But in the end if there is a hard decision with disagreement about the kids the man is in charge and has the ultimate say. He is head of the house and head of everything in it including the children. Delegating your ultimate authority doesn't put her in charge of the children in any meaningful sense.

Either way what happens when the kids leave? Is it ok for them to join the workplace then or is it still ideal for them to be a homemaker?

There should't be a "hard" decision, since the woman has more information on the children. That's kind of the point of her being a better nurturer, that she's better at it, and the husband should recognize this. There is an implicit idea here that's more representative of the mischaracterization of my position, not my actual position. It's not about ruling with an iron fist, that's not a Godly stance for a man.

It's not even about the woman not working in the first place. If she wants to work, then I've already agreed that it's her choice. The housework can be shared regardless of who works where. I see nothing wrong with a wife going to work, or resuming work, after the children are in school full-time.

For what it's worth, while this doesn't tell us much about innate differences or proclivities, there have been a number of studies of female managers in business, and mostly they do better than men. For instance, a study in the Harvard Business Review (2012) showed that female managers had higher effectiveness ratings and scored higher than male managers on a survey of managerial competencies.

That's an interesting study. I haven't seen that one before. Thanks for sharing it.

But I suspect the reason men are doing worse on average has more to do with worse men being promoted over women. The women who are able to rise in the ranks need to be significantly better than the men in order to attain those positions, and so that will skew observational data such as this.

Mostly it just seems to me that you don't have a consistent position. You mouth the traditional patriarchal doctrines of Christianity, but downplay their significance or importance for practical life. I am probably more sensitive on this issue because of growing up in a religious environment where female submission and the importance of traditional gender roles were taken more seriously than you seem to.

I don't really have a problem with the doctrine of mutual submission, as long it isn't just a more polite way of saying that women should submit to the decisions and authority of her father or husbands and men should submit by loving and respecting their daughters and wives.

I guess we aren't going to get past this point yet. Here's the thing--we can all put up our ideal situation and it looks pretty good. What I'm concerned with is when we try to put that ideal into practice. So yeah, while I am not assuming that complementarian men are all the beer-guzzlers yelling on the couch, I am also not assuming that they are all like Christ washing his disciples feet and serving and laying down his life for others. That is just as much a misrepresentation of the reality of the situation as the first example.

Again, I'll go back to my political analogy. Kings aren't supposed to rule over their countries frivolously or without concern for the welfare of its citizens. Justifications of monarchical rule make exactly the same points you do, speaking to an ideal relationship where the king rules over his country as a father guiding his children, with only their best interests at heart. And if all kings did that, then monarchies wouldn't be so bad.* But the problem is that they don't. Some kings do do a good job, and during those years a country can prosper and do well. But others don't.

And to a certain extent this is why I said earlier that I am actually open to couples who decide to have a more vertically integrated relationship, where one of them makes the final decision on certain kinds of family decisions. A couple can decide on a personal level that this makes more sense for their family if they think that one of them is a better leader (although I would still say that it would be a mistake to only let the man take this role). But that decision should be based on the actual qualities of the people in the relationship, not just (usually false) generalizations based on their gender.

What I'm really objecting to is not the personal decision of a couple to live that way, but to a theology about family life that says that this is the ideal that all couples should strive for. Practically speaking this means that in Christian churches that accept this theology regardless of who is actually a better leader or even whether the man is qualified to lead at all that he will be told to take that leadership as his by right because he is a man (at least nominally--you've probably seen those couples where the man is so incompetent or weak that his "leadership" really is just a charade.). And you are left with the worse leader having the final say on family decisions, or even worse, with someone who is abusive (maybe in part because he recognizes his shortcomings) or inconsiderate being the one in charge.

This is the same problem that afflicts monarchies. Some kings are fine and do alright by their subjects. But kingship is not chosen by demonstrated fitness, but usually through family descent. This means that if the royal children are incompetent--too bad, you are just kind of screwed. That is the same problem I'm talking about here. Some men are just not very good leaders (or just worse than their wives). In those cases it would just be better for the husband to submit to the wife than vice versa (or just reject this model of family governance entirely).

