Submission and obedience.

Mr. M

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2020
8,129
3,211
Prescott, Az
✟36,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
1) Where is a military command structure outlined for marriage in God's word?
Just a metaphor to explain accountability. All authority structures, military, business, government are "borrowed" from God. Read the Pentetauch.
2) Where does God say the husband is to take unto himself the right to make final decisions over his wife's conscience and liberty?
That statement was not made. A husband must take responsibility for all decisions made that affect his family. Even if it was his wife's suggestion, Eve, he is responsible. A wife's conscience and liberty are always involved, and she will be accountable for how she exercises her liberty.
3) Are wives delivered from the bondage of their own sins just to be placed under the bondage of their husband's sinful nature? Is the liberty Paul demands that we recognize in Christ only for men... did he forget to add a notation for wives to skip over the idea of their freedom from sinful bondage? Where do you find the idea in Scripture that says Christ delivered only men FROM the bondage of sin, and he delivered women TO the bondage of their husband's sin?
Nothing to do with sin. Everything to do with making marriage work out the way God desires. Who said anything about a wife being a partaker with her husbands sins? You are not getting that from my post.
4) In which verse does God give husbands the instructions to take steps to usurp authority over their wives?
How is a husband's responsibilities to his wife a usurpation? Read Ephesians 5:22-33.
Something tells me you have, and see it as a husband usurping authority over a wife. Not my view.
 
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
A friend of mine shared his view on this "submission" topic a few weeks ago. His interpretation was basically that (1) the husband has authority - decision making power but also (2) the man has the obligation to put his wife's interests over his own interests, when exercising that authority. So you have something akin to where Christ is the head of the church, but he always sacrifices himself in order to do what is best for us (even to the point of death).

I don't reject or accept that view but I thought it was interesting. But if this is the proper view, it would seem that a big problem is that men want (1) but ignore (2). When you have this situation it is nothing more than a power grab in the secular sense.

Another interesting idea on this topic is that I think people often equate having "authority" as some sort of a personal benefit that can be exploited for one's own benefit. In the Christian worldview I don't know if that holds. In the Christian worldview authority seems like much more of a burden / responsibility than a personal benefit. The easiest example of this is again our Lord, of course.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,173.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Overall, it seems likely that most of us here, both male and female, have a large amount of privilege compared to most people in the world.

Indeed.

Absolutely. I won't deny that there are unique forms of discrimination that women suffer and that men are privileged in the sense that they do not experience them. Can you think of any unique forms of discrimination in this same sense, that are only suffered by men?

Not really. In general it seems, at this point, men are more despised for violating gender norms (for example, around showing weakness or emotion); but that's partly because we're already operating in an environment where male gender norms are seen as "better" than female ones. Both of us would benefit if gender norms became less restrictive.

I assume that here you are speaking more generally and not with respect to me specifically.

Yes.

That's cool, except that I reject the notion that the society in which I live is a patriarchal system (defined here as a system that is currently designed to favor men to the detriment of women).

We're probably not going to agree on much else, then, because I'm very clear that we're living in a patriarchy. Which, as I've pointed out, actually does harm men as well as women, in subtle ways.

I actually had a close look at the diagram before writing and did notice the use of both male and female pronouns. I though that was fair. The problem with it is the particular wedge that I mentioned. I don't think its unreasonable to assert that the language used in that wedge was purposefully inserted to imply that the problem is a male problem. Perhaps whoever made the wedge can make one that is not unfairly biased. It would then be a more effective tool, in my view.

Well one thread or one issue is not a very strong argument that the things mentioned in the wedge are particular to men, or that that justifies calling the things mentioned in the wedge "male privilege." You could just as easily have called it "using controlling behavior" or something else. There are plenty of women who use controlling behavior in relationships.

You're still not getting it. Why can this thread exist? It exists because there are religious texts which bolster male privilege; because there are literally millennia of those texts being interpreted and applied in ways which privilege men; because our (Christian) tradition has very well developed spiritualities and ethical systems and authority structures all of which explicitly privilege men.

There is no equivalent to that on which an abusive woman can draw. She can't point to a text and says "God says you have to submit to me." She can't point to millennia of male subservience and tell her husband that he's sinful for being so rebellious. Many women have never seen a woman in authority in church, and even those that have, have never experienced authority in church as an exclusively female domain.

So yes, women can be abusive and controlling. But the cultural milieu in which they do so does not provide them with so many ready-made weapons, so many social norms and cultural constructs, which they can deploy to bolster and justify their abusive stance.

That's what that wedge is about.

Yes, I would also say that that is true. I would not try to make the argument that the situation is equal. But I don't think that a disparity justifies using language that generalizes. For example, it is true that black people in the USA commit crime at a disproportionate rate in comparison to other ethnic groups. That would not justify a flyer that implies that crime is a black problem. It would not be fair to call murder "Black violence" even though black people murder at a higher rate than white people.

So here's the thing. A tonne of research has been done on the attitudes held by men who abuse their partners. And it found that all of them consistently have attitudes which drive their violence:

- Acceptance/normalisation of violence
- Belief in gender hierarchy
- Belief in rigid gender roles.

So we know that men who abuse women believe certain things about gender which allows them to justify their behaviour.

That doesn't mean that we should pretend women never abuse, but it does mean that we need to tackle the underlying problem in abusive men, and that means tackling male privilege and being able to talk about the specifically gendered aspect of the problem.

Unfortunately the Bible does not deal in democratic functions, it deals with Kings etc.

As I recall, the Bible is at best ambivalent about kings. The Bible does not insist that humans order their decision-making in any particular way, except that whatever we do, we do so in love.
 
Upvote 0

Mr. M

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2020
8,129
3,211
Prescott, Az
✟36,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
As I recall, the Bible is at best ambivalent about kings. The Bible does not insist that humans order their decision-making in any particular way, except that whatever we do, we do so in love.
Not Ambivalent
Revelation 19:16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:

KING OF KINGS AND
LORD OF LORDS.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,173.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Not Ambivalent
Revelation 19:16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:

KING OF KINGS AND
LORD OF LORDS.

I should have been more specific; ambivalent about merely human and mortal kings. God was not pleased with the Israelite request for this manner of government.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mr. M
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Not really. In general it seems, at this point, men are more despised for violating gender norms (for example, around showing weakness or emotion); but that's partly because we're already operating in an environment where male gender norms are seen as "better" than female ones. Both of us would benefit if gender norms became less restrictive.
Well there are plenty of examples. Here in the US the draft is one obvious example. Only men are legally required to register, and only men can be forced to go fight and potentially die in a war they do not believe in. No woman in the USA has ever had that experience. Another obvious example is that men can be publicly physically and verbally abused by a member of the opposite sex, and then be publicly shamed and laughed at for being victimized by the member of the opposite sex. Here in the USA, this is something that men experience but women do not.

As for male gender norms being seen as "better" than female gender norms, I highly doubt that. From my standpoint men are routinely punished for behavior that is more natural to them. I would say that this is especially true with boys and young men in the educational system here in the US.

We're probably not going to agree on much else, then, because I'm very clear that we're living in a patriarchy. Which, as I've pointed out, actually does harm men as well as women, in subtle ways.
That's perfectly fine. I did not expect you to agree with me on that point.

You're still not getting it. Why can this thread exist? It exists because there are religious texts which bolster male privilege; because there are literally millennia of those texts being interpreted and applied in ways which privilege men; because our (Christian) tradition has very well developed spiritualities and ethical systems and authority structures all of which explicitly privilege men.

There is no equivalent to that on which an abusive woman can draw. She can't point to a text and says "God says you have to submit to me." She can't point to millennia of male subservience and tell her husband that he's sinful for being so rebellious. Many women have never seen a woman in authority in church, and even those that have, have never experienced authority in church as an exclusively female domain.

So yes, women can be abusive and controlling. But the cultural milieu in which they do so does not provide them with so many ready-made weapons, so many social norms and cultural constructs, which they can deploy to bolster and justify their abusive stance.
I get it. I just don't buy it. You seem to want to convince me that the society in which we live is one that generally favors men over women, buy I do not buy that. As you said, since I don't agree with your fundamental view that our societies are patriarchal, we may not be able to come to agreement on other things. I'd say that I am still open to that being true, but as I mentioned before I have never seen a persuasive argument for it, when the assertion is put under scrutiny instead of being accepted as a sacred cow.

What you wrote may have been true in the past and that may be true in some parts of the world today. But I'll leave the historical and worldwide debate aside because regardless, I do not see much evidence that the societies that you and I live in today have a cultural milieu that provides them with "so many ready-made" weapons that empower them to be abusive and controlling.

