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

[Kleftiko]

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.

You’re right that a decision remaining in paralysis is likely to lead to dysfunction or division. I don’t presume, however, that there is an equalizing tie-breaker that can appealed to (Oh, would that there were!). I also feel that you’ve smuggled in your conclusion that such an equalizer ought to be “submission to the husband.” What if a couple can’t decide to agree on a particular issue, about which the husband is deadly wrong? Then the rule becomes “Wives submit to your husbands, unless it is apparent that his decision would cause or increase conflict.” In this case, however, nothing is accomplished by having an initial rule in the first place; either the couple remains in harmony, or a decision making process will have to be made by reasoning and by compromise. This, I’m suggesting, is a task for both partners.

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.

I don’t know if it can be safely reasoned that because history played out a certain way, that it was meant to; that it was the best way; and that no other ways could have sustained society. There are a lot of reasons men have held power (often too much, as you yourself will no doubt admit). It is arguing beyond your means to say that it should have been that way.

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.

This is the point on which we disagree. True equality cannot be squared away with words like “submit.” We can see that this is the case when we supplant any other social category: "Blacks, submit to whites [in times of “decision impasse].” You can see that while indecision is remedied, equality has been greatly violated.

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.

Please see my comment above about history not being the gauge by which we say something ought to be such and such a way. If you say, however, that it was “God’s plan,” then you must appeal to peoples’ faith, alone, in that claim.

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.

Of course, you’re right. But there it is in the Bible–if not *blind *submission, than what kind of submission is required?

 

[Stephen168]

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

You are correct. I think that is characteristic of gender feminism. They want to be men contrary to the biological differences.

 

[Kleftiko]

You are correct. I think that is characteristic of gender feminism. They want to be men contrary to the biological differences.

What, for you, would be specific evidence that some women want to be men? Or in other words, what behaviours would you witness in a woman to conclude that “she wants to be a man”?

 

[Victorious]

What, for you, would be specific evidence that some women want to be men? Or in other words, what behaviours would you witness in a woman to conclude that “she wants to be a man”?

How about the first post in this thread?

 

[Kleftiko]

How about the first post in this thread?

Yeah, what else? Be specific, please.

 

[Lilybean11]

I have just skimmed through the responses, and I will come back to write more because I have a lot to say lol. BUT because I will have to do that later I do want to ask a couple of questions:

For everyone saying it is a jealously issue, or that I want to be a man, what exactly does that mean? What qualities would I need to try to acquire in order to be trying to “be a man?” Are there some qualities that you believe I cannot have in order to “be a woman”?

The rigidity is so annoying to me. Why do we have to fit in these tight boxes? Why does wanting to be YOURSELF and allowing yourself to be whoever YOU want to be have to automatically mean that you are “trying to be a man?” Why is it that whenever it seems to be that a woman is seemingly thinking outside of her predetermined box and society-given image that she is pounced on? I question the roles and limits imposed on me simply for my gender and I am trying to be a man? I’m going to stop because I gotta go lol. Anyway the second paragraph is my main concern with this post. Thanks again for everyone who has posted!

 

[sherimarie]

I am a woman, I cut my horses hooves and do many other jobs that are usually done by a man and yet i have never been “ponced on” for trying to be like a man, I’m wondering what you could be thinking here? If you are thinking of women not being allowed to be priests then of course you may get “pounced on” but that is for the best and may make you think.

 

[Kleftiko]

I am a woman, I cut my horses hooves and do many other jobs that are usually done by a man and yet i have never been “ponced on” for trying to be like a man, I’m wondering what you could be thinking here? If you are thinking of women not being allowed to be priests then of course you may get “pounced on” but that is for the best and may make you think.

Then I hope you’ll be willing to answer on what sort of issue you would submit to your husband, even if you did not agree.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

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 haven’t caught up all the way on this thread, but I hear you. Loudly and clearly!

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

You know what, if women are “demoralized” by the Bible and the way it’s worded, let’s look at the it from a mystical angle.

Being demoralized and marginalized is precisely the formula for mortification of the false self. If you are victimized, impugned, etc. for no good reason, then that brings you into communion with the sufferings of both Jesus and Mary.

So men are “cursed” with the job of being the leader of the family – but you want to be in control. Ladies, let me ask you, do you realize what that means? That means that if I go to hell it’s your fault. Is that what you are asking for when you want to be “liberated” from the oppressive Word of God?

