Just What Do You Believe About Gender Roles?

I don't have a husband but when I did I took care of the daily needs of the house and he worked.(when he had a job)He didn't interact with the kids much until they were older and not wearing diapers. With all that said, I wish I could have had it as good as some women have it. Men are more inclined to help out around the house and spend time with their kids. I believe that is a good thing. But I do wonder if some problems in marriages today stem from confusion in this area. Some women want to run the show and emasculate their men, and some men feel as if they have to prove their manhood over every little thing. The only thing I can find in the Bible on this (it was a Christianity Today article) is that there cannot be two heads, the man gets the bum job of being the one who makes the final decision, or delegates that responsibility to his wife. It also says a woman is to submit and a man (obey) to love his wife as he loves himself. What do you all think of these teachings?

Okay, truthfully I struggle with submitting, I think mostly due to my husbands lack of wisdom where making decisions are concerned. He is most likely to try to avoid making a decision than to make one, and so that causes him to make rash choices. I understand the concept, but I think this works best if the man can make a decision. I also believe that though there shouldn't be two heads, a couple should be a team and they should discuss any problems that arise and I think if the woman has a good plan, the man should not feel that he can't use that choice because a woman came up with it. The rare times my husband asks me my opinion, he never uses what I say. It's like he is asking what I think so he can make the opposite choice. Or he'll call his younger brother who really doesn't know much more than I do.. So in reality, I guess I am the wrong person to answer other than I know that the man is stronger and is suppose to be in charge because he was given bigger shoulders to carry burdens. But when a man relies on himself and not G♥d, I firmly believe he loses that capability to carry on..

I understand, believe me I do. I went through the same thing. The only advice I can give you is to ask for guidence from God and look in His word to find it. Don't be a doormat, but don't look for arguments is how one lady advised me long ago. It is very difficult to do. You are in my prayers. Be true to what is right and show him all the love in ways that you can. Ask God to deal with his heart.

Ahhh..someone finally said what I was hinting at BALANCE. thanks!

I find that anytime there is a teaching such as 'wives obey' there is a deeper meaning than just the obvious. I lived in an abusive marriage. I struggle long and hard with this one. I had a husband who was in no way living the words, 'husbands love your wives as your self' and found it difficult to say the least- to obey. I felt that made me a terrible wife, it was the cause ultimately of my break down. Just couldn't handle it. But then after the marriage finally ended, when I was so sick of it I could not stand it any more, I was able to see that God was not condemning me to a role I could never fulfill. I WAS. My motives were pure, and that is what God sees.

Here, let me try to explain in a slightly different way. I'm relying heavily on examples and analogies, as you can see. The point of men being stronger than women (physically), I connected to the point of the findings of the I.Q.-race scenario. My main point was that statistics are just averages. For the purposes of this explanation, let X represent so-and-so race. There are many people of X group that do not fit within the averages that the statistics show us. X race, for example, is "supposed" to be smarter than Y race; that's what the statistics show, right? But that's just an average of the entire population. There are still many people of X race that are "dumber" than people of Y race. In fact, the majority of people do *not* fit the perfect average. Let us assume that the overall average I.Q. is 100. There are *not* many people in the world who have an *exact* I.Q. of 100. More people fall somewhere a few points ahead or behind, and there are also *many* "outliers", as they are called in the proper terminology. Same with the "men are physically stronger than women and are therefore suited for so-and-so tasks and so-and-so jobs" thing. Many men are "outliers" of these statistics, and even more are just a few points off what the statistics show. Some men are a lot weaker than the average, some are a little bit weaker than the average, and thus, some men are weaker than their wives. There are just too many exceptions. I hope what I said above helped to clarify, but I think my first post elaborated on my beliefs the most. I wasn't really meaning to write a lengthy scholarly treatise on this subject meant to be referenced for years to come, rather, I was trying to clarify my position on things as best as possible. "Some are tradition. But that doesn't take away from their power to influence a culture." Yes, very true. However, I will respectfully say that I don't quite understand what your point was when you said that. I mean, yes, tradition can influence a culture very powerfully, but that doesn't make it right, I think. So many cultures are outdated, silly customs of the past, specifically because they are there simply for old time's sake. That, and the fact that we are collectively indoctrinated as a whole population from previous generations. These traditions- no real morality issues or anything. . .just complete *irrationality* in spite of the points I outlined above and in my previous post. To me, it shows the tendency for people to be brainwashed. That, and, the fact that people in power sometimes tend to try to keep themselves in power by indoctrinating us in sneaky ways like so. . . Look back at pre-women's suffrage. They had their irrational reasons that were thought to be rational in those times, those carryovers of mindsets of thought from previous generations. Now we look back at that and see the equality of men and women. Perhaps this will happen again in the future with the gender role situation. Thanks for reading, and have a nice day!

Traditions define a people as one entity. It bonds them in a common purpose. They are important for children to learn to identify with the larger society around them, and such identification is a stepping stone to becoming independent within that group. If traditions are dividing a group, as women's right to vote issue did then it is merely a way to grow as a group. To identify a thing such as oppression is not bad, it brings growth to the society.

You write like I talk...very fast! Some are tradition. But that doesn't take away from their power to influence a culture. I can't really understand your points on IQ but thats ok. Thanks for sharing them.

