Does female submission create social harmony?

Barnardot

@Factfinder Well this is an interesting topic and what the Bible says is pretty typical of the attitudes of men over women.

You see if you look at those times men were really scarred of women because they couldnt figure them out with all there mood swings and of coarse they got on the rags every month witch was really suss. So its just like any fear like homophobia for example. Homophobics hate homos because they dont understand them so there scarred of them. So what do they do. They treat them like 2nd grade citizens and dicktate to them.
So thats what they did with women in those days. For example during strawberry week women were put in a room separate from the house until they became clean. And women couldnt do the things that men do because they were considered week and bitchy all the time. 
And a lot of that attitude among men still hangs a round today because old habits die hard and especially when it comes to religious folks who cling on to every thing the Bible says.So its no wonder why theres diss harmony going on because women are still being treated as being submissive. Sure women are braking the glass roofs but not enough I reckon and as soon as we get rid of this Venus and Mars crap then men and women will be more equal.

just_sayin

Odd that verse 21 was omitted which impacts what follows:

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ

So, "submission" is not just for wives.  The question to address is what is meant by 'submission'.  It doesn't mean being a doormat.  In Koine Greek it is a military term that means to take on the mindset of a servant/soldier - in that you look to meet another's needs - not that you are subservient, or a chattel slave, to them.  Both wife and husband are charged with looking out for one another's needs and interests.  Paul told husbands that they were to love their wives as Christ loved the church who gave his life sacrificially for it.  

The idea that women are subserviently is not a biblical one.  

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  - Galatians 3:28

MayCaesar

I do not think that it has anything to do with harmony, but with historical necessity. We can afford the luxury of playing around with such concepts as "equality", "human dignity", "human rights", "individual freedom"... Our ancestors 20,000 years ago could not. Back then the smallest instability, the smallest discontent in the tribe could mean swift death of the tribe. Women are responsible for continuity of a tribe due to their childbearing ability, and they are also physically much weaker than men (these two may be related) - so it made sense for men to demand that women are obedient and submissive, and that all men, in turn, obey the chieftain and the shaman. Anyone who did not get in line could be killed immediately or banished (which meant slow death anyway) by other tribesmen. Maybe there were better ways of organizing primal societies than this, but the fact that this arrangement seems to have been universal across all regions on Earth and all tribes within suggests that, at the very least, it was one of the easier and more convenient ones.

The views on the role of women in a human society originated there and propagated across millennia, making way into human-created religions and holy books as well. It does not appear that there was much progress in this respect until the Enlightenment era, when people started systematically challenging old dogmas and preconceptions and finding them lacking. Eventually it became clear, however, that in modern prosperous societies the idea of women's submission is extremely outdated. Nowadays, when few problems are solved by application of physical force and when infertility of one woman does not affect the society noticeably, there is no reason to treat women as anything other than equal members of the society, with their own goals and interests.

There are still certain issues in which one of the two genders has an edge and a responsibility coming with it. If I am walking with my date and we run into a thug with a knife, it is my duty to put myself between my date and the thug: I am much more capable of warding him off and surviving his assault than her, and I should step up and do what a man has got to do. It seems reasonable to me that the more vulnerable party should be preferentially protected, when we are talking about an equal partnership: equality does not mean that everyone behaves the same, but it means that people make decisions as equal partners and not as a master and a slave. And as two partners have different strengths and weaknesses, it only makes sense that their decisions involve proper division of labor and distribution of roles.

Those issues, however, are specific to fairly exceptional situations. If we are talking about a regular situation in which such physical factors do not impact anything - for instance, a business negotiation between a male and a female CEO - then I fail to see any reason to expect the latter to be submissive. Now, one may argue that women are biologically more predisposed to be submissive than men, therefore statistically they will be more submissive - but that is a different matter.

