Comments on: On the Equality and Inequality of the Genders

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:50:16 +0000

Hmmm. That's not a bad idea. If I can find the time in the next couple of days, I'll try to get something up there.
This whole topic really interests me. In the past I've just accepted the fact that people will let women say things about gender issues (this doesn't apply to any other issue that I've noticed) that they won't let men say (I'm not just talking in terms of the blog here). But I would love to understand why this happens.
In general, I think much of this has to do with the fact that men like women and want them to be happy, but I think a lot of things may be at play here.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:59:16 +0000

Amy, this is a great topic and you've asked some very good questions. If I might make a suggestion, granted one that means more work for an A-teamer, why not make a new post asking these questions, with links to your posts on gender and Roger's?
I suggest this not only because I think it's important enough to warrant it's own “headlined” space, but because I honestly don't remember how/if I responded to what you've written. I seem to recall your posts to be more along the lines of recognizing that men and women are different than men being called to leadership as such, though I don't doubt that's in there too. I'd also like to see if I disagree with Roger more than I do with you, and if so how vocal I am with each of you.
I tend not to get too involved in some of these debates for a number of reasons, but I don't know that I've ever really carefully thought through why (part of it is the discussion is so thoroughly personal. It's personal for non-married folks too, but not in the same way).
You can rest assured, though, that I won't hold back any disagreement I have with you (I grant this is rare 😉 ), though if I might tease a bit I think if you're position is right (from my memory of it) I might have good reason to treat you and Roger differently.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:55:10 +0000

Guys, I'm just reading through this post now. I think it's a little late for me to jump in at this point (I'll wait for next time), but I am very curious about something, and I would love to hear your answers to this if you're willing to give them…
I have often written on the topic of men and women–I've talked about the differences, I've discussed why I think men ought to be in leadership, etc., etc. But I rarely get more than a couple of comments, and comments challenging my positions are even more rare.
So my question is–and I really want to understand this–why so few challenges to my posts on this issue? Why is it you're arguing with Roger (17 comments!), but not me on this?
I'm not asking this accusingly. I honestly ask this out of curiosity with some amusement. Is it because you think Roger doesn't have a right to say it (because he's a man)? Is it because you think you're not allowed to argue with me on this (because I'm a woman)? Do you feel like you have to protect women from men (Roger), but not other women (me)?
If I had written this post, would you have responded differently? If so, then do you think the gender of the writer ought to affect the way you respond to the ideas?
If you're willing to really get outside yourself and figure this out and then be open about it, I would be fascinated by your answers–mainly because I'm fascinated by men/women issues and how we relate to each other. Any ideas?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:34:18 +0000

Thanks Bill, I think we may agree on some of these things, though I'm sure we'd have some quibbles too. (I don't think you were necessarily unclear, it's a complex topic and a the reader has to work as well).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:27:36 +0000

I'm not sure I entirely understand what Bill is saying

I am sorry I wasn't more clear, Micah.
Clearly, our worth should be founded first and formost by the image of God that we bear, and by God's value of us, which is so great as to lead to the sacrifice of his Son on our behalf. We are though social beings. When I speak of our own self worth, I speak not of society's perceptions, but of philosophy of selfhood, and a psychological understanding of self perception.
Our own perception of worth is dependent upon how we are esteemed by others. I am not willing to accept that this social facet of our human make up is purely sinful. Rather, I believe it is an intrinsic part of the social beings that God made us to be. Though we may be esteemed as valuable to God by others, if those same people do not esteem our opinoins, knowledge and judgement, if they limit our influence by our class, if they establish a ceiling to the authority which we can attain relative to others around us, we incorporate these diminished estimations of us into our sense of self worth.
Beyond our self perception, I would argue, that in a social group dynamic, those who are more influential are perceived to have greater worth. We protect our officers behind the lines of our enlisted men for practical reasons, but also for reasons of pragmatic worth.
I have not honed these thoughts, but I continue to believe that though you may only seek to evaluate our worth in terms of our standing before God, this excludes a significant part of what it means to be a human being.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:15:21 +0000

Tim, if Amy were Roger's wife, your point would make more sense. If she were, then she would have to submit to Roger's authority regardless of her relative knowledge or wisdom to his. Her opinion and desires, though valued and listened to would be subjugated to his, and her right to self determination would be limited by his decision to exercise his authority over her.
If that is a misstatement of Roger's position, I would be happy to be corrected.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:08:05 +0000

Roger, the interpretation I am familiar with is that the curse is not a desire to rule over her husband, but rather, that the woman will now be subjugated to her husband. The two who were equal, because of the fall, become unequal. This is not a recent interpretation. Mathew Henry, not a particularly liberal commentator and not recent as this was written in 1710, here states it thus:

II. She is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority, 1 Tim. ii. 11, 12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, and is not sui juris--at her own disposal, of which see an instance in that law, Num. xxx. 6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife.

I believe I encountered this interpretation originally in Paul Jewitt's book, Man As Male and Female: A Study in Sexual Relationships from a Theological Point of View

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 01:15:39 +0000

Micah again.
I wonder what makes this a curse specific to women in marriage. It seems that people as such desire to have control and dominion over one another. A sister tries to control her sister, her mother, her friend, and vice versa. Same thing with a man in relation to his brother, friend, etc. And surely both husbands and wives desire to control each other in sinful ways and from sinful motivations (the difference, I suppose, is that the woman's desire is intrinsically wrong, whereas the husband's can be right if he takes care to exercise his authority in a holy way?).
(as an aside I wonder if “control” is the right word. Not even a traditional patriarchal view would see husbands “controlling” their wives as a good thing, right? Whereas they can, and should, in such a view, exercise authority.)
I guess if this is what the woman's curse is I wonder what makes it much different from what we all seemed to be cursed with, a sinful desire to take for ourselves authority that is not ours.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:02:55 +0000

I would expect that to be a raucous place. Best it seems to avoid Timbo in such a hostile environment.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:03:35 +0000

I don't know, but Timbo's been a bit abusive lately. Thursday he beat me up in the Talbot lounge.