Woman vs Wife

[Chase 390]

Okay, so I'm tired of being called "sexist" for my views on women. None of you on here have called me sexist, but I haven't shared too many of my views on women either. The following conclusions are based off of my religion, society, and personal feelings. If you don't agree with them, that's fine, but don't just say "you're wrong" or anything like that. Back up what you say. If you think I'm wrong, let me know why, and I'll consider your viewpoint. I'm planning to be very open minded on this topic, so all views are welcome. Since I am Christian, expect me to refer back to the Bible a lot. If there isn't anything else, I'll begin the discussion.

I've been taught ever since I was a little boy, "Don't hit a girl" or "Be a gentleman. Pull out a lady's chair and open doors for women." It would always strike me as strange that the girls could hit me as much as they wanted, but I couldn't hit them back. It didn't seem fair. As I got older, I began to understand that men and women are different. Men think differently than women, act differently than women, are built differently than women...Everything about us is different. The Bible says that man was made in the image of God, and woman was made in the image of man. What does that mean? Does it mean that women are less than man, them not being the specific image of God? I've been taught all my life to take it easy on women. Women have lower standards for the military and for sports and...just about everything. Society makes it seem that women are less than men.

I would have thought my religion thinks the same, since Paul says in the Bible that women aren't to teach men, and women are to be subordinate to their husbands, except Jesus treated women no differently than men. The Bible also says that women and men are equal in heaven, and there will be no gender. So, according to my faith, men and women are equals in heaven, but not equal here on earth.

Up to this point, it would seem that men and women are not equals, except in heaven. However, here are my personal beliefs, drawn from Christianity, society, and some of my girl friends. Not girlfriends, girls that are friends.

Women are, or should be, equal to men when they are single. Single women should have every right a single man has. A single women should be able to pursue any job she likes, and make as much as a man makes. This also applies to a widow. She should be able to have the same benefits and opportunities as a man, plus she should get help from the church and friends because she is a widow.

But, here's where the difference lies. When a woman becomes a wife, everything changes. She is no longer a single entity, but part of a union. She, therefore, must play her role as the wife. This could mean anything from bearing children or being a good mother or being supportive of her husband, but she must play her part. It isn't her God given right to be the head of the household, because that's the responsibility of the man, "wearing the pants" so to speak. This doesn't give the man full dominance over the woman, it simply means that he is the breadwinner and is responsible for the family. It is still the man's duty to treat his woman with respect, and to love her with his full heart. In turn, the woman must me subordinate and obey her husband. Once again, I must stress that this doesn't give the man free reign over his wife, it simply means that he's in charge. She shouldn't take abuse or anything of that nature, if she is being abused, then she should divorce him or seek help.

Men and women aren't equal when it comes to marriage/relationship, but I don't think women would want a husband to treat her like an equal. A man should be a gentleman, someone who will treat her with respect and love and not abuse his responsibility. What woman doesn't like a man who opens a door for her, or pulls her chair out for her? What woman would rather have a man that treats her like "one of the guys"?

These are just my thoughts, what do you guys/girls think?

[HylianLink15 0]

Having read your whole post, I think I agree with you, but for different reasons. I don't believe women SHOULD take the role, just because society (or religion) says so. I think most men and women WANT to take their roles because of some basic instincts. Myself, I always try to protect my girlfriend, even though I know she might not need my protection. I open a door for my girlfriend not because I have to, but because I want to. It's in the nature of men to try to protect the ones they love. And I think (but of course, being male, I cannot know this) women have an instinct to be a "mother". In this day and age, most of the time women don't need men to protect them anymore. Though not always, most of the time brains are more important than muscles, and women are certainly as capable as men when it comes to thinking, if not more.

I'm not saying everyone feels like this. And they shouldn't. I just think that in most cases, it's this way.

[Ammonsa 308]

I understand what you are getting at. The original purpose of a marriage was to bear children legitimately. The purpose of a woman in one half of the marriage was to bear the children and support the man so he could support them. But I don't see why what the woman does is somehow "less" than the man. They just have a different part to play. Neither part would work without the other so I think women and men are equal. I think the woman's part is just as important, otherwise we would be implying that men are more important.

Women do generally feel a need to take care of things, while men to protect.

[Max 10]

Women can do whatever they want. Men should not have control over women because Paul said so. They are humans, as are you and I. Their decisions are up to them, in wedlock or not. They are not inferior, nor are they superior. They may not be controlled or controlling in a relationship.

