Announcement

Collapse

Sorority Guidelines

Here is the Hen House. We gather and talk about men, shoes, clothing, and if those wings are all they are cracked up to be.

But remember, always play by the rules: here
See more
See less

Your Views on Patriarchy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    I will post a longer reply when I have time. For now I have another question and an observation.

    Question: Do you think men should be ok with the fact that God made them deficient when it comes to bearing children? By their nature, men need a woman to do this for them. Or would a man be justified in believing that God had slighted him in making him deficient in this area?

    Observation: What you are describing as complementarianism is pretty extreme. I don't think I have ever heard anyone teach what you are describing, outside of polygamous cults.
    Curiosity never hurt anyone. It was stupidity that killed the cat.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by QuantaFille View Post
      I will post a longer reply when I have time. For now I have another question and an observation.

      Question: Do you think men should be ok with the fact that God made them deficient when it comes to bearing children? By their nature, men need a woman to do this for them. Or would a man be justified in believing that God had slighted him in making him deficient in this area?

      Observation: What you are describing as complementarianism is pretty extreme. I don't think I have ever heard anyone teach what you are describing, outside of polygamous cults.
      It is not an extreme form of complementarianism, its just the logical conclusion as evidenced in males having the most responsible and highest authority in marriage and in the Body of Christ

      Let me please ask you a couple of question before I answer yours. Do you think the physiological ability or non-ability to bear children has anything to do with a person's potential competence, or potential Spirit-giftedness? Do you believe that a person's gender alone can automatically qualify or disqualify a person from competently holding leadership in home and church?
      Last edited by Wildflower; 09-10-2017, 02:48 PM.
      Aragorn: What do you fear, my lady?

      Eowyn: A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them and all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire.

      Aragorn: You are a daughter of kings, a shield maiden of Rohan. I do not think that will be your fate.

      Comment


      • #63
        To answer the OP, since I probably lean more complementarian than egalitarian, I've never felt that it implied that women are deficient or can't think for themselves. In marriage, I see it more as a tie breaker if a couple can't come to an agreement. Sure this can be abused, but if a man is really doing what he is commanded (love his wife as Christ loves the Church), then he isn't going to be a tyrant. In fact, that means he should be willing to die for his wife. Respecting his wife and taking her view into consideration should be easy compared to that.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Celebrian View Post
          To answer the OP, since I probably lean more complementarian than egalitarian, I've never felt that it implied that women are deficient or can't think for themselves. In marriage, I see it more as a tie breaker if a couple can't come to an agreement. Sure this can be abused, but if a man is really doing what he is commanded (love his wife as Christ loves the Church), then he isn't going to be a tyrant. In fact, that means he should be willing to die for his wife. Respecting his wife and taking her view into consideration should be easy compared to that.
          Thank you for your response, Celebrian. Please let me ask you, are you permanently and comprehensively not suited or competent to make a final tie-breaking decision due to your female essence? Or does God forbid this tie-breaking responsibility between the sexes because of an arbitrary creation order that has nothing to do with the differences between the sexes?
          Last edited by Wildflower; 09-10-2017, 09:49 PM.
          Aragorn: What do you fear, my lady?

          Eowyn: A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them and all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire.

          Aragorn: You are a daughter of kings, a shield maiden of Rohan. I do not think that will be your fate.

          Comment


          • #65
            And, unlike the voluntary and functional subordination of the Son at the incarnation, a woman's supposed permanent subordination is involuntary and a quality of her ontological nature--her essence.
            Aragorn: What do you fear, my lady?

            Eowyn: A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them and all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire.

            Aragorn: You are a daughter of kings, a shield maiden of Rohan. I do not think that will be your fate.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Wildflower View Post
              Thank you for your response, Celebrian. Please let me ask you, are you permanently and comprehensively not suited or competent to make a final tie-breaking decision due to your female essence? Or does God forbid this tie-breaking responsibility between the sexes because of an arbitrary creation order that has nothing to do with the differences between the sexes?
              First of all, I'm not sure why you think God was arbitrary in his creation order. But I think that is beside the point. I don't think it has anything to do with competence. That was God's decision for keeping order. I don't see that as making women inferior, but obviously you do. I have never been taught or made to feel that way. I don't think your 2 choices are the only choices.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Celebrian View Post
                First of all, I'm not sure why you think God was arbitrary in his creation order.
                I was asking you if that's what you believe if you don't believe that you are permanently subordinate to males based on your created nature as a female.

                But I think that is beside the point. I don't think it has anything to do with competence. That was God's decision for keeping order. I don't see that as making women inferior, but obviously you do. I have never been taught or made to feel that way. I don't think your 2 choices are the only choices.
                Do you believe that you need to be kept "in order" because of your deficiency as a female? What makes men better qualified to keep order in marriage? Or, again, is this responsibility of males based on something arbitrary?
                Aragorn: What do you fear, my lady?

                Eowyn: A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them and all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire.

