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

[Greatest I am]

What does this have to do with Biblical Christianity?

He shall rule over you, ---- has been used to bludgeon women into submission to men for 3,000 years.

The West's great majority has been Christianity and they maintain women at the immoral unequal position that they occupy.

In the East, Islam has done the same.

Regards
DL

---

I agree when thinking of equal before the law.

Note how most judges do not agree if the men who think they were screwed by a divorce judge will attest to. I happen to agree with the judges I think.

When thinking of a man's duty to family, I go with the law of the sea where women and children are put to the lifeboats ahead of men.

Do you disagree with the tradition of the Law of the Sea?

--------------------------------------

As to women being weak.

The only weakness is their forced ability to carry a fetus to birth. That situation must be recognized and mostly has been over time. Only a really foolish man will not care for a pregnant wife and treat her as weak in that situation.

Regards
DL

Too bad their wasn't a "real man" around to drown Susan Smith before she nurtured her 2 babies right into that lake
Not calling for murder, mind you, but I find it difficult to believe anyone would get too upset over a man having taken that one's seat on the lifeboat! Prolly wouldn't get upset at a man for throwing her directly out to sea, instead of back on deck, either

Think global, not local.

Regards
DL

---

Are your children, wife and their lives not your first duty to family?

Or is it to yourself?

I understood the topic as challenging those roles and the automatic assumption that everyone has a specific place based on gender. So I took up the challenge. In the situation you describe, I would base my decision on the love I feel for my wife and my children, and my desire that they carry on without me versus the shame I would feel if I allowed them to perish just to save me.

But that is an emotional decision, as would be expected in a situation where there may not be time to make a practical examination, and in a culture that expects us to fall into those roles. If we were to go with the idea of maintaining the strong and culling the weak, then arguments can be made for any number of options in that scenario: the men could be prioritized (under the assumption that they are the strongest), or the men and children (the strongest and the youngest), or the men and women (the strongest, and most ready to replace the losses). I think that if we toss aside the idea that man=strength and woman=weakness, then gender might become a secondary trait when deciding, or even discarded altogether.

Sure. We could strip all characteristics out of the argument till it suited us. That is hardly a good way to form an argument because then it would not apply.

"But that is an emotional decision, as would be expected in a situation where there may not be time to make a practical examination,"

Which is why they made it a law while looking at it from a non-emergency position. There is emotion involved for sure as we are human but that law as well as most laws are led by logic and reason. Not emotion.

The Law of the Sea has both emotion and logic at it's roots but it is the logic that dominates. The duty of men is more abstract.

Regards
DL