[Chase 390]

I understand what you are getting at. The original purpose of a marriage was to bear children legitimately. The purpose of a woman in one half of the marriage was to bear the children and support the man so he could support them. But I don't see why what the woman does is somehow "less" than the man. They just have a different part to play. Neither part would work without the other so I think women and men are equal. I think the woman's part is just as important, otherwise we would be implying that men are more important.

Women do generally feel a need to take care of things, while men to protect.

I agree completely. I wasn't trying to make out that the woman's part was inferior, but it seems to have come out that way anyway. Yes, basically I was trying to say that men and women are different, and have different roles to play. Thank you for your post.

Women can do whatever they want. Men should not have control over women because Paul said so. They are humans, as are you and I. Their decisions are up to them, in wedlock or not. They are not inferior, nor are they superior. They may not be controlled or controlling in a relationship.

I agree with you to a point, women are human beings and have their own decisions to make. When they decide for themselves that they should marry, they know what they are getting into when they become a wife, or they should know. A man could never carry a child, and that is up to the woman to do so. I think it would be wrong of her to withhold herself from her husband for any reason, since it was her decision to marry him and be his wife "till death do us part." I don't think she should let her pride get in the way of her duty as a wife. What do you think?

Having read your whole post, I think I agree with you, but for different reasons. I don't believe women SHOULD take the role, just because society (or religion) says so. I think most men and women WANT to take their roles because of some basic instincts. Myself, I always try to protect my girlfriend, even though I know she might not need my protection. I open a door for my girlfriend not because I have to, but because I want to. It's in the nature of men to try to protect the ones they love. And I think (but of course, being male, I cannot know this) women have an instinct to be a "mother". In this day and age, most of the time women don't need men to protect them anymore. Though not always, most of the time brains are more important than muscles, and women are certainly as capable as men when it comes to thinking, if not more.

I'm not saying everyone feels like this. And they shouldn't. I just think that in most cases, it's this way.

Yeah, I've noticed men do have that natural instinct to protect, and I've also noticed a change in women from when they were a wife to when they became a mother. Something inside them changes, they become a lot more caring and knowing. This isn't in every case, like you said, but I think it's the majority.

[Shadowknight 54]

I think that marriage is definitely a unity based on respect, which is what makes what the Bible says socially acceptable. By that, I mean that yes, the wife should be subordinate to her husband, but at the same time, the man should have enough respect for his wife (love, respect, it all goes hand-in-hand) that he wouldn't even dream of making her do something that wasn't in her favour, or something that would harm her.

I also think that the wife should respect her husband enough to hear him out, to listen to him, simply out of the respectful and loving unity they share.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

But, here's where the difference lies. When a woman becomes a wife, everything changes. She is no longer a single entity, but part of a union. She, therefore, must play her role as the wife. This could mean anything from bearing children or being a good mother or being supportive of her husband, but she must play her part. It isn't her God given right to be the head of the household, because that's the responsibility of the man, "wearing the pants" so to speak. This doesn't give the man full dominance over the woman, it simply means that he is the breadwinner and is responsible for the family. It is still the man's duty to treat his woman with respect, and to love her with his full heart. In turn, the woman must me subordinate and obey her husband. Once again, I must stress that this doesn't give the man free reign over his wife, it simply means that he's in charge. She shouldn't take abuse or anything of that nature, if she is being abused, then she should divorce him or seek help.

Men and women aren't equal when it comes to marriage/relationship, but I don't think women would want a husband to treat her like an equal. A man should be a gentleman, someone who will treat her with respect and love and not abuse his responsibility. What woman doesn't like a man who opens a door for her, or pulls her chair out for her? What woman would rather have a man that treats her like "one of the guys"?

You know, up until here, I didn't have reason to think, "That's a horrible mindset."

I can see why some call you sexist.

You previously stated that women, although different, should be able to make as much as a man does, or pursue any job she desires.

This conflicts with your idea that men should "wear the pants", as women do own homes from the money they make, and women can pursue any job, including the head of the home. :/ In marriage or not, there should not be an established hierarchy. Why can't husbands support their wives, too? You never mentioned that. It's not like women don't dream as well. There should be mutual respect and caretaking. The only reason women have been stereotyped into having to take care of the home is because they bear the children. If men bore children and breastfed in their places, then I'm betting you'd complain if women started calling your "inferior on earth" due to child related restrictions. ;/ You can't hunt for food and take care of your child at the same time.

A good way to test if you're sexist is to do this.

