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

[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.

Stop making me like you :p

My anti-imperalism will likely grant your wish.

[Mystical]

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].

Yes, I agree. And I also hope that we can both agree that if my husband pulled out a book that says my submission to his authority is my duty per the word of a Supreme Authority--then that would be debasing.

[Greatest I am]

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.

No. The second adds to the minimum standard of the first by recognizing that men, at there core, are a proud animal and that forces us to choose duty. Many have forgotten what they are truly like inside. We want to stand tall but have forgotten how to get there.

Your duty is to demand that men do their duty. Women have morality on their side and now must seek justice and push men to also seek it.

Regards
DL

[Diablo]

It's quite interesting, the standards that people have. I sill hold the door open and let women go through first, I guess I'm old fashioned like that. Maybe some women wouldn't like that because of the perceived sexism. I call it being polite.

[Losty]

No. The second adds to the minimum standard of the first by recognizing that men, at there core, are a proud animal and that forces us to choose duty. Many have forgotten what they are truly like inside. We want to stand tall but have forgotten how to get there.

Your duty is to demand that men do their duty. Women have morality on their side and now must seek justice and push men to also seek it.

Regards
DL

No the second destroys your idea of equality.
You know what you are welcome to have your morals, but who are you to tell other people what they must do because it is their "duty"?
The answer, no one. You are no one to try to force your outdated ideas of morality on anyone.

Equality doesn't mean that every relationship is going to be equal. Equality means that every person (male or female) has the same right/opportunity to choose for themselves what their duties are to their partner, and whether or not they will submit to their partner, and whether or not they love them enough to die for them. These things are personal choices not duties and it's only your business if you're the one making the choice (for yourself not pointing any guns at other people).

You have a mixed up idea of equality. I'm not saying I hate it. I am very much attracted to strong, dominant, protective men. Not all women like that. I also think men who don't have those traits are still real men and they can still be good people without caring about the duties you have defined for them.

---

It's quite interesting, the standards that people have. I sill hold the door open and let women go through first, I guess I'm old fashioned like that. Maybe some women wouldn't like that because of the perceived sexism. I call it being polite.

It wouldn't bother me at all. Though I think it's polite to hold the door for whoever is behind you regardless of gender. I hold the door for people all the time.

[orangebox21]

Obviously not. But she makes that submission willingly. She is in no way obligated or coerced or intimidated into it.

This is why I had initially asked Esquiliax to define 'submit.'
"The Greek word for submission is hupotasso, “to subordinate…put under…” God exhorts women to voluntarily follow their husband’s leadership (Ephesians 5:22, 1 Peter 3:1). A woman is actively doing this-- choosing to put herself under leadership, choosing to be subordinate in a circumstance or relationship. This is not forced upon her by the recipient." full article here

And I also hope that we can both agree that if my husband pulled out a book that says my submission to his authority is my duty per the word of a Supreme Authority--then that would be debasing.

I agree with part of your statement. As per the above article, we're given that the word 'submit' means voluntarily. By definition, if a wife is forced into voluntary submission, then it wouldn't be voluntary. Therefore, it is not a husbands role to force his wife into submission. This [husband's] action would negate a wife her opportunity to live in accordance with the scriptures.

I disagree with part of your statement. Namely that choosing to live in accordance with an ideal (which includes biblically defined marriage roles), and having people (my wife/fellow Christians) hold me accountable to said ideal (including what my husbandry role is), would be debasing. As an over simplified analogy: if one were in math class, added 2+2 and answered 5, certainly one wouldn't feel debased if the teacher pointed to a book to correct one's thought process. I hope you see that I'm differentiating between a husband informing his wife of her biblical role, and forcing her into it. That while it would be debasing, and unbiblical, for a husband to force a wife into submission it is not debasing for a husband to teach his wife what the biblical roles for husbands and wives are.

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.

I never pardon puns, they do nothing but good work.

I agree that times have changed, in some ways for the better and in some ways for the worse. Are you making the argument that biblically defined roles are outdated?

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

Unfortunately I don't have time to address your argument presently and I want to post the rest. I will address your argument in the near future.

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.

Thanks for the clarification. You've assumed a certain qualification for submissions, namely negative. When you think of wives submit, you think: wives submit to physical abuse, mental abuse, being bossed around, being treated less than equal, etc. You've also stated you can't think of a single scenario in which it would be beneficial for a wife to submit to her husband (if you try I'm sure you can think of a few). If this is how you qualify submission then I completely understand why you would reject this teaching.

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.

An argument from silence?

Certainly there are plenty of scriptures to guide a person's code of conduct that would apply to how a husband should 'lay down his life' for his wife and how this leaves no possibility to justify abusing her. God certainly hasn't said nothing, and He certainly hasn't spoken specifically to every possible scenario.

Or is it that those commandments aren't there to make better marriages, and are instead... what? Like, weird personal opinions?

I lost you here.

---

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.

---

[Jackalope]

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.

Exactly.

Furthermore, I'd say that it's not some third-party's business to come in and say how two people in their relationship ought to consensually conduct themselves within that relationship.

[Losty]

"This is why I had initially asked Esquiliax to define 'submit.'
"The Greek word for submission is hupotasso, “to subordinate…put under…” God exhorts women to voluntarily follow their husband’s leadership (Ephesians 5:22, 1 Peter 3:1). A woman is actively doing this-- choosing to put herself under leadership, choosing to be subordinate in a circumstance or relationship. This is not forced upon her by the recipient." full article here"

So, are you telling me that god exhorts this but doesn't command it? If a woman chooses not to submit, is that not a sin?

[orangebox21]

"This is why I had initially asked Esquiliax to define 'submit.'
"The Greek word for submission is hupotasso, “to subordinate…put under…” God exhorts women to voluntarily follow their husband’s leadership (Ephesians 5:22, 1 Peter 3:1). A woman is actively doing this-- choosing to put herself under leadership, choosing to be subordinate in a circumstance or relationship. This is not forced upon her by the recipient." full article here"

So, are you telling me that god exhorts this but doesn't command it? If a woman chooses not to submit, is that not a sin?

To clarify, there are two different relationships involved in this discussion and with respect to the question you're asking. One is between God and a wife, the other is between a husband and a wife. My posts are intended to address the nature of the relationship between husbands and wives, not between God and wives.

With respect to your questions, they address the relationship between God and a wife. Certainly God does command a wife to willingly submit to her husband. Given that any action outside the will of God is sin, then yes a wife not willingly submitting to her husband would be considered a sin (just as a husband not laying down his life for his wife would be a sin). God provides grace (divine influence on the heart) to accomplish His commands and grace (justification) to forgive us when we don't.


So to clarify the discussion with respect to your questions, God makes the command (authoritative), the husband makes an exhortation (not authoritative).

[FatAndFaithless]

Well God sure seems like he'd fit in with a fedora.