Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage

One reason men are the head of the home is the mood related problems some woman are known to experience at their time of the month. As women get older they experience menopause mood problems due to hormone related problems.If a woman has an historectomy is it not much harder to control mood related problems even with hormonal medication. I personally would not want a woman pastor cause of the mood of the woman might flip over something trivial. But I'll grant you that its never trivial from a moody womans point of view.Thankfully there is holistic natural compounding pharmacy horomones for the suffering lady that had an historectomy (more natural e3 estrogen less e2 etc...) The problem is the mood problems of the woman not the mood of the man. This is one reason why the woman is not the head of the house and should keep quite in the church.P.S. However Christ is the head of the church and the husband is the head of the Marriage. However both are one in Christ in a Christian union, etc...This message has been edited by The Golfer, 01-09-2006 09:53 PM

Oh Lord, Golfer. You did NOT just go there. lol

You know what I don't like about women? The way they just talk and talk and talk. Jeez, you'd think they could shut up once in a while. Not in today's modern world, no. They've got, like, freedoms and such-like. And I'm not allowed to yell at 'em when I'm feeling a little grumpy and they're getting all moody on me without having to listen to them whine about that!I mean, seriously. Fellas? You're with me, right? Hello?I'd say that Golfer has hit a hole in one!

Definitely; women are far more temperamental. That's why they always start wars, and why our prisons are full of them.

I've lived with a woman, now, for several years. This is a myth. Women don't flip out and go crazy every 28 days.If women in your life are flipping out and going crazy on a regular basis, maybe you need to consider that it's something you're doing, not something going on in their ovaries.Also, you need to understand that men are always operating under the influence of testosterone, a mind-altering hormone that stimulates men to be comabative, competative, and take needless risks. Does that sound like the kind of person who should be placed in charge of sensitive, important decisions in the home?

Crash, No, I said some, didn't say they go crazy, just grumpy, moody, etc... A friend of mine happily married (4 kids) (good Catholics) till his wife reached menopause. Like over something trivial (like you said over something she said he was doing). He said she just went crazy like over something she thought he shouldn't of said, the way he said it, did it, why didn't, etc...Imagine trying to debate with your woman gone hormonal, shouldn't of said it, the way you said it, etc... Just count your blessings cause it won't matter what you say or how you say it.I agree a man testostrone makes a man more agressive the reason in a family unit the man wears the pants unless perhaps you have bi-polar issues then I'd might conceed that your wife might need to wear the pants.P.S. I agree as long as the man is the head no reason the women should not share in the family decisions. The biblical family unit is for the husband to respect his wife by wearing the pants in the family.This message has been edited by The Golfer, 01-10-2006 02:05 AM

*reads post*AAAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAAAH*several minutes later, when the Rock Hound finally recovers*Now, on to actual point by point debate.

quote:

---

A friend of mine happily married (4 kids) (good Catholics) till his wife reached menopause. Like over something trivial (like you said over something she said he was doing). He said she just went crazy like over something she thought he shouldn't of said, the way he said it, did it, why didn't, etc...

---

See, we have this thing called HRT now, which means that menopause isn't the pain-in-the-ass it used to me.Anyway, by this reckoning men with manic depression should submit as well, because they're obviously as unstable, if not more so.

quote:

---

Imagine trying to debate with your woman gone hormonal, shouldn't of said it, the way you said it, etc... Just count your blessings cause it won't matter what you say or how you say it.

---

Imagine trying to debate with a man high on testosterone - how often has that worked...Bar fights across the world, Golfer - they ain't started by women.

quote:

---

I agree a man testostrone makes a man more agressive the reason in a family unit the man wears the pants unless perhaps you have bi-polar issues then I'd might conceed that your wife might need to wear the pants.

