Great women!?

[Sammybaby]

Male God
His male son.
Male apostles - not one woman deemed worthy of being in the Jesus
school. One prostitute gets to hang out clean his feet.
Who is the great woman in the NT. Mary, mother of Jesus. Vessel for
the male child of a male god. Jesus has nothing of Mary, to put it in
modern terms, Jesus has just God's DNA and nothing from his mother.
(and EVe started the sin ball rolling)

That this set of sexist assumptions and stories creates a foundation
for woman hate is obvious. But the point I am making today is that it
gives women no basis for greatness in an of themselves like men have.
A woman can be great for birthing a man or worshipping a man. But unto
herself.....

Of course women have brought forward ideas similar to Jesus's, but they
were shut up, killed or put away. Imagine how long a female
challenging the status quo as he did would have lasted. Rape and deaht
would have come fast and we would never have heard her name. Nor have
we.....

God made us in 'his' image. Oddly he made us with two sexes not one.
And birthing in fact is more the mother's work than the man's.

But no, there is no divine female, equal in greatness to the male God.

No daughter to match the son.

What a bunch of sexist crap.

First the earthly men silence and remove the power of women in their
cultures. Then they create a mythology to fit their own biases. 2000
years later people read these sexist men's books and ASSUME there is no
cultural bias, no need for the writers to reinforce the idea that men
can be great and women can support that greatness.

The beliefs of weak and fearful men.

And the arrogance of weak and fearful men, Michael Ewert.

You consider me arrogant for having the temerity to point out how
arrogant Christians are.

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

Not all Christians think this way. I for one would like to see things
changed. Only retroactive sexists still want the male-dominated (which
they see as God-given) society that Christianity has (wrongfully)
promoted over the last 2000 years.

And for the record, only the Bible says Jesus had only male apostles.
Other early Christian writings say this is not so, although the Church
has not recognized their or worth (for obvious political reasons).

Please do not condemn us all for the actions of misguided individuals
(which, sadly to say, seem to constitute a large percentage of the
Christian population).

I have also had words with Mr. Ewert on this very subject, and suffice
to say I vehemently disagree with his opinion.

[Bob]

rapp...@gmail.com wrote:

> I have also had words with Mr. Ewert on this very subject, and suffice
> to say I vehemently disagree with his opinion.

Michael's view of the universe is pinned to the writings of men who
lived more than 2000 years ago. As are many other fundamentalists of
many faiths. (I suppose Islam is a bit more recent, but still based on
a very old society).

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

Perhaps then we should change our views? Maybe we have come far enough
as an enlightened society to know that both men and women hold equal
worth, and one should not be "subservient" to the other.

[Sammybaby]

You are quite right about there being many Christians who do not think
that way and that many see the Bible as a set of texts with potentially
faulty inclusions and exclusions. I do not condemn you all, but was
getting rather angry at a few Christians here. Nice to hear your voice.

[Michael Ewart]

Ephesians 5:25-33
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave
himself up for her to make her holy... In this same way, husbands ought
to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves
himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and
cares for it, just as Christ does the church- for we are members of
his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and
be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." Each one
of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must
respect her husband."

Oh, the tyranny! Oh, the shame of it all! What a horrible book! Men,
close your ears and don't obey such garbage! Women, never let your
husbands read that passage... who knows how they might treat you!

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

Michael Ewart wrote:
> Ephesians 5:25-33
> "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave
> himself up for her to make her holy... In this same way, husbands ought
> to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves
> himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and
> cares for it, just as Christ does the church- for we are members of
> his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and
> be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." Each one
> of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must
> respect her husband."
>
> Oh, the tyranny! Oh, the shame of it all! What a horrible book! Men,
> close your ears and don't obey such garbage! Women, never let your
> husbands read that passage... who knows how they might treat you!

In this passage (written by Saint Paul, not Jesus Christ), women are
indeed second-class citizens. Perhaps well-cared for second-class
citizens in it's intent, but second-class nonetheless. I'd rather be a
free citizen in the wracks of poverty and difficulty than be a
well-kept slave, any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

It boils my blood to think of the countless marriages that have been in
absolute misery because men think they have some "God-given" right to
be the "head of the household" and make tyranical (and in many cases
arbitrary) decisions. And don't tell me it doesn't happen, I have seen
it happen, as I'm sure many others have. This passage merely gives men
license to behave as pigheaded as they want. If they do so, the church
merely looks at it as a minor offense, like eating meat on Fridays
during Lent. However, Heaven FORBID you have sex before you're married.
Then you're just going straight to Hell unless you repent. The
hypocrisy is ludicrous.

I think women are perfectly capable of handling life without being
"protected" or "cared for" by men. We marry people simply because we
love them and enjoy their company, and actually form an equal
partnership with equal say in all matters. Period.

[Michael Ewart]

rapp...@gmail.com wrote:
> It boils my blood to think of the countless marriages that have been in
> absolute misery because men think they have some "God-given" right to
> be the "head of the household" and make tyranical (and in many cases
> arbitrary) decisions. And don't tell me it doesn't happen, I have seen
> it happen, as I'm sure many others have.

I've seen it happen too, and it saddens me greatly. I've also seen
presidents abuse their power. Should we get rid of the position of
president too?

> This passage merely gives men
> license to behave as pigheaded as they want.

You didn't read the passage, did you?

> actually form an equal
> partnership with equal say in all matters. Period.

Even in an equal partnership, typically one person is the president.

[Turner]

Michael Ewart wrote:
> Ephesians 5:25-33
> "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave
> himself up for her to make her holy... In this same way, husbands ought
> to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves
> himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and
> cares for it, just as Christ does the church- for we are members of
> his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and
> be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." Each one
> of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must
> respect her husband."
>
> Oh, the tyranny! Oh, the shame of it all! What a horrible book! Men,
> close your ears and don't obey such garbage! Women, never let your
> husbands read that passage... who knows how they might treat you!

I think the passage most people object to when they talk about
Biblically mandated patriarchy is 1 Corinthians 11:3-10:

3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and
the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.4Every man
who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And
every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors
her head-it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does
not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a
disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should
cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the
image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did
not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for
woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels,
the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

And also 1 Corinthians 14:33-34:

As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent
in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in
submission, as the Law says.

as well as 1 Timothy 2:11-12:

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not
permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be
silent.

and Ephesians 5:22-24:

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is
the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of
which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also
wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Now, I know you think this is perfectly fine and right, but the passage
you quoted is a bit misleading in that you ignored the surrounding
passages, which are actually what people find objectionable.

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

Michael Ewart wrote:
> rapp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It boils my blood to think of the countless marriages that have been in
> > absolute misery because men think they have some "God-given" right to
> > be the "head of the household" and make tyranical (and in many cases
> > arbitrary) decisions. And don't tell me it doesn't happen, I have seen
> > it happen, as I'm sure many others have.
>
> I've seen it happen too, and it saddens me greatly. I've also seen
> presidents abuse their power. Should we get rid of the position of
> president too?

If the president starts abusing his/her powers, we should get rid of
that president.

>
> > This passage merely gives men
> > license to behave as pigheaded as they want.
>
> You didn't read the passage, did you?

Yes. However, most men do not. They focus on one line... "Women should
respect their husbands". They view what they do as benign dictatorship
for the good of the household. And it's usually a load of crap.

>
> > actually form an equal
> > partnership with equal say in all matters. Period.
>
> Even in an equal partnership, typically one person is the president.

