Are The Historical Respective Roles Of The Genders Relevant Today?

quote:

---

3) As I said before, men are more adapted to the leadership role and this has been the case for nearly six milleniums of human history. The Biblical way is best. If the man loves his wife as he ought, he will want the best for her. No human entity works with two equal presidents.

---

Your whole issue is about who is in charge, isn't it? Not the actual work. A marriage can be a partnership. Each contributes their talents and experience to the partnership. One may take the lead in any given situation, but it isn't mandatory.I've noticed widowers tend to remarry more so than widows. The World Is Full of Remarried MenMy mother won't even go on dates. She doesn't want to have to take care of someone again. I've been in a marriage that was not a partnership and I've been in a marriage that was a partnership. Guess which one lasted.In my opinion Paul was trying to get husbands and wives to respect each other. Remember the marriages were arranged then. As far as who was in charge, I feel Paul was deferring to the laws and traditions of the time. He didn't have the power to go against local laws and it would have been wrong of him to suggest that the people go against them.Why would anyone want women to become property again? Have some men become that insecure?Money is necessary to survive today. Since child mortality is down (U.S.), we don't need as many children in hopes they survive to procreate or to work the family farm. IMO, some of the problems with children is that there isn't enough work for them to do.I see a trend with my daughter and her family. The parents are glued to iphones and xboxes. Women being free people did not cause all the ills of society.Buz, even the "good ole days" had its fleas.

quote:

---

For nearly 6 milleniums most cultures understood that families function better with one having the leadership role rather than two presiding ones with equal authority.

---

Authority to do what?
What do you feel men need authority to do?

quote:

---

One area I see in modern culture is the discipline of children. It is the manly commanding lower voice, the physical strength and the relatively larger sized male that is most capable of handling the ultimate discipline of the children. We've lost much of that today with so many of the families without a male leadership role in the household. Obviously we're paying a hefty price for it culturally.

---

I guess the men who don't have low commanding voices are in big trouble. The voice is irrelevant if appropriate discipline is not administered. It doesn't matter if it's corporal discipline or non corporal discipline. Deep voiced threats without action are useless. Your children knew you would follow through with a spanking. If you hadn't followed through with the spanking, they wouldn't listen to you either because then you are all bark and no bite.IMO, that is also part of the problem today. Parents threaten discipline but don't follow through. Parents aren't on the same page when it comes to disciplining children. Parents are afraid the children will be upset with them. Schools have the same problem. Everyone seems afraid to upset the children.It has nothing to do with gender Buz, it has to do with parenting skills.The only impasse my husband and I might have is money. Not very often though. We are pretty well matched. I don't defer to him because he is the boss, I defer to his decision because he brings home the money and handles the finances. He has a better handle on what we can afford.Right now I handle my mother's finances, so she defers to me when it comes to difficult issues.Deferring to keep peace is not unusual. My guess is that your wife would not give way so easily if you were going to do something very unwise or hazardous to the family. Deferring just because you're a man is unreasonable.Why do you assume a man will always have the right or better answer?

quote:

---

I'll quote from the prophet Isaiah in the third chapter relative to the end times. This prophecy, as are all Biblical prophecies, so on the mark with our times:

---

The judgment in Isaiah 3 was for Jerusalem and Judah. It has nothing to do with the United States today. I know you feel otherwise, but the text doesn't agree with you.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

To make the final decision when/if empasse is reached and to more or less oversee the family affairs.

---

You say you pretty much leave decision making to your wife, so in what way do you actually lead?Why do you need to know the authority is yours to delegate? Can you give me an idea of an impasse and why you need to be the one to break the impasse as opposed to your wife who makes most of the decisions?

quote:

---

It appears that you've missunderstood me. My wife's parenting skills were very efficient. However, there were times when she felt that I should deal with a disciplinary problem after I returned home from the business.

---

I didn't misunderstand. My statements weren't reflecting on that type of deferred discipline. I was talking about no discipline. Now if you came home and didn't support your wife's decision that discipline was necessary, that also would cause problems. That goes to back to inconsistency.My sister has that problem. She doesn't follow through with consequences and when she does, her husband counters them. Now they have a teenage girl who has just started dating and defying them and they don't know what to do. Would you believe they did nothing when she stayed out past her curfew and she didn't call. Considering my sister was in the Army, I'm surprised. Hard to believe sometimes we grew up in the same household. That's a household that provides no leadership for the children. IMO, the parents lead the children. The parents don't need to lead each other.

quote:

---

I know it was, but this phenomenon of oppressive children and ruling women was not contemporaneous to ancient Israel. It's happening pretty much globally now. That the prophecy was addressed to Israel is irrevelant for that reason. It was just another of the end time prophecies.

