The purpose of adhering to gender roles

[PreachersWife2004]

Well, that doesn't really sound like submission to me. And if compromise and making your partner happy (by going on vacation where he wants) is all submission amounts to, than it seems reasonable enough to me. OTOH, my understanding of submission, plus how I've seen others use the term, has always incorporated an unfair power hierarchy.

Eh, biblical submission is different than, say, sexual submission, which is probably how people tend to look at the word. Or they do think of it as unfair, which it is not. At least not when done correctly. Biblical submission is more of a mutual respect on both people's parts, but knowing where the ultimate authority rests.

 

[LJSGM]

Well, that doesn't really sound like submission to me. And if compromise and making your partner happy (by going on vacation where he wants) is all submission amounts to, than it seems reasonable enough to me. OTOH, my understanding of submission, plus how I've seen others use the term, has always incorporated an unfair power hierarchy.

usually those that believe in the power hierarchy that the husband makes all the decisions also believe that the husband has to be selfless in making them.

 

[Beanieboy]

What I would like to ascertain is this: does your enthusiasm for adherence to established gender roles have to do with your child's attainment of a development into adulthood that is in keeping with his or her biological nature; or is it more about adhering to the accepted roles which you regard as necessary for a child's proper social development? Is this a matter of biology - of what is "natural" for a boy or a girl - or of society - of what is expected of a boy or a girl? Or is it something else entirely?

One of the really strong memories I have is a girl in high school who had a baby, and brought it to school. My Family Living teacher asked her to help her with an experiment. They dressed the baby in pink for half of the day, put a ribbon in its hair, and brought the baby around school. People cooed, and were gentle, and soft to her. Then, the baby was dressed in bib overalls, a blue shirt, and told her name was Robby. Now, people used gruff voices, "Hey, Robby! How's my boy!", handled his rougher, and hit him on the back, as opposed to coddle him.

This has to translate to the child somehow.

In a cool experiment I saw on the Discovery Channel about the different sexes, children were asked to pick out the boys' toys and girls' toys. The chose a tank for a girl's toy, because it was pink and purple. The saddest discovery was that if a doll was mad or frowning, it was considered a boy's toy, and if it was smiling, it was a girl's toy.

I have asked my adult students if men and women are really that different, and they whole heartedly agree. I ask if women cry more than men, and they say, "A man can cry twice in his life - when he is born, and when his mother dies."

That doesn't give men much room to express themselves. So, what do you do, I asked, when a girl breaks your heart, or something disappointing happens, or you are scared? They said, "I get mad." And that's all they have, because that is what they are told is acceptable.

Girls, on the other hand, can cry about a grade, cry about breaking a nail, cry because someone broke up with them. They are allowed to be afraid, to be brave, to be angry, to be happy.

As a gay man that grew up playing jump rope, and not understanding why that was not okay, but okay if I take up boxing, I noticed a lot of fear in heterosexuals. They put pink ribbon in the daughter's hair, even though they have less hair than I do, because it's really unsettling to the parents to have people ask, "Is it a boy or a girl?" It is unsettling for people to see androgenous people, like Tilda Swinton, because the live in a world of black and white, of girls giggling and saying, "I don't know. I'm a girl," and guys being homophobic, and belching out the alphabet. Anyone straying from that "norm" is a threat to their reality.

I would allow my child to just be himself, and instill that value.

However, I will say that it rubs the other way as well. My ex-boyfriend had a nephew who was a typical boy. His sister was best friends with the guy from the Gay Students Association in college, and yet, her boy loved only trains until he was five, then moved on to basketball, and now, is really into math. I once said, "wow, he is the boyest boy I have ever seen," and she looked disheartened for a moment.

 

[Beanieboy]

Gender roles are cultural constructs, albeit ones that are at least partially based on biological distinctions. That said, most of what we regard as "typically" male or female is pretty much arbitrarily assigned, especially with regards to fashion, interests, or livelihoods.

