A Witty Title.

Communication ::

(Start ya posts like that (or the sectios about whatever) so people know what point your talking to.

so..

Communication ::

LL/Nan I dont disagree that you will continue developing this over time. But I think the foundation needs to be there before you can go too far, you need to know you have a basis from which to move forward.

Submissiveness ::

This is a tough one to explain, and I dont think I have much to say (I jsut finished saying it, I retract this statement) , except this, to my mind, yes, it is sexist. And it's meant to be that way. For all that the femenists say that they want to be exactly equal with men, guess what, your not. Men cant have babies, there are other biological differences, and this will result in some diferences in the way you relate. There are hormonal differences, there are sociatal differences.

As far as the sociatal differecnces go, go for you life, but when we talk about biological differences or differences in the way brains work, which do exist between the sexes, I dont think its fair or right to argue that they shouldent exist.

Im not going to ask my wife to be a doormat and let me walk all over her, far from it.

But i do think there are different roles for the two partners to fufill, and that the two sex's are in fact both better suited to filling the roles defined for them by god than to filling the role of the other sex.

Im aware that this view wont be popular, but I ask that if you disagree at least stop and think about what I'm trying to say, and then give a reason that is based in logic, rather than a personal attack. Thanks. If you want to attack me personally, feel free to do so on your own blog :p
 

Trying not to respond in haste and repent at leisure here.

My initial response would be to say that as a woman, I don't want to be 'exactly the same as a man'. Yes as you say there are biological differences between the sexes, there may be hormanal differences, and there are definitely culturally/ societally determined differences. But because we are not yet in a position where we can always distinguish between these, I think it's dangerous to argue that 'it's not fair or right to argue that those [biologically determined] differences shouldn't exist'.

That may be beside my point, though.

What I do want as a woman and as a human being is to be free to be whoever I am without being artifically constrained in any way shape or form to a role that is defined and determined purely by my gender.

May have more to say later, after digesting more.
 

Equal but different is exactly what I meant Naranator.

As to the rest, I wont have time to comment on that from work.
 

Submissiveness:

Most of what I would say has been said by Lynley and Nan between them. However, since I am astounded, frustrated and angry that you hold such a (as far as I'm concerned) ridiculous and bigoted opinion...

If (and that is a BIG damn 'if') I were to allow that gender is in any way an appropriate way of absolutely defining ANY individual (male or female), I would still be... more than a little irritated, frustrated and (more than anything else) taken aback by your statement here. I have no desire to be a man and, as such, no desire to be 'like' a man. I am, in fact, biologically different. That doesn't mean I'm denied equality. In God's eyes, men and women are equal. I said this before but I'll repeat myself: does God love men more than women? Does he favour one over the other? Does Christ's sacrifice only cover women if they are vouched for by men? Was Mary damned because she sat at the feet of Jesus rather than helping Martha with the domestic (and apparently, from your point of view, womanly) chores? (Indeed, is one 'better' than the other for doing the 'womanly' thing - want to find out what Christ had to say on the topic?)

So, I am not biologically predestined to fill any societal role. Just because I have a womb, carry more fat on my thighs, have (on average) a smaller frame, (Nan: is it true about the ribs?) and so on and so forth, does in no way mean I am biologically 'better suited' for a submissive role in a relationship, that such a relationship is 'natural' (a word I am starting to loathe based on the way people use it) for me, or indeed any woman.

Equality isn't about everything being the same, it is about having the same rights and responsibilities, despite differences. And women and men do. At the core of the gospel, women are given the same responsibilities as men, and are accorded the same rights. Indeed, Christ focuses more on individual differences than on the differences of gender. And this is what is at the heart of this discussion: relationships aren't (and shouldn't be) about gender distinctions, but rather about individuals in relationship with God and with each other. Gender is periphery, important only in terms of questions of homosexuality, something which we were avoiding discussing, yes?

