[mojo2]

Can American women really honor men or are they just too darn liberated?

You can't have a typical American woman and expect her to honor you the way you deserve to be honored. Foreign women have the right idea I've read.

The fact that American women think they are equal to men kinda bothers me. Once you get a woman who has all the right qualities you keep her in line. She can work and get paid the same as a man and all that stuff, I don't mind that. But when it comes to making important decisions it's important that the wife defer to her husband's judgment and that she support everything he does and says.

The husband should submit and honor his wife, too. But the minute she tries to tell ME something or wear the pants, then it's strike one.

An Amish couple had just gotten married and were riding home in his fine horse drawn carriage when the horse just stopped in the middle of the road.

Mr. Yoder climbed out the buggy, stood before the horse, pointed a finger in the horse's face and said, "strike one."

He got back in the buggy and they resumed the trip home.

A few miles later the horse stopped again and again the man stood in the horse's face but this time said, "strike two."

A few more miles and the horse stopped one more time, whereupon Mr. Yoder pulled a revolver from under the seat, walked to face the horse and then blew it's brains out.

As the newlyweds were walking home the bride became understandably tired after a few miles and she asked her groom, "Darling, did you really have to SHOOT the horse?"

Mr. Yoder walked around in front of his wife and simply said, "strike one."

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The husband should submit and honor his wife, too. But the minute she tries to tell ME something or wear the pants, then it's strike one.

It's Strike One all right, just not the one you're thinking of....

Besides, what's wrong with women in pants?

[Ghoser777]

I prefer my women to not wear pants in general.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The fact that American women think they are equal to men kinda bothers me.

The fact that you think women aren't equal bothers me.

Originally Posted by mojo2

Once you get a woman who has all the right qualities you keep her in line. She can work and get paid the same as a man and all that stuff, I don't mind that. But when it comes to making important decisions it's important that the wife defer to her husband's judgment and that she support everything he does and says.

Simply silly...

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

It's Strike One all right, just not the one you're thinking of....

Besides, what's wrong with women in pants?

Pants = Figure of speeech.

My problem with the typical American woman is that if she thinks she's supposed to win the arguments I'd have to fake being wrong once in a while and I think it would be humiliating to have an imbecile think she's smarter than you.

I don't mind having the advantage of her counsel if it's good but I don't want to have to be insincerely appreciative of stupidity nor be thought to be stupid enough to have a woman who doesn't defer to me.

If she really IS smart (although I haven't met many women smart enough and respectful enough) I wouldn't mind letting her think she's right once in a while when she isn't.

Just to keep her happy.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

The fact that you think women aren't equal bothers me.

Simply silly...

From your reply I can only conclude you are a woman OR you are subservient to a woman and are in denial about it.

[awaspaas]

Did they really have the internet back in 1950??

[ghporter]

In many ways, women generally, and American women specifically are superior to men in general. That they may not be as physically powerful as the average man is completely irrelevant. Women have a higher tolerance for pain, a tolerance which extends far longer than that of men. Women have communicative skills (beyond what is taught socially) that exceeds that of men; they can verbalize complex relationships, both spatial and otherwise, with a precision that makes men's reliance on drawing and other depictions pale in comparison. When not shakled by men, women succeed in everything they try.

And need I remind anyone of the old, and exceptionally apt addage that "if Momma ain't happy, ain't NOBODY happy"?

Mojo, I can't tell if your post was flamebait or a rather lame attempt to introduce an old and rather lame joke. Either way, it wasn't your greatest idea.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by awaspaas

Did they really have the internet back in 1950??

You don't understand how this philosophy of male superiority and female submission can improve your life, do you?

[IonCable]

Who let the caveman into the forum?

I have been happily married for 12 years. I met my wife 15 years ago. I have 2 wonderful childern. My wife and I are equals in everything that concerns our marriage. We both care for the children, do the household chores, and WE make decisions together on what is best for us and the children.

I'm sorry but your way of thinking is just outdated and screams insecurity. Are you that insecure in yourself, life and family that you need to subjugate your mate? Are you such a weak person that treating someone as your equal in a threat to your self-worth? Have you been blessed some uncanny amount of inteligence and/or wisdom that YOUR decisions and choices are some how better?

If these are your true feelings then you are a pathetic sad little man not worthy of love of a woman. Please go away.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by awaspaas

Did they really have the internet back in 1950??

This is a joke right?