A parent's desire to keep a child within the gender norms of a particular society is based upon the urge to "fit in", to avoid social ostracisement. Cultural group identities are always formed around the concept of the "other", the maligned outsider, the one who's markedly different. Nothing creates a better sense of solidarity among a fairly heterogeneous group than the presence of someone who differs significantly from all of them.
I remember an episode from my childhood: I wanted to dress up as a famous character from children's literature, who just happened to belong to the opposite gender. I was seven years old, and did not associate any of this with the trappings of gender, not to mention sexuality. I just revered that character, and thought it would be grand to dress up in such a fashion during carnival. My parents didn't allow it: they were pretty sure that the other kids would gang up on me if I did, treating me like a social leper. Thinking back to the miserable petty-mindedness of my small-town classmates (and their parents), I consider it perfectly possible that my parents weren't exactly wrong in their estimation of the situation. However, I still begrudge the fact that I had to choose another costume, if only because things would have been different in an ideal world.

Have you ever seen the amazing flick La Vie Rose?

The boy dresses in girl's clothes, and being 8 or 9, doesn't understand why the adults are getting so upset.

They finally move, and he goes to a girl's birthday party. It is a costume party, and he is dressed as a pirate. The girl is dressed as a princess. The girl asks if they can trade costumes. The mother sees her son dressed as the princess, and says, "What are you doing???? Why do you have to do this everywhere we go???? Why do you have to ruin everything?????"

The mother of the birthday girl looks at the screaming mother, and says, "Why are you so upset? They are just costumes, and they are just kids."

We don't get upset when the Wayan Brothers dress as White Girls, or Robin Williams dresses as Mrs. Doubtfire, nor, when I was a kid, was anyone upset about Harvey Korman dressed up as a big breasted woman, Flip Wilson doing Geraldine, or Milton Burle dressing in drag.

We are told, "Yeah, but they don't enjoy it."

No? It's unenjoyable for the actor? It's unenjoyable for the audience?

 

[Braunwyn]

Biblical submission is more of a mutual respect on both people's parts, but knowing where the ultimate authority rests.

usually those that believe in the power hierarchy that the husband makes all the decisions also believe that the husband has to be selfless in making them.

I guess I don't understand the authority aspect either, certainly not practically at least. An authority of what?

 

[LJSGM]

I guess I don't understand the authority aspect either, certainly not practically at least. An authority of what?

final say is all I can think of.

 

[Beanieboy]

I guess I don't understand the authority aspect either, certainly not practically at least. An authority of what?

Back in the day, I went to a Pentecostal Church. A visiting preacher told a story: A man has two horses. He offers a second man one of the horses, the white one, or the brown one. The man says, "Just a moment, let me talk to my wife." He comes back, and says, "we have decided on the white one." The man says, "You can have neither, because you did not make the decision yourself."

That kind of authority, which often leads to divorce.

The people who wrote the bible saw women lesser than (not allowed to be seen in Temple/Church, told to ask their husband questions so as not to interrupt the men's "important discussion" with their silly talk.

My friends and I just looked at each other, and looked over with sympathy at the preacher's wife...

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I, likewise, fail to see how one's gender makes one more or less of an authority figure. Authority is gained through superior knowledge or skill, not by means of certain reproductory organs.

 

[Catherineanne]

Argument about whether established gender roles are important is pretty common on Christian Forums, but I'd like to address this question specifically to those who think that adherence to these roles is important. I want to ask you whether you are inclined to draw a distinction between elements of gender roles which you regard as being natural, and those which you consider to be socially constructed.

A couple who adhere to very rigid gender roles are very likely to be doing so in order to maintain the dysfunction of their relationship; they have developed a co-dependency, rather than a partnership or marriage. The woman does all the cooking and cleaning, say, and the man does the garden and the car. He never cooks, she never cuts the grass. By doing this they each know who they are, and they each depend on one another. The unspoken message is that neither can live without the other; they are not two people, but two incomplete halves of one whole.

