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

[Greatest I am]

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.

Exactly the message I hope all take from the O.P.

He shall rule over you --- has been used by the majority in the West, who happen to be Christians, to bludgeon women into second class citizens and unequal to men forever.

I agree that women do not need men who have institutionalized discrimination against women to rule over them.

Both moral men and women will agree.

This O.P. is an older one that I did some time ago.

Here is a new one if any would like to have a look.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-28294.html

Regards
DL

---

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.

I will let your answer demonstrate the veracity of the statement if you make it.

Do you see women being stronger physically than men?

Sure some women will put some men to shame but we are talking the greater majority here.

Regards
DL

---

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.

If you read that as my intent then you cannot read.

Regards
DL

---

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.

No argument.

Regards
DL

[ShaMan]

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

[JesusHChrist]

Usually sexists don't last long here.

I'm sexy (or so they tell me at the Amtrak station) and I'm still here.

[Cato]

If you read that as my intent then you cannot read.

Regards
DL

I read and comprehend perfectly well. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt regarding your intentions, but was making the case that what you propose is still subjugation. Not to the extent taught in the Bible or on display in cultures using Sharia law I'll grant you, but subjugation nonetheless.

You talk about equality, but want to shove the sexes into traditional Ozzie and Harriet type roles for the sake of fealty to some hand waved ill defined notion of duty enforced by an unknown authority that warrants enforcement through the use of force.

[Mystical]

Neither.

That explains you not knowing your duty.

Regards
DL

Your little happy family unit trope is not in alignment with reality. Before you go telling others what their duties are, perhaps you should first examine where you fit, in the scheme of things. And I mean in this world in this life, with real people who certainly are able to live quite well, without your garbage emotional baggage and blackmail. Duty to oneself, reign supreme. Or did you not know this?
My duty to myself encompasses all those interrelationship bonds, and don't need guidelines of heirarchy. For instance, your duty to yourself is to be happy healthy and content. To be happy, one must find balance with those they love.

Widows
Single parents
GLBT
Adoption

All of these are real life examples of.. REAL LIFE. You can't account for it because you at stuck in a little box, and cannot see how miniscule you really are in the grand scheme of things.

There are two men that I know, who have the same opinion as you do about womenly duties. They're utterly and completely alone, bitter and hateful individuals. They are so full of themselves, shit just flies everywhere out of their mouths and elsewhere.

For your sake, I hope you can get over the supremacy you have allocated yourself, so you may fully enjoy life, and the relationships therein.

As a woman, Esquilaxs woman to be exact-- I choose to whom I submit my entire being, mind body, and heart. I would rather die, than give myself to a pig who points to a book and tells me I'm his subservient.

Esquilax will receive every natural gift a woman has to offer, willingly, from me, because he earned it. Because he is a man deserving of eVerything that I can have the privelage of providing him. And thankfully he and I are progressive enough to recognize that both our viewpoints equally matter, so the resolution will be equally agreed upon. Sometimes I will submit to his best judgement, and he to mine, but no one Owns supreme position over the other.

[Esquilax]

I will let your answer demonstrate the veracity of the statement if you make it.

Do you see women being stronger physically than men?

Sure some women will put some men to shame but we are talking the greater majority here.

Regards
DL

So basically what you're advocating is that might makes right. Doesn't matter about character, or leadership qualities, intellect, morality... none of that factors into your determination that men should be in charge at all? It's just that men can lift heavier stuff?

If I was being less charitable I would insinuate that you were saying men can control women through violence, there. However, I don't think you're being outright malevolent, merely that you haven't thought this through at all.

@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?

I find the idea of interpreting the "spirit" of any commandment inherently frightening, because it seems so often the "spirit" of the command aligns perfectly with what the reader already thinks of the issue.

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

Given what the lord does to people, that could mean literally anything, up to and including submitting to eternal physical torment.

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

You can love someone and still be completely harmful to them. Actions and emotions don't have to align, especially not when you've been given divine writ to act in a certain way.

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

Why bother? You're just going to put some bizarre spin on it the moment I do.

As a woman, Esquilaxs woman to be exact-- I choose to whom I submit my entire being, mind body, and heart. I would rather die, than give myself to a pig who points to a book and tells me I'm his subservient.

Right on, honey.

[Greatest I am]

If you read that as my intent then you cannot read.