You have a verse or two in the Bible, and we have Internet warriors in this thread, but let's not go around pretending that this thread is representative of modern western society. If you go around on the street with a verse in the Bible and walk up to 1000 people and say "Women must submit to men because verse X in the Bible commands it" 999 of those people are either going to laugh in your face, or call you some choice words. That is not much of a "weapon" at all in the world we both live in.

As for the social norms and cultural constructs that enable men to be be abusive and controlling, you'll kindly have to list them out for me. If both you and I were out in public on a date, we got into an argument, and I smacked you harshly in the face, both men and women will immediately rush to your defense, restrain me until the police arrive, after which I will be taken to jail and charged with a crime. If you smacked me harshly in the face, even to the point where it drew blood, the same men and women on the train will take no action at all. They will watch and laugh in amusement at the man who got beat up by his date. That is the cultural norm where I live, and has been the case for every year that I have lived on the planet. So you'll need to tell me specifically what you are talking about when you make that assertion.

So here's the thing. A tonne of research has been done on the attitudes held by men who abuse their partners. And it found that all of them consistently have attitudes which drive their violence:

- Acceptance/normalisation of violence
- Belief in gender hierarchy
- Belief in rigid gender roles.

So we know that men who abuse women believe certain things about gender which allows them to justify their behaviour.

That doesn't mean that we should pretend women never abuse, but it does mean that we need to tackle the underlying problem in abusive men, and that means tackling male privilege and being able to talk about the specifically gendered aspect of the problem.
If harboring beliefs such as those are the reason why some men are abusive then I am all for addressing the beliefs held by those men and the male forms of privilege that enables it. I would like to see the research and who it was sponsored by, naturally.

Let's also research the reason why women are abusive and tackle female privilege and the specifically gendered aspect of female abuse as well. I already gave you one example of that privilege above.

We are obviously viewing the world through different lenses but that's cool. I appreciate your perspective although I don't agree with all of your views. Its nice to have a civil discussion about points of disagreement without the convo going into the gutter.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Endeavourer

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2017
1,719
1,472
Cloud 9
✟89,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1) Where is a military command structure outlined for marriage in God's word?

Just a metaphor to explain accountability. All authority structures, military, business, government are "borrowed" from God. Read the Pentetauch.

So you feel it right to materially infringe on a wife's personal autonomy and liberty for her lifetime based on a metaphor? You can't provide a Scripture passage for this?

2) Where does God say the husband is to take unto himself the right to make final decisions over his wife's conscience and liberty?

A husband must take responsibility for all decisions made that affect his family. Even if it was his wife's suggestion, Eve, he is responsible.

Which Scripture can you point to that God holds a husband responsible for the actions of his wife? Chapter and verse?

This doctrine didn't hold up very well for either Eve or Sapphira. Both suffered direct consequences for their actions.

3) Are wives delivered from the bondage of their own sins just to be placed under the bondage of their husband's sinful nature? Is the liberty Paul demands that we recognize in Christ only for men... did he forget to add a notation for wives to skip over the idea of their freedom from sinful bondage? Where do you find the idea in Scripture that says Christ delivered only men FROM the bondage of sin, and he delivered women TO the bondage of their husband's sin?

Nothing to do with sin. Everything to do with making marriage work out the way God desires. Who said anything about a wife being a partaker with her husbands sins? You are not getting that from my post.

A husband must take responsibility for all decisions made that affect his family. Even if it was his wife's suggestion, Eve, he is responsible. A wife's conscience and liberty are always involved, and she will be accountable for how she exercises her liberty.

You said it here:

The wife is not instructed to submit to the husband once she feels that he is meeting God's standards, based on her understanding of the matter. She must submit, in recognition of the one who places the expectations of authority.

Finally,

4) In which verse does God give husbands the instructions to take steps to usurp authority over their wives?

How is a husband's responsibilities to his wife a usurpation? Read Ephesians 5:22-33.
Something tells me you have, and see it as a husband usurping authority over a wife. Not my view.

But you don't have a verse to husbands commanding them to take such responsibility over the autonomy of another person, do you?

Ephesians 5:22, written ONLY to the wife, doesn't include any instruction to the husband to usurp, demand or enforce her submission. Do you have another verse that gives you such rights?
 
Upvote 0

Endeavourer

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2017
1,719
1,472
Cloud 9
✟89,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What verse says a husband has more accountability than the wife? Accountability of what?

Ephesians 5:22-33. Compares marriage to the relationship of Christ to the church.
Ephesians 5:23.
For the husband is the head of the wife,
even as Christ is the head of the church: and He is the saviour of the body.

Can you please explain exactly how this says the husband is accountable for actions of his wife, and how he carries the punishment of her sins if she did them in submission to him? Where at all in the gospel doctrines do you see a hierarchy of saviors... you seem to be asserting the Christ paid for the husband's sins and the husband is accountable for the wife's.

What point does this prove with respect to marriage?

This illustrates authority of Father to Son to His Bride.
1 Corinthians 3:23. And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

Everything that the Father has ordained for someone comes with an accountability.
"Well done, good and faithful servant".

But you are stringing together theories as to how those apply to marriage and running with it. You have **NO** verse whatsoever clearly explaining that a husband is to demand, enforce or even as some have stated on this thread, discipline his wife, into submission to him. A verse written to specifically to husbands directing the taking of their wife's submission.



Here is another example of a sacred trust.
1 Peter 5:
1
The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed:
2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly;
3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock;
4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.

Again, this verse does not relate to marriage; it just mentions a trust (although not a sacred one). Nowhere does the Lord direct the husband to enforce his role as an overseerer of his wife, nor to take special accountability for her behaviors, nor to assume any sacred trust. You can't provide a verse for that.

In Wisconsin, the governor has what is called a Franken veto. (S)He can legally veto letters, sentences or phrases out of a bill but let the rest pass. As you can imagine, s/he could make a law say anything s/he wants it to - even the polar opposite of what the legislature passed.

You are applying some very heavy filters and assumptions to the Word of God, with Franken doctrines. You don't have anything that specifically says what you believe, but you string verses together to construct it.

You seem to be sincere in wanting to do right before the Lord. I'd encourage you to read some writings that challenge your perspectives, and to weigh their merits with an open mind. A book by Kevin Giles, titled "What the Bible Actually Teaches about Women" would be a great investment of your time.
 
Upvote 0

Endeavourer

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2017
1,719
1,472
Cloud 9
✟89,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
@Thir7ySev3n

Hello sir.... I was curious about your perspective on my question to you, so am repeating it just in case you had missed it in this long thread.

@Thir7ySev3n

With respect to your comments about disciplining your wife, do you believe a man has the right to spank his wife?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Endeavourer

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2017
1,719
1,472
Cloud 9
✟89,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
All scriptures pertaining to marriage are based on love and mutual respect, not usurpation, bondage, spousal abuse or gender hostility.

But that's not what you said here:

Submission and Obedience is not a gender issue. It is an authority issue. When I was questioned on this by my sister not long after she had gotten married, I explained it this way.
In the command structure of a submarine (where I had served) the executive officer is second in command to the commanding officer. Obviously, the XO is a man or woman of considerable ability, and is in line for a command position. A good CO values the XO's opinions, as well as others under his or her command, but the buck stops here. The CO has to make the final decision. If something goes wrong, the CO can't make the excuse that the XO's recommendation was followed.
It is a question of granted authority.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,173.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Well there are plenty of examples. Here in the US the draft is one obvious example. Only men are legally required to register, and only men can be forced to go fight and potentially die in a war they do not believe in. No woman in the USA has ever had that experience.

Does the USA not have conscientious objection?

That said, I'll grant this is an example. My response would be to abolish the draft, though, since I see it as evil for anyone.

Another obvious example is that men can be publicly physically and verbally abused by a member of the opposite sex, and then be publicly shamed and laughed at for being victimized by the member of the opposite sex. Here in the USA, this is something that men experience but women do not.

You don't think women are shamed and laughed at, or blamed, when they are victims? Because certainly that happens a very great deal.

As for male gender norms being seen as "better" than female gender norms, I highly doubt that. From my standpoint men are routinely punished for behavior that is more natural to them. I would say that this is especially true with boys and young men in the educational system here in the US.

