A blog for Christian men "going their own way."

Friday, May 29, 2009

Two Women Who "Just Don't Get It" About This Blog

This blog has been linked to Emerson Eggerichs by a female blogger named Suzanne McCarthy as well as by one of her readers (named "Janet"). In a comment to a post by Suzanne, Janet says:
"Just to clarify, Eggerich[s] doesn't support MGTOW (acronym for "men going their own way"), but some of the guys on MGTOW sites quote from Eggerich's book to justify their ideas about all the world's ills coming from "feminists", "skanks" and generally nagging shrews who just won't submit to male authority. The Biblical Manhood site is one such blog." (emphasis mine)
For the record, I do not support Eggerichs. Eggerichs says women need love, whereas men need respect. Actually, the Bible supports the converse as much it supports Eggerichs' contention (Titus 2:4 - women are to "love their husbands"; 1 Peter 3:7 - men are to "treat" their wives with "respect", NKJV). If Janet and Suzanne had actually taken the time to read about my views on women (something I highly doubt they did), they would realize the my stance on gender issues is much more nuanced than they imply by their comments.

Regarding MGTOW, Suzanne made this ridiculous claim:
"The second question is whether the subordination of women movement among Christians is not actually a part of a wider cultural phenomenon reflected in groups like MGTOW - Men Going Their Own Way." (emphasis mine)
Then there is this quote Janet at a different blog**:
"For example, there has been a burgeoning Christian 'men’s rights' movement on this internet (aka 'MGTOW', 'MRA') that uses Eggerich’s writings to reinforce their mysogynistic stereotypes of women as shrews. In the wrong hands, Eggerich’s sweeping quotes can be very toxic stuff."
Wrong, ladies. MGTOW, by itself, is not about subordination of women. It's not even inherently religious or culturally conservative, although some MGTOWers are. The MGTOW movement is quite diverse and largely centers on a message of self-determination for men, free of society's gynocentrist and misandrist expectations of men. I suspect Suzanne and Janet have spent little or no reading after MGTOWers, much less trying to understand their concerns. Like many gynocentrists, they're trigger happy against men who dare have any opinions about gender roles that are not shaped by feminist discourse.

I've been interested in men's issues for a long time. I don't know if Suzanne and Janet would claim to be feminists, but I will say this: I have yet to meet one feminist who did not grossly misrepresent men's groups as being repressive to women, wanting to keep women under the thumb, etc. I find feminists to be largely an unethical group of people in that regard. What Suzanne and Janet engaged in is a textbook example of the shaming tactic known as the Charge of Misogyny ("Code Black"). If they are not feminists, they most certainly act like they are.

**The URL for Janet's remark is (please note it is broken on two lines for those cutting and pasting) ...

http://evepheso.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/
reproducing-an-older-post/#comment-5826


(Last accessed May 30, 2009 at 1:06 AM)

93 comments:

Mike said...

Please remove your link to my blog from your post:

http://evepheso.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/reproducing-an-older-post/#comment-5826

If you want to talk about other people, then find some other blog to link to.

Anakin Niceguy said...

Sure Mike,

I'll remove the link.

Puma said...

What exactly is Mike afraid of? That he would be associated with those pesky Men's Rights Activists? Sure there is evil and injustice in this world. But hey it's so much easier to turn the other way, isn't it?

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Life/Courts+father+unfairness/1549075/story.html

Learner said...

I wanted to ask these ladies what exactly you have said that was misogynistic, but I see that Suzanne's father passed away a few weeks ago and I do not see where Janet has a blog. Perhaps they will come here or to my blog and answer my question?

Novaseeker said...

This is a rather odd business, it seems to me.

It's alright if people do not know what MGTOW is -- it's a very awkward acronym, most men don't know what it is, and at the end of the day it's hard to point to any one characteristic of what it means other than independence and freedom -- which is a pretty broad and vague thing.

It's odd that it would be linked to Christians, though. I have met far more MGTOWs who are non-Christians than Christians. There are more Christians in the MRA community than in the MGTOW community -- although there is some overlap, which probably leads to some confusion.

The unfortunate thing is that too many MRA and MGTOW sites contain a lot of very angry misogyny. The anger is understandable, but now that the movement is gaining a higher profile it isn't helpful for us. One of things I am trying to do is steer things away from the more angry aspects of it towards more productive, goal-oriented aspects. Not easy to do, but worth the effort.

Janet said...

I said: "some of the guys on MGTOW sites quote from Eggerich's book to justify their ideas about all the world's ills coming from "feminists", "skanks" and generally nagging shrews who just won't submit to male authority. The Biblical Manhood site is one such blog."

As you can see from this exact quote of what I wrote to Suzanne, I was not referring specifically to the blog owner, but the men on the site. There have been men on this site who have expressed such views.

"For example, there has been a burgeoning Christian 'men’s rights' movement on this internet (aka 'MGTOW', 'MRA') that uses Eggerich’s writings to reinforce their mysogynistic stereotypes of women as shrews. In the wrong hands, Eggerich’s sweeping quotes can be very toxic stuff."

I was referring to some of the distinguishing acronyms commonly used by men's rights movement writers, some of whom call themselves Christians and reinforce mysogynistic stereotypes, as you do.

No unfair assessment was made.

Anakin Niceguy said...

Janet,

I conclude that you most certainly did make an unfair assessment about MGTOW, as my post indicated. And now you accuse me of reinforcing "mysogynistic stereotypes". Actually, Janet, it's spelled mIsogyny and it means "hatred of women" not "Oh he said something about a group of women I didn't like."

If most men are not rapists and yet woman's issues advocates can paint the matter of rape as a male problem, then I feel more than justified in singling out anti-male sexism and other disturbing behaviors among women even though a majority may not engage in such behaviors.

I expect people to realize that my comments about the prevalence of certain issues among women (which are not the main focus of this blog, by the way) are not directed against ALL women nor are they meant to dehumanize women. You have a highly educated woman that just issued a challenge to you to point out my misogyny. Your perspective is not shared by all intelligent people, not even among your gender.

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech said...

Of course its code black shaming language. Just take a look at the blog itself claiming that Adam wasn't male. Come on.

At this point I don't know if there is such a thing as misogyny. The definition of misogyny seems to be anything women don't like.

Triton said...

I noticed that Suzanne has a link on the side of her page to "egalitarian resources". That pretty much tells us what we need to know about her.

And, Mike; getting upset at being linked to (!) is a bit unusual. Lighten up, man.

Novaseeker said...

"Of course its code black shaming language. Just take a look at the blog itself claiming that Adam wasn't male. Come on."

Yeah I agree that was a big blinking red flag, wasn't it? Can't have Adam being male and Eve being female, an we? Oh no, that would make God a sexist, right?

After all, if we don't like what the Bible says, we can just twist it so that it suits us, instead of conforming our views to what it actually says. Much more convenient.

Adam T. said...

Anakin, I can't believe you actually removed the link.

TMink said...

I have to agree with the previous statements that the MGTOW and MRA are not Christian movements.

It is interesting, in my congregation, which has a very active and robust men's ministry, our focus is on what WE should do, not what women should do. They have their own ministry!

Seriously, my plan is laid out nicely in scripture, and I do not do it perfectly by any stretch of the imagination. So where do I have the right to tell my wife how to be submissive to me? I am commanded to love her and honor her. That is my duty and it takes a LOT of time to even come close to getting it right.

This is not to say that I oppose this blog or our discussing gender in the Christian church, but my own responsibilities have an effect on my wife. I wanted her to do something for me this week, something she had "not gotten around to."

She had a couple for me to do on Saturday, so I did them and a little extra. At the end, when she hugged and kissed me, I asked her to take care of that matter for me. She will.

Trey

slwerner said...

TMink - ”I have to agree with the previous statements that the MGTOW and MRA are not Christian movements.”
Nor for that matter, although many Christians were an integral part of it, was the movement to abolish slavery. Is it actually important that a given movement be objectively “Christian” in order to be considered “valid”?

Maybe I’m not following what you’re getting at here. But, from my perspective, a movement that seeks equal justice and equity under the law (speaking specifically of the MRM) doesn’t need to have an ostensibly Christian focus to it.