I would add that submissivity is an extremely weakening character trait: I should know for this has been one of my major personal weaknesses. When you cannot stand up for yourself, when you feel the need to go out of your way to please other people and fulfill their wishes at the expense of your own, then you become a carpet everyone wipes their feet off. Even if you are a woman somehow biologically predisposed to being submissive, it is in your best interest to undergo some sort of an assertiveness training and learn to stand your ground in the face of adversity. It is better to do it now, than when you are tangled up in an abusive relationship, working for a tyrant boss and having two spoiled kids - then starting to stand your ground will have pretty severe short-term consequences.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

I do not think that it has anything to do with harmony, but with historical necessity. We can afford the luxury of playing around with such concepts as "equality", "human dignity", "human rights", "individual freedom"... Our ancestors 20,000 years ago could not. Back then the smallest instability, the smallest discontent in the tribe could mean swift death of the tribe. Women are responsible for continuity of a tribe due to their childbearing ability, and they are also physically much weaker than men (these two may be related) - so it made sense for men to demand that women are obedient and submissive, and that all men, in turn, obey the chieftain and the shaman. Anyone who did not get in line could be killed immediately or banished (which meant slow death anyway) by other tribesmen. Maybe there were better ways of organizing primal societies than this, but the fact that this arrangement seems to have been universal across all regions on Earth and all tribes within suggests that, at the very least, it was one of the easier and more convenient ones.

The views on the role of women in a human society originated there and propagated across millennia, making way into human-created religions and holy books as well. It does not appear that there was much progress in this respect until the Enlightenment era, when people started systematically challenging old dogmas and preconceptions and finding them lacking. Eventually it became clear, however, that in modern prosperous societies the idea of women's submission is extremely outdated. Nowadays, when few problems are solved by application of physical force and when infertility of one woman does not affect the society noticeably, there is no reason to treat women as anything other than equal members of the society, with their own goals and interests.

There are still certain issues in which one of the two genders has an edge and a responsibility coming with it. If I am walking with my date and we run into a thug with a knife, it is my duty to put myself between my date and the thug: I am much more capable of warding him off and surviving his assault than her, and I should step up and do what a man has got to do. It seems reasonable to me that the more vulnerable party should be preferentially protected, when we are talking about an equal partnership: equality does not mean that everyone behaves the same, but it means that people make decisions as equal partners and not as a master and a slave. And as two partners have different strengths and weaknesses, it only makes sense that their decisions involve proper division of labor and distribution of roles.

Those issues, however, are specific to fairly exceptional situations. If we are talking about a regular situation in which such physical factors do not impact anything - for instance, a business negotiation between a male and a female CEO - then I fail to see any reason to expect the latter to be submissive. Now, one may argue that women are biologically more predisposed to be submissive than men, therefore statistically they will be more submissive - but that is a different matter.

I would add that submissivity is an extremely weakening character trait: I should know for this has been one of my major personal weaknesses. When you cannot stand up for yourself, when you feel the need to go out of your way to please other people and fulfill their wishes at the expense of your own, then you become a carpet everyone wipes their feet off. Even if you are a woman somehow biologically predisposed to being submissive, it is in your best interest to undergo some sort of an assertiveness training and learn to stand your ground in the face of adversity. It is better to do it now, than when you are tangled up in an abusive relationship, working for a tyrant boss and having two spoiled kids - then starting to stand your ground will have pretty severe short-term consequences.

I appreciate your thoughtful remarks. I disagree however. Your first paragraph describes how a chieftain uses top down dominance to the point men are held responsible for their women. Seems submission was key to the harmony of the tribe.

If one submits to the point they lose their dignity, yes. That's not what I saw when reading about your situation. You exhibited great strength on behalf of your children. Certainly not a door mat. 

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

I suppose the disagreement may stem from us understanding "submission" differently. From the context of the original question I assumed that we are talking about the submissiveness character trait or generally submissive behavior, which implies standing in line, avoiding confrontation by bending to others' will, serving others' goals instead of one's own. I did not mean submissiveness to reasonable rules, or to one's personal responsibilities and obligations, but explicitly submissiveness to some sort of authority for the sole reason of it being an authority/danger to one.