What I was thinking about, for example, is the stereotype that "men are more rational, women are more emotional." It's not true, but it shapes people's expectations. Men therefore carry a higher social cost for showing their emotions. But the point I was making is that the idea that "men are more rational" (and the idea that "rational is better") actually harms men by encouraging them to manage their emotions in unhealthy ways (and harms women by women being seen as not as rational, and therefore unsuitable where rationality is considered desirable).

What you wrote may have been true in the past and that may be true in some parts of the world today. But I'll leave the historical and worldwide debate aside because regardless, I do not see much evidence that the societies that you and I live in today have a cultural milieu that provides them with "so many ready-made" weapons that empower them to be abusive and controlling.

I suggest you read some accounts by survivors of domestic abuse, about the dynamics of their abuse, their abusers' justifications of it, and the response from those around them. I think you will find that it's not as simple as you suggest here.

You have a verse or two in the Bible, and we have Internet warriors in this thread, but let's not go around pretending that this thread is representative of modern western society. If you go around on the street with a verse in the Bible and walk up to 1000 people and say "Women must submit to men because verse X in the Bible commands it" 999 of those people are either going to laugh in your face, or call you some choice words. That is not much of a "weapon" at all in the world we both live in.

In the secular world, this may be true. In the church it's not true. Since we are, in part, deconstructing the situation in Christian communities, we need to take into account that in churches, women are still routinely told to submit to abusive spouses, excluded from leadership and so on.

As for the social norms and cultural constructs that enable men to be be abusive and controlling, you'll kindly have to list them out for me.

Here's an example. It is a social norm that a mother will be the primary carer for young children. This generally impairs her ability to earn an income in her own right, making her financially dependent on her partner. The supports our society provides for women fleeing domestic violence are generally inadequate, and for a woman wishing to flee with children, often unsafe.

So, the cultural norm which financially disempowers women keeps many of them in abusive situations due to lack of financial means and support to leave.

If both you and I were out in public on a date, we got into an argument, and I smacked you harshly in the face, both men and women will immediately rush to your defense, restrain me until the police arrive, after which I will be taken to jail and charged with a crime. If you smacked me harshly in the face, even to the point where it drew blood, the same men and women on the train will take no action at all. They will watch and laugh in amusement at the man who got beat up by his date. That is the cultural norm where I live, and has been the case for every year that I have lived on the planet. So you'll need to tell me specifically what you are talking about when you make that assertion.

When I've been publicly harassed or assaulted, nobody has ever rushed to my defence. Or even risen slowly to it. I think you're overestimating the level of social protection anyone has, here.

Which is not good or right! But the idea that you'd be laughed at and I'd be helped (and would see justice) doesn't match most women's lived experience at all.

I would like to see the research and who it was sponsored by, naturally.

Have a google. I know in Australia a lot of the primary research has been done by state health departments, but I'm sure there's culturally relevant work in America too.

Let's also research the reason why women are abusive and tackle female privilege and the specifically gendered aspect of female abuse as well.

I don't think these are valid terms. Women who abuse their partners are going against the grain of social privilege, not with it.

It is nice to have a civil discussion, but I always find these discussions very distressing.
 
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Does the USA not have conscientious objection?
From what I understand, we have it in theory. I don't know how it works in practice. Also to be fair, I think the last time the draft was implemented in a time of war was in the 1970's, although men must still register for it should the situation change.

That said, I'll grant this is an example. My response would be to abolish the draft, though, since I see it as evil for anyone.
That's fair.

You don't think women are shamed and laughed at, or blamed, when they are victims? Because certainly that happens a very great deal.
Not if they are physically abused by a man in a public location. Maybe that is how things go down over there.

What I was thinking about, for example, is the stereotype that "men are more rational, women are more emotional." It's not true, but it shapes people's expectations. Men therefore carry a higher social cost for showing their emotions.
OK this is interesting. As a preface I would not say "men are more rational, women are more emotional". That is simply too basic and too much of a generalization without substance. But neither do I accept the notion that men and women would be the same, except for social and cultural programming forced upon them by their environments. I think that view is refuted by science. Men and women naturally have different levels of hormones in our bodies and the neurological architecture of our brains varies in ways that make us different. This causes us to think and behave in different manners, by our very nature.

But the point I was making is that the idea that "men are more rational" (and the idea that "rational is better") actually harms men by encouraging them to manage their emotions in unhealthy ways.
Thanks for clarifying. I've had this conversation with my girlfriends, as have most men. She wants me to "open up and share more" and other things like that. But could it actually be, for example, that if I am having a problem I don't want to talk about it on the phone for 2 hours, like my girlfriend does? Could it be that I handle my emotions in a different way that is good and proper for myself as a man, yet different than the way that she manages hers?

This idea that men need to manage and express their emotions differently seems to have become a mantra among women generally and feminists in particular. But I see this as nothing more than as a veiled attack against men. First, the natural masculine mode of expressing ourselves is defined as a defect that is outwardly imposed upon men as a result of negative cultural programming or "the patriarchy". Second, once this supposed defect is cured, the man can "manage and express his emotions in a healthy manner," which, ever-so-coincidentally, just so to be happens to be the manner in which women tend to naturally manage and express their emotions. Thus we have a means of implicitly defining true masculine nature as defective, and holding the feminine as the ideal to which men should be conformed.

So to summarize, no, I do not buy into the mantra that "the patriarchy" harms men by forcing them to emote in unhealthy ways.

I suggest you read some accounts by survivors of domestic abuse, about the dynamics of their abuse, their abusers' justifications of it, and the response from those around them. I think you will find that it's not as simple as you suggest here.
Well its complicated stuff, I will grant you that.

In the secular world, this may be true. In the church it's not true. Since we are, in part, deconstructing the situation in Christian communities, we need to take into account that in churches, women are still routinely told to submit to abusive spouses, excluded from leadership and so on.
I think this is a fair point. I honestly haven't done too much study on inter-church dynamics and you would be in a better position to speak on that than I would. At least here its not like the pastor is going to get up there and be like "submit to your husband even if he abuses you" but I can't speak for what goes on behind the scenes, in personal consultations.

Here's an example. It is a social norm that a mother will be the primary carer for young children. This generally impairs her ability to earn an income in her own right, making her financially dependent on her partner. The supports our society provides for women fleeing domestic violence are generally inadequate, and for a woman wishing to flee with children, often unsafe.

So, the cultural norm which financially disempowers women keeps many of them in abusive situations due to lack of financial means and support to leave.
Sorry. You probably aren't going to like this, either. It's not a cultural norm that the mother will be the primary caregiver for young children, and that financially disempowers women. It is a biological norm. Because only women can carry a child for 9 months and give birth it puts her at a natural disadvantage with respect to her partner when it comes to the ability to earn income. It also gives her a more natural connection to the child than the father, given that the child spent 9 months in her womb and in many cases is breast fed by her.

As for women being financially dependent on their partners, I don't know what the situation is over there, but that's not even close to reality here. Women here simply do not need men as a financial resource. If they want to do no work at all, the state will provide for them. If they want to go to back to school or work they can receive assistance that will enable them to do so. Every man here knows plenty well that women do not need men, and many women will even go so far as to proudly inform us of the fact.

As an alternative hypothesis for the existence of this thread, instead of "the patriarchy," could men's modern expendability be the reason why threads such as this exist? Could it be, for example, that some men are so disempowered and expendable in their own personal relationships with women that they compensate for that reality by going on an Internet site, tell fanciful stories about disciplining their wives, and attempt to express dominance by citing a Bible verse, that most women will laugh at if you tried that in real life?

When I've been publicly harassed or assaulted, nobody has ever rushed to my defence. Or even risen slowly to it. I think you're overestimating the level of social protection anyone has, here.
I'm sorry to hear that. I think that in some places here catcalling can be a legitimate problem for women. Placing your hands on a woman in public? Nah. I don't know what goes on in Australia.

Which is not good or right! But the idea that you'd be laughed at and I'd be helped (and would see justice) doesn't match most women's lived experience at all.
Maybe over there. I am talking about things that I have seen with my own eyes.

Have a google. I know in Australia a lot of the primary research has been done by state health departments, but I'm sure there's culturally relevant work in America too.
I did take a quick look on google. I came across some things that suggested that that the research that resulted in those findings was faulty or biased, and that would not surprise me. But I would need to look at it myself before deciding on it. There is a lot of stuff out there on all sides of the coin.

I don't think these are valid terms. Women who abuse their partners are going against the grain of social privilege, not with it.
Naturally. I thought you might respond along those lines. Would it be a safe bet that you accept the phrase "toxic masculinity" and reject the phrase "toxic femininity" as well?