But, here's where the difference lies. When a dog becomes a pet, everything changes. She/he is no longer a single entity, but part of a union. S/he, therefore, must play her role as the dog. This could mean anything from playing fetch or being a good companion or being supportive of her master, but s/he must play her part. It isn't his/her God given right to be the head of the household, because that's the responsibility of the man, "wearing the pants" so to speak. This doesn't give the man full dominance over the dog, it simply means that he is the breadwinner and is responsible for the family. It is still the man's duty to treat his dog with respect, and to love him/her with his full heart. In turn, the dog must me subordinate and obey his/her master. Once again, I must stress that this doesn't give the man free reign over his dog, it simply means that he's in charge. S/he shouldn't take abuse or anything of that nature, if s/he is being abused, then s/he should run away or seek help.

Men and dogs aren't equal when it comes to companionship, but I don't think dogs would want a master to treat him/her like an equal. A man should be a gentleman, someone who will treat him/her with respect and love and not abuse his responsibility. What dog doesn't like a man who throws him/her a bone, or gives him/her a cushion? What dog would rather have a man that treats him/her like "one of the guys"?

Referring to a wife as solely, "My wife" or hinting at allusions to "Being responsible for the pack" is a clear dominating role. It's wrong to assume every normal woman thinks being equal would be weird. And yes, that's how your worded it. Some women do enjoy being one of the guys. "Married" is not a synonym for "Inferior in a relationship".

Because a relationship isn't a hierarchy. This kind of logic makes men say, "I will take money from my son's college savings to pay for a new car for me, because I am responsible for this family".

No offense to your religion, but :/

Sahaqiel

[Arcane 12]

and there will be no gender.

May I ask where it says that, and what translation of the Bible your church uses? My church does not believe that.

But, here's where the difference lies. When a woman becomes a wife, everything changes. She is no longer a single entity, but part of a union. She, therefore, must play her role as the wife. This could mean anything from bearing children or being a good mother or being supportive of her husband, but she must play her part. It isn't her God given right to be the head of the household, because that's the responsibility of the man, "wearing the pants" so to speak. This doesn't give the man full dominance over the woman, it simply means that he is the breadwinner and is responsible for the family. It is still the man's duty to treat his woman with respect, and to love her with his full heart. In turn, the woman must me subordinate and obey her husband. Once again, I must stress that this doesn't give the man free reign over his wife, it simply means that he's in charge. She shouldn't take abuse or anything of that nature, if she is being abused, then she should divorce him or seek help.

I agree that a man and a woman has different roles, there's evidence in both anatomy and my religious belief, but I also think that the man is not in charge. The man and the woman always should work together to choose decisions. That's why they're often called "partners". Traditionally, the woman takes care of the family, and the man makes sure he can provide for and protect. Both are equally important roles, and I feel neither makes one a more dominant decision maker.

(Also, I haven't read the whole thread yet, so expect more later.)

[Sahaqiel 1232]

Just clearing up my views on your views a bit more, I'm not saying you're gung-ho sexist who thinks all women are or should be obedient maids that should stay in the bed or kitchen. You already have stated that you're not.

But you are sexist, and there pretty much isn't a way you can look at it without avoiding this conclusion.

It's an awful thing, really. If I had a daughter.

No, scratch that.

If you had a daughter, would you take one look at her and say, "Well, that settles that. She's destined to be inferior in the household. It's predetermined, and cannot, rather, should not change. I, as the leader of this family, whose sole difference is hormones, shoulders, and a penis, have decided this fate for her."

I wouldn't view this as natural.

Also, I'm interested in what you think a woman's role in a homosexual relationship is.

Because they do exist, you know.

Sahaqiel

[Chase 390]

You previously stated that women, although different, should be able to make as much as a man does, or pursue any job she desires.

This conflicts with your idea that men should "wear the pants", as women do own homes from the money they make, and women can pursue any job, including the head of the home. :/ In marriage or not, there should not be an established hierarchy. Why can't husbands support their wives, too? You never mentioned that. It's not like women don't dream as well. There should be mutual respect and caretaking. The only reason women have been stereotyped into having to take care of the home is because they bear the children. If men bore children and breastfed in their places, then I'm betting you'd complain if women started calling your "inferior on earth" due to child related restrictions. ;/ You can't hunt for food and take care of your child at the same time.

Studies have shown that female-headed households are the ones most likely in poverty or distress. Now, granted, they are also usually single parents, so the studies aren't entirely relevant to this discussion, but it is still the case. Also, something I've noticed from society, whenever a man is out of work and stays at home, he is seen as a deadbeat and not up to snuff. If a woman is out of work and stays at home, she is seen as a housewife and is accepted. Now, hold on. Why do you call it "stereotyping" for a mother to take care of her kids? A father can never replace a mother. I personally don't view my father and mother as one and the same, they have two different roles that compliment each other. I apologize that I've made it seem that I personally think women are inferior, because I don't. The roles complement each other, and the husband and wife should feel complete. Society makes it seem that women are inferior.