Someone who is willing to go out of their way to protect and raise their children by making it a priority and taking time away from other things exhibits a very different type of behavior, than someone who has no backbone and has become a satisfier of their children's whims and caprices. A strong parent will go far to make his children as happy as possible, but will also know when to put a foot down and say, "This is unacceptable; you are crossing the line". It is important to be able to stand up to adversity, whether it comes from an explicitly threatening source (government, robber, bully, rigid society, et cetera), or from a very "friendly" source (children, spouse, parents). Submitting to adversity by default is not a good long-term strategy, and while it will definitely help one avoid some pain in the short run, its implications on the future of one's life are very dark.

I do not think that a woman should by default submit to a man. Unless we are talking about a physical fight in which woman is very likely to be a looser, so she might prefer to give up and try to "negotiate" with the man (much like a man might want to negotiate with a bandit with a gun, rather than try to fight him) - the woman should have her own goals, values and opinions, and should feel as confident asserting them before a man, as a man does before a woman. I personally definitely strongly prefer women who can stand up to adversity, who can tell me when I am being unreasonable, who can take my edgy jokes and fire back - for one, because I know that I can rely on them as much as they can rely on me when life takes a turn to the worse. I believe that every man, as well as society as a whole, benefits from having strong women around, even if they do not always understand it. There are men who claim they want to be in love with a submissive woman, but I suspect that they are merely expressing their insecurities, and a woman catering to their insecurities is like free alcohol supply for someone who tries to give up drinking: it is a deadly predicament, and such men owe it to themselves to fix their insecurity before it fixes them.
And I need not go into more details on how being strong and assertive directly benefits women. From being able to negotiate a higher salary to not accepting any domestic abuse, strength of character improves their lives all around.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Odd that verse 21 was omitted which impacts what follows:

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ

So, "submission" is not just for wives.  The question to address is what is meant by 'submission'.  It doesn't mean being a doormat.  In Koine Greek it is a military term that means to take on the mindset of a servant/soldier - in that you look to meet another's needs - not that you are subservient, or a chattel slave, to them.  Both wife and husband are charged with looking out for one another's needs and interests.  Paul told husbands that they were to love their wives as Christ loved the church who gave his life sacrificially for it.  

The idea that women are subserviently is not a biblical one.  

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  - Galatians 3:28

Not odd. That verse wasn't pertinent. Yes the overall context was detailing how to live with one another in reverence to Christ. But the Apostle Paul chose his words carefully so that whoever reads them would not misinterpret them. Women were reverence Christ by their willingness to reverence their husbands, husbands were to reverence Christ by how giving their lives for their wives' sakes and so on. We know this because it is harmony with the whole of scripture. 

From Genesis when god presents eve to adam as his as a help mate through the books of moses and on to the prophets, then Christ. Yes the angel of the lord came to the virgin mary and told her she will conceive a child and it will be god's son. Not her estranged husbands. It was not a proposition. The only conclusion is she submitted and agreed to endure what had been called to endure.

We also know paul was careful with his words because christ taught his disciples that who teaches in his name will be held to a higher standard. The one thing no one wanted to do is to cause any of his to fall. In pauls writings to timothy he explains in more detail how they must teach only what christ taught and of course christ himself warned of adding or subtracting from his doctrine.

The verse you quoted isn't a denial of the differences between them as they live and breathe. It was a statement of their faith in christ and how it is welcomed by christ equally from them all no matter their station in life.

Factfinder

 You do have a way with words @Barnardot. Are you saying the only way to keep the peace was for men to dominate women for their own sanity?

