A couple of comments about this article: First of all, I agree that men and women are different, and more than just biologically so. The how and to what extent is what I'm still trying to work out for myself.
That said, I do disagree with this article on a few different levels(maybe the first time I've found a point of disagreement between us since Kim Keane introduced me to you freshman year and I realized you and I were kindred spirits, Piera :). My biggest concern with this type of thinking is that it's sexist, against primarily, surprise surprise: men. "Simple creatures with few demands" ?? Seriously? My husband just laughed out loud. It may be comforting to think that, especially if you're about to be married, but it's not true. Men are human beings. Human beings = complex creatures with a wide range of demands. To claim otherwise else is to do just as great a disservice to men as modern feminism does.
I have this theory I'm working on developing, that some conservative views on true womanhood are a type of feminism in disguise. Example: The leader of the "Godly Women" group at my church, while teaching godly submission, once quoted (quite seriously) the matriarch of the family from "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." "A man may be the head of the family, but the woman is the neck! And the neck controls the head." The overt message may be to give men control, but the subtext says something different: if you fulfill your role as a woman, you WILL actually be in charge. You let him think he's in charge, simple creature that he is, but really you know better. Venker doesn't go this far, but her low assessment of men is along the same lines.
I understand what Venker is responding to and why she is so annoyed with feminism. I share many of the same concerns myself. But I can't agree with going to the opposite extreme to rectify feminism's wrongs. The problem with extremes is that if you go far enough you always end up meeting your opposite at some point. There has to be a happy medium somewhere.
I have much more to say about this article in particular and this subject in general, and as it's something I've been wrestling with largely in my own mind (and in my papers) for probably the last five years, I'd love a discussion buddy. Right now, however, I need to go change my baby's diaper and clean my apartment. ;)
Bethany! I apologize for my tardiness in responding. I wanted to give myself time to process your input and think about my own opinion ... and then I forgot about it. Because I'm still a college kid at heart, haha.
Anyway, I would firstly like to admit that I made a bold and uncharacteristic statement by saying I agreed with Venker completely. Because after reading your response (and then rereading the article), I found that I would not describe the nature of men in such an offhanded way. On the contrary, the central point of my annoyance at feminism is the fact that it makes men out to be only-slightly-domesticated gorillas, and that infuriates me. Masculinity is as complex and beautifully-designed as femininity, and I would venture to suggest that a relationship can only be truly good if both the man and woman are actively trying to understand themselves and the way they have been designed.
The main reason I agreed with Venker's article was that she was addressing the battle between men and women. Because it is almost always a battle, which is sad and ironic because I wholeheartedly believe that men and women were created to work together. This is why feminism is setting itself up for defeat: because feminists want to live a life that Doesn't Need Men, and then despair because they are unfulfilled and missing out on the beauty of true intimacy. This despair often manifests itself in the form of redoubled anger against men and their continual oppression, but I think it comes from a hidden hurt that not many women actually recognize. The problem with anyone (men and women alike) having a relationship is the fact that it "requires putting oneself last, or being quiet rather than demanding, or taking the higher road and not having to have one’s way all the time" (Venker). And this isn't an easy task for anyone, especially because relationships also require a lot of self-sacrifice in a lot of different ways, and a terrifying level of vulnerability.
I also would hestitate to assume that Venker has a low opinion of men just because of her statement about their simplicity. What I have found, in the course of my various relationships, is that men do tend to be more straightforward. They are certainly not simple, and they have more than a few demands, but they also have a clear-headed thought process that I don't think I am even capable of, because I, at least, think with all of my emotion and all of the possible angles of a situation that I become stressed and overwhelmed before I even begin looking for a solution.
I also find that I side with her article in the sense that in the course of the women's rights movement, the tables have turned and women are now directing the nature of society. I too was uncomfortable with the MBFGW opinion of men, as amusing as it is to consider the amount of power women have over men. Because we do have power--over the good men, anyway, the ones who do want to make us happy, the ones who hold doors open for us and then are confused when we protest that they are offending our capabilities. And thanks to the women's rights movement (which admittedly may have been necessary in the development of society as a whole, regardless of how it exists in the world now), the good men are over-sensitive to their effect on women, and they want to be respectful of our rights, and therefore are at a loss for how to give us what we want. And men in general, decent or not, have given up trying to be assertive (because their assertion is seen as aggression, and therefore oppressive) and more and more guys have begun to believe that they ARE mindless and that women don't need them. And that, I think, is the most damaging effect of feminism: because women are proving themselves right, because men are letting them.