Trey, I do hope that you are not (in some back-handed fashion) suggesting that MRA’s simply accept injustice, turning the other cheek for more, and go about pretending that gender-based injustice is a part of God’s plan (the way is seems a good many Christian women believe).

And, as to “Women’s Ministries”, what is/are the focus of those you know about. Do any address what we might term “Biblical Womanhood”? In my experience, I’ve observed that quite a few are little more than fronts for social/gossip clubs, and in one church we were associated with, a cheating wives club.

Blanket labels do very little to explain what goes on behind the scene. Perhaps I’ve become a jade old skeptic, but just because someone chooses to attach the moniker “Ministry” to a group or action doesn’t sway me – I choose to rely on the “fruit” that I can see rather than the name.

TMink said...

"Trey, I do hope that you are not (in some back-handed fashion) suggesting that MRA’s simply accept injustice,"

I am not. I just think that my personal power comes from good behavior. It gives my advocacy more authority.

I am not sure about the focus of the women's ministries, they will not let me in the door! Seriously, I do not know. I am taking care of the kids for a couple of evening in June for my wife to attend one at our church. I will let you know more when I know more.

If it is just a social club, I am OK with that. I get a lot out of my friendships with my brothers, and I want my wife to have more sisters as friends. It will be good for her and good for me too!

I TOTALLY agree with you about checking for fruit. That is where the truth is.

The spirit and fruit of the church we are attending is really good. Not perfect, I am there for one thing! But all our family is growing in the Lord, the staff take things seriously, and God is blessing folks.

But I will let you know.

Trey

Suzanne McCarthy said...

You already know I am egalitarian but I have no idea why that should be a criticism of my blog.

I thought long and hard about the MGTOW manifesto before I decided that it can be fairly labeled as promoting the subordination of women.

Men are to be self-reliant and independent and demand respect. Women are to be respetful and accountable to men and must be complementary to men.

Therefore, women are not self-reliant and independent. They must be complementary to this.

Women are dependent on men and accountable to men. Women are to be respectful of men and men are to be respected.

In a nutshell, according to the manifesto, women should be subordinate to men. I am surprised that anyone involved in MGTOW would disagree with the subordination of women. I think I made a very fair assessment of MGTOW.

Apart from the manifesto, I have read little else of MGTOW and almost nothing of this blog. I was commenting strictly on the manifesto.

PS I did not say that Adam was not male. I did say that we cannot know he was male by the use of the word Adam. There are 32,000 females in the book of numbers that are called "adam" and no males involved. It was a discussion about language, not about Adam and Eve.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

You wrote,

"I still believe the Bible delegates the oversight of the local church and the home to men."

So you also believe in the subordination of women. I really don't get why you mind that I said that on my blog.

TMink said...

Suzanne wrote: "Women are to be respetful and accountable to men and must be complementary to men.

Therefore, women are not self-reliant and independent. They must be complementary to this."

I did not see the word "must" in anything I read.

Are women self-reliant and independent, or is the neurological research that indicates women have hard wired relational proclivities in error?

I think perhaps you are overstating the positions of the MGTOW manifesto. However, I am only now familiar with that writing and need some time to consider it.

I know I am prone to feeling defensive about writing or statements that identify me from the outside, how much of that is happening with you Suzanne? Are there aspects of the manifesto that you agree with?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Trey

TMink said...

Suzanne further wrote: "So you also believe in the subordination of women."

I think there is a sticky point underneath your concern, at least there is for me. When asked about my opinion concerning homosexuality, I have to say I do not give the matter much thought. I am not gay, and gay people have never caused me or mine harm or even much discomfort. It is not a matter of much concern to me.

It is a matter of record in Scripture however. As I seek to be an obedient Christian, I understand the Biblical view of homosexual behavior as sinful. Now more important to me are the statements about how I as a striaght guy am called to sexual purity. Because, I have to do that stuff!

But as I am true to Scripture, I understand that homosexual behavior is sinful and repugnant to God. I did not write that, and that is the point! I am called to conform to scripture and Godly attitudes, so I accept that homosexual behavior is as it is described in the Old and New Testaments.

The same thing applies to the relationships of men and women. Where Scripture is clear, I am called to follow. It is not a matter of opinion, but one of obedience.

Do you acknowledge that Scripture designates the oversight of the local church and homes to men? I am interested in learning about your understanding of what Scripture says about these issues.

Thanks for joining the discussion!

Trey

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Do you acknowledge that Scripture designates the oversight of the local church and homes to men? I am interested in learning about your understanding of what Scripture says about these issues.

My answer can only be multi-layered.

First, I believe that many verses have been mistranslated to provide a stronger impression that men have oversight over women. An example would be authentein in 1 Tim. 2:12, for which there is no evidence that it means "to have authority" or "to have proper leadership."

Second, I believe that the subordinate position of the wife in Eph. 5 is comparable to the subordinate position of the slave. The gospel should move a Christian society in the direction of offering both slaves and wives liberty from unilateral submission (or subordination.)

It is possible that my interpretation of the mgtow manifesto is unnecessarily harsh. I think that mgtow would do better to explain exactly what laws put men at a disadvantage. I fully support equal treatment of men and women.

TMink said...

Suzanne wrote: "First, I believe that many verses have been mistranslated to provide a stronger impression that men have oversight over women."

First, thanks for such a gracious and quick answer!

I am very suspicious of Biblical scholarship or theology which rests on an assumption of accidental or conspiratorial mistranslation. It goes against my understanding of God's sovereignty. A sovereign God can communciate with us effectively and clearly. I strongly believe in that.

Secondly, the mistranslation approach makes all of scripture a slippery slope instead of the word of God. It is like the people who discuss scripture and will say "Yes, but that is Paul talking." I do not feel comfortable writing off scripture, it feels wrong, prideful, and a little dangerous.

Having disagreed with you there, I really resonate with your second point from two diferent sources. First, I am commanded to love my wife like my own body. As I do that, she is cherished and her life and wishes and thoughts are honored. Through my obedience, she would not feel like a second class citizen, because of love.

Secondly, our pastor, who is of the old school, mentioned the Greek word which is translated as submissive. He spoke about it meaning to be open to the other's idea, to be persuadable, rather than a slave to.

I know this seems close to what I said I was not comfortable with, talking about mistranslation, but it differs (for me at least) in that we are talking about shades of meaning rather than wholesale differences.

Having said that, submissive can be defined as "Humble; acknowledging one's inferiority; testifying one's submission." That clearly addresses your concern, and one I share, that the verse can be used to dominate women. I can honestly say that my wife is in no way my inferior, and it would be wrong and sinful for me to think of her as such. Further, I would lose her counsel and wisdom if she considered herself to be so.

So I see us as partners with different strengths. I could say much more, but I need to think more about it and ask my wife what her thoughts are as well.

But this is an interesting and sticky issue for me as well. One of the ways I honestly avoid some of the stickiness is by concentrating on my marching orders from God. They feel clear, and are enough of a job to keep me quite busy.

Thanks again for the conversation! I hope you give me more to think about.

Trey

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Trey,

I would never suggest that you or any other man does not treat his wife well. I prefer to stay with a discussion of texts because that is more impersonal.

I do write off some translation. For example, authentein was translated as "to usurp authority" (KJV) or to "dominate." (Vulgate) Pastors were told not to dominate their flock. I don't think that there is any way at all to demonstrate that authentein meant "to have authority" in the sense of church leadership.

I tend to write off modern translations in favour of older ones. That removes a lot of bias against women that is now present in current modern translations.

Regarding submission, one way submission would extend todlerhood into old age. No one should live in a relationship of one way submission. I don't thnk most men would do this, but a few take the teaching of the submission of women literally.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

toddlerhood :-D

catwoman said...

Wow. A lot has happened since I was off kayaking.

Anakin, for all your disclaimers (that merely state what you "don't believe" about women), a quick perusal of your blog is going to give a lot of people an impression of misogyny. As I said in one of my last posts, there's nothing edifying here about women. Just go through all of your posts and see the big picture. It's so overwhelmingly negative and lacking in positive that it's difficult to get any sense that you even like women as people.

Here's a quote that says everything:

"Christian women are heartily invited to disabuse me of the picture I paint, though. I’ve been waiting for several years now."

If you really want to help the MRM achieve its better goals, then maybe it's time to "change tack", as someone said.

Learner said...

