Wifely Submission

[Konkurrent]

The fact that patriarchy has been practiced and survived for ages can be seen as such evidence.
But don´t ask me what those interests have been. I do not even really understand what older men get out of patriarchy.

Isn't that an Appeal to Tradition?

 

[quatona]

Isn't that an Appeal to Tradition?

Yes, it isn´t.

From your link:

Appeal to tradition

, also known as appeal to common practice or argumentum ad antiquitatem or false induction is a common logical fallacy in which someone proclaims his or her accuracy by noting that "this is how it's always been done." Essentially: "This is right because we've always done it this way."

I didn´t call anything "right because we have always done it this way".
I didn´t call anything right at all.
I merely pointed out that it for a long time has been so without major disagreement or opposition, and that this fact suggests that people - not only older men - were fine with it for a long time (it served their interests), .

Had I used this as an argument for keeping it that way or for considering it right, you would have a point.

Whilst in fact that´s a notion I could hardly be any further from.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

"Buffet line" is the term you're looking for, I think.


Just pick and choose the rules you like, and if you don't get enough rules on your first plate don't worry - you can always go back for seconds. Furthermore, you can always just not eat whatever rules you decide you don't want and someone will come around and clear the table periodically.

No. What I was talking about ceremonial laws - and I did have it a little bit fuzzy when I posted, it's not specifically for Jews but... I would highly reccommend reading Hebrews and Romans, especially Hebrews. They explain.

What you need to get is that the Bible says wives are to be submissive to their husbands BECAUSE their husbands are to treat them like Jesus would, and thus the wives are submissive to their husbands in the same way that the Church is to Jesus. Does Jesus boss the church around? No. Does Jesus beat the Church when the Church doesn't do what it's supposed to? No. Husbands are not to have dominant control over their wives but to be a loving guide to help them and LAW THEIR LIVES DOWN FOR THEM.

The wife is submissive to the husband in the same way that she is to Jesus, because the husband treats the wife like Jesus does the Chruch, as a loving guide.

 

[Konkurrent]

What you need to get is that the Bible says wives are to be submissive to their husbands BECAUSE their husbands are to treat them like Jesus would, and thus the wives are submissive to their husbands in the same way that the Church is to Jesus. Does Jesus boss the church around? No.

In the Christian faith as I know it, He is the Son of God. He must be obeyed. If obedience is required the phrasing of a command is unimportant. Christ isn't abusing His authority, but that doesn't make Him any less the boss.

If Jesus appeared and told you to "jump", would not failing to jump be disobedience to God?

Does Jesus beat the Church when the Church doesn't do what it's supposed to? No. Husbands are not to have dominant control over their wives but to be a loving guide to help them and LAW THEIR LIVES DOWN FOR THEM.

The wife is submissive to the husband in the same way that she is to Jesus, because the husband treats the wife like Jesus does the Chruch, as a loving guide.

If the husband loves his wife - truly loves her - there is no need for either of them to be submissive or dominant. It's thoroughly unimportant who's in charge and who's following if both people love each other equally.

Being in charge is only important if you're worried about dissention.

 

[christalee4]

No. What I was talking about ceremonial laws - and I did have it a little bit fuzzy when I posted, it's not specifically for Jews but... I would highly reccommend reading Hebrews and Romans, especially Hebrews. They explain.

What you need to get is that the Bible says wives are to be submissive to their husbands BECAUSE their husbands are to treat them like Jesus would, and thus the wives are submissive to their husbands in the same way that the Church is to Jesus. Does Jesus boss the church around? No. Does Jesus beat the Church when the Church doesn't do what it's supposed to? No. Husbands are not to have dominant control over their wives but to be a loving guide to help them and LAW THEIR LIVES DOWN FOR THEM.

The wife is submissive to the husband in the same way that she is to Jesus, because the husband treats the wife like Jesus does the Chruch, as a loving guide.

I keep hearing this propaganda over and over again, like it actually happens.

But it doesn't.

Most husbands don't "lead" their wives, like one leads sheep or lambs. They might talk like that,but most men actually have a very egalitarian relationship with the wives, because if it were any other way, the wives would kick their butts or leave.

