If you read on in one of those "submit" passages, the husband is required to
love his wife, to cherish her, to even lay down his life for her if necessary. In
God's plan, he is the benevolent leader, not a despot.
If you've ever had a department chair, or any kind of boss, what was a
wonderful person to work for, that was kind, that took your input, and yet in
the end the boss made the final decision, ultimately was responsible for the
performance and status of the company/department, that's kind of what I'm
getting at.
We seem to have no problem applying a hierarchy in all other systems of the
community, but bristle when applied to the family. Why is that?
This seems to be a nice, almost benevolent interpretation but one that I am sure is not shared by everyone who practices religions that include a view of women that says we are inferior, less moral/more evil, and subjugates us in all matters to men.
Why object to it? Because female submission/subservience or what ever you choose to call it is based strictly on the fact that we are female and for no better reason than that. And in the eyes of that God, therefore not as worthy.
Those hierarchies you are alluding to are often based on other types of authority - elected, by experience. Whatever. And for the record, people often bristle at this also. Who knows what the best basis for authority actually is? Maybe none.
My 4-year-old daughter has been asking to watch the movie Mulan over and over again. Cartoon and fiction that it is, I often find myself moved by the simple message that young women (at least some young women) should be valued because we are capable of being courageous and clever and laying down our lives for others just as men would. Not just because we are supposed marry, be obedient, and bear children (preferable sons.)
Nancy Melucci
LACCD --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