                Aragorn: You are a daughter of kings, a shield maiden of Rohan. I do not think that will be your fate.

                Comment


                • #68
                  And, to contrast the complementarian and egalitarian models, in the complementarian model, the male gets the supposedly needed "tie-breaking" decision based on gender alone. Whereas in the egalitarian model, preference is given based on either whoever feels the most passionate or whoever has the most knowledge concerning the particular issue, or whoever is the one most gifted, etc. These decisions are based on gender mutuality in an egalitarian marriage instead of one gender being superior to another holding the "tie-breaking" vote in a complementarian marriage.
                  Last edited by Wildflower; 09-10-2017, 11:46 PM.
                  Aragorn: What do you fear, my lady?

                  Eowyn: A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them and all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire.

                  Aragorn: You are a daughter of kings, a shield maiden of Rohan. I do not think that will be your fate.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    You keep insisting that God having chosen males to be the tie-breaker is equivalent to saying that women are deficient or inferior. I'm saying that being inferior doesn't logically follow, but you insist that it does. It looks like we may just keep going in circles.

                    I don't have the same hostility to the egalitarian view that you seem to have to the complementarian view, even if I am not totally convinced it is Biblical. So, I'm not trying to fight against your view, just explain that it is not the dilemma for everyone that it seems to be for you.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      I don't know. Show me actual scholarly evidence that men were deemed to be the "tiebreaker" from Creation. And don't act like Adam being lonely and needing company somehow means that there is a created order.
                      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Celebrian View Post
                        You keep insisting that God having chosen males to be the tie-breaker is equivalent to saying that women are deficient or inferior. I'm saying that being inferior doesn't logically follow
                        Perhaps if I can rephrase it better.

                        That all males get the supposedly needed "tie-breaker" vote over and above their wives means that males have a higher hierarchal position over their wives. This is obviously in any common sense understanding a "superior" position as it stands over and above the subjugated female position.

                        That there is a superior and inferior relationship is obvious. Are you saying that you don't believe that holding the power of a "tie-breaking" vote doesn't also mean that the person holding that power is relationally superior in rank and position?

                        What I'm saying is that because the woman must always, forever, and permanently take the subservient position in a heirarchal (complementarian) relationship means that women are ontologically (in their essence/nature) inferior.

                        I can understand you not liking what I'm saying. But please don't call it illogical. "Superior" and "inferior" are hierarchally relational terms. And that's what so-called "Complementarianism" IS.

                        I don't have the same hostility to the egalitarian view that you seem to have to the complementarian view, even if I am not totally convinced it is Biblical.
                        I appreciate your grace.
                        Aragorn: What do you fear, my lady?

                        Eowyn: A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them and all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire.

                        Aragorn: You are a daughter of kings, a shield maiden of Rohan. I do not think that will be your fate.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          The problem with using "inferior" is that it is a loaded word, which most people associate with being of less value. My boss has the right to make the final decisions at work, but that doesn't mean I think I am less valuable as a person (or less skilled). In the complementarianism that I have experienced, the husband does not think the wife is an inferior person. There is still give and take, and both can still use their skills. The husband just has the ultimate responsibility for the household.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Celebrian View Post
                            The problem with using "inferior" is that it is a loaded word, which most people associate with being of less value. My boss has the right to make the final decisions at work, but that doesn't mean I think I am less valuable as a person (or less skilled). In the complementarianism that I have experienced, the husband does not think the wife is an inferior person. There is still give and take, and both can still use their skills. The husband just has the ultimate responsibility for the household.
                            First, please let me say that I am very happy that you do not feel inferior. I don't believe you are ontologically inferior as a female, though if you took your own complementarian/patirarchal theology to its logical end you would end up seeing yourself as ontolgoically inferior, not just functionally inferior as in a boss/subordinate as you said you see your marriage now. But, I am glad that you don't personally take your own theology to its logical end. But there are many women who do and who stay in relationships with men who do not exercise their supposed superior position as egalitarian as your and your husband seem to do. Think of a woman whose "head" is like some of the posters even here on Tweb. Like in the thread in the dormitory which bears the same name as this one. Think of some of those men exercising their position as king and priest, as spiritual "head", as the one allotted the responsibility to guide and direct his subservient subordinate wife and family both spiritually and otherwise, the one with the final "tie-breaking" decision on ALL matters in church and home. This is what Complementarians teach. And its a dangerous theology that often is accompanied by greater rates of abuse and depression for women. Not to mention the damage to men as well.

                            Consider this:

                            "Wives, in traditional marriages, suffered significantly more depression and other mental disorders than men, working married women and unmarried women (Bernard 1982).

                            In traditional marriages, wives had been beaten at "a rate of more than 300 percent higher than for egalitarian marriages (Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz 1980)."

                            Violence is more likely to occur in homes where the husband has all the power and makes all the decisions than in home where spouses share decision making (L. Walker 1979)."