If you take for granted that we live in an oppressive patriarchal society, then there can be no female privilege or gendered aspects of female abuse. Anything that is negative can only be attributed to men. Why don't we even just say that any time a woman commits abuse, it is the fault of men since she is simply emulating male behavior?

Well, I think that you are wrong. But that's cool. I understand that there are many serious issues that women face and that there is a need to improve the lives of women. I support you in attempting to achieve that goal, but I disagree with some of the modes of thinking that you seem to have adopted to achieve that goal. That is all.

It is nice to have a civil discussion, but I always find these discussions very distressing.
Well. Sorry to hear that too. Wasn't my intention to cause distress.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,173.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
OK this is interesting. As a preface I would not say "men are more rational, women are more emotional". That is simply too basic and too much of a generalization without substance. But neither do I accept the notion that men and women would be the same, except for social and cultural programming forced upon them by their environments. I think that view is refuted by science. Men and women naturally have different levels of hormones in our bodies and the neurological architecture of our brains varies in ways that make us different. This causes us to think and behave in different manners, by our very nature.

Exactly the same, no. But the science doesn't support our general cultural stereotypes being biologically determined. The idea that men and women behave differently, on the whole, is incorrect; there is more variety within each sex than there is difference between the sexes as cohorts. (Or, to put that another way, if you were to plot any trait on a bell curve for men and women, the middle points would be close together relative to the spread).

Like so:
unnamed.png



Thanks for clarifying. I've had this conversation with my girlfriends, as have most men. She wants me to "open up and share more" and other things like that. But could it actually be, for example, that if I am having a problem I don't want to talk about it on the phone for 2 hours, like my girlfriend does? Could it be that I handle my emotions in a different way that is good and proper for myself as a man, yet different than the way that she manages hers?

This idea that men need to manage and express their emotions differently seems to have become a mantra among women generally and feminists in particular. But I see this as nothing more than as a veiled attack against men. First, the natural masculine mode of expressing ourselves is defined as a defect that is outwardly imposed upon men as a result of negative cultural programming or "the patriarchy". Second, once this supposed defect is cured, the man can "manage and express his emotions in a healthy manner," which, ever-so-coincidentally, just so to be happens to be the manner in which women tend to naturally manage and express their emotions. Thus we have a means of implicitly defining true masculine nature as defective, and holding the feminine as the ideal to which men should be conformed.

In your specific case, sure, it could be. I don't know.

But the evidence that there's a problem at a population level is in, for example, the higher suicide rate for men, the high rates of untreated mental illness, and so on. Clearly there's something going on there.

I think this is a fair point. I honestly haven't done too much study on inter-church dynamics and you would be in a better position to speak on that than I would. At least here its not like the pastor is going to get up there and be like "submit to your husband even if he abuses you" but I can't speak for what goes on behind the scenes, in personal consultations.

Of course some pastors say that stuff publicly. And even on the internet. There was a famous clip of John Piper saying that a wife should endure being smacked which seems to have been taken down, but there's a thorough analysis of it here: John Piper: a wife's submission if he's an abuser?" - Women in Ministry

Sorry. You probably aren't going to like this, either. It's not a cultural norm that the mother will be the primary caregiver for young children, and that financially disempowers women. It is a biological norm. Because only women can carry a child for 9 months and give birth it puts her at a natural disadvantage with respect to her partner when it comes to the ability to earn income. It also gives her a more natural connection to the child than the father, given that the child spent 9 months in her womb and in many cases is breast fed by her.

Oh, biological determinism. Nope nope nope.

Sure, pregnancy and childbirth and so on will temporarily interrupt one's ability to be a wage-slave. But how that turns into the "mummy track" in the workplace and a lifetime of reduced earnings is a whole other thing, and is all to do with the systems and norms we have in place.

Oh, and no on the "more natural connection" thing too. Some women have no natural bond with their child. Some men bond quickly and easily. Some women - more than you might think - struggle terribly with the early days of parenting and do much better once they're able to return to pursuits other than intensive mothering.

As for women being financially dependent on their partners, I don't know what the situation is over there, but that's not even close to reality here. Women here simply do not need men as a financial resource. If they want to do no work at all, the state will provide for them. If they want to go to back to school or work they can receive assistance that will enable them to do so. Every man here knows plenty well that women do not need men, and many women will even go so far as to proudly inform us of the fact.

Sure, I could support myself on my own earnings, and so could many women. But if a woman is the stay-at-home parent, or the only-working-part-time-around-parenting parent, then she generally is dependent on her partner. The state's provision won't get you above the poverty line. And once that dynamic is established, it can be very hard to break back into employment that would support a household. So they have a baby, she stays home in the early years because of all the reasons, and then when it's starting to go bad, she has no current skills, a big gap on her resume, can't get a job and is at the mercy of her partner or at risk of homelessness. It's so common it's a cliche.

As an alternative hypothesis for the existence of this thread, instead of "the patriarchy," could men's modern expendability be the reason why threads such as this exist? Could it be, for example, that some men are so disempowered and expendable in their own personal relationships with women that they compensate for that reality by going on an Internet site, tell fanciful stories about disciplining their wives, and attempt to express dominance by citing a Bible verse, that most women will laugh at if you tried that in real life?

That doesn't make any sense to me. Having a partner who's not dependent on you doesn't make you expendable; it makes you truly a partner, part of a team doing life together. If your hypothesis is true in any cases, I'd be asking what's wrong with these men that they're apparently so emasculated by having a woman in their life who isn't a doormat, but able to hold her own, and still chooses them? Or if they're single, and basically having an incel rant about the lack of submissive women, well, I can see the problem, and it isn't with the women who don't want a tyrant for a husband... (and what created that sense of entitlement in the first place, except some version of patriarchy which told him he deserved that place of authority and control?)

I'm sorry to hear that. I think that in some places here catcalling can be a legitimate problem for women. Placing your hands on a woman in public? Nah. I don't know what goes on in Australia.

I'm laughing sadly. It happens everywhere.

Naturally. I thought you might respond along those lines. Would it be a safe bet that you accept the phrase "toxic masculinity" and reject the phrase "toxic femininity" as well?

Toxic masculinity is a helpful concept for discussing some of the things we've been talking about. Toxic femininity might also exist - there was a thread on it a while back - and my argument was that basically it was an amalgam of the besetting sins of the disempowered; things like manipulation, deceit, and so on, which are the tools of those who aren't able to shape their lives in their own right but have to go through others.

If you take for granted that we live in an oppressive patriarchal society, then there can be no female privilege or gendered aspects of female abuse. Anything that is negative can only be attributed to men. Why don't we even just say that any time a woman commits abuse, it is the fault of men since she is simply emulating male behavior?

No, there are negative things which can be attributed to women. Just as there are some very powerful women even in a patriarchy. And anyone who abuses is culpable for their actions.

But that doesn't mean we don't inhabit a society in which institutions, cultural norms, entrenched biases, and so forth reflect a patriarchal bent.

Well. Sorry to hear that too. Wasn't my intention to cause distress.

You haven't caused distress, but I thought it might be helpful for me to make clear that this isn't just an interesting intellectual exercise, for me. It touches on some of my deepest personal wounds, some of the most difficult pastoral work that I do, and some of the largest injustices that I have to confront. It cuts deep. These threads - and they pop up with depressing regularity on CF - calling for the subjugation of women are something I see as a deeply personal threat. And so it's not possible to engage with them as if there's nothing at stake. There's the godly flourishing of half of humanity at stake.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: bèlla
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Endeavourer

Well-Known Member
Aug 30, 2017
1,719
1,472
Cloud 9
✟89,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think this is a fair point. I honestly haven't done too much study on inter-church dynamics and you would be in a better position to speak on that than I would. At least here its not like the pastor is going to get up there and be like "submit to your husband even if he abuses you" but I can't speak for what goes on behind the scenes, in personal consultations.

I've appreciated your thoughtful responses on this thread.

I just wanted to jump in to clarify this point.

#1: Pastors don't have to explicitly say "submit to your husband even if he abuses you" for women to truly believe that is what the Bible is calling them to do based on the pastor's teaching.

