Do you personally know of a man who became a better husband as a result of his wife's

[Audrey]

I also think it's possible for a woman to be so much of a doormat that she can actually encourage unloving and disrespectful feelings from her husband.

 

I don't have a dog in this race because I don't care what Christian couples want to do with their marriages. That's their marriage.

 

However, I did think the quote above was just spot on. It goes back to the fact that you teach people how to treat you. If a woman acts like a doormat, 9 times out of 10 that's how she'll be viewed and treated.

 

There are all kinds of ways to NOT be a doormat. How you decide to do that is up to you. (general 'you')

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Why is it okay for people to completely and utterly berate other people's strongly-held beliefs, especially if those beliefs are hurting no one and making marriages stronger, as has been asserted by so many in this thread? :confused:

 

 

Because, as previously stated, those strongly held beliefs have MANY TIMES caused women and children to be placed in very dangerous situations. In many cases they ARE hurting someone.

 

I didn't think I was berating anyone. I just REALLY REALLY wish that we lived in a society where girls are encouraged to know that they are worth just as much as boys are!

[ThatCyndiGirl]

If I implied that christian female submission is the only one I find troublesome then I apologize.

 

Allow me to clarify: ANY RELIGION OR GROUP THAT STATES THAT WOMEN MUST SUBMIT TO MEN IS WRONG, IMHO.

 

Better?

 

 

Let's not pick apart the word and lose the meaning. A person who must submit to the will of another (especially as an adult!) is worth less than the one in control. If a woman has to say, "well, honey, it's up to you, after all, you are the head of the household" does NOT have as much power as her husband. THAT is what I meant.

Edited November 18, 2009 by ThatCyndiGirl

[Joanne]

Then I could use that same logic and say that no one should adhere to some widely held Muslim beliefs because those have placed many women and children in very dangerous situations. Are we willing to go there? Or is this only fair game because it's politically okay to pick on the Christian beliefs?

 

And you can still be a submissive wife and know that you are worth just as much as the boys. I do. :D

 

 

For the first paragraph, I deplore any recommendation that subjugates women.

 

For the second paragraph: I do not believe the ideas in the first sentence can co-exist.

[Jugglin'5]

If I implied that christian female submission is the only one I find troublesome then I apologize.

 

Allow me to clarify: ANY RELIGION OR GROUP THAT STATES THAT WOMEN MUST SUBMIT TO MEN IS WRONG, IMHO.

 

Better?

 

 

Let's not pick apart the word and lose the meaning. A person who must submit to the will of another (especially as an adult!) is worth less than the one in control. If a woman has to say, "well, honey, it's up to you, after all, you are the head of the household" does NOT have as much power as her husband. THAT is what I meant.

 

 

So when a student submits to a teacher, or a lawyer to the judge in court, etc., that means that that person is worth less? I don't think hierarchy is necessarily wrong, but rather, inescapable. Nor does it imply a difference in worth, but a difference in role and function.

[Joanne]

I don't have a dog in this race because I don't care what Christian couples want to do with their marriages. That's their marriage.

 

However, I did think the quote above was just spot on. It goes back to the fact that you teach people how to treat you. If a woman acts like a doormat, 9 times out of 10 that's how she'll be viewed and treated.

 

There are all kinds of ways to NOT be a doormat. How you decide to do that is up to you. (general 'you')

 

Hm.

 

While I agree that the does happen, I do not believe it represents the complexity of what *can* happen.

 

For example, and especially in the case of non physical abuse, many women do not know they are being abused. They are not "being a doormat", but instead operating from a ignorant (ignorant = not knowing) place. Often, abuse is a slow, systematic, progressive act. The abuser doesn't start on extremes, he starts JUST over the line. That eventually gets normalized and the next episode is a little worse, it gets normalized.....

 

YEARS down the road, you are clearly being abused but you've been so anasthatized.

 

ETA: I took out some words. They were to feminist and I don't want to have that conversation.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Joanne

[Joanne]

So when a student submits to a teacher' date=' or a lawyer to the judge in court, etc., that means that that person is worth less? I don't think hierarchy is necessarily wrong, but rather, inescapable. Nor does it imply a difference in worth, but a difference in role and function.[/quote']

 

It's an apples to dogfood comparison.

 

The examples you gave (and nearly any others I can think of) are not the same in functionality as a marriage.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I am not a student compared to my husband as teacher.

 

I am not a lawyer with my husband as judge.

 

As Joanne stated, not a true comparison.

[Jugglin'5]

It's an apples to dogfood comparison.

 

The examples you gave (and nearly any others I can think of) are not the same in functionality as a marriage.

 

Well, if you say so. No relationships are exactly the same. Trying to make a human society with no hierarchy is beating against the wind.

[Joanne]

Well' date=' if you say so. No relationships are exactly the same. Trying to make a human society with no hierarchy is beating against the wind.[/quote']

 

Who is trying to make human society without hierarchy?

 

I'm simply saying that I don't believe *marriage* is supposed to have one.

