[Crooked Bird]

There's something I've been thinking about. I'd like to hear others' take on it.

You hear from comps that men and women are naturally different from each other. Depending on the person, you'll hear all sorts of stuff about there being instincts for the man to provide/protect, for the woman to follow his lead, all kinds of stuff, down to the extreme stuff like women being naturally irrational.

One thing I've always wondered: if they think this stuff is natural, why do they work so hard to codify it? If it is really natural, won't it occur whether you tell people to do it that way or not?

That's a little off my topic, though.

Okay, first. I do think men and women are naturally different from each other. I just think it's not NEARLY to the extent that the comps say. But I think there's an undeniable physical reality to the fact that a woman's body is capable of bearing children. I think there's a physical reality to the fact that a woman who is actually pregnant or nursing needs backup--she is giving so much of her physical energy to someone else that for her to have to provide all the necessities of life for herself as well is generally a terrible burden--and God clearly meant for the father to be that backup. Her body is designed to nurture the child, his body is designed more simply, just to get done whatever they need done. I know I'm sounding like a comp here but bear with me. What I think is this: as egalitarians we need to not be in denial about these realities. But the comps need to stop taking the same realities and extrapolating them way beyond the child-bearing situations where they are real and using them as a sort of rule to structure all of life, even in cases where the realities are manifestly different.

So, what do you think about that? Agree? Disagree? Want to qualify what I've said?

Second, I've basically always been a feminist, but at some point I realized one part of (my) feminism was tripping me up a little. It was the "oh no, we are in stereotypical gender roles here!" When I get nervous about the fact that my (part-time bookkeeper) husband does the taxes for both of us and whether that's stereotypical, that's just not helpful. It makes sense for him to do them, he is better qualified and doesn't abhor forms like I do. My husband is also, in my personal opinion, a deep and original theologian. He's not known as such, except to a few, but he essentially does the work of one. And I've found that I can start to feel nervous about how frequently I'm saying "My husband thinks..." in theological discussions (oh no I sound like a submissive wife!) And that's not helpful either. I'm quoting him because he's introduced a fascinating idea to me, not because he is the Head of the Family. So basically what I'm saying is that for me to have anxiety that's really about "how we look" has a falseness to it and has felt rather stifling, and I've decided it's not what I want to be doing. I've learned that imposing any ideological framework--whether "complementarian" or feminist--on a living marriage can be deadening.

So, I think that "doing what comes naturally" in marriage (tempered with mutual submission and Christlike self-sacrifice) is a good thing, in whatever direction it leads you in a particular case. (And I do NOT think it always leads in the same direction. I could give plenty of counter-examples to my "stereotpyical" ones.) My question to you all is, have you found this to be true in your own lives? Do you have anything to tell from your experience about this?

[Deborah]

One thing I've always wondered: if they think this stuff is natural, why do they work so hard to codify it? If it is really natural, won't it occur whether you tell people to do it that way or not?

This is great.

I think much like you about differences.  You might like Jonalyn Fincher's book Ruby Slippers.  At the same time, I don't fall into too many of the stereotypical female differences myself--at least not in relationship to crafts or children.

As someone who is dealing w/ longterm medical disability, I had begun to allow the guy in my last relationship provide me with some financial help, and we were looking into my getting some special treatments (that I am unable to get now that the relationship is off).  I did deal with some discomfort re: roles there.  But in reality, most of my role-discomfort in that relationship was rightful.  He made it sound like he liked intelligent women but was really strong-arming me all the time.  I eventually recognized that he was being emotionally abusive and got out.  However, I still deal with the reality that what I am necessarily looking for in a man involves a rather "stereotypical" provider role (minus the children).  And every now and then I do feel some discord btwn that and the purpose and release that I want to see women have.  But this is circumstantial.

[Don]

There is a false witness by many comps about what egals teach.  Every egal I know acknowledges the physical diffs between the sexes.  And that the sexes even have overlapping bell curves in other areas, when plotted as populations.

Egals basically say to take sex out of the picture where it is not relevant.  Let things be determined by natural and spiritual gifts.  This will result in the strongest group, whether marriage or church or society.  Acknowledge other's gits whether they align with "traditional" alignments or not.  Many egal marriages look very traditional from the outside and the point is the only ones would should really care are the couple.

[diamondnell]

Part of the problem, for some comps, is that they are trying to enforce "how God made us" as groups, as if He isn't allowed to make us as individuals. The argument is that individualism is emphasized too much in our culture; but I think they go too far in the opposite direction.

But I think an even bigger problem is that so many Christians don't trust human judgment at all, so they are trying to enforce what we have received from God through Scripture, as if that is the sum total of truth, in hopes that that will earn them the right to achieve "God's best" or something. Thus, for many, "do what comes naturally" will sound like "follow your heart," which for them is a Big Lie because "the heart is deceitful above all things." This last statement is true according to Scripture... but I think it is still possible to focus too much on what human sin has marred, to the exclusion of what God has made good.