I don’t want to be bossy or anything else, but I accept my role as the spiritual leader of this family. If any of my family members go to hell, then I pray that I may go with them to keep them company. That includes any who may have or may in the future, stray away from their religious practices. Who in his right mind would want that job? I didn’t want it until the Lord opened my eyes to the fact that I have no choice; the job is mine as is the responsibility that comes with it.

I’d love to talk to a woman who has THAT kind of nerve. It’s easy to go learn engineering and then displace me at my job. Let’s see what REAL courage you have, though, and see if you want to take the fall for the judgments that others receive from God? If you have that courage, speak up and let’s talk turkey. I have a lot of work I can think of that 99% of the men and women are too chicken or too unprepared to do.

Basically, it’s fun to think we’re Jesus when it comes to preaching, comforting, and generally doing corporal and spiritual acts of mercy. But are you willing to be tortured, rejected by the world, and crucified and sent to hell for others? That’s what God asks of every father of every family. You want role reversal, I’m more than willing to lay that on your shoulders for a while.

Oh, one other thing: how many REAL women does it take to change a light bulb? Answer: none – they don’t try to change them; they accept them as they are.

Alan

 

[FNDRB58]

You’re right that a decision remaining in paralysis is likely to lead to dysfunction or division. I don’t presume, however, that there is an equalizing tie-breaker that can appealed to (Oh, would that there were!). I also feel that you’ve smuggled in your conclusion that such an equalizer ought to be “submission to the husband.” What if a couple can’t decide to agree on a particular issue, about which the husband is deadly wrong? Then the rule becomes “Wives submit to your husbands, unless it is apparent that his decision would cause or increase conflict.” In this case, however, nothing is accomplished by having an initial rule in the first place; either the couple remains in harmony, or a decision making process will have to be made by reasoning and by compromise. This, I’m suggesting, is a task for both partners.

I don’t know if it can be safely reasoned that because history played out a certain way, that it was meant to; that it was the best way; and that no other ways could have sustained society. There are a lot of reasons men have held power (often too much, as you yourself will no doubt admit). It is arguing beyond your means to say that it should have been that way.

This is the point on which we disagree. True equality cannot be squared away with words like “submit.” We can see that this is the case when we supplant any other social category: "Blacks, submit to whites [in times of “decision impasse].” You can see that while indecision is remedied, equality has been greatly violated.

Please see my comment above about history not being the gauge by which we say something ought to be such and such a way. If you say, however, that it was “God’s plan,” then you must appeal to peoples’ faith, alone, in that claim.

Of course, you’re right. But there it is in the Bible–if not *blind *submission, than what kind of submission is required?

God’s plan does not require others to have faith in that plan. Many people do not have a faith yet still “adhere” to the gender roles. Perhaps I misunderstood what you are saying regarding this.

I see two kinds of submission…blind submission, that is, following the direction of the husband without question…or, it could mean a more equal partnership where the wife acquiesces to the desires of the husband, especially when it comes to decision making, but she indeed has a voice to be respected in the process. And there are levels of this as well where the wife should “give in” to keep the peace so to speak.

I agree that “wives submit to your husbands” doesn’t sound good in present society but the the Bible was written during a particular age where women were already expected to be submissive. Hence, the gender roles of the time. But I believe there is room for development in this area while still adhering to the concept. There were many things in the bible that allowed for development. I think the meaning of “wives, submit to your husbands” has evolved to mean something entirely different in our country. To think otherwise suggests a rather fundamentalist view of the Bible.

 

[GraceDK]

:bighanky::crying:

You just made my point.
The experience of the OP is not recognized as valid by you so you totally avoid the core problematic and ridicule it instead. I wonder if you think thats going to change the situation for the better?

 

[GraceDK]

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.

Im’ too far gone for that now

To your first sentence… sure, why not. If a man comes and makes a thread about how he feels undervalued as a man I shall seek to understand him and listen and give good advice. Unlike the harshness and unwillingness to understand which is shown on this thread. By the way, I have read books in the past written about the specific problems of men … these exist too, and why should I deny it unless it makes me really uneasy to deal with the facts?

number 2. I speak for myself, the OP, my sisters and many women in my own country whom I have talked to. Do you mind?.. or am I only allowed to use plural if I speak for you?

