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

[orangebox21]

---

The bible's treatment of women in general is pretty sucky. The so-called penalty for rape, the treatment of female slaves, even a number of biblical stories in which women are simply used as pawns in the agenda's of men (Lot and his daughters come to mind, not to mention Jeptha) abound, with no way out to redress that power imbalance. If you want to talk about the biblical roles of husbands and wives, you cannot escape talking about how those women might, biblically, become wives. Namely, being sold to their rapists, given as chattel to male slaves, or being spoils of war. The foundation of this conversation itself is rife with examples of abuse, and if you want to pretend like the "subservient role" isn't necessarily abusive then we need to factor in how that relationship might be affected by how the bible permits a man to obtain a wife. You can't take one scripture and ignore another, after all.
Except that's what I fully expect you to do, hence my reference to interpretation.

---

We can certainly discuss your above objections to the treatment of women. This is however a separate line of discussion from the roles of husbands and wives.

---

No, my argument is that biblically defined roles, even if they do not directly encourage abuse- which I would argue that they do, actually- offer easy justification for abuse, while furnishing no positive effects at all. This is the problem inherent in huge, sweeping generalizations like the biblical roles: for those that they work for it's better that they slip into them of their own free will, and for those that they don't the entire situation is nothing but a trap. You've yet to really offer any benefits these roles provide, instead opting to argue against the clear negative effects.
But "it's not always bad," is not the same as "it's good."
If those roles offer a chance for abuse to occur that wouldn't be there if they didn't exist, and provide no benefits to offset that chance, then they are more harmful than anything else, and are therefore morally wrong.

---

1. Biblically defined roles directly encourage abuse.
2. Biblically defined roles offer easy justification for abuse.
3. Biblically defined roles furnish no positive effects at all.
4. Biblically defined roles are huge, sweeping generalizations.
5. If huge, sweeping generalizations work for an individual it is best that he/she enters into said generalizations of his/her free will.
6. If huge, sweeping generalizations do not work for an individual, then said generalizations are nothing but a trap.
.:/ If biblically defined roles offer a chance for abuse and provide no positive effects at all, then they are more harmful than anything else, and are morally wrong.

Accurate representation?

So what say you of the fact that the bible just lets it all happen?

I'm not understanding your argument here. Are you asking why God allows people to operate outside of His commandments?

Oh, okay then. I misread that, my apologies.

Apology accepted. I should have been more clear.

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.

Fair enough, I'll rephrase. A husband and a wife are looking to purchase a home. The husband likes home A more and the wife likes home B more. Following the Biblical roles for husbands and wives how does the decision making process go? How does the decision making process go for an atheist couple?

"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.

I understand your point. Is the command to submit for the believer or the unbeliever? And is the physical torment for the believer or the unbeliever? Does God call anyone to willingly submit to eternal torture? In other words, for your argument to follow, God would call believers to willingly submit to eternal punishment.

"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.

I'm not understanding your point here. Please clarify. I'm assuming by harmful you mean needlessly harmful (certainly there are times that the most loving thing we can do will cause some kind of harm such as intervening in the life of an addict).

I agree that emotions and actions don't always line up. However, can a person be 'emotionally' in love with a person while at the same moment cause him/her needles harm? Maybe I'm not understanding your argument.

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.

That may have happened but my intention was to seek your understanding of the terms. I was beginning to get the impression that you were defining submission to include all acts. I can gather from other posts that you do.

As a woman, Esquilaxs woman to be exact-- I choose to whom I submit my entire being, mind body, and heart.

And that submission, we both agree, in no way makes you of any less value/worth/equal than him [Esquilax].

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.

Well said, and congrats to the two of you on the maturity of your relationship.

[Losty]

"And that submission, we both agree, in no way makes you of any less value/worth/equal than him [Esquilax]."

Obviously not. But she makes that submission willingly. She is in no way obligated or coerced or intimidated into it.
Women don't have to be submissive to be good wives or good people or good women.

[FatAndFaithless]

"And that submission, we both agree, in no way makes you of any less value/worth/equal than him [Esquilax]."

Obviously not. But she makes that submission willingly. She is in no way obligated or coerced or intimidated into it.
Women don't have to be submissive to be good wives or good people or good women.