[ghporter]

I see that this thread was indeed started as flamebait. Interesting... I'll have a word with the moderators in charge of this forum. See ya later!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by ghporter

In many ways, women generally, and American women specifically are superior to men in general. That they may not be as physically powerful as the average man is completely irrelevant. Women have a higher tolerance for pain, a tolerance which extends far longer than that of men. Women have communicative skills (beyond what is taught socially) that exceeds that of men; they can verbalize complex relationships, both spatial and otherwise, with a precision that makes men's reliance on drawing and other depictions pale in comparison. When not shakled by men, women succeed in everything they try.

And need I remind anyone of the old, and exceptionally apt addage that "if Momma ain't happy, ain't NOBODY happy"?

Mojo, I can't tell if your post was flamebait or a rather lame attempt to introduce an old and rather lame joke. Either way, it wasn't your greatest idea.

ghporter, in a short amount of time I've come to appreciate your even tempered manner, patience and thoughtfulness. However, as I was reading your less than inspired argument in opposition to what you say isn't my greatest idea, I became aware that I really haven't made MY argument, have I?

Sorry.

I guess I figured I would have gotten immediate support from SOMEONE here. I guess not. Well, I will start preparing my case.

By the way, I have no problem keeping momma happy just as long as she knows who is boss. And it shouldn't be a heavy handed "keep her in line" kind of attitude, more like a benevolent king or, to use a christian analogy, like our heavenly Father is kind and benevolent toward us but sometimes he drops the hammer and we have to deal with it.

to be continued...

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by IonCable

Who let the caveman into the forum?

I have been happily married for 12 years. I met my wife 15 years ago. I have 2 wonderful childern. My wife and I are equals in everything that concerns our marriage. We both care for the children, do the household chores, and WE make decisions together on what is best for us and the children.

I'm sorry but your way of thinking is just outdated and screams insecurity. Are you that insecure in yourself, life and family that you need to subjugate your mate? Are you such a weak person that treating someone as your equal in a threat to your self-worth? Have you been blessed some uncanny amount of inteligence and/or wisdom that YOUR decisions and choices are some how better?

If these are your true feelings then you are a pathetic sad little man not worthy of love of a woman. Please go away.

Your passion for the subject reveals something.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by mojo2

From your reply I can only conclude you are a woman OR you are subservient to a woman and are in denial about it.

Not a woman and not a subservient male. Try again... [or try to fit me in to your sexist puzzle ]

From your original post, I can only conclude you are a small minded sexiest.

Originally Posted by mojo2

My problem with the typical American woman is that if she thinks she's supposed to win the arguments I'd have to fake being wrong once in a while and I think it would be humiliating to have an imbecile think she's smarter than you.

Imbecile?

Have you ever considered that she was correct and YOU were wrong? I'm smart enough to know that I don't have all the answers.

Originally Posted by mojo2

If she really IS smart (although I haven't met many women smart enough and respectful enough) I wouldn't mind letting her think she's right once in a while when she isn't.

I wish you a long and lonely life.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I see that this thread was indeed started as flamebait. Interesting... I'll have a word with the moderators in charge of this forum. See ya later!

You see what you want to see, however there is much to this point of view you fail to understand and perhaps don't WISH to understand. If you get this thread locked you will be denying a legitimate point of view to be discussed and, frankly, a point of view that has a great deal of validity and one which may help many people.

May I take back my previous compliment?

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Your passion for the subject reveals something.

Yes, that he is a good husband that views his mate as an equal... not an object designed to service the husband.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by mojo2

You see what you want to see, however there is much to this point of view you fail to understand and perhaps don't WISH to understand. If you get this thread locked you will be denying a legitimate point of view to be discussed and, frankly, a point of view that has a great deal of validity and one which may help many people.

May I take back my previous compliment?

I feel you are the one that doesn't understand. This isn't a "legitimate" point of view, it's YOUR point of view. That doesn't make it legitimate.

[ghporter]

Sorry mojo, but I'm solidly in favor of women being their own people. I've had a very satisfying, very equal relationship with one for over 25 years. And I have yet to meet a truly incapable woman. Maybe I'm just lucky...

In any case, your attitude is far from productive in today's society. As I said, in many ways wome are superior to men. And not having to "be the boss" gives men the opportunity to be more relaxed and learn more about themselves than grunting and scratching.

From a legal standpoint, expressing the idea in your original post in the workplace could easily get you fired AND sued, as such ideas are an indication of an intention to oppress other people because of their sex, a violation of both criminal and civil law.