The ones that try to "lead" their wives end up with very subservient, cowed women, or with women who are unhappy, or with women who eventually tell them to take a hike.

 

[TheMissus]

The ones that try to "lead" their wives end up with very subservient, cowed women, or with women who are unhappy, or with women who eventually tell them to take a hike.

Or with women who eventually shoot them to death.

 

[Konkurrent]

I can say that I'm in charge of my household as long as my wife says it's okay for me to say so.

 

[PETE_]

I keep hearing this propaganda over and over again, like it actually happens.

But it doesn't.

Most husbands don't "lead" their wives, like one leads sheep or lambs. They might talk like that,but most men actually have a very egalitarian relationship with the wives, because if it were any other way, the wives would kick their butts or leave.

Just thought I would point out that by your own admission some husbands do treat their wives correctly.

 

[TheMissus]

Just thought I would point out that by your own admission some husbands do treat their wives correctly.

So? Of course not every single husband is terrible. Not every husband is abusive. What's the point?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I do not even really understand what older men get out of patriarchy.

Um, all the power just for getting older, and fathering children without any sort of merrit based assessment.

Indeed, patriarchy can easily result in fertile idiots placed over and above inteligent and capable people with less or no children.

As for why patriarchy has a long history... men are physically stronger than women. Given tht until the very recent past, "might=right" explains how patriarchy came into effect. Now that women have a reasonably equal chance of being able to compete with men in virtually all fields, the patriarchy is extremely threatened.

It is very telling that those who would defenc the patriarchy fall back on "its tradition" defences, rather than explaining how men in charge provide a better outcome for all concerned than women in charge would.

As I have commented elsewhere...

The Bible, written and interpreted by men. Amazingly, the message from these writings and interpretations are about women being submissive to men. Coincidence?

Or could there be some sort of bias in operation here?

 

[Athene]

The tiny minority of those who espouse a return to a stricter notion of Biblical patriarchy in gender roles is eclipsed by the reality of how feminism and modernity have shaped traditional values into a softer version of it's former self.

This particular article in this PDF file was written by a conservative theologian on the subject. The author states, as I said before, that the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, and that although many conservative evangelicals and Catholics may talk "complementarian" in their expression of beliefs, however in reality their actions are more egalitarian.

http://www.henryinstitute.org/documents/2005ETS.pdf#search="soft patriarchy"

The author calls for a return to more stringent patriarchy in family roles, and has affirmed that some in the Calvinist/Orthodox Presbyterian and other Protestant churches have been very open and direct about their views on women's roles, although controversial and unpopular. However, even the author concedes that it may be too late for true patriarchy to reassert itself.

Thanks for posting that, very informative, I think the author hasn't done his homework properly - or is choosing to ignore certain things, like the fact that powerful men used and objectified women long before the rise of feminism. The author of course claims that this is a consequence of the feminist movement.

Prior to feminism women and to a lesser extent even now, were defined solely by their sexual function as mothers, virgins or harlots. If that isn't objectifying somebody - I don't know what is.

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

I think the point to take note of here is that the woman in proverns is doing work for her HOUSEHOLD, by inference, her husband... not for herself. The idea of said woman being enterprising in the same way unwed is quite anathema to the spirit of the OT writings

I didn't really take it that way. It's also from the perspective of ancient peoples, but anyway:

Amongst other things, she conducts real-estate and runs a business. I don't see how looking after your own family is not working for yourself. She has her husband's desires in mind, sure, but i'm sure he has her in mind too, (considering her "more precious than rubies.")

 

[christalee4]

Or with women who eventually shoot them to death.

Like that pastor's wife in South Carolina, you mean?

 

[christalee4]

Just thought I would point out that by your own admission some husbands do treat their wives correctly.

Of course there are very loving and good husbands who treat their submissive wives decently. It's a sort of give and take relationship, that many women find highly romantic and possibly erotic. For example, there are couples who practice "domestic discipline", which is an arrangement in which the husband will assume the leadership role of physically disciplining his wife occasionally, out of a mutual agreement. Not for everyone, but certainly seemingly enjoyed by the couples who practice it, apparently.