If you have noticed the comment from @Minister Monardo he doesn't really say that outright but his theology requires it and that is what the woman hears:
He states: The wife is not instructed to submit to the husband once she feels that he is meeting God's standards, based on her understanding of the matter. She must submit, in recognition of the one who places the expectations of authority.
A wife who is being abused will hear such statements as an affirmation that it is her duty and role in life to continue submitting to abuse. Throw a sermon on 1 Peter 3:1 with the idea that when a women maintains a sweet tone during her submission to her husband she may be winning her husband to Christ. Further, there is a large evangelical following who writes on this topic, urging the submission of women to their husbands who **never** qualify that such submission does not include submission to abuse, or worse still, qualify that submitting to abuse is part of 1 Peter 3. Even worse, these books guilt women into believing that feeling sad about being abused is SIN!!

Take a look at this link:
Book Review Series – "The Excellent Wife" by Martha Peace – Chapter Twenty-One – Who Knew Sorrow and Grief Could be Sinful


#2: Some have taken 1 Cor 11:3 so far as to invent a "headship" doctrine which has no context to the gospel story of Christ having come to save all of us from the bondage of sin. Rather, headship doctrines deliver the man from his sin but the deliver a woman from her sin and put her in bondage to the man's sin. @Minister Monardo purported this viewpoint when he said:

The wife is not instructed to submit to the husband once she feels that he is meeting God's standards, based on her understanding of the matter. She must submit, in recognition of the one who places the expectations of authority.
Abused women hear all of this kind of teaching (NEVER are caveats stated that this doesn't apply to abuse) and try to apply it to their marriages fruitlessly without a glimmer of thought questioning if they are properly applying God's word. This is what they've always heard, and this is what their filters translate the verses as.

You can never submit well enough to abuse to stop it. Abuse is about power, and gaining without regard to another person's expense. The more you submit to it, the uglier things get.
 
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Exactly the same, no.
In what ways do they differ if they are not exactly the same?

But the science doesn't support our general cultural stereotypes being biologically determined.
Sure, but stereotypes by definition do not reflect reality.

The idea that men and women behave differently, on the whole, is incorrect;
Yes, this is true. I would say that men and women behave differently on average, as indicated by the chart you posted. Not on the whole. Those differences naturally cause different results in outcomes.

there is more variety within each sex than there is difference between the sexes as cohorts. (Or, to put that another way, if you were to plot any trait on a bell curve for men and women, the middle points would be close together relative to the spread).
Well certainly, but that does not mean that those differences are not significant. Humans and chimpanzees share 99% of the same DNA. That 1% makes us quite different.

When they give cognitive tests to 3 year old boys and girls they find that the boys are better at certain types of tasks and that the girls are better on other types of tasks. When they run scans on male and female brains they find that female brains have more connections between the hemispheres, while men have more connections within them. We know that men and women have much different levels of hormones such as testosterone, and that differing levels of these hormones affects behavior even among members of the same gender. Plenty of books of been written about this stuff by both men and women. To admit that the genders differ in significant ways does not mean that one group is superior to the other.

Why would God even bother with creating different genders if he wanted us to be the same?

In your specific case, sure, it could be. I don't know.

But the evidence that there's a problem at a population level is in, for example, the higher suicide rate for men, the high rates of untreated mental illness, and so on. Clearly there's something going on there.
It is clear that there is a problem. It is not clear that the cause of that problem is that men have been socially indoctrinated to manage and express their feelings in a manner that is unnatural or unhealthy to them. But it is a plausible hypothesis. I will not rule it out that that could be a factor, at least in some cases.

Of course some pastors say that stuff publicly. And even on the internet. There was a famous clip of John Piper saying that a wife should endure being smacked which seems to have been taken down, but there's a thorough analysis of it here: John Piper: a wife's submission if he's an abuser?" - Women in Ministry
I took some time to research this further. I admit that I was wrong.

I have never seen any pastor suggest something like that in all my days on the Earth but it does appear that it is an ideology in some Christian communities. I was surprised to find that, and it is possible that I have been sheltered from that based on the places that I have lived. I would say that things like this do lend support for your contention that we live in a patriarchy(although I did not previously deny that forms of male privilege exist).

Oh, biological determinism. Nope nope nope.
I did not say anything about determinism. To clarify, if I say that women are more naturally caregivers or that men are more naturally prone to work, I do not mean every woman and every man. Certainly some women are more naturally inclined to work than some men, and some men are more naturally inclined to be caregivers than some women. I meant that on average, at least up to this point in history, it has been the case that men as a group are more naturally inclined to work, and women were more naturally inclined to be caregivers.

I don't think that has to be controversial. The computer was invented roughly 50 years ago. For the 100,000 years or so before that, work was primarily physical in nature. Nor was there widespread access to childcare facilities and many of the social services that are available today. If a married man and woman live in area where tree-logging or coal-mining is the primary industry in the town, it does not make a whole lot of sense for the woman to go climbing a tree while she is six months pregnant. Once the child is born, it makes more sense for the man to go out and earn money by cutting down and transporting the trees, because he is physically much stronger than she is. It makes no sense for her to go out and attempt to cut down trees while he stays home and takes care of the baby. Norms have developed over time for practical differences that stem from the biological differences between men and women. I don't think it all has to be chalked up to a patriarchal conspiracy to favor men at the expense of women.

And I think that we have seen that the norms are changing as the nature of work has changed over the past few decades. It is no surprise that you see more stay at home fathers nowadays, more so-called "career women," a somewhat more equitable distribution of household work, as the nature of work has become much more mental and much less physical. That is not a coincidence, it is a result of the norm adjusting to the needs of the situation.

Sure, pregnancy and childbirth and so on will temporarily interrupt one's ability to be a wage-slave. But how that turns into the "mummy track" in the workplace and a lifetime of reduced earnings is a whole other thing, and is all to do with the systems and norms we have in place.
It turns into a lifetime of reduced earnings because it is fair that people who do more work and do not take time away from their careers earn more money than people who do less work and take time away from their careers. If me and another man are in the same class at my law firm, and he takes 6 months or 1 year off work, when he comes back my salary is going to be at least 10% to 15% higher than his going forward, because 10 to 15% is the annual increase. He has also lost out on significant networking opportunities during that time which will make him a less valuable asset to the firm than me, and which will reduce his chances of making partner. If a woman takes interrupts her career to take care of a child, naturally she will be at a disadvantage in comparison to those men and women who did not.

When you refer to the "mummy track" specifically what phenomenon are you referring to?

Oh, and no on the "more natural connection" thing too. Some women have no natural bond with their child. Some men bond quickly and easily. Some women - more than you might think - struggle terribly with the early days of parenting and do much better once they're able to return to pursuits other than intensive mothering.
I do not doubt that there are many women who struggle with that.

There are articles on "maternal bonding" and "paternal bonding" on Wikpiedia. I'm not sure why it is controversial to assert that the partner who has a much greater physical (and likely emotional because of the physical) attachment to a child is more likely to have a stronger bond to the child. We tend to be more strongly connected to things that we have invested in, do we not?

If we have some advance in science and it becomes possible for men to bear children (however unlikely) I would say the same thing - that on average the husband who carried and gave birth to the child is likelier to have a stronger bond than the wife who did not.

Is that really such a crazy idea?

Sure, I could support myself on my own earnings, and so could many women.
I don't know about your country but in my view any woman in the USA can do that (excepting the disabled).

But if a woman is the stay-at-home parent, or the only-working-part-time-around-parenting parent, then she generally is dependent on her partner.
For the time period in which she and her husband choose to maintain that arrangement, yes.

The state's provision won't get you above the poverty line.
I am sorry to hear that. I find the social services offered in my country to be quite good.

And once that dynamic is established, it can be very hard to break back into employment that would support a household. So they have a baby, she stays home in the early years because of all the reasons, and then when it's starting to go bad, she has no current skills, a big gap on her resume, can't get a job and is at the mercy of her partner or at risk of homelessness. It's so common it's a cliche.
Yeah, I'm not sure how things go down over there. It sounds a bit like America in the 1950's. June Cleaver. Leave it to Beaver. That sort of thing.

From what I understand around 40% of births in the USA now are out-of-wedlock. Much higher than that with some ethic groups. Taking myself as an example, my parents split up when I was around 5. At that time it was me and other two siblings, and my mother had only graduated high school. So we moved into the projects. We had food stamps. We went to local food pantries on the weekend to pick up extra food. We weren't living in the lap of luxury but we had a roof over our heads and meals every night. At some point my mother decided that she wanted to go to college, so we had some kind of state childcare that we were in besides school (I don't remember the exact name of it). She got financial support to go to school. It might have been scholarships or in the form of a loan, I don't remember. I think it took her about 5 years to graduate. She then got a job working as a social worker. She eventually moved up to better jobs, and so forth. We were able to move and get a decent place to live. That was for a black woman living in the USA in the Reagan era.

