Should man rule over women for women’s own good?

[Greatest I am]

If you want your duty protected then you are duty bound to protect the duty of the other. That is why the captain has a gun. To enforce duty.

So, not only does the Law of the Sea have precedence to your notion of duty but there is no room for exception as there is a man with a gun standing by to assure adherence. Nice system of ethics you've got brewing there.

There can be and likely are exceptions in every instance of the Law of the Sea being used.

As a Captain wishing to save as many as possible, he would accept older people and perhaps even others who wish to let another live instead of themselves.

So yes, it is about as nice a system as I can think of if the various people do what they are supposed to do.

If you have something better then please, educate us.

If not, -------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfResyFrqlM

Regards
DL

---

[

That is wrong.

Then I await your figure.

Or did you decide that I was wrong the same way you decided your God was right? On pure faith?

“Faith means not wanting to know what is true.” — Friedrich Nietzsche -

Regards
DL

---

In our countries, the religious are the vast majority. If women do not presently have full equality it is primarily because of so called religious men. Religious men who have forgotten their duty to family.

Regards
DL

If we assume that in our country the religious are the vast majority, it does not necessarily follow that women do not presently have full equality (with respect to pay) in the workforce. The Biblically defined roles are within the context of a formal worship setting and the home. It does not define 'workplace' roles.

If A is true and B is true, does that necessitate that A caused B?

Your first is correct. It does not necessarily follow but it does follow in this case.

To your last. So a man must give women equality in the home but can abuse woman outside of it at the workplace.

Nice theology you follow friend.

To answer your last. B is cause by the immoral teachings of Christian theology that so called moral men have embraced, like, ---he shall rule over you.

Regards
DL

---

It's amazing that this thread has lasted 122 posts. Which part of 'no' don't you understand, the 'n' or the 'o'?

I agree.

But if man is going to continue denying women equality, and men will continue to rule, who should they rule for? Themselves?

You can say for the whole of society and would be partially correct but how is society structured and when push comes to shove, will men step up to protect families or will they try to get the weaker family members to protect their stronger asses?

The ancient Kings ruled for their Queens. They recognized their family responsibilities and duty and pride in doing that duty. To say that the King will sit at home and send the Queen to do his fighting seems rather cowardly to me. Not to you I take it?

Regards
DL

---

It really is my fault. What can I say, I'm a rebel.
But seriously I didn't mean to start the debate back up again. I figured the OP was long gone by now. Usually sexists don't last long here.

I am a Gnostic Christian and we recognize the spark of God within all of us. Full equality is something we have to embrace from the get go.

Gnostic Christian men have just decided that man is stronger and better, by will and body, and should thus be the main protector of family values and think that our duty is first to maintain life for our children and secondly to place our wives in that same safe environment.

IOW, the strong should serve the weak.

If you think the reverse should be in play, then you are not much of a moral or duty driven person.

Get thee behind me Satan.

Regards
DL

[Cato]

There can be and likely are exceptions in every instance of the Law of the Sea being used.

As a Captain wishing to save as many as possible, he would accept older people and perhaps even others who wish to let another live instead of themselves.

So yes, it is about as nice a system as I can think of if the various people do what they are supposed to do.

You seem to be fixated on your analogy instead of pulling the idea back into your broader argument. What I learned by exploring your analogy is that everyone is subjected by force to adhere to a vague idea of duty which is dictated and not arrived at by consensus. As a reminder, you are using this as justification for your idea that men should rule over women.

To summarize, you are arguing that men should rule over women because somebody with a gun says so. Not very convincing.

[Greatest I am]

There can be and likely are exceptions in every instance of the Law of the Sea being used.

As a Captain wishing to save as many as possible, he would accept older people and perhaps even others who wish to let another live instead of themselves.

So yes, it is about as nice a system as I can think of if the various people do what they are supposed to do.

You seem to be fixated on your analogy instead of pulling the idea back into your broader argument. What I learned by exploring your analogy is that everyone is subjected by force to adhere to a vague idea of duty which is dictated and not arrived at by consensus. As a reminder, you are using this as justification for your idea that men should rule over women.

To summarize, you are arguing that men should rule over women because somebody with a gun says so. Not very convincing.

Where did the Captain get the gun and the rules to follow if not by consensus from those in authority?

You forgot my main point. Rule over women for women's sake.

Some others here have forgotten that bit and call me sexist as in pro man when, if that word applies at all, I should be called sexist for being pro women.

Regards
DL

[Losty]

It really is my fault. What can I say, I'm a rebel.
But seriously I didn't mean to start the debate back up again. I figured the OP was long gone by now. Usually sexists don't last long here.