*there are still issues of personal autonomy that speak against both monarchy in politics and submission by the wife, but I'll leave those aside for now.

Yeah, this is what I was referring to earlier, where Christians try to disguise the yucky patriarchal nature of their beliefs by using the language of "mutual submission," but having the submission of women meaning obedience and the submission of men meaning loving his wife. Changing our language here doesn't change the reality of what we are talking about.

If only this were true. What you really mean is that it is against your theology, not against the actual nature of patriarchal rule over the family.

Sure, that is a plausible explanation. However, note how congruent that explanation is with my criticism of the complementarian model of family life. If there is an inefficiency in business management because of bias against women in leadership, think of how much worse that inefficiency is in running the family for people who accept the complementarian model, with the much greater bias against women inherent in that system.

You're obviously speaking from experience, and I respect that, and like I've said, this is my view which I live by, and will not force this on anyone else. It is my interpretation.

I don't think my position is inconsistent, but its not as strong as the traditional view which you're criticizing. Plus, some of my perceived inconsistencies are (I think) because I can admit that it's not all black and white, and there is often room for maneuvering.

Women and men should both submit to the authority of their fathers, but this relationship is not like a husband and wife, in my opinion.

I think it is obvious that we will not agree that the man is placed in the role of leader, but I also think that this means something different to you, than it does to me.

I understand there is abuse on both sides, but I don't see why this means that we throw away the ideal. People are going to fail, no matter what the system is, but I don't think that means we must make a new system with the failures in mind. We still strive for the ideal. Often we put checks in place to make sure things don't get carried away.

I disagree that it's "usually false", I believe it's usually true, with exceptions. Especially since in my paradigm, God unites couples who complement each other, beyond their already complementary natures.

This to me represents a man who was not ready for marriage to begin with. I'm not saying that there aren't passive men who don't make the best leaders, but there are certain responsibilities that come with marriage that you need to be ready for. Again though, I'm fine with these exceptions, if a man is a terrible leader, then by all means step down, but surely he has things to work on that don't represent his full potential as a human being.

I agree with your monarchy example, but it's difficult for me to look at this honestly, because I don't agree that monarchs are ideal to begin with. If they were, I don't think eliminating them because of abuse is the answer.

I've been trying to use different language because I believe that there is a misunderstanding of the position in general, but I will admit that there is an underlying position in this view that has the man leading the woman, and I can't deny that. I simply don't think it's degrading in it's ideal form.

Perhaps you're right that this fails in the greater sense, but I'm not particularly interested in how others act in accordance to where God has placed them. I'm interested in me living the life I believe is right, and to not be a hypocrite.

Meh. Large organizational structures behave entirely differently than small familial structures. I don't really buy that there's a useful comparison there.

Hard to believe that you and your wife have not disagreed about something when it comes to raising your children. Its pretty common. Alright though if her word is the final say, cool. If on the other hand you allow her word to be the final say thats different. And not her really being in charge imo.

And i never said anything about an iron fist. Said the man is the head of the household and is ultimately in charge of it, his wife and the children. How he rules isnt the point, that he does is. If none of this applies, thats good.
Ok.

On this occasion I'm going to sidestep your challenge for the moment, because I don't think it's necessary to produce examples to make my point, and simply say that I regard gender discrimination, or even just a gender fixation, as a primitive way of thinking. I think we've reached a level of technoligical development where the superior physical strength and warlike nature of men (generally speaking of course) no longer needs to be a deciding factor in who should be in authority, and religions (even matriarchal religions) that exhibit forms of Complementarianism are just another example of that, a hangover from more primitive times. I'd go beyond saying 'why not make women the authority in the family' and ask 'why does someone need to be the authority? My relationship with my wife is a partnership where our abilities compliment the other's. Neither of us is 'in charge'.