Hello Suzanne,

"The gospel should move a Christian society in the direction of offering both slaves and wives liberty from unilateral submission (or subordination.)"

Why should the gospel do that?

Catwoman,

I hope you had a good kayaking trip.

"there's nothing edifying here about women. Just go through all of your posts and see the big picture. It's so overwhelmingly negative and lacking in positive"

Misogyny is the hatred of women, not negative comments or a lack of positive comments about women. Criticism is not hatred. Beyond that I would argue that there are positive statements about women on this blog.

Anakin Niceguy said...

Well, Suzanne,

I now see what your problem is. You merely read a "manifesto", which by the way, is not really what a lot MGTOWers focus on. Not only that, but you read the manifesto through the lens of your revulsion against male authority.

Look at how you interpreted the following lines ...

By instilling masculinity in men, we make men self-reliant, proud, and independent.

By instilling femininity in women, we make them nurturing, supporting, and responsible.

From this you reasoned ...


Therefore, women are not self-reliant and independent. They must be complementary to this.

Women are dependent on men and accountable to men. Women are to be respectful of men and men are to be respected.

----
This is so ridiculous, Suzanne. Look up the Negative Inference Fallacy. Look up the Fallacy of Negation. With the same the logic, I could declare that since feminists rarely or never talk about securing the rights of men, they are against such things. Of course, I do believe they are generally are misandrists, but for different reasons.

Do you support the idea of men being dependent on women for self-worth? Do you support the idea of women being irresponsible? Do you support the idea of men and women not complementing one another or supporting one another, but in rivalry of a zero-sum game? Do you support the idea of women not being accountable to any social mores?

That's where our society is at today and that is what the Manifesto is addressing. You twisted it to mean something it didn't mean.

Right smack dab in the middle of the manifesto it says, "It is not about reinstalling patriarchy or revoking female voting rights" ... but you conveniently ignored that.

Frankly, I don't spend much time thinking about the Manifesto. There is no loyalty oath in the MGTOW community that must be taken. That Manifesto is not the defining document and it's wording varies from one site to another. It was an early attempt to express the idea of MGTOW, but most MGTOWers talk about different things.

The cardinal error that critic of MGTOW make is assuming the movement is monolithic. It is not. Which means to understand it requires more than a cursory look at some writings. The misrepresentation of the MGTOW movement is nothing new.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Anakin,

You have cited that I said,

"The second question is whether the subordination of women movement among Christians is not actually a part of a wider cultural phenomenon reflected in groups like MGTOW - Men Going Their Own Way." (emphasis mine)

Then you say,

"Wrong, ladies. MGTOW, by itself, is not about subordination of women."

But in your last comment you have said,

"Not only that, but you read the manifesto through the lens of your revulsion against male authority."

You imply that both you and MGTOW support the notion of male authority. Is this true or not?

The manifesto says that men must be self-reliant and women must be complementary. Women are to be accountable to men, but not men to women.

I think, given the vagueness of the MGTOW manifesto, and the fact that it is not monolithic, I should give up on trying to understand its position.

However, I wonder if you would comment on whether you are for or against the subordination of women, so I will be able to understand if I have implied something inaccurate about you. I don't want to do that.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Learner,

You write,

"The gospel should move a Christian society in the direction of offering both slaves and wives liberty from unilateral submission (or subordination.)"

Why should the gospel do that?


"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,because he has anointed meto proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,"

Luke 4:18.

Amir Larijani said...

Suzanne: Now where in that passage is there any mention of unilateral submission by the wife?

In fact, when reading Ephesians 5, you tend to ignore the fact that "mutual submission" carries with it dynamics that are specific to the sexes.

After all, the husband has commands that are specific and not contingent on the wife fulfilling hers--"love your wife as Christ loved the Church..."--whereas the wife has commands that are specific and not contingent on the husband fulfilling his--"wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord..."

While one could call that mutual submission, one must also consider that the second half of that call to the wife to submit also carries the following rationale: "For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands."

While Jesus did challenge many societal norms of the time regarding women, He did not undermine the headship of the husband.

Moreover, the fact that Paul implores wives to submit to their husbands is indicative that many wives were taking their newfound freedom as a license to undermine the headship of their husbands.

This flies in the face of conventional understandings of "egalitarian".

Being equal in standing before God does not give one equal standing in a marriage. The last time I checked the Bible, the head of the wife is still the husband, and woman was made for man and not the other way around.

No amount of creative exegesis will change that fact.

Your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 is also quite interesting, given that you completely ignore the rationale that Paul gave for excluding women from such roles.

"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."

There is nothing in that passage that suggests an egalitarian approach to Church leadership, and this would be quite a clear prohibition of women from positions of church authority that would have them taking the lead over men or in a position to undermine the men.

You may call that misogynist if you wish, but the burden is on you to show that the Scriptures mean something other than what they actually say.

Amir Larijani said...

And, of course, the definitive Bible Translation--the LOLcat version--has this to say about 1 Timothy 2:


Chix shud kep dare cheezkakez n dare bukkitz, xcep wen teh doodz wan teh cheez n teh kakez. I dun wan chix taht sai OHAI --> I sez SHH B KWIET CHIK STFU!!! N GOWAI Cuz teh Ceiling Cat makededed adum, DEN he makededed eev (lawlnoob) so adum pwnd4reel O n eev gawt pwnzorz bai saiten so eev luv teh moufseckz lol. But chix kin b kewl n haf cheezbergrz wif d00dz bai hafin noobz n bien kewl.

and for Ephesians 5:

Wimmins, u do what ur mens sai, liek u do wut Ceiling Cat sais. Teh mens pwns teh wimmins liek Jebus pwns teh kittehs he went an gots from de bushes nstuff. Teh kittehs do wut Jebus sais, an u wimmins got to do wut ur mens sai. Mens is teh boss of teh wimmins, an teh mens no want back talk, srsly. Now mens shud luv teh wimmins, like Jebus luv teh littl kittehs. Mens shud cleen teh wimmins up an wash teh wimmins brains wid words. Den u see teh wimmins iz all cleened an glowin an eyez iz glazed liek nethin goin on inside. Den mens gonna luvs teh wimmins leik dey iz a body part. D00ds, u feedz an caerz for yersevs, rite? Well dats how u caerz fur teh wimmins. Iz liek Jebus carin for teh littl kits, puttin down plate uf milk an noms. Laidys membr iz not bad bein pwned. We all iz pwned by Jebus. Der iz paper sais, "A mens moevz out teh moms basement wen him gets a wimminz, but he don eated her." Wai iz liek dis? Wai? I dunno. Iz leik Jebus, he don nom de kittehs nether. So mens don nom de wimmins. But wimmins do what u iz told, kthx.

Learner said...

Suzanne,

One would have to consider a wife who voluntarity chooses to submit to her husband as unto the Lord as "opressed" or "captive" for that verse to apply to wives. Is that what you think?

Regarding slaves, I am no exegete (and in fact I am not sure I even spelled that correctly), but it seems to me that the gospel can provide "sight" and "liberty" to someone who is physically blind without them ever seeing again and to a prisoner with a life sentence without them leaving prison.

1 Cor 7:20-24
"Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to."

Learner said...

Amir,

Heh heh. :) Thanks for the laugh. I especially liked the Eph 5 translation and in particular this part "Den u see teh wimmins iz all cleened an glowin an eyez iz glazed liek nethin goin on inside. Den mens gonna luvs teh wimmins leik dey iz a body part." *snort*

Now, someone tell me to get off the internet and get back to work!

catwoman said...

"Misogyny is the hatred of women, not negative comments or a lack of positive comments about women. Criticism is not hatred."

I've heard as much being referred to here as "misandry".

"Beyond that I would argue that there are positive statements about women on this blog."

If so, they are very sparing and out of balance compared to what is said about men, IMO.

Learner said...

Catwoman,
'I've heard as much being referred to here as "misandry".'

Example?

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Can we just agree that this blog does, in fact, support the subordination of women and leave it at that?

Is there anything that I have said about either this blog or MGTOW that is actually inaccurate, or do you just appreciate having someone from an opposite viewpoint to interact with? If that is the case then I don't mind chatting.

catwoman said...

"'I've heard as much being referred to here as "misandry".'

Example?"