[mojo2]

Our starting point is Ephesians 5:22–23, in which Paul writes Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Whether we like it or not, the Bible clearly tells us that there are certain roles in the family. The husband is supposed to be the leader and his wife should submit to him. Until a few decades ago, this concept represented the typical family. Unfortunately, however, it was probably also one of the most misunderstood concepts in the Word of God. Husbands viewed themselves as the boss who had total authority over everything in the family – everybody had to obey whatever they commanded.

This rather oppressive view of what leadership is about has led to a change in our society, which nowadays condemns almost any concept of leadership and authority in the family. Parents have little authority over their children and the roles of husband and wife are considered interchangeable. Every man who doesn’t see it that way, is accused to be a “male chauvinist” who probably abuses his wife. And women who freely submit to their husbands are accused of betraying the female world by diminishing themselves instead of standing up for their rights. A marriage is not considered anymore as the inseparable bonding of two people but as two individuals living together. No one, not even Christians, is unaffected by this viewpoint of our society. We encounter it every day when we talk to friends or co-workers, read books or newspapers, watch TV, etc.

[mitchell_pgh]

Literal self interpretations of the bible...

[ghporter]

Mojo, do I have to remind you that not everybody is Christian? You're treading on thin ice, and this is decidedly NOT the Political forum...

My patience is thin, so I'm withdrawing from this discussion.

[deomacius]

Originally Posted by ghporter

In many ways, women generally, and American women specifically are superior to men in general. That they may not be as physically powerful as the average man is completely irrelevant. Women have a higher tolerance for pain, a tolerance which extends far longer than that of men. Women have communicative skills (beyond what is taught socially) that exceeds that of men; they can verbalize complex relationships, both spatial and otherwise, with a precision that makes men's reliance on drawing and other depictions pale in comparison. When not shakled by men, women succeed in everything they try.

You obviously never met anyone like my ex. Seriously though, I know what you're saying mojo. I agree, there should be a hierarchy to the household. I also agree with your benevolent king stance. I look at it like this. Most planes have a pilot and a co-pilot. Why shouldn't guiding the course of your family be any different. Both parties have important roles to play that should NOT stomp on the toes of the other person. One role isn't any more or less important since they are BOTH important for the healthy functioning of a relationship.

ghporter, my previous marriage found me hitched to someone who felt she should be treated equally even though she couldn't make a rational, educated decision for the life of her (still can't). The more I had to tighten down the screws on decisions, the more she resisted. The rest, as they say, is history. I'm more than happy to turn decisions I'm not qualified to make over to my significant other. I just think that in some decisions, the tie breaker should fall to the man of the house by default.

[mitchell_pgh]

mojo2, I can be a man and still view my significant other as an equal. It's not a hard concept. Nobody has to be the "supreme ruler" of the family.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Sorry mojo, but I'm solidly in favor of women being their own people. I've had a very satisfying, very equal relationship with one for over 25 years. And I have yet to meet a truly incapable woman. Maybe I'm just lucky...

In any case, your attitude is far from productive in today's society. As I said, in many ways wome are superior to men. And not having to "be the boss" gives men the opportunity to be more relaxed and learn more about themselves than grunting and scratching.

From a legal standpoint, expressing the idea in your original post in the workplace could easily get you fired AND sued, as such ideas are an indication of an intention to oppress other people because of their sex, a violation of both criminal and civil law.

I'm glad to see that speech and the discussion of IDEAS can indeed take place and that political correctness on one side and a Patriot Act mentality on the other, hasn't completely led to your taking on the vestments of Big Brother. (How ironic, the Apple Superbowl Ad "1984" might have come true on the pages of MacNN! lol)

Now, I can return to the task of finding information to support my contention without worrying there will be a lock on the thread once I return.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mojo2

By the way, I have no problem keeping momma happy just as long as she knows who is boss. And it shouldn't be a heavy handed "keep her in line" kind of attitude, more like a benevolent king or, to use a christian analogy, like our heavenly Father is kind and benevolent toward us but sometimes he drops the hammer and we have to deal with it.

Mere assertion. I could claim that women should be like benevolent queens and it would carry just as much logical force.

[zigzag]

I'm crazy for stories about Amish men threatening their wives with small firearms. More, please.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by deomacius

You obviously never met anyone like my ex. Seriously though, I know what you're saying mojo. I agree, there should be a hierarchy to the household. I also agree with your benevolent king stance. I look at it like this. Most planes have a pilot and a co-pilot. Why shouldn't guiding the course of your family be any different. Both parties have important roles to play that should NOT stomp on the toes of the other person. One role isn't any more or less important since they are BOTH important for the healthy functioning of a relationship.

ghporter, my previous marriage found me hitched to someone who felt she should be treated equally even though she couldn't make a rational, educated decision for the life of her (still can't). The more I had to tighten down the screws on decisions, the more she resisted. The rest, as they say, is history. I'm more than happy to turn decisions I'm not qualified to make over to my significant other. I just think that in some decisions, the tie breaker should fall to the man of the house by default.