Then they're not equal, are they?

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

And for the record, all of these passages were written by Apostles of
Jesus Christ, not Christ Himself. I personally believe he would be
appaled by what His followers promulgated in these passages.

[Michael Ewart]

rapp...@gmail.com wrote:
> Michael Ewart wrote:
> > rapp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > It boils my blood to think of the countless marriages that have been in
> > > absolute misery because men think they have some "God-given" right to
> > > be the "head of the household" and make tyranical (and in many cases
> > > arbitrary) decisions. And don't tell me it doesn't happen, I have seen
> > > it happen, as I'm sure many others have.
> >
> > I've seen it happen too, and it saddens me greatly. I've also seen
> > presidents abuse their power. Should we get rid of the position of
> > president too?
>
> If the president starts abusing his/her powers, we should get rid of
> that president.

I wasn't talking about any given president, but about the presidency.
The abuse of a few is not grounds for removing the office. We were not
talking about individual men. We're talking about male headship.

> > > This passage merely gives men
> > > license to behave as pigheaded as they want.
> >
> > You didn't read the passage, did you?
>
> Yes. However, most men do not. They focus on one line... "Women should
> respect their husbands". They view what they do as benign dictatorship
> for the good of the household. And it's usually a load of crap.

I agree completely.

> >
> > > actually form an equal
> > > partnership with equal say in all matters. Period.
> >
> > Even in an equal partnership, typically one person is the president.
>
> Then they're not equal, are they?

Define equality. Are you equal with the president of the U.S. in terms
of human value? Yes. Do you have the same responsibilities and
authority? No.

[Michael Ewart]

I ignored the surrounding passages because most people highlight the
passages you highlighted and ignore the ones I quoted. With authority
comes great responsibility. In Ephesians 5, count the number of
passages addressing man, and the number addressing woman. Surprise! He
speaks more to the men than to the women.

That said, I do not deny that men throughout the ages have greatly
abused their headship while at the same time refusing to accept the
great responsibility that comes with the position, and failing to show
the self-sacrificial love required by God.

[Turner]

That's not the point. The point is that he is saying women should be
subservient to their husbands in everything. That's the ridiculous idea
that people usually object to.

[Michael Ewart]

Turner wrote:

> That's not the point. The point is that he is saying women should be
> subservient to their husbands in everything. That's the ridiculous idea
> that people usually object to.

Why is the idea of having a designated "head" ridiculous in the family,
but not in the government, armed forces or office?

[Whispers in the Storm]

The "head" positions in government, armed forces, and office are not
designated according to unequal gender treatment (in theory) so this
analogy doesn't apply to the male superiority delusion. Social
pressures and prejudices still make it difficult for females to rise in
the ranks in some areas but it is certainly possible to have female
CEOs and military officers. Many women are capable of outperforming
and out-thinking their male counterparts... to force those women into
subservient roles is disrespectful to their abilities and worth as
human beings.

[Turner]

I don't think the comparison holds. The government and armed forces
exist with the sole purpose of maintaining order and justice or
protecting our country, respectively. The family, on the other hand, is
not simply about keeping order and preventing harm, but about nurturing
a child into a good, functional adult. There is no reason to place
either the mother or father as more important when they are both
equally capable (in most cases) of providing the necessary care for the
children. As for childless families, the comparison still doesn't hold,
as the purpose of the coupling is not just one person protecting the
other from harm and keeping her out of trouble. Or at least, I don't
think it is in most cases and, in my opinion shouldn't be. That's a
pretty hollow relationship.

Also, assigning males as the leader in all cases is not a good policy,
since often they are utterly incapable of leading well, many times,
probably even worse than the woman would be (e.g. alcoholics, drug
addicts, gamblers). Now, obviously men aren't the only ones who can be
unfit parents, but that just confirms what I'm saying: assigning a
based on gender is just asking for trouble, and is far from a wise (or
just) policy.

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

Michael Ewart wrote:
> rapp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Michael Ewart wrote:
> > > rapp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > It boils my blood to think of the countless marriages that have been in
> > > > absolute misery because men think they have some "God-given" right to
> > > > be the "head of the household" and make tyranical (and in many cases
> > > > arbitrary) decisions. And don't tell me it doesn't happen, I have seen
> > > > it happen, as I'm sure many others have.
> > >
> > > I've seen it happen too, and it saddens me greatly. I've also seen
> > > presidents abuse their power. Should we get rid of the position of
> > > president too?
> >
> > If the president starts abusing his/her powers, we should get rid of
> > that president.
>
> I wasn't talking about any given president, but about the presidency.
> The abuse of a few is not grounds for removing the office. We were not
> talking about individual men. We're talking about male headship.

The presidency can be held by any human being (in principle) so long as
they are a natural-born citizen of the US. It does not make biases
based on gender.

>
> Define equality. Are you equal with the president of the U.S. in terms
> of human value? Yes. Do you have the same responsibilities and
> authority? No.

Equality is that any given individual can (in principle) do any job
that any other individual can do. I am equal to the President of the US
in terms of human value. I also could do his job if I were elected to
do so. The same is true for my wife. Although neither of us have the
authority to run this country, there is nothing (in principle) stopping
either of us from doing so.

It's not whether or not you DO hold the same responsibilities and/or
authority, it's whether you COULD hold the same responsibilities and/or
authority. Women and men should be able to hold equal positions of
power. There is nothing stopping that save for thousands of years of
sexist thinking designed to maintain the supremacy of men. The fact
that such a role is God-given is ludicrous. That makes men somehow
special, and unequal, better than their female counterparts.

So here is a situation to highlight the absurdity of your claim. What
happens when a woman becomes President of the United States? Does she
have to listen to her husband if he tells her not to do something? Is
she inherently disobeying the will of God in not listening to her
husband? Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, why should she
have to listen to her husband? Is she not capable of making a decision
herself?

[Simpleton]

Michael Ewart wrote:
> Ephesians 5:25-33
> "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave
> himself up for her to make her holy... In this same way, husbands ought
> to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves
> himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and
> cares for it, just as Christ does the church- for we are members of
> his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and
> be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." Each one
> of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must
> respect her husband."
>
> Oh, the tyranny! Oh, the shame of it all! What a horrible book! Men,
> close your ears and don't obey such garbage! Women, never let your
> husbands read that passage... who knows how they might treat you!
>

Depends on whether he respects her. Oh wait..the verse does not
require him to do so.

[Bob]

Michael, up to now I may have disagreed with your views, but respected
them.

I now clearly see how the bible has so distorted your views that you
place men above women. Men are the natural rulers, women must respect
men. That this is so close to the Islamic view is no accident. They
both derive from the same world view native to that region and that
ancient time.

This is very sad.

[LiamToo]

Hillary in 2008!

[Michael Ewart]

rapp...@gmail.com wrote:
> Michael Ewart wrote:
> > rapp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Michael Ewart wrote:
> > > > rapp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > It boils my blood to think of the countless marriages that have been in
> > > > > absolute misery because men think they have some "God-given" right to
> > > > > be the "head of the household" and make tyranical (and in many cases
> > > > > arbitrary) decisions. And don't tell me it doesn't happen, I have seen
> > > > > it happen, as I'm sure many others have.
> > > >
> > > > I've seen it happen too, and it saddens me greatly. I've also seen
> > > > presidents abuse their power. Should we get rid of the position of
> > > > president too?
> > >
> > > If the president starts abusing his/her powers, we should get rid of
> > > that president.
> >
> > I wasn't talking about any given president, but about the presidency.
> > The abuse of a few is not grounds for removing the office. We were not
> > talking about individual men. We're talking about male headship.
>
> The presidency can be held by any human being (in principle) so long as
> they are a natural-born citizen of the US. It does not make biases
> based on gender.