---

In the Bible women and children were property. It would be insulting for a man to be ruled by his property. A man bought his wife (bride price). A man could sell his daughter into slavery.Isaiah was telling them how bad things were going to be. It wasn't presenting an evolving phenomenon. It was something God was going to make happen.Now that women and children are no longer property, they have the freedom to grow. Parents have to know how to raise respectful children in this culture. IMO, many parents don't know how to administer discipline, corporal or otherwise.When I was raising my daughter, people got real antsy about spanking. We were on the cusp of change. Parents were afraid to discipline their child in public for fear of being turned in as child abusers. Children now know that teachers can't administer corporal punishment. A lot of rules in our culture have made it difficult for parents to administer reasonable discipline that fits the individual child. As I said before, many parents don't want the child to suffer the consequences of their actions.The difficulties our culture is having are not because women are working or because women can "rule". If you've ever watched "Nanny 911" you'd see parents who don't know how to lead and guide their children with appropriate discipline.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

To become blessed, wise and mature requires unceasing vigilance in conserving historical Biblical values.

---

Then bring the values forward. Leadership is not a value, it's a position.Solomon can only describe the character of a noble wife in the terms of his time. The point was that she was wise, self-sufficient and enterprising. That is what we should bring forward from the Bible, not that she only dealt with family needs.You have to remember the time it took to do things back then. Making meals from scratch, making clothes from scratch, etc. The Proverb does imply she added money to the family income. Just because they didn't have offices back then, doesn't negate the work. Also remember that bartering was a norm back then. So the eggs, baskets, cloth, wool, etc. were the same as money. So in essence she was making money. If you want to bring the values forward, fine; but don't hang on to ancient laws and customs that are outdated. Just because you want you way in an impasse, doesn't mean women should become property again.Why do you feel the Golden Rule doesn't apply to wives?

quote:

---

Coyote, you and your friends consistently convolute my position, which that the Biblical role of the woman is to tend the house and children as the man is in the workplace, be it a fisherman, merchant in the markets, farmer, etc.

---

I agree that there are two roles men physically can't do and that is to bear children and suckle them. So during Bible times, women were stuck with those roles and those roles do tend to keep them rather close to home. This really is the only role that is gender specific. So a culture would need to form around that fact. Archaeology of the Bible: WorkEven when two men or several men live in a house together (such as military), household jobs are assigned. Obviously they aren't assigned by gender, strength, or intelligence.In a family, one person isn't supposed to do all the work and couldn't in those days. From the looks of it the woman was actually more the leader. It was a very different setup back then. It would be very difficult for a single man or woman to do all that was necessary to survive. Today a single man or woman can do all that is necessary to survive.What they can't do separately is have children, but today a pregnant woman can survive on her own if she must or chooses to.The Bible gives us a glimpse of the roles necessitated by environment and survival. The writers of the Bible were not dictating the roles for the future. As the environment changes, so do the roles except for the one of bearing children.A healthy, wise, skillful and enterprising wife is an asset. Just as a healthy, wise, skillful and enterprising husband is an asset.My husband appreciates the fact that I can fix the dryer, the computer, change out a light switch, manage money, do taxes, raise and can produce. Right now I'm learning to reupholster the furniture to save money.I appreciate the fact that my husband makes good money, does the grocery shopping on his way home from work to save gas and he can fix the cars. He won't let me grocery shop or mow the yard unless he's injured or out of town.When siding blew off the end of the house, I figured out how much siding we needed, where to purchase it, borrowed the necessary tools, and then we both put up the siding. I took the lead in the application because I used to put up aluminum siding with my Dad. This also saved us money.IMO, the roles within a family are up to the family; not something to be dictated by ancient writings. Needs change.What works for you, may not work for others. What works for me, may not work for others.

quote:

---

Neither she nor my wife hesitate to admonish or correct us, their husbands when they think we are out of line or wrong about something, though when all is said and done, if an issue comes to the status of impasse, as in any other organization, the sensible and workable solution of the chairman presiding one breaks the impasse so as to keep the peace and allowing the impasse to lead to divorce or separation.

