When Should Women Obey Their Husbands?

[Robert.Evans]

LOL! BECAUSE HE ISN'T!

Size, or strength does not make a male superior to women!

Do you tell smaller males they are inferior, and need to be under the control of bigger males? NO! Because it would be stupid, just as it is as an excuse to control women!

Monkeys are stronger then men. I guess they are superior to you.

*

It was I who made the point why would you need to say it. And either way, the man is the stronger gender. That is fact. You live within a man's world.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Someone says "what is your proof men do not consider a woman's way like a woman is counseled to consider a man's way". Off the top of my head. Turn of the century children working 12 hour days for 10 cents. The man's law that says systematic rape is not a reason for asylum. Female circumcision. I think I could be at this for the rest of my life. Did I make a point or do you want more?

Who are you talking to and what does that mean?

 

[Robert.Evans]

No a heart does lots more than suffer. Mine skips. When I take care of it it allows me to run up the stairs! The heart has lots to say! Are you physically fit. You don't have to answer that. If the mind does not keep it's heart fit the heart will not work for what the body wants to do. I can SEE man is head. I do not need the Bible to see it.

If man is head then what are you arguing about?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Psh, spouses, once they've been together a while, usually don't even need direction. It's a partnership. A well oiled machine, at least it should be. And yes, they learn to defer to each other on certain matters.

There should be no "head" of the relationship overall, but each become a leader the other may defer to in certain situations or subjects. If the woman is better at managing the finances, the management of the money and bills may be her thing and the husband defer to her in financial matters. If the man is better at time management or housekeeping or social matters, then she may defer to his lead in those matters. Each spouse has their strong suits and, once they know what those are, they should defer to the one stronger in those matters. If this is done, then things go much better for the couple.

That is correct. But we must realise that the man does not need the woman to survive, but the woman needs the man. Now you might say you do not. But I would say you are thinking of the modern day world, which is built by men mostly,. Take that away and women struggle. Would they survive without men? Perhaps not. Fundamentally at that level, women are there to produce life, that is what makes the union of male and female. The female now has other options, so we see that her allegiance to the man was only false until such time as she had sufficient power to be able to be like him. This is the masculine and feminine nature of God that we follow.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Because it is straight out patriarchal bull.

I find it funny that Christians are against Sharia Law, but have no problem telling women they are under the Christian version of such patriarchal laws.

*

It is not bull at all, nor is it bull just because it is of men. We have seen women in the modern day world be no better than men when they get power. We have had M Thatcher as PM in the UK and she went to war just as the men did and shut down mines that destroyed whole communitites. It is no use thinking that we would all be putting flowers in our hair if women were in charge, that is just delusional thinking. The so-called patriarchal society was good enough before, without a complaint. But I do love the way you women wait for the right time to settle the score lol

 

[Robert.Evans]

Since you included the conditional "habitual," I don't think there is a normative standard for habitual behavior. It's accidental.

I suppose when you say ''accidental'' that means you don't believe in God then, right?

 

[Robert.Evans]

That seems like a strange assertion. How would you reach it?

There is a gulf between those who can and those who can't. In between that gulf is a whole host of intermediates The man is the head of the woman, that is not the thinking of the secular western society. It cares little for God's law but more for man's power orientation, which in itself is a seeking of God, just in the wrong way.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It's difficult to pin down who or what specifically started patriarchal customs. I think it isn't as simple as "look, men did this!" I will concede that men wrote the books that we read from to determine religious doctrine and history, so it logically follows that these doctrines develop from a collection of men's perspectives (we gnarly feminists call the phenomenon the Male Gaze)

That says a lot about you i think and feminism in general..... you slight the patriarchal soceity but I feel the matriarchal one would be worse. At least men defended their women. Hard to imagine women ever doing that for men.

, and assume the male perspective to be the default perspective of all.
Culture. Built and maintained over hundreds of years.

Patriarchal customs, as you call it, come from the primordial savage male being the stronger gender. When we were animals, the one that is head is the strongest and best fighter. So they ruled (as is God given) and laid out what we see, which on the whole, is not bad.

With further help from women to teach children to not be delinquents, we might rise even higher, but at the moment there is this feminist secular way of hunting for power-- now that there is chance to do that-- none of which is godly, but secular. Either way, it comes from the stronger gender. It shows how much the modern day world has changed that the natural god given roles are changing, now that the goddess is rising up, even within religion itself it seems, as they try to fit in with the world, the very thing they are not supposed to do.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Actually it is started by Patriarchy. They usually remove the clitoris, and sew up most of the area - to keep it virgin for a future male.

One of the reason for it, given on the World Health Organization page, is that a clitoris, is considered too male, thus they remove it. And as always - it is a way to control female sexuality, they believe it reduces libido, keeping them virgin for their husbands, and less likely to look for actual love, after arranged marriage.

I've watched a couple of programs on Female genital mutilation, and read a couple of papers on it.

