Submission & Headship

[bèlla]

But you do seek a man who takes on a more dominate role? I'd say that has seeds of wanting a man who exhibits more "parental traits".

Leadership doesn’t always means dominance. The latter requires a subjugation of the others’ will to work amicably. Whether that happens voluntarily or not.

I don’t want a partner who dominates. I need someone who has the capacity to chart a course and confront challenges en route without quitting or combusting.

I’m not addressing that from the perspective of helplessness or an inability to manage my life. His leadership complements my own. I’m incapable of following someone who lacks that ability. I have it and will see through the holes in their logic.

I think people need to be more honest and communicative about their attractions the success rates will be more favorable. Also more creative.

I agree. But from what I’ve observed thus far (in Christian circles) most are seeking companions who meet physical (presence and intimacy), emotional (love, friendship, and acceptance), domestic, and spiritual needs.

My desires aren’t romantically driven. I don’t dream about a cuddle bunny. What attracts me most is the person who knows his purpose and is ardently pursuing it. His desire for companionship doesn’t set that aside. The relationship and mission are equally important.

I suspect the reason I haven’t found a viable connection is the place that marriage holds in the minds of many. I don’t view it as my purpose or what defines me at all. Relationships are part of the picture. Not the whole thing.

I'm not saying people have to go into whips and chains but having a more clear and aggressive dominate/submissive dynamic will probably keep the fires burning longer.

I don’t believe most are wired this way and that was the point of the thread. Deferring to another’s will doesn’t come natural and don’t assume that differs in your circle. They have similar struggles but the difference is their agreement. They’re expected to wrestle through them but many fail.

The same is true for leading. Egalitarian relationships are significantly easier and less pressure. When you take on the responsibility of setting the course you carry all the blame and expectations on your shoulders. Few want the pressure of what that means.

There was also a lot of insecurity floating around. Men not feeling totally comfortable stepping into the dominate zone and women not totally comfortable stepping into the submissive zone.

They were operating against their makeup. Less than 10% of the male population is truly dominant. And I’d say the same holds true for women. You are addressing a way of relating where she follows his lead unquestionably and defers to his will at all times. Even when it opposes her own. And the line between your idea of submission and subservience is very fine.

Natural deference doesn’t mean you suspend your common sense or compromise yourself. I say no. If I see we’re heading for a cliff and he’s neglected my input, I’m not going over with a smile. I’m leaping out. I will take a hit for the greater good but not for foolish endeavors.

Perhaps looking at it through a more "role play" angle would make the process more easy to swallow. Like many things in life, relationships take effort and that effort is not always enjoyable. Sometimes you need to "push" yourself.

I think roleplaying is part of the problem. People need to be themselves and relate from that position. Not the ideal they think the other wants. That isn’t sustainable.

I’m upfront with my prospects so there’s no confusion. I don’t want them to have unrealistic expectations or assumptions that will lead to disappointment later on. You can’t allow a fear of rejection or loneliness to inspire deceptive behaviors. Informed decisions must be based on the truth. Including the warts.

Not sure I would say I have courage, more that I have little stomach for dishonesty. I would rather be blunt and open about my desires and views of others than wallow in politically correctness.

I respect your willingness to speak your mind and tell the truth. Our perspective isn’t always popular. But telling the truth is a must. That’s where change begins.

it would be equally horrible if I were in a feminist relationship, lol.. In fact those two camps have much more in common than they'd probably like to think.

I’ll see your feminist and raise it with effeminate flowery speech from a man. Just say no. ;-)

 

[MehGuy]

Leadership doesn’t always means dominance. The latter requires a subjugation of the others’ will to work amicably. Whether that happens voluntarily or not.

Maybe I am using too harsh of a word. Admittedly I am not very apt when it comes to the use of language. I grew up with speech/language disabilities.

I just view "dominance" as a spectrum. The woman who wants a man to chain her up and lock her in the basement, and a woman who wants to have the security of relying on a man making the tough financial life decisions are feeling the same emotions just at a different intensity.

I tend to view human psychology as something that works on a spectrum and as a result is heavily interconnected with various concepts.

I don’t want a partner who dominates. I need someone who has the capacity to chart a course and confront challenges en route without quitting or combusting.

