Women: Submit to your Husband and Society Rebuttal

     

3/4 of the Women Are Subservient Debate

Previous        Next

          This blog post is heavy on words because I really wanted to answer a couple of peoples' questions and make counterarguments, but it's content is very Q&A-like in format and is listed (Hurray!). In the first list are summarized claims made by myself in my previous post. The second list consists of summarized claims made by everyone else who gave me feedback, and the third and final list consists of counterarguments to that feedback. Enjoy!

Definition of sexism: "The belief that one sex (usually the male) is naturally superior to the other and should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life"

My claims:

1. All of Paul's teachings are direct commands from God [Source]

2. Women should be silent in churches; shameful for them to speak in church [Source]

3. Husband rules over wife; wife submits to husband and obeys his authority [Source]

4. Woman not teach/show authority over man because Adam was formed first and Eve was deceived, not Adam [Source]

5. Dress modestly, don't adorn yourselves with jewelry, doing hair, etc; adorn yourselves with good deeds and a gentle and quiet spirit [Source]

6. Submission to the husband is because a) God said so, and b) To win others over to Christianity [Source]

7. Husbands, be nice to women. They are the weaker sex, after all [Source]

8. Not even going to mention the Job quote. I don't even know why I included that and I concede that point.

9. God punishes women for disobeying the exact commands given by Paul (modesty, do not adorn yourselves with jewelry and nice clothes) [Source]

10. Woman is the image and reflection of man, while man is the image and reflection of God. Hand in hand with this is that woman was made for man; not man for woman. Therefore, wear a head covering, women! [Source]

11. Conclusion: God's role for women is one of submission and subservience to the will of the husband. They are to be quiet in church, be obedient to the husband, be modest in character, refrain from adornment via jewelry/fancy clothing, and instead show their beauty by being passive and gentle, holy and good. Backed up by Paul's righteous teachings, female inferiority/naturally 'serving' role for women, and God's punishment for breaking these exact commands.


Everyone else's claims:

1. He must provide Scripture in the post itself; hyperlinks are not sufficient and simply build an argument for Daniel

2. Daniel twists Paul's words to fit his (Daniel's) own narrative; takes things out of context

3. Paul says, (paraphrasing) Husbands, love your wives. Wives, love and respect your husbands.

4. Men/women different beings, therefore different needs

5. Daniel becomes a "rabid feminazi"

6. Women ARE physically weaker than men

7. Urging husbands to love and respect their wives is not sexist (As Paul says to do)

8. Daniel's agenda=feminazi agenda. Therefore, it is false/holds no value

9. God put men in authority to be the leaders/maintain structure within Christianity; to bear responsibility and guide women

10. Women were seen as inferior and housewives back then, also not educated

11. Jesus advanced the status of women

12. "Love your neighbor as yourself" applies in the husband to wife relationship; make her equal to yourself [Galatians 3:28]

13. God designated men to hold organizational and familial structure as their role; does not inherently make women inferior-only gives men and women different (but important in their own way) roles. Same for "body of Christ", which I assume means the church (hence women be silent in church/don't teach a man)

14. Secular worldview is sexist, "but I don’t feel like relentlessly attacking another worldview that is different from my own" (Subtle xD)

15. There are male dominated duties and female dominated duties, but differences in roles does not imply inferiority/superiority

16. Galatians 3:28; we are all made equal via Jesus Christ. Therefore, men and women are equal

17. Romans 2:11; God doesn't show partiality. So, how can you say men are better than women? 


         Holy crap that was a lot of note-taking. Some of these points are rather weak, but others are strong and make sense, so I must give those strong points credibility. Once again, I will spend less time on the weaker points because I've already written, like, a lot of Bible-y stuff. *Side note=I didn't list sources for the oppositions' claims because I don't have them on hand or because they aren't really based on the Bible, but more so on historical context and explanations (which is fine as long as they aren't hypothetical assumptions).*

1) "He must provide Scripture in the post itself; hyperlinks are not sufficient and simply build an argument for Daniel" 
I need hyperlinks because if I copy and paste every bit of Scripture I use, then my posts would easily exceed 2000 words. I still provide the evidence; just in a much neater format that takes one extra click to access. Also, reading the source from which I gather my conclusion isn't "making an argument" for me; it's understanding how I came to my conclusion.