---

So... because a man is more aggressive he's obviously more qualified to be a leader?(This had me on the floor by the way.)Where oh where do you get your definition of leadership?? Jesus was a leader, and a damn good one - and is known for being loving, gentle, forgiving... wow, all the qualities NOT associated with men on testosterone!Who else... Mahatma Gandhi, who inspired people with his courage and wisdom - was obviously qualified to be the leader of his people because he was male and aggressive.Closer to home - Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights - obviously not qualified to be a leader because she's not male and agressive.

quote:

---

I agree as long as the man is the head no reason the women should not share in the family decisions. The biblical family unit is for the husband to respect his wife by wearing the pants in the family.

---

So... as long as the man is in control, there's no reason the woman shouldn't share in the family decisions.She won't be making them, but hey, she can "share" in them!Do you see how dumb this looks? If the wife is sharing in the decisions, having her input influence them, then the man isn't the head - it's a partnership between equals because the decisions are made by them both.Your bible doesn't ask that women be subservient. Jesus certainly didn't ask. I'm prepared to bet hard cash that the reason fundie divorce rates are higher than non-fundies is this half-assed notion that women are somehow lesser beings and need the guiding hand of a man - and let's face it, that's what it boils down to no matter what way you want to spin it.My $0.02 (and FYI, I would never want to be in that kind of relationship.){edited to fix my appalling grammar}This message has been edited by IrishRockhound, 01-10-2006 11:25 AM

---

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

The teaching last Sunday down my way, was on Colossians were it says "wives submit to your husbands". There were a couple of things of note about what was said. For her source as to what the positional relationship is between man and woman, our teacher went back to Genesis. She noted the following points:The Hebrew word used for the word "helper" is 'ezer'. Apparently when this word is used in the OT is it often used of an attribute of God. God as our strong helper, our strength, our refuge. The inclination to suppose that 'helper' means something subordinate, something less, seems to fall in the face of the word as it is used. It is a strong word, not a weak one.When God made everything he looked upon it and said it was good. That is, until he looked at man alone and said "it is not good for man to be alone". The idea that man can go it alone, that he has no need of guidance and help is not a concept contained within the bible. This idea is reinforced by "Let US make man in OUR image and likeness" The Godhead, by definition is a relational one. It is a relation where there is no greater or lesser. Christ isn't greater or lesser than the Father, the Father no greater or lesser than the Holy Spirit.Perfect communion of equal persons. That is the order of things within the Godhead. The are different 'functions' within the Godhead - but none more or less important than the other. If that is our model then it is safe to say there can be here can be no greater or lesser in that which he created in image and likeness.It was after the fall that woman was told that she would be subject to her husband. Subjection is a fall-enabled scenario - not the scenario that existed prior to the fall. When God told them aboue subjection, pain in childbirth, weeds and toil, he was telling them what would come as a result of the fall - he wasn't declaring that this was the order as he had intended it to be. And as Christians, we are called to live, not as fallen creatures, but to look to that which God meant and to strive towards that. To live as he intended us to live and as we shall ultimately live.Perfect communion of equals: different in ability, talents and skills - but made with the intention that our relative strengths would be put to work in order to serve the needs of the other. There can be no question in my mind that if Christians awoke every day and looked at the fact that their creator made them in 'our' image and likeness and looked to how they could serve (as the Godhead does) each other, then questions regarding position and the power struggles that can arise when we are thus focussed - would fade away. For want of ever being asked.There will be no Jew or Gentile in heaven. No bondservant or free. There will be no male or female. Only persons equal in merit and loved of God. We might as well start living according to that which is going to happen anyway.This message has been edited by iano, 10-Jan-2006 12:20 PM

the problem is that paul is out of line in his teaching. he's simply flat out of line. i did a little bible study on how jesus interacted with women. i'd post it all here, but it's very long. i'll post the question and the conclusion though.question conclusion if you like, i'll post the verses. but clearly paul is acting outside of the teachings of jesus when he makes his claims about women being subservient and less and quiet and such.

