated immediate learning; he recognized that all I'm really talking about is two things:
1. There's nothing wrong with male humor. Nothing. But when we know that our humor doesn't really reflect the full nature of our realities or our true life philosophies, it's incumbent upon us to occasionally intersperse the braggadocio and dick jokes with grounding self-disclosure.
2. When someone among us is speaking and/or behaving in a way that represents mistreatment of women, it is (a) inappropriate to be supportive, and, in fact, (b) incumbent upon us to call the offender out in public right where they have been misspeaking or misbehaving. And it's also incumbent upon us to refrain from giving any shit to any brother who does the calling out.
If we are truly alpha men who are capable of providing any real support to other alpha men, much less to be the heads of Biblical Families, Plural or Otherwise, then we should not expect that all such calling out will be done in private. It is no more supportive of maleness that we would expect that we should be able to show our asses in public forums with no consequences than it would be supportive of sobriety to protect an addict from reaching rock bottom.
And don't think that my assertiveness about this has anything to do with having my feelings hurt about instances in which I've been belittled on here for taking a brother to task, because I can promise you that my maleness is not defined by whether my feelings are hurt. I further assert that there is nothing laudatory or manly about propping up another man who is making the rest of us look like Neanderthals. In fact, it much more represents cowardice or being worried about getting the world's approval within this subset of the world than it represents either getting approval from our Creator or demonstrating one's manhood.
Again, let me ground this tirade in the fact that, when I talk about men who behave unsuitably, I'm likely not talking about anyone who has taken offense, but I am talking about you if you're guilty of elevating the defense of men behaving badly over the importance of making these forums places where women will feel like they're being heard. I am not promoting feminism (working at universities entirely broke me of any positive feelings I ever had for anything remotely related to postmodernist progressivism), nor am I suggesting that we make this the
Suggesting that it's an either/or is a red herring. I happen to think that most of you are too uptight when it comes to your views on sex and drugs and rock and roll, as far as that's concerned, so it's not a matter of me promoting that we clean up our language or stop butting heads or give the reins of our families over to the women. I won't even go the church, and one of my main reasons is that, when we do, we're supposed to bow down to pastors who are nothing but whipping boys for the hallelujah'ing old women who terrorize their own husbands right there in the pews. I am simply suggesting that we do need to question some of what occurs here for the greater good of actually promoting the expansion of Biblical Families rather than just being satisfied with providing support for those that already exist.
My answer to that is Of Course Not. Of course not. This is not a matter of whether or not we are too aggressive. I don't know if y'all are noticing, but I'm being highly aggressive about espousing my particular point of view right here. @steve, you were aggressive in your OP on this thread, and I was the first to proudly and aggressively applaud you. It's not an issue of whether we are aggressive or too aggressive. In fact, I would unequivocally assert that most of the unsuitable male behaviors of which I speak are exhibited in a passive-aggressive manner.
We are men. Most men here are alpha males. We're going to be aggressive. If women are looking for non-aggressive men and they come here looking for them, then it is only appropriate that they would go away empty-handed (and please, please, please leave us alone). The women we're desiring are women who are desiring to be led by aggressive alpha males. That should go without saying. So we should feel free to be aggressive. We should also feel free to be open about the fact that we have definite opinions about how homes should be run. We should furthermore feel free to be open about the fact that we're more sexually oriented than the average man, which is going to include an increased willingness to joke around about such things.
But we don't have to be insensitive to women to be all of the above, and I'm strongly suggesting that we consider putting our heads together -- not to circle the wagons but to create some consensus about how we can better inspire patriarchy-seeking women to hang around long enough to find their patriarchal mates right here. This doesn't have to be a dating site to serve that function.
This ministry is NOT just about theological discussion.
This is a marriage ministry. It exists to support people in their marriages. We can only support people who feel comfortable coming here and talking to us.
By definition, the majority of people in plural marriages are women, not men. And they have many real problems that they may need support with.
I am not at all suggesting that we need to water down the theological discussion. But somehow we need to make this forum less scary for women. I do not know how to do this, I do not have a proposal. But I do know that women need to feel more free to post their fears, feeling that they can expect compassionate responses. This is a serious issue. We need to cater for the men, certainly. But we already do that. It is the women we need to cater better for.
Neither do I.