                            https://www.godswordtowomen.org/Preato3.htm

                            Second, please allow me to put here Merriam-Webster definition of "inferior":

                            Definition of inferior

                            1 :situated lower down :lower
                            2 a :of low or lower degree or rank
                            b :of poor quality :mediocre
                            3 :of little or less importance, value, or merit...

                            Please understand what I'm saying is that this inferiority (as in the above definition) is not limited to only a function when you are born and die as subordinate--then it really is part of your ontological nature--the essence of your IDENTITY. In Complementarian theology your female sex is inferior to the male sex which is superior in rank and is given the responsibility to make decisions for you even if you disagree. It's not a limited "function" as in a work boss/worker chain of command where you could go home and be free of it or quit if the boss is full of it. But as a woman you are given the identity and life as permanent subordinate to males in church and home. Your inferiority in the Complementarian hierarchy with the male sex permanently, completely, and comprehensively holding the superior position (of decision making in church and home) is due to his superior created nature as a male. That's more of a caste system.

                            In your boss/subordinate example you gave that is only limited to a function, it is not comprehensive nor permanent. It is only for a limited function: a work situation. It says nothing of your created nature as a female. But in complementarianism your whole gender is subordinate always and forever in church and home.

                            In a work relationship you can excel and one day become a boss. You could work hard and be competent to lead. But in the permanent and comprehensive inferiority of women in the complementarian system, there is no amount of skill, work, etc that you could ever do to gain maturity and competence in making "final" responsible decisions in home and ministry. You are permanently forbidden from growing in this maturity and experience. Even if God gave you gifts and skills to competently make these kinds of decisions. You will never be able to use your full potential as an image bearer of God. Never be able to fulfill your commission to "rule and subdue" the earth but will always, under complementarian theology, be forever and always "ruled and subdued" by the males who were created to be superior to you. That's Complementarianism.
                            Last edited by Wildflower; 09-12-2017, 03:36 PM.
                            Aragorn: What do you fear, my lady?

                            Eowyn: A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them and all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire.

                            Aragorn: You are a daughter of kings, a shield maiden of Rohan. I do not think that will be your fate.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Egalitarians are fighting for gender equality. Complementarians are fighting to always keep one gender in a superior position.

                              All egalitarians want is gender equality, but Complementarians want permanent male superiority in church and home.
                              Last edited by Wildflower; 09-12-2017, 05:12 PM.
                              Aragorn: What do you fear, my lady?

                              Eowyn: A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them and all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire.

                              Aragorn: You are a daughter of kings, a shield maiden of Rohan. I do not think that will be your fate.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Wow, Wildflower. You seem to have only started this thread to tell us complementarians how we should modify our beliefs to conform to what you (mistakenly) think complementarians should believe, if only we thought it out logically. I have to tell you that I am a very logical and analytical person, and if ever there was a complementarian who would have come to the conclusions you do, it would be me.

                                There are roles open only to women, and ones open only to men. The relationship between them in marriage should mirror the one between Christ and his church. The logical conclusion of your position is that the church can overrule Jesus if she sees fit. Do you honestly believe she can?

                                My point in asking about bearing children is that God made men with certain abilities and roles, and women with others. That the one can't do what the other can doesn't make that one less valuable as a person. That a man cannot get pregnant does not make him worthless as a human being. That a man cannot have the church leadership role of children's minister does not make him worthless. That a woman cannot "wear the pants" at home doesn't make her worthless, either. As Celebrian pointed out, decisions have to be made together. You seem to think that if we were really practising complementarians, we stupid women wouldn't give any input to our amazing husbands when it comes to making decisions. Nothing could be further from the truth. For instance, I'm better with money than my husband is. When it comes to that, we discuss our options together. He gives a great deal of weight to my words because I have more experience there, but he is responsible for the final decision. The vast majority of the time, he agrees we should do what I suggest.

                                You mentioned several times that we must believe that we have to have a husband to be our "king and priest". This is false. I haven't met a complementarian yet who didn't believe in the priesthood of the believer, except Mormons (they are a different story altogether though).

                                As for how all of this makes me feel, I feel like I am what God intended me to be. He gave me certain gifts and qualities and I should use those in his service, to the best of my ability. How that fact could cause depression is beyond me.

                                I have never, ever ever ever been taught in church that I am "inferior" to men. The fact that you keep using that word tells me that you do not at all understand our position. All are the same in Christ; there is neither male nor female. We are valued equally, that is all. We have different roles, and women do not have to answer to God the same way men do. Men carry the greater burden there, and I for one do not want it myself. One gender is not better than the other. It seems like all you really want is to have input in decision making, and I tell you, we have that here.

                                The extreme version of this is practised by some groups, true, but they should be corrected to practise it the way it was intended, not be persuaded to give it up entirely (as I suspect is your motive, if I've read between the lines correctly).
                                Curiosity never hurt anyone. It was stupidity that killed the cat.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X