|
Post by beth on Feb 13, 2010 21:34:24 GMT
Fairly often, something comes along to remind me of why I have no use for organized religion. --- Curate outrages congregation by telling women to 'be silent and submit to your husbands'With Valentine’s Day approaching, parishioners might have expected a more heartwarming message. Instead, they got a sermon urging women to ‘submit’ to their husbands. The apparent lack of obedience of ‘modern women’ was blamed for the high divorce rate. In a sermon entitled ‘Marriage and women’ last Sunday, curate Mark Oden, told the congregation at St Nicholas Church in Sevenoaks, Kent: ‘We know marriage is not working. ‘We only need to look at figures – one in four children have divorced parents. Wives, submit to your own husbands.’ It is understood some women parishioners – and even their husbands – have vowed never to attend the church again. Its vicar is Angus MacLeay, 50, a married father of two who is a leading member of the evangelical group Reform, which is opposed to the appointment of women clergy. The group has produced a leaflet, called ‘The role of women in the local church’, which uses Biblical quotes to urge them to ‘remain silent’ and telling them ‘wives are to submit to their husbands in everything’. One woman churchgoer said she was ‘disgusted’ by the sermon, adding: ‘How can they talk that way in the 21st Century?’ Another, who also did not want to be named, said: ‘We’re supposed to let our husbands talk for us and remain silent? What kind of medieval sermon is that?’ Mr Oden a married father of three, is reported to have said: ‘I am passionate about helping people to have healthy marriages. I did not set out to unnecessarily offend people, but I stand by what God has said in his word, the Bible.’ Mr MacLeay, a Scotsman who sometimes wears a kilt to church, said: ‘There are times when the Bible challenges modern society. It recognises that women are fully equal to men, but it also recognises that in certain areas of life they may have different roles. ‘Of course, in marriage, our main concern, it is the responsibility of husbands to show consideration and love for their wives.’ On its website, St Nicholas Church describes itself as a church where ‘we believe that the Bible is the supreme and final authority in all matters of faith.’ Reform believes that leaders of a church should be men and say the leaflet was produced to explain this view. Sources in the group said the leaflet had been misinterpreted. The source added: ‘People misunderstand the word “submit”. In this context it means saying how can I be most beneficial in this relationship as a helper. To submit does not make you an inferior being.’ A woman of 24 who was at the sermon said: ‘Isn’t it a vicar’s job not to tell you what everyone wants to hear and what society says, but to help explain the Bible says about issues?’ www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250464/Curate-outrages-congregation-telling-women-silent-submit-husbands.html
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 13, 2010 22:13:01 GMT
lordy..st paul rides again...funny thing is jesus never said wives should submit
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 13, 2010 22:25:40 GMT
He must be a very insecure man with a tiny todger obviously
|
|
|
Post by beez0811 on Feb 13, 2010 22:48:54 GMT
Sometimes it isn't the wife that has issues. Men can screw things up just as much as women.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Feb 13, 2010 23:03:22 GMT
Hm, as someone who has no use for organised religion myself I am going to resist my normal response and instead (it has been one of those days) I shall play devil's advocate for the moment (at the risk of getting lynched by the ladies on this board!)
I shall begin by reversing the situation. If a woman vicar had preached a sermon demanding that men should submit to their wives the most that would have happened is that a few people would have laughed.
No one would have been offended by her comments.
(And yes, such women do exist and are known as gynocrats, female supremacists, and various similar names).
Why should anyone - male or female - react with hostility to what the cleric said simply because of his gender, which is, after all, what it amounts to?
It seems a case of our old friend double standards operating here. We see it all the time where, for instance, domestic violence by women against men is regarded as a suitable topic for comedy and advertising whereas the reverse is definitely NOT viewed in the same inexplicably tolerant light.
As for suggesting that he must have 'a tiny todger,' would you automatically assume that our hypothetical gynocrat vicar must have small breasts?
Now let us ask ourselves the key question. What exactly did he mean by submission and in what type of sphere did he intend its application to run?
Submission can mean a variety of different things. For what it is worth (and this may well surprise some people here) when Lin and I married she vowed to love, honour and obey me. (Yes, you can still do that in some churches!) Anyone who knows her realises that she is not at all the doormat type and hardly likely to put up with some man tyrannising over her. It was actually at her request that we included the vow to obey rather than simply leaving it out as is the general practice nowadays.)