VERY nicely put!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Mojo, do I have to remind you that not everybody is Christian? You're treading on thin ice, and this is decidedly NOT the Political forum...

My patience is thin, so I'm withdrawing from this discussion.

If everyone who took offense and were so bothered by the things they read followed your example the world would be a better place.

However, treading on thin ice means what? This is a discussion of roles people adopt in relationships.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Our starting point is Ephesians 5:22–23, in which Paul writes Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Whether we like it or not, the Bible clearly tells us that there are certain roles in the family. The husband is supposed to be the leader and his wife should submit to him.

The Bible is not proof of an opinion. If religious texts are valid authorities on how the world is, I can prove pretty much any idea I can come up with (even more so when you consider that I'm just as able as Paul to write morally commanding letters to people).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by deomacius

Most planes have a pilot and a co-pilot. Why shouldn't [sic] guiding the course of your family be any different. Both parties have important roles to play that should NOT stomp on the toes of the other person. One role isn't any more or less important since they are BOTH important for the healthy functioning of a relationship.

While I agree that delegation of responsibilities is useful in a relationship, it doesn't have to be a king-subject relationship. For instance, one person might be responsible for the car while another is responsible for the bills.

There is no logical reason why one person should be in control of everything. If you think there is and your woman doesn't, feel free to step aside and let her lead, since this is simply about having only one pilot and not about inflating your own ego, right?

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

While I agree that delegation of responsibilities is useful in a relationship, it doesn't have to be a king-subject relationship. For instance, one person might be responsible for the car while another is responsible for the bills.

There is no logical reason why one person should be in control of everything. If you think there is and your woman doesn't, feel free to step aside and let her lead, since this is simply about having only one pilot and not about inflating your own ego, right?

mojo2... ego... no way...

[Mastrap]

Can anybody tell me why we're taking idiots like mojo2 seriously? Pretty much everything he posts is designed to be either flame bait or some sort of social experiment. He also uses 'lol' in a non-ironic way, hat just doesn't happen to anybody over the age of 16.

Damn, me making this post means that my plan of following the tao is totally buggered for the day.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Can anybody tell me why we're taking idiots like mojo2 seriously? Pretty much everything he posts is designed to be either flame bait or some sort of social experiment. He also uses 'lol' in a non-ironic way, hat just doesn't happen to anybody over the age of 16.

Damn, me making this post means that my plan of following the tao is totally buggered for the day.

Good point... I'm out.

[budster101]

Women are not equal.

They are sometimes superior and sometimes not.

[Demonhood]

this is a (bad) joke thread, right?


right?

[Zimphire]

Someone call the village.. we found it's...

Yeah.

[mojo2]

I remembered reading about a book that advocated wifrely submission being a key to creating happy marriages and I've been searching for the name and just found it.

The Surrendered Wife : A Practical Guide to Finding Intimacy, Passion, and Peace with Your Man
by Laura Doyle

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

this is a (bad) joke thread, right?

right?

To the contrary. Keep an open mind. Read some of the sources I'm searching like the dickens trying to find and then tell me if the concept is so outrageous.

In some cases this idea can mean the difference between a happy marriage and divorce.

Frankly, as learned as this community seems to be I'm surprised you haven't heard of it before.

[budster101]

I'll attempt to take it seriously:

1. Women are not equal when it comes to, drinking beer, farting in public, and overall obnoxious cigar smoking-poker playing madness, and they rarely get so pumped about Superbowl Sunday...

Never mind.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The Bible is not proof of an opinion. If religious texts are valid authorities on how the world is, I can prove pretty much any idea I can come up with (even more so when you consider that I'm just as able as Paul to write morally commanding letters to people).

Just because the Bible says not to steal and you don't believe in God does that automatically relegate you to the ranks of thieves?

No. You find there are certain areas of agreement. Things that seem to work no matter where the idea came from...no matter who else embraces the idea.

To do otherwise is simply knee-jerk reactionism and probably self defeating behavior.

If you were in a troublesome relationship (but one that was worth saving) where your wife questioned your every move and decision and very subtly even gave your children the impression that she knew better than you about things you would be justified in wanting out.