You don't get out much if you think the average American or average Christian isn't less likely to expect women to refrain from asserting themselves than the average patriarchal family.
The only assertions I made in the passage you quoted that are relevant to this discussion are:
a. That our community is comprised of men who are, on average, less inclined to be welcoming to women being forward (and, just so you know, I do not see this as a bad thing; it's not my particular preference, but I don't see anything bad or evil or ra about it); and
b. That some unsuitable male misbehavior among a minority of members (and not sufficiently called out by the majority) further discourages women from being forward about their attractions.
There is no caricature in any of that.
I am in complete agreement with you about all of that, despite remaining in disagreement with you about . . .
I would assert that it is always a mistake to blame anything on someone else's misunderstanding. At best, one would be better off labeling it one's own insufficient creation of understanding; i.e., a failure to communicate. For example, is it just a misunderstanding among those outside of patriarchal Semitism and Christianity that patriarchal Semites and Christians expect women to follow rather than lead? Or that following connotes being deferential?
Again, I agree with both of these assertions. If I have created the impression that I'm opposed to women approaching men, then I have miscommunicated.
Amen, my brother. Again, I agree with all of these assertions. And, again, if I have created the impression that I think we should change men's theological discussions, then I have miscommunicated. I am only suggesting two basic things: (1) that women seeking patriarchal men are, if anything, going to start off being less likely than the average woman to be forward about identifying their matrimonial interests; and (2) the unsuitable male misbehavior of a small number of men that isn't confronted by their suitable male counterparts further discourages women who might be seeking patriarchal men to continue any participation at Biblical Families, much less identify their matrimonial interests.
After all, what does it tell a single woman seeking covering from a male leader when she observes a bunch of supposed leaders yukking it up when another man talks about how he has the right to force his wife to accept polygamy or about how he has the right to beat her if she misbehaves according to his viewpoint?
@rockfox, it's possible that I spend more time and in more threads than you do, but, if so, I'd be shocked, because I increasingly enjoy what seems to me to be your very ubiquitous and prolific contributions. You were gone for a while recently, but even outside of that window there have been numerous instances of what I'm pointing to. I revere you for your ability to see the forest for the trees on so many issues, so I invite you to put that keenly analytical mind of yours to work just watching out for what I'm talking about. My prayer is that it never again occurs, if you want to know the truth, not because people just feel suppressed, but because people have privately acknowledged that they have themselves recognized instances in which men have demonstrated a pattern of almost entirely limiting their praise of other men to whether they (a) have copious numbers of children or (b) rule with an iron fist. Again, I don't associate either of these things with patriarchy. I associate them with unsuitable male misbehavior. You're more-than-average capable of this, @rockfox: put your sharp mind to the task of observing the distinction I'm drawing between patriarchy and unsuitable male misbehavior. My original post on this spoke about both dynamics, but that does not mean that I'm equating them. They are . . . two . . . distinct . . . dynamics.
Last edited:
I love this by the way.. lol it's very true.
Frankly my eyes go crossed reading some of y'alls posts. When that happens I know I don't have the time to dedicate to figuring it all out... or your post was too long, repetitive or just.. well I'll keep that one to myself
. I don't even care how much fighting happens in regards to the theological posts. To help with new people it may be something as simple as making the Introduction area more visible or pronounced. I really don't know. I can't say that I have felt I can't comment so much as I shouldn't and yes I know there are those on here that will disagree.. but
1 Timothy 2:11-12
11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
1 Corithians 14:34-35
34 your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
Yes, I take these verses to heart when I decide to post anything on this board. So in the majority of Biblical matters I refer to @rockfox. Otherwise, I seek the counsel of the women here. And occasionally I get a burr under my saddle and post anyway. But I have had posts that I have typed and retyped and then still unsure have had rockfox read them and my gut instinct was right that I should just stay out of it. Not because it wasn't a good post but more it really wasn't my place.
Not all women are convicted as such, but I am and will continue to be. And while I'm aware this is not 'church,' theological discussion is theological discussion which basically equates to teaching. Do I read some of the threads? Absolutely! Do I read them all? Nope. Those that I do read will often create deep thought and study and if confusion debate and discussion with rockfox and thus creating growth in myself.