Sorry, I didn't mean to get aggressive: it just astounds me that you could come out with such an opinion, especially given the number of strong, capable, highly intelligent women you are good friends with (and, indeed, are related to). Think about these women and find me three (since one could be simply the exception to the rule) who is 'naturally' submissive, who won't be strident in her opinion, open in her intelligence, strong in her capabilities and talents - even if it threatens male dignity -, who is more willing to be led than to lead. Tell me then that women are biologically 'suited' to the submissive role in a relationship.

Oh and, just to clarify, none of us are 'masculine' women. We are women who are women, not women with an unusually high level of masculine traits.

Communication:

I do have something to say on this, but I'm too pissed off right now. I'll come back to this later.
 

IIRC, the ribs thing is an urban myth perpetuated by the Creation Ex Nihlo crowd as one of their 'creepy' evidences that science lies to you.

And, well, given that God made women out of men, given that the woman was told to be subservient to the man, and that the man was the one whose duty it was to work the land while the woman got to make babies, that Jewish law almost universally favoured the male, and that women were often considred guilty by implication when they didn't do things wrong but their husbands did (Achan is a prime example) there appears to be some weight to the idea that by a strict Biblical perspective that, yes, god does favour the man over the woman. No, these don't apply to the modern Christian church, but taken holistically, it certainly casts the author (God, at least, according to it), in a pretty rotten light as far as the gender issue goes.

I know strict Biblical perspectives aren't exactly in vogue though.
 

Matt - I think these guys have addressed anything I would say to your point. It saddens me to see the way you think about it, though.

Naranater - thank you for that. I think I will quote it heavily in the future.

Laurel-Li - Setting aside that I tend to agree with Talen about the bible's sexism, I still really, /really/ love you for this post, and not just because you made it competely unecessary for me compose my thoughts (not to mention making my own anger abate). Thank you, very much.

Though, there is one thing I'd bring up - I, at least, am a masculine woman, in all technicality. Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome carries with it a degree of hormone irregularity, including particularly high levels of androgen and testoterone. However, it's also worth noticing that (on estimation) around one in ten women share this condition, which alone is a staggeringly huge number of women who don't conform to what is "natural".

BTW Tim, that song you mention (as we now know) is by Sean Morey. In an amusingly six-degrees fashion, it originally came to us from Matt :p
 

As for what Matt said on Submissiveness, refer my last comment on the 'relationships' post. It doesnt cover heaps of stuff, but it does talk about what sort of man the woman should submit to - one who puts her needs above his.
 

I have grown up in a very feminist household- even my father was/is a feminist- my mam ran the house and we all knew it. as a result of this upbringing I have looked very carefully and prayed and struggled with the idea/concept of submission- I still do struggle with it to a degree.

I DO NOT believe that submission = door mat and I would be most upset and annoyed at any man/ woman, Christian/ Non Christian who would believe that.

I do however believe that I think that submitting to my husband does mean that I will allow him to sacrifice himself as Christ did for the church- I dont think that would be a simple thing to do- yes it does mean other stuff and I think I will have great difficulty with some of the other stuff but if I am to practice being a godly woman then I should already be submitting to Christ- I suck at that a lot of the time so I think it will be complicated in other situations too- but it is something to work on.

I am an argumentative person at the best of times, I am independent, strong willed and my mother has said that she feels sorry for the man that marries me as I am so strong willed but I think it is important for both people in a marriage to work on such things- for that matter I have to look at myself rather than at my partner and think "Is this someone I can submit too"? In all meanings and interpretations of the word
 

I think Mel makes a good point in terms of Matt's original post: should we be looking at how others suit us rather than how we suit others according to God's plan?

Talen: reading the bible in this way is a choice you make. There is much in the old testament that is not sexist, that does not glorify the male over the female. That said, we live under a new covenant. Either way, however one feels the bible treats the issue of gender, it is but one interpretation among a number of valid ones. To me, it is not God who is sexist but people and societies: before the fall, man and women were equal; after Christ's sacrifice, it is the same. People are sinful and God doesn't choose their behaviour for them, simply ilustrates and enforces the consquences of those actions.