But, here's where the difference lies. When a dog becomes a pet, everything changes. She/he is no longer a single entity, but part of a union. S/he, therefore, must play her role as the dog. This could mean anything from playing fetch or being a good companion or being supportive of her master, but s/he must play her part. It isn't his/her God given right to be the head of the household, because that's the responsibility of the man, "wearing the pants" so to speak. This doesn't give the man full dominance over the dog, it simply means that he is the breadwinner and is responsible for the family. It is still the man's duty to treat his dog with respect, and to love him/her with his full heart. In turn, the dog must me subordinate and obey his/her master. Once again, I must stress that this doesn't give the man free reign over his dog, it simply means that he's in charge. S/he shouldn't take abuse or anything of that nature, if s/he is being abused, then s/he should run away or seek help.

Men and dogs aren't equal when it comes to companionship, but I don't think dogs would want a master to treat him/her like an equal. A man should be a gentleman, someone who will treat him/her with respect and love and not abuse his responsibility. What dog doesn't like a man who throws him/her a bone, or gives him/her a cushion? What dog would rather have a man that treats him/her like "one of the guys"?

A woman is not a pet. A pet is inferior to me. I am its master, and it should obey me in all aspects. A woman is a human being, and deserves a level of respect that a dog doesn't. I never said I was the woman's "master" like I own her or something, I simply believe that the man has a right to being the breadwinner and the wife should concede to that. What are they going to do, battle it out? Most likely the man would win due to physical stature. Are they going argue and get a divorce? Well that wasn't very successful :/ Marriage should be a give and take relationship, but I don't think a man has to hang his package on the mantle just to satisfy his wife's pride.

This kind of logic makes men say, "I will take money from my son's college savings to pay for a new car for me, because I am responsible for this family".

That wouldn't be right. The money is for the son's education, it would be completely selfish to do something like that.

If you had a daughter, would you take one look at her and say, "Well, that settles that. She's destined to be inferior in the household. It's predetermined, and cannot, rather, should not change. I, as the leader of this family, whose sole difference is hormones, shoulders, and a penis, have decided this fate for her."

Like I said, I apologize that I made it seem that I thought women were inferior. They aren't inferior, they just have different roles. Again, this is my opinion.

Also, I'm interested in what you think a woman's role in a homosexual relationship is.

Because they do exist, you know.

They do exist, but I'm not at a stage to even begin discussing same sex relationships. Not only do I believe them contrary to nature, but they wouldn't be able to have kids without adoption or artificial insemination anyway, so I really don't have much to say on the subject.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

Studies have shown that female-headed households are the ones most likely in poverty or distress. Now, granted, they are also usually single parents, so the studies aren't entirely relevant to this discussion, but it is still the case.

But your point in this discussion is that women aren't suitable heads of the home in a marriage. I've lived with my dad most of my life, and he kept up with me, mostly because I'd say I'm pretty low maintenance and he's got a well-paying job, but my mom is foreign, and got fired from her job, and is ill. I wouldn't know how a "normal" mother-headed household is run. However, I did have a guardian when I was younger who was single, and in the couple years I lived with her, she was well off, even though she was young and not married.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that it's not the case, since you were talking about women's roles in relationships.

Also, something I've noticed from society, whenever a man is out of work and stays at home, he is seen as a deadbeat and not up to snuff. If a woman is out of work and stays at home, she is seen as a housewife and is accepted.

That's if he sits on the couch all day and drinks beer watching reruns on TV in a dimly lit room.

Any father who takes care of the home as you view women do are wont to garner respect.

Now, hold on. Why do you call it "stereotyping" for a mother to take care of her kids?

"All women take care of their kids".

Stereotyping.

A father can never replace a mother.

"All fathers can never take the place of a mother".

Stereotyping.

I personally don't view my father and mother as one and the same, they have two different roles that compliment each other.

However, you do not count for everybody.

I apologize that I've made it seem that I personally think women are inferior, because I don't. The roles complement each other, and the husband and wife should feel complete.

I know you don't. I posted above that I don't think you feel that way. The latter sentence in this part are what I'm looking for.

I simply believe that the man has a right to being the breadwinner and the wife should concede to that. What are they going to do, battle it out? Most likely the man would win due to physical stature. Are they going argue and get a divorce? Well that wasn't very successful :/ Marriage should be a give and take relationship, but I don't think a man has to hang his package on the mantle just to satisfy his wife's pride.