Lin can speak for herself but I'll give a brief precis of her attitude towards that side of life.
She wants a man to take care of her; she wants a man who is capabble of doing things which she is not able to do; she wants a man who is confident, strong minded and able to take decisions quickly and to use judgement to bring order out of chaos.
Unfortunately she ended up with me and I know (though she has accepted it by now though extremely grudgingly) that I am NOT confident, that although I may be strong minded I do NOT basically find it easy to give other people orders and never have done, I can and do take quick decisions but she still takes them more quickly than I do, and she often questions my judgement.
On the other hand, although I hardly ever put my foot down about something, on the rare occasions that I do she always accepts my decision.
I don't think I'm wiser than her, superior to her or any of that sort of silliness. I am good at what I am good at and she is good at what she does. Overall, she has a far wider range of skills than I do and I wish with all my heart that I could be the type of strong, capable and practical man that would be her ideal.
One of the reasons that she likes Jumbo so much is precisely because for her he represents in many ways the masculine ideal that she would like to have rather than the one she lives with on a daily basis.
I could say a great deal more on the subject but I have probably already offended enough people and I am quite certain that what I have said will be misconstrued as being some kind of caveman mentality when nothing could be farther from the truth.
Believe me, Lin is not the type of woman who would tolerate me or any other man pushing her about. She wants the security of what she sees as an ideal masculine type but of course she's long since come to terms with the fact that I will never be that type of man.
(I shall now beat a hasty retreat from the volley of bricks heading in my direction!)
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 13, 2010 23:26:55 GMT
Hm, as someone who has no use for organised religion myself I am going to resist my normal response and instead (it has been one of those days) I shall play devil's advocate for the moment (at the risk of getting lynched by the ladies on this board!) I shall begin by reversing the situation. If a woman vicar had preached a sermon demanding that men should submit to their wives the most that would have happened is that a few people would have laughed. No one would have been offended by her comments. (And yes, such women do exist and are known as gynocrats, female supremacists, and various similar names). Why should anyone - male or female - react with hostility to what the cleric said simply because of his gender, which is, after all, what it amounts to? It seems a case of our old friend double standards operating here. We see it all the time where, for instance, domestic violence by women against men is regarded as a suitable topic for comedy and advertising whereas the reverse is definitely NOT viewed in the same inexplicably tolerant light. As for suggesting that he must have 'a tiny todger,' would you automatically assume that our hypothetical gynocrat vicar must have small breasts? Now let us ask ourselves the key question. What exactly did he mean by submission and in what type of sphere did he intend its application to run? Submission can mean a variety of different things. For what it is worth (and this may well surprise some people here) when Lin and I married she vowed to love, honour and obey me. (Yes, you can still do that in some churches!) Anyone who knows her realises that she is not at all the doormat type and hardly likely to put up with some man tyrannising over her. It was actually at her request that we included the vow to obey rather than simply leaving it out as is the general practice nowadays.) Lin can speak for herself but I'll give a brief precis of her attitude towards that side of life. She wants a man to take care of her; she wants a man who is capabble of doing things which she is not able to do; she wants a man who is confident, strong minded and able to take decisions quickly and to use judgement to bring order out of chaos. Unfortunately she ended up with me and I know (though she has accepted it by now though extremely grudgingly) that I am NOT confident, that although I may be strong minded I do NOT basically find it easy to give other people orders and never have done, I can and do take quick decisions but she still takes them more quickly than I do, and she often questions my judgement. On the other hand, although I hardly ever put my foot down about something, on the rare occasions that I do she always accepts my decision. I don't think I'm wiser than her, superior to her or any of that sort of silliness. I am good at what I am good at and she is good at what she does. Overall, she has a far wider range of skills than I do and I wish with all my heart that I could be the type of strong, capable and practical man that would be her ideal. One of the reasons that she likes Jumbo so much is precisely because for her he represents in many ways the masculine ideal that she would like to have rather than the one she lives with on a daily basis. I could say a great deal more on the subject but I have probably already offended enough people and I am quite certain that what I have said will be misconstrued as being some kind of caveman mentality when nothing could be farther from the truth. Believe me, Lin is not the type of woman who would tolerate me or any other man pushing her about. She wants the security of what she sees as an ideal masculine type but of course she's long since come to terms with the fact that I will never be that type of man. (I shall now beat a hasty retreat from the volley of bricks heading in my direction!) I hate to say it, Mike, but you sound like most blokes I know. Its not easy trying to be someone else, most of the time it doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 14, 2010 2:21:05 GMT
