Wifely Submission

[The_Horses_Boy]

Please post the verses you're talking about. I don't think we can discuss such an issue properly when we're always saying "it's in the Bible" but haven't got the verses.

Genesis 3:16
Ephesian 5:22-33
1 Corinthians 7 (the whole thing, but specifically 2-4)

There are others, but I think that this should suffice, right?

Where do you see the difference between a "head" and a "leader"?

A leader has above another, has authority over another, is before another - commands another. The head is similiar, as the head (generally) is over the body, but the head is also of the body; the two are one flesh.

You're right, it has. But the reason beyond this isn't because many people have different views on their family roles nowadays. It is because people are splitting when the smallest problems occure. Don't mix this up.

Are you sure that that is the entire extent of the problem? I mean I agree that people do split over things that shouldn't matter, but you don't think roles play any part in any divorces?

And this is to your credit.

... Thanks?

You think you've found that out after two posts?

I don't mean that I'm better than you, but that I think we're arguing over something when we have a different understanding of it.

Don't think I'm kind of "fleeing" but it may be possible that I'm not able to reply until tomorrow.

It's ok, we all have a life from time to time.

 

[Texas Lynn]

It actually seems to me that women do more... Whether it's purely about attaining the opposite sex's attention is up to you to decide, but I live in a household with 5 males (including myself) and 4 females, so I see 4 other guys and 4 other girls and how they interact. The girls spend ALOT more time worrying about how they look - they spend more time in the shower, alot of time with makeup, they freak out over one tiny, barely noticeable zit and (at times) don't want to go out because of it - girls seem to care alot more about making an apperance than guys do, from what I've seen. I hardly think that makes guys dominant or shows that they are. It goes both ways.

In sexist constructs of beauty a beautiful woman is worth more than a not beutiful woman so some adjust accordingly.

There no equivalency among males. A man like Donald Trump who is not as handsome as say Richard Gere is considered more valuable because of his resources.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Please, check back on what I was quoting.

And she calls me sexist.

For those foolish enough to think so I don't take Paglia at face value. I read a lot of things I don't agree with. It was just an appropriate interjection.

Paglia is a harder read than many undergrads can handle.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Actually Jesus taught to move beyond conventional wisdom.

Sorry-any idea the husband is God-ordained to be the boss in the family is advocating dominance.

Careful that smylie may violate some CF protocol used in that context.

I am not to blame for the state of your mind.

Traditionalistic views of gender roles are considered a risk factor in the spouse abuse assessment matrix, unlike egalitarian roles.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS WAITING FOR!!!

The problem, of course, being that you see that the Bible says that the wife is to submit to her husband but AND YOU CALL GOD'S WORD SEXIST, but you never read what it says to men!!!

"In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives,
as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external -- braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;
but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.
For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands;
just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.
You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered." 1 Peter 3:1-7

http://www.sarges.com/NLS/TeachingSummaries/LarrySides102601.htm

I seriously suggest that you read what the Bible says about marriage before going onward.

The origin of the phrase "rule of thumb" is don't beat your wife with a stick of larger circumference than your thumb.

By God's commandments, of course

And could you provide proof that it applies to no other possible circumstances? Just like men couldn't possibly do things to impress other men, and so do everything to impress women?

That doesn't make any sense. Sexism exists. It is a substantial argument to identify it.

.... Again, you pull the sexism card, which I assume means you have no grounds on which to argue, as you just said that half of women are sexist against women.

Nothing is absolute.

Nothing? I should beg to differ. There are many absolutes - God's love is absolute (and so is his justice).

Jesus never advocated sexism. He broke gender barriers one after another-the Martha-Mary stuff, the woman who washed his feet with her tears, the Samaritan woman, etc. etc.

It's not sexism. That's the problem.

And what I really don't get is that you have such an immense problem with there being a male head of the household, then turn and say this:

Who can express any articulate disagreement with this quote at all? "Woman is the dominant sex. Men have to do all sorts of stuff to prove they are worthy of woman's attention." (Camille Paglia)

It's nice when couples cooperate and work toward mutuality; but a man who is convinced he is somehow god-ordained to be boss in the family is one others should try to prevent a woman from marrying because he is bad news.

You still don't see the difference between a head and a boss. A boss is boss over someone else, is superior, is over them, and most of all is not one with them. The head controls the body (most of the time), is over the body (most of the time), but most of all is one with the body.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

In sexist constructs of beauty a beautiful woman is worth more than a not beutiful woman so some adjust accordingly.