Religions are far from alone in this though, I see it in the work place, in politics, in society etc etc. but I think movement away from this way of thinking, that one gender is 'superior', is progress, but because religious views on this tend to be taken from their divine scriptures, I expect that religions will resist changes in this area too and/or that religious systems will be used as a means by which to resist change.

"you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you" -- Dennis the constitutional peasant

I think the same underlying principle goes for gender roles. Ancient mystic texts is, frankly, an absurd choice of authority for how to distribute gender roles in a modern relationship and/or society.

I suggest we find another ancient mystic text that is opposed to this particular ancient mystic text, and then we can see it all implode in a puff of logic.

This type of thinking reminds me a lot of people who say things like "I don't see color (race). I just see people." You're basically setting yourself up for a self-delusions. The first is a delusion of the brute facts of reality. You may want to believe that you are beyond viewing things in terms of gender, but whether you admit it or not, gender exists and it plays functional roles in virtually all aspects of your life. It is a part of the social structures you exist in.

In the same way that claiming that one doesn't see race is itself a way of perpetuating racial inequities and racism itself, I believe that claiming to not even see gender is a problematic perspective and more likely to perpetuate problems than to solve them.

The second is a delusion of superiority. "I'm better because I can see beyond this other primitive viewpoint." Good luck with that.

If religious views merely "tend to be" derived from divine scriptures, what does this do to your other analyses of religion in which you insist that religious views are supposed to be derived from literal interpretations of their divine scriptures?

Also, how does this address religious egalitarinaism? Are you going to completely ignore observations of reality as you've done in the past and build your entire argument on some theoretical basis of how you believe religions are supposed to behave?

I fail to see how MB's post should in any way qualify for this criticism.

Nowhere did he state that he did not see gender, he merely offered the opinion that the differences he did see between men and women did were not good reasons for choosing heads of family.

I see that I accidentally didn't copy the preceding sentence into the quote:

I may be misreading his position, as "gender fixation" is non-standard terminology. But I read it, in the context of "gender discrimination", as the "fixation" on "gender" as a distinguishing characteristic between persons. In essence, "Why even bother talking about gender? It's meaningless."

In the context of his [caricature of an] analysis ("warlike nature of men" = deciding factor in authority, and that this has been supplanted by "technological development"), I believe he's saying something much more broad than what is narrowly conceived of as merely a "head of family" argument.

Aaron, surely there must come a point where you realise that replying to MB's posts is silly when he has you on ignore? Life is short enough as it is, doing this day after day after day is getting kinda weird.

The way I read it is a focus on gender discrimination, that is to discriminate based on gender alone. There is a difference between "she should not be chosen, because she is a woman" and "she should not be chosen, because she is not the best", even though the two might sometimes reach the same conclusion.

The issue gets more complex when we realize that bias can influence perception, and we might mistakenly see her as the best nurse because she is a woman or him is the best mathematician because he is a man. There is evidence to suggest such stereotypes are prevalent even in individuals who consciously think they do not hold them.

I think Aaron's responses are more for our benefit than MBs, and it would be weirder to constantly respond to MBs posts impersonally.

Agreed.

Getting to the bolded from the word "fixation" is a ludicrously large leap.

The word "fixation" in my mind is a strong word, and gets interpreted strongly as a result. A different word choice would have elicited a different reaction.

Even so, it seems like an obvious exaggeration. For example, if I was to say that "there is a fixation on money in Western cultures", that in no way would imply "why even talk about money? It's meaningless".

I think the bolded is fine, if you just want to share your opinion on the topic. If you care about making the point that (all) religious people are more guilty of gender discrimination then everyone else then you have a substantial amount of work to do (if you want to go beyond making an unsupported assertion).

The problem with making broad sweeping claims is that the main point you want to make is often missed because of a poor framing.