Enter the "Specific Will" philosophy -- the idea that God has one perfect plan for your life, and it is your job to pursue His specific guidance in everything, and if you fail to hit the bullseye then you have missed "God's best." (As opposed to a "Wisdom" approach that advocates using the mind God gave you, or something in between which acknowledges both the value of using your mind and the value of being on the lookout for more specific guidance should God choose to give it.)

I really think there has to be a connection between how many Christians are falling for a "Specific Will" quest for semiperfection ("God's best for your life"), and how many are falling for complementarianism ("God's design for gender").

I don't know if this answered your question; it felt kind of rambly, but I'm trying to describe a pattern I've become gradually more aware of over time... at least, I think I'm seeing one (enforcing "how God has made us" to achieve "God's best for our lives").

[Deborah]

Good insights, diamondnell.  Certainly much that feels natural (like various sins!) is not in God's will for us.  So it is a question of identifying how different input is meant to interrelate--how our experiences, community's needs, and scripture ideally communicate w/ each other.

[Dawn Wilson]

Crooked Bird,

You made an excellent point (one that never crossed my mind before  ) concerning the "legislating" of what is supposed to be "natural".    If these supposed roles comes naturally - as in being present by instinct -- then they surely would not need to be legislated -- they would just function with no needed instruction. 

You are so right -- equality -- as in marriage being a 50/50 split --  does not represent a mutual marriage.   Mutuality in marriage esteems each other  partner as a valuable member of the marriage partnership and seeks to live in such a way as to honor and respect our partner.  Each member of the marriage partnership is valued, honored, and respected. 

Equality by many has simply been reduced to the dividing of chores in equal portions -- this is not the equality which egalitarianism advocates.  Egalitarianism advocate an equality which recognizes each member of the marriage partnership as a totally equal human being with gifts and talents to share for the benefit of the marriage. 

Dawn

[Crooked Bird]

Don, I think your comment points up where the egal approach is actually *more* natural than the comp. Because it says "Look at what the person's natural (God-given) gifts are, rather than superimposing a framework on them."

I think it's true there's a false witness about what egals say. But it does depend a little on the circles you move in. I've known a few who basically would deny any gender differences at all, in theory if not in practice. But I tend to know very radical people. (Ever head of Christian Anarchism, for instance?)

So Diamondnell, is the "Wisdom" approach more what you believe in?

I think it's true re: group versus individual. I part company with those people right there. I guess I may be a little far out, but I don't really believe in groups. I think they are largely abstractions, unrealities. As my husband says (ha!) a group doesn't have a soul, so a group can't love. I realize there's a lot of group stuff in the OT. I see it like the patriarchal stuff in the OT--as context, as God speaking to these people in the only language they knew.

I think that remembering the Holy Spirit might be helpful in thinking about how to talk about trusting human judgment. I don't remember where it is, but somewhere in Acts some church leaders say about a specific decision, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to do such-and-such." That sounds to me like it is describing a process in which the Holy Spirit and human judgment interacted and agreed, a process of decision-making which used human reason/intuition and which also carried a sense of God's calling & approval for the decision. I think this suggests that "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" is only one side of the story--a meditation on an aspect of reality, rather than a blanket statement meant for all situations.

[Crooked Bird]

Also, thanks for the kind words, Dawn and Deborah, and Deborah, thanks for the book recommend, I just looked it up on Amazon and it sounds excellent.

[diamondnell]

So Diamondnell, is the "Wisdom" approach more what you believe in?

I prefer a middle view between "Wisdom" and "Specific Will," expressed by M. Blaine Smith in "Knowing God's Will: Finding Guidance for Personal Decisions." I personally think the "Wisdom" view doesn't give enough weight to the Holy Spirit's role in guiding individuals.

I think it's true re: group versus individual. I part company with those people right there. I guess I may be a little far out, but I don't really believe in groups. I think they are largely abstractions, unrealities. As my husband says (ha!) a group doesn't have a soul, so a group can't love. I realize there's a lot of group stuff in the OT. I see it like the patriarchal stuff in the OT--as context, as God speaking to these people in the only language they knew.

I like the way you conceive of groups as unrealities. (It drives me crazy when groups like corporations and nations get treated almost as individuals, or superindividuals!) I was thinking more along the lines of community needs, as Deborah mentioned. But then, I do believe the body of Christ is a reality.

I think that remembering the Holy Spirit might be helpful in thinking about how to talk about trusting human judgment. I don't remember where it is, but somewhere in Acts some church leaders say about a specific decision, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to do such-and-such." That sounds to me like it is describing a process in which the Holy Spirit and human judgment interacted and agreed, a process of decision-making which used human reason/intuition and which also carried a sense of God's calling & approval for the decision.