And men are never grumpy or moody?Again, let me tell you, if the women in your life appear to be getting "grumpy" on a regular basis, it's much more likely that it's something you're doing. I mean, a condescending, arrogant attiude generally makes anybody a grumpy gus. Imagine the way an intelligent, sensitive man like myself handles this situation: "Honey, I'm sorry I said what I did. It wasn't fair to you. I apologize." As it turns out, it's remarkably simple to "defuse" an angry woman; you just apologize for the stupid shit you just did, and mean it.And, you know what? My wife doesn't flip out over this shit, because she's not crazy. Stop marrying crazy women, Golfer! That's your problem right there. It is possible to be married to a woman who sees things reasonably; all you have to do is treat her reasonably in return.Honestly, getting married to an actual adult and not some kind of woman-child would probably solve all your problems in this regard. Of course, you have to be an adult yourself to attract such a woman, so you're going to have to change your views. Mature a little. Why do you believe that reckless, violent aggression is an appropriate qualification for leadership?What I love is the inconsistency of the sexist. To the sexist, women are "nurturers, sensitive, communicative" people who "care a lot about what other people think." Men are "bold, decisive" people who "make decisions by themselves" and "take risks."And we're supposed to believe that men are more suited for leadership? How does that make any sense? Why would we want a risk-taking leader who doesn't listen and can't communicate? Why wouldn't we want leadership that takes everything into account and communicates effectively to the led? Why can't women wear pants? Where I live, it's too cold for skirts for most of the year. Why should a woman freeze her ass off so that I'm the only one in pants? That seems stupid.Does your wife balance the checkbook, Golfer? Did your mother? You may think you know who's "wearing the pants", G, but there's no power but the power of the purse. (Notice that they don't call it "the power of the wallet." Do you think that's perhaps suggestive of where the real power is in most families?)

Of course those of us from Scotland are historically in an ideal position to appreciate the complete lack of correlation between trouser wearing and any characteristic male virtues.TTFN,WK

Solely dependant on the length of the kilt.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jesus picked men to be apostles, why did he not include a woman. The bible talks of women that were prophetests. The gifts of the spirit are not just for the men. Mother Angelica another example of no male or female in christ. She was baptised in the spirit before starting her television ministry. She however is not a priest but I don't here her speaking out of place in church. Mother Theresa too, was never a pastor but subservient to the good of the church.The issue is not that the woman is not an equal member of the family of God but that the man is the head of the marriage. In nature the male is dominant the lesser males that challenge this dominance are put in place. The man in the marriage is not supposed to be effeminate to his children or to his spouse(this is biblical)(its not natural)etc... The children and the wife need the husband not to be effeminate or the children will challenge the mans authority and end up wearing the pants etc...P.S. I have to control myself at time, cause of some #@%#@ hitting a golf ball into my space. I've been considered a hot head at times, but you learn to control these issues. Its the christian thing to do, not to get into fist a cuffs over #@$@ like over a simple game of golf or whatever, etc...Entry Word: effeminate
Function: adjective
Text: having or displaying qualities more suitable for women than for menThis message has been edited by The Golfer, 01-10-2006 01:45 PM

Except in species where the male is subservient or at best a genetic afterthought - which is the majority of multicellular species, in fact. For instance in the insect world (which constitutes the majority of living multicellular life) males are often little more than meta-sperm; genetic cluster bombs with no purpose but to inseminate females and then die (or be eaten by the female.)And that's not to mention species like seahorses, where the male bears the children to term. Or the majority of the Earth's biomass, bacteria, which are not exactly gendered at all."Nature"? Maybe you ought to bother to learn about how it actualy works in nature before you try to assert what is natural and what is not in marriage. Are you married, out of curiosity? What qualities are more suitable for women than for men? And what authority determines suitability?

My wife doesn't, although as she has borne 5 babies and is nearing 40, it seems the hormonal aspect has kicked in more.But crash, a lot of women really do have pms problems. As a guy, I know it's hard to believe, but they have hormonal issues that kick in every month for some women. Of course, they say there is a little bit of that for men, or at times during their lives.