My point was simply that just as a bad president doesn't mean the
office itself is bad, likewise some bad men abusing their headship
doesn't mean the headship principles itself is bad.

> That makes men somehow
> special, and unequal, better than their female counterparts.

No, it doesn't. Occupying a different role is neither better or
worse... it's different. And let's be honest... men and women are not
the same. There are most definitely differences... differences that
make them more suitable for some tasks and men more suitable for other
tasks. Equal, but different. That's what the Bible says, and that's
what I observe.

> So here is a situation to highlight the absurdity of your claim. What
> happens when a woman becomes President of the United States? Does she
> have to listen to her husband if he tells her not to do something? Is
> she inherently disobeying the will of God in not listening to her
> husband? Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, why should she
> have to listen to her husband? Is she not capable of making a decision
> herself?

It's not a matter of being capable or incapable of making decisions.
See explanations above.

[Michael Ewart]

Whispers in the Storm wrote:
> The "head" positions in government, armed forces, and office are not
> designated according to unequal gender treatment (in theory) so this
> analogy doesn't apply to the male superiority delusion. Social
> pressures and prejudices still make it difficult for females to rise in
> the ranks in some areas but it is certainly possible to have female
> CEOs and military officers.

You missed the point of my comparison. In the examples I gave, my
intent was to demonstrate that one person having authority over another
is not evil or demeaning. In fact, it doesn't even mean that the person
with higher authority is "better" in any way. It just means he or she
has more authority.

Likewise, male headship does not mean men are better in any way. It's
just the "order."

> Many women are capable of outperforming
> and out-thinking their male counterparts...

Indeed, they are.

> to force those women into
> subservient roles is disrespectful to their abilities and worth as
> human beings.

Can you imagine a situation where the vice president can out-think and
outperform the president? Or where the private can out-think and
out-perform his commanding officer? In such situations, is their
position disrespectful to that person's abilities and worth as a human?
Or do they nevertheless fill a vital role?

[Michael Ewart]

Turner wrote:
> Michael Ewart wrote:
> > Turner wrote:
> >
> > > That's not the point. The point is that he is saying women should be
> > > subservient to their husbands in everything. That's the ridiculous idea
> > > that people usually object to.
> >
> > Why is the idea of having a designated "head" ridiculous in the family,
> > but not in the government, armed forces or office?
>
> I don't think the comparison holds. The government and armed forces
> exist with the sole purpose of maintaining order and justice or
> protecting our country, respectively. The family, on the other hand, is
> not simply about keeping order and preventing harm, but about nurturing
> a child into a good, functional adult. There is no reason to place
> either the mother or father as more important when they are both
> equally capable (in most cases) of providing the necessary care for the
> children.

Again this word "more important" comes out. Where are you getting this
idea? I readily admit that in MY household, my wife is by far more
important. I'm just the dumb shmuck who brings home a paycheck. But in
our family, I have no qualms about saying the my wife is WAY more
important than I am. Nevertheless, I am the head of our house. Now
don't get the idea that my wife is some servant who washes my feet and
gives me backrubs in the evening. Imagine the opposite. She's a spark
plug with a strong will and is not at all shy about firmly voicing her
opinion. But she and our children realize and honor the principle that
the buck stops with me. It's a responsibility I don't always do justice
to, but you know what? It works.

> As for childless families, the comparison still doesn't hold,
> as the purpose of the coupling is not just one person protecting the
> other from harm and keeping her out of trouble. Or at least, I don't
> think it is in most cases and, in my opinion shouldn't be. That's a
> pretty hollow relationship.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

> Also, assigning males as the leader in all cases is not a good policy,
> since often they are utterly incapable of leading well, many times,
> probably even worse than the woman would be (e.g. alcoholics, drug
> addicts, gamblers).

This is an excellent point, Turner. Because we live in an imperfect
world, sometimes it will be preferrable (or inevitable) for the woman
to take a leadership role. There certainly are some pretty worthless
men on this planet.

[Michael Ewart]

Perhaps you can describe how a man who loves his wife with a
self-sacrificial love, placing her needs above his own, and loving her
as if her body were a part of his own would be able to simultaneously
treat her with disrespect.

[Turner]

[Slavery "works", too]

Well, the Bible verses I cited up there have language that supports
having your wife as a servant, who would wash your feet if you
commanded her so. If you don't do that to your wife, then she is
(relatively) lucky, but the point is that the Bible condones that kind
of treatment. And what good does "firmly voicing her opinion" do if
"the buck stops with [you]"? It's like a monarchy, and the peons can
request the audience of the king and voice their opinions, but if the
king decides that all the farmers shall plant beer bottles instead of
crops this season in hopes of growing beer trees, so it's done (and the
country starves). All because inordinate authority has been placed in
one person who has not gained said authority through any demonstration
of his abilities, but because it is in accordance with tradition (or,
in the case at hand, because a book has decreed it to be so).

>
> > As for childless families, the comparison still doesn't hold,
> > as the purpose of the coupling is not just one person protecting the
> > other from harm and keeping her out of trouble. Or at least, I don't
> > think it is in most cases and, in my opinion shouldn't be. That's a
> > pretty hollow relationship.
>
> I'm not sure what you're saying here.

I agree it's a bit foggy, but I was trying to address a possible
objection you might raise, in that my previous example was about
nurturing a child, and thus wouldn't apply the childless families
(assuming our definiton of "family" isn't restricted to parents and
children). Basically just extending my previous point.

>
> > Also, assigning males as the leader in all cases is not a good policy,
> > since often they are utterly incapable of leading well, many times,
> > probably even worse than the woman would be (e.g. alcoholics, drug
> > addicts, gamblers).
>
> This is an excellent point, Turner. Because we live in an imperfect
> world, sometimes it will be preferrable (or inevitable) for the woman
> to take a leadership role. There certainly are some pretty worthless
> men on this planet.

So doesn't that in itself show you that this principle of patriarchy is
not good? I mean, obviously, I wouldn't support a system that put women
as the de facto leaders of the family. But that's just proving my
point. The Bible forbids the women from taking the leadership role,
explicitly--it says that women must be completely subservient to men,
so in your admitted cases in which it is "preferrable for the woman to
take a leadership role", Scripture would block that more optimal
arrangement.

Not that I think women or men to take the leadership role,
unilaterally. I see no reason that a single head of the family is
needed. A single (or a few) leaders are needed in government, as you
say, because it is practically impossible to reach an agreement or
compromise among millions, thousands, or even hundreds of people, so in
order to get anywhere, we need to give up some rights and hand over
authority to certain people. The same is not true for families. It is
entirely possible, practically, to reach an agreement or compromise
between two people. Not easy, I'll grant you, but hey, that's something
we have to learn. So a leader of a family is not necessary at all.

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

Michael Ewart wrote:
> rapp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > That makes men somehow
> > special, and unequal, better than their female counterparts.
>
> No, it doesn't. Occupying a different role is neither better or
> worse... it's different.

When one is in "charge" and the other isn't, it's not just different.