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

I agree with you. Women shouldn't submit as a default position. No one should for that matter. Yet the worlds religions seem to think they should. That if they do not submit peace within the family unit breaks down and that leads to strife throughout the community. Islam for example teaches it takes ten women to equal one man's testimony in court. I do not believe the worlds religions are too concerned about mutual submission shared desires or outcomes like you're talking about. I believe they mean it as the natural order in human relationships go, women must be subservient and willingly take on that role.

Barnardot

@Factfinder ;Are you saying the only way to keep the peace was for men to dominate women for their own sanity?

Not at all. I think youll find that many psychologists agree that men were horribly scarred of woman due to ignorance and the superstious crap they believed in and also you need to consider that unfortunately it was the picking order rule. Women are the weeker sex and built smaller so the rule of the jungle back then was that the physically dominant men rule ok.

Factfinder

@Barnardot

And that fear simply transitioned into doctrine as cults emerged and religions began to form.? 

TenohtlictlRodriguezLozano

Forgive me god for what im about to say. I am not perfect i am only human.

When Jesus was born his mother claimed it was god who impregnated her because Joseph was shocked to find out. Then all of a sudden after she gave birth the 3 kings come knocking on her doorstep. Is it just me or does it sound like mary cheated on joseph and made up this bogus lie about claiming it was god who did it. The real father was one of those 3 kings i think. It is just my dirty way in interpreting such story. Not that it has any connection with this topic but since we're on the subject.


In my experience with women, I find those women who submit to me fully and carry themselves well in public cold as hell with towards all genders, wins my heart. It might not change me completely of who i am but i would definately never cheat on her and i would never hesitate or mind spending money on her because shes my b and deserves to feel like a queen. This makes me happy to see her happy and trust her as she does me. 

So depending on the personality of the man and woman and their values. If they are coherent with one another on the idea of submitting. Then yes it does benefit social change for the better.But to say that this is a possibility is misleading. I dont see this country ever coming near such achievement.

Barnardot

@Factfinder ;And that fear simply transitioned into doctrine as cults emerged and religions began to form.? 

Well I get the feeling that it was doctrine any way back then. The trouble with religion is that it holds on to what was fashionable back then and just says like well it was written so thats how we have to behave.

But I think we all know that in realty what religions do is cherry pick the bits in the Bible that suit there ways. In Leviticus it says that a man cant sleep with a man. And it also says also that a man must not cut his facial hair or cut the sides of his hair. Now how many Christians do you see waring there hair like that? Hardly any. But how many Christians go round hating homos? Just about all of them.

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

@MayCaesar

I agree with you. Women shouldn't submit as a default position. No one should for that matter. Yet the worlds religions seem to think they should. That if they do not submit peace within the family unit breaks down and that leads to strife throughout the community. Islam for example teaches it takes ten women to equal one man's testimony in court. I do not believe the worlds religions are too concerned about mutual submission shared desires or outcomes like you're talking about. I believe they mean it as the natural order in human relationships go, women must be subservient and willingly take on that role.

I do not think those religions make this assumption based on anything more than it having been the state of things at the time those religions were being developed. It is natural (pun intended) for humans to assume that things naturally should be as they are - we take a lot of things we see around us for granted - yet things change over time, and so do the naturality assumptions. For the vast majority of human history, for instance, slavery was considered perfectly acceptable, while nowadays all societies find the institution to be an aberration, a monstrosity.

A good question, at least, for a monotheist to ask would be, "Would a benevolent god want to have half of the human population be subservient to the other half?" This seems unfair according to pretty much any conception of fairness.

