what if you were in our (womens') shoes?

[GraceDK]

I sometimes wonder why so many don’t understand why some women may become a bit demoralized by the passages in the bible that refer to us. Put yourself in this world, in the world that women live in. Imagine that this is how things were, not that you WERE a woman, but a man, in this situation.

---

You are married to a wonderful woman (you took her last name). You have a couple of great kids. After your wife had them, she went back to work, for she is the breadwinner. Your primary role is to be the father. So when she goes off to work, you stay home with the children.

The whole family goes to church together on Sundays. You listen to the female priest give the sermon, because in this world the bible is clear that the church is domain of the woman, and the church is “her” husband. After all the bible states “let your men be kept silent in churches : for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their wives at home: for it is a shame for men to speak in the church.” It is not god’s will that men be ordained, because after all, Jesus picked only women apostles.

You are not bitter about this, though, because you know that men and women have different roles. Women are called to the church and to be the head of the family (“the head of ever woman is Christ, and the head of the man is the woman” and “for the woman is not of the man, but the man for the woman. Neither was created for the man, but the man for the woman” as is seen in the bible) and men are called to the family and to be fathers. You are equal, but just have different roles.

You and your wife have a pretty equal partnership, but as the bible commands you to do, you allow her to make the big decisions and head the family. "Let the men learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a man to teach, nor to usurp authority over the woman, but to be in silence. For Eve was first formed, then Adam.” Because of the many passages like this, you accept that sometimes you must submit to her.

---

I mean, i just wonder how men may feel if this is how things were. If the roles were reversed. What if all the passages in the bible about womens’ submission, male roles, etc were backwards? So I am just curious, what is your (men or woman’s) reaction to the above? Does imagining it make you at all uncomfortable? Do you think you would not be disappointed for that to be the case, but fully embrace whatever God’s will is for you the way women do? Would you feel, at all, inferior? Does the above sound just “silly” or “nonsensical”? I am interested in any thoughts!

You are brilliant. I couldn’t have said it better.
You really hit the nail.
I and severel other women I know have felt like what you describe.

It seems many here are totally avoidant of dealing with what you are in fact saying.

The whole thread has been derailed by posts about motherhood.
Same as if I were to open a thread on racism against black people and most posters would start to talk about how black people shouldn’t complain because they are naturally better at running and basketball than white people are…

 

[Kleftiko]

It was God’s plan that men (physically stronger) work and protect and women (physically weaker) bare and take care of the children.

I can appreciate where you’re coming from, but I don’t see biological roles (which are easy to exaggerate) as dictating what our trejectory in life ought to be.

Hence, the attachment to the mother is more generally present among toddlers because the obvious qualities of each gender has dictated the gender roles.

Not toddlers, early infants. As I’ve suggested, the infant has a familiarity with the mothers sounds, smells, rhythms, and so forth. The fact that within that same year, fathers share an equal bond with their children suggests that there’s no real “maternal instinct” or biologically-inscribed gifts of motherhood, per se. We can observe that there are good and bad mothers; good and bad fathers. If there was an instinct, we would expect never to see bad, or negligent mothers–not always the case. The qualities of good mothers (and good fathers) are learned characteristics. Another for-instance: late-teenage girls make particularly poor mothers (because the maternal instinct hasn’t kicked in even though they are physically mature? No, because they don’t have the competencies or material resources yet).

Getting back to the submission bit: can anyone tell me one example (one specific example) of an issue over which women ought to submit to their husbands? From what I’ve heard in the past, it’s as if the edict remains but isn’t strictly enforced. As one poster had said: “most, if not all married couples I know have the woman call the shots. And the man tags along quietly to keep the peace.” (Chrismacmax). I’m not suggesting that people don’t value it, or don’t follow it, just that, in some cases, it is easily dispensed with. But, getting back: on what issues should women submit?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I mean, i just wonder how men may feel if this is how things were. If the roles were reversed. What if all the passages in the bible about womens’ submission, male roles, etc were backwards? So I am just curious, what is your (men or woman’s) reaction to the above? Does imagining it make you at all uncomfortable? Do you think you would not be disappointed for that to be the case, but fully embrace whatever God’s will is for you the way women do? Would you feel, at all, inferior? Does the above sound just “silly” or “nonsensical”? I am interested in any thoughts!