Go ahead and use the 'search blog' function and see for yourself.

TMink said...

Suzanne, I appreciate your taking the time to discuss things here.

I am not at all comfortable with subordinating anything or anyone other than my sinful nature. If I am to be the head of my wife like Jesus was the head of the church, then I will lay down my life for her and live a life of sacrifice for her. That is not what I think you refer to in terms of subordination. Subordinate means inferior, and I see women as different, but not less.

And I did not think you were criticisizing me about my marriage, I just use it as a reference because I am married!

Trey

Learner said...

Catwoman,

Okay, I just did what you suggested and searched "misandry" on this blog and I have not found what you are talking about. I found several general mentions (...misandry and gynocentrism present in....) and two more specific uses of it in the past year (all I have time to look at). Both of the specific uses (where the word misandry was tied to a specific behavior) were about views of male sexuality (incidently both were also held by men) that made it out to be evil.

If you are confident of your view on this you should be able to provide examples. That seems to me to be a simple enough request outside of which no meaningful discussion can be held. So, I'll ask again, examples please?

Learner said...

Suzanne,

Subordination- (according to Merriam Webster) 1. to make subject or subservient; 2. to treat as of less value or importance.

Submission- a legal agreement to submit to the decision of arbitrators b: an act of submitting something (as for consideration or inspection) ; also : something submitted (as a manuscript)2: the condition of being submissive, humble, or compliant 3: an act of submitting to the authority or control of another.

Subordination is forceful subjection which is quite different from the submission of a wife to her husband, which is a willing act on the part of the person submitting. Submission has nothing to do with the value or importance of the individual.

I am not aware of Anakin advocating the forceful subjection of women or putting forth the idea that woman have less value or importance than men. So, no, I don't think it can be agreed that this blog supports the subordination of women. I have argued with Anakin about some issues myself, so I am not opposed to doing so. But I see no evidence to support your claim.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Learner,

This is from Thesaurus.com,

Main Entry: subordination
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: subjection
Synonyms: servitude, submission, subservience


I have never seen any definition of subordination that says that it has to be violent or forceful for it to count as subordination. If people use scripture verses to convince women that they should hold only a subordinate position in the church or home, it is still subordination, I would say.

I don't think that I have said anything technically inaccurate.

catwoman said...

"If you are confident of your view on this you should be able to provide examples. That seems to me to be a simple enough request outside of which no meaningful discussion can be held. So, I'll ask again, examples please?"

Why should I take the time to provide specifics, when you say you don't have the time to look through them yourself? We're talking about a dozen blog posts, so if you can't see them for yourself, there's not much point in picking through the fine points with you.

Besides, I think that might be the problem here -- too much focus on disputing the particulars and you end up missing the big picture.

Triton said...

"You already know I am egalitarian but I have no idea why that should be a criticism of my blog."

Because egalitarianism has no basis in reality, nor does it have any support in Scripture. It is, frankly, an absurd concept.

There is only one concept in the Bible that is egalitarian, and that is salvation (Galations 3:26-28). We all have the same right to choose to follow Jesus, regardless of the details of our respective genetic codes. And the prerequisite for salvation is the same for all of us - we must "believeth in Him" (John 3:16).

As far as earthly matters go, however, the story is completely different. The human race was not magically transformed in the first century into a mob of economically coordinate ethnically-ambiguous hermaphrodites; we still have Greek and Jew, male and female, slave and freeman. One way or another, we have to deal with those differences; the Bible gives us a framework in which to do that with the greatest efficiency.

As far as "subordination of women" is concerned, I think a better way to put it would be "subordination of wives to their husbands". After all, another man's wife shouldn't be subordinate to me.

Concerning the point, though, of course wives are subordinate to their husbands; the Bible makes this quite clear. So what? Those of us who have jobs are subordinate to our bosses; does this diminish us as people? Hardly. A woman who submits to her husband's authority is no different than an employee who submits to his employer's authority.

My boss tells me what to do, and I do it; this does not make my boss evil, nor does it make me a victim. It is simply the way our relationship is designed to work. If I don't like it, then I can leave the relationship, or opt not to enter into it in the first place. So it should be with husbands and wives.

"I thought long and hard about the MGTOW manifesto before I decided that it can be fairly labeled as promoting the subordination of women."

That depends; the opinions of the adherents of MGTOW vary widely. Actually, I think you're just as likely to find egalitarians in this movement as supporters of patriarchy. It is the problem of legal inequality, a system of government that turns women into lords and men into serfs, that inspired the MGTOW ideology in the first place. I think if there were true gender equality in the criminal justice system, workplace regulations, and family courts, then the MGTOW movement would largely disappear.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

As far as "subordination of women" is concerned, I think a better way to put it would be "subordination of wives to their husbands". After all, another man's wife shouldn't be subordinate to me.

But Anakin, whose blog this is, states that women are also under male leadership in the church as well. So all women are subordinate in his view.

Concerning the point, though, of course wives are subordinate to their husbands; the Bible makes this quite clear. So what?

I wrote,

"The second question is whether the subordination of women movement among Christians is not actually a part of a wider cultural phenomenon reflected in groups like MGTOW - Men Going Their Own Way."

I still think that my statement is accurate. What exactly is the issue here?

Suzanne McCarthy said...

It is the problem of legal inequality, a system of government that turns women into lords and men into serfs, that inspired the MGTOW ideology in the first place. I think if there were true gender equality in the criminal justice system, workplace regulations, and family courts, then the MGTOW movement would largely disappear.

If this is true then it should be reflected in the MGTOW manifesto. I read the manifesto, and I think I have been fair with MGTOW in relation to that. I don't know what else I can do.

Learner said...

Catwoman,

"Why should I take the time to provide specifics, when you say you don't have the time to look through them yourself?"

Er....but I did say that I looked myself, through the past year (as in since May of 2008) of posts:
"Okay, I just did what you suggested and searched "misandry" on this blog and I have not found what you are talking about. I found several general mentions (...misandry and gynocentrism present in....) and two more specific uses of it in the past year (all I have time to look at)."

See?

I think that is what the problem is here -- too much focus on a false big picture that apparently lacks any particulars to support it. If you want to talk "big picture" you have to have supporting evidence for the big picture, otherwise it is meaningless.

Learner said...

Suzanne, as I said, the definitions came from Merriam webster.com. Subordination-"to make subject". That sounds pretty clearly not like a willing act to me. Unless you say the woman subordinates herself to a man, now that would be a willing act. So when you say men advocate the subordination of women I do not read that as saying men advocate that women willingly make themselves submissive or under the authority of their husbands...is that what you are saying? Or is it something more like when men advocate subordination they are avdocating women be thought of as lower in value or less important and are subordinate apart form the will of a woman to decide to place herself under the authority of a man?

Puma said...

Subordination of Women happened at some point in our history. I don't think it was necessarily due to the Bible or any one religion.

There is a coherent Evolutionary Biology explanation to why/how it may have come about. Novaseeker did a good job of writing about it on his blog:

http://novaresources.blogspot.com/2009/04/general-theory-of-human-mating.html

In any case, I think that such subordination is no longer feasible nor desirable. Humanity has evolved beyond it. However as Nova's essay suggests, the old patriarchal order hasn't yet been replaced by a system that is both fair and balanced for both genders. Not yet. We are currently neither here nor there.

catwoman said...

"I think that is what the problem is here -- too much focus on a false big picture that apparently lacks any particulars to support it. If you want to talk "big picture" you have to have supporting evidence for the big picture, otherwise it is meaningless."

There's not much point in delving into the "evidence" with you, since you only seem to go around in circles with it anyways. I've seen enough of this blog to draw my conclusions, thank you very much.

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech said...

"There's not much point in delving into the "evidence" with you, since you only seem to go around in circles with it anyways. I've seen enough of this blog to draw my conclusions, thank you very much."

catwoman, either you're trolling or you're the densest person on the planet. If you make an extraordinary claim like you did, you have to back it up with real examples. The fact that you haven't and refuse to means you're full of BS.

Learner said...

Catwoman,

I know, it is soooo annoying how I ask people to actually back up what they say. Silly me. No worries, I won't ask again. Since, to take a page from your book, we both know why you won't offer evidence when asked for it...because there is none.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Learner,

I use the term subordination of women in the usual sense, referring to a situation in which women are already subordinate, or excluded from leadership.