And they certainly don't have a "duty" to do it.

[Greatest I am]

Mutual care and respect is the answer.

Men do not care for that answer or they would have obviously done something in the last 3,000 years of female oppression.

How to make men care about justice and equality is the question.

Regards
DL

[Losty]

Mutual care and respect is the answer.

Men do not care for that answer or they would have obviously done something in the last 3,000 years of female oppression.

How to make men care about justice and equality is the question.

Regards
DL

Maybe stop encouraging the whole "real man" attitude would be a good start.

[Greatest I am]

Who is Captain Coward and what is the Law of the Sea? United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) makes no mention of women and children first. That phrase first appeared in 19th century literature (William Douglas O'Connor) and has no basis in maritime law. The procedure is 30 minutes to load passengers then boats away. The only firearm you are likely to see on a ship's captain is for repelling borders against pirates, not gunning down men whose survival instinct is stronger than their adherence to Victorian chivalry.

A king's first responsibility is to the kingdom not the veneration of his queen.Unless of course that queen is Galadriel after Frodo offers her the One Ring. Queens have historically been nothing more than a means of extending one's lineage. Otherwise what use was the for agnatic primogeniture or semi-salic law?

I haven't met too many women that enjoy being placed on a pedestal, never to be touched but always adored, like some porcelain doll. And the woman that "demands what is hers" sounds high maintenance.

Going out this weekend. I don't think, "I'm no cuckold; BUT I will be just in my rule over you," is likely to get me any phone numbers.

Captain Coward you can Google. What you find might speak of the law of the sea.

Women and children first has been a tradition of maritime law for quite some time.

And perhaps you have not seen too many women on pedestals because men have been denying them equality.

Do you think the law should be women and children last?

Regards
DL

---

Yes it does. Just like you not doing your duty to him would make you less of a woman.

Regards
DL

Me not doing my duty to whom?
What is my duty?

You have been told.

Enforce and demand that men do their duty to family and place women and children ahead of themselves. It is the moral thing to do.

Regards.
DL

---

my duty to my children is because I created them and they are helpless without me.
A man has no inherent duty to serve his wife. If he wants to and he chooses to and she likes it then cool. But he doesn't have to and if he doesn't want to then that doesn't make him less of a man.

Yes it does. Just like you not doing your duty to him would make you less of a woman.

Regards
DL

I just stumbled into this thread, but I don't think any claim could be made about an obligation to duties unless those duties are defined. I'm sure that's already been gone over though, could anybody give me a brief synopsis (or has it not in fact been covered yet)?

It is my position that it is to all of us, women and men, to demand equality of all people regardless of gender or sexual persuasion.

It is my further position that men should exceed equality and discriminate positively for women and children by bringing the tradition of women and children first to the life boats, IOW, placing them above us, even on land.

I see that as the duty of every man.

Man cannot be free while half or the worlds population is being discriminated against.

Regards
DL

[Losty]

Me not doing my duty to whom?
What is my duty?

You have been told.

Enforce and demand that men do their duty to family and place women and children ahead of themselves. It is the moral thing to do.

Regards.
DL

You are adorable. Okay so how do I enforce this? Why is this my duty?

---

"It is my position that it is to all of us, women and men, to demand equality of all people regardless of gender or sexual persuasion.

It is my further position that men should exceed equality and discriminate positively for women and children by bringing the tradition of women and children first to the life boats, IOW, placing them above us, even on land."

The first paragraph is great. The second not so much. The 2 together are a contradiction.

[Polaris]

If a woman wants to be ruled over by her spouse (within reason), so be it. If a man wants to be ruled over by his spouse, then so be it as well.

Not everyone wants to be in a relationship that is 100% equal.

[Losty]

If a woman wants to be ruled over by her spouse (within reason), so be it. If a man wants to be ruled over by his spouse, then so be it as well.

Not everyone wants to be in a relationship that is 100% equal.

Stop making me like you :p

[Esquilax]

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

Crazy thought: how about instead of making sweeping generalizations based on gender with no thought as to individual circumstances, we consider individual cases on the merits of the people involved? You know, put a little attention to detail there, rather than just making a single statement and then stopping, forever?