But if your wife simply adopted some of the principles in the Bible (or if you just can't get past any possible religious hang ups, then use the advice in the book, "The Surrendered Wife : A Practical Guide to Finding Intimacy, Passion, and Peace with Your Man" by Laura Doyle) you might just find the woman you first fell in love with.

Then, you are happy, she's happy. The kids are happy and the family stays togeether.

Bible or not, if it works it works. Anyone with marriage problems might want to read up on the concept especially if you have nothing to lose.

[dreilly1]

You're probably just trolling, but I'll bite anyway....

Originally Posted by mojo2

My problem with the typical American woman is that if she thinks she's supposed to win the arguments I'd have to fake being wrong once in a while and I think it would be humiliating to have an imbecile think she's smarter than you.

I don't mind having the advantage of her counsel if it's good but I don't want to have to be insincerely appreciative of stupidity nor be thought to be stupid enough to have a woman who doesn't defer to me.

If she really IS smart (although I haven't met many women smart enough and respectful enough) I wouldn't mind letting her think she's right once in a while when she isn't.

Just to keep her happy.

So, in other words, you're always right, because you're You, and you want to find a woman who respects the biblical fact that she can never be as smart as you, and will keep her mouth shut and look pretty.

Good luck. We don't make any like that here. You're right, they're just too darn liberated for your tastes. Which is why you don't have a girlfriend yet.

[mojo2]

Laura Doyle, who describes herself as a surrendered feminist — in fact, she was a late bloomer to "surrendering," having waited until her ninth wedding anniversary to change her name — writes that the concept of the surrendered wife is not about "returning to the fifties or rebelling against feminism." She quotes her sister, a ballroom-dance teacher, to explain it: "In marriage, as in ballroom dancing, one must lead and the other must follow. This is not to say that both roles are not equally important. It is rare that I find a woman who can resist 'back-leading.'"

Doyle's was a slow conversion, after the near breakup of her marriage and much counseling. She now has made The Surrendered Wife a movement; the book is an Amazon.com bestseller and "Surrendered Circles" are popping up across the country. She's even doing instructional-teaching tours.

...

What's refreshing about Doyle is that she knows the harm that can be done to a marriage by an overbearing wife. (And she is no fool — she does not counsel surrendering to a man who is abusive or an addict, for example.) She knows she used to be a "shrew" and will do what she can to make sure others don't do as she did. She doesn't see herself as superior to her husband or him to her. But she does see him as the man and she as the woman. She's not obsessed with feminizing her husband for the sake of equality. She feels no obligation to make her sisters proud, or to pay back any foremother for her suffrage and freedom to write books and speak. She does not see men as the enemy. That's something new for a mainstream book about wives.
...
"Some wives and husbands keep their income in separate accounts. With divorce an eventuality for half of all marriages, both parties feel they must be cautious in money matters, just in case"?

Next to this, I'll take Mrs. Doyle's "surrendered wife" any day. I suspect we'd all be a lot better off if we did.
 

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by mojo2

If you were in a troublesome relationship (but one that was worth saving) where your husband questioned your every move and decision and very subtly even gave your children the impression that he knew better than you about things you would be justified in wanting out.

Fixed™

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

this is a (bad) joke thread, right?


right?

I thought this at first but once he explained further something clicked and all my research into this flooded back..


The long standing idea is that we have a chain of command sort of. God > Husband > Wife > Kids. The analogy being that the same as Jesus is the head of the church so as is the Husband head over the wife. This is a very key thing to remember and something Mojo missed that has caused a great deal of problems.

Now I'm not going to start quoting Bible verses up and down as I simply wish to explain this point of view and the original version of it. Personally I enjoy having equal relationships, or as equal as any two people can be, although I don't believe everyone is in fact equal. To me its simply a sign of respect. Still I feel that this Biblical principle has imprinted itself on society as have many things (sex, eating practices) and it is only fair that people understand clearly what it actually is.

So as I stated Jesus is head of the church as the man is head of the family. This is not the same as how God is above us at all. In quite a literal way this means that you should treat your wife as Jesus treats the church. This is not a benevolent king-ship, or indulging the weak-minded, or lording over your property. This is about respecting a partner and treating them as an equal regardless of their capability. This is not one sided either. The wife is supposed to be submissive to the man, however it never says the man is supposed to lord over the woman. Now isn't that a bit strange? It is that way because this is supposed to be a mutual relationship EXACTLY like that every christian has with Jesus. It takes a lot of love to defer to someone (wife) and for the other person to still depend on you and treat you as an equal (the man). You'll also see that it says that the man and woman are one in the same person, not one over the other, but one single unit.