In the words of Mel Brooks "It's good to be the king".
And it sucks to be the servant. These roles are "Different". You tell
me which is "better".

> And let's be honest... men and women are not
> the same. There are most definitely differences... differences that
> make them more suitable for some tasks and men more suitable for other
> tasks. Equal, but different. That's what the Bible says, and that's
> what I observe.

Really? I think the only difference between men and women is that women
can give birth to children and men cannot. And that the man (on
average) is physically more stronger. However, I think we've evolved
past our chimpanzee relatives on this one, don't you think?

So you're saying that women cannot do the same functions in society as
men?

>
> > So here is a situation to highlight the absurdity of your claim. What
> > happens when a woman becomes President of the United States? Does she
> > have to listen to her husband if he tells her not to do something? Is
> > she inherently disobeying the will of God in not listening to her
> > husband? Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, why should she
> > have to listen to her husband? Is she not capable of making a decision
> > herself?
>
> It's not a matter of being capable or incapable of making decisions.
> See explanations above.

What explainations? Are women capable of ruling over men or not? If so,
they are NOT subservient to men. If not, then women are second class
citizens. You can't have it both ways.

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

Michael Ewart wrote:
>
> Perhaps you can describe how a man who loves his wife with a
> self-sacrificial love, placing her needs above his own, and loving her
> as if her body were a part of his own would be able to simultaneously
> treat her with disrespect.

By simply treating her as a second class citizen, that's how.

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

So who makes the distinction? I know men who believe that they are
holier-than-thou Christian, go to church every Sunday, active in their
church communities, provide for their families, pay their taxes, and
generally think they are doing a superb job raising their children to
be good Christians. And they are (or have been) some of the most
ruthless assholes that have ever walked the earth. They believe they
are acting justly, when in fact they are simply verbally and physically
abusive.

So tell me, where are these "selfless" men who place their families
above all, yet "have the final say"? By definition they are not acting
selflessly.

I also think you're kind of exaggerating, pardon me for saying so. Most
"good" men that believe they are the "head of the household" are simply
mildly tolerated by their families in their delusions, however they are
normally actually not the "head" of the household in anything except
their own fantasies. Maybe a "figurehead" is more apt a phrase. The
only cases I have ever seen where the man truly is the "head" of the
household are abusive cases where the men have some "God complex" and
are generally pricks.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and guess you are the first
one. I mean no disrespect by that. I just think from the sounds of it
that you are a more-or-less reasonable human being, and your wife has
just as much "say" in your household as you do. However your opinion of
women is sorely lacking, in my opinion.

[Michael Ewart]

Turner wrote:
> Well, the Bible verses I cited up there have language that supports
> having your wife as a servant, who would wash your feet if you
> commanded her so.

No they don't. You are again ignoring the passages that *require* the
man to love his wife self-sacrificially and to regard her as actual
part of his own body. How can I love my wife self-sacrificially,
placing her needs above my own, and then treat her in a way that causes
her to be unhappy?

> And what good does "firmly voicing her opinion" do if
> "the buck stops with [you]"?

Because my loving, self-sacrificial attitude toward her takes her
opinion as seriously as if it came from my own body.

> All because inordinate authority has been placed in
> one person who has not gained said authority through any demonstration
> of his abilities, but because it is in accordance with tradition (or,
> in the case at hand, because a book has decreed it to be so).

Better have a chat with the British. ;-)

> > > Also, assigning males as the leader in all cases is not a good policy,
> > > since often they are utterly incapable of leading well, many times,
> > > probably even worse than the woman would be (e.g. alcoholics, drug
> > > addicts, gamblers).
> >
> > This is an excellent point, Turner. Because we live in an imperfect
> > world, sometimes it will be preferrable (or inevitable) for the woman
> > to take a leadership role. There certainly are some pretty worthless
> > men on this planet.
>
> So doesn't that in itself show you that this principle of patriarchy is
> not good?

Not at all. We live in a fallen, sinful world. The unfortunate reality
is that nearly every day we're forced to choose between "wrongs." In
other words, either choice we make results in a sin, and we're forced
to choose the lesser. I can imagine quite a few situations where the
lesser "sin" may be for the woman to take authority.

Here's a Christian example: The wife knows and believes God's command
to bring children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The
husband is an atheist [shudder], and will not take the children to
church. If she obeys her husband in this, she is sinning. If she takes
authority, she is also sinning. In this case, I'd tell her she must
take authority so that her children will know the Lord. (I know we'll
probably get sidetracked discussing your disagreement with bringing
children up in the Lord, but first try to understand the point I'm
making by this example: namely, that there are situations where the
woman must take authority to avoid a different sin.)

Let me also say that I'm not suggesting that we make laws forbidding
women to hold authority. I don't expect unbelievers to understand this
principle. Bottom line: I'm convinced the individuals, families and
society are happier and healthier when God's principles are followed.
In the perfect family, the husband would love his wife with a perfect
love, giving his very self to her unconditionally and fully, making her
needs and happiness the highest priority in the family. In that perfect
family, she would willingly and cheerfully submit to her loving husband
as to the Lord, knowing that he has her best interests always at heart,
and trusting that he will be a responsible head of the family.

That's the ideal. Do you see a fault with the ideal?

> Not that I think women or men to take the leadership role,
> unilaterally. I see no reason that a single head of the family is
> needed. A single (or a few) leaders are needed in government, as you
> say, because it is practically impossible to reach an agreement or
> compromise among millions, thousands, or even hundreds of people, so in
> order to get anywhere, we need to give up some rights and hand over
> authority to certain people. The same is not true for families. It is
> entirely possible, practically, to reach an agreement or compromise
> between two people. Not easy, I'll grant you, but hey, that's something
> we have to learn. So a leader of a family is not necessary at all.

Usually two people can reach a compromise. A loving husband would
certainly seek to reach a compromise. But I disagree that a leader in
the family is not necessary. By way of illustration, watch the show
"Super Nanny" a few times. I find that show fascinating. Although the
nanny is there to help the parents with kids, you almost always see
right away that the problem is also in the relationship of the husband
and wife. I've seen many shows, and I can't remember one yet where the
family had a responsible, loving, active leader husband. I saw one
where the husband was obviously loving, but he refused to take
authority in the family unit. The family had big problems. Coincidence?

And note where I'm putting the responsibility and primary blame... with
the man. The confused roles of man and woman in society today are not
the fault of women. They're the fault of men who don't take on their
God-given roles or they abuse them.

[Michael Ewart]

So you think he can do that AND at the same time show self-sacrificial
love, place her needs above his own, and love her as if her body were a
part of his own. I'm describing a woman who is treated like a queen,
and you somehow think this leaves the door open for her being treated
as a second class citizen.

I don't get it.

[cathyb]

Michael Ewart wrote:
> rapp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Michael Ewart wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps you can describe how a man who loves his wife with a
> > > self-sacrificial love, placing her needs above his own, and loving her
> > > as if her body were a part of his own would be able to simultaneously
> > > treat her with disrespect.
> >
> > By simply treating her as a second class citizen, that's how.
>
> So you think he can do that AND at the same time show self-sacrificial
> love, place her needs above his own, and love her as if her body were a
> part of his own. I'm describing a woman who is treated like a queen,

You're describing a woman treated like a beloved imbecile. Moreover,
what if her needs include being, for instance, joint head of the
family? Presumably the man would have to take it upon himself (with
love, of course) to explain to her firmly that while he wants to meet
all her needs, this particular need is simply wrong...regardless of her
thoughts on the matter.