[Jugglin'5]

Who is trying to make human society without hierarchy?

 

I'm simply saying that I don't believe *marriage* is supposed to have one.

 

I was originally responding to this particular statement - not any of yours.

"A person who must submit to the will of another (especially as an adult!) is worth less than the one in control."

[Audrey]

Hm.

 

While I agree that the does happen, I do not believe it represents the complexity of what *can* happen.

 

For example, and especially in the case of non physical abuse, many women do not know they are being abused. They are not "being a doormat", but instead operating from a ignorant (ignorant = not knowing) place. Often, abuse is a slow, systematic, progressive act. The abuser doesn't start on extremes, he starts JUST over the line. That eventually gets normalized and the next episode is a little worse, it gets normalized.....

 

YEARS down the road, you are clearly being abused but you've been so anasthatized.

 

ETA: I took out some words. They were to feminist and I don't want to have that conversation.

 

Yes... I get what you're saying. I guess what I'm thinking of (but not typing adequately) is the low self-esteem behind being a doormat. I think many (if not most) women suffer from undernourished self-esteem and that those kinds of men who would be abusers are able to spot that and prey upon it.

 

Women can choose to stop being a doormat, can build and nourish their self-esteem and can break out of the abuse cycle. How to do that will look different for different women.

 

Also, you didn't have to take out those words for me Joanne. You and I could have a good rousing feminist discourse any time. :001_smile:

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I was originally responding to this particular statement - not any of yours.

"A person who must submit to the will of another (especially as an adult!) is worth less than the one in control."

 

Did I use the wrong word again? It is true that a child does not have as much power in the relationship as does her teacher. Did I misuse the word "worth" when I meant 'power'? perhaps.

 

I seem to keep choosing the wrong words tonight. I will say it another way:

 

I believe that women and men should hold the same power in a relationship. I believe that women should not have to submit to the will of a man.

 

In contrast, students DO have to submit to the will of their teachers. (I am in school currently and I understand that I have to 'submit' to my professors, but I'm not married to them!)

 

But,....my relationship with my husband is an equal partnership. I wish that everyone had access to that. I wish that NO girls were being reared under the belief system that 'Daddy is in control' or "your father is the head of the household". Why can't it be that "your PARENTS are the head of the household"?

 

I am not for doing away with ALL hierarchy, just hierarchy within marraige.

[coffeefreak]

Did I use the wrong word again? It is true that a child does not have as much power in the relationship as does her teacher. Did I misuse the word "worth" when I meant 'power'? perhaps.

 

I seem to keep choosing the wrong words tonight. I will say it another way:

 

I believe that women and men should hold the same power in a relationship. I believe that women should not have to submit to the will of a man.

 

In contrast, students DO have to submit to the will of their teachers. (I am in school currently and I understand that I have to 'submit' to my professors, but I'm not married to them!)

 

But,....my relationship with my husband is an equal partnership. I wish that everyone had access to that. I wish that NO girls were being reared under the belief system that 'Daddy is in control' or "your father is the head of the household". Why can't it be that "your PARENTS are the head of the household"?

 

I am not for doing away with ALL hierarchy, just hierarchy within marriage.

 

I agree. Submitting to the will of a teacher or boss is WAYYYY different than wife-only submission. There are clear boundaries with teachers, bosses etc. There's also repercussion if the teacher or boss oversteps their boundaries. The problem and danger with wife-only submission is the lack of boundaries. My husband wants me to be an equal partner and I married him because he treated me like an equal. I was in a relationship where I was not valued and my boundaries were not respected. I ended it and called off the engagement because I knew once we were married, I would have no recourse against that man.

 

But I digress. The original question still remains, will a man change and become a better man if his wife is submissive, and I still say, no. Because if he was disrespectful and not willing to respect you before, how is giving in to his every whim and catering to him going to improve that? If he didn't love you enough to value your opinion and respect you in the first place, how will allowing him to have total and absolute control over you change that?

 

As for those of us who had (and now once again have:D) equal partnerships in our marriages, and became submissive, because someone told us we had to to please God, it did change our husbands, but not for the better. So, either way, the man does not become a better man.

 

For those that say, yes, their husbands did become better men, I'm happy for you! But that doesn't mean that what worked for you works for everyone, and I myself have never seen it work. What I see works is mutual love and respect for one another, like Paul wrote about in Corinthians.

 

Blessings!

Dorinda

[Rosie_0801]

I believe that women and men should hold the same power in a relationship. I believe that women should not have to submit to the will of a man.

 

 

Same power or same amount of power? I assume you mean the latter. Different people have power for different reasons.

 

Mutual submission makes no sense to me. If we both have equal responsibility to submit, then nobody has the responsibility to lead. If dh thinks we should buy a peice of property and I disagree, mutual submission has us standing there going, "Well, I'm not submitting on this. I submitted about the car thing and now it's your turn." :tongue_smilie: Which is not submission, obviously.