I fail to see why anyone takes exception to this use.

Learner said...

Suzanne,

Okay. I am curious why you use the word subordination instead of submission.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

"subordination of women" has 169.000 hits and "submission of women" has 15,000. The first is simply a more common phrase to refer to the same societal condition.

It more accurately describes the role of women in church. In church both men and women ought to be submissive to leaders. However, women must be restricted to positions subordinate to men. Therefore, subordination seems more accurate.

catwoman said...

"...we both know why you won't offer evidence when asked for it...because there is none."

Well, I suppose I could take a page from your book and say that you have no evidence to support this statement. Wow. That was easy!

catwoman said...

"If you make an extraordinary claim like you did, you have to back it up with real examples."

Go ahead and see for yourself, PMAFT. Use blog search to see how many posts exist on this blog that use the word "misandry" to refer to something that is merely criticizing men, as if that's a kind of "hatred" towards men.

Learner said...

Catwoman,

"Well, I suppose I could take a page from your book and say that you have no evidence to support this statement. Wow. That was easy!"

You seem to have missed that I did present evidence. I did look myself and came up with nothing. The burden of proof is usually on the accuser, and that would be you in this case.

catwoman said...

"You seem to have missed that I did present evidence. I did look myself and came up with nothing."

You didn't come up with evidence. Despite a dozen blog posts referencing that term, that you simply declare as nothing. And that's fine, if you can't be bothered to do the cut and paste and all that analysis. I can't be bothered either, which makes it a draw, I think.

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech said...

"Go ahead and see for yourself, PMAFT. Use blog search to see how many posts exist on this blog that use the word "misandry" to refer to something that is merely criticizing men, as if that's a kind of "hatred" towards men."

All right. I just did that. I could not find a case of any post on this blog use the word misandry to refer to something that was just a criticism of men.

catwoman, you are either insane or a liar.

Learner said...

Suzanne,

I don't know that a term getting more google hits is a good argument for it's use over another term. But, I just googled "submission of women" and got 281,000 hits and "subordination of women" and got 215,000 hits. I also googled "christian submission" and got 7,990 hits, and "christian subordination" and got 298 hits. Since "subordination" is not a term used here but submission is, it would make more sense to me to use submission if you think the words mean the same thing.

But, really it isn't about the words themselves as much as it is about what is meant my the words. So, I am still curious about what I asked you before regarding your use of Luke 4:18-
"One would have to consider a wife who voluntarity chooses to submit to her husband as unto the Lord as "opressed" or "captive" for that verse to apply to wives. Is that what you think?"

And "You seem to view submission as a negative and opressive thing. Is that accurate?" which was asked of you at my blog.

Learner said...

Catwoman,

What is becoming really funny here is that you accuse me of being circular, yet 1. you make the accusation to begin with and so are the one who should provide the evidence for your own point, 2. you tell me to look and see for myself, which, like a good girl I did. And, 3. When my review does not back up your assertion, now it is not a deep enough analysis for you. Well, I am not going to fall for it again. You have the burdeen of proof with regard to backing up your own assertion, not me or anyone else here.

catwoman said...

"I could not find a case of any post on this blog use the word misandry to refer to something that was just a criticism of men."

You are welcome to provide examples from those twelve posts that do use the word "misandry" to show us how they are referring to something more than just a mere criticism of men. Then decide if I'm insane, a liar or other...

catwoman said...

"When my review does not back up your assertion, now it is not a deep enough analysis for you. Well, I am not going to fall for it again."

You provided no analysis or explanation, just a denial. And that circular wild goose chase is something I will not fall for again. As for the "burden of proof" thing, that has been said here going both ways. Whatever. The worst charge anyone could level tonight is laziness.

emily said...

Triton: "As far as earthly matters go, however, the story is completely different. The human race was not magically transformed in the first century into a mob of economically coordinate ethnically-ambiguous hermaphrodites; we still have Greek and Jew, male and female, slave and freeman. One way or another, we have to deal with those differences; the Bible gives us a framework in which to do that with the greatest efficiency."

I don't think that anyone tries to pretend that men and women were suddenly turned into hermaphrodites, nor do I think that anyone tries to pretend that the concept of race is non-existant. Rather, the idea behind this is the equality that men and women, all races and those of all statuses (slave or free) recieve in Jesus.

Triton: "My boss tells me what to do, and I do it; this does not make my boss evil, nor does it make me a victim. It is simply the way our relationship is designed to work. If I don't like it, then I can leave the relationship, or opt not to enter into it in the first place. So it should be with husbands and wives."

Really? You are comparing a marriage to a buissness transaction as opposed to a relationship? So life can be more efficient? I mean, with that logic, why didn't God just have everyone born with numbers on their head so we all know where their place in the "heirarchy of life" is... you know, so decisions can be more efficiently made and such.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Learner,

I used them as synonyms. I can't explain your different goole results. To ma, submission of women has a religious connotation connected to either Islam or Christianity. To my thinking it does not relate so much to general societal trends, and I would not use it to refer to MGTOW for that reason.

I concede that MGTOW has a poorly written manifesto and is extremely diverse. I have no problem with that.

However, Anakin has written,

I still believe the Bible delegates the oversight of the local church and the home to men. I still believe that only men are allowed to teach in the worship assemblies of churches.

I call this an example of the subordination of women. What I think of this hardly matters. I am only here to explain that in my view I said something fair on my blog. That's it.

Trey,

I read your comment and you sound like a sweetheart. I can't go back now and find it wading through all these intervening comments.

Learner said...

You know Catwoman, it is only a circular wild goose chase because you keep saying I didn't do things that I did. I did search the blog, I did offer my analysis and explanation. Here it is again, since you seem to have missed it: "I found several general mentions (...misandry and gynocentrism present in....) and two more specific uses of it in the past year (all I have time to look at). Both of the specific uses (where the word misandry was tied to a specific behavior) were about views of male sexuality (incidently both were also held by men) that made it out to be evil."

I am not really interested in other incidences of someone not meeting a burden of proof at the moment. At the moment I am interested in you providing the proof for the charge you leveled which was "worse than laziness" and then failed to back up. I also am aware you likely will not. So be it. At some point in a discussion you have to be willing to back up what you say or people are going to write what you say off.

Learner said...

Suzanne,

"To ma, submission of women has a religious connotation connected to either Islam or Christianity. To my thinking it does not relate so much to general societal trends, and I would not use it to refer to MGTOW for that reason."

My question was about your use of the term in reference to this blog, which is a christian blog and thus is connected to christianity. But, as I said the meaning behind the words is more important than the words themselves. If you feel that subordination means the same as the biblical submission that Anakin was referring to when he said "I still believe the Bible delegates the oversight of the local church and the home to men. I still believe that only men are allowed to teach in the worship assemblies of churches." I accept that. To me they do not mean the same thing, so I assume you and I do not see biblical submission in the same light. Thus the questions I asked that you have not answered. If you don't wish to enter into that discussion that is your perrogative. Though I do not see it as separate to your stated reason for being here, if you do that is fine.

Anakin Niceguy said...

Suzanne,

If I believe the Bible teaches male headship in the home and I subscribe to MGTOW, it doesn't logically follow that MGTOW teaches headship in the home. True, I believe in male headship of the home and church, but that is due to my understanding of what the Bible says, not due to what the MGTOW movement dictates. MGTOW deals with different concerns.

Moreover, even if a lot of MGTOWers were of the mindset that women should be "barefoot and pregnant" it would not logically follow that the concept of MGTOW is about that.

Men Going Their Own Way is pretty much self-explanatory. It's called that for a reason. It's not without accident that the movement was NOT called Men In Control or something like that. I personally have no desire for controlling anyone. Even in the home, I have no desire to "lord it over" a wife.

If you want to take issue with my complementarian beliefs, that is understandable. You are an egalitarian. You want to extend to the home and church what I already accept in the workplace, academia, etc. That is a discussion worth having, but it's not one that is focus of this blog. Men's Rights Activism does not concern itself with whether or not Paul was addressing a Gnostic heresy at Ephesus - the definition of kaphale, authentien, whether or not there is an adversative particle in 1 Cor. 14:36, etc.