The mothers often say they are ordered to do it to their daughters, or, that because of the patriarchal preference for such, their daughters will not be able to marry if they don't comply with the custom, leading to condemnation, poverty, etc., for the daughter, and possibly the parents.

*

Circumcision for male nor female is right. Always interesting that the female perspective does not concern herself much with what happens to the boys. In Africa they have botched circumcision that sometimes go septic so they have to have surgery or even die!

It would be nice, for the ''Female Gaze'' to perhaps consider the male once in a while. If not, I have little sympathy for the female when they complain. as they say, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander

 

[Robert.Evans]

Not so much tell them they're inferior but it is kind of unwritten rule. That's why they have short guy syndrome.
Urban Dictionary: Short Man's Syndrome

It is part of our promordail past. The bigger male is largely going to beat the smaller male in battle.

They do say that if you are tall in business you are more likely to be successful. We follow are primordial mindset, that is why it is not always easy to change it nor wise to do so.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Smaller men are in no way treated like women are in patriarchal society.

*

What patriarchal society are we talkjng about now? What era? This seems to be something in your own head, and a rather strange thought at that

 

[Robert.Evans]

Dude

lol

- you need to go back to # 35 where this started. A MALE said men were superior because of size, and god designation. LOL!

Leaving aside the God citation, seeing as you don't believe in him, what is it in your strange thinking that men are not superiour to women if they are bigger? You think they are less? You think they are equal? Or are you thinking of the false modern day world again? So why the LOL?

Also, there are obviously many minor problems with society, however, most are not on a level with the systematic discrimination against women.

*

What discrimination of women? In the UK we had a time when we stopped men being MPs in order that more women could be involved in politics. No matter whether they were any good or not, just because they were women! Is that not sexism? And yet men, who instigate this, are slated for it, and again, I ask, would women have done the same? I doubt it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

A MALE said it? Well that's just outrageous, I mean, it's terrible enough when normal people say it, but if a MALE says it it's absolutely abhorrent. ABHORRENT I TELL YOU!!!

haha.. quite so!

Seriously though, I'm starting to get a serious anti-men vibe from you.

Really? It has taken you that long?

Those "minor" problems with society were exactly what we were talking about. Trying to mask a flawed argument with a larger problem is poor form, and worse than that, it's a logical fallacy. It's the "starving kids in Africa" fallacy, or fallacy of relative privation.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Judging by a lot of the things written in the Bible by Paul and other authors, it seems to me that men weren't all that bright or educated either.

That same thought might be thrown your way seeing as you don't understand it

 

[Robert.Evans]

You are totally off the mark - and turning this off course, with red-herrings.

I replied to a man saying men are superior to women, - by saying they are not superior, - live with it!

*

But if you are going to take it to that level, which you obviously are, then they ARE superior.

That is why you live in a mans world, cities with infrastructure built be men, oceans mapped out by men etc etc. Women might be adding tons now, but it is not needed. We were doing it before and would continue on without them if they stopped, which seems to be the prerogative of the woman, which men don't have, however much feminist might say they have.

So live with it, dude!

 

[savagewind]

If man is head then what are you arguing about?

I am arguing obey. Look at the thread title. Does a human heart obey the brain? Not yet. God did not make the brain to order the body. God made the brain to lead the body. Man leads woman follows. Can a person follow without obeying? Certainly can. Look at the nation of Israel. They all went together. Did they all OBEY??????

Teaching it is any person's duty to obey is not wise. To obey should be a very personal matter but now we have a WORLD of people obeying for human FOLLY. God does not teach anyone To Obey.

God telling women man is the head is saying Follow him! Obey him? Then why not blame God for every crime which came from a person's obedience To MAN.

 

[savagewind]

I suppose when you say ''accidental'' that means you don't believe in God then, right?

Leaving aside the God citation, seeing as you don't believe in him,

I think you should be more careful. Those women I think DO believe in God.

Maybe women must seize the power because after all this time MAN has not learned to listen yet.

I might be wrong. I know those two are not professed atheists though.

 

[savagewind]

Seriously though, I'm starting to get a serious anti-men vibe from you.
.

Really? It has taken you that long?

Pay some little attention and you will discover she has an anti-everything vibe. And I love her for it!

 

[savagewind]

Take a deeper look at Bible's word "OBEY" and you should see it means yield. What does yield mean? "give way to arguments, demands or pressure". Does "give way" mean obey?

surrender, capitulate, submit, relent, admit defeat, back down, climb down, give in, give up the struggle, lay down one's arms, raise/show the white flag

Hm I wonder why The Brain left out obey on that list?

I am hearing something. Where does contention start? and contention causes WAR. Actually I heard it the other way around.

Yield simply means it is not most people's job to contend.

Contention is what starts wars and contention is birthed in families. Contention began with man and woman. If like leaven contention spreads then get out the leaven. But people have defined leaven as people. It isn't.

 

[savagewind]

Would an illustration help? Some intersections have a Yield sign. It isn't a stop sign but sometimes it means stop. Get it?