Now I'll grant you that is not an easy thing to do. But life is difficult for most people, to varying degrees. She did not have to prostitute. She did not have to work in a sweatshop or risk her physical health. I don't know exactly know what all is available today, but based on my own experience I feel that people who are willing to work have enough opportunities and social support around them to at least make ends meat. I know that is not the case around the world.

I do know that some people in the USA still end up homeless, but it seems that whole lot of things have to go the wrong way before it comes to that point, given the various systems of support that we have here. At least for here I think that the situation you describe is very rare but I will not rule out that it can occur.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Having a partner who's not dependent on you doesn't make you expendable; it makes you truly a partner, part of a team doing life together.
I couldn't really find the right words there to express what I wanted to say. I guess I meant it more in the sense of being not valued, appreciated, or respected. Just kind of looked as an object that could be easily replaced with another one.

If your hypothesis is true in any cases, I'd be asking what's wrong with these men that they're apparently so emasculated by having a woman in their life who isn't a doormat, but able to hold her own, and still chooses them? Or if they're single, and basically having an incel rant about the lack of submissive women, well, I can see the problem, and it isn't with the women who don't want a tyrant for a husband... (and what created that sense of entitlement in the first place, except some version of patriarchy which told him he deserved that place of authority and control?)
Well here, I would say that they are likely to be the "doormats" in their own relationships. So you rebel against being the "doormat" in real life by being "dominant" on the Internet.

It's like the kid who gets bullied at school and then comes home and bullies his younger sibling.

I'm laughing sadly. It happens everywhere.
I'll try to have a more open mind on that. It could be something that I do not notice because it is not directed against me.

Toxic masculinity is a helpful concept for discussing some of the things we've been talking about. Toxic femininity might also exist - there was a thread on it a while back - and my argument was that basically it was an amalgam of the besetting sins of the disempowered; things like manipulation, deceit, and so on, which are the tools of those who aren't able to shape their lives in their own right but have to go through others.
Yeah. Ya'll are just some angels responding to the ways of us evil men.

No, there are negative things which can be attributed to women. Just as there are some very powerful women even in a patriarchy. And anyone who abuses is culpable for their actions.
Shall we group these individual bad actions performed by individual women together and refer to them as "toxic femininity" as we do with men?

But that doesn't mean we don't inhabit a society in which institutions, cultural norms, entrenched biases, and so forth reflect a patriarchal bent.
That is true, but neither have you proved the point.

You haven't caused distress, but I thought it might be helpful for me to make clear that this isn't just an interesting intellectual exercise, for me. It touches on some of my deepest personal wounds, some of the most difficult pastoral work that I do, and some of the largest injustices that I have to confront. It cuts deep. These threads - and they pop up with depressing regularity on CF - calling for the subjugation of women are something I see as a deeply personal threat. And so it's not possible to engage with them as if there's nothing at stake. There's the godly flourishing of half of humanity at stake.
That's understandable. At least for me, and you knew me in real life and were like "Swag, l have noticed XYZ issue that affects women and I would like your support in helping to improve it" I would be like "Yeah, that's cool. That might affect my daughter or my sister, what can I do to help?" But if you came at me like "Swag, we are living in a patriarchal world in which you are among the privileged class and women are trained to serve you" I am gonna be like "What you talkin' bout Willis?" I think that is a bit divorced from the complicated reality of things.
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: Paidiske
Upvote 0

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I've appreciated your thoughtful responses on this thread.

I just wanted to jump in to clarify this point.

#1: Pastors don't have to explicitly say "submit to your husband even if he abuses you" for women to truly believe that is what the Bible is calling them to do based on the pastor's teaching.

If you have noticed the comment from @Minister Monardo he doesn't really say that outright but his theology requires it and that is what the woman hears:
He states: The wife is not instructed to submit to the husband once she feels that he is meeting God's standards, based on her understanding of the matter. She must submit, in recognition of the one who places the expectations of authority.
A wife who is being abused will hear such statements as an affirmation that it is her duty and role in life to continue submitting to abuse. Throw a sermon on 1 Peter 3:1 with the idea that when a women maintains a sweet tone during her submission to her husband she may be winning her husband to Christ. Further, there is a large evangelical following who writes on this topic, urging the submission of women to their husbands who **never** qualify that such submission does not include submission to abuse, or worse still, qualify that submitting to abuse is part of 1 Peter 3. Even worse, these books guilt women into believing that feeling sad about being abused is SIN!!

Take a look at this link:
Book Review Series – "The Excellent Wife" by Martha Peace – Chapter Twenty-One – Who Knew Sorrow and Grief Could be Sinful


#2: Some have taken 1 Cor 11:3 so far as to invent a "headship" doctrine which has no context to the gospel story of Christ having come to save all of us from the bondage of sin. Rather, headship doctrines deliver the man from his sin but the deliver a woman from her sin and put her in bondage to the man's sin. @Minister Monardo purported this viewpoint when he said:

The wife is not instructed to submit to the husband once she feels that he is meeting God's standards, based on her understanding of the matter. She must submit, in recognition of the one who places the expectations of authority.
Abused women hear all of this kind of teaching (NEVER are caveats stated that this doesn't apply to abuse) and try to apply it to their marriages fruitlessly without a glimmer of thought questioning if they are properly applying God's word. This is what they've always heard, and this is what their filters translate the verses as.

You can never submit well enough to abuse to stop it. Abuse is about power, and gaining without regard to another person's expense. The more you submit to it, the uglier things get.
Thank you for the information. I was wrong about that basically.

Honestly, when I read the statements I think to myself "That is so ridiculous who could possibly take it seriously?" But I guess part of my reaction to that is because I have not been exposed to Christian communities where that type of ideology is in the mainstream.

I guess it is good to know that such things exist so that you can identify them when presented with it.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,006
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,173.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
In what ways do they differ if they are not exactly the same?

The main ways we differ are to do with our physiology, not our behaviour.

Sure, but stereotypes by definition not reflective of reality.

But we are dealing here with stereotypes; the idea of masculine and feminine is a stereotypical binary.

Well certainly, but that does not mean that those differences are not significant. Humans and chimpanzees share 99% of the same DNA. That 1% makes us quite different.

But the point is, if you look at the bell curve, most of us inhabit the overlap on almost all traits. Very few of us operate outside a range that is common to both men and women.

When they give cognitive tests to 3 year old boys and girls they find that the boys are better at certain types of tasks and that the girls are different on other types of tasks. When they run scans on male and female brains they find that female brains have more connections between the hemispheres, while men have more connections within them. We know that men and women have much different levels of hormones such as testosterone, and that differing levels of these hormones affects behavior even among members of the same gender. Plenty of books of been written about this stuff by both men and women. To admit that the genders differ in significant ways does not mean that one group is superior to the other.

Well, two problems with this.

1. To observe cognitive or hormonal differences does not mean we can say that particular behaviours are biologically determined; mostly they're not.
2. To use these on-average differences at a population level to define narrow and restrictive gender roles harms all those who don't fit within those narrow restrictions; which at some point will be most of us.

Why would God even bother with creating different genders if he wanted us to be the same?

I am not arguing for sameness. I am actually arguing that each person is a unique individual, created, gifted and called according to God's purpose. You can't stick each of us into a box labelled "man" or "woman" and think that defines our potential. You have to take each person for who they are, and sometimes that will highly conform with our gender stereotypes, and sometimes it won't, and either way, that person is still God's good creation.

I would say that things like this do lend support for your contention that we live in a patriarchy(although I did not previously deny that forms of male privilege exist).


I really appreciate your openness to the discussion. :)

I did not say anything about determinism. To clarify, if I say that women are more naturally caregivers or that men are more naturally prone to work, I do not mean every woman and every man. Certainly some women are more naturally inclined to work than some men, and some men are more naturally inclined to be caregivers than some women. I meant that on average, at least up to this point in history, it has been the case that men as a group are more naturally inclined to work, and women were more naturally inclined to be caregivers.

I don't think that has to be controversial. The computer was invented roughly 50 years ago. For the 100,000 years or so before that, work was primarily physical in nature. Nor was there widespread access to childcare facilities and many of the social services that are available today. If a married man and woman live in area where tree-logging or coal-mining is the primary industry in the town, it does not make a whole lot of sense for the woman to go climbing a tree while she is six months pregnant. Once the child is born, it makes more sense for the man to go out and earn money by cutting down and transporting the trees, because he is physically much stronger than she is. It makes no sense for her to go out and attempt to cut down trees while he stays home and takes care of the baby. Norms have developed over time for practical differences that stem between the biological differences between men and women. I don't think it all has to be chalked up to a patriarchal conspiracy to favor men at the expense of women.