There no equivalency among males. A man like Donald Trump who is not as handsome as say Richard Gere is considered more valuable because of his resources.

So, unless I'm mistaken, you've just outlined that men love beauty and women love money? Or did you just fail to speak clearly/I failed to understand clearly?

 

[She]

Should a Christian wife obey and submit to her husband at all times?

Not if he's Homer Simpson or remotely resembles him. Ned Flanders or Principle Skinner - yes. But not Homer Simpson, Mo or Barney. Most wise women know the difference. That's why some of them have to wear the trousers. Not a pleasant role but someone has to do it.

And before anyone says I'm living in a fantasy world..... those characters are very realistic. My father was just like Homer Simpson and my husband is a cross between Homer Simpson and Marge. (And I'm confused.)

 

[rambot]

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered."

Yeah. This is great.
This certainly isn't sexist at all:
"Fellas, listen up. Chicks are weak and helpless...duh...she's a chick. But even still, be nice and respectful to her so she will be nice and quiet while you pray. That way, you won't have to listen to her nattering."

 

[christalee4]

Barefoot, pregnant and sitting in the back row, I tell you, the back row!!!!!

Perhaps it'll be time for you to marry and tell us what your experiences really are about; unless you got married already.. Hopefully you are, and thus have a firm base of information to make judgements upon.

 

[christalee4]

It actually seems to me that women do more... Whether it's purely about attaining the opposite sex's attention is up to you to decide, but I live in a household with 5 males (including myself) and 4 females, so I see 4 other guys and 4 other girls and how they interact. The girls spend ALOT more time worrying about how they look - they spend more time in the shower, alot of time with makeup, they freak out over one tiny, barely noticeable zit and (at times) don't want to go out because of it - girls seem to care alot more about making an apperance than guys do, from what I've seen. I hardly think that makes guys dominant or shows that they are. It goes both ways.

Seems to me that you live in somewhat of an immoral household situation, or, that you need to attain some kind of relationship situation with a real girl/woman, so that you can actually make true judgements about relationships from a "real" standpoint, rather than guess. Maybe it's time for you to get a girlfriend, or get married.

Or something like that.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Seems to me that you live in somewhat of an immoral household situation, or, that you need to attain some kind of relationship situation with a real girl/woman, so that you can actually make true judgements about relationships from a "real" standpoint, rather than guess. Maybe it's time for you to get a girlfriend, or get married.

Or something like that.

Yes, because if I have a girlfriend I'll see as much of her life as I would my family? I've had a few girlfriends, and I haven't spent as much time in the same house with them as I have my family, but I don't get that much different of a picture.

And immoral? Would you mind expanding on that?

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Yeah. This is great.
This certainly isn't sexist at all:
"Fellas, listen up. Chicks are weak and helpless...duh...she's a chick. But even still, be nice and respectful to her so she will be nice and quiet while you pray. That way, you won't have to listen to her nattering."

You probably want to try a different version. "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

I made some points, but I cut them to this: try a different version, and a different outlook.

 

[katautumn]

The reason it is being said that "head of household" is a bad idea is because it does convey the message that women are too weak or stupid to do anything without their husband's lordship over the home. Men typically can't even pick their own underwear up off the floor. My dad can't even heat up a can of Spaghetti-Os. Why would it be dangerous or at least ill-advised for husband and wife to head up the household as a team?

The problem with the male-head/wife-subordinate dichotomy is that it causes the marriage relationship to mirror that of a parent/child or boss/employee relationship. I have read that wives are accountable to their husbands and husbands are only accountable to God. Some wives say this is a huge burden lifted from them, as they won't be the ones to get into "big trouble" for making decisions outside of God's will. To me, that speaks volumes about how those women feel about themselves.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I am not to blame for the state of your mind.

Not at all.

The problem, of course, being that you see that the Bible says that the wife is to submit to her husband but AND YOU CALL GOD'S WORD SEXIST, but you never read what it says to men!!!

Whether I read it or not is not the issue. That's two buts. Make up your mind.

I seriously suggest that you read what the Bible says about marriage before going onward.

I stand by what I said. What further reading you suggest is not the issue at hand.

And could you provide proof that it applies to no other possible circumstances? Just like men couldn't possibly do things to impress other men, and so do everything to impress women?