... that was entirely too long-winded, but so am I, so what can you do. I'd love a discussion buddy as well! Your response thoughts are appreciated :)
**The problem with anyone (men and women alike) having a relationship is the fact that it "requires putting oneself last, or being quiet rather than demanding, or taking the higher road and not having to have one’s way all the time" (Venker). And this isn't an easy task for anyone, especially because relationships also require a lot of self-sacrifice in a lot of different ways, and a terrifying level of vulnerability.**
I completely agree -- I just have a problem with the direction conservatives often take this in. Yes, it seems to be a trend with liberal feminists to want to make sure everyone has their own way all the time in the relationship, which isn't humanly possible, or make men pay for past oppression by having them shut up and be the submissive ones. Neither is a particularly holistic way of looking at human relationships. But I tend to be equally wary of the conservative bent towards making putting oneself last primarily a feminine task. Of course, there is chivalry and all that, but I find I'm less bothered by being the last one out the door than I am by being the one who gets paid less for doing the same job with the same level of competence as a man (I will certainly forgo the former to gain the latter, if that's what it takes). That said, I did have rather a hasty, knee-jerk reaction to Venker's article (as I am so wont to do in these situations), and overstated things in equating her philosophy to that of MBFGW.
I'm less willing to admit that men have a thought process that I'm not capable of, merely by virtue of them being male, but I've not completely sure if that's due to genuine spiritual conviction, or merely my pride. I think that even if men do have a different thought process, there is a serious danger in citing that as the reason God requires women to be the submissive ones in the marriage, but more on that later.
I am also concerned by the assertion that women are directing the nature of society, because I'm not sure it's true. Maybe as far as personal relationships go it's true, but as far as public society, I'm not so sure. Statistically, women ARE still paid less for doing the same work as men, and they are underrepresented in almost all professional fields except for the obvious ones, nursing and teaching and childcare and so forth. Society has merely learned, as a result of the political correctness police, to pay lip service to the idea that women should be treated fairly. You might say, of course, (and probably will) that women do those jobs because they're more inclined to them, being more naturally suited for them, so it's their own choice. That may be so (it may also be due to cultural stereotypes of what is acceptable for women to do, or even a combination of both, as I find most likely). But the unequal pay scale would seem to suggest a certain level of hiring practice discrimination in situations where women who are gifted differently from the stereotypical female and who are just as qualified as men are applying for the same job as men. And that isn't right.
I recognize that biblically we are called to submit to each other, and that it's a valid Biblical argument that within a marriage relationship, the woman is called to submit to the man . But why is it that when it's an issue of women's rights being abused, the verse that is always cited by conservatives is the one telling wives to submit to husbands, and never the verse that tells Christians to submit to each other in Christ? There is very often a glaring inconsistency here, and it seems that the "wives submit" verse is often waved around as an excuse to deny social justice, an interpretation I doubt Paul had in mind when he was writing it.
Saying that men have a different thought process doesn't imply "better" ... simply that it's different. And that isn't to say that men and women don't share many of the same traits, nor even that there are black and white lines about who thinks what way more often. And it certainly isn't an assertion backed up by actual research (well, not by me anyway). All of my ideas here are from spending a good deal of time observing people as a whole, and it seems that there are some personality and behavior traits that trend specifically in men and others specifically in women--outside of a professional or even relationship-al setting.
I should also mention that very little of my opinions about men and women have much to do with the professional world. I couldn't tell you why there is an unequal pay scale between the genders (although instinctively I will question the statistics and how they determined this information, mainly because I need to understand the method behind such claims), and if it comes down to something as simple as "women make less because they're not as good at their jobs" then that would be silly (and also wrong). But I also think it is difficult to combine the topics of "gender roles in relationships" and "gender roles in the professional world," because the former will be largely dependent on individuals, and the latter should be resolved by having a nationwide standard that equates men and women alike in any workplace.
