oh my darling that is male; you are my rock, without you, i die.
A Response to previous post:
"Nah, the male being the head of the family has got nothing to do with how much "more holy
the male gender is. it's just a role assigned to the male. Kinda like dancing. Can't have both partners trying to lead now can we?""
i disagree with you.
Well yeah being male certainly isnt all to do with being more holy.
i admit im kinda lazy where it comes to constructing an argument
but i thought people could maybe read between the lines.:)
this is what happens when everything becomes too literal.
"its just a role assigned to the male"
if you have a rotten male (especially chauvinists disgused as christians) leading the dance,
things will not work out.
Marriage is a PARTNERSHIP. You need two partners for one dance. Like how you need
two hands to clap. An individual hand slapping against the air would look very retarded. But of course this retardism can be disguised as appropriateness throughout time, or the way things work, or better still, God-Intended (set roles of men/women).
Guys lead the dance because they had the money the job the status the gender the power the ability to read and write and go to school and COMPOSE the bloody bible. what say did women have? they were shut at home as baby incubators for the purposes of procreation.
The more capable half in the respective fields will lead.both parties will have to compromise; the guy cannot constantly parade his ego by snatching role of leader. If jane is better at
counting the money, she takes charge of the finances, if jack is happier and smarter at cooking, he makes dinner every night.
This christian presumption that all lead roles are bestowed to males is ridiculous.
so a dick supposedly makes you more intelligent? oh im sorry, being a leader doesnt necessarily equate intelligence.i should put it this way: being the possessor of a dick i.e. male automatically assigns you a divine right to lead? doesnt make much sense does it? sounds more like a socially constructed product of a very patriarchal history.
( points like these have been raised and the
brilliant freud invents the concept of penis envy.)
Only blinded christians follow wholeheartedly, and very stupidly indeed.
"Nah, the male being the head of the family has got nothing to do with how much "more holy
the male gender is. it's just a role assigned to the male. Kinda like dancing. Can't have both partners trying to lead now can we?""
i disagree with you.
Well yeah being male certainly isnt all to do with being more holy.
i admit im kinda lazy where it comes to constructing an argument
but i thought people could maybe read between the lines.:)
this is what happens when everything becomes too literal.
"its just a role assigned to the male"
if you have a rotten male (especially chauvinists disgused as christians) leading the dance,
things will not work out.
Marriage is a PARTNERSHIP. You need two partners for one dance. Like how you need
two hands to clap. An individual hand slapping against the air would look very retarded. But of course this retardism can be disguised as appropriateness throughout time, or the way things work, or better still, God-Intended (set roles of men/women).
Guys lead the dance because they had the money the job the status the gender the power the ability to read and write and go to school and COMPOSE the bloody bible. what say did women have? they were shut at home as baby incubators for the purposes of procreation.
The more capable half in the respective fields will lead.both parties will have to compromise; the guy cannot constantly parade his ego by snatching role of leader. If jane is better at
counting the money, she takes charge of the finances, if jack is happier and smarter at cooking, he makes dinner every night.
This christian presumption that all lead roles are bestowed to males is ridiculous.
so a dick supposedly makes you more intelligent? oh im sorry, being a leader doesnt necessarily equate intelligence.i should put it this way: being the possessor of a dick i.e. male automatically assigns you a divine right to lead? doesnt make much sense does it? sounds more like a socially constructed product of a very patriarchal history.
( points like these have been raised and the
brilliant freud invents the concept of penis envy.)
Only blinded christians follow wholeheartedly, and very stupidly indeed.
posted by c at
22:27
3 Comments:
Hmm a whole post dedicated to my comment. I'm touched.
I wish I was a much more devoted christian that I am now. But I'm not.
As you very rightly said, marriage is a partnership. And if the leader is rotten, whether it be male or female, no partnerships can work.
Likewise if followers are rotten, the partnership will naturally fall apart.
In any partnership, it is not always the more capable of the two that leads.
Let me give you an example. I dance salsa in the rare occasions that I have the time to, and when I can actually move my lazy butt out of the house and onto the dance floor.
In the dance, the lady is always the follower, and the man the lead. Inevitably you will have ladies who dance much better than the man. Does the lady then take over as the lead in the dance?
Does the beginner male then become subservient to the more experienced female?
The man still leads.
What if the man is much more experienced than the lady? There aren't many complicated, or advanced moves that can be done.
The dance is only as good as the weakest member of the duo, be it the man OR the lady.
If two hands clap, they must move in opposite directions, and neither the left hand nor the right is "more important". They are both equally important, but serve differently. One moving left and the other, to the right.
If both hands decide to move in the same direction, well, the person will look pretty dumb won't he?
Likewise in any human partnership, be it a marriage or a relationship, roles have to be assigned. When the bible assigned the role to the male, the responsibility that comes with a leadership role is proportionally larger.
In salsa, the lead needs to plan the steps, give directions to the follower, AND execute his own steps.
The lead also has to clear the way for any moves, make sure the follower is taken care of, and the moves executed are comfortable to the follower's level. The lead also essentially FLAUNTS THE FOLLOWER.
Any mishap, any cock up, or confusion, the lead is 90% of the time at fault.
You want the responsibility of leading? By all means, take the reins. ;) Though be careful what you wish for, cos when you get it. You might not want it.
PS does leading then necessarily imply the lead more intelligent, or more capable? nope.
Hence the idea of being equal, but not the same. That's the idea of marriage.
you know you're like one of those smart-ass christians who read the bible and take every fucking thing word for word and hold on to it like gold?
who were these people who wrote the gospels, did anything go wrong in the translation of hebrew to english, what was the context in which the verses were written(: paul wrote to the churches to ask women to submit b/c of chaos); what was the social construct during the time; this chunk of scriptures so widely claimed as the holy bible contains versions of rape and incest: God's word as well? dont ask questions, just follow. this is GODs way; the right way. women can scream all they want about inequality, we have the holy doctrines to back us up. suit yourself.
so God allocates the role of leadership to males. so be it. men lead; women submit.
typical christian speak.
we agree to disagree ;).
Post a Comment
<< Home