The land that feminism forgot

[porkchop]

I don't believe that women need to be submissive to men, in general...simply because they are men. I do believe that the Bible teaches that wives are to be submissive to their husbands and daughters are to be submissive to their fathers. The question is one of authority, not gender. Husbands and fathers have a God ordained authority over their families. An unrelated male has no authority over any female.
Blessings,
Fairlight[/quote]

I agree. Still though, the article wasn't about any religious point of view, it was just a dumb article published by a low-quality paper. That's all.

 

[Maddog]

It did get quite a discussion going though. That's always good.

 

[sweetlissa]

The article launched a discussion and just because it didn't have anything to do with religion doesn't mean we can't talk about it. I don't believe in being submissive to men just because they are men. But I am very quick to agree with someone I agree with and very quick to defend submission when it needs to be defended.

SweetLissa

 

[welltan]

Keeping an attitude of respect for all men and women will save the energy of trying to decide if this person or that deserves it or is mandated. An otherwise desire to ration or not risk too much deference to others reveals a heart that values not submitting to each other in respect. If submitting to each other is too expensive for the personality, then those you do show submission to, can only be expected to know you really don't want to but are doing it because you are required to. The whole concept is somehow wrongly cubby-holed as an attitude that shows up on the honeymoon or later without any prior effort or development. Being submissive to one another is not sin nor sexual related always or adultery. But not knowing how to be submissive to one another without committing sin or adultery is sad.

 

[steve]

now that right there is a mouthful of good chewin.