But the most disturbing thing I find about Venker's article is actually this quote: "Honestly, marriage doesn’t have to be so difficult — and it needn’t become obsolete. But it will if women don’t stop fighting men and start surrendering to their nature." That is an incredibly dangerous argument to make, even if it leads her to what Christian complementarians believe to be a Biblically correct conclusion about marriage. There is no justifiable secular or Constitutional basis for requiring women to act according to their "nature," and, more importantly, as far as I know, there is no Biblical justification for requiring any sinful human being to "surrender to nature". The commands that God gives us are not "natural" to us-- all of them, in fact, go against our common sin nature. If we proceed from the reasoning that nature knows best, that opens up a Pandora's box of moral and ethical dilemmas, and I'm not sure Christians want to go there. I think that if we are called to submit to our husbands, we submit because God tells us to, not because our husbands are naturally better leaders, or are biologically inclined to a more rational way of thinking. The Bible never gives a reason for why wives should submit to husbands. It just says to do so. Unfortunately, "because God says so" is not commonly seen as a good reason to live a certain way, even by many Christians. As the anecdote I shared about my Godly Woman leader and the MBFGW quote illustrated, it's entirely too easy in such matters to embrace a line of reasoning that leaves out God and sin, simply because it happens to make sense. No matter how much I disagree with certain aspects of liberal feminism, I can no more embrace the secular conservative method of defining womanhood than I can embrace the secular conservative rationale behind condemning homosexuals (a sort of "the sinner = the sin" kind of logic that has crept into the church). The "flying against nature" argument, as I like to call it (Thank you, Cold Comfort Farm), has some serious flaws. This is probably why I was more upset with this article than I would be with an article written by a Christian complementarian.
Your discomfort with this sentence is justified, since it is true that the Bible actually speaks about continuously fighting your nature (which is sinful) in order to follow in the way of Christ (which contradicts basically everything people do naturally). Given that Venker probably doesn't share this Christian perspective, it is understandable that we are finding so much to talk about :P The argument can be made that God created men and women with certain natures, in a sense that is outside of "human nature" and "spiritual nature" and that perhaps is more the direction she was headed, but nonetheless that kind of statement makes it hard for us Christian girls to really get behind what she is saying.
I also thought it might be beneficial here to do a little epic nerding by talking about Ephesians 5 (the big controversial chapter about submission. It is really unfortunate that most people single out the bit about women submitting to men, because not only does that that W A Y oversimplify it, but it also does not truly explain what God is saying.
The key here is understanding the English translation of the term "submit," which has come to mean derogatory things in the contemporary world. But the actual Greek term, hupotasso, is a military term, and means "arrange oneself under" or "line oneself up for battle." So when we talk about Jesus submitting himself to his father, we're talking about him taking his military orders from God and carrying them out as he was instructed, even when it led him to suffering and death (instructions which were not just for kicks, but rather part of God's plan for our salvation). Us wives are instructed to line ourselves up for battle behind our husbands, who have been instructed to love us as Christ loved the church -- essentially, to love unconditionally, without faith, even if it means death.
Ultimately the ideal relationship, as outlined in Ephesians, requires men to be leaders, at the front lines of battle, and charged with the duty of loving and protecting their families. And it requires women to line themselves up behind their husbands, which is (a) a challenging task for basically every woman I know, and (b) risky business when they are maried to men who are more concerned with themselves than they are with their wives. Which, let's face it, is every man at some point in his life, because he's just a human person.
I definitely don't claim to understand the "why" of God's plan (at least, not anymore, haha) but I think it has a lot to do with Genesis, when God created woman to be a helper and companion to man--because, as he states himself, it is not good for man to be alone. This lends me to believe that we need each other (and that doesn't necessarily have to mean in a romantic relationship) and also lends itself to the idea that maybe men and women DO have some stereotypical personality/behavioral traits, because I have a firm faith in the beauty of God's design, even within the fallen nature of humanity. It's just that the continuous sin of people in general makes it harder for men and women to trust each other, and therefore, harder for us to understand why God would tell men to lead (when they are so often selfish assholes) and for women to arrange themselves under men (when women are perfectly capable of being strong leaders).
Sorry for so many comments, and for being so rambling and schizophrenic about this. As you can probably tell, I haven't decided whether I'm egalitarian or complementarian in my beliefs about women's roles. Personal experience and knowledge of myself and the talents I truly believe God has given me inclines me to be egalitarian. 19 years of thinking that complementarianism is the only Biblical way have made it almost impossible for me to feel like I'm not sinning by entertaining alternate interpretations. I'm not easy in my mind on this subject, so most of the time I try to repress any thoughts about it at all, until the inconsistencies between the way I live my life and the doctrines I supposedly believe as a member of my church explode in my mind and cause me to have a minor break-down. You are now bearing the brunt of an extended break-down I've been having ever since I made the mistake of choosing this topic for my senior philosophy paper, so: my apologies.