It sounds really relaxing. No need to worry about providing for the family, or makign big decisions. Just learn to do a few simple tasks well and take it easy.

 

[CentralFLJames]

As a woman, I have no idea what it would feel like to be a man in that situation, but I can say one thing for certain: I’d miss the awesome, God-given ability and responsibility of bearing children. As a good friend of mine puts it,** women have much more important things to do than being priests… RAISING priests.**

Even Our Lord showed deference to His Mother, and He still does. God truly honors women in a very special way, and I have no problem letting my husband, priest, bishop, and Pope take the brunt of the responsibility for my protection and provision. They can have the pants. I don’t want them.

Hope this helps!

That is one of the most awesome posts I have every seen on CAF. BRAVO. We need a “LIKE” button in these forums. LIKE!

 

[CentralFLJames]

Getting back to the submission bit: can anyone tell me one example (one specific example) of an issue over which women ought to submit to their husbands? From what I’ve heard in the past, it’s as if the edict remains but isn’t strictly enforced.

The “issue” is one of authority. If nothing else the family-unit to remain viable and functional needs a tie-breaker in the decision processes when the spouses are in a decision impasse. It is readily apparent that this is also fundamentally a “protective” aspect of the relationship since a split or paralysis occasioned by a condition of indecision (itself a decision) is divisive and anti-unity. Separate from a religious/theological point of view it should be intuitively apparent this is is a natural survival mechanism that should appeal rational to both religious and secular.

Before and after the advent of Christianity up through current times there really have been no long lived and productive examples in history of any civilizations that have naturally evolved with maternalistic governance and social systems. There’s apparently a natural reason for that - namely survival and stability of society. Christianity is at the vanguard of advances in moral law by its recognizing and insisting on the equality in dignity of the sexes and races.

Are you proposing a departure from the natural roles or just a change in the defaults ?

 

[FNDRB58]

I can appreciate where you’re coming from, but I don’t see biological roles (which are easy to exaggerate) as dictating what our trejectory in life ought to be.

Not toddlers, early infants. As I’ve suggested, the infant has a familiarity with the mothers sounds, smells, rhythms, and so forth. The fact that within that same year, fathers share an equal bond with their children suggests that there’s no real “maternal instinct” or biologically-inscribed gifts of motherhood, per se. We can observe that there are good and bad mothers; good and bad fathers. If there was an instinct, we would expect never to see bad, or negligent mothers–not always the case. The qualities of good mothers (and good fathers) are learned characteristics. Another for-instance: late-teenage girls make particularly poor mothers (because the maternal instinct hasn’t kicked in even though they are physically mature? No, because they don’t have the competencies or material resources yet).

Getting back to the submission bit: can anyone tell me one example (one specific example) of an issue over which women ought to submit to their husbands? From what I’ve heard in the past, it’s as if the edict remains but isn’t strictly enforced. As one poster had said: “most, if not all married couples I know have the woman call the shots. And the man tags along quietly to keep the peace.” (Chrismacmax). I’m not suggesting that people don’t value it, or don’t follow it, just that, in some cases, it is easily dispensed with. But, getting back: on what issues should women submit?

You misunderstand. Biologically - infants. By how God planned for the gender roles and how these gender roles have been played out in history - toddlers. If you say this is only due to culture then yes, that was God’s plan too. Virtually all cultures in the world have accepted this aspect of gender roles, hence God’s plan. It wasn’t just happenstance that women of the world sought this maternal role in family life.

I think the submission part has more to do with the culture at the time. Even today, women in the middle east and much of northern Africa must indeed submit to their husbands. I find it hard to believe that those passages of the bible are meant for all women in all cultures in all ages. Clearly, common sense tells us that blind submission to husbands by wives does not foster equality among the sexes.

 

[FNDRB58]

The “issue” is one of authority. If nothing else the family-unit to remain viable and functional needs a tie-breaker in the decision processes when the spouses are in a decision impasse. It is readily apparent that this is also fundamentally a “protective” aspect of the relationship since a split or paralysis occasioned by a condition of indecision (itself a decision) is divisive and anti-unity. Separate from a religious/theological point of view it should be intuitively apparent this is is a natural survival mechanism that should appeal rational to both religious and secular.