Whatever. It's not a concern of mine.

Again, you pull the sexism card, which I assume means you have no grounds on which to argue, as you just said that half of women are sexist against women.

Another irrelevancy. Sexism exists. Sir, it is not merely a "card" one plays, but an assessment of certain conditions. It is all the grounds I need. If you don't like it that's your problem.

Nothing? I should beg to differ. There are many absolutes - God's love is absolute (and so is his justice).

So we say, but we can't know the meanings of such things in this life. I'm speaking of human things.

It's not sexism. That's the problem.

Oh, yes, it is nothing but. Any assertion one gender can or should do things the other can't or shouldn't-is sexism, purely and simply. It is nothing else. Whether you like it or not, that's your problem.

And what I really don't get is that you have such an immense problem with there being a male head of the household, then turn and say this

It was a quote, Dude. it's a comment on the human condition. It's not mine. Make of it what you will. Any attempt to project it onto me falls short. Paglia said it, not me. BTW, Paglia also said if women ran things we'd still be living in straw huts, and there's a truth to that too. Paglia is--unique. but there are so few original thinkers in these areas of gender relations, those who are innovative deserve maximum exposure.

You still don't see the difference between a head and a boss. A boss is boss over someone else, is superior, is over them, and most of all is not one with them. The head controls the body (most of the time), is over the body (most of the time), but most of all is one with the body.

Yeah, whatever. Neither or necessary.

 

[Texas Lynn]

So, unless I'm mistaken, you've just outlined that men love beauty and women love money? Or did you just fail to speak clearly/I failed to understand clearly?

None of our maxims are universal. In many cases this is true. In others, it is not. My point was beauty of women to men and handsomeness of men to women are not perceived by each gender equivalently-most of the time.

 

[kopilo]

Whatever. Your argumentitiveness over the point is somewhat strange. BTW, many of those women are entirely heterosexual but do what they do to impress other women primarily.

The quote was posted in response to the absurd notion men are God-created to dominate. If that were so it'd be an indication of the evilness of god. When one gender endures childbirth but the other whines about minor indignities, the notion the latter is over the former is absurd.

Well coming from an IT background where the majority (75%-80%) is male dominated, I don't see why a women working in IT would want to try to impress other women, more then the white, male, CIO (yes inequality is actually a current issue in the field of IT employement).

I fail to see how 'going through the pain of childbirth' could place one gender above another. I'd also like to see a woman procreate without the use of sperm.

When one compares apples with oranges, to place one over the other is absude to. Apples and Oranges are both fruit. Humans are male and female.

Also, when you open a challenge to everyone, that includes the people who did not state that 'men are God-created to dominate'.

 

[*Starlight*]

I didn't say that it can't, but a family doesn't function as well without a head of the household.

Well, it depends on the family... Every person is different. Personally, I'm a guy, and it's still much too early for me to even think about getting married... But I'm sure I'll never be able to be a head of the household, it just goes against my personality. That's why for me an equal relationship would be much better than a traditional one.

 

[kopilo]

For those foolish enough to think so I don't take Paglia at face value. I read a lot of things I don't agree with. It was just an appropriate interjection.

Paglia is a harder read than many undergrads can handle.

I wouldn't say I could gain a good in depth grasp of Paglia by that two sentance quote.

Ohh I thought a post grad would know that you have to do more then quote sources if you want the readers in a non technical international context to have some idea of what you want to point out...

 

[sparklecat]

Horses's Boy, you said these teachings come from Jesus, but I didn't see any gospel citations among your references - could you be more specific as to where Jesus taught on male domination/female submission?

An independant women to me wouldn't want the majority of their husband's net worth hanging off her fingers in the form of diamond rings. [/end satire]

Of course not. No reason she wouldn't be buying the ring herself




In my case, when my partner and I get engaged, the ring will be about 2/3 my money and 1/3 his, simply because of our respective salaries and our finances being combined.

 

[kopilo]

Of course not. No reason she wouldn't be buying the ring herself

That's why I pushed the point, because a free thinking married independant woman didn't want a diamond ring.
(Well at least proving what I stated as true, in one circumstance.)

 

[sparklecat]

That's why I pushed the point, because a free thinking married independant woman didn't want a diamond ring.
(Well at least proving what I stated in one circumstance.)

Why wouldn't she want one? Sorry I'm having trouble understanding - on some slightly strong painkillers!