I am a Gnostic Christian and we recognize the spark of God within all of us. Full equality is something we have to embrace from the get go.

Gnostic Christian men have just decided that man is stronger and better, by will and body, and should thus be the main protector of family values and think that our duty is first to maintain life for our children and secondly to place our wives in that same safe environment.

IOW, the strong should serve the weak.

If you think the reverse should be in play, then you are not much of a moral or duty driven person.

Get thee behind me Satan.

Regards
DL

I don't even know what to say to this because I'm trying to leave my emotions out if your thread. I used to be like you, believe like you. But I realized that all too often the strong exploit the weak instead of serving them.
I don't believe the opposite either. I don't believe people should serve other people unless they want to. I believe people should be free to choose their own roles.

Be kind and caring and considerate. Help those you can help and accept help when you need it. These things have nothing to do with gender.

I would be offended that you called me satan but I prefer that instead of you seeing a spark of your god in me which is offensive and leaves me wishing to be physically ill.
Get behind you, not a chance. I will not stand behind you, or in front of you. I will not stand over you, nor will I kneel before you. I'd say here I will stand next you, but you give me the creeps so I'd rather just stay as far away as possible.

---

You forgot my main point. Rule over women for women's sake.

Some others here have forgotten that bit and call me sexist as in pro man when, if that word applies at all, I should be called sexist for being pro women.

Regards
DL

Yes, you seem to be sexist against both men(who do not fit your idea of a "real man") and women.

For women's own sake? The thing you are not getting is it's not for women's sake at all. Women do not need to be ruled over by men.

[Esquilax]

Gnostic Christian men have just decided that man is stronger and better, by will and body,

That must be very convenient for all the Gnostic Christian men who, I'm sure, were the only ones involved in that determination.

But until that assertion can be demonstrated, I certainly don't place any authority in it, nor should anyone else.

[Diablo]

GIA said:

(Yesterday 19:56)Diablo Wrote: It's amazing that this thread has lasted 122 posts. Which part of 'no' don't you understand, the 'n' or the 'o'?

I agree.

But if man is going to continue denying women equality, and men will continue to rule, who should they rule for? Themselves?

You can say for the whole of society and would be partially correct but how is society structured and when push comes to shove, will men step up to protect families or will they try to get the weaker family members to protect their stronger asses?

The ancient Kings ruled for their Queens. They recognized their family responsibilities and duty and pride in doing that duty. To say that the King will sit at home and send the Queen to do his fighting seems rather cowardly to me. Not to you I take it?

Regards
DL

What a load of utter nonsense!

Man is NOT going to continue denying women equality, and men will NOT continue to rule. We've had Thatcher and Merkel, and a Queen on the throne, in case you didn't notice.

Men do not step up to protect families, that's why we have police and a CJS, who often have to protect families from their menfolk. You ever heard of domestic violence?

We've had 3 queens who were actually rather successful, Lizzy 1 & 2, and Victoria, who presided over the biggest empire of all time.

Just what planet are you from, buddy?

Listen, women have full equality before the law and in society, there are more females in the professions in the US than males, and they can do without people like you.

[Cato]

Where did the Captain get the gun and the rules to follow if not by consensus from those in authority?

So in steps this new class of people (presumably men), those in authority. Your just making shit up now.

You forgot my main point. Rule over women for women's sake.

Let me guess, men decide what is good for women's sake. How convenient. Men get to rule over women for reasons that men define.

I'm going to make this easy. Give women all the guns. If you can then justify a system where the women with guns voluntarily allow men to rule over them, you have a case. If you can't, then your intent is only to subjugate women; no matter how benign your intentions are.

[Brian37]

Men have no right to control women. Sexism is born out of ignorance of our evolution and men mistake brawn as entitlement. Religion took off with that meme because of their own ignorance of evolution. Evolution in reality needs both men and women. Religion bastardizes reality and harms human dignity.

[Esquilax]

I'm going to make this easy. Give women all the guns. If you can then justify a system where the women with guns voluntarily allow men to rule over them, you have a case. If you can't, then your intent is only to subjugate women; no matter how benign your intentions are.

This. I find it extremely telling that this entire conversation has been utterly devoid of reasons why men should be given this kind of authority as a general rule. It's just assumed that they have it, via some nebulous determination that, interestingly enough, I as a man never seemed to get a vote in.

[orangebox21]

@Esquilax

What are some practical applications of the following statements? In other words, in keeping with the 'spirit' of these commands, what would women do and what would men do?

"22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord."

"25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."

Please also define the words 'submit' and 'gave himself up.'