Regards
DL

I read and comprehend perfectly well. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt regarding your intentions, but was making the case that what you propose is still subjugation. Not to the extent taught in the Bible or on display in cultures using Sharia law I'll grant you, but subjugation nonetheless.

You talk about equality, but want to shove the sexes into traditional Ozzie and Harriet type roles for the sake of fealty to some hand waved ill defined notion of duty enforced by an unknown authority that warrants enforcement through the use of force.

Would you have forced Captain Coward to do his duty if you would have been there with a gun and charged with maintaining the law of the sea?

Regards
DL

[Losty]

Ok seriously. Who the heck is Captain Coward and what was his duty? And what is the law of the sea? I thought international waters don't have many laws...

[Greatest I am]

That explains you not knowing your duty.

Regards
DL

Your little happy family unit trope is not in alignment with reality. Before you go telling others what their duties are, perhaps you should first examine where you fit, in the scheme of things. And I mean in this world in this life, with real people who certainly are able to live quite well, without your garbage emotional baggage and blackmail. Duty to oneself, reign supreme. Or did you not know this?
My duty to myself encompasses all those interrelationship bonds, and don't need guidelines of heirarchy. For instance, your duty to yourself is to be happy healthy and content. To be happy, one must find balance with those they love.

Widows
Single parents
GLBT
Adoption

All of these are real life examples of.. REAL LIFE. You can't account for it because you at stuck in a little box, and cannot see how miniscule you really are in the grand scheme of things.

There are two men that I know, who have the same opinion as you do about womenly duties. They're utterly and completely alone, bitter and hateful individuals. They are so full of themselves, shit just flies everywhere out of their mouths and elsewhere.

For your sake, I hope you can get over the supremacy you have allocated yourself, so you may fully enjoy life, and the relationships therein.

As a woman, Esquilaxs woman to be exact-- I choose to whom I submit my entire being, mind body, and heart. I would rather die, than give myself to a pig who points to a book and tells me I'm his subservient.

Esquilax will receive every natural gift a woman has to offer, willingly, from me, because he earned it. Because he is a man deserving of eVerything that I can have the privelage of providing him. And thankfully he and I are progressive enough to recognize that both our viewpoints equally matter, so the resolution will be equally agreed upon. Sometimes I will submit to his best judgement, and he to mine, but no one Owns supreme position over the other.

Good for you. Independence is good.

" Duty to oneself, reign supreme. Or did you not know this? "

No I did not and do not agree with you at all. I do not even think you believe this B.S. Let's find out.

You and your child are in a sinking boat and there is only one helping hand and that hand can only save one and the death of the other is assured.

Will you take that hand or will you put your child's hand in it?

If you answer correctly and morally then you will recognize your statement above as B.S. and recant.

If not then shame on you and here is your Captain Coward Club hat.

Regards
DL

---

I will let your answer demonstrate the veracity of the statement if you make it.

Do you see women being stronger physically than men?

Sure some women will put some men to shame but we are talking the greater majority here.

Regards
DL

So basically what you're advocating is that might makes right. Doesn't matter about character, or leadership qualities, intellect, morality... none of that factors into your determination that men should be in charge at all? It's just that men can lift heavier stuff?

If I was being less charitable I would insinuate that you were saying men can control women through violence, there. However, I don't think you're being outright malevolent, merely that you haven't thought this through at all.

I am not advocating might makes right as clearly shown in what I said.

Your just not tuning in.

Who should serve whom?

Be you male or female, should the weak serve the strong or the strong serve the weak?

Who is biologically the strongest in the human species?

Regards
DL

---

Ok seriously. Who the heck is Captain Coward and what was his duty? And what is the law of the sea? I thought international waters don't have many laws...

Good lord child, try Google.

Regards
DL

[Losty]

"Be you male or female, should the weak serve the strong or the strong serve the weak?"

No one has any obligation of servitude. Regardless of their physical strength.

Parents have a responsibility to care for their children. In most (but not all) cases I would say I parent should give their life to save their child if they can.

But I want to repeat this in case you didn't read it the first time. Absolutely no one is obligated to serve anyone else. Not morally obligated. Not legally obligated. Only scripturally bound and you, Sir, must be mixing up some scriptures because there are not verses that tell men to be subservient to their wives.