You too far gone to go into the problematics of a fellow sister? Because no body asked you to not be a happy Catholic woman. So am I, by the way… but it doesn’t mean I wanna be avoidant about this real issue which causes many women a great deal of insecurity.
You are far gone you say… you mean you are gone beyond humanity and its struggles? I hope not. Please do come back.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I have a question for you ladies who feel marginalized by God.

If, in fact, your are truly being marginalized, then how is it a problem for you? It builds your spirit, as it unites you with the marginalization that Jesus Himself experienced. It does hurt your ego, though.

So which is more important as a woman – or as a Christian – your ego, or your spiritual health?

I thank people who put me down, and who call me names in the name of the Lord. “Hey, God says you’re wrong, blah blah blah.” The more unfair they are, the more those people bring me right to the cross with Jesus.

But one problem is we are told to have “self-esteem” which is a code word for a false sense of identity and pride. True esteem is God-esteem.

So please answer me some things. Let’s say, for sake of argument that God and man truly are keeping you down. How do you think that effects your ego? Your spirit? If they tend to collapse the ego and build the spirit, then isn’t being humiliated kind of an express route to paradise? I say that if you don’t see it that way, you’re missing out.

But if it doesn’t hurt your spirit to be ridiculed, then is it that your pride and ego are more important?

Women IMO are closer to God than I’ll ever be. They can have babies, for God’s sake. They have experiences that come natural, that men spend their whole lives going crazy trying to get the gist of that experience, to no avail. People have mutilation surgery because they can’t figure out what the roles are between men and women. The heart of a woman knows of love in ways I’ll never know – including the love between a mother and child. You don’t think men are insanely jealous of parts of YOUR role?

So yeah, I understand it hurts, but unless we wish to second-guess God, then I’d suggest we all figure out how to get over ourselves and let our true light shine without fear.

And pullleeeezzzzzzzeeeeeeeeee … don’t EVEN tell me that I don’t know what it’s like to feel marginalized or otherwise put down or have my good work thrown in the trash because it wasn’t somebody else’s way to do it. If you want to say, “you don’t understand because you’re not a woman,” then help me out. How is your being ridiculed and marginalized any more against God’s will then what happened to Jesus?

Alan

 

[FNDRB58]

I have just skimmed through the responses, and I will come back to write more because I have a lot to say lol. BUT because I will have to do that later I do want to ask a couple of questions:

For everyone saying it is a jealously issue, or that I want to be a man, what exactly does that mean? What qualities would I need to try to acquire in order to be trying to “be a man?” Are there some qualities that you believe I cannot have in order to “be a woman”?

The rigidity is so annoying to me. Why do we have to fit in these tight boxes? Why does wanting to be YOURSELF and allowing yourself to be whoever YOU want to be have to automatically mean that you are “trying to be a man?” Why is it that whenever it seems to be that a woman is seemingly thinking outside of her predetermined box and society-given image that she is pounced on? I question the roles and limits imposed on me simply for my gender and I am trying to be a man? I’m going to stop because I gotta go lol. Anyway the second paragraph is my main concern with this post. Thanks again for everyone who has posted!

Woman don’t have to fit in tight boxes. I do think, however, that if a woman chooses to bare a child then she should be the primary caregiver. I honestly couldn’t imagine carrying my child inside me for nine months and NOT wanting to continue that nourishing role by staying at home. But maybe it is easier for a man to say this. It seems if I were a woman I would be just an incubator while I leave the kid home with someone else and go work. The child grows in the womb and outside the womb. Why would a woman take on a full-time job outside the home when there is a full-time job in the home with the child she bore?

I wonder what society would be like if all mothers stayed at home and raised there children. Then maybe the boys they raised would not turn into men that started all the wars.

This is something I never understood.

 

[GraceDK]

AlanFromWichita;
I have a question for you ladies who feel marginalized by God.

GraceDK: "I don’t feel marginalised by God. I never have. I have always believed what the God says: There are no favourites, and the last shall become the first etc. Even when some traditionalists say there should be no girl alter servers I say: there were at least three women standing at the foot of the Cross/the great Alter. Look at the Virgin Mary. Look at Mary of Magdala who was the first evangelist who preached the resurrection. But I can see strands in the Bible, eg. i OT legislation, and in Paul’s letters that do indicate an unfair harshness towards women.
We know from the New Testament that there was a prophetic ministry which was carried out by women too… but this and other ministries have been almost eliminated from our church life, to our own detriment.