I read somewhere that all cultures have gender roles. I am thinking that since this article I read was in Christianity today, that they primarily are talking about traditional western roles. It's obvious that in the western civilization, these roles have changed a little in the last generation. I agree with the Bible in that a 'body' (the family) must have only one head. The final word. Or it causes much confusion. When Paul wrote his admonition to the early church that women were to 'obey' their husbands, that was the accepted norm in that society and that time. Do you think it still applies today? When women are bread winners and men change diapers and car pool?

Certainly not. There is not much distinction today (or maybe in the coming days) on who has to obey whom among couples. Both have to understand each other, and work things out on mutual consent. If the element of obeying comes among spouses, then it is not a family relationship, it a king-subject relationship. But, I believe this obeying relationship applies between generations (kids should obey parents).

Wow. Your story is just incredible. I cannot imagine what that would have been like. Good job for getting out of that abusive relationship; I can't imagine what going through that was like for you. . . I'm glad you're better now though! I have a question about the quoted scripture, however. Didn't Paul write this? How can we know for sure that we can trust everything that Paul wrote? Two, this was written as a letter to the Ephesians. Let me offer a hypothetical situation: A letter was sent from the President to X country about X problems and issues that that country has. Isn't using the letter to the Ephesians as authoritative scripture for people in general like reading that hypothetical President's letter and attempting to use it to fix our current crises in the U.S.? So what does give the leaders of religion the authority to compile the Bible together into one book out of translations of translations of ancient manuscripts and decide what goes in and what stays out? This is one of the things that have been disturbing me lately. Anyone can falsify things or slant things towards their own beliefs when they are in power. Look at the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons. Well, of course, this only applies if you're a practising Christian and believe that they've strayed off the true path. Anyways, what about them? If God strictly makes sure that his followers stay on the true path and makes sure the Holy Spirit guides those who lead, intervening himself, if need be, to stop those who lead people astray, then why are these people who spin off of the Bible still here? Who's to say that this is not also the case to a small extent with our own modern Bible? This is the flaw I find with people who believe the Bible is completely flawless. The original texts were, to be sure, but I'm not exactly sure about our modern version. . . I have a hard time wrapping my head around the scripture that tells us that women have to be submissive to their husbands. It just doesn't feels equal.

Cooperation is ALWAYS a good thing!

Hi Chico, I know how you feel. Thanks for stopping by and feel free to return with your opinions any way.

Bobbinbeck u said what i wanted to say and agree but its what i think in my opinion

I believe each individual within the family has gifts or talents that can hinder or help the family, depending on how they are used. Each member, the husband and wife should have the goal of protecting the family, supporting the family and encouraging the spiritual and intellectual growth of the family. If each member works for this, it matters not who is in charge of changing diapers or earning income. Both are important roles. Paul's admonition to women to obey is simply a call to not hinder or hurt the husbands efforts to lead; all bodies (family) must have one head. But let's not forget that they also must have only one heart.

That is a great paraphrase of those scriptures. I learned something from that passage along time ago. The Old Testament did not teach a woman stays at home, in that passage the woman is known in the market place BECAUSE she was doing what she could to EARN income to help her husband. That, believe it or not, was a surprise to me. I had assumed the women were meek and submissive to a 'patriarch' sort of man who only let them out of the house to draw water! lol

You pose a very good point. Perhaps the man and woman should have an equal say? Talk it out? Would that be possible? I'm not married; I wouldn't know.

You are correct in that. But what do you think of my point of someone has to be the final say? I mean, if no one will step up and make an unpopular decision, what then?

As in all relationships in the world, and I'm thinking of business agreements, there has to be a 'boss' one person who will lead and see that things are running smoothly. I agree that it is important to 'pool their resouces' as you say. But I also agree that in a difficult situation, and there are many in marriage, there has to be a final say. Someone to make the hard decisions. If the man won't step up and do this, often times the woman does. I also believe that there are many smart women who quietly, with meekness, know how to 'guide' their man.

A strong man does help his wife. She helps him as well. It is a definate partnership. As long as the agree with the duties and share in responsibility, I see no need to lock them into set roles.

In a marriage set up there could be division of responsibilities with each of the partners helping out the other to achieve their respective objectives. It may not be possible to have equal responsibilities but some agreement could be arrived at focusing on the plus points of either partners. If the wife is good at house keeping the husband could perhaps take care of finances not to say these roles cannot be reversed which again depends on who is good in which area.

The Bible says, wives obey, men love your wives....if men did what they're supposed to do, women could easily do what they're supposed to do. Don't you think?

Would this be a deal breaker if you had a husband who felt otherwise? For me, I struggled with society's expectations on me in a bad marriage, so I am really curious about how others would handle it better.

Me either! I have said if I find a man who is stronger (emotionally) than I am, without his being egotisical about it, I'd get married again. I don't do submissive well if the man is using my submissive nature to hurt me. That is not what God intended. Else He wouldn't have laid it on Paul's heart to write 'husbands, love your wives as you love your own body'. I have searched my heart on this deeply. I have come to the conclusion that most women want a strong man who can lead.(not that women cannot lead) I do, and did want that. Women want the freedom to raise their families, make a home, participate in supporting it, without dealing with abusive tyrants (or even simon milqtoasts). In short, a man who will allow them to be who they are, without being threatened by their minds or talents. I haven't, since my divorce found a man who is secure enough within himself to keep from trying to change me into his version of me. In short, the men I have met and dated want their cake and eat it too. They want a submissive wife, but they don't want to love her as they love themselves. Its a two way street.

I'm sorry to hear that. Yes, it would definitely be a deal breaker. But the thing is I don't think anyone who feels otherwise would want to marry me in the first place, not the way I am now.