I’m not addressing that from the perspective of helplessness or an inability to manage my life. His leadership complements my own. I’m incapable of following someone who lacks that ability. I have it and will see through the holes in their logic.

Hmm, I am a little confused what you want from a man. Are you seeking a more egalitarian role? You just want a confident and fit man. Someone you can disagree with and one who will not have any special privilege in having the "final say".

I agree. But from what I’ve observed thus far (in Christian circles) most are seeking companions who meet physical (presence and intimacy), emotional (love, friendship, and acceptance), domestic, and spiritual needs.

My desires aren’t romantically driven. I don’t dream about a cuddle bunny. What attracts me most is the person who knows his purpose and is ardently pursuing it. His desire for companionship doesn’t set that aside. The relationship and mission are equally important.

I suspect the reason I haven’t found a viable connection is the place that marriage holds in the minds of many. I don’t view it as my purpose or what defines me at all. Relationships are part of the picture. Not the whole thing.

Relationships mixed with business?

I don’t believe most are wired this way and that was the point of the thread. Deferring to another’s will doesn’t come natural and don’t assume that differs in your circle. They have similar struggles but the difference is their agreement. They’re expected to wrestle through them but many fail.

Yes, people have conflicting desires. People are not black and white. Submissive people have dominate urges and vice versa. BDSM relationships can be hard and very emotionally taxing, but if you want the highest and most satisfactory emotional connection with your partner you have to be willing to go through the fire.

I do not know how many people are wired that way. I am certainly not. Like I said before I'm more in the sadist camp, one that doesn't really require dominance. Just from my analyzation of others and from my studying of evolutionary psychology I can see how the "dominate/submissive" theme casts it's net far and wide.

The same is true for leading. Egalitarian relationships are significantly easier and less pressure. When you take on the responsibility of setting the course you carry all the blame and expectations on your shoulders. Few want the pressure of what that means.

Significantly easier but probably much less rewarding.

I think many men would gladly take the pressure if they could expect a reward from it. For many men they don't see a need to step up. Men are more and more "tuning out". We graduate less and less from college and more of us are devilling into the MGTOW mindset.

Really though, it is the masochism of man that we were not the primary ones to demand that women get out of the kitchen and go into the workforce. The reason the feminism we see today that is championed in the media outlets is one which demands men take all accountability and women should have none.

They were operating against their makeup. Less than 10% of the male population is truly dominant. And I’d say the same holds true for women. You are addressing a way of relating where she follows his lead unquestionably and defers to his will at all times. Even when it opposes her own. And the line between your idea of submission and subservience is very fine.

I don't think they're operating against their makeup. These people choose to be in these relationships. They just didn't have the preparedness to deal with these types of relationships in the modern world. These people would have probably had a much more satisfactory relationship if they lived in the 19th century compared to the late 20th early 21st centuries.

You are addressing a way of relating where she follows his lead unquestionably and defers to his will at all times. Even when it opposes her own. And the line between your idea of submission and subservience is very fine.

I view dominance and submissive relationships in a spectrum. It doesn't have to lead to someone following another's will at all times.

Natural deference doesn’t mean you suspend your common sense or compromise yourself. I say no. If I see we’re heading for a cliff and he’s neglected my input, I’m not going over with a smile. I’m leaping out. I will take a hit for the greater good but not for foolish endeavors.

Yeah, I don't see many women wanting to be submissive to that extreme. Women evolved to seek competent partners. They surely will be able to tune out from a man if he proves he is not so.

I think roleplaying is part of the problem. People need to be themselves and relate from that position. Not the ideal they think the other wants. That isn’t sustainable.

I’m upfront with my prospects so there’s no confusion. I don’t want them to have unrealistic expectations or assumptions that will lead to disappointment later on. You can’t allow a fear of rejection or loneliness to inspire deceptive behaviors. Informed decisions must be based on the truth. Including the warts.

Yeah you shouldn't go through the motions in trying to please a partner. If you're not compatible find someone else who is.

I respect your willingness to speak your mind and tell the truth. Our perspective isn’t always popular. But telling the truth is a must. That’s where change begins.

Thanks. This is what the Internet is all about, lol.