If, in fact, your are truly being marginalized, then how is it a problem for you? It builds your spirit,

In the New Testament its written that slaves should obey their masters. Slavery is defined by one person being bought and owned by another person for life. We don’t practice that anymore. But there are places in the world where it is practiced. Would you tell these people that they should not complain because its just their ego speaking? Sorry, but thats poor. The Christian God is not an unreasonable God to whom we cannot come with our thoughts and critical questions.

So which is more important – your ego, or your spiritual health?

You are very offensive. I take it you are a white male between 20 and 60 and have never experienced any kind of the feeling the OP describes. You try to close her mouth instead of entering the problematic.

I thank people who put me down, and who call me names in the name of the Lord.

Yea right

The more unfair they are, the more those people bring me right to the cross with Jesus.

I feel that Christ is on the side of the OP. You are trying to shut her up by giving her a bad consience for her valid and real feelings. Jesus would enter into a dialog.

But one problem is we are told to have “self-esteem” which is a code word for a false sense of identity and pride. True esteem is God-esteem.

God has given us the ability to love and reason. let us talk freely about whatever issues some people take with the faith, with certain sayings in the Bible etc. What you are trying to do it seems is to make people feel bad about having some kind of feeling or experience. Thats why I say your approach here is not very helpful. You refuse to actually put yourself in the shoes of the OP. Now that is what takes humility

Women IMO are closer to God than I’ll ever be. They can have babies, for God’s sake.

Sorry but the Church doesn’t teach that. Actually Jesus was fully man and fully God so you can objectively say that maleness is more united with God that femaleness is. Priests are very close to God when they consecrate the bread.
It takes a man and a woman to make babies and bring them up in the faith. Our Father in heaven gives name to eartly fatherhood. I am a woman so I can never be a father, which seems to be the highest calling in the universe.

They have experiences that come natural, that men spend their whole lives going crazy trying to get the gist of that experience, to no avail. People have mutilation surgery… The heart of a woman knows of love in ways I’ll never know – including the love between a mother and child. You don’t think men are insanely jealous of parts of YOUR role?

I hope not. Jealousy is not a nice trait. (be careful with your ego ) There are also women who mutitale themselves to become like men. there are more gay men (who want men and maleness) than there are lesbians…

So yeah, I understand it hurts,

**Oh really? What is this IT that you refer to? If you can spell that out more clearly maybe the OP can benefit from your post.
I think every post should have started like this: “Yes I understand where you are coming from, even if I don’t feel like that, your post does make sense… but here is how I have integrated these teachings and biblical passages in a way that makes sense with whatever else I know about God’s impartial love…” **

And pullleeeezzzzzzzeeeeeeeeee … don’t EVEN tell me that I don’t know what it’s like to feel marginalized or otherwise put down or have my good work thrown in the trash because it wasn’t somebody else’s way to do it. How is your being ridiculed and marginalized any more against God’s will then what happened to Jesus?

**Actually the whole section of family on CAF is made up by women and men who feel they are treated unfairly by others. You can go inthere and tell them: “Jesus was treated unfairly too, so don’t come complaining! It will built up your spirit to suffer in silence”. I have studied a great deal of psychology and learned that the way to keep a wound alive is by refusing to acknowlege it’s there. One example of this is the Jews… they are very on guard against anyone who in some way belittles the suffering of Jews in history. They have learned that they alone have to stand up for themselves (with military force) because no one else will. The same with women… they have in the western world created a parallel society next to church society because they didn’t feel they were given a platform earlier or lend an ear when they voice their human thoughts or experiences. **.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

AlanFromWichita;
In the New Testament its written that slaves should obey their masters. Slavery is defined by one person being bought and owned by another person for life. We don’t practice that anymore. But there are places in the world where it is practiced. Would you tell these people that they should not complain because its just their ego speaking? Sorry, but thats poor. The Christian God is not an unreasonable God to whom we cannot come with our thoughts and critical questions.

So are you saying that society treats women as the slaves of men? You feel “owned” by us?

So which is more important – your ego, or your spiritual health?

You are very offensive. I take it you are a white male between 20 and 60 and have never experienced any kind of the feeling the OP describes. You try to close her mouth instead of entering the problematic.

If you see me as offensive, that’s OK with me. I wouldn’t want to take that experience from you or I truly would be treating you as a slave under my control.