hmmm Well, I must say I think the advisements coming from this cleric are not intended to be controversial, but here (U. S.) that kind of thought is most often expressed by the fundamentalists and does not go over well with the rest of us. There is at least one denomination here that advises husbands to beat their wives - oh but only with a stick no wider than the thumb - if they do not submit. Mike, to each his/her own when it comes to ideas about the way people want to live. I'm more comfortable with a partnership - with equal responsibility, but whatever works for couples is fine with me. I do, however, somewhat resent the clergy bumbling around, trying to hold up their (archaic?) ideas as the solution for everyone. (I shudder to think what ratarsed would have to say about this one)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2010 7:25:16 GMT
Mike, I take your point about double standards, but the role of women is bound to be a specially sensitive area within the church, because of biblical passages which, taken literally, clearly say that women come second to men. As Mouse indicated, St Paul is generally considered the stumbling block to women's rights; he is supposed to have been Christ's apostle, so can't just be written off as some Old Testament passages are. Any church that takes the word of the bible literally is going to have great difficulties finding a way around Paul. Women have fought to shake off two thousand years of patriarchy, so they are bound to be sensitive when a vicar tells them to "submit". I hope they find another church they can feel comfortable in. Here's an article attempting to put Paul in context. St. Paul, Friend or Enemy of Women? It's too simplistic to call the apostle a patriarchal misogynist on the one hand--or to praise him unreservedly on the other. BY: Rosemary Radford Ruether
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 14, 2010 14:12:08 GMT
odd thing is we never hear much about st paulls injuctions to husbands....mmmmmmmm i wonder why not? however i go along with mike to a certain extent..the vicar is doing his job...in any unit be it wedded bliss[ahem] or corporate board..decissions and discusions take place and some one has to have the casting vote if a decission cannot be come to wives by the very nature of homo sapien submit,,knowingly or unknowingly...willingly or unwillingly to husbands....there is nothing weak about aknowleging some one may have a better grasp of x situation be you man or woman.......submit is an emotive word but women have perhaps lost respect toward their husbands...not defference or submitting,,,but respect for men as men in the same way men have lost respect for women equality has its down side men and women are very different in thought processes and in ideas on the whole..women [not all] are inclined to be more excitable/moody/irational..that is well known ...equal but different and viva la difference and no bricks will be thrown from me toward mike
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 14, 2010 15:43:30 GMT
I have no desire to either be, or be with someone, subservient.
I find the idea most distasteful.
each to their own, as long as they don't attempt to force the rest of us to follow,
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Feb 14, 2010 16:40:03 GMT
I think it's maybe the guy's choice of the word 'submit.'
I mean, I've been a boss and I've been under a boss so I know about giving and taking orders in a work situation. That doesn't make either me or my employee subservient.
People sometimes forget that in a marriage, if you have kids, the odds are that the wife will be the primary carer and the husband the primary breadwinner.
Even though Mike and I run our business jointly and both of us give advice to and take it from each other, he's the one who put up the money in the first place so ultimately I have to defer to him if we disagree.
That doesn't make me a doormat or him a tyrant.
In the same way, if we disagree about, say, a home improvement or something like that, ultimately it has to be his decision rather than mine.
I don't feel subservient to Mike any more than he feels superior to me.
All I know is that, overall, I feel he usually (though by no means always) knows better than me and if he tells me that he doesn't want me to do something I'll go along with it.
I'm hardly a downtrodden wife and he's hardly a domineering husband.
I think partnership takes many forms and overall I honestly feel that most marriages/partnerships work better if the man is, for want of a better word, the man who in most cases has the last word and is, if you like to put it that way, the boss.