A couple of comments about this article: First of all, I agree that men and women are different, and more than just biologically so. The how and to what extent is what I'm still trying to work out for myself.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I do disagree with this article on a few different levels(maybe the first time I've found a point of disagreement between us since Kim Keane introduced me to you freshman year and I realized you and I were kindred spirits, Piera :). My biggest concern with this type of thinking is that it's sexist, against primarily, surprise surprise: men. "Simple creatures with few demands" ?? Seriously? My husband just laughed out loud. It may be comforting to think that, especially if you're about to be married, but it's not true. Men are human beings. Human beings = complex creatures with a wide range of demands. To claim otherwise else is to do just as great a disservice to men as modern feminism does.
I have this theory I'm working on developing, that some conservative views on true womanhood are a type of feminism in disguise. Example: The leader of the "Godly Women" group at my church, while teaching godly submission, once quoted (quite seriously) the matriarch of the family from "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." "A man may be the head of the family, but the woman is the neck! And the neck controls the head." The overt message may be to give men control, but the subtext says something different: if you fulfill your role as a woman, you WILL actually be in charge. You let him think he's in charge, simple creature that he is, but really you know better. Venker doesn't go this far, but her low assessment of men is along the same lines.
I understand what Venker is responding to and why she is so annoyed with feminism. I share many of the same concerns myself. But I can't agree with going to the opposite extreme to rectify feminism's wrongs. The problem with extremes is that if you go far enough you always end up meeting your opposite at some point. There has to be a happy medium somewhere.
I have much more to say about this article in particular and this subject in general, and as it's something I've been wrestling with largely in my own mind (and in my papers) for probably the last five years, I'd love a discussion buddy. Right now, however, I need to go change my baby's diaper and clean my apartment. ;)
from a current housewife to a future housewife,
Bethany
Bethany! I apologize for my tardiness in responding. I wanted to give myself time to process your input and think about my own opinion ... and then I forgot about it. Because I'm still a college kid at heart, haha.
DeleteAnyway, I would firstly like to admit that I made a bold and uncharacteristic statement by saying I agreed with Venker completely. Because after reading your response (and then rereading the article), I found that I would not describe the nature of men in such an offhanded way. On the contrary, the central point of my annoyance at feminism is the fact that it makes men out to be only-slightly-domesticated gorillas, and that infuriates me. Masculinity is as complex and beautifully-designed as femininity, and I would venture to suggest that a relationship can only be truly good if both the man and woman are actively trying to understand themselves and the way they have been designed.
The main reason I agreed with Venker's article was that she was addressing the battle between men and women. Because it is almost always a battle, which is sad and ironic because I wholeheartedly believe that men and women were created to work together. This is why feminism is setting itself up for defeat: because feminists want to live a life that Doesn't Need Men, and then despair because they are unfulfilled and missing out on the beauty of true intimacy. This despair often manifests itself in the form of redoubled anger against men and their continual oppression, but I think it comes from a hidden hurt that not many women actually recognize. The problem with anyone (men and women alike) having a relationship is the fact that it "requires putting oneself last, or being quiet rather than demanding, or taking the higher road and not having to have one’s way all the time" (Venker). And this isn't an easy task for anyone, especially because relationships also require a lot of self-sacrifice in a lot of different ways, and a terrifying level of vulnerability.
I also would hestitate to assume that Venker has a low opinion of men just because of her statement about their simplicity. What I have found, in the course of my various relationships, is that men do tend to be more straightforward. They are certainly not simple, and they have more than a few demands, but they also have a clear-headed thought process that I don't think I am even capable of, because I, at least, think with all of my emotion and all of the possible angles of a situation that I become stressed and overwhelmed before I even begin looking for a solution.
I also find that I side with her article in the sense that in the course of the women's rights movement, the tables have turned and women are now directing the nature of society. I too was uncomfortable with the MBFGW opinion of men, as amusing as it is to consider the amount of power women have over men. Because we do have power--over the good men, anyway, the ones who do want to make us happy, the ones who hold doors open for us and then are confused when we protest that they are offending our capabilities. And thanks to the women's rights movement (which admittedly may have been necessary in the development of society as a whole, regardless of how it exists in the world now), the good men are over-sensitive to their effect on women, and they want to be respectful of our rights, and therefore are at a loss for how to give us what we want. And men in general, decent or not, have given up trying to be assertive (because their assertion is seen as aggression, and therefore oppressive) and more and more guys have begun to believe that they ARE mindless and that women don't need them. And that, I think, is the most damaging effect of feminism: because women are proving themselves right, because men are letting them.