Before and after the advent of Christianity up through current times there really have been no long lived and productive examples in history of any civilizations that have naturally evolved with maternalistic governance and social systems. There’s apparently a natural reason for that - namely survival and stability of society. Christianity is at the vanguard of advances in moral law by its recognizing and insisting on the equality in dignity of the sexes and races.

Are you proposing a departure from the natural roles or just a change in the defaults ?

If a husband has a great job opportunity in another state that is generally a job of a lifetime and would provide well for the family and make him very happy and fulfilled. I think a non-working wife who is taking care of the kids should submit to her husband and not fight him taking on this work. She should move wherever he deems he has the best opportunity to succeed in his profession…providing its not in harms way in Afghanistan or other extreme situations.

 

[CentralFLJames]

most, if not all married couples I know have the woman call the shots. And the man tags along quietly to keep the peace.

This is not my experience at all. We probably socialize with different kinds of people. Most men I know are fair with the wifes and the families are very balanced and emotionally healthy.All my male friends consult with their wives on the difficult decisions but make the final decision even when they know that it will cause some discomfort for their spouses when they are not entirely happy with the decisions but know its the best thing for the family.

 

[FNDRB58]

Just a spelling nitpick - women “bear” (carry) children - they don’t “bare” them (make them naked).

Thanks for the correction. It contributes greatly to the discussion

You said that women fought “side-by-side” with the men during the First War of Scottish Independence. Can you provide a link supporting this claim? I would be very interested.

 

[Victorious]

You are brilliant. I couldn’t have said it better.
You really hit the nail.

True. The original post is a brilliant depiction of the deadly sin of envy.

 

[Siochan_Leat]

You said that women fought “side-by-side” with the men during the First War of Scottish Independence. Can you provide a link supporting this claim? I would be very interested.

I know that in Celtic history, it was VERY common for the women to fight alongside the men. It was just the way things were done.

I found this link about the Scots and women warriors.

 

[MarcoPolo]

There are passages in Scripture that a man could consider “hard sayings for men” so I think if the roles were “reversed” you’d still have many folks on both sides thinking “we have it tougher.”

Any of you ladies read Dr. Alice von Hildebrand’s “The Privilege of Being a Woman”? I’ve not read it myself but have heard good things about it, and I know I’ve found other of her theological expositions quite sound and true.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

There are passages in Scripture that a man could consider “hard sayings for men” so I think if the roles were “reversed” you’d still have many folks on both sides thinking “we have it tougher.”

Any of you ladies read Dr. Alice von Hildebrand’s “The Privilege of Being a Woman”? I’ve not read it myself but have heard good things about it, and I know I’ve found other of her theological expositions quite sound and true.

Sounds good.

In a way this thread saddens me. The sentiments of the OP were nearly word for word in the ‘set speech’ given to girls (well, I was a girl THEN) back in the early 1970s. Oh those male chauvinist pigs, we were told. The oppression. . .the oppression. . . dang, you could practically hear background choruses of “Ol MAN River” being ‘overcome’ by “I am woman, hear me roar”. . .

I didn’t buy it then. I still don’t buy it. But apparently there are those out there who are still selling it.

 

[FNDRB58]

I know that in Celtic history, it was VERY common for the women to fight alongside the men. It was just the way things were done.

I found this link about the Scots and women warriors.

Thanks for the link. Most every comment on that page are about an individual woman who took arms or led other men. A few dozen women here and there doesn’t exactly balance the scale. Millions of soldiers fought in battles in Scotland and in wars of nations throughout time. You picked out a very few instances when women took to battle - 99.9 percent of soldiers were men for obvious reasons. Most women were home with their children. Did these women soldiers have children? Who took care of them while they were off to war with a very slim likelihood that they would return?

Interesting reading though .

 

[MarcoPolo]

Sounds good.

In a way this thread saddens me. The sentiments of the OP were nearly word for word in the ‘set speech’ given to girls (well, I was a girl THEN) back in the early 1970s. Oh those male chauvinist pigs, we were told. The oppression. . .the oppression. . . dang, you could practically hear background choruses of “Ol MAN River” being ‘overcome’ by “I am woman, hear me roar”. . .

I didn’t buy it then. I still don’t buy it. But apparently there are those out there who are still selling it.

I was a wee boy in the late 70s, but I believe you.

