posted on October 29, 2000 03:17:00 PM new
BTW I am glad that you have also found what works for you. I have to believe that the differences in our philosophical views and our relationships is that nature never did give me such a simplistic dictate. Nature cas been ever so complicated in it's dealings with me.
[ edited by grannyfox on Oct 29, 2000 03:19 PM ]
posted on October 29, 2000 08:19:53 PM newktsclutter, for many women, dependent upon their very different, very real, situations and the outlook that it gives them, the only 'submission' imaginable is one which is within the subterfuge of manipulation. Perhaps it is the word "submission" when your meaning is "deferral". You defer to your husband in your preferred role. And that works for you and is comfortable and "right"--for you. For others, that is not possible in their reality. For many, it is not acceptable under any circumstance, even if such were "possible."
I can easily see myself deferring to someone else who had proved himself worthy of my faith by consistently making decisions which were proved 'right' by time and outcome, and which took my own feelings and interests into consideration, with knowledgable judgment, love and consideration. I cannot ever see myself "submitting" to anyone for any reason, any time, any how.
You are lucky in your situation to have someone to whom you give such trust, who appears not to have disappointed you or your faith in him. But that is you, not me...nor a more universal circumstance.
For me, it would be difficult to base my actions on the words of Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians 5:22-33, or in his Epistle to the Colossians 3:18 (Paul was, to say the least, redundant...his epistles are somewhat repetitive (and I've always pictured Paul as married to a real ball-buster, so felt his words might contain much wishful thinking of the difference between his reality and his actuality). Paul was but one voice, although he was given, apparently, to raising it without surcease. Reminds me of me.
We all must play the hand dealt to us, and we must play it as we are most comfortable, win or lose, by instinct or by direction provided by others. Your way works for you. I am certain that it was not your intention to imply that it should be imposed on others, just as my way should not be imposed on you.
posted on October 29, 2000 08:50:10 PM new
Gosh, is SgtMike still on suspension? I'd sure hate for him to miss the one thread where he'd probably actually agree with krs.
posted on October 29, 2000 08:55:40 PM newKRS as fowl a thread as I've ever seen. Foul fowl.
In the first place, I don't buy your pretence of believing that strength, character, or ability could be compartmentalized so neatly as to gender specific/gender exclusive.
I'll admit I am curious as to your possible motive. My guess is boredom.
The concept is an illusion. I'll agree that it is in our nature as human beings to want to divide and separate - them from us. It saves us the trouble of being forced to look at each person as an individual. It's no different than:
She is a female, so she fits in this box.
She is a black female, so she fits in this box.
She is a poor black female, so she fits in this box.
She is a poor black lesbian female, so she fits in this box.
Very few people ever fit into the pre-constructed box that we feel compelled to create for them.
posted on October 29, 2000 09:46:18 PM new
For you, precious? Another 5 to 10 years. You're doing okay so far...a few stumbles along the way, but generally a clean record. For a lesser man? Probably never.
That remark about "women lawyers" set you back, bunkie.
posted on October 30, 2000 05:09:11 AM new
The difficulty, of course, hellcat, in the "women subordinate to men" (a/k/a Pauline) viewpoint is that for the most part its proponents don't consider it a choice, or a matter of right or wrong. It's considered an expression of natural law. This leads to the idea that although people, of course, may choose not to follow the Pauline model, by definition they're then "going against nature". For many, since God determined the natural order of things, "going against nature" = going against God, which of course leads to the demonization of anyone choosing not to follow the "natural" order.
Thus, to the person who believes that the Pauline viewpoint is an expression of the natural order, the idea that each person an and should follow his own road, so to speak, is as inconceivable as saying that each person must decide for himself whether to obey the laws of gravity: you can try to flout them, but you're only asking for trouble.
posted on October 30, 2000 08:29:03 AM new
And many believe that seeing as "MAN" wrote the Bible / ---and as 'MAN' and 'WOMAN' are not without fault---so the Bible and it's many translations is not without fault either.
posted on October 30, 2000 08:40:33 AM newHCQ, as I said, "We all must play the hand dealt to us, and we must play it as we are most comfortable, win or lose, by instinct or by direction provided by others.