 

[bèlla]

a woman who wants to have the security of relying on a man making the tough financial life decisions are feeling the same emotions just at a different intensity.

I’m not looking for that. I think function is a better example of what I’m referencing.

I tend to view human psychology as something that works on a spectrum and as a result is heavily interconnected with various concepts.

Spectrum wise, I will always relate to the opposite sex (in a relationship) where deference is my default. However, that is not my de facto way of being and I can’t respond to every man that way. It can’t be forced. There are specific characteristics that bring it out.

In your vernacular that’s submission. In mine its surrender. The conditions for its display and absence of effort to remain in that space is the difference. I don’t require active ‘dominance’ for its maintenance. Or the subjugation of my mind and heart. There’s no resistance to the concept. I’m not warring against ideals on either side. I believe its right and my service is an honest expression of that belief.

You just want a confident and fit man. Someone you can disagree with and one who will not have any special privilege in having the "final say".

He can have the privilege. But that isn’t ceded because he’s a man or Christian. I trust his guidance because he’s experienced and knows how to lead. I can’t crown him king because he desires the role. He’s got to fill the shoes.

Relationships mixed with business?

It doesn’t have to be that. If he’s found his passion and is following it and believes its God given that’s fine. If he wants someone whose being is wholly devoted to him and nothing else I’m the wrong fit. And I don’t want someone who would put me in that place either.

but if you want the highest and most satisfactory emotional connection with your partner you have to be willing to go through the fire.

I want to be stretched. I admitted that in your thread. I need a growth-driven partnership.

I think many men would gladly take the pressure if they could expect a reward from it. For many men they don't see a need to step up. Men are more and more "tuning out". We graduate less and less from college and more of us are devilling into the MGTOW mindset.

That’s the issue. Many women want the reins. And men are being conditioned to accept it. I can’t embrace that. Its unnatural “for me” and I reject it and them. I’ve met several who adhere to MGTOW and similar philosophies. I don’t think that’s the solution but I understand their frustration.

Yeah, I don't see many women wanting to be submissive to that extreme. Women evolved to seek competent partners. They surely will be able to tune out from a man if he proves he is not so.

I don’t think men understand how that looks in a modern guise. We don’t have to forbear the things our ancestors did. We’re more selective and that’s changed the landscape.

 

[MehGuy]

I’m not looking for that. I think function is a better example of what I’m referencing.

Alright. I think for most women security is a big aspect but still, wanting a man with good leadership qualities is also an indicator of good genes. Security doesn't necessarily have to enter the equation.

Spectrum wise, I will always relate to the opposite sex (in a relationship) where deference is my default. However, that is not my de facto way of being and I can’t respond to every man that way. It can’t be forced. There are specific characteristics that bring it out.

Of course. The man needs to be worth it.

In your vernacular that’s submission. In mine its surrender. The conditions for its display and absence of effort to remain in that space is the difference. I don’t require active ‘dominance’ for its maintenance. Or the subjugation of my mind and heart. There’s no resistance to the concept. I’m not warring against ideals on either side. I believe its right and my service is an honest expression of that belief.

Interesting.. again I'm more in the sadomasochistic camp. Perhaps I'm projecting masochism with the idea of submission. You want something more pure.

He can have the privilege. But that isn’t ceded because he’s a man or Christian. I trust his guidance because he’s experienced and knows how to lead. I can’t crown him king because he desires the role. He’s got to fill the shoes.

But you still ultimately want the man to be the leader.

That’s the issue. Many women want the reins. And men are being conditioned to accept it. I can’t embrace that. Its unnatural “for me” and I reject it and them. I’ve met several who adhere to MGTOW and similar philosophies. I don’t think that’s the solution but I understand their frustration.

Maybe women want to take the reigns but not in the same sense men have in the past. There is still a "childlike" "parent" dynamic between many feminist interactions with men and women. The women should not be treated like a child when it does not suit them, but should still be pampered and coddled like one. A woman should be able to be a CEO, but every little hurdle and trail she faces should be blown out of proportion. Men are still expected to be white knights. If a man faces adversity or acts like a child he's just some "manbaby". Funny how feminists who seem to scrutinize every term seemed to let manbaby (with there being no equivalent of femalebaby) slip right past them.

