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.