(September 22, 2015 at 1:02 pm)Drich Wrote:
Good answer! And I agree that we have our firebrands and bomb-throwers who make real conversation difficult, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any internet forum where that is not the case, at least, not without the kind of strict censorship which we freethinkers tend to find deeply abhorrent.
I don't even quibble with the "man as the head of the household" model, for those to whom it applies comfortably. Both because of their personal genetics/nature, and because of social conditioning as a child, many women in our culture grow up wanting to be led. (In addition, various estimates place the number of "natural followers" in society as roughly 85%, and "leaders/individualists" at 15%, likely a gene-set that helped us in our tribal hunter-gatherer days.) So if the woman chooses for herself to find a strong man and wants him to tell her what to do, I wish them all the happiness in the world.
I do quibble (a little) with your summary of my position, but I'll start by answering your final question. First, I think it's impossible to give up our individuality, because we are individuals, and there's not really a way to get around that. But, like a soldier joining a Special Ops fireteam, we can learn to behave as if we were a single unit. To me, marriage is like that. You must find someone suitable to work together with (dating), and when you have found your "soulmate" (it's just a term; I don't think we all have one "special someone out there"), you will be able to work toward a fusion of your individualities into a composite that is much, much greater than the sum of its parts. We are strong where the other is weak, and vice versa, and by working together it is possible to "survive, adapt, and overcome", as the military says, no matter what the situation is. I do not think that designating "the one with the penis is the leader" is a wise idea, simply because there may be times when you are out of your element but she is not, and her leadership could prove decisive in that situation.
So my quibble is that I am not suggesting that ideal marriage is retaining individuality; I am saying we cannot help but retain our individuality, and the key to happiness/success is accepting the equality of both partners, in every way, then figure out what skills/abilities each has or doesn't have, and learning to mesh those attributes into a marriage-team that can take on all comers. In the traditional model, only the male gets to retain his individuality, while the woman is expected to completely subsume herself into the complete role of wife and mother and housekeeper. I find this model simply incompatible with the basic premise of "feminism is the radical notion that women are people", which is one of my guiding principles.
My fiancee cannot cook to save her life, but I'm half-Cajun and I love cooking. Traditionally, what I do there would be "womens' work" (it's not, so much, in Cajun culture, which has a more egalitarian outlook in general), but I don't feel like it degrades me in any way, because I have set aside the old, sexist notions. I totally understand that, in Paul's day, and especially from his perspective as a former Pharisee, the "woman's role" would be obvious and something worth promoting. I just don't think it's a valid model of all modern society, unless chosen by the individual of their own free will. She can't work on motorcycles at all, and is still a beginner rider, relying on me to carefully lead her on rides. Yet she is the one currently bringing home most of the bacon, and she handles most of the finances because she's better at arithmetic-on-the-fly than I am. We're a team, and a damned good one.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
