Women and the Fundamentalist View of Marriage

Funny that folks like you always ignore the reasonable middle - a marriage where both participants come together as equal but different members of a team.You know, like my marriage. Like the marriage of everyone I know my age. The kind of marriage intelligent, reasonable people opt for. The kind that offers dignity and respect for both participants.You ought to try it sometime.

But doesn't the fact that it's listed along with the other parts of what is essentially a curse mean that it's not God's intention that man rule woman, but rather, a degenerative result of the presence of sin in the world?I mean, the same passage says that giving birth will hurt like a sonufabitch, but that doesn't mean that giving a woman an epidural is a mortal sin. It simply means that it's a symptom to be ameliorated.Likewise the tyranny of men over women isn't God's perferred way; it's a natural tendancy that all persons must seek to overcome towards equality.This passage doesn't mean that the ruling of women by men is God's will, any more than God mentioning that men must till the fields for food means that it's God's will for us all to be farmers.

Just something I noticed from the Bible: Clearly, by Buz's reasoning, the Atkins diet is contrary to God's will!

Just curious, because you never answered me before - do you believe that, by the same logic, this passage precludes the use of anesthesia during labor in an effort to ameliorate the "sorrow" of childbirth? (Or the use of anti-depressants to combat postpartum depression?) Is it against God's will for me to buy bread in the grocery store instead of toiling in the field to grow wheat? (I do have a job, but "toiling in the field" would be potentially the least accurate description possible of what I do.)If not, then isn't the reasonable and consistent interpretation of this passage not that it's God's plan for men to rule women, but that men will have a natural and degeneritive tendancy to try to rule women, which constitutes the curse? (Much as we don't have to put up with toiling in the soil for bread when we can buy it at the store?)I'd say there's a big difference between a curse that says "men will rule over you" and one that says "you will submit to men."

My mom had C-sections for both me and my sister. She was under total anesthesia. While I realize that doesn't constitute a total ameilioration of the challenge of labor, it certainly reduces the bulk of the "sorrow." Was that against God's will?Let's take it hypothetical - if we had a medical technology that could make labor painless and easy, would that be against God's will? Yes, but since that's hardly a literal interpretation of the passage, and I know you're such a great literalist, I discounted it, because you couldn't possibly have meant it.Moreover that still doesn't change my argument - I don't toil in the field nor does my brow sweat at my job, but I use that money to buy food at the supermarket. Is that against God's will?Let's take it hypothetical - molecular nanotechnology is around the corner - several decades away, at the longest - and it'll mean than any physical item can be constructed for free. If I get bread, or any other food item out of my nanosassembler for free, as I'll be able to, is that against God's will? And presumably the woman has no tasks for which she'll need help from the man? "Helper" is by definition an equal relationship, because the favor is supposed to be returned.If that passage meant what you say it means, it would have said "slave", not "helper."

How can you truly love what submits to you?

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?

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?)

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?

Yes. My wife gets PMS. I'm not saying that PMS doesn't exist.What it doesn't do is make her a crazy person every month, or make it imposible for her to think, or to uphold her responsibilities, or be a leader in her department. And it's simply sexism to assert otherwise. As a man, you and I have hormonal issues that kick in every day. Did you know that? That you have a hormone cycle, too? Testosterone levels are linked with violence and risk-taking.Which do you think makes someone less fit to lead? The occasional monthly moodiness and cramping, or a daily cycle of mind-altering hormones that are linked to violence, irrationality, and recklessnes?

And you believe that spanking is the only way you can punish a child?Personally, I favor those electronic shock collars. Or maybe cattle prods. Can you do that to a kid? Or like, sedation? That seems like a successful parenting techique.At any rate I find it interesting that you immediately equate marriage with children; that the only aspect of marriage worth thinking about is how to raise kids. Now, certainly that's important, but why does it seem to be the only thing you're worried about?Do you suppose that's why your view of marriage so often ends in divorce? Why do you think that children only respond to pain? Is that how it works for you? You have to be hit before you'll do the right thing?Or is it possible that you respond to reason? Or barring reason, punishments short of corporal? Don't you think that a child's life can be made unpleasent short of physical pain? You're gonna hit a kid with a rod? You're a child abuser, Golfer. I was never hit as a child, Golfer. Somehow I turned out just fine. Were you spanked? Hit with rods? Is it really any surprise you're so eager to do that to your own children?Do you have sex with them, too, as punishment? Where exactly do you draw the line? I'm just curious.

Also I'd like to register my deep disappointment that you believe that the sole qualifying characteristic of manhood and being in charge is the capacity to inflict pain on a child.Is that what you think men are for? Hitting children? I deeply resent the implication that, as a man, my primary purpose is to abuse children. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Roid rage!

Well, does your question mean that every single individual human has exactly the same set of skills and abilities?Isn't it the case, rather, that anytime you have a team of two people, they're going to have their own areas of expertise and ability? And that successful teamwork is when each participant is given the ability to put their strengths to the service of the group?My wife balances the checkbook because she has the head and patience for it. But as far as I can tell she was raised without a detectable sense of taste or flavor memory, so I do the cooking. I'm pretty sure (and I'm pretty sure you'd agree) that neither one of those things has anything to do with who has the penis and who does not; it's about how we're two different people, and we each have our own relative strengths.Just to add - I think you're right to ask the question, because all too often the idea of relative strengths or expertise is used to set up the idea that there are relative strengths between men and women, as though you could boil down two groups of 3 billion people each to a limited set of characteristics.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-11-2006 11:44 AM

Seen by who? That doesn't make any sense as you've written it. Moreover, how would you judge strength? Is someone who can support 80 lbs over their head for hours at a time stronger or weaker than the person that can clean and jerk 300 lbs, but only for a few seconds?Men are on steroids. It's important to keep that in mind. That's what testosterone is; a steroid. And it's not unreasonable to wonder what kind of statistical inference you can draw from the simple fact that women and men have, by definition, different bodies.But biology isn't destiny, and just because someone is a man doesn't make them suited for any task, or unsuited for any task. Men and women are basically people, and people are flexible. Women can be firefighters and cops. Men can be counselors and raise children.Women can bodybuild. Men can multitask. And not just in rare exceptions, but almost every person is capable of doing well at these feats with the proper training and practice. So why try to lock people into these roles when it's obvious it doesn't really matter if it's the man or the woman balancing the checkbook, or taking out the trash, so long as it gets done?