White male between 20 and 60? Maybe. Whatever you need me to be for purposes of this discussion, let me know and I’m yours.

How did I try to close the mouth of the OP? I did not report her post, I just asked some questions – and by the way, thank you for taking the time to read and reply to my questions. :tiphat:

I thank people who put me down, and who call me names in the name of the Lord.

Yea right

I thank you for your views. I do not wish to be offensive, but nor can I fail to speak the truth as the Lord has so far revealed it to me. So if you help me understand what it is that you find offensive, please help me become a better person and more effective communicator. Go ahead and let me have it. It’ll hurt good.

Think I’m a wacko? Well, if you do then you’re in good company. The federal government thinks I’m incurably insane. Good thing they don’t know about God’s mind, which is foolishness to the worldly mind.

The more unfair they are, the more those people bring me right to the cross with Jesus.

I feel that Christ is on the side of the OP. You are trying to shut her up by giving her a bad consience for her valid and real feelings. Jesus would enter into a dialog.

I totally agree with you that Christ is on the side of the OP. He is also on my side, your side, and everybody else’s. Do you really think that He’s going to pick and choose whom he saves by how cleverly or accurately we post something on Catholic Answers? I don’t. Jesus loves you and the OP as much as me, and if I had anything like the heart of Jesus, then I would have a great tenderness for the both of you as well. Anything less falls short of our command by Jesus to “be perfect.” So if I love you or the OP less than I love myself or Jesus (careful here … this is literally true even though it sounds weird) than I am not yet in the kingdom.

But one problem is we are told to have “self-esteem” which is a code word for a false sense of identity and pride. True esteem is God-esteem.

God has given us the ability to love and reason. let us talk freely about whatever issues some people take with the faith, with certain sayings in the Bible etc. What you are trying to do it seems is to make people feel bad about having some kind of feeling or experience. Thats why I say your approach here is not very helpful. You refuse to actually put yourself in the shoes of the OP. Now that is what takes humility

You say a lot of things about me, as if I have no intent to feel your pain. Believe me, if your complaint is that you’re being marginalized, I challenge you to a pity party I have no doubt that I’ll win. If you don’t think I’m feeling your pain, then quit insulting me and questioning my intent, and explain to me how I’m wrong.

You know, I feel a bit marginalized by the things you’re saying. Because you are a woman, or for whatever reason, you seem to have the moral authority on me. I know you don’t claim you do, but it surely might come across that way to someone who doesn’t know, as I do, that your heart is truly filled with love, and even these words that I find indicative of problems, are offered from you to me in love. To think anything less than that is to fail to treat you like Christ Himself, which He commands me to do.
John 18:22-23:

Women IMO are closer to God than I’ll ever be. They can have babies, for God’s sake.

Sorry but the Church doesn’t teach that. Actually Jesus was fully man and fully God so you can objectively say that maleness is more united with God that femaleness is. Priests are very close to God when they consecrate the bread.
It takes a man and a woman to make babies and bring them up in the faith. Our Father in heaven gives name to eartly fatherhood. I am a woman so I can never be a father, which seems to be the highest calling in the universe.

Please explain to me, in a way I understand, what it feels like just when the baby comes out. Unless, of course, you think I should already know that experience because I “had a part” in making the baby.

(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

AARGH!!! I lost the rest of my post I just spent lots of time writing. :banghead:

Obviously the Spirit didn’t think you needed to see what I wrote; I guess I just needed to write it.

Anyway, thank you for your passionate debate. I don’t believe you are far from the kingdom of heaven. :heaven:

Alan

 

[FNDRB58]

AlanFromWichita;
I have a question for you ladies who feel marginalized by God.

GraceDK: "I don’t feel marginalised by God. I never have. I have always believed what the God says: There are no favourites, and the last shall become the first etc. Even when some traditionalists say there should be no girl alter servers I say: there were at least three women standing at the foot of the Cross/the great Alter. Look at the Virgin Mary. Look at Mary of Magdala who was the first evangelist who preached the resurrection. But I can see strands in the Bible, eg. i OT legislation, and in Paul’s letters that do indicate an unfair harshness towards women.
We know from the New Testament that there was a prophetic ministry which was carried out by women too… but this and other ministries have been almost eliminated from our church life, to our own detriment.