If you want to be an egalitarian, there are plenty of churches to accomodate your view; however, they usually take a low view of the inspiration and authority of the Sciptures. Furthermore, even liberal scholars reject the egalitarianism of the evangelical circles (see for example, John H. Elliott "Jesus Was Not an Egaliatarian," Bib Theo Bull 2002).

There are three elements one can be: egalitarian, evangelical, and scholarly. Most people master two of these at best. No one really nails all three.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Learner,

You wrote,

"My question was about your use of the term in reference to this blog, which is a christian blog and thus is connected to christianity."

Would you do me a huge favour and cite and link back to where I said anything about this blog. I am not saying that I didn't but I can't find it and no one has cited it.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Learner,

I can't answer your other questions because so far you have not grounded even one of your comments to me in fact.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Anakin,

Thank you for graciously accepting that I am engalitarian. You have not made me feel that I have to defend my position.

First, I can't find anything that I have written about your blog, although I do admit that someone commented on my blog about your blog, but all I said in response was that I couldn't find much connection to Eggerichs' book on your blog.

I do see evidence in the MGTOW manifesto that men are to be self-reliant and women are accountable to men. However, that could be simply due to the fact that it isn't very well written. I am willing to accept that.

You have quoted me as saying,

"The second question is whether the subordination of women movement among Christians is not actually a part of a wider cultural phenomenon reflected in groups like MGTOW - Men Going Their Own Way."

I don't see what is wrong with this statement. What surprised me most on MGTOW was the stress on men being "respected" and women being "respectful." Sorta bothers me. Whatever happended to mutual respect?

MGTOW needs to have their manifesto edited a bit perhaps.

catwoman said...

"You know Catwoman, it is only a circular wild goose chase because you keep saying I didn't do things that I did. I did search the blog, I did offer my analysis and explanation. Here it is again, since you seem to have missed it: "I found several general mentions (...misandry and gynocentrism present in....) and two more specific uses of it in the past year (all I have time to look at). Both of the specific uses (where the word misandry was tied to a specific behavior) were about views of male sexuality (incidently both were also held by men) that made it out to be evil."

Oh, THAT analysis. Well, to refute my claim about the general use of the word "misandry" to refer to mere criticism of men, the burden of proof would be on you to show how those examples you've found are indeed hatred and not just critical. If you can't do that with these or any other quotes from those dozen blog posts, then we can safely conclude that it's fair for me to use the word "misogyny" to refer to the consistent and unrelenting criticism leveled at women here. A lot of work, eh? I agree.

Learner said...

"Would you do me a huge favour and cite and link back to where I said anything about this blog."

Sure, here in the comments to this post:

June 3, 2:13
"You wrote,

"I still believe the Bible delegates the oversight of the local church and the home to men."

So you also believe in the subordination of women."


June 4, 12:42
"Can we just agree that this blog does, in fact, support the subordination of women and leave it at that?"

June 4, 4:25
"But Anakin, whose blog this is, states that women are also under male leadership in the church as well. So all women are subordinate in his view."

"I can't answer your other questions because so far you have not grounded even one of your comments to me in fact."

I'm not sure what it has to do with answering my questions, but what do you think I have said to you that is not grounded in fact? I'd be happy explain whatever you wish me to, but I need to know to what you are referring in order to do that.

catwoman said...

Anakin,

I looked over your post and this is what Suzanne wrote:

"The second question is whether the subordination of women movement among Christians is not actually a part of a wider cultural phenomenon reflected in groups like MGTOW - Men Going Their Own Way."

You called this "a ridiculous claim", but it's clear that she was simply asking a question.

As for MGTOW, I doubt that anyone really cares whether it's Christian in character or origin.

Learner said...

Catwoman,

"the burden of proof would be on you to show how those examples you've found are indeed hatred and not just critical."

Actually, no, it wouldn't be my burden of proof. It is on you to show that the examples I gave or any others you might care to offer are not hatred and are just critical because you are the one who made the claim to begin with, thus the burden of proof is yours.

" If you can't do that with these or any other quotes from those dozen blog posts, then we can safely conclude that it's fair for me to use the word "misogyny" to refer to the consistent and unrelenting criticism leveled at women here."

LOL, no Catwoman. That is illogical to say the least. You have to meet the burden of proof to level the accusation. If someone is accused of a crime the person doing the accusing has to provide the evidence.

catwoman said...

"If someone is accused of a crime the person doing the accusing has to provide the evidence."

LOL! No crime committed. What's good for the good is good for the gander, that's all I was saying. If Anakin can toss around the word "misandry" to refer to excessive criticism of men, then "misogyny" is certainly an apt description of his excessive criticism of women. A sentiment that would seem awfully unfair if (a) you're more than inclined to generally agree with him, and/or (b) got your nose pressed up too tight to the computer screen... Alrighty everyone, so let's step baaaaaack from the computer screen and get some perspective.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Learner,

Let's start all over again. You said,

"My question was about your use of the term in reference to this blog, which is a christian blog and thus is connected to christianity."

It appeared at the time that you were asking about my original use of the phrase "subordination of women" in the post on my blog, which Anakin cited. That was the issue, if I am not mistaken.

After that, I only used the term because I was asked about my use of the term.

This just goes to show that it is entirely useless to ask anyone anything without providing a citation and linking to what you are talking about IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Learner said...

Um Catwoman, *snort* no one said a crime was committed. LOL There is this word...it is the word "if". The word "if" has may uses including introducing an analogy. Like "if someone is accused of a crime..." The salient part was "accused". The accuser provides the evidence.

You can say what's good for the goose is good for the gander but you have yet to demonstrate that Anakin has "tossed around" the word misandry to refer to excessive criticism of men. It really isn't about "fair" Catwoman. It's about "true". That is the perspective I am ingterested in.

Learner said...

Suzanne,

"Let's start all over again."

Okay

"You said,

"My question was about your use of the term in reference to this blog, which is a christian blog and thus is connected to christianity."

It appeared at the time that you were asking about my original use of the phrase "subordination of women" in the post on my blog, which Anakin cited. That was the issue, if I am not mistaken."

You were mistaken, I was asking about what you had said about this blog, I didn't limit my question to only what you wrote on your own blog and in fact was referring to what you wrote in the comments here.

"After that, I only used the term because I was asked about my use of the term."

Asked by whom? I didn't ask about the term "subordination" until today (er...yesterday for me, June 4) between the second and third examples that you asked for. Did someone else ask about the term? I didn't see where.

"This just goes to show that it is entirely useless to ask anyone anything without providing a citation and linking to what you are talking about IN THE FIRST PLACE."

Well, I don't ususlly link to comments in the same comment string (?). You and I already had an exchange on my blog whereby I explained that I understood that you didn't really know what Janet was talking about. I guess I figured since I had already told you that you would not think I was still referring to it. If my not being specific that my question was about what you said here in this conversation confused you, I apologize.

Triton said...

I'll respond to Emily first, then Suzanne. Blogger keeps screwing up the italics, so I'm forced to use quotation marks. Grr...

"Really? You are comparing a marriage to a buissness transaction as opposed to a relationship?"

As long as property is involved, marriage will always be a sort of business transaction. It used to be considered a binding contract, hence the vows taken before witnesses and all, not to mention dowries and other blatantly financial transactions involved in the union. And a work relationship is still a relationship, regardless of the presence or lack of any romantic entanglements. So, yes, I have no problem making this comparison.

"So life can be more efficient?"

Absolutely; this is the entire purpose of having laws and rules in the first place. Only a barbarian would prefer aggregate chaos over aggregate order.

"I mean, with that logic, why didn't God just have everyone born with numbers on their head so we all know where their place in the "heirarchy of life" is... you know, so decisions can be more efficiently made and such."

Most of us learn early on where we fit in. Our parents are the bosses. We obey them. Would you prefer it to be otherwise? When parents cease being "authority" and instead become their kids' friends, bad things happen. The nuclear family is no place for democracy.

As adults, we learn things about where we fit in in the larger society. An orderly may be the spiritual equal of the doctor, but he is definitely subordinate to him within the framework of the hospital. As long as the orderly obeys the doctor's orders, everything is cool. When the orderly wants to be treated as an equal to the doctor, and disobeys the doctor's orders, then, again, bad things happen.

