The Great Equalizer

I believe in  equality of men and women in one sense of the word; I just don’t like using the word because of how the feminists and liberals have co-opted it. So when feminists say they’re in favor of equal rights for women, I say I’m in favor of complimentary rights, that is, women and men have different abilities and thus responsibilities, and society should reflect this.

When you think of the traditional Christian view of marriage, it DOES seem rather one-sided towards the husband. The husband leads the wife and gets served by the wife; he takes care of her and provides for her and their children. In the end the husband sounds an awful lot more important than the wife.

There is one thing, though, that women can do that men can’t. This is the Great Equalizer of marriage, why I would say that the wife is at least as important and valuable as the husband – in a limited way, even more so. And it is this: Women can be mothers.

Fatherhood is underrated in modern times and extremely important. Don’t get me wrong. But the Catholic Church in particular gives a special emphasis to motherhood. Mary, the Mother of God, is a woman, and yet she is greater than all of the apostles. And the Bible recognizes the special responsibility and special honor that comes from being the sex that gives birth. 1 Timothy 2:11 says this:

11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

It is women, not men, who will be saved through childbearing. It is so monumentally important, so integral to life, that bearing children literally has salvific effects that a man can’t have. It is distinctly for women.

There’s more. here’s 1 Corinthians 8-12

For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

This inequality between men and women, the superiority of men over women, is only equalized because of one thing: Childbirth. Something uniquely female.

And the denigration of motherhood is arguably the single most tragic result of feminism. Unknowingly feminists are actually denigrating and disrespecting the one thing that DOES make them equal to man in value. By doing this it turns the entire feminist movement into a sham. Women, you want equality? Become a mother.

Bonus Section: Dying to Yourself=Doing the Dishes

I found this looking up the exact Bible verses I needed for submission. Yep, you read that right – it turns out that if men don’t have the opportunity to literally die for their wives, doing the dishes is a suitable substitute!

Provocative Bible (which is being awfully PC for such an ambitious name) has the scoop here:

Verse 21 is an instruction for all of us to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. What Paul then does is give examples for people in various life situations on how to submit to one another. He says “wives, here is what submission to your husband means in your life. But then he immediately goes to the husbands and says, this is what submission to your wife looks like for you, “Love your wife in the same way Christ loves the church. Lay down your life for her”.

Apparently loving somebody in the way Christ loves the Church=submission! Because…Christ submits to the Church? Or something. Wait, that’s not how it works. Maybe I’m misunderstanding things. Let’s see what else our author has to say:

Yes wives are to submit to their husbands in the same way the church submits to Christ. What does that look like? It means following his lead and serving him out of love. It is not a blind obedience but a following that comes from a relationship of trust and mutual esteem. Husbands are to submit their desires to their wife by serving her to the point of death. Husbands are to “die to themselves” and do all they can to help their wives becomes the beautiful, precious bride, that Christ also has in mind for the church. For most men the idea of laying down their life for their wife will immediately go to fighting off an attacker or pushing her away from an oncoming bus while you take a grill to the chest. The chances of either of those opportunities happening are astronomically slim. What is far more likely is that husbands will be asked to die to themselves and submit to their wives by doing dishes, caring for the kids so she can have a day away, ironing her clothes, or making her lunch. It includes helping her achieve her dreams and become all that God made her to be. It means putting her first.

Hmmm, hold on a moment here. Isn’t he adding stuff into the verse that isn’t there?

What is far more likely is that husbands will be asked to die to themselves and submit to their wives by doing dishes, caring for the kids so she can have a day away, ironing her clothes, or making her lunch. It includes helping her achieve her dreams and become all that God made her to be. It means putting her first.

I’m confused. Where did it say that husbands had to submit to their wives? Why does the husband have to do dishes if he’s the one providing for the family already? I’m sure it would be nice but I’m afraid I don’t see the obligation. It’s certainly not spelled out in Scripture. Thinking about it, doesn’t the master/slave example also hurt his case? Is he really arguing that a person who’s role in the relationship is literally “master” shouldn’t have a person whose role is “slave” submit to him? Yes, he should treat the slave with respect…but it’s kind of built into the names.

It looks too like he’s missing some other even clearer verses. Here’s 1 Corinthians 11:3:

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God.