It is something I see both conservatives and feminists shout in anger when they feel like a man fails to fill his "parental" role.

I don’t think men understand how that looks in a modern guise. We don’t have to forbear the things our ancestors did. We’re more selective and that’s changed the landscape.

Even if the environment changed, our evolutionary psychological urges have not. You still see articles written by women complaining that there are not enough college educated men around. I don't think we'll ever see women as a whole comfortable marrying down (as far as social status and income) compared to men.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

when did Jesus ever submit to the church?

 

[bèlla]

Alright. I think for most women security is a big aspect but still, wanting a man with good leadership qualities is also an indicator of good genes. Security doesn't necessarily have to enter the equation.

His leadership makes me feel secure. I wouldn’t hand my money to someone lacking experience and expertise. Why would I entrust myself to the same?

Relationships are challenging. There are numerous ways for a man to enhance his leadership skills. He needn’t stumble through the dark. And the same is true for women. Whether they will make the investment is the question. I did. I wanted to give him something of value and I still work on myself to this day.

Of course. The man needs to be worth it.

I can’t say that. It would give the impression he isn’t good enough. For the sake of peace, I place the onus on myself and say I’m the wrong fit.

Interesting.. again I'm more in the sadomasochistic camp. Perhaps I'm projecting masochism with the idea of submission. You want something more pure.

Surrender is pure and unfiltered. That is a path in itself that isn’t dependent on companionship to undertake. You aren’t projecting. The objective differs. Submission is unto the lower man and surrender unto the Higher.

Your quote testifies to this truth. Whether the pain comes from the Higher or lower; the mind and heart process them in a different way. The sufferance is beautiful because it betters the subject. And that betterment is worth the discomfort.

If you want to understand me look at her and you’ll see me clearly. That isn’t a connection every one needs or could handle. What would they do with me? ;-)

But you still ultimately want the man to be the leader.

That is the only way.

The women should be treated like a child when it does not suit them, but should still be pampered and coddled like one.

I don’t like coddling. I don’t want to be treated like I’m fragile or in need of rescue. I don’t want a white knight. I want someone who expects me to stand and have my act together.

Anyone who accepts less than my best is wrong for me. Even if I fail. Even when I struggle. I don’t want him to lower the bar. Raise it and push me harder. That’s what I need.

We all respond differently to adversity. I don’t think men should be chided for their weaknesses or emotions. That doesn’t dismiss maturity and responsibility. He deserves an ear, support and encouragement. But I draw the lone at mothering him. And I won’t validate a lie for his ego.

I don't think we'll ever see women as a whole comfortable marrying down (as far as social status and income) compared to men.

I won’t be the bread winner in my relationship (barring a calamity). And he isn’t the majordomo! I would have difficulty respecting someone who didn’t earn a living and provide for us. I can’t do it.

 

[bèlla]

when did Jesus ever submit to the church?

You have a way with words. Touché.

 

[MehGuy]

His leadership makes me feel secure.

We all respond differently to adversity. I don’t think men should be chided for their weaknesses or emotions. That doesn’t dismiss maturity and responsibility. He deserves an ear, support and encouragement. But I draw the lone at mothering him. And I won’t validate a lie for his ego.

That is the only way.

I won’t be the bread winner in my relationship (barring a calamity). And he isn’t the majordomo! I would have difficulty respecting someone who didn’t earn a living and provide for us. I can’t do it.

Alright sounds right along the lines of a parent child dynamic. Although you seem to want to offer something in return. You'd definitely be offering a healthy relationship where both parties can feel fulfilled.

Surrender is pure and unfiltered. That is a path in itself that isn’t dependent on companionship to undertake. You aren’t projecting. The objective differs. Submission is unto the lower man and surrender unto the Higher.

I'm not sure if I really understand what you mean here.

Your quote testifies to this truth. Whether the pain comes from the Higher or lower; the mind and heart process them in a different way. The sufferance is beautiful because it betters the subject. And that betterment is worth the discomfort. If you want to understand me look at her and you’ll see me clearly. That isn’t a connection every one needs or could handle. What would they do with me? ;-)

Hmm, personally I never really looked at it in a submissive/surrender mindset. When I was a Christian submissive/surrender was not part of my faith at all. Admittedly my idea of Christianity was probably not very orthodox, lol.