---

But a family isn't a company. Divorce and separation will still happen if a woman or man feels oppressed.From what you've described, you have a partnership. My guess is that those things that cause an impasse, your wife has already decided she can live with either decision since you've already said she has no problem correcting you when you're wrong.

quote:

---

In some cases the 50/50 authority thingy works, but all too often it makes for continual bickering, unreast, in extreme cases, violence, separation, misery and divorce. It also causes more fear, discontent and unhappiness in the lives of the children to listen to this. I well remember the terrible feeling I had as a child when my parents became embroiled in a heated argument before they were converted.

---

The partnership isn't what makes for continual bickering, unrest, violence, separation, misery, and divorce.In all cases, Buz, whether the leadership role or 50/50 it is the personalities of the people that determines if the marriage will work. If you weren't a man who could take correction from a woman, your marriage would be more difficult and your wife would have to suffer through your mistakes.Give me an example of an impasse.Even if you make the final decision, I see three ways it can play out.1. You decide your way is best.
2. You decide to let your wife have her way.
3. You come up with a compromise if one is available.One side if not both have to bend. Problems arise when neither side wants to bend in either setup.So do you end the impasse with compromise or deem one side or the other the winner?
If compromise is offered by your wife, do you take it?From my understanding, in the Bible, women weren't allowed to divorce if the arranged marriage didn't work. The men could though in Judaism. Property can't reject its owner, but the owner can reject his property. Jesus taught that they shouldn't except for infidelity.Women are no longer property, so they can divorce a man should he become abusive, oppressive, or unwise.Bottom line: People need to learn how to choose the right mate the first time around, learn how to argue/disagree constructively, and learn how to compromise when necessary. Deeming one person as the "authority" doesn't solve serious problems.

quote:

---

Having a leadership role, coupled with the Biblical traditional marriage vow in place in the relationship has traditionally resulted in a relatively low divorce rate compared to that of today. No?

---

There are no marriage vows in the Bible.
Respect and common courtesy isn't restricted to the religious. It's common sense. 1997 - U.S. divorce rates for various faith groups, age groups, & geographic areas2008 - New Marriage and Divorce Statistics ReleasedI don't see that assigned authority or ancient gender roles makes a difference. It still comes down to personalities and how a couple deals with issues and problems. If neither side bends, there will be problems.Excerpts from: "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Judaism". Nature of WomenI did a search on Christian rules for a successful marriage. I haven't found one yet that says make sure one person is in charge. Ten Biblical Rules for a Happy Marriage
Keys to a successful MarriageOther than childbearing and suckling, the gender roles of ancient civilizations aren't relevant today. Today the roles fit the needs of the couple, the family and the environment/culture in which they strive to survive.The man who needs to be the leader, better find a woman who will let him.
The woman who needs to be the leader, better find a man who will let her.
Those who want a partnership, better find a mate that wants the same.Find the right mate and the roles will set themselves.

The topic is about whether the historical respective roles of the genders is relevant today. Buz has said that he applies the Biblical role for women. Message 60Women were property in the Bible and children could be sold as slaves. The wife was essentially a slave with benefits. She was purchased from her father. Women are no longer property to be bought and sold.In Message 60, Buz gave his Biblical example from Proverbs 31: He thinks this means the woman only takes care of the household and feels women today should stick to the household instead of understanding that she is a wise and enterprising woman.In Message 83, I showed the reality of the Bible times. We find that ancient women weren't confined to their looms and their kitchens, but also took on administering the finances of the family and overseeing the family business.Their environment and culture determined the roles aside from childbearing. Our current environment and culture now determines our roles. Since life is easier, in the US anyway, a woman can support herself and survive. Women are no longer property.So why bring forward the one idea of the man being in charge instead of couples naturally deciding for themselves and playing to the strengths of the individuals and what is economically feasible for their situation?There is no basis for it in this day and age. The man being in charge doesn't guarantee the marriage won't fail. The Biblical value of respecting each other and treating each other well, still applies today; but the man being the authority is not a value. It's a position that made sense then, but not now for all families.So why only bring forward male authority and the mistaken idea that women shouldn't work outside the home?