Don’t blame me! I didn’t write it. Alisha wrote it. She’s the meany, not me!
Excerpt:
I have a certain friend, a great guy I’ve known since I was a gawky teen, and who continues to be my friend in my fully grown yet still gawky state. He has always been strong- fights hard, works hard, but loves the hardest.
When he married a few years ago, I was a little worried. Now that he’s divorced, I’m very hurt. And taken aback that he is not the only guy I know in this situation. In fact, I know about 4.
Now, these men are far from perfect. No one except God is. Yet in all these collapsed marriages, the women openly and willingly admitted the men they promised to be with until death had never hit, pushed, sexually or emotionally accosted them. They quite simply, no longer wanted to be married.
Of course, there is nothing really simple about dissolving one’s marriage, except for my simple-minded incomprehension as I sat at a showing of “The Devil Wears Prada” with one of these ladies a few years back. We had gone to the mall to do a little window shopping, and for what seemed to be the entire trip, this young lady- I’ll call her Amber- complained non-stop about what her husband wasn’t doing. He wasn’t buying her new clothes or shoes or taking her on vacations. She worked hard, many days 10 hours. And well, he worked, too, but it wasn’t fair he didn’t buy her more.
“Can he afford to buy you all that stuff?” I asked. She looked at me as if I were stupid. “MY FATHER works two even three jobs to make sure Mama gets everything she wants and deserves! Sometimes, he is away for weeks, working at construction sites to ensure it!”
[…]Another girl I know got hitched- only to ditch her groom before a tan line started to develop on her ring finger. The very same things she loved about him while they were dating- his commitment to God, desire to go into the ministry, his “good guy” sweetness- were instantly repulsive in marriage. Their marriage annulled, she jumped into a long term dating relationship which turned into cohabitation and a child together. But fortunate for her, no wedding.
I actually blame the men for choosing these women. Men have to test women during the courtship to see if what they are interested in is making a commitment and then acting self-sacrificially to honor their obligations. I could tell you nightmare stories about Christian women I know who can do the most amazing acts of selfishness and then totally refuse to make amends or accept any responsibility. But then, I’m not married to those women – because that all came out before I ever got serious about them. Many women are judging men today based on how amusing they are and whether their girlfriends will be envious and approving based on secular criteria supplied by TV shows and music videos. This all has to be detected during the courtship by the man. Courting is when the man has to detect if the woman is thinking anything other than “if I don’t like this – if it doesn’t make me feel happy all the time and impose no obligations on me – then I can get out of it”. Is she ready for a commitment? That’s the man’s job to find out.
What courtship is really about for men is communicating your plan and the challenges you’re facing and then standing back to see if she wants to help. I once met a Christian woman who would not so much as sit down with me to see what I did for a living. She wanted to have fun! And understanding my job so that she could help was not fun. (Presumably, spending my money that I earned from that job would have been more fun). So if a man marries a woman like that, then it is the man’s fault. If men are too stupid to know how to detect lemons then they deserve to suffer. Learning how to court is more important than playing video games. Knowing what laws strengthen men in their roles as husbands and fathers is more important than watching X-treme sports. Men are responsible to understand marriage, understand what women do in a marriage, and understand policies that strengthen or weaken marriage. Many men who are divorced today voted for the party of no-fault divorce (with the custody battles and fake charges of child abuse) and domestic violence laws (which criminalize criticizing your wife’s spending or weight) yesterday. And those men are fools. And they must be punished.
Men are terrible at knowing what they want from women. What matters to the stupid men about women today is not whether they are chaste and self-sacrificial and organized and goal-oriented, but only their physical appearance, how much they are willing to drink, and how far they are willing to go physically. Even Christian men have no idea what Christian women are supposed to DO in a marriage. Many men think that marriage will be 50% playing video games, and 50% sex or something. It’s just totally unrealistic. Not to mention that women are not inanimate objects. They are more like employees. If you bring a woman into your home and do not know how to motivate them, then they will not fill the role that they are assigned. Surely a wife is as entitled to as much “management” as an employee. Having sex with someone is not effective management. One-on-one eye-to-eye communication about current concerns and future goals is effective management.