Whenever we get into the language of what is "natural" we get into the territory of biological determinism. I don't think it's got anything to do with men being more "naturally" inclined to work; I'd argue, in fact, that the industrial revolution and the rise of the "nuclear family" has severed work from home life and caring responsibilities in a way which our pre-modern ancestors would have found quite unnatural, and that that is what created this binary of "men work and women care."

In times before that, most people worked in forms of subsistence agriculture, most people lived in households of more extended family, everyone worked, and everyone contributed to care, according to their abilities and the needs of the group, because that was necessarily for survival. So you might, for example, see a grandmother caring for a clutch of small children while their mothers - who were younger and physically fitter - were out in the fields. And you still see that sort of pattern in subsistence-agriculture communities today.

It turns into a lifetime of reduced earnings because it is fair that people who do more work and do not take time away from their careers earn more money than people who do less work and take time away from their careers. If me and another man are in the same class at my law firm, and he takes 6 months or 1 year off work, when he comes back my salary is going to be at least 10% to 15% higher than his going forward, because 10 to 15% is the annual increase. He has also lost out on significant networking opportunities during that time which will make him a less valuable asset to the firm than me, and which will reduce his chances of making partner. If a woman takes interrupts her career to take care of a child, naturally she will be at a disadvantage in comparison to those men and women who did not.

No, I'm not just talking about what's attributable to a break from work. I'm talking about all the other impacts - the not being offered promotions or opportunities because mothers are seen as unreliable or not good prospects for the employer - the unequal pay for equal work (which routinely still happens), and so on.

When you refer to the "mummy track" specifically what phenomenon are you referring to?

I'm talking about the phenomenon where employers give mothers work which is less valued, and sidetrack them from opportunities, and so on.

I had a very stark illustration of that at one point. One of the bishops in my diocese gathered together all the ordained women here who had children of pre-school age to talk to us about the particular issues and struggles we face. This was a group of intelligent, gifted, capable women with a great range of skill, experience and wisdom between us.

Not one of us was working full time. Every one of us would have liked more work than we were being offered. Every one of us found that the opportunities we would have liked were offered to young fathers, but not to us, because people made negative assumptions about our ability and willingness to take those roles on and do them capably (seeing our having children as a deficit). Where they saw the young guys having a family as a bonus! And so on.

That's the "mummy track." The place women who are gifted and capable and want to do more get sidelined because people assume that as mothers, we "naturally" are not inclined to work.

I'm not sure why it is controversial to assert that the partner who has a much greater physical (and likely emotional because of the physical) attachment to a child is more likely to have a stronger bond to the child. We tend to be more strongly connected to things that we have invested in, do we not?

I think it's pretty gross to suggest that dad is less invested. And it denies the emotional complexity of being a new mother.

Yeah, I'm not sure how things go down over there. It sounds a bit like America in the 1950's. June Cleaver. Leave it to Beaver. That sort of thing.

From what I understand around 40% of births in the USA now are out-of-wedlock. Much higher than that with some ethic groups. Taking myself as an example, my parents split up when I was around 5. At that time it was me and other two siblings, and my mother had only graduated high school. So we moved into the projects. We had food stamps. We went to local food pantries on the weekend to pick up extra food. We weren't living in the lap of luxury but we had a roof over our heads and meals every night. At some point my mother decided that she wanted to go to college, so we had some kind of state childcare that we were in besides school (I don't remember the exact name of it). She got financial support to go to school. It might have been scholarships or in the form of a loan, I don't remember. I think it took her about 5 years to graduate. She then got a job working as a social worker. She eventually moved up to better jobs, and so forth. We were able to move and get a decent place to live. That was for a black woman living in the USA in the Reagan era.

Now I'll grant you that is not an easy thing to do. But life is difficult for most people, to varying degrees. She did not have to prostitute. She did not have to work in a sweatshop or risk her physical health. I don't know exactly know what all is available today, but based on my own experience I feel that people who are willing to work have enough opportunities and social support around them to at least make ends meat. I know that is not the case around the world.

I've known some people who've moved here from America to suggest that we are some decades behind, socially. I'm not sure if it's "behind" or just "developing slightly differently."

Your mum did really well. But the thing is, even if most women who do actually leave an abuser do well, the fear of homelessness - the fear of being on welfare and that not being sufficient to support your child, and so forth - all of those fears are often enough to keep a dependent woman stuck in an abusive situation.

I couldn't really find the right words there to express what I wanted to say. I guess I meant it more of the sense of being not valued, appreciated, or respected. Just kind of looked as an object that could be easily replaced with another one.

That's horrible when it happens to anyone. Of course, lots of wives find that they get dumped for a younger, hotter model.

Yeah. Ya'll are just some angels responding to the ways of us evil men.

No, that wasn't really what I was saying. I was saying that each of us tends to develop patterns of toxic behaviour congruent with our social situation.

Shall we group these individual bad actions performed by individual women together and refer to them as "toxic femininity" as we do with men?

"Toxic masculinity" refers to more than a grouping of individual bad actions. It's about how those actions exist within narrow and repressive ideas of what it is to be a man, that define masculinity in terms of hyper-masculinity, and often in terms of violence, lack of emotion, sexual aggression, and so on. It's about the ideals our society holds and the narratives which shape it.

There might possibly be a female counterpart - narratives which provide very narrow and repressive gender roles for women, that define us in terms of hyper-femininity, in terms of passivity, excessive emotion, asexuality, and so on; but that is the flip side of toxic masculinity and again, an expression of the patriarchal norms which we inhabit; dismantling one will help dismantle both.

That's understandable. At least for me, and you knew me in real life and were like "Swag, l have noticed XYZ issue that affects women and I would like your support in helping to improve it" I would be like "Yeah, that's cool. That might affect my daughter or my sister, what can I do to help?" But if you came at me like "Swag, we are living in a patriarchal world in which you are among the privileged class and women are trained to serve you" I am gonna be like "What you talkin' bout Willis?" I think that is a bit divorced from the complicated reality of things.

Well, sure. Reality is complicated and messy.

But threads like this, narratives like this, and so much more, are part of that complicated and messy reality. It would help if, when men who don't share these controlling views encounter this kind of discussion, they could see the problem with the attack on women, rather than jumping straight to "don't talk about abuse as a gendered reality!" In the context of this thread, it's very much a gendered discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swag365
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Swag365

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2019
1,352
481
USA
✟50,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The main ways we differ are to do with our physiology, not our behaviour.
That's cool. I think physiology affects behavior. I think its fine if we disagree on that. The science on that issue itself is not settled.

But we are dealing here with stereotypes; the idea of masculine and feminine is a stereotypical binary.
I don't think there is anything wrong with taking a set of traits and labeling them as "A" and another set of traits and labeling them as "B" and then saying that group A tends to exhibit A more than group B, and group B tends to exhibit B more than group A, if you note that both members of group A and group B exhibit A and B. If you were running a scientific experiment with a group of rats, or anything else you could speak and analyze tendencies in that manner.

If you replace A and B with "masculine" and "feminine" you have the same thing. I think your issue with the terms is that you believe that they suggest that certain traits are exclusive to men and that others are exclusive to women, or that the traits have an extremely high correlation with the respective genders (e.g. "men are rational, women are emotional").

If you wanted to change the terms from "masculine" and "feminine" to something else ("A" and "B" for example), to lessen the danger of the stereotyping effect of the terms themselves, I would be fine with with that, but I would still take the position that men are still more likely to exhibit "A" and women are more likely to exhibit "B".

But the point is, if you look at the bell curve, most of us inhabit the overlap on almost all traits. Very few of us operate outside a range that is common to both men and women.
Well to be clear I never put much stock in the particular picture that you posted. I don't think it is based on any real, hard data, but was presented as more of a conceptual schematic to illustrate an idea. To get an actual idea for what the actual distributions are I think we would need much more than that, if that task is even possible at all. It's not exactly easy to measure "aggressiveness," "emotional expressiveness," or numerous other behavioral characteristics in a truly quantitative matter. Even defining the terms themselves and the methodology used to test for them would be subject to considerable debate.

1. To observe cognitive or hormonal differences does not mean we can say that particular behaviours are biologically determined; mostly they're not.
True, but nor does it follow that behavioral differences result from or are attributable to environmental or cultural factors.