Factfinder

@Barnardot

Unfortunately many christians don't take the time to read and understand their bibles and as you say, hold only to a few select or "cherry picked" versus. With no comprehension of their intended message. In Genesis God prophesied and decreed adam would "he shall rule over thee." to eve. That set the precedent. Jesus did a lot to correct the way men dominated them but he never went against god's decree. He simply made the point they are equally human hence the woman caught in adultery. Why only punish her when there was a man involved as well? If they were to dispense justice, it must be just was the point; so he let her go with a warning. But where god, his father was concerned to paraphrase: his laws and the prophets not one thing will change, not one t crossing or i dotting. If christians understood what was in the book and believed it no christian woman would be in congress or any other position where their authority would be over men. And the men would not recognize any authority a woman had over him. That would never fly in modern western society today so now they have to use special pleading and voodoo to assert the bible doesn't say what it does.

jack

Factfinder said:

Does female submission create social harmony?

Hello Fact:

Uhhh, no..  In fact, it creates division.  Lemme ask you this..  

The Chinese people SUBMIT to their government.  Is that because submission is good, or because defying it, is extremely dangerous?

In Arab countries, women SUBMIT to their husbands..  Is that because submitting is good, or is defying him extremely dangerous? 

In the US, we used to require females to SUBMIT.  But we fixed it, and guess what?  It's not dangerous at all.

excon

Factfinder

jack said:

Factfinder said:

Does female submission create social harmony?

Hello Fact:

Uhhh, no..  In fact, it creates division.  Lemme ask you this..  

The Chinese people SUBMIT to their government.  Is that because submission is good, or because defying it, is extremely dangerous?

In Arab countries, women SUBMIT to their husbands..  Is that because submitting is good, or is defying him extremely dangerous? 

In the US, we used to require females to SUBMIT.  But we fixed it, and guess what?  It's not dangerous at all.

excon

I do not disagree with your conclusion based on forced submission and the related dangers of defying the dominate authority. 

However that is not the topic. Most religious doctrines from around the world teach females to submit as one of the tenets of their faith. Muslims for example openly accept this as the order of the way things need to be. Christianity did as well until western societies pushed back. Now they deny it was ever taught or try to back peddle from their own writings. Point being religions typically have female submission as vital to societal structures. Do you think religious people in modern enlightened times think this is vital to keeping the peace within the family thus reducing greater strife from spilling outside the family? Or do you think as I do, it's just plain ole misogynistic?

Barnardot

@Factfinder @Jack Or do you think as I do, it's just plain ole misogynistic?

Sure when we analize it in the end plain ole misoginistic is what it is but it has to come from some where. And we can see the attitudes of religious people that it comes from there good ole fashioned religion that they dont want to change.

Factfinder

@Barnardot

Yeah you would think so. I'm kinda surprised no one has argued the 'in nature one sex dominates the other so why not us?' position. lol

21CenturyIconoclast

@Factfinder



.
Factfinder,

First thing, pay no attention to the pseudo-christian Bible Fools "just_sayin and MayCeaser" because their insidious job is to try and REWRITE the disturbing scriptures away from their actual and LITERAL words!  The primitive Bible was used all the time to control the 2nd class woman, because in the beginning in the Garden of Eden, the WOMAN EVE transgressed first against Jesus as the serial killer God: “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” (1 Timothy 2:14)  From this point on, the woman was a 2nd class citizen within the Bible and history relative to Christianity!


The following two passages, in addition to yours at the onset, prove once again the woman's position in Christianity, bar none!

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

Why do you think that woman were not allowed to vote in the United States until 1920? YES, because of the Bible making them 2nd class citizens!

Why do you think that woman were not allowed to smoke in the United States until 1929? YES, because of the Bible making them 2nd class citizens!

Christianity blames the "Sisters of Eve" women for original sin: ”Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)

“The woman Folly is loud; she is seductive and knows nothing.” (Proverbs 9:13)

“I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26)

I have lost count of the disparaging Bible passages against women in the Old and New Testament, whereas the passages shown in this post alone are NEVER brought forth in the congregations of Christian churches on Sunday Mornings for obvious reasons!  LOL!

.

Factfinder

@21CenturyIconoclast

Hi Century, Yeah you're pretty much making my point. I was just seeing if there might be an alternative reason that I hadn't considered.