Maybe you're right. She is certainly an interesting case study, and did seem to have a submissive/surrender mindset.

I don’t like coddling. I don’t want to be treated like I’m fragile or in need of rescue. I don’t want a white knight. I want someone who expects me to stand and have my act together.

I do think compared to feminist relationships, conservative women are probably less attracted to coddling overall. The thing with modern feminism at least, it seems to be hyper feminine despite some people thinking that feminist women just want to act like "men". Wanting safe spaces and trigger warning is not exactly the most manly thing in the world. You're not brave and bold just because you want a cushy CEO job, lol.

Difference being, conservative women can express their femininity much more frequently. Feminist women from the 1960s and onwards were increasingly being treated like men. To counter this feminists have been coming up with more and more excuses for why they need to be treated like damsels. The world hates women. You got some feminist groups saying women are treated too harshly in the prison system. Despite men receiving harsher punishments for doing the same crimes. Yeah, sure.. the gender that is more neotenous and exhibits faces that are easier to empathize with are actual more hated and treated worse, lol.

 

[bèlla]

Alright sounds right along the lines of a parent child dynamic. Although you seem to want to offer something in return. You'd definitely be offering a healthy relationship where both parties can feel fulfilled.

My refusal to be the bread winner isn’t the cessation of income. I have it. But I won’t support a house husband. I’d be better off hiring a majordomo. There’s no upside to that relationship. Most people who take that path have children. I don’t.

I'm not sure if I really understand what you mean here.

An act of submission doesn’t equate surrender. The difference between the two is the heart. You can follow a directive begrudgingly with the wrong mindset and indifference. Many people work like that everyday.

And some welcome their tasks; working ardently and try to do their best. They desire the satisfaction of the other. His pleasure is their reward. Their surrender isn’t based on spoils. They would serve him without compensation. This is surrender in its purest form.

I used the Higher and lower descriptors to clarify my point. For many, the Higher is God. Man is the lower. I surrendered out of love. Nothing more or less. Heaven and hell weren’t part of the equation. I want to obey because I enjoy pleasing Him.

But I behaved this way before I came to faith. Submission is easy because of my wiring. But surrender comes from God. No person ever took me to the place I needed to go save Him.

Hmm, personally I never really looked at it in a submissive/surrender mindset.

Surrender is well articulated by the mystics. Most people give their alabaster box to their companion. But they mimic the woman who slathered Christ’s feet. They bring their most precious possession—themselves—wholly to Him. Unreservedly.

Difference being, conservative women can express their femininity much more frequently.

I like being a woman and delight in my femininity. I have no interest in behaving like a man. I can’t speak for others. But I’ve noticed the necessity to maintain balance within myself. The more I grow the greater my need for humility to keep me kind and malleable.

Sometimes women become steely when they’re successful or have a lot of power. I don’t think that’s attractive as a default. It has its place. But there’s a masculine energy that shouldn’t be adopted. That’s where feminism went awry. They forsook their fairness for gain and that wasn’t necessary.

 

[MehGuy]

My refusal to be the bread winner isn’t the cessation of income. I have it. But I won’t support a house husband. I’d be better off hiring a majordomo. There’s no upside to that relationship. Most people who take that path have children. I don’t.

Curious, would you lose attraction to a man if he made less than you? Still enough to support a family, but not quite to your level.

An act of submission doesn’t equate surrender. The difference between the two is the heart. You can follow a directive begrudgingly with the wrong mindset and indifference. Many people work like that everyday. And some welcome their tasks; working ardently and try to do their best. They desire the satisfaction of the other. His pleasure is their reward. Their surrender isn’t based on spoils. They would serve him without compensation. This is surrender in its purest form.

Could one say surrender is just a form of submission?

Surrender is well articulated by the mystics. Most people give their alabaster box to their companion. But they mimic the woman who slathered Christ’s feet. They bring their most precious possession—themselves—wholly to Him. Unreservedly.

I'm sure it is. Humanity seems to have a better time digesting surrender compared to something like masochism. A term that's only a little over 100 years old.

Sometimes women become steely when they’re successful or have a lot of power. I don’t think that’s attractive as a default. It has its place. But there’s a masculine energy that shouldn’t be adopted. That’s where feminism went awry. They forsook their fairness for gain and that wasn’t necessary.

