Women should keep silent in the assembly?

[Shakeel]

If God doesn't make a distinction, status-wise, between male and female believers,

He did. See the OP for the most obvious reference.

He dictate a strict sex hierarchy in our interactions and relationships? It doesn't make sense.

Yes it does. There is equality in the modern terms and there is equality in the eyes of God. Those are separate. It's clear from the Bible and the Qur'an as well.

Those sexist verses attributed to Paul always seemed out of place to me. There's a context missing from the equation.

That's okay. There are so many other sexist verses in the Bible to choose from.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

He did. See the OP for the most obvious reference.

Yes it does. There is equality in the modern terms and there is equality in the eyes of God. Those are separate. It's clear from the Bible and the Qur'an as well.

That's okay. There are so many other sexist verses in the Bible to choose from.

That's one view, but it doesn't answer my questions about this particular subject, which has nothing to do with the Bible as a whole, or the Qur'an at all.

 

[Meow Mix]

It's not secret. It's out in the open now.

True. It's first and formost about humiliating and degrading women and making them think it's what dignifies them.

It's not the personality that doesn't match. It's the feminist liberal trash that poisons young minds and makes their "personality" that of a selfish cretin.

I'm not sure you have a grasp on what feminism is, and this emotional outburst at the end is just equating women's autonomy with "selfish cretinism," so it's not even thinly veiled misogyny.

 

[Meow Mix]

Marriage is not about deciding and making clear who is better. It's about order. If the woman feels the man is inadequate at something she can a) advise respectfully, b) be quiet and accept that life isn't perfect or c) if it's a serious matter, ask someone else to advise her husband.

Or, and hear me out, couples can make decisions as equal partners; or based on whatever meshing of personalities best suits them; rather than making assumptions based on their sex or gender.

There's nothing wrong with recognizing that women have certain characteristics and accepting that. It's good for women so that they can be women.

What, pray tell, are these "certain characteristics" that women have? Are there no exceptions? Do you think all women have "certain characteristics" by virtue of being women?

 

[Glaurung]

The Christian ideal of marriage rests on the belief in the complementary of the sexes. Men and women have distinct but indispensable roles.

The husband is the head and as such possesses a degree of authority over his family. The flip side is that he is responsible for the material and spiritual well being of that family. If he becomes tyrannical, abusive or lazy in providing he fails in his role for which he will have to answer before God. He is derelict and if he does not improve he could very well forfeit his claims to legitimate authority. Indeed he could forfeit access to his family all together in the most extreme cases.

The wife's role is almost that of a quartermaster. Her responsibility is the day to day running of the household and the day to day care of her children. It is the captain's (the husband's) job to provide her with the materials necessary to run that household, and in the actual disposing of those materials she holds quite a bit of authority on the practical level. And of course, like the husband there is all sorts of ways a wife can become derelict as well. Which leads to family discord and potential family failure all together.

Captain and quartermaster are meant to work together as a team and a good captain will frequently consult his quartermaster for her opinion. I don't think even the most hard line traditionalists deny that the wife is entitled to genuine voice in family decisions. Unfortunately we live in a world where girls are taught to resent the idea of a husband with genuine authority. (The sin of pride). And at the same time many men are stuck in a perpetual adolescence and are unfit to take on their God ordained role as leader and provider. (The sin of sloth).

 

[Meow Mix]

The Christian ideal of marriage rests on the belief in the complementary of the sexes. Men and women have distinct but indispensable roles.

The husband is the head and as such possesses a degree of authority over his family. The flip side is that he is responsible for the material and spiritual well being of that family. If he becomes tyrannical, abusive or lazy in providing he fails in his role for which he will have to answer before God. He is derelict and if he does not improve he could very well forfeit his claims to legitimate authority. Indeed he could forfeit access to his family all together in the most extreme cases.

The wife's role is almost that of a quartermaster. Her responsibility is the day to day running of the household and the day to day care of her children. It is the captain's (the husband's) job to provide her with the materials necessary to run that household, and in the actual disposing of those materials she holds quite a bit of authority on the practical level. And of course, like the husband there is all sorts of ways a wife can become derelict as well. Which leads to family discord and potential family failure all together.

