The purpose of adhering to gender roles

[Beanieboy]

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...

According to the preacher, because, quoting the bible, a wife should submit to her husband, as her husband submits to God. He interpreted this as the husband making all decisions, and the wife just smiling and nodding. When the man consulted his wife, he had disobeyed God (according to this preacher.)

I don't think that is all Christians, by any means. It was an extreme belief that some have. My mom, for example, believes that the man should earn the money, because the bible says that man should be the breadwinner, and women should stay home, or something. I asked, "what if I were to marry a woman who is a doctor, and wants to work, and makes more money than I do?" Her answer was still the same - it's men's place to work, women's to take care of the home.

What I have personally found in my experience with men in general is this stupid double standard. I taught a guy from Columbia that has a different girlfriend in each country. I asked if his wife also had other lovers, and he said, "No! And if she did, I would kill them both!" I have seen the double standard in people of the world (men are studs, girls are tramps), and religious people alike.

So, sometimes, it's kind of a domination thing as well, treating a woman like property.

For me, I see partnership as just that, where both people make decisions together, and one cares as much if not more about the other than themselves. It's a team.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of social pressure for men to be seen as the dominator (less they be called whipped, or wrapped around her finger), and that either side should dominate is probably why there is so much divorce.

 

[Braunwyn]

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

As is said, different strokes for different folks. I dated a man that was interested in similar gender roles before I met my husband. I entertained the idea for a while and did my best to go along. It was an interesting experience although obviously nothing I could extend beyond an experiment. During my time with him I became an accent to him. I was his helper in most ways. Your user name kind of reminds me of that (not that your husband is a preacher [you could be referring to Jesus for all I know]). I don't mean to read into your username all that much but rather highlight the idea that some women's identities primarily begin with their relationship to their men, and anything beyond that is secondary.

I also found my previous relationship to be personally easier than others I've had. Not having the responsibility of the 'final say' was a load off to be honest. But again, it wasn't for me. To be clear, I'm not saying this is the case for you.

 

[Beanieboy]

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".

It sounds like it works both ways, though.
If your husband said, "We are going to spank your child with an extention cord," you would probably fight against it, rather than submit. However, where he is strong, you allow him to use those strengths, and he submits to your strengths.

It's unfortunate, though, that for him to "submit" is considered emasculating. I am great at communication, and terrible at finances. Were I to have a wife that said, "Beanie, we just can't afford a Wii right now," I am going to submit to that, but many men, and sadly, even women, would say, "Who does she think she is, asking you to submit to her? She should submit to you, because you are the man!" But I'm not the expert on finances, she is, and so when I don't submit, we all suffer because of the World's idea of what "being a man" means.

That's one thing I really appreciate from a gay relationship - neither is expected to be the ultimate authority, nor to submit. We negotiate, because we aren't confined to gender roles of mixed sex relationships.

 

[Braunwyn]

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

The double negative has me confused and I don't want to interpret incorrectly. Can you reword this sentence?

 

[LJSGM]

The double negative has me confused and I don't want to interpret incorrectly. Can you reword this sentence?

In genesis, the curse was that men would "rule over" their wives. There really isn't anywhere in scriptures that says men are to rule over their wives or to have "authority" over them (as a law or what have you). The only reference point they have is when God says this cursed thing will happen to women throughout history and they point to that as evidence that men are suppose to rule over their wives. It was never God's intention for women from the beginning. I don't believe it is today either.

 

[Braunwyn]

In genesis, the curse was that men would "rule over" their wives. There really isn't anywhere in scriptures that says men are to rule over their wives or to have "authority" over them (as a law or what have you). The only reference point they have is when God says this cursed thing will happen to women throughout history and they point to that as evidence that men are suppose to rule over their wives. It was never God's intention for women from the beginning. I don't believe it is today either.

I see. Thanks. I always thought the curse was painful child birth. Men ruling over women would be a bigger curse.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Heh. Yes, I am actually a preacherswife, but I chose the name more because of the song "Son of a preacher man". And yeah, I'm proud of the fact that I married a pastor, which is why it's my user name. But you'll note that my siggy contains my name. While part of my self is identified by my husband, I do still maintain my own personal identity, but I totally see your point in what you brought up. I don't know that I would say my marriage is easier in the respect that you mention, but I do know that when I was the ultimate decision maker (as a single parent) I got really bored of it quick!

As is said, different strokes for different folks. I dated a man that was interested in similar gender roles before I met my husband. I entertained the idea for a while and did my best to go along. It was an interesting experience although obviously nothing I could extend beyond an experiment. During my time with him I became an accent to him. I was his helper in most ways. Your user name kind of reminds me of that (not that your husband is a preacher [you could be referring to Jesus for all I know]). I don't mean to read into your username all that much but rather highlight the idea that some women's identities primarily begin with their relationship to their men, and anything beyond that is secondary.