... that was entirely too long-winded, but so am I, so what can you do. I'd love a discussion buddy as well! Your response thoughts are appreciated :)
**The problem with anyone (men and women alike) having a relationship is the fact that it "requires putting oneself last, or being quiet rather than demanding, or taking the higher road and not having to have one’s way all the time" (Venker). And this isn't an easy task for anyone, especially because relationships also require a lot of self-sacrifice in a lot of different ways, and a terrifying level of vulnerability.**
ReplyDeleteI completely agree -- I just have a problem with the direction conservatives often take this in. Yes, it seems to be a trend with liberal feminists to want to make sure everyone has their own way all the time in the relationship, which isn't humanly possible, or make men pay for past oppression by having them shut up and be the submissive ones. Neither is a particularly holistic way of looking at human relationships. But I tend to be equally wary of the conservative bent towards making putting oneself last primarily a feminine task. Of course, there is chivalry and all that, but I find I'm less bothered by being the last one out the door than I am by being the one who gets paid less for doing the same job with the same level of competence as a man (I will certainly forgo the former to gain the latter, if that's what it takes). That said, I did have rather a hasty, knee-jerk reaction to Venker's article (as I am so wont to do in these situations), and overstated things in equating her philosophy to that of MBFGW.
I'm less willing to admit that men have a thought process that I'm not capable of, merely by virtue of them being male, but I've not completely sure if that's due to genuine spiritual conviction, or merely my pride. I think that even if men do have a different thought process, there is a serious danger in citing that as the reason God requires women to be the submissive ones in the marriage, but more on that later.
ReplyDeleteI am also concerned by the assertion that women are directing the nature of society, because I'm not sure it's true. Maybe as far as personal relationships go it's true, but as far as public society, I'm not so sure. Statistically, women ARE still paid less for doing the same work as men, and they are underrepresented in almost all professional fields except for the obvious ones, nursing and teaching and childcare and so forth. Society has merely learned, as a result of the political correctness police, to pay lip service to the idea that women should be treated fairly. You might say, of course, (and probably will) that women do those jobs because they're more inclined to them, being more naturally suited for them, so it's their own choice. That may be so (it may also be due to cultural stereotypes of what is acceptable for women to do, or even a combination of both, as I find most likely). But the unequal pay scale would seem to suggest a certain level of hiring practice discrimination in situations where women who are gifted differently from the stereotypical female and who are just as qualified as men are applying for the same job as men. And that isn't right.
I recognize that biblically we are called to submit to each other, and that it's a valid Biblical argument that within a marriage relationship, the woman is called to submit to the man . But why is it that when it's an issue of women's rights being abused, the verse that is always cited by conservatives is the one telling wives to submit to husbands, and never the verse that tells Christians to submit to each other in Christ? There is very often a glaring inconsistency here, and it seems that the "wives submit" verse is often waved around as an excuse to deny social justice, an interpretation I doubt Paul had in mind when he was writing it.
Saying that men have a different thought process doesn't imply "better" ... simply that it's different. And that isn't to say that men and women don't share many of the same traits, nor even that there are black and white lines about who thinks what way more often. And it certainly isn't an assertion backed up by actual research (well, not by me anyway). All of my ideas here are from spending a good deal of time observing people as a whole, and it seems that there are some personality and behavior traits that trend specifically in men and others specifically in women--outside of a professional or even relationship-al setting.
DeleteI should also mention that very little of my opinions about men and women have much to do with the professional world. I couldn't tell you why there is an unequal pay scale between the genders (although instinctively I will question the statistics and how they determined this information, mainly because I need to understand the method behind such claims), and if it comes down to something as simple as "women make less because they're not as good at their jobs" then that would be silly (and also wrong). But I also think it is difficult to combine the topics of "gender roles in relationships" and "gender roles in the professional world," because the former will be largely dependent on individuals, and the latter should be resolved by having a nationwide standard that equates men and women alike in any workplace.