My older cousin has been married to a man who she is submissive to. Once, she cleaned the kitchen floor, and he made her reclean it, because he said she didn't do a good enough job. Now, I know many couples who follow the leadership/submission roles would say that would be wrong. At least I hope they would. I consider that kind of relationship to be abusive. She is deeply unhappy and depressed. The husband refuses to go to counseling. She seems to wear her unhappiness like a horsehair shirt, and at this point, I think she think's it's God's way of challenging her to be obedient. I had asked a very conservative religious lady I work with at a counseling center what she thought about this situation, and her answer was probably the same that many women in her situation might get, which is "more prayers" and "more counseling". But instead of submitting over and over again, without any redress from the husband, what's wrong with breaking the domination/submission pattern and laying down an ultimatum? If the husband is not doing his duty by being loving, why should he get away with being remiss?

 

[TheMissus]

Like that pastor's wife in South Carolina, you mean?

I think it was Tennessee, but you've got the right idea.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Just thought I would point out that by your own admission some husbands do treat their wives correctly.

The whole crux of the feminist side is that it isn't up to husbands to treat their wives correctly or otherwise. Its about PARTNERSHIP... of equals. Your phraseology very clearly makes for one person to be in power over the other. I have a significant problem with this idea.

 

[tiredwalker]

The whole crux of the feminist side is that it isn't up to husbands to treat their wives correctly or otherwise. Its about PARTNERSHIP... of equals. Your phraseology very clearly makes for one person to be in power over the other. I have a significant problem with this idea.

I totally agree with you; marriage is a partnership. My husband has never required that I do anything. He has made suggestions and asked politely. But in the same manner, I do not nag him. That is just having a few manners. It would be very difficult to respect a man that was demanding and forceful. That man would certainly be a horrible role model. I will say that, because of my deep respect for him, I give my husband the last word on final decisions...but then again, he always asks my opinion.

 

[PETE_]

The whole crux of the feminist side is that it isn't up to husbands to treat their wives correctly or otherwise. Its about PARTNERSHIP... of equals. Your phraseology very clearly makes for one person to be in power over the other. I have a significant problem with this idea.

If I were not a Christiam, I would tend to agree with you. As Christians both the husband and wife are under the authority of God. They each have a place in His plan.

 

[jak]

If I were not a Christiam, I would tend to agree with you. As Christians both the husband and wife are under the authority of God. They each have a place in His plan.

For a long time, I forced myself to go along with what is termed the "biblical model" of husband-wife relationship, though it really didn't fit in with all that I instinctively thought right. I thought as a Christian, I had to acept the husband authority-wife-subordinate helper, but equal! model....till I realised that that model is just some people's interpretation of Scripture...

... and really, it goes against all other Scriptural paradigms...such as the basic creation of all humans in God's image, God's own basic nature of perfect, unquestionable justice and righteousness, Jesus' unconcern for authority structures, God's own self-giving and submissive nature as shown in the Son, the Trinity where harmony and love are the normative, not authority!

I cannot tell you how FREE I felt when i realised that an egalitarian relationship between men and women was possible in the church, and indeed, is what i believe is THE Christian pattern.

It fits in so much better with the God of love and justice. It fits in so much better with the God who came down to die for all. It fits in so much better with the One who accepts all on the same terms, but has special concern for the poor, the downtrodden, the outcasts, and brings them on par with others. This God, want new authority structures, and hierarchies? No....never.

We must re-examine, with open minds, our pre-conceptions about those few..so few!... passages that make us hold these, even to our own mind, strange views. Lets not be afraid to question them if they don't seem right. We have, after all, the mind of Christ.

Sorry for going on a bit!

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

Once, she cleaned the kitchen floor, and he made her reclean it, because he said she didn't do a good enough job.

I respect her for turning-the-other-cheek, but we also need boundries.

The best thing would be to follow the Biblical model of discussing the greviance amongst Church witnesses.

These things don't change if we stay silent.