So man is the head of the woman. Good to know. And here is 1 Timothy 2: 11-12

A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet.

Wow, submission to men again! Even more interesting: There is no command here, and you won’t find it in the Bible, where men are required to submit to women.

It seems as if the original author’s interpretation of Scripture was off, no?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Great Equalizer

  1. Ilíon says:

    When you think of the traditional Christian view of marriage, it DOES seem rather one-sided towards the husband. The husband leads the wife and gets served by the wife; he takes care of her and provides for her and their children. In the end the husband sounds an awful lot more important than the wife.

    To put it another way, the husband potentially works himself to death as he “leads the wife … [and] takes care of her and provides for her and their children”. Yes, that ceretainly is “rather one-sided towards the husband”; one can see why everyone wants to scrap that paradigm.

    • I saw this response coming. My only defense is that I don’t want to scrap anything; I merely make an observation. For the reason you give, it makes sense. Though, while I know it happens, I think a lot less husbands “work themselves to death” than in the past. But I’m nitpicking.

  2. Also, for that matter, in many situations I don’t think husbands do THAT much more of the work nowadays anyway.

    • Ilíon says:

      Malcolm,
      Do you understand that you’re doing what your “game” buddies call “White Knighting”? — Just because their (ahem) theories are pseudo-scientific bullshit, and their motiviations and expressed concerns are at best self-delusions, doesn’t mean that everything they say is utterly false.

      Much as the “gammers” are not anti-feminists, but are, in fact, doublers-down on feminism, so you, too, are unwilling even to see a thought if some woman (of either sex), somewhere, will shriek about the “sexism” of it.

      Christian marriage — hell! even some pre-Christian ideals of marriage — sees the husband, the man, as the expendible partner: if sacrificing himself for the sake of the woman and the children is what it takes, then that is his duty to do, whether that means “working himself to death”, or “taking the bullet”, or “going down with the ship”.

      Women today, by and large, are quite happy to have men do their duties, while refusing their own duties … ore even demanding that the men do both sets.

      • Hey Ilion, where are you getting all that? I think that women should be wives and mothers but submit to husbands, and I far from think that everything those in the manosphere think is wrong; I find a lot quite useful. I also think men should die for their families if necessary, and that the interpretation that “men and women need to submit to each other” is wrong. My whole point was that any type of equality is only gained in motherhood.

        That said, yeah, I was raised in a feminist society and was indoctrinated like the rest of us, and so I’m working on changing my worldview. But I stand by every specific point I made, and my admission that things “seemed” one-sided was an honest admission that I’m still struggling to throw off some feminist underpinnings in my worldview.

      • Ilíon says:

        Hey Ilion, where are you getting all that?

        I list a specific example to the cultural ideal-and-expectation that it is a man’s duty to sacrifice himself for his woman and children, for the purpose of highlighting the your statement that “When you think of the traditional Christian view of marriage, it DOES seem rather one-sided towards the husband. The husband leads the wife and gets served by the wife; he takes care of her and provides for her and their children. In the end the husband sounds an awful lot more important than the wife.” is a feminist misrepresentation of reality … and you respond by repeating the favorite self-centered bitch of women — “Also, for that matter, in many situations I don’t think husbands do THAT much more of the work nowadays anyway.

        … and I far from think that everything those in the manosphere think is wrong; I find a lot quite useful.

        I, on the other hand, despise those women-with-XY-chromosomes: when they say something “useful” or not wrong, it is by way of accident.

        That said, yeah, I was raised in a feminist society and was indoctrinated like the rest of us, and so I’m working on changing my worldview.

        We all were; it has been going on since those damned Victorians started worshipping the female sex. At the same time, I’m way older than you … and from a “lower-class” family background … so I have had less deprogramming to do: I *remember* what things were like before, I was raised to be a man, rather than a “meterosexual”, as the feminist imperative is trying to force all males to be.

      • Well, I had some more written, but I’ll just say this:

        …the cultural ideal-and-expectation that it is a man’s duty to sacrifice himself for his woman and children…

        …is something I agree 100% with. If I sound as if I’m hedging on some points, it’s because I’m still working through my thoughts on the issue. You can be sure I agree on that basic point, though. And my point about motherhood, made in the original post, also stands.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s