Fox: ah, you're welcome? High levels of testosterone or not, you are still female and the ways you act are echoed by women the world over. Hell, the commonality of your illness reinforces my point. In terms of capabilities, biology has very little to do with it so, irrespective of hormones, women are just as capable as men.

My feeling is that one can believe that God requires women to be more submissive than men, that He has higher expectations of women (in that they must submit not only to God but also their husbands). I, however, feel that men have as much of a responsiblity to submit as women.
 

I got drawn into saying some things that probably weren't too relevant to the initial point, but I did 'em on my blurty. Just a note.
 

Ll - I was just saying, in response to your statement of "none of us are 'masculine' women". In all technicality, that /would/ be an accurate way to describe a woman with PCOS, since it is defined as being an abnormality (no matter how common it is). It was very much a technicality.

Anyway, I still want to see Chindogu address Ll's question:

"After all, it kind of makes sense that a female lacking in the skills that a female normally brings to a (hetero, again, not complicating things) relationship would make an excellent partner for a male lacking in the skills that men normally bring, yes?

Get back from work, dammit. I am on the edge of my seat.
 

Guys, go and post on naranater's post on his blog, so he will remember that we love him and wish to hear from him more often. Thus, we can encourage him to blog more often. Huzzah!
 

You know, and he has an interesting topic too... ;)

Smiles and affection for the person who can come up with a term for the female 51% of the species which is not co-gendered!
 

Is it GIRL?
 

Or Lady?
 

Questions of connotation. Both would be considered condescending by many women. Personally, I'm to old to be a girl and too coarse to be a lady. ;) Nan's come up with some interesting ideas, though. And there is more discussion of it here.
 

(crackes knuckles)
Ok, there seems to be something of a miscomsecption here, there seems to be the attitude that 'submission' is a good (or right, or proper) thing.
Let me clear this up. It's Not!

Submission is giving up some part (or even the whole) of your own free will to the will of another. While this may, sometimes, be useful or even necessary, you need a dam good ends to justify that particular means. I my opion neither spouse nor god is sufficient.

Someone once said; "It is better to die struggling to stand, than to live upon your knees."
 

Steve, submission /can/ be a good thing. The issue is that submitting to somebody should not be a choice that anybody else can make for you. I speak from the perspective of somebody who has seen master/slave relationships (which is of course not quite what we're discussing here, but it is the logical extreme) where the love is intense and the trust is absolute - sometimes submission can work for a person, and that's okay.

The issue is that numerous people here have expressed the desire that /somebody else/ should submit, based purely on their gender. /That/ is when it becomes a bad thing - haven't we worked /against/ that for some years now?

ren3d: "Crudely, through men, its the paternal, power and protectve nature of God and through women, its the maternal, tender and nuturing nature of God."

I'm going to point out, once again, tht a "usually" needs to be appanded here. I have known countless women who are more protective than tender, and the same for men who are more nurturing than powerful. Indeed, almost everybody I know - male or female - is /all/ of these characteristics (I myself am very much protective and powerful first, maternal second). It's a generalisation which, while it might apply to a majority, is noweher near absolute enough to be phrased as such.
 

I would like to make this statement: there is a difference between "submission" and "submitting". A lot of it has to do with connotations and therefore language but, hey, if we going to communicate using our flawed language system let's try and be as accurate as possible, okay? Submission is bad. Submitting can be good. It doesn't have to be(and, in fact, rarely is) but it can be a good thing. After all, if you bow before someone else's more accurate knowledge, more reasoned argument, or deep seated feelings, you are submitting to them.

Basically, what Fox said. The difference is in who makes the choice to submit. On the whole, I feel that Fox is right so I'll really just add a "Here, here," to her comments and "Boo hiss," to gender stereotyping.
 

Grumbler

A good Idol to choose re the "You take what you get and get what you please. It’s better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. Oh the power...
". Midnight Oil's the Power and the Passion.

Question: Do you work? Do you do what you are asked to do by your manager. Is this such a problem? Is this not a form of submission? Mayby the end (payday) does justify it, then again maybe one should look for another job.