(I bet that's surprised a few people who probably thought of Mike as being a hen-pecked husband!)
|
|
|
Post by beez0811 on Feb 14, 2010 21:32:39 GMT
Mr. Beez and I consider each other as equals in our relationship. We look to each other for advice. He makes a good portion of decisions, but if I know more about a certain thing, we discuss things before making a decision. He doesn't drink. His extended family that we refer to as "the others" has alcoholics, morons, moochers, but he lets me drink on occasion. He doesn't want an alcoholic wife, and I don't blame him. I would have laughed if there was a female member of clergy that said men should submit to their wives. Men, do that? Some might, but not entirely. Would I ever expect my husband to submit to me? Not really.
Sometimes the divorces have to do wth fidelity issues. Sometimes it is the woman doing the cheating, but then again what if it is the man?
|
|
|
Post by june on Feb 14, 2010 23:26:24 GMT
"I honestly feel that most marriages/partnerships work better if the man is, for want of a better word, the man who in most cases has the last word and is, if you like to put it that way, the boss."
Sorry Lin I disagree. That obviously works well for you both but that set up wouldn't work for me, and if those were the terms I'd still be happily single rather than happily married. I am sure many live like you do just as many would prefer not to.
I like an equal relationship where we appreciate each other's areas of 'expertise' and make the best decisions together when we need to and respect those we make apart.
There is no magic formula - except perhaps find the right person for you!
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 16, 2010 4:29:53 GMT
Quote: "I honestly feel that most marriages/partnerships work better if the man is, for want of a better word, the man who in most cases has the last word and is, if you like to put it that way, the boss."
Lin, as June said, this wouldn't work for me. If we disagree about something or other, we discuss it and make a joint decision or, compromise, on the way to go. Mr Beth is the bread winner right now, though in the past, we've brought in nearly equal income. However, he would be very annoyed if I deferred to him because of this. He's always been the one to insist it's "our" money and I have total and equal access to liquid assets and investments. IOW, we trust each other. Beez, you may be right about the fidelity issue, but I'm more inclined to think inability to communicate openly and honestly might be the biggest problem people have in marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Feb 16, 2010 10:51:29 GMT
Maybe I'm just insecure and like to feel that a man's taking care of me and taking away the responsibility from my shoulders.
I'm also quite an old-fashioned girl in a lot of ways to be honest which may surprise some people.
Really, though, does anyone seriously think that I'm some sort of doormat and Mike walks all over me? Of course we talk things over and sometimes I persuade him to my point of view, sometimes it's the other way round.
It's just that if there's any really big issues and we can't agree I let him decide because I've found he usually gets it right more often than I do.
I wouldn't call that 'submitting,' just - well, I don't know what to call it, really.
Hands up, honestly, how many people were surprised by what I said? I bet almost everyone here thought that I was the bossy wife and he was a hen-pecked husband!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 16, 2010 11:17:26 GMT
nope..i didnt think you were bossy wife or mike henpecked..i think you run your marriage in a realistic way......in every org there is a casting vote...even in partnerships there is nothing uneqal about deffering to some ones better judgement or some one elses better experience or argument for or against or in fact knowing when to shut up its knowing what works is the secret
my opinion is based purely on what i have picked up on message boards..from what has been writen....but one does get an idea of how land lies
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2010 7:26:33 GMT
Wives should always let their husbands make the decisions. That way they have someone to blame when things go wrong.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 17, 2010 9:31:12 GMT
it could be a matter of finding wives....to be in submittence....if as is said not many are marrying these days
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 17, 2010 23:48:22 GMT
Lin, I'd have a lot of trouble imagining you as submissive - or Mike, either (and believe me, I don't try ). It sounds as if the two of you communicate and compromise in much the same way we do. If, for example, I am wondering whether to buy a new part for my computer, I would ask Mr B to make that decision - since he's many times more knowledgeable than I in that area. OTOH, if he knows someone who wants to sell him a piece of land, we'll both go, look and decide between us. Then, if he's hiring a new employee, I'll be the one he asks to look over the resumes and decide. Each of us has areas in which we are more experienced than the other - so - it only makes sense to defer in those cases. But, we share the cooking and some of the household chores, etc.. It may well be the word that's creating controversy. To me, submission means giving and taking orders. It means oppression. Therefore, I think this cleric is going to find he has little to no success convincing the women in his parish to follow his advice.
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on May 19, 2010 17:45:34 GMT
I just got an involuntary mental image of you being Mike's doormat. I shall now go and hide under the bed!
|
|