 

 

I'd have thought the proper biblical thing to do in this scenario is for your husband to say "Right, Honey, I can see this is important to you. What is your exact issue with this property? Uh-huh? Ok, well I like it for this reason. Lets keep looking for somewhere with both features."

 

Rosie- who is a pagan and obviously no authority on biblical matters.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Originally Posted by Quill

Mutual submission makes no sense to me. If we both have equal responsibility to submit, then nobody has the responsibility to lead. If dh thinks we should buy a peice of property and I disagree, mutual submission has us standing there going, "Well, I'm not submitting on this. I submitted about the car thing and now it's your turn." :tongue_smilie: Which is not submission, obviously.

I have never heard that argument offerered in regards to mutual submission. To me that is more about "taking turns at submitting", a quid pro quo situation, which is not exactly what I meant. We don't do a "you gave in last time so now it's my turn" scenario.

Sometimes he gives in (homeschooling), sometimes I give in (I want to move to Germany, but I could see just how much he hated the thought.)

[Sasha]

I'm always amazed when people admit to reading and loving 'Created to be his Helpmeet' by Debi Pearl. It makes me wonder how people can gloss over the whole, "if your husband molests your daughter then continue to stay married to him, love him through his prison term, then welcome him home with open arms". (she leaves off the part, "so he can now molest your grandchildren".) Just lovely, lovely advice, no?

 

I have to say that if my dh (who is a pretty hardline atheist so it's unlikely, but still...) came home with a book written by the Pearl's I'd answer with divorce papers and a restraining order.

 

But then the Pearls advocate hitting babies. I'm never surprised at the insane things they say.

 

Just disgusted.

[Sasha]

Ronette, I hear what you are saying, but to me the one in charge is the one "with whom the buck stops", so, to me that is not equal. Tomato/tomAHto, perhaps.

 

 

 

I didn't mean that the man is in charge "only because he has a penis". I meant that, on the surface the difference between us is seen.....there. My husband does not deserve a higher place of authority just because he had the luck of being born male. I should not have to bow the will of my spouse just because I had the dumb luck to be born a female. We should BOTH bow to each other's will at different times, as the situation demands. I grew up hearing that "you can't have two bosses". REALLY!? Every pastor who said that has apparently never heard of equal partnership businesses.

 

<snip>

 

How about living in a relationship in which you BOTH are where the buck stops? Sometimes my husband gets his way, sometimes I do. At times I have been responsible for decisions we have made (bad and good), at times it has been him. Yes, it means that sometimes someone compromises, but at NO time has it ever come down to, "well, I am the man so we are doing X" or...."well, I am the woman and we are doing X". To me that relegates the other party to forever living as the follower.

 

I agree with this completely. Besides just plain disagreeing with the idea, it doesn't seem to be terribly prudent, either. In our household I'm the one who has taken responsibility over homeschooling. I research curricula, I research pedagogy--it's my railroad. How silly would it be for me to defer to dh in this area, just because he's the man?

 

Some people are better with the finances. Some are better with home improvements. Some are better at thises and thats. Sometimes those people are going to have vaginas. It baffles me that those people might not have the chance to do the things they are better at because, yanno, their dh wants to have final say and he happens to be a moron.

 

I can NEVER imagine a relationship in which a MAN becomes a better husband or father becuase his wife is submissive. Doesn't sound much like a man to me.

 

Exactly! Who wants a man whose, well, manhood is so tied up in how others submit to him?! It strikes me as very insecure.

[Sasha]

Why is it okay for people to completely and utterly berate other people's strongly-held beliefs, especially if those beliefs are hurting no one and making marriages stronger, as has been asserted by so many in this thread? :confused:

 

I think that the case could be made that someone is, in fact, hurt. I'm not making that case, mind, but I can see where it could be made.

 

Further, some women might have a very valid objection to being seen as second class. When people are encouraged to believe that penis=supremacy, vagina=submission in something as intimate as a marriage, such people might very well hold those beliefs over into how they behave in society.

[TravelingChris]

I think the Biblical response to a child molesting husband is certainly not staying married to him. In NT times, let alone much more recently, child molestation or rape of anyone was a death penalty offense so there was no thought of staying married. The perpetrator was dead and the wife was a widow. Bringing it back to current times, having a sexual predator for a spouse is mostly definitely grounds for a divorce since that is an aggravated form of adultery. Instead of consensual adultery, it is non consensual.

[Firefly]

Secondly, as I explained a gazillion posts back, it's not one over the other, the roles and responsibilities are different. The genitalia argument is a red herring. It has nothing to do with anything. The man isn't head of the home because he has a penis.

 

How is it a red herring? It's true, isn't it? The man gets to lead because he's a man (i.e., has a penis)--by virtue of being born male. It can't ever be the wife, right? Not asking in a snarky way at all-- if I have misunderstood something about the pro-submission side I want to know. I'd truly love to understand this!

[LisaKinVA]

In our marriage, my husband and I have different roles. He trusts me to take care of whatever needs to be done, whether it's call a plumber, take care of the grocery shopping, homeschooling, whatever. I trust him to take care of his responsibilities.

 

Our joint decisions revolve around when and where to take a vacation, the house we are building, if we're buying a vehicle... if one of us has strong feelings on a subject the other listens, and sometimes defers to the one with the strong feelings. If both of us have opposing viewpoints we try to find a middle ground. For example, when it came to designing our house, my husband did not want the door where I had placed it, I felt it created a better interior layout. However, by moving a wall, and shuffling the interior design around a bit we found a solution which was actually BETTER than what we each had originally planned (now, I have a 6x8 walk-in pantry).

 

My husband understood my desires and I understood his. Neither of us got what we thought we wanted, but by discussing WHAT we wanted we both got something so much better.

 

In the model of wife-only submission, as I've seen it modeled, the husband says "I don't want the door here, move it there" and that's the end of the discussion. The wife isn't really happy. She shrugs her shoulders and tries to deal with the disappointment -- convincing herself that the new design will be fine, that it's just a little material thing anyhow.

 

But, the partnership model my husband and I practice we BOTH wound up very happy with the outcome.

 

There is a vast difference when one focuses on the roles of a wife and husband within a relationship and straight up submission. I don't think anyone is arguing against a husband/wife having different roles and responsibilities (if we were both going around trying to do the same things, it would be chaotic). However the submission (as it's used in many churches) actually undercuts the woman's role because it means that, regardless of her responsibilities and her role, she must defer the final decisions to the man -- even if it's her area of responsibility. That is what creates an unequal partnership.

 

I have so many friends who are frustrated by the lack or appreciation or understanding of what they do by their spouse. But, they keep doing what they have been doing and keep their mouths shut. I'm asked how I "get" my husband to do the things he does (HE puts the kids to bed, for example). While my friend's husbands continually praise their wife's accomplishments -- they have a lack of understanding regarding their wife's needs. The wife feels overwhelmed and in some way unloved -- but doesn't feel like she can say or do anything to change the equation. Resentment is building. The wife is praying for a better attitude from herself, and it's not helping. The wife is praying for contentment with her life, and it's not helping. The knock-down, drag-out is coming and neither one really sees that. Both will be shocked when it happens.

 

Why? Because they don't communicate. The wives don't feel they CAN "complain" (because regardless of the phrasing, they feel that is what they would be doing). The men (who are simple creatures), are completely oblivious to what lies beneath the surface.

 

My husband works hard. He gets up at 4:30am and gets home around 6pm. I usually have dinner ready, and give him some space to do what needs to be done (change, breathe). However, he takes over around 7pm freeing me for some needed downtime. The only reason he does this is because I told him my needs. I told him what makes me feel loved. And, when I'm getting overwhelmed with the pressures of this world, I tell him too.

 

Most women just "deal" -- and nothing changes. They vent to their friends, but nothing changes. They have an occasional fight, feel guilty and apologize for their lack of respect, and nothing changes. When I tell them my "secret" -- that I talk to my husband about what I *need* help with, because he is no mind reader, know what I hear? Oh, I couldn't do that, (fill in reasoning here).

 

Nothing changes in these friends' lives, because they don't COMMUNICATE with one another about these little things.

 

It's a pattern I see again and again.

[PineFarmMom]

:)

Edited November 21, 2009 by Texas T

[Free Indeed]

I have not read all the reply's- with 20 pages I can only imagine what has been said! ;) However, yes I believe in biblical submission to our husbands and letting them lead. Yes, I have seen many life changes right before my very eyes. God is good, and I know that people can think of a million reasons to try to tell you/me why it doesn't work, but the truth is it does work, I have seen it, and it even works in my marriage. I am not cowering in a corner, or just "dealing" with my marriage, I am gloriously happy, and I give all the praise to my Lord and savior. My life could have been so very different. :D

Edited November 18, 2009 by Free Indeed

[Sasha]

Teresa (off to bow down and grovel at my husband's feet while he tells me exactly how I should clean the rain gutters on the house, just before he straps that chain from me to the stove)

 

Huh. Way to take actual concerns and completely disregard them using hyperbole.

[Sasha]

Then I could use that same logic and say that no one should adhere to some widely held Muslim beliefs because those have placed many women and children in very dangerous situations. Are we willing to go there? Or is this only fair game because it's politically okay to pick on the Christian beliefs?

 

Considering the original post specifically spoke of Christianity, I'd say that's why Christianity is being discussed rather than from some form of persecution, especially considering that Christianity seems to be the predominant religion on this board. I'd venture to say that those who have an issue with patriarchy have the same issues regardless of the religion.

[Renee in NC]

But...but...but Kinsa, didn't you know?? There is not right or wrong. We all have our own truth, EXCEPT ones like these, then those who hold to a correct view of submission are just wrong and need to be told so by all of those who disagree...those same ones who call us out for having strongly-held beliefs.