This sounds like something M. Blaine Smith would say

I think this suggests that "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" is only one side of the story--a meditation on an aspect of reality, rather than a blanket statement meant for all situations.

And this sounds just plain sensible! 

[dallasapple]

I completely agree...you might want to pick up a book called Gender Delsusions  http://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393068382

But the point about having differences but they are blown WAY out of proportion at least the differnces that are sort of 'innate"I agree....all of our 'main " differences are TRAINED into us ...even in other societies males and females have these supposed "male female " differences that are different than another cultures supposed hard wired(from birth ) differences..

The differences that I hear are SOOO unbelievably ignorant and people beleive them even "sin nature" or negative personality traits such as manipulation ...aggression ..others that arent negative OR positive like being "logical(of course thats a "male trait) and women are "more" emotional ..I saw one list and women were "soft..patient..nuturing..empathetic.." men were "hard..amibitious..steadfast" logical"..I'll have to find the list but it was ABSOLUTELY ridiculous..to have a litteral list that all women were born with these traits and all men were born with the other..

Oh and I do think a lot of our BEHAVIORS can be "stereotyped" more so on hormones. I know our hormones well..they ARE different..I think we have the SAME hormones just  typically differnt balances in males and females and that can make us act different under different enviroments..but how much that is a deciding factor verses how we were raised and what we are TOLD is expected of us  AND genetics (which are UNIQUE)is minimal in comparision IMHO..IOW even our hormones which have to play some role in our behaviors is SOOO blown out of proportion that it makes me want to pull my hair out..

Dallas

[HisBlood2012]

Exactly!

[dallasapple]

Oh and the "fear" of sounding like a submissive wife???Pfft...No how about a wife that respects her husbands opinions?

And besides that since Im so USED to arguing(debating) with misogynist  on this whole topic..If we are to be mutually submissive to one another then that INCLUDES THE WIFE! LOL!!!..I mean in a back and forth mutually respectful mutually loving dynamic sometimes you will be the submissive PERSON and you happen to BE the wife..

EVERY TIME I ever tried to "defend" mutual submission the men(sorry not you men but some man and quite a few of them that obviously have power and control issues) immediately said 'oh so that means that the wife is supposed to go around 'bossing her husband around demanding her way and he  just follows he orders?I 'm like WHOA horsey where did you see me say that?Besides YOU GUYS are the ones trying to "ease" the womens fears that beign "the' submissive wife (one way submission and respect ..he is to "love)..you say ..ladies what are you afraid of..its not like it means hes supposed to boss you around or "rule over you " with an iron fist like an ogre..BUT YET when I talk about MUTUAL submission immediately ther minds went STRAGHT to that dynamic exactly but with the roles reversed..Hmmmvery telling ..in fact I think they were tellign LIES!

Anyway my point woudl be DUDES mutual submission INCLUDES the wife..at times she may YEILD to his wishes for any # of reasons including just plain old graciousness and kindess..at times she may yeild to his suggestions becasue well..hes just plain old better at something..at times she may yield to his wishes just because well its the RIGHT thing to do she thinks..the point is at times SO DOES HE for the very same reasons..

Get it MUTUAL = man and wife

"Biblical(as they call it) submission=man gets the say every time no matter what ..she must submit whether she likes it or not or else shes a REBELLIOUS disobedient wife out of LINE with the word of GOD!

So yeah..be the submissive wife and be happy too..there is no shame in that..and honoring him by saying 'my husband thinks" is also very very  sweet and indicates what he thinks is imortant to you as it shoudl be ..hes your husband..

Dallas

[diamondnell]

I agree! "Mutual" means mutual.

(And there's another one I've heard too many times: "It's not like we're ogres. Just ask us." Yeah, right.  )

[dallasapple]

Yeah Diamond..I;ve heard.look its not like I go around shouting orders..(well then name ONE example that she "sumbits to you that would make it DIFFERENT than mutual submission)..hes like ..well exapmple..I expect her to ask my permission  if she is going to spend any significant amount of money..but as the "head" I do not need to inform her let alone ask her..

But here is the kicker..even if he DOES go around shouting orders(or how about she catches him usign porn for the 100th time in a mnth?)..as the Godly wife..she is to remain respectful and quiet in her demeanor..of course not saying its RIGHT for him to shout(or look at porn obsessivley)..but it is what it is God said read it and weep!

The attitude over all is why be so worried after all loving her as Christ does the Church is a TALL order..her "job' is quite simple and direct..easy just do it..Adn she must do "it" no matter WHAT he is or isnt doing..A  husband may choose to  ask her to do something..but ultimately he has the authority to tell her what to do not ask her..BLAH BLAH 

I need this to cope with that matra..

Dallas

[HisBlood2012]

It's sad because whenever I hear the words,"Men and women are different," I cringe, because it's a trigger term for people trying to make women into a different species from men, and one with less competence, etc. It is such a way for a misogynistic mindset to set up different standards of character and integrity between the sexes.