I also found my previous relationship to be personally easier than others I've had. Not having the responsibility of the 'final say' was a load off to be honest. But again, it wasn't for me. To be clear, I'm not saying this is the case for you.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

According to the preacher, because, quoting the bible, a wife should submit to her husband, as her husband submits to God. He interpreted this as the husband making all decisions, and the wife just smiling and nodding. When the man consulted his wife, he had disobeyed God (according to this preacher.)

I don't think that is all Christians, by any means. It was an extreme belief that some have. My mom, for example, believes that the man should earn the money, because the bible says that man should be the breadwinner, and women should stay home, or something. I asked, "what if I were to marry a woman who is a doctor, and wants to work, and makes more money than I do?" Her answer was still the same - it's men's place to work, women's to take care of the home.

What I have personally found in my experience with men in general is this stupid double standard. I taught a guy from Columbia that has a different girlfriend in each country. I asked if his wife also had other lovers, and he said, "No! And if she did, I would kill them both!" I have seen the double standard in people of the world (men are studs, girls are tramps), and religious people alike.

So, sometimes, it's kind of a domination thing as well, treating a woman like property.

For me, I see partnership as just that, where both people make decisions together, and one cares as much if not more about the other than themselves. It's a team.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of social pressure for men to be seen as the dominator (less they be called whipped, or wrapped around her finger), and that either side should dominate is probably why there is so much divorce.

Ah! The lightbulb clicked after I read your first paragraph. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[allhart]

In genesis, the curse was that men would "rule over" their wives. There really isn't anywhere in scriptures that says men are to rule over their wives or to have "authority" over them (as a law or what have you). The only reference point they have is when God says this cursed thing will happen to women throughout history and they point to that as evidence that men are suppose to rule over their wives. It was never God's intention for women from the beginning. I don't believe it is today either.

It was said to me that the man wasn't the one deceived in like the women. Just thoughts in question. Not my thought just question roles and why myself.

 

[Braunwyn]

Heh. Yes, I am actually a preacherswife, but I chose the name more because of the song "Son of a preacher man".

I was thinking it may be the song too.

And yeah, I'm proud of the fact that I married a pastor, which is why it's my user name. But you'll note that my siggy contains my name. While part of my self is identified by my husband, I do still maintain my own personal identity,

I think most folk keep a personal identity, even women who submit, but in my past relationship it went a bit overboard. There was so much natural focus on him that my dreams/ideas/goals sort of took a second seat...in life, conversation, everything. I'm lucky that I didn't marry him. Things would have turned out so differently.

but I totally see your point in what you brought up. I don't know that I would say my marriage is easier in the respect that you mention, but I do know that when I was the ultimate decision maker (as a single parent) I got really bored of it quick!

It's good that it works for the two of you.

 

[Braunwyn]

It was said to me that the man wasn't the one deceived in like the women. Just thoughts in question. Not my thought just question roles and why myself.

The woman was deceived and because of that, she sinned.

The man just sinned. C.o.n.n.e.c.t. the dots.

 

[LJSGM]

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

Perhaps people believe men should be the one working outside the home so that they are the ones to bear their own curse....

 

[allhart]

How ever the scenario is played out in a couples home. For the family's previsions, God rules that in the end it falls on the mans shoulders. Now women have legitimate roles in our family's and society's. For in how our children are raised comes from a mothers nurturing.

 

[allhart]

The woman was deceived and because of that, she sinned.

The man just sinned. C.o.n.n.e.c.t. the dots.

Oh, I see thank you! That makes sense!

 

[allhart]

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

Perhaps people believe men should be the one working outside the home so that they are the ones to bear their own curse....

True

 

[Braunwyn]

Perhaps people believe men should be the one working outside the home so that they are the ones to bear their own curse....

I suppose fair is fair. lol

 

[Axioma]

See, Adam, that'll teach you what happens if you go around listening to your wife.

 

[LJSGM]

I'm sure the same would have happened for Eve is she had listened to her husband above God's word.

 

[LJSGM]

It's interesting though, because asks them both what they have done, as if he didn't know. Adam blamed his wife, Eve blamed the serpent.

I wonder if the defining moment wasn't eating the fruit, but that they didn't repent of what they had done.

 

[allhart]

I'm sure the same would have happened for Eve is she had listened to her husband above God's word.

You know this rings true for today in what is said here. Adam heard it straight from God and she was instructed by Adam the will of God ;therefore, sin is still accounted for indirect or direct contact with God. On the will of God.