When Should Women Obey Their Husbands?

[savagewind]

There is a pattern that we should follow. And it is ''maths''

OK. See? Something we agree on!

 

[Robert.Evans]

It is not right to expect a straight answer from Willamena. God! Pay attention. Won't you???????

Why is it not right? It is a religious discussion forum is it not?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes it was ''seize''

 

[savagewind]

Why is it not right? It is a religious discussion forum is it not?

Me answering would be me obeying you. I shall opt out this time sir.

 

[savagewind]

Yes it was ''seize''

Oh brother now I have to post to get closer to four million. I'll go check the posts. I am sure you left out a word but I'll go see which word. Be right back.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Me answering would be me obeying you. I shall opt out this time sir.

I never said you had to obey me, nor anyone to obey me, madam.

 

[savagewind]

SIGH. Where Is it?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Eve never obeyed Adam either. In that one moment, she was the starter of life and the finisher of life. She became life and death, having the power of both.

 

[savagewind]

I never said you had to obey me, nor anyone to obey me, madam.

I call that not playing fair. YOU say woman is to obey man. You man. Me woman.

 

[savagewind]

I remember. I said "Maybe it is why women want to seize power" (because Man won't listen.)

See? Maybe. Then you took that word out. Foul play I say.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You said:

''
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.''

#167

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Very crude, and will not help your understanding of men nor women nor this discussion. But it is an often used phrase... by guess who? Women.
I wonder why.
Sounds like an insecurity to me.
Who is putting one above the other I ask? The scripture tells us that the man is the head of the woman and that is born out through history and soceity even now. Yes women have more power now, but so what? Men have given it them. If they wanted to take it from them they could.

Empowerment isn't granted. It is claimed. Men did not give women power. Women fought for our rights. Men who came to the realization of how better it is for society that women have equal rights didn't give anyone anything, they began to stand by us.

In so doing, we both stand together and against injustice. This is where the battle of the sexes calms down.

So it is not WHO is ''important'' as both are, and I have never said that the woman is of no importance; that, I'm afraid, is something that women seem to think, hence the reason you keep judging yourself by men.... never a sound beginning to anything.

I don't do that. You misunderstand me. I speak only for myself and based on my own studies and experiences.

Do not speak for me. That is rude.

I was speaking, and still am, about our primordial past, well before we would have been considered civilized.
As for some men being above other men, well, that is natural, and is why men were above women. It came down to who was the strongest personality, (and that for various reasons). Later in the times of early man, yes we see a power structure which benefits those at the top, (as it still does), and is part of the pattern of God that we follow. We have a human 'king', as the real king is God! When we follow such things intuitively as man, we don't follow them as we should; otherwise we would have God as our king (as the OT says). But we wanted a man, and becasue of that, many problems would come are way (OT) which it has.
But it has always been about who is strongest; that is part of evolution, and evolution (if you are intested) of the divine consciousness which we are a part of and follow.

This is your understanding of evolutionary theory and it's application into the social sciences?

No wonder you post the things you do.

That is quite quaint I'm sure, but that is not what they set out to do. I have seen a woman say on TV that they set out to ''destroy the family''. Now @Draka thinks ''someone'' is sick for saying certain things. Well destroying the family makes me sick.

That is exactly what feminists set out to do, ending violence against women and to establish personhood and autonomy for women. I encourage you to read the essays of prominent 19th century and First Wave feminists to get a better idea of the philosophical origins.

Now you have power, through the vote, jobs, and money...sure, an so the goals have moved slightly. but it amounts to the same thing. What has happened recently is that some prominant men have noticed (as has the medai) that feminist women are just as s-xist and chauvinistic as their male counterparts. Pot calling the kettle black me thinks.

I advise talking with more feminists. If you are speaking with or hearing from RadFems who are more separatists, and who also discriminate against trans women as much as the most fundamentalist religion members, then you are paying attention to the absolute fringe elements of the movement.

Name three mainstream feminist scholars who say unequivocally that women are superior and that men are not to be needed. If your claim about the majority of feminism to be such, then finding these sentiments should be easy for you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The last time I saw someone comment on that, ''he'' said that men were more likely to die at then end of domestic problems than women.
As for the other things you mention, that just shows that there are problems that have not been sorted out through the (elders if they believe) courts. So it is a failure in society and the governement. The response to that from women, (which one might understand) was to run from men. And so we have now more crime associated with single parents and more adultery. Fact.

No. More associated with socio-economic conditions than gender absences. Fact.

So guilt kicks in eh? Weren't bothered about men until it was pointed out.

No, not guilt. Awareness. That includes opening up shelters not just for women and men overall, but for queers, trans, and non-binary people.

I can certainly agree if something helps it should be looked at. But feminism is not the answer, nor is that the reason women are feminist. Perhaps it is difficult to really admit why it is women are feminist... but one thing for sure, it is not about having less, nor about helping anyone bar themselves.
I suppose it shows how placid males have become in the west that you may now do that.

I disagree that men have become placid. I find that to be a very sexist and a disrespectful statement against men.

We have a pattern given by God and laws that covered the misuse of power against men and women. It did not need changing; it needed adhereing to. That is largely a failure of men, which I understand; but that does not mean I will subscribe to something that blatently breaks up the family and creates more adultery and damage to the children and destroys the natural pattern of God, which in turn follows the Goddess and not the God.

Looks like you're insecure about following a Goddess.

In all seriousness, though, protect an institution or protect human lives, if one had to make a choice between the two, what is the most ethical or moral? Choose wisely.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I remember. I said "Maybe it is why women want to seize power" (because Man won't listen.)

See? Maybe. Then you took that word out. Foul play I say.

maybe women MUST seize power

 

[savagewind]

maybe women MUST seize power

Did I say "must". Slap slap do it again buster and you'll be sorry. Should? No, that won't work. Do? I do not know that. Ask Heaven. Here there is no word.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I call that not playing fair. YOU say woman is to obey man. You man. Me woman.

The main idea if husband to wife. Clearly unless we are being hypocritical that would run through to men and women. But that is only a general feeling that would pervade society. It has nothing to do with communication here.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Did I say "must". Slap slap do it again buster and you'll be sorry. Should? No, that won't work. Do? I do not know that. Ask Heaven. Here there is no word.

post 167 check yourself o disbelieving one

 

[savagewind]

The main idea if husband to wife. Clearly unless we are being hypocritical that would run through to men and women. But that is only a general feeling that would pervade society. It has nothing to do with communication here.

Now you're on the right track. Good! If God tells women to obey their husbands in everything THEN that misnomer will "permeate society" which it did and what have we? Not good.

 

[savagewind]

post 167 check yourself o disbelieving one

That's not right. That is me asking "where?" OK? So where is it?

 

[Willamena]

Most people do.
But whereas I was compelled to ask, you don't seem compelled to answer.

Indeed.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Now you're on the right track.

Really! So I need you to say that do I..haha. I have not changed my position. You are just understanding it better once you climb down off the chandeliers.

Good! If God tells women to obey their husbands in everything THEN that misnomer will "permeate society" which it did and what have we? Not good.

You think God does not know what he is doing?
There is a difference in someone enlightened and someone secular, and all the intermediate positions between them.