 

[GraceDK]

Thanks for the link. Most every comment on that page are about an individual woman who took arms or led other men. A few dozen women here and there doesn’t exactly balance the scale. Millions of soldiers fought in battles in Scotland and in wars of nations throughout time. You picked out a very few instances when women took to battle - 99.9 percent of soldiers were men for obvious reasons. Most women were home with their children. Did these women soldiers have children? Who took care of them while they were off to war with a very slim likelihood that they would return?

Interesting reading though .

True that most soldiers in history have been male… but then so have the persons who decided that war was the way to solve conflicts.

 

[GraceDK]

True. The original post is a brilliant depiction of the deadly sin of envy.

Why envy?
You fit well into the category of those I describe in my post who do not wanna touch the main issue of the opening post but deal with it in an avoidant fashion.
Personally I like Pope John Paul 2. He was a real man, a priceless thinker, not afraid of getting into the core of these problematics… because he was humble.
There is in my view nothing worse than a man who refuses to live himself into an issue when he sees other people’s unease - and let us not forget that this unease has not grown out of nothing. Women have indeed not been treated in a Christlike manner… eg. The Pope pointed to how women were treated like property in the Old Testament.
There are people in our society today who are anti-catholic because they have been ridiculed by Catholics when they shared their valid experience about something.
Thats one reason, I think, why false feminism has gotten so out of hand: Women’s experience hasn’t been taken seriously … and still isn’t.

So what I propose to you, if you wanna change anyones mind, is that you seek to understand where the OP is coming from - unless you find that below your dignity - and try to answer her and prove - maybe best from the Bible and Chúrch documents - why we as women are as much appreciated in the Church as men are.

Now if you say the OP is envious, I say you in turn suffer from pride… But that doesn’t get us anywhere.

 

[surfinpure]

There is in my view nothing worse than a man who refuses to live himself into an issue when he sees other people’s unease - and let us not forget that this unease has not grown out of nothing.

1. Perhaps then we ought to create a thread asking women how they think it feels to be men?
2. For which other people do you speak? I have no unease, and I feel no sense of oppression or inferiority, so you don’t speak for me.

So what I propose to you, if you wanna change anyones mind, is that you seek to understand where the OP is coming from - unless you find that below your dignity - and try to answer her and prove - maybe best from the Bible and Chúrch documents - why we as women are as much appreciated in the Church as men are.

Perhaps, then, someone could go back through Bible and Church documents and try to explain to me why I shouldn’t feel absolutely honored by the Word of God and by the Church for being a woman? Because that’s what I’ve come away with.

It’s very hard to step out of one’s own worldview. I can see where the OP is coming from, but only in a far-off, , theoretical, one-dimensional sort of way. I’ve been too steeped in the reverence for the Blessed Mother and the Church’s respect for the dignity of women and the role of women to feel anything other than grateful and blessed to be one. I suppose if you took those things away and left me with only some facts about the way men (and women) have stumbled and fallen through the ages, I might be able to work up some indignation. But alas, I’m too far gone for that now.

 

[FNDRB58]

True that most soldiers in history have been male… but then so have the persons who decided that war was the way to solve conflicts.

Okay, so I submit that women should be the only ones to defend our nation from male aggressors…any takers?

 

[Victorious]

Why envy?
You fit well into the category of those I describe in my post who do not wanna touch the main issue of the opening post but deal with it in an avoidant fashion.
Personally I like Pope John Paul 2. He was a real man, a priceless thinker, not afraid of getting into the core of these problematics… because he was humble.
There is in my view nothing worse than a man who refuses to live himself into an issue when he sees other people’s unease - and let us not forget that this unease has not grown out of nothing. Women have indeed not been treated in a Christlike manner… eg. The Pope pointed to how women were treated like property in the Old Testament.
There are people in our society today who are anti-catholic because they have been ridiculed by Catholics when they shared their valid experience about something.
Thats one reason, I think, why false feminism has gotten so out of hand: Women’s experience hasn’t been taken seriously … and still isn’t.

So what I propose to you, if you wanna change anyones mind, is that you seek to understand where the OP is coming from - unless you find that below your dignity - and try to answer her and prove - maybe best from the Bible and Chúrch documents - why we as women are as much appreciated in the Church as men are.

Now if you say the OP is envious, I say you in turn suffer from pride… But that doesn’t get us anywhere.

:bighanky::crying: