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

[Renee in NC]

Thanks, Lisa. I agree with most of what you said, but I don't think it would convince anyone who holds to a literal meaning (word for word.)

 

And just for the record, my marriage looks like (now) what a lot of others have posted about how their submissive marriage works, but it is very different than what is being pushed in the patriarchy movement.

 

The common refrain in those groups are that if the husband is not doing the right things - treating his wife well, providing for his family, etc. - it is because she isn't being submissive enough. If *she* would do what the Bible tells her then her husband will "change" into a better man. That is the paradigm I answered from when I read the original question that started the thread!

[hornblower]

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.

 

:iagree: You have made some very good points in this thread.

Technically I don't have a dog in this race. We're not Christian. We don't believe in this type of marriage or relationship. We are equals in our marriage. Anything else is distasteful to me.

 

I have read carefully the descriptions of some of your marriages & certainly it sounds like many of you are happy & have observed happiness in your spouse. I'm glad for you on a personal level.

 

But as a woman and mother and a feminist, I find this deeply concerning. And in answer to a previous pp's Q, I'm an equal-opportunity basher & I have huge problems with any faith or philosophy which puts men above women. I don't see this as an attack against Christianity per se.

[LisaKinVA]

As I was taking my shower, I was playing through so much of this thread. And, I recalled perhaps the most beautiful description of the husband/wife relationship I have read.

 

It is based upon... "The man is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the body..."

 

The way this is interpreted by many is a "head-tail" relationship, but that would be the wrong meaning. A tail is of little importance to the head.

 

The man(head) is to Christ as wife is to body.

 

Can the head exist without the body? No. Cut the head from the body and the head dies. Can the body exist without the head? No.

 

The head and the body have different functions -- but they are completely dependent upon one another. Neither is superior to the other.

[LisaKinVA]

Thanks, Lisa. I agree with most of what you said, but I don't think it would convince anyone who holds to a literal meaning (word for word.)

 

And just for the record, my marriage looks like (now) what a lot of others have posted about how their submissive marriage works, but it is very different than what is being pushed in the patriarchy movement.

 

The common refrain in those groups are that if the husband is not doing the right things - treating his wife well, providing for his family, etc. - it is because she isn't being submissive enough. If *she* would do what the Bible tells her then her husband will "change" into a better man. That is the paradigm I answered from when I read the original question that started the thread!

 

And that would be because the men in this movement have convinced themselves that (a) they are right and (b) they have no need to listen to a woman, because she is, well... a woman. The women ... out of fear, deception, etc. would also not agree... because they would be going against their husbands.

 

My older brother is a prime example of this.

[freetobeme]

As I was taking my shower, I was playing through so much of this thread. And, I recalled perhaps the most beautiful description of the husband/wife relationship I have read.

 

It is based upon... "The man is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the body..."

 

The way this is interpreted by many is a "head-tail" relationship, but that would be the wrong meaning. A tail is of little importance to the head.

 

The man(head) is to Christ as wife is to body.

 

Can the head exist without the body? No. Cut the head from the body and the head dies. Can the body exist without the head? No.

 

The head and the body have different functions -- but they are completely dependent upon one another. Neither is superior to the other.

 

yep, that really is beautiful. thanks for sharing!

[OnTheBrink]

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.

 

I am the chairwoman of our deaconess board. My job is to delegate duties, oversee that they're done, come alongside any of the deaconesses who needs help, and answer to the elder board. If a deaconess rebels (for want of a better word) against my leadership, SHE has to answer to the elder board. Does this make me an oppressor, because it's the same sort of relationship model.

 

Submissive ≠ subservient, subordinate, or doormat.

[Crimson Wife]

TMy 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.

 

I do not consider myself "under the authority" of my DH. I am under God's authority not any man's. My DH is head of our household but he's not "the boss" of me. It's like a football team. The quarterback is not "the boss" of the other players but his role is to make decisions and direct the other players. Have you EVER heard of a football team with multiple QB's (not talking about backup ones but actually out on the field)?

[hornblower]

The quarterback is not "the boss" of the other players but his role is to make decisions and direct the other players. Have you EVER heard of a football team with multiple QB's (not talking about backup ones but actually out on the field)?

 

Even IF it was true that in marriage you needed one decision maker & 'director of the the other players' why should the man get that job?

 

Why not the wife?

 

(I'm finding it hard to discuss this because the word marriage as it's being used in this thread presumes so implicitly a man-woman marriage & leaves out gay couples...... but anyway.)

Edited November 18, 2009 by hornblower
I apparently can't punctuate today.

[Lovedtodeath]

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.

Well, Jesus was speaking to specific people about adultery in their case, and he was talking about the HUSBAND seeking divorce... I very much doubt that the Israelite husbands were forced into a divorce by abusive wives that threatened their life or mental health.

 

I think, personally, that the way divorce is interpeted is too legalistic. I would think that with everything else, we could look at the principle (don't enter divorce lightly) behind it instead of making it into a rule. I can probably get into trouble by saying so. I am questioning whether this is a "time to speak".

[Joanne]

What I think is missing from this conversation:

 

1) A person can be a saved, Bible believing Christian and not embrace wife-only submission or the understanding of the scriptures used to support this model.

 

2) A person who doesn't embrace wife only submission can understand that many (or maybe even most) families who *do* embrace a wife-only perspective are NOT operating with the husband limiting discussion, input, micro-managing or making arbitrary decisions.

 

3) A person who is in category #2 can know that wife-only submission is not necessarily a climate of male dominance and can "look" quite equal, cooperative and mutual....and they can still believe it is not Biblical, healthy or God's design for marriage to have one gender designated ultimately as The Leader with the expectation of the wife submitting.

 

I do not believe in power, leadership, "final say" based on gender; I do not believe it serves my marriage, children or God for me to be expected to submit to my husand and he not be expected also to submit to me.

[Lovedtodeath]

But as a woman and mother and a feminist, I find this deeply concerning. And in answer to a previous pp's Q, I'm an equal-opportunity basher & I have huge problems with any faith or philosophy which puts men above women. I don't see this as an attack against Christianity per se.

On the contrary, women will be corulers with Christ. Ruling over men that are on the earth from the heavenly kingdom. It isn't about men being better. It is about different roles/responsibilities within certain arrangements (family, congregation).

[Lovedtodeath]

And that would be because the men in this movement have convinced themselves that (a) they are right and (b) they have no need to listen to a woman, because she is, well... a woman. The women ... out of fear, deception, etc. would also not agree... because they would be going against their husbands.

All one has to do is take examples from the Bible as a whole and see that the thinking is in error. There are several times that God directed husbands and others to listen to the women and/or their wives.

 

Even IF it was true that in marriage you needed one decision maker & 'director of the the other players' why should the man get that job?

 

Why not the wife?

You cannot come to an understanding of this as an atheist. God created us and as the creator he is qualified to right an "instruction manual". He knows our make up and it simply works out better for the man to have this role. I know of many, many marriages where the wife is the head of the family and I know of none of them that are happy about it. Edited November 18, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[WishboneDawn]

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.

 

The problem is that there is no original text. The Bible a) is a collection of texts, not one cohesive book and B) there are no originals of any of the texts in the Bible. Even our earliest texts are copies of copies.

 

I agree about marriage in the Bible though. It's a very inconsistent view which is inevitable considering the ages and cultures it spans. And although it seemed to go mostly ignored I was quite serious about Paul's advice not to get married unless you can't control your lustfullness. Why pick out and hold up submission as a great virtue and sweep his rather disdainful view of marriage under the carpet? Where IS the great movement to dissuade young Christians from marriage completely?

 

Is the justification for submission is biblical, what is the justification for ignoring equally biblical advice?

[Crimson Wife]

Even IF it was true that in marriage you needed one decision maker & 'director of the the other players' why should the man get that job?

 

Why not the wife?

 

Because God created men and women to be different. They are both equal in His eyes but not identical. God created the male body to have a higher level of testosterone, the hormone linked to aggressive behaviors, and the female body to have higher levels of hormones linked to nurturing behaviors. This gives men advantages in the business world and women advantages in the domestic sphere. Now I don't personally have a problem with women pursuing careers and men being SAHD's if that's what they truly desire. But I also believe that if God had intended men and women to play the exact same roles, He would not have created these kinds of biological differences.

[LisaKinVA]

All one has to do is take examples from the Bible as a whole and see that the thinking is in error. There are several times that God directed husbands and others to listen to the women.

 

However, they have rationales against that as well. Because these passages are Bible Stories... not actually "scripture."

 

With about half of the Bible written as a story... that leaves a lot out, don't you think?

 

In these cases, they have deceived themselves. Many of these pastors have not studied, some have been defrocked, or have left major denominations to avoid discipline.

[WishboneDawn]

What I think is missing from this conversation...

 

Also, a challenge of the idea that the Bible is an instruction manual from which we pick out unarguable orders in the form of scripture quotes. Or that God's Word is the Bible.

 

Luther for one saw Jesus as the Word and the Bible as the witness to the Word, NOT the Word itself. This tradition of the Bible of literally God's Word is new (with the advent of fundamentalism in the 1800s), not deeply historical and some might argue, usurps Jesus as the Word.

 

There's a world of discussion just begging to happen around this topic.:)

[hornblower]

You cannot come to an understanding of this as an atheist.

 

LOL. Yes, I'm an atheist with a happy, equal marriage.

 

I don't see any advantages to the marriage models proposed here & yes, since they presuppose a belief in a deity and following the rules written by some man in an old book, I guess I'll never 'get it'.

[Joanne]

Because God created men and women to be different. They are both equal in His eyes but not identical. God created the male body to have a higher level of testosterone, the hormone linked to aggressive behaviors, and the female body to have higher levels of hormones linked to nurturing behaviors. This gives men advantages in the business world and women advantages in the domestic sphere. Now I don't personally have a problem with women pursuing careers and men being SAHD's if that's what they truly desire. But I also believe that if God had intended men and women to play the exact same roles, He would not have created these kinds of biological differences.

 

The bolded part makes me feel like a raging, radical feminist.

 

I do not personally believe that our physiological differences have any "advantages" at home or in the business world.

[WishboneDawn]

Because God created men and women to be different. They are both equal in His eyes but not identical. God created the male body to have a higher level of testosterone, the hormone linked to aggressive behaviors, and the female body to have higher levels of hormones linked to nurturing behaviors. This gives men advantages in the business world and women advantages in the domestic sphere. Now I don't personally have a problem with women pursuing careers and men being SAHD's if that's what they truly desire. But I also believe that if God had intended men and women to play the exact same roles, He would not have created these kinds of biological differences.

 

Not quite. What you've said is true generally. Men generally have more testosterone. The average man has more then the average women (and who of us here represents a perfectly average construct of our gender?). When it comes to individuals however, that's often not the case. There's often more variation between two women or two men then between a given women and a given man. There are many women out there producing more testosterone then many men and vice versa.

 

If you're assertion is to hold water I have to believe creation was a rather half-done affair and God wasn't paying all that much attention.

[hornblower]

Because God created men and women to be different.

 

Hm. Well as an atheist that statement is meaningless to me.

 

I am familiar with some religious leaders' thoughts about women:

 

"For who can deny that it is repugnant to nature that the blind shall be apointed to lead and conduct such as do see, that the weak, the sick and the impotent shall nourish and keep the whole and the strong, and finally, that the foolish, mad and frenetic shall govern the discrete and give counsel to such as be sober of mind? And such be all women compared to men in bearing of authority." John Knox.

 

"How can woman be the image of God, seeing that she is subject to man and has no authority, neither to teach, nor to be witness, nor to judge, much less to rule or bear empire?" Saint Augustine

 

Not inspiring stuff for me. (And no, neither is the original document.)

 

Generations of women have fought SO hard for our rights. The right to property. To access education. To vote. To be recognized as persons.

 

The equal but different statements do not ease my mind. The moment you say "but"....you open the door to repression, to tyranny, to killing, to stoning, to second class status. This is the danger to our society, to our daughters. There are countries where the glib phrases that women are treasures, women have important, exalted - even holy! - roles, are combined with bans on women voting, on driving, on walking down the street; because those are men's things, you know? Men are different. It's their realm.

 

Oh we're far off from that, here in our suburbs with our freedoms. Or are we?

[Crimson Wife]

I do not personally believe that our physiological differences have any "advantages" at home or in the business world.

 

You can choose not to believe it, but research has found evidence that this is true. Here are a few examples:

"In a study by scientists from the University of Cambridge, male City traders who had been exposed to high levels of testosterone in the womb were on average six times more profitable than those exposed to low levels of the hormone....In a separate Cambridge study last April, traders with high morning testosterone levels recorded higher profits for the rest of that day than they did on days when their circulating testosterone level was low." [Time magazine article]

"Those who had higher levels of testosterone and related hormones had a personality profile that researchers described as 'dominant with some aggressive behavior'...Other studies, Dr. McKinlay noted, have found that men high in the trait of social dominance tend to rise to positions of leadership in business and other organizations." [New York Times article]

[Joanne]

You can choose not to believe it, but research has found evidence that this is true. Here are a few examples:

"In a study by scientists from the University of Cambridge, male City traders who had been exposed to high levels of testosterone in the womb were on average six times more profitable than those exposed to low levels of the hormone....In a separate Cambridge study last April, traders with high morning testosterone levels recorded higher profits for the rest of that day than they did on days when their circulating testosterone level was low." [Time magazine article]

"Those who had higher levels of testosterone and related hormones had a personality profile that researchers described as 'dominant with some aggressive behavior'...Other studies, Dr. McKinlay noted, have found that men high in the trait of social dominance tend to rise to positions of leadership in business and other organizations." [New York Times article]

 

I pass on this conversation.

 

NOTHING about testosterone = better in the business world and nothing about estrogen = better @ home.

 

"Studies" are easily created, published, reported and that includes poorly designed, poorly constructed studies with multiple confounds of data.

I did a "study" for an exam this term that was publishable. While I was honored, it made me immediately suspect of "studies". Don't trust info based on authority or tenacity.

[angela in ohio]

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.

 

Nope. I follow Biblical sumbission, and my dd will go to college, as will almost every other young woman in my church,which teaches and preaches submission. As a matter of fact, Mrs. Doug Wilson spoke at our church and said dd should go to college. Most in the PCA (and Reformed circles in general) have very educated dds.

 

Just because two beliefs overlap in some people, that doesn't mean they always do.

[WishboneDawn]

The bolded part makes me feel like a raging, radical feminist.

 

I do not personally believe that our physiological differences have any "advantages" at home or in the business world.

 

Indeed, that's an assertion that needs some support. Where's the research to support that belief Crimson Wife? If you're going to start using science then you'll have to play by those rules.

[Greta]

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.

 

I can't help but note that my Bible translations do not in fact say that "adultery" is grounds for divorce; rather that "sexual immorality" or "sexual sin" is the grounds for divorce. So while I certainly, wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion, I don't think that we even need argue that molestation, rape, or sexual abuse are forms of "adultery" in order to justify divorce in those cases. I think, jmho, that the Bible has it covered, and that the Pearls are full of bull.

[Sputterduck]

Not quite. What you've said is true generally. Men generally have more testosterone. The average man has more then the average women (and who of us here represents a perfectly average construct of our gender?). When it comes to individuals however, that's often not the case.

 

Actually...

 

"When puberty first hits, testosterone levels in women raise gradually, maybe to 40 or 50 ng/dl by age 15. By age 20, normal testosterone levels for women are around 70 ng/dl."

 

"The typical male testosterone level is between 250ng/dl to 850 ng/dl. In a 45 year old man normal testosterone levels are around 600 ng/dl."

 

Testosterone levels in men and women are so vastly far apart that it would be extreme for one sex to approach the levels of the other sex and if it were to happen there would be rather evident physical changes and medical issues. It's not just that the "average" is higher in a man or that with variation you see some women with more than men some men with less than women. The levels are truly vastly different.

 

None of that has anything to do with my opinion on this subject though. I guess I'm just being picky. Testosterone levels aside, it breaks my heart knowing that there are other women out there submitting to scary men who can't break free because they are scared that God will be upset with them. BTDT, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. I think sometimes people don't realize the effect their strong comments on this issue can have on women struggling to get out of a dangerous situation. I can see that some people are happy with their submissive marriage when their husband is genuinely a nice guy. I just worry about those who are not married to good men.

[Crimson Wife]

Generations of women have fought SO hard for our rights. The right to property. To access education. To vote. To be recognized as persons.

 

The equal but different statements do not ease my mind. The moment you say "but"....you open the door to repression, to tyranny, to killing, to stoning, to second class status.

 

Aside from a few members of the Dominionist fringe, I don't hear anybody advocating those things. Just because my DH is the head of our household doesn't make me inferior. I certainly don't support any attempt to deny women the right to an education, to vote, to own property, to work outside the home if that's what they wish, etc. I also support laws against marital rape and domestic abuse, and allowing legal separation/divorce under certain circumstances (abuse being one of them). I feel confident in saying that the overwhelming majority of Christians agree with me. Those who don't may get a lot of press, but that doesn't mean they are anything more than a tiny fraction of the 228 million American Christians...

[WishboneDawn]

You can choose not to believe it, but research has found evidence that this is true. Here are a few examples:

"In a study by scientists from the University of Cambridge, male City traders who had been exposed to high levels of testosterone in the womb were on average six times more profitable than those exposed to low levels of the hormone....In a separate Cambridge study last April, traders with high morning testosterone levels recorded higher profits for the rest of that day than they did on days when their circulating testosterone level was low." [Time magazine article]

 

Again, generally true and applicable only to one profession.

"Those who had higher levels of testosterone and related hormones had a personality profile that researchers described as 'dominant with some aggressive behavior'...Other studies, Dr. McKinlay noted, have found that men high in the trait of social dominance tend to rise to positions of leadership in business and other organizations." [New York Times article]

 

This says nothing about how men are better at business then women, simply that some attributes can cause some men to rise through the culture to positions of leadership. It says agressive people rise, that's a different thing from saying talented, skilled and/or capable people rise.

 

Nevermind that business is not one easy and simple skill or ability or pursuit. It's a very diverse arena and the person who's a successful day trader may make a horrid factory manager or vice versa.

Edited November 18, 2009 by WishboneDawn

[OnTheBrink]

I want to address the abuse issue. The Bible never addresses it specifically. There is no "Thou shalt accept abuse from thy husband, sucketh it up, princess."

 

I belong to a pretty conservative, fundamental church. There is no way on God's green earth would my pastor advocate, encourage, or even allow (within whatever capacity he could) a woman to remain in a home that's unsafe for her or her children. I know this for a fact, as he put me and my kids up in a hotel for a week when my EX went off the deep end. I know he's helped other women in my church with the same sort of thing.

 

I'm starting to think, however, from reading this thread and PM's I've gotten, that my church is not the norm. This makes me sad, to think false gospels and deceit is rampant. I mean, I knew "church abuse" existed, but I truly thought it was the exception.

[Lovedtodeath]

The problem is that there is no original text. The Bible a) is a collection of texts, not one cohesive book and B) there are no originals of any of the texts in the Bible. Even our earliest texts are copies of copies.

 

I agree about marriage in the Bible though. It's a very inconsistent view which is inevitable considering the ages and cultures it spans. And although it seemed to go mostly ignored I was quite serious about Paul's advice not to get married unless you can't control your lustfullness. Why pick out and hold up submission as a great virtue and sweep his rather disdainful view of marriage under the carpet? Where IS the great movement to dissuade young Christians from marriage completely?

 

Is the justification for submission is biblical, what is the justification for ignoring equally biblical advice?

Well Dawn, the Bible also says that the vast majority of religions in this world are false, that Satan makes himself into an angel of light, that there are groups of people with a form of godly devotion that is false, that followers of Christ that claim to have performed miraculous acts with holy spirit will be rejected by Jesus...

 

I don't think the view is inconsistent. Sarah was a woman of God, beloved and chosen for a special privilege. She thought of her husband as "my lord" in prayer, but she certainly let her opinion be known. Rebecca was a godly woman who was willing to serve someone and consent to an arranged marriage. She stood up to Isaac when he was wrong. There are plenty of examples of Jesus bestowing special privileges on women. There are basic rules of structure set forth in the scriptures for the congregation and the family. They do not mean that one is higher than the other.

 

How about the part of the scripture that says that the head of the Christ is God? Most Christian religions ignore that part too.

[Lovedtodeath]

I want to address the abuse issue. The Bible never addresses it specifically. There is no "Thou shalt accept abuse from thy husband, sucketh it up, princess."

Exactly! It does say that if an unbeliever chooses to depart, let them... but I feel that is a far cry from allowing abuse.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Nope. I follow Biblical sumbission, and my dd will go to college, as will almost every other young woman in my church,which teaches and preaches submission. As a matter of fact, Mrs. Doug Wilson spoke at our church and said dd should go to college. Most in the PCA (and Reformed circles in general) have very educated dds.

 

Just because two beliefs overlap in some people, that doesn't mean they always do.

 

 

ACK! Does this woman not even have her own name anymore?!

[Sputterduck]

I want to address the abuse issue. The Bible never addresses it specifically. There is no "Thou shalt accept abuse from thy husband, sucketh it up, princess."

 

I belong to a pretty conservative, fundamental church. There is no way on God's green earth would my pastor advocate, encourage, or even allow (within whatever capacity he could) a woman to remain in a home that's unsafe for her or her children. I know this for a fact, as he put me and my kids up in a hotel for a week when my EX went off the deep end. I know he's helped other women in my church with the same sort of thing.

 

I'm starting to think, however, from reading this thread and PM's I've gotten, that my church is not the norm. This makes me sad, to think false gospels and deceit is rampant. I mean, I knew "church abuse" existed, but I truly thought it was the exception.

 

I got a call from my pastor asking if I still believed in Jesus. My exh still plays in the church band last I heard.

[Holly IN]

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!

 

DITTO!!!!

 

That is exactly what we do....

 

We have mutual submission and view our marriage as 100% on my part and 100% on his.

 

We are still in love after 18 years of marriage.

 

Holly

[Rosie_0801]

How do you know which model of submission is true?

 

Presumably it's the one both partners can exist in and still like each other and themselves.

 

(I'm finding it hard to discuss this because the word marriage as it's being used in this thread presumes so implicitly a man-woman marriage & leaves out gay couples...... but anyway.)

 

Well a biblical marriage is man-woman. I've no idea how gay Christian couples conduct their relationships. Presumably whoever cares most about an issue gets final say, which is how most people I know work.

 

ACK! Does this woman [Mrs Doug] not even have her own name anymore?!

 

Yeah, it seems she's decided her name is Mrs Doug Wilson. I don't suppose she'd answer to it if she didn't want to. While I wouldn't go by Mrs Richard Surname even if I was married, what's it to me if someone else does? I can think she's odd in the privacy of my own thoughts, but really, telling someone they can't choose to answer to Mrs Husband'sname is just as bad as saying someone must.

 

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.

 

I'm a pagan and we still function better if we're living a "biblical" style marriage with the healthy version of submission such as I think Joanne and Ronette are talking about. Why? A couple of reasons, actually.

 

Firstly, dh would be the "head of household" because he's the breadwinner. Ultimately, if we were to reach complete stalemate, he's got that one over me. There is something to be said for money and having it gives him power, even though he doesn't look at it that way. While I can't imagine him using that power, when push comes to shove, if he felt strongly enough about an issue that no amount of persuasion on my part would budge him, I'd either have to buckle or leave him. He finances my life, after all. If it's not something I feel strongly enough about to leave, then buckle is the choice I'd have to take. Now, dh is not a big beastie who waves his paycheck under my nose and lords it over me. If I was so distressed about something that I'd leave before I'd let him have his own way, then, well, we wouldn't have even got to that point because he's a nice man and rather likes having me around. We would be talking through the issue to find some common ground to work with. So, as you see, that part of the issue is based more on hypothetical situations than reality.

 

Now for reality :) He is a more laid back kind of guy, which is great a lot of the time. Some of the time it sucks. He had a bossy mother who unintentionally trained him to give in to bossy women to keep the peace. This is an issue, because he picked a bossy missus and she doesn't like having a bloke around who reacts to her as though she's his mum. That really brings out her bad side, because if you have someone around who reacts to you as though they are a child, you find yourself treating them like one, even if you'd rather not. It's a difficult circle to break. It's much better for all of us if he acts as though he's the confident head of household who can do what needs to be done, then I can relax and do what I need to do. I know Mr Confident is in there. If I'd seen no evidence, I wouldn't have dated him in the first place! Unfortunately his earlier training makes him behave like Junior Yes Maám by default, which means he's disconnected most of his brain and isn't listening and won't remember anything either of us have said anyway.

 

Anyway, we've only been together for 7 years, we've got another 40 years to practise. I bet by our 21st anniversary we'll have figured out a better way to reset the pattern than by me crying about it. For now though, crying is the only thing that penetrates the Junior Yes Maám mentality.

 

Anyway, while this looks like dh is on a higher level than me, it's not quite like that. He has a large chunk of power from being the breadwinner and another large chunk because, as I wrote in that second paragraph, our personalities function better that way. I don't have an income, so no monetary power. That personality power issue is mine, really. I give that to him because it is better for both of us, and he would never take it himself. I also have have other chunks of power. I raise his kids! That gives me a level of knowledge he doesn't have about the two little people he cares most about in the world, because I'm with them all the time. I, as I've said, am bossier. I have power by strength of personality. I have power related to health and relationship maintenance because I am the one who researches those areas. He doesn't always agree with my conclusions in these areas, and while he could say "NO!" he is a reasonable person. I'm not going to accept/ submit to a "NO" that is based on less information I have, so if I ask him to read the material I have read, he does. Most of the time, his disagreement turns to a reluctant agreement, and when it doesn't, he provides thoughtful criticisms of my current theories and I dig into more research. Why me? I like research and consider it part of my job. Plus, if I don't, I'm not going to be able to convince him of anything :D Basically, those bits of power I have add up to a rather large chunk and at the end of the day, I'm a housekeeper, not a slave. Around here, the head of household role does not equal authority. Dh is definitely not an authority over me. But I guess authority is a biblical thing we're not into. Most of the time I'm an authority over him because I'm the one who does the research and is more informed on the subject under discussion.

 

 

Rosie- figuring it's a good thing the average life expectancy is in the upper 70's because we'll probably need that long to get the hang of it all.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Yes, what Holly said is what I am talking about: 100/100 % not 50/50.

 

These threads always tend to make my heart hurt. I told a therapist friend about it after the last submission thread. She said,"why do you bother?" I envision a better world in which women are not made to feel like they are lower than men. (however you wish to define that: different roles, etc, he is still the one in charge!)

 

 

I grew up in this lifestyle. It's not that I don't understand all the arguments and what some consider "the subtle nuances" ("different roles", etc.) I grew up hearing it, but it always hurt my heart back then, too. Even as a kid I believed in women's rights and balked at females not having as much power as males. (not having the final say means, in my book, not having as much power.)

 

ETA: Of course a woman can decide to be called "Mrs. Doug Wilson". To me, it is symptomatic of a much larger problem, though. I had had people addresss me as "Mrs. Edward VonFinkleschtein" and I let them know that I didn't lose my first name, too when I got married! My first name is STILL Cyndi, thankyouverymuch! (And, yes, I regret DEEPLY taking my husband's last name!)

Edited November 18, 2009 by ThatCyndiGirl

[CAMom]

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?

 

By the Bible in context...I think Lisa did a pretty good job.:) It simply means that you can not take one verse or one passage and create a theology around it. You have to look at the context of the whole counsel of Scripture. What does it say about the same subject in other places? What is the historical context of the passage. To whom was it originally written and for what reason, etc.

 

As for the pictures of relationships:

 

The first marriage--Eve was created to be a helper for Adam. The two became one flesh. Neither of these two things are applied to a parent/child relationship.

 

Seeking a wife as counseled by Prov. 31--the heart of her husband safely trusts her so that he will have no lack of gain. This is something unique to the husband/wife relationship and does not apply to children.

 

The Song of Songs--definitely a picture of marriage that is nothing even remotely close to a parent/child relationship.;)

 

Of course, the ultimate example is Christ and the church--our earthly marriages are to model that example.

 

Children--the Proverbs talk about listening and adhering to the teachings and instructions of your mother and father.

 

Parents are instructed to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

 

Does that clarify what I was saying at all?

[CAMom]

 

These threads always tend to make my heart hurt. I told a therapist friend about it after the last submission thread. She said,"why do you bother?" I envision a better world in which women are not made to feel like they are lower than men. (however you wish to define that: different roles, etc, he is still the one in charge!)

 

 

I grew up in this lifestyle. It's not that I don't understand all the arguments and what some consider "the subtle nuances" ("different roles", etc.) I grew up hearing it, but it always hurt my heart back then, too. Even as a kid I believed in women's rights and balked at females not having as much power as males. (not having the final say means, in my book, not having as much power.)

 

 

 

:grouphug: Cyndi. I really do see how experience can affect how we filter and see this topic.

 

All I can say is that I am not "lower" than my husband. We are co-heirs with Christ. I am so incredibly thankful that I have such an amazing husband who cares for and nurtures me because he wants to see me grow.

 

I do understand that there are those who are extreme and take submission to an evil end and that hurts my heart. I hate that there are women who feel they have to subject themselves to that. I also hate that it colors how others would characterize my own marriage.

 

My mom is a dyed in the wool feminist. She despises anything that even hints at any sort of inequality. She almost choked when she heard parts of my wedding vows and could not believe that her daughter had become a "Jesus freak and was going to live in a house with a man in charge." However, my dh and I have been married for 20 years and even my feminist mom would tell you that it turned out to be nothing like what she thought it would be. She sees my husband as he is: gentle, respectful, respectable, loving, attentive to my every need, etc. She freely admits that our marriage is amazing and that it is a joy to see how our family operates.

 

I admit to feeling like your therapist friend suggests: Why do I even bother? People are going to continue to see my marriage as archaic and bondage inducing to women everywhere taking them back to the dark ages when they could not vote, own property, etc. Sigh...:grouphug:

[JenniferB]

I just want to set the record straight on the Help Meet book, and how it applies to my response to "yes" in this poll. It was mentioned by one poster, and agreed upon by others, that they cannot understand why anyone would read a book by the Pearls. Well, it was given to me by a good friend, so I read it. I can understand your POV about reading Created to be His Help Meet, if reading it requires you to do everything written in the book, but it does not. The way I approach a self help book, or a lifestyle book is with a grain of salt. I try to glean the good, and throw out the bad. I personally would not apply Titus 2:3-5 the way Debbie Pearl suggested with the repentant child molesting husband. That is the part of the book I throw out. There were probably more parts that I threw out, but all in all God working in me through the reading of that book gave me a new perspective on my role as a wife. The main lesson I learned as taken from the Scriptures in the book of Genesis, was that God created Eve to be Adam's helper. This is symbolism that we can apply to the family structure. It doesn't apply to everyone, of course, because some husbands are horrible, or they leave, or a woman might not marry, and the list of exceptions goes on and on. But, in general, this picture of the man with his wife by his side as his helper is God's general plan for a family structure. That being the main point, the application for me was that I started to support my husband's ideas and goals instead of pitching mine. I gave my husband tons of freedom to pursue what he wanted (aviation). I trusted him to take over the finances. The examples in our family are not to the extreme at all, as some were suggested in Debbie Pearl's book. So, to set the record straight, I can read a radical book, and get a good jolt in the right direction out of it, without being tainted by the extreme suggestions. I trust that there are many others who can as well. :D

[hornblower]

 

We have mutual submission and view our marriage as 100% on my part and 100% on his.