 

Really, there is a list of rules around here somewhere to help you wade through all of the illogic & hypocricy. I'll see if I can find my set. It's worth getting a good grounding in them so you'll finally understand.:lol::lol::lol:

 

Teresa (off to bow down and grovel at my husband's feet while he tells me exactly how I should clean the rain gutters on the house, just before he straps that chain from me to the stove)

 

So that makes it okay to turn it around and make fun of the real pain some of us felt while trying to do what we thought God wanted us to do? I thought that I held a correct view of submission - it was what was being told to me by people I respected, taught to me in fundamentalist churches, and what it seemed like Scripture was requiring. Under that parameter, I *would* have been asking my dh exactly how to clean the rain gutters on the house because he was required to do NOTHING and I wasn't allowed to have a brain of my own. I was there to serve him and be his "helpmeet" which meant that I was to make his life so easy and blessed in order to please God and not question anything he wanted.

 

In my case (and in other cases that I have known), this extreme view of submission that is pushed on the internet and in fundamentalist churches can bring misery on the family when a husband has certain sin tendencies (ie. sloth, anger, irresponsibility, etc.) This is also the view in books such as Created to be His Helpmeet and the patriarchy pushed by Douglas Wilson and his ilk.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Renee in FL

[Renee in NC]

Considering the original post specifically spoke of Christianity, I'd say that's why Christianity is being discussed rather than from some form of persecution, especially considering that Christianity seems to be the predominant religion on this board. I'd venture to say that those who have an issue with patriarchy have the same issues regardless of the religion.

 

Yes, I have the same concerns about certain Muslim sects that espouse this same view. I am sure there are other religious groups as well (those are just the only two I know.)

 

I am a very conservative Christian and not a feminist. There seems to be a trend in some ultra-conservative Christian circles towards the same behaviors, beliefs, and practices as you find in extremist Islam. I compared the two several years ago and I think it is getting worse, not better.

 

These are the same groups who espouse daughters not going to college. These same families expect that their daughters will stay under their father's protection (rule) until they marry. There is no room for God's will in their lives because man knows better. The male authority in her life has complete control of everything she does, because otherwise SHE is in sin. That is a powerful thing to hold over someone's head - do as I say or you are in SIN.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Renee in FL

[lionfamily1999]

I can NEVER imagine a relationship in which a MAN becomes a better husband or father becuase his wife is submissive. Doesn't sound much like a man to me.

 

So, for those of us that said our dhs did become a better husband and father, because we started submitted, our husbands are what?

 

My husband is an incredible, decent man. He's always been incredible and decent. Letting him head our house, instead of having to juggle who's in charge of what, when has made a great change in his life. He's relied on to lead. It's made him more discerning, more careful, more caring, and MUCH more involved.

 

That doesn't mean he wasn't a man to begin with. What a mean thing to say, especially after pages of responses wherein women said that their husband's were better men. It makes it awefully tempting to wonder what kind of man can't lead his house, or what shrew wouldn't let him. However, I've no doubt there's reasons behind everyone's own way of living their lives. I've no doubt that there are plenty of good guys that don't lead, that aren't the heads of their households and plenty of good women that refuse to submit.

 

That was just really rude.

[DawnM]

Or French benefits and some mispronounce! ;)

 

Mutual submission is exactly it. Mutual respect too.

 

My parents always said that marriage is NOT a 50/50 deal, it is a 100/100 deal.....always looking out for the other person before yourself and if both parties don't do that, it doesn't work the way it should.

 

Dawn

 

 

PS: I just threw my parents a 50th Anniversary party, so I think they have a little wisdom!

 

I agree. Mutual submission, equal partnership, call it what you will. I believe that THOSE work out very well. (like business partners, but with fringe benefits. :lol: )

Edited November 18, 2009 by DawnM

[PineFarmMom]

:)

Edited November 21, 2009 by Texas T

[PineFarmMom]

:)

Edited November 21, 2009 by Texas T

[Sasha]

How do you know which model of submission is true?

[Sasha]

That seems to be what the nay-sayers think submission is. Many people...many have tried to explain the truth, but they are disregarded. I used what many seem to have decided that it is and made sarcasm of it. Sorry it bugs you.

 

I must have missed that. Still, I do find your dismissiveness, well, annoying. There have been many who have given very valid reasons for concern (Sputterduck is one that I remember by name). Guess the fact that some women are abused by their husbands and encouraged by church members to remain in those relationships doesn't matter.:glare:

 

I doubt highly that their experiences are any less of "the truth" than yours are.

[Lovedtodeath]

SolaMichella, LisaK, CAMom, I quoted too much from you... great posts.

 

Yes... I get what you're saying. I guess what I'm thinking of (but not typing adequately) is the low self-esteem behind being a doormat. I think many (if not most) women suffer from undernourished self-esteem and that those kinds of men who would be abusers are able to spot that and prey upon it.

 

Women can choose to stop being a doormat, can build and nourish their self-esteem and can break out of the abuse cycle. How to do that will look different for different women.