[Simpleton]

I can't describe a man who does that to be disrespectful.

[Michael Ewart]

rapp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > And let's be honest... men and women are not
> > the same. There are most definitely differences... differences that
> > make them more suitable for some tasks and men more suitable for other
> > tasks. Equal, but different. That's what the Bible says, and that's
> > what I observe.
>
> Really? I think the only difference between men and women is that women
> can give birth to children and men cannot. And that the man (on
> average) is physically more stronger. However, I think we've evolved
> past our chimpanzee relatives on this one, don't you think?

You honestly think these are the only differences between man and
woman? Are you married? Maybe you should read a book on the subject. A
popular one is, "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus."

> So you're saying that women cannot do the same functions in society as
> men?

Women are better at some functions, men are better at other functions.
Do I really have to go to the trouble of proving this? Please research
it yourself. I don't have time.

> > > So here is a situation to highlight the absurdity of your claim. What
> > > happens when a woman becomes President of the United States? Does she
> > > have to listen to her husband if he tells her not to do something? Is
> > > she inherently disobeying the will of God in not listening to her
> > > husband? Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, why should she
> > > have to listen to her husband? Is she not capable of making a decision
> > > herself?
> >
> > It's not a matter of being capable or incapable of making decisions.
> > See explanations above.
>
> What explainations? Are women capable of ruling over men or not?

Are they capable of ruling over men? Of course.

[Simpleton]

Michael Ewart wrote:
> rapp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Michael Ewart wrote:
> > > rapp...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> My point was simply that just as a bad president doesn't mean the
> office itself is bad, likewise some bad men abusing their headship
> doesn't mean the headship principles itself is bad.
>

Try imagining the above situation with the presidency being open only
to males.

> > That makes men somehow
> > special, and unequal, better than their female counterparts.
>
> No, it doesn't. Occupying a different role is neither better or
> worse... it's different. And let's be honest... men and women are not
> the same. There are most definitely differences... differences that
> make them more suitable for some tasks and men more suitable for other
> tasks. Equal, but different.

It is not established that men are better than women at heading
families, is it?

> That's what the Bible says, and that's what I observe.
>

The bible seems to treat women as things owned by men. That's what I
observe.

> > So here is a situation to highlight the absurdity of your claim. What
> > happens when a woman becomes President of the United States? Does she
> > have to listen to her husband if he tells her not to do something? Is
> > she inherently disobeying the will of God in not listening to her
> > husband? Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, why should she
> > have to listen to her husband? Is she not capable of making a decision
> > herself?
>
> It's not a matter of being capable or incapable of making decisions.
> See explanations above.

Which ones? Above you indicate that men and women are better at
different things. No where do you address the question.

[Michael Ewart]

cathyb wrote:
> Michael Ewart wrote:
> > rapp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Michael Ewart wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you can describe how a man who loves his wife with a
> > > > self-sacrificial love, placing her needs above his own, and loving her
> > > > as if her body were a part of his own would be able to simultaneously
> > > > treat her with disrespect.
> > >
> > > By simply treating her as a second class citizen, that's how.
> >
> > So you think he can do that AND at the same time show self-sacrificial
> > love, place her needs above his own, and love her as if her body were a
> > part of his own. I'm describing a woman who is treated like a queen,
>
> You're describing a woman treated like a beloved imbecile.

Please explain how this is the case.

And what do you think the results of a poll would be if women were
asked a simple question:

Would you be (a) appreciative or (b) insulted if your husband told you
the following: "I love you so much I give everything for you... I
sacrifice myself for you. I consider your needs greater than my own. I
will gladly suffer if it means your happiness. I consider you an
inseparable part of my own body."

[MrCool]

Michael Ewart wrote:

I have 3 questions:

1) Why is a head of the house needed? What's wrong with a joint
partnership? It makes much more sense to share in the leadership in way
that appeals to both of your strengths rather than having one overall
decision maker.

Assuming for a second that a head of the house in needed:

2) Even though men and women are different, what specific differences
do you think entitle men to be in charge of the household? It's more
personal than running a country. Women generally have the necessary
communication skills and emotional intelligence. A good dolloping of
multitasking ability can't hurt either.

Last point:

3) This blanket rule doesn't account for the fact that differences
between men and women are only AVERAGE differences, and individuals
within a gender vary quite a lot in the ability to run a family.

[cathyb]

Michael Ewart wrote:
> cathyb wrote:
> > Michael Ewart wrote:
> > > rapp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Michael Ewart wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps you can describe how a man who loves his wife with a
> > > > > self-sacrificial love, placing her needs above his own, and loving her
> > > > > as if her body were a part of his own would be able to simultaneously
> > > > > treat her with disrespect.
> > > >
> > > > By simply treating her as a second class citizen, that's how.
> > >
> > > So you think he can do that AND at the same time show self-sacrificial
> > > love, place her needs above his own, and love her as if her body were a
> > > part of his own. I'm describing a woman who is treated like a queen,
> >
> > You're describing a woman treated like a beloved imbecile.
>
> Please explain how this is the case.

You're describing a well-loved pet--loved, well-treated, and not
considered capable of making its own decisions. It's certainly not how
you would treat a queen.

>
> And what do you think the results of a poll would be if women were
> asked a simple question:
>
> Would you be (a) appreciative or (b) insulted if your husband told you
> the following: "I love you so much I give everything for you... I
> sacrifice myself for you. I consider your needs greater than my own. I
> will gladly suffer if it means your happiness. I consider you an
> inseparable part of my own body."

With the proviso that the man was in charge, and better able to decide
what was best for them and their families than they are? Insulted.

[Michael Ewart]

cathyb wrote:
> With the proviso that the man was in charge, and better able to decide
> what was best for them and their families than they are? Insulted.

Who said "Better able to decide"? My wife is better able to decide most
issues in our family, and she does so (having discussed important
matters with me, of course.) More accurate to say is the husband is,
"Ultimately responsible for the decision that's been made." In other
words, she doesn't run every single family decision by me before making
it. But she understands I am responsible for her decisions that she
makes for our family, and so she typically talks to me about the more
important ones.

And if somehow there were a situation where we just couldn't come to an
agreement, I have the final say. (But I honestly can't offhand think of
any such situations in our married life.)

[cathyb]

But that's the point isn't it? You have the final say. You've basically
rephrased what I said and tried to make it a little more palatable, but
you're still saying that you are in charge, and moreover that you are
responsible for her decisions and errors.

Perhaps pet was a bit harsh; you are treating her exactly as you would
a child. An adult, you see, is responsible for his or her own decisions.

[Michael Ewart]

cathyb wrote:
> But that's the point isn't it? You have the final say. You've basically
> rephrased what I said and tried to make it a little more palatable, but
> you're still saying that you are in charge, and moreover that you are
> responsible for her decisions and errors.

Well what do you, propose, cathyb? Let's say in your "ideal marriage"
structure there is an issue where a mutual agreement for whatever
reason doesn't happen. Now what? Arm wrestle? No, the man would
typically have the advantage there. A game of Scrabble and winner gets
his or her way?

[cathyb]

I'm sorry, you appear to be saying that you prefer to put women in a
subordinate position because you can't cope with the concepts of
negotiation, compromise or simply agreeing to differ. That's the way
most marriages work.