 

We are still in love after 18 years of marriage.

 

Holly

 

We have an equal marriage and have been married for 18 years. We lived together for 2 years before that & dated for 4 more prior to that.

[Crimson Wife]

There is something to be said for money and having it gives him power, even though he doesn't look at it that way. While I can't imagine him using that power, when push comes to shove, if he felt strongly enough about an issue that no amount of persuasion on my part would budge him, I'd either have to buckle or leave him. He finances my life, after all.

 

Anyway, while this looks like dh is on a higher level than me, it's not quite like that. He has a large chunk of power from being the breadwinner and another large chunk because, as I wrote in that second paragraph, our personalities function better that way. I don't have an income, so no monetary power.

 

In a business, there are two ways an individual can help the bottom line. That person can either bring in revenue or save the company money. In a single-income family, the breadwinner brings in the revenue and the homemaker saves the family money. It would costs quite a lot of money to hire someone else to take care of the kids, cook, clean, run errands, etc. A recent estimate put the monetary value of the services provided by a homemaker at $138,095.

 

Don't sell yourself short! :)

[Rosie_0801]

In a business, there are two ways an individual can help the bottom line. That person can either bring in revenue or save the company money. In a single-income family, the breadwinner brings in the revenue and the homemaker saves the family money. It would costs quite a lot of money to hire someone else to take care of the kids, cook, clean, run errands, etc. A recent estimate put the monetary value of the services provided by a homemaker at $138,095.

 

Don't sell yourself short! :)

 

Oh I know! I'm not selling myself short, didn't you read the list of my non-financial accomplishments? Hehheh <Rosie blowing her own trumpet> (Why isn't there a trumpet blowing smilie?) I was talking about money in the context of discord rather than partnership, that's all. The power to save money isn't much compared to the power to earn it. Imagine that? "Ãf you don't put your socks away, I'm going to leave all the lights on and you'll have to pay the bill, so ner." That's a pretty weak threat, isn't it? Hehhe. (Just in case anyone is feeling serious minded this morning, we don't behave like that, I'm being goofy.)

 

Rosie- wishing she had the ~power~ to keep her kitchen benches and lounge room floor clean at the same time, but alas, she does not. She will, however, exercise her ~power~ to stick a Red Dwarf vid on, wash dishes and get started on that quilt (mmm, fabric) while dh is out with the kids. Hoo roo!

Edited November 18, 2009 by Rosie_0801

[Ginevra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by coffeefreak

 

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!

 

ITA, CA Mom! I do personally know of a man who became a better husband, (mine) but he was NOT any of these things, coffeefreak, that you're now, lo these many pages, defining!

 

What I've been thinking was strange, coffeefreak, now becomes more clear. You put up a poll asking what seemed to me a straightforward question and the poll results were pretty straightforward as well. It's been neck-and-neck between people who say, "Yes, personally" and "No, evil myth", and that's without even factoring in "it could happen" responses. I kept wondering why you didn't seem to accept the results of your own poll. In one place, you wrote that you were curious about those for whom it seems to "work".

 

I think that speaks to the fallacy. Submission is not a technique you do to shape up a donkey's-rear of a husband. Personally, I would rather never marry such a man to begin with, but that is a whole 'nother post. If my husband was, by some unfortunately and wretched mistake, a man like that, I would not "try" submission in the hopes that he will have an epiphany and turn into a wonderful dude.

 

Someone along this thread said "We train others in how to treat us" or something to that effect. I don't think that poster was in favor of wifely submission, but I completely and totally agree with that statement. I've seen it unfold constantly in situations from work to marriages to child-rearing. I do believe in submission as I understand it, but I would simply never, ever, ever allow myself to be treated inhumanely. (Again. I did that in my teens with a boyfriend and thankfully learned better.) I would never "train" my husband to treat me bad and then hope he decides to treat me better if I speak up less.

 

The examples I see again and again here as to what submission is presupposed to look like make me crazy. I used to take the animals to the vet when they need it; it made sense because I am the one at home. But when I was half-mauled by our German Shepherd because he really, really didn't want anything to do with that rectal thermomenter :lol:, I told dh, "I need for you to do vet from now on. I'm not strong enough to restrain him and he clawed me badly." So, that was that! I didn't, in my submission, mousily keep my bruises to myself and struggle with the dog at the vet ever after, silently seething that it hurts and it's unbearable. Same with plenty of other things I could list. If something needs addressing, we address it. Just because I believe in wifely submission doesn't mean I never say anything about a situation that isn't working for me.

 

Anyway...I think it is a horse of an entirely different color to ask if wifely submission changed an abusive, disorderly, slothful, unloving, scab of a man into a king versus just asking if a dh has changed "for the better" because of wifely submission.

[Impish]

Aside from a few members of the Dominionist fringe, I don't hear anybody advocating those things. Just because my DH is the head of our household doesn't make me inferior. I certainly don't support any attempt to deny women the right to an education, to vote, to own property, to work outside the home if that's what they wish, etc. I also support laws against marital rape and domestic abuse, and allowing legal separation/divorce under certain circumstances (abuse being one of them). I feel confident in saying that the overwhelming majority of Christians agree with me. Those who don't may get a lot of press, but that doesn't mean they are anything more than a tiny fraction of the 228 million American Christians...