I think that men and women really need to sit down and think about marriage and parenting as an engineering problem. What are the use cases? What are the requirements? What is the design plan? What are the possible solutions? What are the tradeoffs? What is the schedule? How much of this can we build ourselves, and how much of it can we purchase or outsource? If the woman is not on board with the seriousness of marriage, because she resents obligations, saving money and structure, then drop her like a hot potato. If she does not want a man to fulfill his roles in the marriage – protecting, providing and leading on moral/spiritual issues – then kick her to the curb. Spontaneity is good for a Sunday afternoon or a Friday night. It is not the way to run a a marriage, especially when there are kids. Spontaneity is not the way to produce quality software – with garbage in, you get garbage out. Can you imagine hiring an engineer based solely on their physical appearance and amusement value? Yet this is what men are doing. Christian men are doing this.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
I AM NOT A MEANY! But I WILL CALL OUT women. This is only fair. We are NOT victims and we DO have a choice in who we marry.
“Spontaneity is good for a Sunday afternoon or a Friday night. It is not the way to run a a marriage, especially when there are kids.” TRUE!
Why don’t we look at it like this, WK- you keep reminding men of their duty and women like me and Mary (hint hint HINT) remind the women? If that makes us mean, well the TRUTH hurts doesn’t it?
LikeLike
I meant meany in a good way.
Yeah, it reminds me of this comment I was reading on another blog where this Canadian woman was commenting about my idea that women tend to prevent men from being blunt and taking controversial stands and getting into debates about controversial things.
Here’s the link:
http://fullofgraceseasonedwithsalt.blogspot.com/2010/11/making-women-happy.html
And here’s the comment by Thag Jones:
You keep doing what you are doing.
LikeLike
I think that too often it is the fault of men that they choose women like that. On the other hand, I think it is inaccurate to say that is always the case. I know one friend who was married for twelve years (and two children) before she suddenly left him for another (older) male. Why? “He was the nicest guy you could imagine … but he was boring.” Boring? You’d think that would have come out in the 12 years of marriage and 2 years of courtship before that, wouldn’t you? Often it is, but sometimes it’s not the man’s fault.
LikeLike
I know what you are saying, but if we start making exceptions then we make men into victims who refuse to take responsibility for their own choices. I don’t like it when women make excuses and blame men, so I can’t obviously accept the reverse situation in good conscience.
My friend ECM and I have talked about this and there really is no sure thing with marriage. So long as the custody laws and divorce courts are against men, the safest thing for men to do is not to marry. Perhaps that is what your friend should have done instead of marrying. It is an enormous sacrifice for a man to marry, and one that is not often understood or appreciated, but is instead taken for granted. If your friend made the choice, he takes the responsibility. I think the woman was a bad woman, but nothing forced him to choose her, or to choose marriage.
LikeLike
Well, of course, the suggestion that “the best thing” might be not to marry is problematic because it is, after all, against Scripture. “Each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” The notion of choosing what is right to do based on “safe” or not isn’t likely the best premise.
The other thing I would suggest is this “zero tolerance” concept (“if we start making exceptions”) doesn’t work in the real world with real, complex situations. I’m not talking about “making excuses” or even “blaming”, but recognizing the circumstances and dealing with them isn’t always simple.
LikeLike
I disagree with you. That verse is opposing polygamy. But if you read 1 Cor 7, it says that the best situation is not to marry at all. I think people can marry if they think it is better for God than if they both stayed single.
LikeLike
I assume you disagree that 1 Cor 7 means what I said and not that it’s best to determine what is right based on what is safe. ;)
I disagree with you regarding “not to marry at all” because, according to Jesus, the gift of singleness is very rare (Matt 19:11-12).
LikeLike
Wow.
According to you a wife can look at marriage as a lifetime of being “managed” by someone else yet you say it is a huge sacrifice for men to marry.
Whatever.
Wintery, I am very worried about your attitude about roles in marriage.
Before my parents’ separation they went to counseling and the counselor specifically told my dad that my mother was not his employee, she was his wife, his partner and he should stop treating her like an employee.
This is the problem with the “men lead” spin on the Bible. This idea leads to “men manage” rather that lead by example.