Hierarchies abound; there is no escaping it. It is nature's way. The very term "pecking order" is the result of observing one of nature's hierarchies in action. Without a pecking order, the chickens would probably kill each other over the corn. The hierarchy provides order and prevents bloodshed.

Triton said...

"But Anakin, whose blog this is, states that women are also under male leadership in the church as well. So all women are subordinate in his view."

The entire church is under male leadership, not just the women.

"If this is true then it should be reflected in the MGTOW manifesto. I read the manifesto, and I think I have been fair with MGTOW in relation to that. I don't know what else I can do."

MGTOW isn't an organization; it's a lot more amorphous than you're making it out to be. From this site:

"MGTOW is not a philosophy, or an "-ism", but rather an evolving consciousness and way of looking at the world. Unlike the lockstep and dogma of so many contemporary movements, MGTOW is entirely individualistic, even though many men may arrive at the same conclusions from having observed the same phenomena."

And nothing in the manifesto has anything to do with forcing women into specific marital roles. The goal is to avoid women as much as possible so as to induce them to take on a more feminine approach to life. The key word there is "induce". If a woman wants a man's company, then she must meet him on his terms, otherwise he doesn't want anything to do with her. That's the gist of it.

Many men, however, have no expectation that women will change their ways in order to win male affection. These men have accepted the idea that women are and always will be awful creatures and they simply want nothing more to do with them. Why do you think this is? The answer lies in the reasons I listed - unequal time for equal crime, one-sided family courts, and oppressive workplace regulations relating to gender. Enough of this stuff will embitter a man. And not just the men who are victims, but also those men who aren't victims but learn from the misfortune of others.

"I use the term subordination of women in the usual sense, referring to a situation in which women are already subordinate, or excluded from leadership.

I fail to see why anyone takes exception to this use."

For the record, I don't have a problem with this. I see "subordinate" and "submissive" as more or less synonymous, at least for our purposes here.

The important distinction is coercion. Does a woman enter into a subordinate role of her own free will, or doesn't she? As long as she does, I don't see how anyone could object to it.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Learner,

Asked by whom? I didn't ask about the term "subordination" until today (er...yesterday for me, June 4) between the second and third examples that you asked for. Did someone else ask about the term? I didn't see where.

That is what the post is about - my use of the term subordination. I assumed that you had read the post.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

For the record, I don't have a problem with this. I see "subordinate" and "submissive" as more or less synonymous, at least for our purposes here.

Thank you.

The important distinction is coercion. Does a woman enter into a subordinate role of her own free will, or doesn't she? As long as she does, I don't see how anyone could object to it.

A naive 20 year old who promises to "obey" likely has little notion of what might be expected of her in the years to come. Kind death seems a very long way off. One minute of good intentions could bind her into servitude for life if she does not feel free to divorce.

Men and women both can be seriously traumatized by their partner. I believe that it should be illegal for either a man or a woman to vow to obey a marriage partner.

Amir Larijani said...

Suzanne says: A naive 20 year old who promises to "obey" likely has little notion of what might be expected of her in the years to come. Kind death seems a very long way off. One minute of good intentions could bind her into servitude for life if she does not feel free to divorce.

Men and women both can be seriously traumatized by their partner. I believe that it should be illegal for either a man or a woman to vow to obey a marriage partner


Just admit it, Susan: you don't accept the Scriptures regarding this matter.

You were the one who said, "The gospel should move a Christian society in the direction of offering both slaves and wives liberty from unilateral submission (or subordination.)", and attempted to provide Luke 4:18 as prima facie proof of this.

And yet you didn't bother to address your proof-texting against the backdrop of Ephesians 5, which is quite emphatic in commanding wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord. The closing passage on submission implores wives to submit to their husbands in all things.

Moreover, in Ephesians 5, Paul compared the marital submission-headship dynamic in terms of the Church with respect to Jesus Christ. Ergo, Paul made his case for the submission-headship dynamic in terms of the Gospel.

So to use the Gospel as a pretext for undermining wifely submission (and/or husbandly headship), is an affront to the Gospel itself. There is no case that the Gospel frees wives from submitting to their husbands.

In fact, the very nature of a covenant--and that is what marriage is--involves a relationship between a stronger and weaker party, and carries obligations of both sides, that are binding as long as both continue to live.

In our society, no one legally can force a woman to marry: it is a voluntary choice. If you take on that covenant, then you accept the Biblical obligations that come with that covenant, assuming that you claim to be a Christian.

And this is on both sexes, as men are taking on responsibilities that are specific to them, as women are taking on responsibilities that are specific to them.

Oh, and Ephesians 5 is not about the subjection of women, as the command is on women to submit, not on the husbands to subdue their wives. Remember: in that same passage, husbands have commands that are not contingent on the wives upholding their end of the deal.

That a command can be abused--and we can say that about almost any command--does not negate the validity of the command itself.

After all, wives will not provide perfect submission--and have been known, in fact, to undermine their husbands even among other believers--just as husbands will not provide perfect Godly leadership, and, in fact, will often resort to passive (even passive-aggressive) maintenance of a relationship, just as Adam did in the garden.

The Biblical commands still are what they are, though.

emily said...

Triton: "Most of us learn early on where we fit in. Our parents are the bosses. We obey them. Would you prefer it to be otherwise? When parents cease being "authority" and instead become their kids' friends, bad things happen. The nuclear family is no place for democracy."

But there is a difference between being a child and being a wife. As a child, you are still learning and growing, and you need to have structure. But no one pretends that an adult still needs to "obey" their parents in the same way they did when they were children!

"As adults, we learn things about where we fit in in the larger society. An orderly may be the spiritual equal of the doctor, but he is definitely subordinate to him within the framework of the hospital. As long as the orderly obeys the doctor's orders, everything is cool. When the orderly wants to be treated as an equal to the doctor, and disobeys the doctor's orders, then, again, bad things happen."

Again, within the workplace there are going to be heirarchies happening; that is inevitable. But outside of the workplace the orderly and the doctor are on an equal footing. If the doctor tried to use his authority over the orderly outside of the workplace, people would accuse him of being abusive.

"Hierarchies abound; there is no escaping it. It is nature's way. The very term "pecking order" is the result of observing one of nature's hierarchies in action. Without a pecking order, the chickens would probably kill each other over the corn. The hierarchy provides order and prevents bloodshed."

What does Ephesians 5:21 say? Oh yeah "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." Throughout his ministry and teachings, Jesus constantly emphasises the idea of putting others above yourself. He doesn't go around preaching heirarchies or 'pecking orders', but about putting others first.

And if marriage is simply a buisiness transaction, then why would Paul write about loving and respecting each other at all. "I give you sex and cook you dinner and you give me a house and some spending money and we'll call it even" is what it seems to amount too.

"Many men, however, have no expectation that women will change their ways in order to win male affection. These men have accepted the idea that women are and always will be awful creatures and they simply want nothing more to do with them."

And you wonder why people like Susan come on her claiming that many posters are supporting misogyny. How can you say that women, as a general whole, are awful creatures and then pretend there is nothing "hateful" or "vitrolic" about it?

Here is my response "Many women, however, realize that men will not change their ways in order to win female affection. These women have accepted that men are and always will be terrible creatures bent on exploitation and domination and they simply want nothing more to do with them."

TMink said...

Wow, I miss a day of reading and posting and look how much I have to catch up with!

Suzanne, for me, subordination is an act committed against another, submission is a choice I make. The church I go to now is careful about communion, they request that only people who are members of a Christian church participate.

I am more of an open communion guy, in my heart, the Lord's table shoudl be open to all. In fact, the last time I attended a communion that was closed, I participated anyway, despite being excluded by that church's rules.

In my view, they did not subordinate me, and I was not submissive!

At my new church, I thought my eldest daughter was not a member of the church that she attends with her mother, so I asked her to not participate in the communion. Turns out I was wrong, as she is a member, but I was acting in good faith. Here, the church was not subordinating me, and I was submissive.

Had the church prevented my daughter from accepting communion, they would have been subordinating her. So for me, sumbission is a choice, subordination is inflicted upon us.

In this same church, women may not serve as Pastors, deacons, or elders. I have been blessed by the preaching of women, and women elders and deacons have blessed me as well. My experience tells me that God uses women in the church for His glory in these roles.