For some folks, of course, the "hand dealt" includes the Pauline card, and they will play accordingly. Others among us (thank you, God! ) don't have that card in hand, don't seek it, won't "go fish" for it, and it is no matter to us if it exists due to the exhortations of St. Paul, or the song stylings of Peter, Paul, and Mary.
The unfortunate thing is...there are a lot of folks out there who would like to insist that we all play with the exact same cards in our hands. Happily, about 225 years ago, this country and our (all male, Ken, I know) government gave us the opportunity to thrive in an environment where differences of thought aren't just accepted, but are encouraged, and the freedom to express and exercise those differences, within reasonable constraints, is guaranteed to all. And that building process slowly goes on, as we surface our differences and explore them. You have to work for it, no doubt about that, and I don't think all of the glitches are fixed yet, do you?
And we have to continually find our way around those who would insist that our hand be the same as theirs, when we are feeling just fine about the cards we've been dealt.
posted on October 30, 2000 09:16:11 AM new
For Beth. "We all must play the hand dealt to us, and we must play it as we are most comfortable, win or lose, by instinct or by direction provided by others.*
My parents were married for 60 yrs. before Dad's death & voted in every election.
My Mother was less than 5ft, tall. My father was a big man & very strong.
When they were first married, Dad was making home brew. He had a large 55 gal. crock behind the wood stove. Mom, did not like the smell. One day she was churning butter. She told dad about the smell. It caused a few words between them.
The story goes that Dad, was making a point about being the man of the house, when Mom, broke the churn dash over his head, pulled him over to the crock, busted the crock, let it run on top of him. When Dad came to. Mom said "I got rights too" The year 1920.
Each of their children received a churn dash as a wedding present.
posted on October 30, 2000 09:43:45 AM new
What I didn't seem to get across, hellcat, is that the "folks out there" to which you refer are not insisting that we shouldplay with the "same cards in our hands," as you put it - which implies that a choice actually exists NOT to do so - but that the cards in each person's hands are in fact the same whether they want to deny it or not. That's why I used the "gravity" analogy. Gravity isn't an issue of choice. EVERYBODY is subject to its laws. There's no opt-out.
zazzie, for these folks, gravity and the Bible are in the same boat: the Bible is not one viewpoint, or simply a rule book to prod us into Being Good, but an expression of how God set up the world to work - kind of like a schematic for a jet engine. The schematic doesn't order the engine to "behave" a certain way; it describes how the engine is designed to work (and thereby shows what needs to be adjusted if it doesn't).
Think about how most of the Bible is written. Very little of it is devoted to bossing the world around. Most of it is stories of people who either followed the natural order of things (a/k/a God's will) and were blessed, or went their own way and got into trouble. Basically, God doesn't have to go out of his way to "punish" us: we do that just fine on our own.
From this viewpoint, Paul was merely making an observation that the natural order of things is for women to take the subordinate role. Since God designed the natural order of things, to act outside that natural order is to go against the will of God.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Oct 30, 2000 09:46 AM ]
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Oct 30, 2000 09:48 AM ]
posted on October 30, 2000 09:44:51 AM new
Yeap Beth...you said that all well. For those woman that think nature dictated they be subordinate...fine, as long as they have a choice. But it is not for all women, all men or even all couples. Flexibility and a willingness to pitch in whenever and where ever has served Ted and I best.
ktsclutter...submissiveness can find power only through manipulation. There is no other way.