Consider this example of 2 possible assertions I could make:

1. Atheists (all) cause society to morally degrade

2. Sam Harris causes society to morally degrade

By making a specific claim about a specific person it is now possible to have a tangible conversation as to why or why not this is true.

If I make a general claim about all atheists I don't see how this claim is meaningful or how a tangible discussion can ensue because what is being asserted is nebulous. No one actually knows all the atheists in the world and therefore making such a broad claim is by nature incorrect and very difficult to defend.

okay.

What religions are we talking about?

There are so many different religions with various offshoots:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ual_traditions

I would really really prefer to hear you accurately berate Christianity (or another specific religion) than make such general claims which are vague to the point of (at least to me) being meaningless.

Well, that doesn't even make sense. "There is a fixation on money in Western cultures" means that there is a very high emphasis on money, so it couldn't possibly say money is meaningless.

But setting that aside as just an error in phrasing, I think the rest of the statement is still relevant to the interpretation of the statement. The rest of the statement reads as an example of why we shouldn't even take gender into consideration.

To create a parallel statement:

"I regard higher education, or just an academic degree fixation, to be an increasingly outdated mechanism for hiring. The basic skills of reading and writing are not necessarily enhanced by higher degrees."

If I read this, I would think that the person is rejecting the idea we should even bother looking at educational degrees beyond the high school diploma for an indication of the basic skills of reading and writing for hiring purposes. (Not that I think that the claim is true, I was just coming up with an example.)

But if it instead read something like

"I regard higher education, or looking just for people with college degrees, to be an increasingly outdated mechanism for hiring. The basic skills of reading and writing are not necessarily enhanced by higher degrees."

This one reads as a significantly softened opinion.



Edit: I can make my point even better:

"I regard higher education, or just an academic degree focus, to be an increasingly outdated mechanism for hiring. The basic skills of reading and writing are not necessarily enhanced by higher degrees."

Even that word change seems (to me) to suggest that we can still talk about higher degrees, but that this just moves to the background as a lesser consideration and not one to be completely ignored. And that also changes how I interpret the sentence that follows.

........... wut? Stopped reading here.

I'll simplify this for you. Here is MBs quote:

Here is your response to me /TD:

And here is my counter-example, reformulated using MBs exact sentence structure:

"I regard gender discrimination, or even just a gender fixation Western culture's fixation on money, as a primitive way of thinking."

According to your argument, this statement implies that I would also endorse the statement "Why even talk about money? It's meaningless".

We must be much, much further apart in our interpretations of what is being said. Maybe you're not looking at the full context of the claim?

Right. So you're taking it out of the context of the sentences that follow, which provides an explicit example of a situation where gender should not be relevant. I'm not taking that single sentence alone, but in context with the ones that follow.

No. That's not the full argument. There's an entire rest of paragraph that follows.

So we take your opening sentence and create an argument underneath it:

---
I regard Western culture's fixation on money, as a primitive way of thinking. I think we've reached a level of economic stability that we should no longer should let money declare the winners and losers in a society, and that those structures are a hangover from more primitive times. I'd go beyond saying 'why should the rich get richer' and ask 'why does someone need money at all?' My relationship with my wife is a partnership where we share use joint financial accounts. Neither of us 'owns' the money.
---

I think you need to look at the broader context to understand why I interpreted his statement the way that I did.

I suspect MB rejects the concept of gender roles completely, which is very similar to rejecting the concept of race completely.

I think finding a dominant fault of complementarianism to be that men get more authority is sort of missing the point. If it were true that men are better leaders, better with money, better with managing complicated, high stress situations, then they ought to be taking that leadership role in business and church and the like. Likewise, if it is true that men are more intellectually capable of wrestling with challenging moral questions in ways that women don't then they should be the spiritual leaders of the household as well as dealing with the financial decisions.

My rejection of complementarianism isn't the resulting asymmetric societal roles that sort of make sense were the descriptive claims true, my rejection is that the descriptive claims are false.