This isn't mutual respect that you seem to think is so important in a marriage. "I don't have to concede to her because she is a woman". "I have to concede to him because he is a man".

This is utterly horrible. :/

Not to mention a hypocrite statement.

Why should a woman have to concede to you, just to satisfy your pride?

That wouldn't be right. The money is for the son's education, it would be completely selfish to do something like that.

Like not letting a woman be the head of the house.

Society makes it seem that women are inferior.

Who cares what society thinks? Why do you have to inherit its beliefs?

So what if there's no Robin Hood?

Become Robin Hood.

Sahaqiel

Edited 13 Sep 2009 by Sahaqiel (see edit history)

[Chase 390]

May I ask where it says that, and what translation of the Bible your church uses? My church does not believe that.

I agree that a man and a woman has different roles, there's evidence in both anatomy and my religious belief, but I also think that the man is not in charge. The man and the woman always should work together to choose decisions. That's why they're often called "partners". Traditionally, the woman takes care of the family, and the man makes sure he can provide for and protect. Both are equally important roles, and I feel neither makes one a more dominant decision maker.

(Also, I haven't read the whole thread yet, so expect more later.)

The passage I took it from was Matthew 22:30 (NIV) "30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."

This doesn't mean that we will be neutered or anything (Jesus retained his gender after resurrection) but it means that there won't be any gender "roles". Sorry I made that confusing, it sounded like I meant no one would retain gender.

I agree with you, but the traditional family is the way I plan on running my family, and I'll be sure to tell my wife that before we get married, so that she doesn't end up regretting anything. It's not like I'll dominate her or anything. If I truly love her, her wishes and needs come before my own. I would never treat her as inferior.

[Arcane 12]

In my church's version of the Bible it says: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." So it's pretty much the same. Hmm...

Anyways, your interpretation is probably correct. I'll have to think about it some more...

[Aethix 129]

Sahaqiel, I used to respect you a lot more as a debater, even though I disagreed with you most of the time, but lately you've taken to blowing people's thoughts way out of proportion. Lionheart never said that women were inferior to men.

Think about it like this. A household is like a ship. The husband is like the navigator, and the wife is like the captain. The captain manages the ship, while the navigator keeps the ship on track. Each must differ to the other in areas the other holds control of.

Just because a woman is subordinate to her husband doesn't mean she takes marching orders from him. The woman is queen of the house. That isn't just my opinion, it's an argument that I can back up with facts. According to a study on the BBC website, women are about 50% more likely than men to keep the house in a divorce case.

Ultimately 46% of women did keep the house, compared with 29% of men, with other couples selling.

The man's role tends to expand more outside the home than the woman's. Therefore, the man's role is considered, in a way I can only only describe as farther up on a "hierarchy". The meaning of this is easily misconstrued, and some people will deliberately twist it to label their opponents as "sexist".

Subordinate is not the same as inferior. The woman manages the home better than the man, which does not make her less than a man. For example, if a man wants to give his 14-year-old son a dirt bike, and his wife says no, guess who probably isn't going to get a dirt bike. However, in most cases the man is the chief breadwinner, and should therefore play the head role in that area.

If a man is controlling of his wife, or a if a woman has to do something she doesn't want to do in order to be subordinate to her husband, then the couple shouldn't be married in the first place.

Am I saying married women shouldn't be allowed to have jobs or lives outside the home? Certainly not. However, I believe the family comes first. A woman with a husband and young children should not be working say, 80 hours a week and going out clubbing every night. For that matter, the husband shouldn't work ridiculous hours either, unless he has to in order to support his family.

In conclusion, yes, I think a woman should be subordinate to her husband. However, if you think about it, this also requires a man, in certain respects, to be subordinate to his wife. A truly good relationship is built on mutual trust and respect, and trust requires one member to put the other before himself or herself. Dominance and control are not part of that relationship.

[pheonix561 2080]

I'm gonna go ahead and reply to this before I read the rest :3

I've been taught ever since I was a little boy, "Don't hit a girl" or "Be a gentleman. Pull out a lady's chair and open doors for women." It would always strike me as strange that the girls could hit me as much as they wanted, but I couldn't hit them back.

well for the record, you shouldn't really hit ANYBODY. and you should also hold the door for EVERYBODY. girls are just included in that. idk why they're emphasized. I like to think in my head the first go who said that secretly meant "kuz if you do, you just might get laid!" But he never said that because he wanted to look like a gentleman, and thats where that came from. lol.