**Disclaimer: If I appear arguementive, then I probably am just being a #*!@ today. It comes & goes. C.
posted on October 30, 2000 12:03:21 PM new
Wow! I had no idea that just having the "Y" chromosome made a person more intelligent or able to lead than those with the "X" chromosome. Amazing! Does that mean that those with the "Super Y" chromosome (or whatever that is called when there is an exra one) is the most "manly" and should be leading all the rest of us? Interesting. I guess I should tell my daugthers about all this....because my mom forgot to tell me. Gee I'll get right on this....NOT!
posted on October 30, 2000 03:48:03 PM new
Here's a link for the latest news on women voters. I don't know the clickable code for AW - but very interesting.
posted on October 31, 2000 08:03:40 AM new
"ktsclutter...submissiveness can find power only through manipulation. There is no other way."
Grannyfox, I am troubled by this statement as it carries no substance. Apearing to be only a blanket statement with no basis or experience.
Perhaps it is more of a deferral, as Hellcat states. A developed trust over many years of also sharing the same yoke. However, I can find no manipulation in my personal expression of submissiveness.
HCQ: You are so articulate and eloquent with your words it is difficult for me to respond as I am not. Perhaps the Bible, and the men who wrote the testiments, purportedly filled with the Holy Spirit as they wrote, did lay out the natural way of life in the Principles of Christ - somewhat as if it were, in fact, an owner's manual. I think the aspect you may have overlooked is the freedom the New Testiment brought from the laws of the Old Testiment. Now I'm not real schooled on God, Christianity, etc. But I do think that in our free will, we have already been forgiven if, in God's eyes, we have sinned. I think that was the reason he sent His son to die for our sins. Perhaps God simply got tired of all the smoke and ashes billowing forth from the burnt offerings extended to seek forgiveness by Him in the laws of the land before Christ's birth. Your choice in lifestyle is not up for judgement by anyone walking this earth. I think He probably has an understanding of differences in nature, afterall He supposedly did have something to do with it's creation. And you are loved regardless of what the "world" may espouse. It is your heart and not the physical that matters.
posted on October 31, 2000 07:37:20 PM newLabrat4gmos Too funny!
When hubby and I got married we both had one particularly rude awakening. Little did I know that he believed that when the "man" said it was time for bed then by golly the lights were going out and it was time for bed. Now, this has nothing to do with sex - we're talking sleep.
The first month or so we were married we had a nightly ritual of him "announcing" that it was my bed time (I can still feel my blood pressure rising after all these years)
My response was to stay up even later - I'm already a night owl so this wasn't a problem for me. I think it took a full month of my turning all the lights and t.v. back on and us fighting it out before he realized I wasn't joined at his hip. I can remember as a nineteen year old standing with hands on hips screaming "I'm my own person." Geeeez that would set him off.
Twenty-four years later and we still laugh over that first trecherous month. If I'd had a churn I'm thinkin it wouldn't have taken a whole month.
posted on November 1, 2000 01:05:15 AM newMybiddness: your post reminded me of an old joke:
Newlyweds arrived in the honeymoon suite for their first night together. As they were getting undressed, the husband tossed his trousers to his wife and told her to put them on. She did, and they were huge--she had to hold the waistband with both hands to keep them up. She said, "This is silly, I can't wear your pants!"
Her husband retorts, "That's right! You just remember who wears the pants in this family--me! I'm the head of the house and what I say goes!"
On hearing this, the wife finishes undressing and tosses her panties to her husband and tells hims to put them on. He holds them up derisively and says "That's ridiculous--I can't get into your panties!"
"That's right! And you're not going to," said his new bride, "until you change your attitude."
posted on November 1, 2000 02:09:18 PM newGrannyfox In case you don't find a butter churn, just remember a big ole iron skillet does very nicely in a pinch.
Just kiddin - I would never strike my hubby. I'm much more creative than that.
) don't have that card in hand, don't seek it, won't "go fish" for it, and it is no matter to us if it exists due to the exhortations of St. Paul, or the song stylings of Peter, Paul, and Mary.