Fast forward 50 years, and it is highly likely that the death of one will be followed very shortly afterwards by the other. Half a person cannot survive alone.

Single parents do not have this luxury. Ten years ago my marriage failed and my h left. At that point whatever gender roles may have applied went out of the window. I had to do everything in my home, and I had to be both mother and father to my d. I am happy that she knows that women can do anything, and can cope with anything. She is certainly never going to be told that women cook and clean, and men garden. Not unless it is a preference, rather than a God given role.

A healthy adult can do anything within their home or outside environment that any other adult can do. They can choose to do it themselves or pay someone else to do it, but they are not incapable.

 

[Catherineanne]

I, likewise, fail to see how one's gender makes one more or less of an authority figure. Authority is gained through superior knowledge or skill, not by means of certain reproductory organs.

I agree. Authority has to be earned, and if it is not deserved, it will not be recognised.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Back in the day, I went to a Pentecostal Church. A visiting preacher told a story: A man has two horses. He offers a second man one of the horses, the white one, or the brown one. The man says, "Just a moment, let me talk to my wife." He comes back, and says, "we have decided on the white one." The man says, "You can have neither, because you did not make the decision yourself."

That kind of authority, which often leads to divorce.

The people who wrote the bible saw women lesser than (not allowed to be seen in Temple/Church, told to ask their husband questions so as not to interrupt the men's "important discussion" with their silly talk.

My friends and I just looked at each other, and looked over with sympathy at the preacher's wife...

Your story confuses me. So it was wrong for the husband to go consult his wife? Why? What is so awful about wanting to include your mate in the decision making process?

And the bolded part is misleading...

 

[LJSGM]

I, likewise, fail to see how one's gender makes one more or less of an authority figure. Authority is gained through superior knowledge or skill, not by means of certain reproductory organs.

Most men that cry out for authority over their wives are the ones that believe women are inferior (by being more emotion driven or more easily decieved then men), I've noticed in speaking to them.

 

[Braunwyn]

Your story confuses me. So it was wrong for the husband to go consult his wife? Why? What is so awful about wanting to include your mate in the decision making process?

Not only is there nothing awful about doing so, it is frankly stupid in contempory society. There is no doubt that a couple will shine in various arenas and one, of the two, cannot practically be an authority on all things (in the relationship, home, world, etc).

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Not only is there nothing awful about doing so, it is frankly stupid in contempory society. There is no doubt that a couple will shine in various arenas and one, of the two, cannot practically be an authority on all things (in the relationship, home, world, etc).

But that's where compromise comes in.

I've been a parent a lot longer than my husband. I was a single parent for nine years before I met him. So when we talk about parenting, he is the ultimate authority (don't read that as boss, either, cuz that's not how it works) but he often defers to me because I've been through this and he respects my views and experiences. Likewise, I'm a very poor financial manager, so I defer those types of decisions to him. If there is a big financial purchase, I do consult him first. And in the end, if he says no, I abide by that because I trust that he knows what he's talking about when he says "we cannot afford that right now".

Again, it's not about lording one's authority over the other. Christ doesn't do that, neither should a good husband, or a good boss for that matter.

In my relationship with my husband, I don't feel minimized or belittled or lower. We are co-equals who serve a unique purpose for each other.

 

[Brenlae]

Well, cnosidering in the world of science / psychology that being transgendered is no longer seen as a mental illness, a psychologist couldn't say much - for an adult, that is. But what about kids? I think that's going a bit too far.

 

[Braunwyn]

But that's where compromise comes in.

I've been a parent a lot longer than my husband. I was a single parent for nine years before I met him. So when we talk about parenting, he is the ultimate authority (don't read that as boss, either, cuz that's not how it works) but he often defers to me because I've been through this and he respects my views and experiences. Likewise, I'm a very poor financial manager, so I defer those types of decisions to him. If there is a big financial purchase, I do consult him first. And in the end, if he says no, I abide by that because I trust that he knows what he's talking about when he says "we cannot afford that right now".