 

Also, you didn't have to take out those words for me Joanne. You and I could have a good rousing feminist discourse any time. :001_smile:

Audrey, I completely agree. In my marriage it was an abusive dynamic that existed between us and I needed to start the changes. He needed to change too, don't get me wrong, but I was definitely contributing to it. We read a Dr. Phil book and could both see how we were contributing and how to help the other person to stop as well as changing ourselves.

 

One thing that was interesting was that I thought it was so obvious that he was smarter, stronger, more attractive, had more worth to society in general (I have always had health problems) that I was sure as heck not going to do anything that would raise his self esteem. That was one thing that came as quite a shock that I was doing totally wrong.

 

Marriages with these issues are very complex. I do think that women buying into the idea of submission can contribute to problems. It depends on your personalities, etc, etc... as to whether it will. In cases where the default personality of the woman is to nag and be overbearing, treating her spouse as a child then submission ideas can help. Of course, if both marriage mates learn what the Bible says in its entirety and really apply that then it always helps.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I must have missed that. Still, I do find your dismissiveness, well, annoying. There have been many who have given very valid reasons for concern (Sputterduck is one that I remember by name). Guess the fact that some women are abused by their husbands and encouraged by church members to remain in those relationships doesn't matter.:glare:

church members.... not the Bible!

[CAMom]

 

But I digress. The original question still remains, will a man change and become a better man if his wife is submissive, and I still say, no. Because if he was disrespectful and not willing to respect you before, how is giving in to his every whim and catering to him going to improve that? If he didn't love you enough to value your opinion and respect you in the first place, how will allowing him to have total and absolute control over you change that?

 

 

Wow! Is that what was meant by the original poll? Because I guess I'll have to change my answer!

 

When I answered "yes" this is not at all what I was saying. I answered yes because I've seen it in my own marriage. But, I did not become submissive to a man who was already disrespectful to me. Nor does my submissive attitude mean that I give in to my husband's ever whim nor do I cater to him. He does not have total and absolute control over me!

 

Is this really how people are defining submission? I can't believe it if it is because that would not be a biblical definition of submission! Not at all!

 

My husband and I had a very rocky first five years of marriage. I truly believe that, in part, it was because we were struggling for leadership. When we began to be counseled (not professionally) and started to explore a biblical model for marriage, things began to improve. He became a better husband and I became a better wife.

 

I suppose that most people would look at us and the health of our marriage and see it as an equal partnership. We discuss every decision we need to make. My husband seeks and values my opinion and counsel more than any other person's. He tells everyone that he has learned that my intuition is almost always more reliable than his own logic. We respect one another. We defer to the other's needs and desires. We are (or at least strive to be) unselfish towards one another.

 

In the end, we both believe that God has ordained that my husband is the leader of this home and that he is ultimately accountable for what goes on in our family. Because I see this as serious role and because I love my husband, my desire is to encourage him in his role and lift him up not stand in his way.

 

I feel like there is partially a straw man argument going on here. Folks are defining submission as subjection to an unkind taskmaster who does not have the best interest of those in his care at heart-who does not love and care for them. That may be the world's definition of submission but it is not the biblical definition.

 

So, it's a very easy straw man to knock over. If that's the definition of submission, then I'd also say it's an evil myth. But, I think what's happening is that people are seeing sinful people abuse their God given roles and then making them the rule and condemning the whole system.

[Sasha]

church members.... not the Bible!

And the Bible has passages about submission. It also notes that the only acceptable reason for divorce is adultery, leaving her hands tied in the case of abuse.

 

Again--people can interpret the Bible in many different ways. None of them can know that their interpretation is the "true" one.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Sasha

[CAMom]

I agree with this completely. Besides just plain disagreeing with the idea, it doesn't seem to be terribly prudent, either. In our household I'm the one who has taken responsibility over homeschooling. I research curricula, I research pedagogy--it's my railroad. How silly would it be for me to defer to dh in this area, just because he's the man?

 

Some people are better with the finances. Some are better with home improvements. Some are better at thises and thats. Sometimes those people are going to have vaginas. It baffles me that those people might not have the chance to do the things they are better at because, yanno, their dh wants to have final say and he happens to be a moron.

 

 

Exactly! Who wants a man whose, well, manhood is so tied up in how others submit to him?! It strikes me as very insecure.

 

Straw man again! In a biblical model of submission, the husband trusts his wife and feels completely comfortable and secure in having her manage a variety of things.

 

In my home (what I believe to be an example-although not perfect) I am far more able to handle all homeschooling decisions as well as the finances. If I'm really stuck on something I will bring my husband into the loop and he will offer me some counsel but we can easily go months and months with him simply knowing that everything is running smoothly and he appreciates me for it!

 

If the homeschooling and finances were left to him, we'd be in a mess. Not to mention that he is running a business so my management of things like this (and many, many others) frees him up to manage his employees, serve as an elder at church, etc.

 

Biblical submission is not anything like a parent/child relationship which seems to be how some folks want to define it.