It is also important to note that outside of a christian life this is just a single useless value that literally falls right into male domination.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

You're probably just trolling, but I'll bite anyway....



So, in other words, you're always right, because you're You, and you want to find a woman who respects the biblical fact that she can never be as smart as you, and will keep her mouth shut and look pretty.

Good luck. We don't make any like that here. You're right, they're just too darn liberated for your tastes. Which is why you don't have a girlfriend yet.

Do you all see the way some of you react to a new concept? And that is without even considering the POSSIBLE merits of the concept. And if you will permit me, I am getting more than a fair amount of personal abuse here, and what role did the moderator(s) admins play in striking the tone where this is not only allowed but encouraged?

Now. Let's take a deep breath and imagine the mods/admins and I are in a marriage. They are the wife. I am the husband. The readers are the children (and these roles simply serve to illustrate the dynamic, so please let's not get too ridiculous here, lol).

If ghporter hadn't responded as he did would you have felt as comfortable about attacking me with such abandon? Would some of the comments that followed from some of you have been permitted by the mods/admin if I had introduced a more PC idea?

I doubt it.

But it isn't me (so much) you object to, I suspect. It's that I'm prompting you to consider change. It makes you uncomfortable. So, you try to shoot the messenger.

Back to the Wife/Husband/Children analogy...

The author of the book and the leader of this very popular movement suggests if the wife goes along with the husband, shows him faith, confidence and yes, obedience, the husband will change and everyone in the family benefits. It is the wife who is using her power to affect positive change.

If the mods hadn't given the subtle green light (whether purposely and knowingly or not I can't say) to begin a flaming frenzy on mojo2, maybe the process of idea sharing could have gone on without the sturm and drang it seems they are trying to avoid.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by invisibleX

I thought this at first but once he explained further something clicked and all my research into this flooded back..


The long standing idea is that we have a chain of command sort of. God > Husband > Wife > Kids. The analogy being that the same as Jesus is the head of the church so as is the Husband head over the wife. This is a very key thing to remember and something Mojo missed that has caused a great deal of problems.

Now I'm not going to start quoting Bible verses up and down as I simply wish to explain this point of view and the original version of it. Personally I enjoy having equal relationships, or as equal as any two people can be, although I don't believe everyone is in fact equal. To me its simply a sign of respect. Still I feel that this Biblical principle has imprinted itself on society as have many things (sex, eating practices) and it is only fair that people understand clearly what it actually is.

So as I stated Jesus is head of the church as the man is head of the family. This is not the same as how God is above us at all. In quite a literal way this means that you should treat your wife as Jesus treats the church. This is not a benevolent king-ship, or indulging the weak-minded, or lording over your property. This is about respecting a partner and treating them as an equal regardless of their capability. This is not one sided either. The wife is supposed to be submissive to the man, however it never says the man is supposed to lord over the woman. Now isn't that a bit strange? It is that way because this is supposed to be a mutual relationship EXACTLY like that every christian has with Jesus. It takes a lot of love to defer to someone (wife) and for the other person to still depend on you and treat you as an equal (the man). You'll also see that it says that the man and woman are one in the same person, not one over the other, but one single unit.

It is also important to note that outside of a christian life this is just a single useless value that literally falls right into male domination.

Your points are noted. Although I must say in my own defense that I was being flamed right and left and worrying about having the thread shut down (or worse) before I could make the point and add to that the fact that despite the PAGES AND PAGES of search results that came back when I was googling, ALL OF THEM having to do with the religious basis for the concept, I left that for others to explore because I wanted to give the non-religious a foundation for paying attention to the idea and not have them just shutting their brains to it because it was "religion based."

But, yes, the religious basis is important to me.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Someone call the village.. we found it's...

Yeah.

Is this an example of what you were talking about in the feedback thread the other day when you said arguments would spill over from any would be "Mosh Pit" debate into the civilized sections of the forum?

[chris v]

So what about a situation in which the husband is clearly wrong in a way that endangers the life of the wife or her children? Does she continue to "submit?"

Now, let me just state for the record that I psoted in this classic thread.

[Ghoser777]

Okay, for the heck of - mojo2, outside the context of a religious argument, why can't the rolls be reversed? I've met some women who are smarter than me, stronger than me, etc. Why shouldn't I defer to them in a logical sense?

Going down the religious road - there's a lot of context to those verses that should be noted, such as how poorly women were educated.