I think this is essentially the "nature" versus "nuture" debate that has been going on for the past 100 years. My view on that is that behavior is attributable to both genetic and environmental factors. I think that to ignore the significance of either factor would be incorrect.

2. To use these on-average differences at a population level to define narrow and restrictive gender roles harms all those who don't fit within those narrow restrictions; which at some point will be most of us.
I agree, but I don't advocate for that.

I am not arguing for sameness. I am actually arguing that each person is a unique individual, created, gifted and called according to God's purpose. You can't stick each of us into a box labelled "man" or "woman" and think that defines our potential. You have to take each person for who they are, and sometimes that will highly conform with our gender stereotypes, and sometimes it won't, and either way, that person is still God's good creation.
Well, those terms define our potential to give birth to children.

But not to be difficult, I agree with you. I share the same view. We want to consider each person as an individual, not put him or her into a box, restrict him or her based on preconceived notions.

I'll say this though, I think that concept is incongruent with using terms like "toxic masculinity", "male privilege", and "the patriarchy". Terms like that, in my view, tend to lump all of together as exhibiting certain behaviors or having certain benefits resulting from an unjust society. The use of the terms denies each of our own unique experiences as men on the Earth, in my opinion.

I really appreciate your openness to the discussion. :)
Thanks. I hate being wrong but its better to be in the truth rather than to remain in error to preserve one's ego.

Whenever we get into the language of what is "natural" we get into the territory of biological determinism. I don't think it's got anything to do with men being more "naturally" inclined to work; I'd argue, in fact, that the industrial revolution and the rise of the "nuclear family" has severed work from home life and caring responsibilities in a way which our pre-modern ancestors would have found quite unnatural, and that that is what created this binary of "men work and women care."
Probably there I could use better terminology than "natural". I meant it in the sense that depending on the particular environment in which one finds oneself, it may be generally more efficient for men to work. Like, if you are cavemen living in a cave, and one person has to go out hunting, it may be better for the men to go out, because well, we run faster than ya'll.

I didn't mean that in an absolute sense, without considering the environment. Obviously we are no longer living in caves, its more efficient to have a different balance when it comes to work roles.

In times before that, most people worked in forms of subsistence agriculture, most people lived in households of more extended family, everyone worked, and everyone contributed to care, according to their abilities and the needs of the group, because that was necessarily for survival. So you might, for example, see a grandmother caring for a clutch of small children while their mothers - who were younger and physically fitter - were out in the fields. And you still see that sort of pattern in subsistence-agriculture communities today.
Sure. I am sure that there have been huge variations throughout place in time. The main point I was attempting to make with that discussion was that norms with respect to work can develop based on the physical differences between genders. I honestly don't know what goes on in subsistence agriculture communities, but I don't think you would be surprised if there are divisions based on gender even there (like, men generally mow the lawn because the lawnmower is heavy and we are usually more capable of generating physical force to push it, to give a cliched example.). It's not necessarily some wayward cultural programming from domineering men that causes the norms.

Now granted, if I demonstrate that biological differences have had an affect on some of the work norms that have developed, that is not proof that other factors, such as wayward cultural norms meant to benefit men, are not also at play. That is still a provable hypothesis.

No, I'm not just talking about what's attributable to a break from work. I'm talking about all the other impacts - the not being offered promotions or opportunities because mothers are seen as unreliable or not good prospects for the employer - the unequal pay for equal work (which routinely still happens), and so on.

I'm talking about the phenomenon where employers give mothers work which is less valued, and sidetrack them from opportunities, and so on.

I had a very stark illustration of that at one point. One of the bishops in my diocese gathered together all the ordained women here who had children of pre-school age to talk to us about the particular issues and struggles we face. This was a group of intelligent, gifted, capable women with a great range of skill, experience and wisdom between us.

Not one of us was working full time. Every one of us would have liked more work than we were being offered. Every one of us found that the opportunities we would have liked were offered to young fathers, but not to us, because people made negative assumptions about our ability and willingness to take those roles on and do them capably (seeing our having children as a deficit). Where they saw the young guys having a family as a bonus! And so on.

That's the "mummy track." The place women who are gifted and capable and want to do more get sidelined because people assume that as mothers, we "naturally" are not inclined to work.
Thanks. I understand what you mean now. Yes, that form of discrimination is unfortunate. It does exist although we have laws that prohibit it. They are often difficult to enforce.

I'm actually somewhat surprised to hear about your personal experience because my impression is that Anglicans are one of the most progressive denominations when it comes to women pastors. I suppose that impression is unfounded in some areas of the church.

I think it's pretty gross to suggest that dad is less invested. And it denies the emotional complexity of being a new mother.
I'm not sure why it is gross. I did not say that the mother loves the child more than the father. What I meant was that, all other things considered equal, the woman is the one who has to physically carry the child for nine months. That is not an investment that the man makes. Whatever support he offers, I think it would be difficult for him to invest something that matches that.

I think women all time echo the same sentiment when they say "my body my choice" (not that I am pro-choice). The idea there I think is that the person who carries the child should have the choice, because she is the one who has to make the who will have make the physical sacrifice.

I've known some people who've moved here from America to suggest that we are some decades behind, socially. I'm not sure if it's "behind" or just "developing slightly differently."

Your mum did really well. But the thing is, even if most women who do actually leave an abuser do well, the fear of homelessness - the fear of being on welfare and that not being sufficient to support your child, and so forth - all of those fears are often enough to keep a dependent woman stuck in an abusive situation.
Thanks. That is a fair point. Yes, I think those fears could be a factor that causes a woman to stay with an abuser. In that case I would say that we should offer more social support structures, so that that fear can be eliminated.

That's horrible when it happens to anyone. Of course, lots of wives find that they get dumped for a younger, hotter model.
True. I think that is kind of the image that persists, but its interesting to me that the vast majority of divorces in the USA are now initiated by women. I think that most divorces are initiated by women here is some evidence that they lack dependence on men, and have a good ability to thrive on their own. But it could be the case that most women who divorce are the ones who have more successful careers, as opposed to one who are the more "stay-at-home" type. Would be interesting to see some data on it.

No, that wasn't really what I was saying. I was saying that each of us tends to develop patterns of toxic behaviour congruent with our social situation.
OK. That's fair.

"Toxic masculinity" refers to more than a grouping of individual bad actions. It's about how those actions exist within narrow and repressive ideas of what it is to be a man, that define masculinity in terms of hyper-masculinity, and often in terms of violence, lack of emotion, sexual aggression, and so on. It's about the ideals our society holds and the narratives which shape it.

There might possibly be a female counterpart - narratives which provide very narrow and repressive gender roles for women, that define us in terms of hyper-femininity, in terms of passivity, excessive emotion, asexuality, and so on; but that is the flip side of toxic masculinity and again, an expression of the patriarchal norms which we inhabit; dismantling one will help dismantle both.
Well then, since the media has talked "toxic masculinity" to death over the past few years, I propose that we should talk exclusively about "toxic femininity" for the next few years, since dismantling one will dismantle both, and a goal is equality.

I highly doubt that women would agree to that. Many, if not most, women who talk about "toxic masculinity" will not even admit that the term "Toxic femininity" is valid in any context.

Given that the underlying concept can be framed and dismantled as "toxic masculinity" or "toxic femininity" as you note above, why is the issue only framed and discussed in terms of "toxic masculinity"? I'll offer my opinion on this all-too-important question. Because the concept that you described above is merely a guise. The intent behind the use of the term is simply to denigrate men and behavior such as aggressiveness, stoicism, etc., which are more commonly exhibited by men. It is a thinly veiled attack on men themselves, and one could easily have found another way of discussing the concepts above without using a term that implies by its very words that masculinity is toxic.

Now that could or could not be the case or the true intention. Perhaps the intention differs among the different people who use it. But in any case I think that is how the phrase is perceived and understood by most men who hear it.

As a second proposal, stop using both phrases.

Well, sure. Reality is complicated and messy.

But threads like this, narratives like this, and so much more, are part of that complicated and messy reality. It would help if, when men who don't share these controlling views encounter this kind of discussion, they could see the problem with the attack on women, rather than jumping straight to "don't talk about abuse as a gendered reality!" In the context of this thread, it's very much a gendered discussion.
OK I will admit that I did jump into the thread not intending to participate in the general discussion on the initial topic of the thread (although I did give a few thoughts on the general topic at some point). I was just skimming through it and saw something that peaked my interest and commented on it. I am guilty of hijacking the thread. We'll call it a venial sin.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0