You've also given no reason that if, as you insist, there must be one
person in charge of the household, why on the earth the default postion
should be that it would be the male.

And nor have you explained the lack of respect you show for women, who
as responsible adults, just like their husbands, do not need someone
else to take responsibility for their decisions. How you could possibly
think that to do so is to treat a women like a "queen" is quite frankly
beyond me.

[Simpleton]

Michael Ewart wrote:
> cathyb wrote:
> > But that's the point isn't it? You have the final say. You've basically
> > rephrased what I said and tried to make it a little more palatable, but
> > you're still saying that you are in charge, and moreover that you are
> > responsible for her decisions and errors.
>
> Well what do you, propose, cathyb? Let's say in your "ideal marriage"
> structure there is an issue where a mutual agreement for whatever
> reason doesn't happen. Now what?

You respectfully let her have the final say, and say "OK, I trust you,
honey. I'll work hard with you to make it work. What do you want me
to do?"

You know why I'll do that? Because I love her and respect her, and no
difference of opinion is big enough for me to get in the way of that.

Yeah, we may on occasion regret the choice if it doesn't turn out the
way it goes, but that is part of the fun of the partnership.

Surprisingly, the favor gets returned on some subsequent occasion.

> Arm wrestle? No, the man would
> typically have the advantage there. A game of Scrabble and winner gets
> his or her way?

I have actually tried something like that, and it works well on
occasion. On still other occasions, we'll flip a coin and if she loses,
we do 2 out of 3, or 3 out of 5 ... till she wins.

I mean what else would you do?

Grab the nearest copy of the bible and say "Now look here woman, the
good book says I am in charge. Submit, for resistance is futile"?

[Sammybaby]

Hello. Anybody home. My point was that greatness is something that
men can achieve and not women. God never gave birth to his only
begotten daughter in your myths. And God son did not see fit to have
female apprentices. Most Christian leaders - priests, pastors and so
on - are male. Men are given the role as interpreters. Men are
considered the leaders of the household. men are the leaders in the
church. And you see no problem with this.

So you found a passage in the Bible where someone says something about
men being loving to women. Apart from the fact that this was not the
topic, it also means very little. If I have a friend who sometimes
says wonderful things about women, but refuses to let women into
positions of authority, thinks that women can be great only by birthing
men of following them, he is still sexist.

But nice evasive try.

Michael Ewart wrote:
> Ephesians 5:25-33
> "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave
> himself up for her to make her holy... In this same way, husbands ought
> to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves
> himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and
> cares for it, just as Christ does the church- for we are members of
> his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and
> be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." Each one
> of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must
> respect her husband."
>
> Oh, the tyranny! Oh, the shame of it all! What a horrible book! Men,
> close your ears and don't obey such garbage! Women, never let your
> husbands read that passage... who knows how they might treat you!
>
>

> Sammybaby wrote:
> > Male God
> > His male son.
> > Male apostles - not one woman deemed worthy of being in the Jesus
> > school. One prostitute gets to hang out clean his feet.
> > Who is the great woman in the NT. Mary, mother of Jesus. Vessel for
> > the male child of a male god. Jesus has nothing of Mary, to put it in
> > modern terms, Jesus has just God's DNA and nothing from his mother.
> > (and EVe started the sin ball rolling)
> >
> > That this set of sexist assumptions and stories creates a foundation
> > for woman hate is obvious. But the point I am making today is that it
> > gives women no basis for greatness in an of themselves like men have.
> > A woman can be great for birthing a man or worshipping a man. But unto
> > herself.....
> >
> > Of course women have brought forward ideas similar to Jesus's, but they
> > were shut up, killed or put away. Imagine how long a female
> > challenging the status quo as he did would have lasted. Rape and deaht
> > would have come fast and we would never have heard her name. Nor have
> > we.....
> >
> > God made us in 'his' image. Oddly he made us with two sexes not one.
> > And birthing in fact is more the mother's work than the man's.
> >
> > But no, there is no divine female, equal in greatness to the male God.
> >
> > No daughter to match the son.
> >
> > What a bunch of sexist crap.
> >
> > First the earthly men silence and remove the power of women in their
> > cultures. Then they create a mythology to fit their own biases. 2000
> > years later people read these sexist men's books and ASSUME there is no
> > cultural bias, no need for the writers to reinforce the idea that men
> > can be great and women can support that greatness.
> >
> > The beliefs of weak and fearful men.
> >
> > And the arrogance of weak and fearful men, Michael Ewert.
> >
> > You consider me arrogant for having the temerity to point out how
> > arrogant Christians are.

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

Michael Ewart wrote:
> Turner wrote:
> > Well, the Bible verses I cited up there have language that supports
> > having your wife as a servant, who would wash your feet if you
> > commanded her so.
>
> No they don't. You are again ignoring the passages that *require* the
> man to love his wife self-sacrificially and to regard her as actual
> part of his own body. How can I love my wife self-sacrificially,
> placing her needs above my own, and then treat her in a way that causes
> her to be unhappy?

It doesn't matter how you TREAT her, it's the fact that she is
relegated to servitude (in one way or another) that we have a problem
to. If she must submit to her husband's will, she is by DEFINITION not
free. Even if her husband's will is correct.

>
> > And what good does "firmly voicing her opinion" do if
> > "the buck stops with [you]"?
>
> Because my loving, self-sacrificial attitude toward her takes her
> opinion as seriously as if it came from my own body.

But you ultimately make the decision. She has no such luxury, and hence
you relegate her to a second-class role.

>
> > All because inordinate authority has been placed in
> > one person who has not gained said authority through any demonstration
> > of his abilities, but because it is in accordance with tradition (or,
> > in the case at hand, because a book has decreed it to be so).
>
> Better have a chat with the British. ;-)
>
> > > > Also, assigning males as the leader in all cases is not a good policy,
> > > > since often they are utterly incapable of leading well, many times,
> > > > probably even worse than the woman would be (e.g. alcoholics, drug
> > > > addicts, gamblers).
> > >
> > > This is an excellent point, Turner. Because we live in an imperfect
> > > world, sometimes it will be preferrable (or inevitable) for the woman
> > > to take a leadership role. There certainly are some pretty worthless
> > > men on this planet.
> >
> > So doesn't that in itself show you that this principle of patriarchy is
> > not good?
>
> Not at all. We live in a fallen, sinful world.

Define "fallen and sinful"? Is the world any less fallen and sinful
than 50 years ago? How about 100 years ago? How about 2000 years ago?

> The unfortunate reality
> is that nearly every day we're forced to choose between "wrongs." In
> other words, either choice we make results in a sin, and we're forced
> to choose the lesser. I can imagine quite a few situations where the
> lesser "sin" may be for the woman to take authority.
>
> Here's a Christian example: The wife knows and believes God's command
> to bring children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The
> husband is an atheist [shudder], and will not take the children to
> church. If she obeys her husband in this, she is sinning. If she takes
> authority, she is also sinning. In this case, I'd tell her she must
> take authority so that her children will know the Lord. (I know we'll
> probably get sidetracked discussing your disagreement with bringing
> children up in the Lord, but first try to understand the point I'm
> making by this example: namely, that there are situations where the
> woman must take authority to avoid a different sin.)

So, if she disobeys her husband she is sinning, but it's a small sin.
So really you're relegating this, in the grand scheme of things, as a
misdemeanor of sorts, rather than a felony. Is that it?