[Firefly]

 

I feel like there is partially a straw man argument going on here. Folks are defining submission as subjection to an unkind taskmaster who does not have the best interest of those in his care at heart-who does not love and care for them. That may be the world's definition of submission but it is not the biblical definition.

 

 

FTR, I'm not defining submission as submission to some awful brute. The slave that is owned by a kind master is still a slave. (And I am NOT comparing submissive wives to slaves, just illustrating a point).

[Sasha]

The slave that is owned by a kind master is still a slave.

 

this is where I end up as well. Even if the Biblical model if followed to a 't' the husband still has final authority over the household...because of no reason other than that he is a man. That is *my* problem (and I understand that really doesn't mean a dang thing outside of my own marriage) with it and why I would be very unhappy if my sons or daughter, someday, wanted to enter into such a marriage. It's not that I assume automatically abuse or overt suppression of women, it's simply that women are not ever on the same level as men.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Sasha

[OnTheBrink]

Reading through this thread, it's sad that so much is based upon a single verse. What is also sad, is the way certain aspects of Prov. 31 are highlighted, while others (her business dealings, going out to purchase a field to plant a vineyard, etc.), are completely ignored.

 

Some argue that Prov. 31 shows that a woman's place is in the home -- but what they ignore is the implicit arguments that the woman's place is anywhere it is needed, and brings honor to her husband.

 

Additionally, and perhaps most importantly is what the Bible does NOT say throughout this passage, and that is this, "And she went and asked her husband before she..." Instead, the Bible says, "And she went AND" did. This implies she had a range of authority to do things that went far beyond homeschooling and making bread, and she was not asking her husband (as some churches are pushing, as the meaning of true "submission").

 

The relationship between a husband and wife may take many different forms. Being "subject" to one's husband may also take many different forms.

 

My husband and I are one. We complete one another. If I were to be like my SIL, this would NOT be possible. I was made for him, and he for me -- and anyone who says I am not a good wife because I don't fit their interpretation of what being a "wife" means is dead wrong.

 

To purposely be less than who God made me, would be a lie. To pretend (which is what I would be doing) that I am dumb, opinion less, or incapable of doing a variety of tasks would NOT be God-honoring, as that would be tantatmount to saying God was wrong in the way HE created ME.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

This is an excellent point. The Prov 31 woman is NO doormat. She is managing a household staff, conducting business (no where does is say she considered a field, asked her hubby for permission, and bought it; she considered it and bought it), prepares her household for winter, and is available when needed. In all the verses of that chapter, there is not one single verse that indicates she is lesser than her husband. Proverbs is full of verses about how wonderful it is to have a trustworthy wife--she is finer than jewels. A man who can TRUST his wife isn't a man who's oppressing her.

 

I know women who handle the money for their households. Their husbands aren't good at it and he has the wife do it for the good of the family. Being the leader of a family doesn't mean the man makes all the choices. Being a good leader means you know when to delegate; you ascertain who has what strengths and weaknesses and go from there. A wife can be submissive to her husband's leading and still be better than him at certain things.

[Renee in NC]

Then you were misled. That doesn't throw TRUE submission out the window...it just means you were misled.

 

Says you. That is the problem with individual interpretation of Scriptures. How do you know I was misled and not you? The people telling me this could give a solid Scriptural defense of their words. Created to Be His Helpmeet does exactly that throughout the book. Douglas Wilson and his followers can defend their views Scripturally with no problem. You may not agree, but how can you say they are misled? What makes your "Holy Spirit" more accurate than theirs?

 

I am just throwing this out there. I do think they were wrong, but I also think that "true" or "biblical" submission based on a literal reading of the Bible seems to fit their definition more than some of these others that have been described. That is why I think that submission as it popularly taught in conservative Christian homeschooling circles is evil - it is the result of a deeper problem that goes far beyond whose definition of submission is correct.

[Renee in NC]

Straw man again! In a biblical model of submission, the husband trusts his wife and feels completely comfortable and secure in having her manage a variety of things.

 

In my home (what I believe to be an example-although not perfect) I am far more able to handle all homeschooling decisions as well as the finances. If I'm really stuck on something I will bring my husband into the loop and he will offer me some counsel but we can easily go months and months with him simply knowing that everything is running smoothly and he appreciates me for it!

 

If the homeschooling and finances were left to him, we'd be in a mess. Not to mention that he is running a business so my management of things like this (and many, many others) frees him up to manage his employees, serve as an elder at church, etc.

 

Biblical submission is not anything like a parent/child relationship which seems to be how some folks want to define it.

 

Does the Bible say that? Is the word used for "wives obey your husbands" different than the word used in "children obey your parents"?

[Sasha]

Being the leader of a family doesn't mean the man makes all the choices. Being a good leader means you know when to delegate; you ascertain who has what strengths and weaknesses and go from there.

 

Being in the position to delegate itself is a subtle form of oppression, particularly when the reason the person is the leader is because he was born with an outie, not an innie.