There aren’t girl altar servers because of any male dominating fixation. You know better than that. We “traditionalists” think there shouldn’t be girl altar servers because it is boys who need to be encouraged to join the priesthood. Having them partake in the Mass at the altar with the priest fosters such a vocation.

In the New Testament its written that slaves should obey their masters. Slavery is defined by one person being bought and owned by another person for life. We don’t practice that anymore. But there are places in the world where it is practiced. Would you tell these people that they should not complain because its just their ego speaking? Sorry, but thats poor. The Christian God is not an unreasonable God to whom we cannot come with our thoughts and critical questions.

By the very fact that it talks about slaves should tell you and everyone else that we are not to take every word or phrase in the bible as if it should be applied today. It was written in part for that age. Slavery was the norm as was women’s submissive status. These do not apply today so women need not fret over the whole female submissive thing.

 

[Kleftiko]

You know what, if women are “demoralized” by the Bible and the way it’s worded, let’s look at the it from a mystical angle.

Being demoralized and marginalized is precisely the formula for mortification of the false self. If you are victimized, impugned, etc. for no good reason, then that brings you into communion with the sufferings of both Jesus and Mary.

You’re no longer arguing for equality here, as some of your peers. You’re arguing that inequality isn’t such a bad thing. To be marginalized is to be forced into a relative position of powerlessness (in this case, on account of gender). This is definitionally unequal. Being victimized or to suffer as an individual because of your faith is one path–I understand–to mortification. Being systematically forced into a position of powerlessness is altogether a different thing. I understand you’re being illustrative with your point and seek only to create a casual impression, but you would be quite embarassed to bring this to a formal debate.

So men are “cursed” with the job of being the leader of the family – but you want to be in control. Ladies, let me ask you, do you realize what that means? That means that if I go to hell it’s your fault. Is that what you are asking for when you want to be “liberated” from the oppressive Word of God?

I don’t want to be bossy or anything else, but I accept my role as the spiritual leader of this family. If any of my family members go to hell, then I pray that I may go with them to keep them company. That includes any who may have or may in the future, stray away from their religious practices. Who in his right mind would want that job? I didn’t want it until the Lord opened my eyes to the fact that I have no choice; the job is mine as is the responsibility that comes with it.

So you feel your surplus power (over your wife) is especially burdensom for you then? Or you feel the stakes are higher for you to achieve salvation than your wife, and she would be “out of her right mind” to want that responsibility and power? I just want to know if I’m reading you correctly.

I’d love to talk to a woman who has THAT kind of nerve. It’s easy to go learn engineering and then displace me at my job.

To displace is to be moved or put out of one’s proper place, position, or office. You feel that female engineers ought not be there?

Basically, it’s fun to think we’re Jesus

I don’t think any woman who feels this way is rejecting her asigned role; I think she is rejecting that it is her asigned role. She sees inequality (the kind you are lobbying for on this forum) and concludes that scripture must be a little off; the Church’s teachings in error; that the Bible is clearly man-made; at worst, that the Christian God is untenable, etc. It may be silly to say a woman is acutely aware of her need to take a role and just doesn’t have the dignity to assume it. No, it is more likely the case that she just doesn’t consider her role to be so limited.

I see two kinds of submission…blind submission, that is, following the direction of the husband without question…or, it could mean a more equal partnership where the wife acquiesces to the desires of the husband, especially when it comes to decision making, but she indeed has a voice to be respected in the process. And there are levels of this as well where the wife should “give in” to keep the peace so to speak.

To acquiesce is to submit or accede without protest (i.e., unquestioningly). You still have th job of showing that this is equal. And again, I will insert another social category for comparison: “Blacks, acquiesece to the desires of whites. Mind you, your voice will still be respected in the process, but you should probably give in to keep the peace.”

I agree that “wives submit to your husbands” doesn’t sound good in present society but the the Bible was written during a particular age where women were already expected to be submissive. Hence, the gender roles of the time. But I believe there is room for development in this area while still adhering to the concept. There were many things in the bible that allowed for development. I think the meaning of “wives, submit to your husbands” has evolved to mean something entirely different in our country. To think otherwise suggests a rather fundamentalist view of the Bible.

I appreciate the fact that you are allowing for development in this area (i.e., aren’t taking a fundamentalist position). But what development (I’m still left wondering) makes equality out of any kind of submission/acquiescence/giving in?