2) "Daniel twists Paul's words to fit his (Daniel's) own narrative; takes things out of context." 
Yes and no. His words are quite direct in what they mean, but I put very little attention towards the "husbands love your wives" parts, and more towards the ones that put women down. With historical context, this status of women is completely justifiable. But as a status imparted upon women by an eternal, omniscient, and benevolent entity? Cultural context should have no bearing whatsoever on an eternal, righteous, and holy commandment. Therefore, these commandments given through Paul by an eternal, omniscient, and benevolent entity are eternal, righteous, and holy (modest, no adornment, blah blah blah)

3) "Paul says, (paraphrasing) Husbands, love your wives. Wives, love and respect your husbands." 
Yes, he did. That's great that Paul teaches mutual love and respect, but my main problem is that God gives women a submissive and subservient role, and then justifies it with arguments that Eve was made after Adam, and that Eve was deceived, not Adam. It heavily implies "Women are naturally inferior and/or easily deceived, so make sure a man is watching over her or she might say something stupid in church, or teach something wrong, or stray from my righteous commandments."

4) "Men/women different beings, therefore different needs." 
Yes, they do have different needs, generally speaking of course. None of those general needs (I'm assuming you mean home-keeper, mother, obedient wife, etc.) should restrict a woman and place her role beneath that of a man, and her 'needs' should not be defined for her the moment she is born. It's a generalization, and God should let women fall into whatever walk of life they find meets their personal 'need'. It's literally sexist.

5) "Daniel becomes a "rabid feminazi"
"Wanna hear a joke? Women's rights!"

6) "Women ARE physically weaker than men"
Yes they are, and that was a big error on my part. God tells us to pay respect to women because they are the weaker sex. It's obvious that women are weaker than men physically (and one could argue emotionally). I concede that point.

7) "Urging husbands to love and respect their wives is not sexist (As Paul says to do)." 
Mutual love and respect is not sexist. Saying that someone can't speak in church because they were born a certain gender is indeed sexist. Paul does not permit women to speak in church because they were born a certain gender. Paul is being sexist. Because Paul is supposedly getting his teachings from the Holy Spirit, God does not permit women to speak in church because they were born a certain gender. God is being sexist. Make sense?

8) "Daniel's agenda=feminazi agenda. Therefore, it is false/holds no value." 
"Wanna hear a joke? Women's rights!"

9) "God put men in authority to be the leaders/maintain structure within Christianity; to bear responsibility and guide women)."
10)"Women were seen as inferior and housewives back then, also not educated." 
I like this justification because it does make sense within its cultural context; but only its cultural context. Why does God go to such great lengths to specifically exclude women from organizing the church? One could argue that they were uneducated, therefore were not fit for running God's church. If this is the case (and it appears to be), then why doesn't God tell Paul, "Hey. Dude. You should tell the priests to take women as apprentices. I mean, the priests take teenage boys and teach them the ways of the church, so why don't you encourage them to do that for women too? It would really emphasize the equality I gave all of you in Jesus Christ, too." But as the Bible tells us, God does the exact opposite and actually creates a larger disparity between men and women: Men up here leading, women down here serving and obeying. 

11) "Jesus advanced the status of women." 
That He did! I really love this aspect of Jesus. Whereas His disciples were stunned at the sight of Jesus-a Jewish Rabbi-talking to a woman, Jesus treated her like any other person. Sadly, the teachings of the New Testament (aside from the gospels) didn't get the message.  

(12,13,15,16) Will explain these at end; they need a good explanation.

14) "Secular worldview is sexist, "but I don’t feel like relentlessly attacking another worldview that is different from my own"" 
Ok, this is wrong. There is no single "secular worldview". As strange as it may sound, there is no "Atheist Bible" from which we unquestionably accept our ideologies from. 'Secular' simply means that there is no spiritual or religious basis. A secular worldview would be a view of the world which is not founded on a spiritual or religious...well, foundation. If I say, "Do good to all people for goodness' sake", then that is a secular worldview. If I say, "Kill the queers because I find them disgusting.", then that is also a secular worldview. America, for example, is a secular government. We are not governed on a spiritual or religious basis, hence why there is no official religion and there is instead a separation of church and state. I'm not trying to attack you too harshly in this explanation here; just try not to generalize a nebulous category as evil or sexist. The Bible you can actually generalize because it is defined and has boundaries-the front cover and back cover. Everything considered authentic and true about the entire religion(s) of the Judeo-Christian God is contained in that boundary, and can be defined.