What ultimately saddens me is that the majority of 'churches' have been feminized to the point men can't be men for the sake of the chance of being offensive. Some men are more coarse than others and so are often more offensive in speech. I understand that and it's unfortunate that it is looked down on. Eloquence doesn't make a man. It is also unfortunate how thin skinned people are becoming. 'Safe Spaces' make me shudder that such a thing is even required. But anyway.. I'm starting to digress..
I don't recall anyone speaking ill of women who approach men. FollowingHim and myself have both advocated that women start approaching; posts which were well liked.
Question for you all, does anyone here actually think women shouldn't initiate contact with men they are interested in (directly or through an intermediary) or that it reflects badly on women who do so?
I am pretty sure it is not me. I am not good looking enough to have very many prospects that anyone would mistake me for a serial courter. I can count on one hand...
Lol, Ruth did it and it didn’t sound like Boaz minded. Looks like we have a biblical precedent here.
I know we are compassionate, you can see the evidence of that in just about any prayer thread. Where in particular do you see a lack of compassion?
So you've got a good explanation of the quandary there that get's me thinking. I think there are probably three different scenarios at play here...
1. Men discussing ideas. Women sometimes don't feel comfortable posting in these discussions; often because they don't want to be attacked. This is a problem of perception. Men will discuss ideas knowing its about the ideas and will not take criticism or critique personal. Rarely does it go over the line into personal; but when it does the mods reliably crack down on that. So it's not generally a problem and it usually takes a lot of niggling on someone to get there. In contrast women tend to feel like any disagreement with their opinion is an attack on them personally.
There really isn't anything to do about this other than education. Criticism of ideas is not a attack and it's not personal; men generally care about the idea, not who offered it. If you're presenting an idea, we can't accept what you're saying unless you can explain our doubts about it. And if what you're saying is wrong, people will push back (men AND women). No one's telling women to shut up and not talk theology, but neither should women expect to push their ideas on others while being immune from people taking umbrage. This is a forum, not a pulpit. But just because someone disagrees with something you said doesn't mean you have to engage with them. And men rushing to the defense of a criticized women only reinforces the wrong impression. Idea's aren't personal; it's not about you. It's especially not about you when we're discussing an idea and that idea has personal application in your life and you find some people's opinion of that idea applied to your life offensive.
One place I have seen this scenario be a problem (in more than just perception) is where people find a particular idea so offensive they can't stand any discussion of it.
2. Women discussing feelings. This tends to be more what women's area discussions center around. But a lot of women just will not feel comfortable posting publicly about their fears or don't really want to talk to men about this (they've already grown frustrated trying to talk to a man about them (their husband), that's often why they're here). To many existing members this is a grouping of long time friends they've interacted with at many retreats. But for new people, it's just a bunch of strangers.
A lot of that is just how things are. But we could do things to make it clear to lurkers and new women what options they have for more private discussions or talking with just the women. Especially since these conversations, being private, aren't up there for others to see and know that they can be so helped. Maybe those women who are comfortable being more public need to be proactive in creating posts talking about these things so that others can see the discussion and atmosphere.
3. Personal situations. This seems to be where the two cross-over and where more problems lie. Stereotypical of this is the 'my husband wants/has another wife and I'm upset about it'. Sometimes theological questions are mixed in; but even then it's usually about the feelings not theology. This is where your 'compassionate responses' comes in. I've seen some of these threads (the scenario not just the example) handled well, and others not so much. Not sure what to do here; other than talking to men when they're not compassionate (although that begs the question of what 'compassionate responses' really means and if we have realistic expectations about that). In a lot of these though the advice was good and compassionate; the women just don't want to hear the truth.
One place we can improve is how we interact with personal introductions. I as a rule don't criticize people in their personal introductions; I find it off topic, uncouth and unprofitable. Normal people don't start criticizing someone they are being introduced too in person. If a person is open to hearing on the subject, they will ask about it. But I do see other men do it and that doesn't help.
However, that's not a women issue per se, I've seen both men and women get strongly criticized in introductory posts, but it only seems to be women that anyone worries about being scarred off. I've watched unpopular men here get dog-pilled and driven away from this forum, yet no one ever complains about men feeling comfortable coming here and talking to us.
Why is that?
The last time a woman go so criticized a mod cut it off. The last time I recall a man being so criticized, the mods joined in.