But I am submissive to my church's position. First, they have the scripture to back it up! Secondly, I am trying to be more obedient to God and learn from others in my spirituality for the first time since I was 16.

So, maybe that is a long winded explanation as to why I can see the points that all you guys are making. For me, the touchstone remains "What does scripture tell me to do." And I am trying to do that while worry less about what scripture tells others to do.

Trey

Amir Larijani said...

Emily says: What does Ephesians 5:21 say? Oh yeah "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." Throughout his ministry and teachings, Jesus constantly emphasises the idea of putting others above yourself. He doesn't go around preaching heirarchies or 'pecking orders', but about putting others first.

While I would use a different term than "pecking order", the headship role of the husband is unmistakably clear in the NT.

While it is true that Ephesians 5:21 indeed says, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ", to use that as a pretext for promoting the ever-popular "mutual submission" mantra, undermining both the specific commands to the wife as well as the specific commands to the husband, is among the worst of common blunders in the evangelical world.

The totality of that chapter spells out specific roles for husbands and wives, especially with respect to her submitting to the headship of her husband, and the husband leading in a Godly and non-abusive manner.

(The LOLcat version puts it nicely: Wimmins, u do what ur mens sai, liek u do wut Ceiling Cat sais. Teh mens pwns teh wimmins liek Jebus pwns teh kittehs he went an gots from de bushes nstuff. Teh kittehs do wut Jebus sais, an u wimmins got to do wut ur mens sai. Mens is teh boss of teh wimmins, an teh mens no want back talk, srsly. Now mens shud luv teh wimmins, like Jebus luv teh littl kittehs. Mens shud cleen teh wimmins up an wash teh wimmins brains wid words. Den u see teh wimmins iz all cleened an glowin an eyez iz glazed liek nethin goin on inside. Den mens gonna luvs teh wimmins leik dey iz a body part. D00ds, u feedz an caerz for yersevs, rite? Well dats how u caerz fur teh wimmins. Iz liek Jebus carin for teh littl kits, puttin down plate uf milk an noms. Laidys membr iz not bad bein pwned. We all iz pwned by Jebus. Der iz paper sais, "A mens moevz out teh moms basement wen him gets a wimminz, but he don eated her." Wai iz liek dis? Wai? I dunno. Iz leik Jebus, he don nom de kittehs nether. So mens don nom de wimmins. But wimmins do what u iz told, kthx.)

Neither will live up to that command. She will have trouble submitting; he will have trouble leading effectively.

The commands still are what they are, however.

Anonymous said...

Amir: I've seen that LOLCat version come up a few times now, and I do wonder why people keep quoting it? The irony is in the fact that whoever wrote that is obviously making fun of the sexist overtone that this interpretation of scripture presents.

Yes, Paul "commands" the wife to submit... but nowhere is the husband "commanded" to lead. That has to be implied, is what I've heard. But it makes more sense to assume that the husband wasn't told to lead, because he isn't supposed to be the leader.

Amir Larijani said...

Anonymous: Yes, Paul "commands" the wife to submit... but nowhere is the husband "commanded" to lead. That has to be implied, is what I've heard. But it makes more sense to assume that the husband wasn't told to lead, because he isn't supposed to be the leader.

Actually, the husband is head of the wife (Ephesians 5:23). If she is supposed to submit to him, and he is called to be the head, then it would take a mother lode of exegetical gymnastics to suggest that he is not supposed to lead.

That husbands are not to force their wives to submit to them, a point on which we are in agreement, makes the husband no less called to leadership.

Jesus, after all, is the leader of the Church--He is the head of the Church--and yet He does not put guns up to everyone's heads and compel them to obey.

On the other hand, failure of the Christian to obey Jesus carries tragic consequences--for both the believer and the larger Body--just as a wife who undermines her husband--by not submitting to him--brings on trouble for both herself and her family.

(The same is true for a husband who provides abusive--or nonexistent on the other hand--leadership to his family.)

As for the LOLcat translation, I find it entertaining as well as ironic: there is more truth in it than in many "churches". I use it here for entertainment value.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Suzanne, for me, subordination is an act committed against another, submission is a choice I make

That's not the only way to use these words. However, if the wife is told to submit or

- she is going to hell
- she is rebellious
- she yelled at
- she is not a good Christian
- she does not please God

then she has been subordinated, not by sphysical violence but it is still subordination. I would call any system which renders a woman subordinate "subordination." I don't feel that this is inaccurate.

Triton said...

"But there is a difference between being a child and being a wife."

Sure there is. But that difference does not automatically negate the possibility of a subordinate role for the wife.

There are differences between officers and enlisted men, too, but a Captain is still subordinate to a General.

"But no one pretends that an adult still needs to "obey" their parents in the same way they did when they were children!"

If an adult is living in his parents' house, then he absolutely must obey them.

"But outside of the workplace the orderly and the doctor are on an equal footing."

Sure. And when a marriage ends via death or divorce, a woman is no longer required to submit to her husband. Outside of the marriage, they are on an equal footing.

"Throughout his ministry and teachings, Jesus constantly emphasises the idea of putting others above yourself. He doesn't go around preaching heirarchies or 'pecking orders', but about putting others first."

The verse in Ephesians is about serving our fellow man; it has nothing to do with marriage-specific submission, which is the topic here. And Jesus didn't preach about hierarchies and such because it was common knowledge (and practice) in first century Judea. He also didn't preach about the dangers of lions and pit vipers; I suppose you think that's proof that such things are harmless.

"And if marriage is simply a buisiness transaction"

I never said marriage is simply a business transaction. It IS a business transaction of sorts, but it involves other things as well, like hormones and love and friendship and whatnot.

""I give you sex and cook you dinner and you give me a house and some spending money and we'll call it even" is what it seems to amount too."

For most of history, marriage has been precisely that. Marrying for love (or infatuation, as is too often the case) is a modern phenomenon.

"How can you say that women, as a general whole, are awful creatures"

I said nothing of the kind. I said many men have come to this conclusion; I didn't say I had reached this conclusion.

I'm trying to be patient with you, Emily, but if you're just going to react hysterically without actually comprehending what you're reading, then we're done with each other.

Triton said...

"A naive 20 year old who promises to "obey" likely has little notion of what might be expected of her in the years to come. Kind death seems a very long way off. One minute of good intentions could bind her into servitude for life if she does not feel free to divorce.

Men and women both can be seriously traumatized by their partner. I believe that it should be illegal for either a man or a woman to vow to obey a marriage partner."

So a 20-year-old woman isn't capable of intelligently entering into a legal contract? Is that really what you're saying, Suzanne?

Amir Larijani said...

Suzanne says: However, if the wife is told to submit or

- she is going to hell
- she is rebellious
- she yelled at
- she is not a good Christian
- she does not please God

then she has been subordinated, not by sphysical violence but it is still subordination. I would call any system which renders a woman subordinate "subordination." I don't feel that this is inaccurate.


Depends on what she is being told to submit to. The husband--as head of the wife--also has a head (the Lord).

If he, for example, is using the submission command as a pretext to get her to allow him to use porn, then this is a matter that the church needs to address.

In such a case, the issue is not the command to submit, but rather (a) the abuse of the headship responsibility and (b) the possible failure of the church to deal decisively with immorality.

On the other hand, let's say the wife was always complaining about petty matters. In her case, the church would be right to tell her that she is wrong to undermine her husband, and that--as one who is in a covenant relationship--needs to live up to her end of the covenant.

That accountability goes both ways.

And yes, I have seen real-life examples of husbands and wives--in the church no less--doing both.

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Yes, there needs to be accountability both ways. I will say good-bye on this happy note.

Puma said...

Suzanne says: "Men and women both can be seriously traumatized by their partner. I believe that it should be illegal for either a man or a woman to vow to obey a marriage partner."

Suzanne, you are getting closer to the truth, but not close enough. Legislators agreed with your feminist predecessors about 30 years ago and changed Family Law to allow women to enjoy all post-patriarchal freedoms, while entrapping men in double the patriarchal obligations. Not only are men obliged to take care of their women in a perfect way during the marriage, by legal alchemy they are now obliged to take care of their ex's too long after she has left them to sleep with other men.

Back to your point, if something should be illegal ... it should be ILLEGAL TO GET MARRIED. Period.