Captain and quartermaster are meant to work together as a team and a good captain will frequently consult his quartermaster for her opinion. I don't think even the most hard line traditionalists deny that the wife is entitled to genuine voice in family decisions. Unfortunately we live in a world where girls are taught to resent the idea of a husband with genuine authority. (The sin of pride). At the same time many men are stuck in a perpetual adolescence and are unfit to take on their God ordained roll as leader and provider. (The sin of sloth).

What happens in a situation where the woman is more skilled, has better leadership and decision making skills, better competence in finance or other matters that might be decided by the family? Why does it go by sex and not by merit?

 

[Glaurung]

What happens in a situation where the woman is more skilled, has better leadership and decision making skills, better competence in finance or other matters that might be decided by the family? Why does it go by sex and not by merit?

I address this. (If anything my post was harsher on men than it was on women). Marriage is a team effort and no women should suffer herself to marry an incompetent man. And a good captain will take full account of the skills of his quartermaster. If I were married and I had a wife who had a particular knack for all things finance I would certainly be happy to defer to her advice.

 

[Meow Mix]

I address this. (If anything my post was harsher on men than it was on women). Marriage is a team effort and no women should suffer herself to marry an incompetent man. And a good captain will take full account of the skills of his quartermaster. If I were married and I had a wife who had a particular knack for all things finance I would certainly be happy to defer to her advice.

So… why have a “head” if there’s a partnership? Is it just a fancy title only?

 

[Irate State]

I can’t help but feel like the implication is that men are superior or more qualified.

You're being too kind, it's not an implication, it's pretty straightforward, and frankly disgusting.

 

[Glaurung]

So… why have a “head” if there’s a partnership? Is it just a fancy title only?

It is the husband's job to lead the family. To lead does not mean to rule with arbitrary authority. It does not mean a husband does not listen to his wife. It does mean the primary responsibility to make those family decisions rests upon him as he is the one responsible for the family's material and spiritual well being. It was Adam not Eve who was cursed by God to toil with sweat on his brow. He was the one punished to perpetual struggle against the ground. That's why I liken a husband to a captain more than a king.

 

[Meow Mix]

So, let me just concoct a scenario here.

Say we have a happy heterosexual couple Jim and Jill.

Jim is a competent adult man. Let’s say he’s an engineer, or a programmer, or works on HVAC, or whatever. His skills are in fixing things, clever mechanical solutions, and cooking.

Jill is a competent adult woman. Let’s say she’s an MBA and manages a firm. She has strong decision making skills, people management, financial decision making, etc.

There’s nothing un-masculine about Jim, he’s a masculine guy. And there’s nothing un-feminine about Jill, she’s a feminine woman.

Yet because of her skill set, Jill makes the family’s financial decisions, their vacation planning, delegating things that need to be done in the house, etc.

Both make decent income and share the load of raising the kids; they take turns. Jim cooks delicious meals, Jill cleans after since cooking isn’t her best skill.

What’s wrong with this perfectly healthy and plausible picture? What about Jim makes him by default a “head,” when this family doesn’t seem like it needs one?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So, let me just concoct a scenario here.

Say we have a happy heterosexual couple Jim and Jill.

Jim is a competent adult man. Let’s say he’s an engineer, or a programmer, or works on HVAC, or whatever. His skills are in fixing things, clever mechanical solutions, and cooking.

Jill is a competent adult woman. Let’s say she’s an MBA and manages a firm. She has strong decision making skills, people management, financial decision making, etc.

There’s nothing un-masculine about Jim, he’s a masculine guy. And there’s nothing un-feminine about Jill, she’s a feminine woman.

Yet because of her skill set, Jill makes the family’s financial decisions, their vacation planning, delegating things that need to be done in the house, etc.

Both make decent income and share the load of raising the kids; they take turns. Jim cooks delicious meals, Jill cleans after since cooking isn’t her best skill.

What’s wrong with this perfectly healthy and plausible picture? What about Jim makes him by default a “head,” when this family doesn’t seem like it needs one?