IRT parenting, it doesn't make sense that you call him the ultimate authority. You have more experience than he does, between the two of you, you are the ultimate authority. This is where I get confused. OTOH, if one has a better grasp of a particular subject, like finances in his case, than sure, he's the ultimate authority. Maybe the term is just loosley used. It's hard to figure out.

Again, it's not about lording one's authority over the other. Christ doesn't do that, neither should a good husband, or a good boss for that matter.

In my relationship with my husband, I don't feel minimized or belittled or lower. We are co-equals who serve a unique purpose for each other.

I have a question. What if your husband tended to the finances poorly? Would he still have a final say? If not, than would he still be the authority even though you don't allow him to exercise it? << that question might not make a whole lot of sense.

I just don't understand using the term if it's not actually the case. If your husband wanted to do something with the children that you knew was wrong, I have no doubt that you would put your foot down. Of course, you don't have to worry about that because he's a reasonable man. Either way though, it doesn't look like authority.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

That's probably because we're viewing authority as two different things. The secular view of authority is comparable to that of a cop and a criminal, whereas a biblical view is just the person who is "in charge" so to speak. A cop could treat a criminal disrespectfully simply because he has the "authority" to do so. However, a husband does not have that type of authority. Christ submitted to the church - He gave his life for her, yet he's still the boss. What he says goes, regardless of what the church wants. My husband would gladly give his life for me, but in the end he does have the final authority. I use decision because the word doesn't have such a negative secular meaning.

And truly, the authority only works when the one with it is responsible with it. If my husband were a poor financial manager, then I'd have to take over that job. It would not necessarily be God-pleasing, but it wouldn't me that God might be upset with. And I would work with my husband to make him a better financial manager. In my real life situation, my hubby works me all the time to be a better financial manager. I simply tell him that my philosophy is "have money will spend" and nothing he says will change that .

Like with parenting, if I told him what I believed we should do say, when one of the kids gets in trouble, and he didn't agree with that, he ultimately would have the final say. But like you said, he's a reasonable man so even if he doesn't agree with what I've proposed, what he's going to do isn't going to be something horrible or awful.

It all goes back to the person with the "authority" not abusing it.

IRT parenting, it doesn't make sense that you call him the ultimate authority. You have more experience than he does, between the two of you, you are the ultimate authority. This is where I get confused. OTOH, if one has a better grasp of a particular subject, like finances in his case, than sure, he's the ultimate authority. Maybe the term is just loosley used. It's hard to figure out.


I have a question. What if your husband tended to the finances poorly? Would he still have a final say? If not, than would he still be the authority even though you don't allow him to exercise it? << that question might not make a whole lot of sense.

I just don't understand using the term if it's not actually the case. If your husband wanted to do something with the children that you knew was wrong, I have no doubt that you would put your foot down. Of course, you don't have to worry about that because he's a reasonable man. Either way though, it doesn't look like authority.

 

[mpok1519]

actually, no, cops don't have the right to treat criminals disrespectfully; this is how mny criminals get back onto the streets, bc the cop was overzealous while tackling the poor pot smoker. =P

 

[PreachersWife2004]

actually, no, cops don't have the right to treat criminals disrespectfully; this is how mny criminals get back onto the streets, bc the cop was overzealous while tackling the poor pot smoker. =P

Oh, no, there's a difference between being disrespectful to a suspect and beating a suspect.

 

[LJSGM]

I for one do not adhere to a set of laws, nor do I view the bible as a set of rules. A christian who is righteous does was is right, plainly speaking, and follows the guideness of the Holy Spirit and the scriptures. In some cases, a husband who says home with the kids instead of the wife is the right thing to do. There is no law to judge them on then. The choices and decisions made between a husband and wife is just that, between a husband and wife (and God) and should stay that way. Sometimes a husband can not survive without a subservient wife (out of weakness?), in this case, I would say, if that's not the lifestyle you want, don't marry a man like that, but if you do, you should submit to them.

I don't not think it a good thing for men to "rule over" their wives. It is part of the curse.