But the most disturbing thing I find about Venker's article is actually this quote: "Honestly, marriage doesn’t have to be so difficult — and it needn’t become obsolete. But it will if women don’t stop fighting men and start surrendering to their nature." That is an incredibly dangerous argument to make, even if it leads her to what Christian complementarians believe to be a Biblically correct conclusion about marriage. There is no justifiable secular or Constitutional basis for requiring women to act according to their "nature," and, more importantly, as far as I know, there is no Biblical justification for requiring any sinful human being to "surrender to nature". The commands that God gives us are not "natural" to us-- all of them, in fact, go against our common sin nature. If we proceed from the reasoning that nature knows best, that opens up a Pandora's box of moral and ethical dilemmas, and I'm not sure Christians want to go there. I think that if we are called to submit to our husbands, we submit because God tells us to, not because our husbands are naturally better leaders, or are biologically inclined to a more rational way of thinking. The Bible never gives a reason for why wives should submit to husbands. It just says to do so. Unfortunately, "because God says so" is not commonly seen as a good reason to live a certain way, even by many Christians. As the anecdote I shared about my Godly Woman leader and the MBFGW quote illustrated, it's entirely too easy in such matters to embrace a line of reasoning that leaves out God and sin, simply because it happens to make sense. No matter how much I disagree with certain aspects of liberal feminism, I can no more embrace the secular conservative method of defining womanhood than I can embrace the secular conservative rationale behind condemning homosexuals (a sort of "the sinner = the sin" kind of logic that has crept into the church). The "flying against nature" argument, as I like to call it (Thank you, Cold Comfort Farm), has some serious flaws. This is probably why I was more upset with this article than I would be with an article written by a Christian complementarian.
ReplyDeleteYour discomfort with this sentence is justified, since it is true that the Bible actually speaks about continuously fighting your nature (which is sinful) in order to follow in the way of Christ (which contradicts basically everything people do naturally). Given that Venker probably doesn't share this Christian perspective, it is understandable that we are finding so much to talk about :P The argument can be made that God created men and women with certain natures, in a sense that is outside of "human nature" and "spiritual nature" and that perhaps is more the direction she was headed, but nonetheless that kind of statement makes it hard for us Christian girls to really get behind what she is saying.
DeleteI also thought it might be beneficial here to do a little epic nerding by talking about Ephesians 5 (the big controversial chapter about submission. It is really unfortunate that most people single out the bit about women submitting to men, because not only does that that W A Y oversimplify it, but it also does not truly explain what God is saying.
DeleteThe key here is understanding the English translation of the term "submit," which has come to mean derogatory things in the contemporary world. But the actual Greek term, hupotasso, is a military term, and means "arrange oneself under" or "line oneself up for battle." So when we talk about Jesus submitting himself to his father, we're talking about him taking his military orders from God and carrying them out as he was instructed, even when it led him to suffering and death (instructions which were not just for kicks, but rather part of God's plan for our salvation).
Us wives are instructed to line ourselves up for battle behind our husbands, who have been instructed to love us as Christ loved the church -- essentially, to love unconditionally, without faith, even if it means death.
Ultimately the ideal relationship, as outlined in Ephesians, requires men to be leaders, at the front lines of battle, and charged with the duty of loving and protecting their families. And it requires women to line themselves up behind their husbands, which is (a) a challenging task for basically every woman I know, and (b) risky business when they are maried to men who are more concerned with themselves than they are with their wives. Which, let's face it, is every man at some point in his life, because he's just a human person.
I definitely don't claim to understand the "why" of God's plan (at least, not anymore, haha) but I think it has a lot to do with Genesis, when God created woman to be a helper and companion to man--because, as he states himself, it is not good for man to be alone. This lends me to believe that we need each other (and that doesn't necessarily have to mean in a romantic relationship) and also lends itself to the idea that maybe men and women DO have some stereotypical personality/behavioral traits, because I have a firm faith in the beauty of God's design, even within the fallen nature of humanity. It's just that the continuous sin of people in general makes it harder for men and women to trust each other, and therefore, harder for us to understand why God would tell men to lead (when they are so often selfish assholes) and for women to arrange themselves under men (when women are perfectly capable of being strong leaders).
Sorry for so many comments, and for being so rambling and schizophrenic about this. As you can probably tell, I haven't decided whether I'm egalitarian or complementarian in my beliefs about women's roles. Personal experience and knowledge of myself and the talents I truly believe God has given me inclines me to be egalitarian. 19 years of thinking that complementarianism is the only Biblical way have made it almost impossible for me to feel like I'm not sinning by entertaining alternate interpretations. I'm not easy in my mind on this subject, so most of the time I try to repress any thoughts about it at all, until the inconsistencies between the way I live my life and the doctrines I supposedly believe as a member of my church explode in my mind and cause me to have a minor break-down. You are now bearing the brunt of an extended break-down I've been having ever since I made the mistake of choosing this topic for my senior philosophy paper, so: my apologies.
ReplyDeletehaha, no problem. i hope this discussion helps you to find peace, in some way, shape or form.
Delete