Or hell, in a proper partnership, each serves the other, regardless of relative "strength." No one person is a comprehensive, perfect person in every regard; we all have strengths and weaknesses. A relationship can be symbiotic in a way that strengthens both participants, rather than this power imbalance nonsense. Luckie and I complement each other, she doesn't need to submit to me, and in situations where I'm weaker and she's stronger I'm self aware enough to let her take the lead.

Context matters, dude. You can't really get away with making lofty generalizations in something as chaotic as, you know, life.

We can certainly discuss your above objections to the treatment of women. This is however a separate line of discussion from the roles of husbands and wives.

One informs the other. Discussing marriage relationships divorced (if you'll pardon the pun) from the larger context of gender relations when what we're discussing literally relates to gender means that we're missing large swathes of information. Fact is, during the time that those commandments for husbands and wives were written, the idea of what a wife was and how one went about the business of marriage were very different, and that matters to the discussion.

1. Biblically defined roles directly encourage abuse.
2. Biblically defined roles offer easy justification for abuse.
3. Biblically defined roles furnish no positive effects at all.
4. Biblically defined roles are huge, sweeping generalizations.
5. If huge, sweeping generalizations work for an individual it is best that he/she enters into said generalizations of his/her free will.
6. If huge, sweeping generalizations do not work for an individual, then said generalizations are nothing but a trap.
.:/ If biblically defined roles offer a chance for abuse and provide no positive effects at all, then they are more harmful than anything else, and are morally wrong.

Accurate representation?

Basically, though with regard to five and six, I'd suggest that if you make a generalization and then are able to point to exceptions, then that generalization is factually incorrect and useless on its face, and that is why they shouldn't be used. It's like, if I make the generalization "flowers are blue," and then you show me red flowers, then I guess not all flowers are blue, and what I've said is wrong. If you say "women should submit to their husbands," based on the bible, and all I can come up with are scenarios in which women should not do that, and no scenarios in which that would be bindingly true, then that too is an incorrect statement on a factual level.

I'm not understanding your argument here. Are you asking why God allows people to operate outside of His commandments?

I'm asking why god would formulate these commandments that ostensibly lead to better, more effective marriages, and then remain entirely silent on the huge pitfalls that would lead to that not being true. Or is it that those commandments aren't there to make better marriages, and are instead... what? Like, weird personal opinions?

Fair enough, I'll rephrase. A husband and a wife are looking to purchase a home. The husband likes home A more and the wife likes home B more. Following the Biblical roles for husbands and wives how does the decision making process go? How does the decision making process go for an atheist couple?

In the former, it's really hard to say: a straight reading of the text would indicate that the wife accede to the husband's preference and get home A. Of course, anyone who reads that text differently presumes the correctness of their interpretation over a straight reading of the text.

For the latter question, it really depends on the couple, and so I can only really speak to my own relationship, which is where discussion and compromise take place. If Luckie is capable of making a good argument for why home B would be better I'd obviously change my mind, and depending on how much I like home A I might also prioritize her happiness over my preference and go with home B just to make her smile.

I understand your point. Is the command to submit for the believer or the unbeliever? And is the physical torment for the believer or the unbeliever? Does God call anyone to willingly submit to eternal torture? In other words, for your argument to follow, God would call believers to willingly submit to eternal punishment.

Wouldn't a believer have to accept god's judgment regardless of the content of that judgment? Mysterious ways, he knows better and all that?

I'm not understanding your point here. Please clarify. I'm assuming by harmful you mean needlessly harmful (certainly there are times that the most loving thing we can do will cause some kind of harm such as intervening in the life of an addict).

I agree that emotions and actions don't always line up. However, can a person be 'emotionally' in love with a person while at the same moment cause him/her needles harm? Maybe I'm not understanding your argument.

Maybe you've never had a stalker. Imagine, for a moment, a person totally in love with another, up to and including being willing to prevent them from leaving the relationship by whatever means necessary, for their own good. They're convinced, you see, that the only way the other person can be truly happy is to be with them, and that in the end they'll be thankful.

Or hell, maybe just consider a husband who only has poor models to base the relationship on. No matter the emotions, if all someone has to go on is violence as a means of control, that's what's going to happen. Emotion isn't necessarily a good indicator of actions, if the individual's idea of what actions are proper is twisted.