Funny, that is where I think feminism is at its best. I like when women act like men and in turn want to be treated like men. Sadly from what I have seen from modern feminism it is often the opposite. Like the conservative Christians I grew up with, a lot of it is just an act. It's phoniness.

I think I am missing the white knight part of my male brain.. lol.. even as a kid I hated the idea of treating women more gently than men. The idea of a woman being hurt isn't any worse than the idea of a man being hurt in my head. It's like "whatever.." Lol..

 

[bèlla]

Curious, would you lose attraction to a man if he made less than you? Still enough to support a family, but not quite to your level.

I would hope not. But that has never happened. Keep in mind, my companions don’t agree with me earning an income. They want to be the sole providers.

Could one say surrender is just a form of submission?

Some might. But I think surrender implies a permanency that submission doesn’t. I will forsake much on behalf of my surrender and have.

I'm sure it is. Humanity seems to have a better time digesting surrender compared to something like masochism. A term that's only a little over 100 years old.

It was socially acceptable to display ascetic behaviors. Most were considered holy. But there was no categorization for physical desires that inspired pain. Especially when they're considered pleasurable. Most still can’t wrap their head around that. I’ve heard so much over the years that nothing shocks. I may write a book on sexuality at some point.

Funny, that is where I think feminism is at its best. I like when women act like men and in turn want to be treated like men.

I don’t like that in straight or gay women. I get it. But it isn’t something I’d advocate.

Sadly from what I have seen from modern feminism it is often the opposite. Like the conservative Christians I grew up with, a lot of it is just an act. It's phoniness.

I have reached a point in my manner of relating where going backwards is not an option.

I think I am missing the white knight part of my male brain..

Many men who operate from that perspective are incapable of relating to women without baggage. They need a mess to mask their shortcomings. He needs to help her ‘fix’ something. I don’t understand why a person would want to foist a calamity on another. But to each his own.

 

[Dave-W]

when did Jesus ever submit to the church?

Matthew 23:2
saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.​

As there was no Christian Church at that point, the synagogue system which was established by the Pharisees was the closest analog.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Matthew 23:2
saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.​

As there was no Christian Church at that point, the synagogue system which was established by the Pharisees was the closest analog.

…..that's not Jesus submitting to the church.

 

[Noxot]

when did Jesus ever submit to the church?

How about that time he came to be a servant as a human being?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

How about that time he came to be a servant as a human being?

...try again..

 

[Noxot]

...try again..

What use is it to try again? I know God's love and it is beyond anything that anyone can comprehend. But I will have it for myself as much as I can.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

What use is it to try again? I know God's love and it is beyond anything that anyone can comprehend. But I will have it for myself as much as I can.

...k

 

[Noxot]

...k

It's just so frustrating to explain to someone especially after they so quickly dismiss the example I already gave.

Most only see God as a Male. It's a one-sided kind of relationship. Christians see God as a King, as a powerful Authority. as someone far away. As someone who they're not United to. They don't see the tender side of God, the weakness and foolishness of love.

 

[bèlla]

It's just so frustrating to explain to someone especially after they so quickly dismiss the example I already gave.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. —Philippians 2:5-8

I think what he’s saying is that Christ’s sacrifice was submission to the Father’s will not the church.

 

[Noxot]

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. —Philippians 2:5-8

I think what he’s saying is that Christ’s sacrifice was submission to the Father’s will not the church.

I figured that was his reason though I was not absolutely sure. I wish to more clearly understand what submissive is supposed to mean in a Christian context. It has to be something divine. it's not exactly easy to distinguish the wisdom from above from the wisdom from Below especially when in Christianity God is not thought of in the feminine. as far as I'm concerned the best Christians have described the image of God as androgynous, just as Adam and Eve were one before Adam was put to sleep by God. But trying to understand a feminine view of God is exceedingly difficult when God incarnate was a male.

In general religions put women as second-class Citizens. Even Paul said that woman was made for man. Many of the religions that believe in reincarnation think that women are an inferior form to men.

If I was a woman I would go insane over the fact that I could not be for God as much as a male could, cuz man was made for God and woman for man.