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

[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.

---