:iagree:

Yes, what Holly said is what I am talking about: 100/100 % not 50/50.

 

These threads always tend to make my heart hurt. I told a therapist friend about it after the last submission thread. She said,"why do you bother?" I envision a better world in which women are not made to feel like they are lower than men. (however you wish to define that: different roles, etc, he is still the one in charge!)

 

 

I grew up in this lifestyle. It's not that I don't understand all the arguments and what some consider "the subtle nuances" ("different roles", etc.) I grew up hearing it, but it always hurt my heart back then, too. Even as a kid I believed in women's rights and balked at females not having as much power as males. (not having the final say means, in my book, not having as much power.)

 

ETA: Of course a woman can decide to be called "Mrs. Doug Wilson". To me, it is symptomatic of a much larger problem, though. I had had people addresss me as "Mrs. Edward VonFinkleschtein" and I let them know that I didn't lose my first name, too when I got married! My first name is STILL Cyndi, thankyouverymuch! (And, yes, I regret DEEPLY taking my husband's last name!)

I don't understand how being submissive in my marriage means that I'm against women's rights. It doesn't mean that I think that women should give up the right to vote, etc. As for power...ask anyone who knows me if they think I'm powerless...chances are, they'd be laughing so hard that they wouldn't be able to speak ;) And that includes my dh.

 

I think how someone prefers to be addressed is just that. Preference. I fail to see how its symptomatic of a problem. Then again, I was happy to take my husband's last name. I was proud of being his wife, and that's how I saw/see it. ;) That his last name is waaaaaaay easier to spell/pronounce was a bonus.

 

Men and women ARE different. I'll tell you, without hesitation, that in an emergency, I'd much rather have a male police officer, a male firefighter come to my aid than a female. First off, the only tangible difference in a female officer and I is a gun. A male has a greater chance (imo) in a physical confrontation. As for a fire fighter...I doubt a female would be able to drag my unconscious fat butt out. :lol:

[angela in ohio]

ACK! Does this woman not even have her own name anymore?!

 

She goes by Nancy Wilson in print, though I doubt she would blink at being called that. That was just a bit of a play on my part, to see if anyone was paying attention. ;)

 

I will happily go by Mrs. dh's name. I was actually kind of charmed when I got the service paperwork from our (very small town) water company, and it said, "The Mrs. called and scheduled an appt." :001_smile:

 

Luckily, we each get to choose what we are willing to be called. I respectfully refrain from calling my "hypenated" friends by Mrs.

[angela in ohio]

drag my unconscious fat butt out.

 

That has to win the WTM funniest phrase award for the year... :lol:

[Impish]

drag my unconscious fat butt out. :lol:

 

That has to win the WTM funniest phrase award for the year... :lol:

Why thank you! Its true though. I mean, I'm not Jabba the Hutt, but Barbie I aint either. And an unconscious person weighs more than a conscience person, I swear! I can lift my 4 yo when he's awake, and I have in a one armed hug. But if he's doing the 'completely boneless rag doll asleep', forget it!

[LisaNY]

This always drives me completely crazy. To me, this is not what submission is about! I submit to my husband. It doesn't look like this at all. I give my opinion - sometimes passionately. To me, my husband being the head of the family doesn't mean he's the only human in the family. Argh! I still tell him what I think is a good decision; I still freely point out what I think is a pitfall of a given matter. The Bible does also speak of the need for counsel and the benefit of two being better than one because if one falls, the other can help. A helpmeet does just that - helps. How can I possibly help if I am mute?

 

Oh, I know better! I know better because this debate always goes this way. There are always lots of families where healthy, normal and IMO, godly submission is practiced. We can speak about it till kingdom come, but it falls on the deaf ears of those who have been abused by what is *NOT* submission, but slavery, or have seen it happen. To those, submission will always sound like a dirty word.

 

Drives me completely crazy. Everytime.

 

Good post! :iagree:

[LisaNY]

I don't want to sidetrack the conversation, but your quote here is taken far more out of context than the ones you are complaining about, and the distortion is far greater.

 

Judaism does not consider women as lesser, and does not advocate an unequal marital relationship.

 

Whatever Paul's message was and whatever he might have been responding to, no interpretation I have ever seen of the passages being quoted could be reasonably viewed as an improvement on the status of women in Orthodox Judaism. [i have no position on what it does mean or the value or validity of the message.]

 

Thank you, Eliana! I was hoping you would add your thoughts on this, because it did not sound accurate to me, either.

[Renee in NC]

She goes by Nancy Wilson in print, though I doubt she would blink at being called that. That was just a bit of a play on my part, to see if anyone was paying attention. ;)

 

I will happily go by Mrs. dh's name. I was actually kind of charmed when I got the service paperwork from our (very small town) water company, and it said, "The Mrs. called and scheduled an appt." :001_smile:

 

Luckily, we each get to choose what we are willing to be called. I respectfully refrain from calling my "hypenated" friends by Mrs.

 

Sorry, Angela - got my Dougs mixed up. Douglas Phillips of Vision Forum is the one I was thinking of. I have other issues with Douglas Wilson, but that isn't it!