 

ETA: I want it to be very clear that people can live however they'd like. I'm not trying to make judgements. Still, I don't think it can be argued that it's not all seperate-but-equal when we're talking about a submissive relationship, just by definition.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Sasha

[CAMom]

Does the Bible say that? Is the word used for "wives obey your husbands" different than the word used in "children obey your parents"?

 

Can you give me the verse "wives obey your husbands"?

 

Whether or not the word is the same, you have to look at the Bible in context. The pictures and descriptions of marriage are far different from the pictures and descriptions of a parent/child relationship.

[Renee in NC]

Can you give me the verse "wives obey your husbands"?

 

Whether or not the word is the same, you have to look at the Bible in context. The pictures and descriptions of marriage are far different from the pictures and descriptions of a parent/child relationship.

 

Titus 2:4-5

 

The other one I was thinking of actually says subjection.

 

What do you mean about look at the Bible in context? It would be helpful if you could direct me to some of those pictures and descriptions of the marriage relationship and the pictures/descriptions of the parent/child relationship.

 

I am not a Bible literalist, but trying to figure out how so many people can read the same verses and get so many different meanings and they all be from God, KWIM?

[Impish]

So, for those of us that said our dhs did become a better husband and father, because we started submitted, our husbands are what?

 

My husband is an incredible, decent man. He's always been incredible and decent. Letting him head our house, instead of having to juggle who's in charge of what, when has made a great change in his life. He's relied on to lead. It's made him more discerning, more careful, more caring, and MUCH more involved.

 

That doesn't mean he wasn't a man to begin with. What a mean thing to say, especially after pages of responses wherein women said that their husband's were better men. It makes it awefully tempting to wonder what kind of man can't lead his house, or what shrew wouldn't let him. However, I've no doubt there's reasons behind everyone's own way of living their lives. I've no doubt that there are plenty of good guys that don't lead, that aren't the heads of their households and plenty of good women that refuse to submit.

 

That was just really rude.

:iagree:I don't see how oppression is an issue. Just as wives are to submit, the husband is commanded to love her as Christ loved the church. Being oppressed is NOT a part of my marriage, and I've already stated how being submissive, acknowledging my husband as the head of the household has blessed our marriage.

 

Just as I don't insult others that believe differently, I'd really appreciate not being insulted, or my husband.

[Sasha]

I am no Biblical scholar, although I've read it several times (although it's been a few years). I would think that it would be difficult to take it in context, however, because it seems like it was somewhat inconsistent. In the OT there are mentions of polygamous marriages which I doubt people want nowadays.

 

I think it might well come down to the wording of the original text, which is an entirely different debate altogether.

[LisaKinVA]

Titus 2:4-5

 

The other one I was thinking of actually says subjection.

 

What do you mean about look at the Bible in context? It would be helpful if you could direct me to some of those pictures and descriptions of the marriage relationship and the pictures/descriptions of the parent/child relationship.

 

I am not a Bible literalist, but trying to figure out how so many people can read the same verses and get so many different meanings and they all be from God, KWIM?

 

In context would be in the context of the entirety of scripture. For example, many people in the Patriarchal/Wife-only submission faction of fundamentalist churches, they will build a "solid" scriptural base for their interpretation. They use parts of Proverbs 31... the parts that say "she runs her household" and then say this shows that all of the woman's business dealings are within the household (she can sell her home goods, for example). BUT, they then ADD "with her husband's approval" (which many people just accept, because the man is the family authority) conveniently disregard the portions which show she actually acted independent of the man. This takes the scriptures OUT of context.

 

Additionaly anyone who takes the message of the Bible out of its historical and cultural context ALSO takes the scripture out of context.

 

Just like scientists who skew the results of models or research to support the conclusions they wish, They use the scriptures which "on their face" support their position.

 

The verse which says, "Let the women be silent in the church" does not MEAN women are to keep their mouths shut, can't ask questions, etc. It is actually a specific reference to a specific group, during a specific time.

 

In that particular church, the women did not speak Greek. They spoke Aramaic. The teaching was done in GREEK. They didn't understand what was being said. The women were being disruptive because they were chatting amongst themselves, or asking questions during the message.

 

This passage was directed to answer that problem. The women were not to chit-chat, or ask questions, and be disruptive. They were to be quiet, and after the teaching, then they can ask their husbands what was said.

 

Yet, much like the submission verses, this verse is now being stripped of its TRUE meaning and instead used as a hammer to prevent women from teaching Sunday School, ask questions during a mixed-gender Bible Study or Sunday School, etc.

 

And... people accept it, because that's what the Bible "says" in a literal, but NOT contextual reading of scripture.

 

The funny thing is, many of these SAME people will argue heart and soul that the language and context of the U.S. Constitution must be understood in it's historical and cultural meaning of the 18th century (since the meaning of words changes over time). BUT, they refuse to hold to this same logic when interpreting the scriptures.

 

But, I should stay away from politics :lol:

 

Anyhow... hope this helps a bit.