17) "Romans 2:11; God doesn't show partiality. So, how can you say men are better than women?"  
This verse is out of context. This passage is talking about how, despite what you were born, the evil will be punished, and the righteous will be saved (both in regards to Judgement Day). The evil Jew will be punished along with the evil Greek (Gentile), and the righteous Jew will be saved along with the righteous Greek (Gentile). This is because "God shows no partiality"-Romans 2:11


12) "Love your neighbor as yourself" applies in the husband to wife relationship; make her equal to yourself [Galatians 3:28]

13) God designated men to hold organizational and familial structure as their role; does not inherently make women inferior-only gives men and women different (but important in their own way) roles. Same for "body of Christ", which I assume means the church (hence women be silent in church/don't teach a man)

15) There are male dominated duties and female dominated duties, but differences in roles does not imply inferiority/superiority

16) Galatians 3:28; we are all made equal via Jesus Christ. Therefore, men and women are equal
         
         I will try to touch on claims 12, 13, 15, and 16 in a broad sweep, as they all relate to Galatians 3:28: "28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." If this verse of Galatians is true, try to answer these questions: (A) If we are all one in Christ Jesus, why are roles in the church (which require no extra strength) reserved specifically for men and specifically keep women from stepping into those roles? We are all made equal in Jesus Christ, so there SHOULD be no distinction between male or female, and thus a woman should be as eligible for priesthood as a man and should be able to speak/teach in church also. Paul's revelations teach us exactly the opposite. (B) If we are all one in Christ Jesus, why do women reflect the image of man, but men reflect the image of Christ? (1 Corinthians 11:7) Both parties should directly reflect the image of Christ, given that we have been made one in Christ Jesus. This is apparently not the case. Also, read the rest of that passage. It does get worse. (C) If we are all one in Christ Jesus, why is the wife subservient to the husband? Why is she to remain obedient to and under the authority of the husband? They are equal, but are not treated equally. Yes, they are mutually loved and respected, but when it comes down to it, if the husband wants to eat at Denny's and the wife wants to eat at Chipotle, the wife must default to the husband. If Galatians 3:28 were true, it wouldn't be 'wife under authority of husband'; it would be 'Christ Jesus making an equally influential decision as the other Christ Jesus'. Once again, not the case. (D) If we are all one in Christ Jesus, why are societal roles decided by gender? There shouldn't be gender, because there's no such thing anymore-we are all one in Christ Jesus. Yet roles are still decided by gender: women to be home-keepers, mothers, and obedient and respectful to the men (as well as not partake in any church-related affairs), and men to rule over, love, "pay honor to" (remember, weaker sex) the women, and teach in the church. There should be no such distinction because they should both be Christ Jesus, not male or female. This is not the case, apparently.

          I also don't like the thought process of "Men and women are equal, but have different responsibilities." being used to justify the roles. If you place men higher than women so that men rule over women, while women are to obey and be subservient, then you already show how unequal they are, but also leave some ambiguity. When you justify this social hierarchy with reasons women are inferior to men, THEN you destroy the ambiguity. There is inequality in roles (I am the manager and leader and you shall obey me) because women are easily deceived, were the first sinners, and are made in the image of man. Men were not deceived, were not the original sinners, and are made in the image of Christ. Therefore, the husband shall rule over the wife in the family, and men shall organize the church. Women shall not speak in the church and they shall yield to the husband in the family. These are not equal roles; they are ones that clearly define a manager/employee type of power balance. And sadly, this is as close to "fair" as it gets. The Old Testament is much worse, with God's power balance back then being put almost entirely into the husband. Men could divorce a woman at any time and accuse her of adultery at any given moment. But remember, that doesn't matter because God back then was acting exactly how one would expect a primitive people to act, so that somehow excuses God's commandments back then..


         Alright, so I hope I answered all of your counterarguments sufficiently. And read Isaiah 3:16-24 again, because this example of God punishing women who resemble at least 80% of American women today should be extremely frightening. Not only does it validate what Paul taught about a modest women, no jewelry, etc. God's actions here thoroughly define it as a sin. I have heard one argument about how God cared about their motive, which was to be promiscuous, because jewelry and walking proudly was very promiscuous in that culture. One tidbit of information I found to counter that notion is when God killed a man for reaching out to stop the Ark of the Covenant from falling on the ground. This guy sees God's Holy Covenant unsteady as the oxen stumble, touches it with the intention of saving it from breaking, and is freaking fire-blasted by God. The man's intentions were good. Did God care? Not in the slightest. And so it will be for the women in Isaiah 3:16-24; their intentions don't matter because they are blatantly sinning by what they wear and how they walk. God's actions tell us this is sinful, Paul's teachings tell us this is sinful, yet no Christian that I know of listens...