>
> Let me also say that I'm not suggesting that we make laws forbidding
> women to hold authority. I don't expect unbelievers to understand this
> principle.

So in a "Christian" society it's okay to disallow women have authority
positions?

> Bottom line: I'm convinced the individuals, families and
> society are happier and healthier when God's principles are followed.

I'd rather be unhappy, unhealthy, unwealthy and free to make my own
decisions, rather than be a happy, healthy, wealthy second-class
citizen, thanks.

> In the perfect family, the husband would love his wife with a perfect
> love, giving his very self to her unconditionally and fully, making her
> needs and happiness the highest priority in the family. In that perfect
> family, she would willingly and cheerfully submit to her loving husband
> as to the Lord, knowing that he has her best interests always at heart,
> and trusting that he will be a responsible head of the family.
>
> That's the ideal. Do you see a fault with the ideal?

Yes. There is inherent inequality in the relationship, and hence in the
genders. So basically whether or not you happen to have a Y chromosome
dictates your position in society. It's unjust, regardless of how "well
cared for" the woman is.

>
> > Not that I think women or men to take the leadership role,
> > unilaterally. I see no reason that a single head of the family is
> > needed. A single (or a few) leaders are needed in government, as you
> > say, because it is practically impossible to reach an agreement or
> > compromise among millions, thousands, or even hundreds of people, so in
> > order to get anywhere, we need to give up some rights and hand over
> > authority to certain people. The same is not true for families. It is
> > entirely possible, practically, to reach an agreement or compromise
> > between two people. Not easy, I'll grant you, but hey, that's something
> > we have to learn. So a leader of a family is not necessary at all.
>
> Usually two people can reach a compromise. A loving husband would
> certainly seek to reach a compromise. But I disagree that a leader in
> the family is not necessary. By way of illustration, watch the show
> "Super Nanny" a few times. I find that show fascinating. Although the
> nanny is there to help the parents with kids, you almost always see
> right away that the problem is also in the relationship of the husband
> and wife. I've seen many shows, and I can't remember one yet where the
> family had a responsible, loving, active leader husband. I saw one
> where the husband was obviously loving, but he refused to take
> authority in the family unit. The family had big problems. Coincidence?

Yes, actually, coincidence. I'm pretty sure you can't take a reality
television show as a scientific basis for an opinion.

>
> And note where I'm putting the responsibility and primary blame... with
> the man. The confused roles of man and woman in society today are not
> the fault of women. They're the fault of men who don't take on their
> God-given roles or they abuse them.

So the women are just helpless without the men? They don't have any
power, and so they can't take the blame? If a family unit is not
functioning, it rests with both parties equally, sorry. If a woman
allows her good-for-nothing husband to sit around and do nothing, she
is just as responsible to get him up off his arse and get him to help
with the household.

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

The very ACT of relegating her to a "secondary" role is inherently
treating her as a second class citizen. It doesn't matter how he treats
her, it is her submissive role in the relationship that is inherently
wrong.

My dog is submissive to me. My children will be submissive to me. My
wife is NOT submissive to me and can make her own decisions, thank you.

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

Michael Ewart wrote:
> rapp...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > And let's be honest... men and women are not
> > > the same. There are most definitely differences... differences that
> > > make them more suitable for some tasks and men more suitable for other
> > > tasks. Equal, but different. That's what the Bible says, and that's
> > > what I observe.
> >
> > Really? I think the only difference between men and women is that women
> > can give birth to children and men cannot. And that the man (on
> > average) is physically more stronger. However, I think we've evolved
> > past our chimpanzee relatives on this one, don't you think?
>
> You honestly think these are the only differences between man and
> woman? Are you married? Maybe you should read a book on the subject. A
> popular one is, "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus."

How an individual behaves is not a measure of their worth. Just because
women typically like to talk on the phone more than men doesn't mean
anything at all. Their abilities are the same.

>
> > So you're saying that women cannot do the same functions in society as
> > men?
>
> Women are better at some functions, men are better at other functions.
> Do I really have to go to the trouble of proving this? Please research
> it yourself. I don't have time.

Describe one function all men are better at, and one that all women are
better at.

And "peeing standing up" doesn't count. Neither does childbirth.

>
> > > > So here is a situation to highlight the absurdity of your claim. What
> > > > happens when a woman becomes President of the United States? Does she
> > > > have to listen to her husband if he tells her not to do something? Is
> > > > she inherently disobeying the will of God in not listening to her
> > > > husband? Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, why should she
> > > > have to listen to her husband? Is she not capable of making a decision
> > > > herself?
> > >
> > > It's not a matter of being capable or incapable of making decisions.
> > > See explanations above.
> >
> > What explainations? Are women capable of ruling over men or not?
>
> Are they capable of ruling over men? Of course.

But if she's married, she has to submit to her husband? Even if she is
President and he is "First Man"? If she wants to go to war, the husband
decides whether or not it is in her best interests?

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

There's nothing wrong with that at all. However you're missing an
important part of the poll.

"Oh, yeah, but you have to ultimately submit to your husband's will
when he says something."

I feel sorry for women that don't respect themselves enough to
recognize that they are being treated as a second class citizen, no
matter how "just and loving" that position is.

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

I think you're deluding yourself, actually. If your wife would simply
submit to you if she vehemently disagreed, I would be very surprised,
from what it sounds like. I believe in reality, you and your wife are
actually equal partners, you just need to tell yourself that you are
the "head of the household" when in fact that position holds absolutely
no meaning.

Any other situation is bound to be an abusive case, which even you
recognize is wrong.

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

I think rational human beings could discern what the best solution is,
and make a compromise in some way.

[Bob]

MrCool wrote:
> 3) This blanket rule doesn't account for the fact that differences
> between men and women are only AVERAGE differences, and individuals
> within a gender vary quite a lot in the ability to run a family.

This is a really important point, MrCool.

It know there are millions, or maybe even billions of women who are
stronger than me, can run faster than me, can navigate better than me,
have better spatial awareness than me etc etc.

I also know that women are, on average, not as strong as men, can't run
as fast, and (a bit more controversial but based on much experience)
less able to navigate and have less spatial awareness.

That doesn't stop many women from being excellent builders/labourers,
navigators, designers or engineers. Contrariwise there are loads of men
who can't do jobs requiring strength, be navigators, designers or
engineers.

Similarly, I have met many excellent women leaders. I have also met
many excellent male leaders, also the converse of each.

The Bible's stated position on this is just insulting. Both to women
and to modern western ethics.

Yet again the Bible clearly illustrates that it is a book written by
people based on their perceptions and culture of their time.

There are some enduring values that we would all recognise but much of
it is plain wrong.

[Whispers in the Storm]

Michael Ewart wrote:
>
> You missed the point of my comparison. In the examples I gave, my
> intent was to demonstrate that one person having authority over another
> is not evil or demeaning. In fact, it doesn't even mean that the person
> with higher authority is "better" in any way. It just means he or she
> has more authority.

I don't think I missed the point at all. Your argument could be used
to support slavery of African Americans - just because one group of
people have authority over another group of people doesn't make it evil
or demeaning, right? Any time you separate a group of people from a
society and give authority over that group to another group, you are
creating "second-class" citizens who do not have the same rights as the
group in the superior position. Being a second class citizen is
demeaning in and of itself.