What's wrong with that picture is that it's not realistic. Who has the time and resources for all that, such a busy career (for both parents individually), a marriage and children? The children of such a couple would likely be spending a lot of time in daycare or with a nanny.

 

[stvdv]

People do not care what God says or wants. Why should women keep quiet in church? Because God says so.

Who says so?

God or Bible or Pope?

 

[Meow Mix]

How about a “role reversal” scenario.

Take Tim and Tammy, both competent adults in a heterosexual relationship.

Tim is not very handy, he doesn’t do very well with deciding what tools to use. He’s a classic case of a man with an abundance of book smarts, but not a lot of common sense.

Tammy doesn’t have the deep philosophical intelligence of Tim, but she grew up working on cars. She changes the family vehicles’ oil, does modifications to increase the value of the house, all the “handy” stuff.

Tim goes to work in academia, but he usually ends up with more time to take care of the kids, and clean, so he happily does this.

Tim is the thinker, but he tends to overthink things, so Tammy tends to make the final decisions after hearing his valuable input.

Ok, so what’s wrong with this couple?

 

[Glaurung]

Say we have a happy heterosexual couple Jim and Jill.

In a strict Christian conception of family life the wife would not work unless necessary. She has enough on her plate with the house and the kids. It is not strictly speaking her responsibility to provide materially unless she is forced to by hard circumstances. Hence my comment about Adam. It is really funny that some women think that spending the best years of their lives slaving away for a corporation is freedom from the 'tyranny' of traditional married life. If I were a conspiracy theorist...

 

[Meow Mix]

What's wrong with that picture is that it's not realistic. Who has the time and resources for all that, such a busy career (for both parents individually), a marriage and children? The children of such a couple would likely be spending a lot of time in daycare or with a nanny.

There are a lot of successful parents where each has a career, I don’t find it implausible.

Plus, daycares and nannies in themselves aren’t negative things.

 

[Meow Mix]

In a strict Christian conception of family life the wife would not work unless necessary. She has enough on her plate with the house and the kids. It is not strictly speaking her responsibility to provide materially unless she is forced to by hard circumstances. Hence my comment about Adam. It is really funny that some women think that spending the best years of their life slaving for corporation is freedom from the 'tyranny' of traditional married life.

So what about women that want to do something else with their lives than be a housewife?

I would never be happy as a housewife.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There are a lot of successful parents where each has a career, I don’t find it implausible.

Plus, daycares and nannies in themselves aren’t negative things.

They can work, but the sort of atomized, urban "career over all" capitalist/consumer lifestyles that are promoted for all are not conducive with raising a family. I do not see daycares and nannies as a positive. Children should be raised by their parents or at least their immediate family. I wasn't raised by a nanny or in a daycare as a child, but I went through something similar (a series of babysitters and rarely seeing my mother as a child because she was working full time; I won't even mention what my dad was doing), and I resented it.

 

[Meow Mix]

They can work, but the sort of atomized, urban "career over all" capitalist/consumer lifestyles that are promoted for all are not conducive with raising a family. I do not see daycares and nannies as a positive. Children should be raised by their parents or at least their immediate family. I wasn't raised by a nanny or in a daycare as a child, but I went through something similar (a series of babysitters and rarely seeing my mother as a child because she was working full time; I won't even mention what my dad was doing), and I resented it.

I agree with you. I’m not saying all two-career parents are any better at parenting than one-career parents. I’d even submit that most parents aren’t very good across the board.

But there are good parents, and two-career parents are among them: those that make rational decisions about childcare. Some use of daycares/nannies/family is fine. *Abandoning* kids to them is not.

 

[Glaurung]

So what about women that want to do something else with their lives than be a housewife?

I'm not saying women should be prevented by society from pursuing careers. If that's what you really want to do.

It's interesting though as this discussion reminds me of an article I read many years ago written by a women who left her high ranking corporate career to live as a housewife with her children. She was emphatic in that it opened her eyes to the emptiness of corporate life and all its meaningless achievements as she found herself much happier being able to spend every day with her children. As Christians we believe that we are judged by our love, service and virtue. Of which a devoted housewife gives in abundance. Our careers on the other hand are counted as meaningless in the eyes of God. It will mean nothing the moment your heart stops beating.