By automatically granting a man authority over me, you are taking away
my personal freedom - my ability to make my own choices for my life, to
pursue my own hobbies, to live where I want to, to educate myself in
whatever manner I see fit, to vote for whomever I support, to manage my
own finances... the list goes on. I am as entitled to do these things
for myself as any man is - they are not perks granted to me by a man
who has the "authority" to take them away from me.

> Likewise, male headship does not mean men are better in any way. It's
> just the "order."

Again, this argument could be used to support all kinds of unequal
treatment between groups. Your "order" has nothing to support it other
than a 2,000 year old document that was written by a patriarchy during
a time when women were seen as property - rather like cattle.

> Can you imagine a situation where the vice president can out-think and
> outperform the president? Or where the private can out-think and
> out-perform his commanding officer? In such situations, is their
> position disrespectful to that person's abilities and worth as a human?
> Or do they nevertheless fill a vital role?

Sure they fill a role - but the peole in those positions are able to
advance into other roles based on their performance. The VP can always
run for president... privates get promoted to positions of authority
based on their abilities and experience. Women and African Americans
aren't stuck in the roles of privates for the rest of their lives - nor
do white men automatically become generals. Everyone is placed
according to ability and experience (and sometimes brown-nosing). None
of these roles are officially based on gender stereotyping so if you
apply your analogies to marriage, the more experienced and able partner
becomes the "head" regardless of gender.

[Whispers in the Storm]

>And let's be honest... men and women are not
>the same. There are most definitely differences... differences that
>make them more suitable for some tasks and men more suitable for other
>tasks. Equal, but different.

I highly doubt there's any inherent difference in my gender that says
I'm more suitable for cooking and doing dishes while a man is more
suitable for making financial decisions and working on the lawnmower.
I'm very intelligent, have great problem-solving abilities, am
organized, manage my finances well, am well educated, am widely read,
am physically fit, have a good deal of mechanical aptitude - and
honestly, I have yet to find a man who can match me in intelligence and
physical abilities (except for lifing heavy stuff and running fast)
much less surpass me.

I know this is going to sound rude but I feel it needs to be said and I
don't know how to put it any more kindly: you don't know me so don't
sit up there on your imaginary throne and try to tell me what's
"suitable" for me and what isn't.

[Turner]

Michael Ewart wrote:
> Turner wrote:
> > Well, the Bible verses I cited up there have language that supports
> > having your wife as a servant, who would wash your feet if you
> > commanded her so.
>
> No they don't. You are again ignoring the passages that *require* the
> man to love his wife self-sacrificially and to regard her as actual
> part of his own body. How can I love my wife self-sacrificially,
> placing her needs above my own, and then treat her in a way that causes
> her to be unhappy?

That passage is incompatible with the passages I cited up there. You
can't honor and respect someone, and "[place] her needs above [your]
own" if she must "learn in quietness and full submission" and "should
submit to [her husband] in everything." That's not consonant with any
definition of honor and respect I'm aware of.

>
> > And what good does "firmly voicing her opinion" do if
> > "the buck stops with [you]"?
>
> Because my loving, self-sacrificial attitude toward her takes her
> opinion as seriously as if it came from my own body.

To a point, but obviously two conflicting opinions cannot come from the
same body simultaneously, so your opinion is always going to trump in
cases where they are contradictory (which probably happens a lot in any
family).

>
> > All because inordinate authority has been placed in
> > one person who has not gained said authority through any demonstration
> > of his abilities, but because it is in accordance with tradition (or,
> > in the case at hand, because a book has decreed it to be so).
>
> Better have a chat with the British. ;-)

I would if I could understand a word they say. BBC shows might as well
be in Tagalog for all I can understand them.

But what about cases in which both parents are equally good Christians
but the woman is more fit to lead (again, this is operating on the
mistaken assumption that some one has to be in charge), for example?
Not necessarily because the man is abusive or even idiotic, but
because, say, he's bad at making decisions, or planning for the long
run, or disciplining his children? Your Bible would create a situation
that would probably end up being extremely detrimental to the family,
or at least not in their best interests. Even if the father wasn't an
evil, Godless heathen.

>
> Let me also say that I'm not suggesting that we make laws forbidding
> women to hold authority.

Why not? The Bible does:

1 Timothy 2:12:

"I do not
permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be
silent."

> I don't expect unbelievers to understand this
> principle. Bottom line: I'm convinced the individuals, families and
> society are happier and healthier when God's principles are followed.

Well, I guess that's another place we differ.

> In the perfect family, the husband would love his wife with a perfect
> love, giving his very self to her unconditionally and fully, making her
> needs and happiness the highest priority in the family. In that perfect
> family, she would willingly and cheerfully submit to her loving husband
> as to the Lord, knowing that he has her best interests always at heart,
> and trusting that he will be a responsible head of the family.
>
> That's the ideal. Do you see a fault with the ideal?

Well, it's been said by others, but yes, if there's the underlying
belief that the man is ultimately in charge over everyone, his wife
included. Not to mention ideals are never realized in real life.

>
> > Not that I think women or men to take the leadership role,
> > unilaterally. I see no reason that a single head of the family is
> > needed. A single (or a few) leaders are needed in government, as you
> > say, because it is practically impossible to reach an agreement or
> > compromise among millions, thousands, or even hundreds of people, so in
> > order to get anywhere, we need to give up some rights and hand over
> > authority to certain people. The same is not true for families. It is
> > entirely possible, practically, to reach an agreement or compromise
> > between two people. Not easy, I'll grant you, but hey, that's something
> > we have to learn. So a leader of a family is not necessary at all.
>
> Usually two people can reach a compromise. A loving husband would
> certainly seek to reach a compromise. But I disagree that a leader in
> the family is not necessary. By way of illustration, watch the show
> "Super Nanny" a few times. I find that show fascinating. Although the
> nanny is there to help the parents with kids, you almost always see
> right away that the problem is also in the relationship of the husband
> and wife.

...Are you seriously using a TV show as evidence? I don't mean to sound
arrogant or condescending, but...wow. Also, are you claiming that the
problem in the relationship of the man and his wife would be solved by
one of them (or specifically the man) being recognized as the head of
the family? Why?

> I've seen many shows, and I can't remember one yet where the
> family had a responsible, loving, active leader husband. I saw one
> where the husband was obviously loving, but he refused to take
> authority in the family unit. The family had big problems. Coincidence?

Yes, certainly. Not only coincidence, but cinema. It's a fundamental
understanding of any form of storytelling that a good story can only
arise from conflict of some kind. So naturally any TV show or movie or
novel you watch or read is going to portray problems, whether or not
the woman is in charge. I'm honestly quite surprised you would resort
to argument from television.

Have you ever seen "Malcolm In The Middle"? It's a great, weird show
about an extremely dysfunctional family in which the father is a
somewhat crazy but lovable milquetoast, the mother is a fire-breathing
control freak, and the 4 boys are hellraisers. I'd imagine you would
attribute the problems in the family to the mother being very much in
charge (and not, of course, to the hellraising children), but man, if
Hal (the father) were in charge, they'd be in the gutter in no time. I
figure as long as we're using TV shows to illustrate our points, I'd
chime in with one of my favorites.

>
> And note where I'm putting the responsibility and primary blame... with
> the man. The confused roles of man and woman in society today are not
> the fault of women. They're the fault of men who don't take on their
> God-given roles or they abuse them.

This doesn't really help anything. It's like saying "Oh, it's not the
dog's fault he peed on the carpet, his master didn't enforce his will
strongly enough."