And the “men manage” model is death to a marriage. I’m an eyewitness.
You have more to fear from you own misconception due to men teaching the extra-biblical idea of husbands as managers than any custody or divorce laws.
BTW, my parents marriage was saved because my dad figured out what the Bible really does tell men to do. It tells them to love their wives, sacrifice and lay down their lives. No where does it say lead.
I’m not saying you can’t lead.
You can. It will work. As long as you lead by example and get that marriage destroying idea of “manage” out of you head.
LikeLike
Mara:
I think that when Wintery talks about “management” in the context of marriage, he doesn’t mean “telling her what to do”. He means “relationship maintenance”. That’s why he gives the example of communication. “Management” is perhaps an ambiguous word to use.
I’m not going to complain about this post. The dude is holding men accountable as well as women in this post. Yay! Let’s encourage this and cut him some slack. ;-)
LikeLike
Thanks Mary. Yes, obviously there is a lot more going on there, but I introduced that idea of valuing the strengths of women and matching them to a role to contrast it with the male idea of valuing women based on beer commercial criteria which has nothing to do with a woman’s actual responsibilities in the marriage. Men think that if a woman looks sexy that she is therefore qualified to support the man emotionally, to support him in his work, to be responsible with spending, to encourage him and not to criticize him in public, etc. Men are stupid when they think that a woman’s character doesn’t count.
If a woman doesn’t like the idea of having specific obligations in the marriage, and many (all?) don’t like that idea, then that is something interesting for a man to know. I have been trying to get women to do good things and to follow my lead on things like politics and apologetics for years. They don’t want to do it. It’s not just that they don’t want to THINK about how marriage would work, because they don’t, it’s that they resent the idea that marriage should impose any moral obligations on them at all. They want to be happy all the time, and the demands of men and children in relationships. They don’t want to get involved with solving actual problems. Wait until I write about what the women are reading in my survey of Christian women. It’s ALL FICTION. Reading is not being done to change their minds, to inform them, or to make them better wives and mothers. It’s done for entertainment! It’s so hard for me to keep a straight face in these interviews… I keep thinking – how have you prepared yourself for the actual problems you will face in marriage? What steps have you taken to make sure that the relationships you will have with your husband and children will produce something that God will be pleased with? I think that many women think that the purpose of marriage is not to do anything for God, but instead to use God, men and children in order to be happy. It’s scary, but anyway, let me keep interviewing and see if anyone has a different view. So far nothing, and I am up to about 40 interviews.
This is all totally foreign to you because you’re not like that, but many women are. That’s why men aren’t marrying them. Think of how you were proof-reading that sermon for your friend the other night. That sort of thing is just not done any more. Men are finding it very difficult to get women to help them with anything.
LikeLike
Okay, I’m sorry.
Both men and women have obligations to keep in a marriage. And some of those obligations are not pleasant.
And you have to be faithful, loyal, and true, along with the love. In other words, moral.
You won’t find any argument from me on that.
Marriage is hard work. It is no fairy tale.
Kind of wished I saw your posts before I made the ones to Marshal and Tom.
Let me close out by saying, something here I’ve said to you in private.
Though I still hold that the Bible doesn’t teach as a mandate, ‘husband’s lead’, I still know that many of those who do believe this do it well, as in, the husband IS NOT domineering and they work as a team and the husband rarely, if ever, uses his ‘trump card’ so to speak.
i.e. I can coexist with the comp position. I can argue with anyone against it. But at the end of the day I respect many people who hold to it.
And as long as you are happy, as in, it’s working for both of you in the marriage, then that’s fine.
LikeLike
Ephesians 5:22-24 begins to show the relationship of husband and wife, with the husband being referred to as “the head of the wife”. But as these passages are twisted by some to mean absolute despotic oppression of women by their husbands, it does indicate a degree of pecking order.
However, and every bit as important, is how the husband is instructed to regard his wife, and verses 25-33 flesh that out.
(I believe this can manifest, however, with a man delegating some of his authority to the wife in recognizing her superior intellect, should that be the case.)
Too often we find men only remembering verse 22 and leaving it at that. Not good.
LikeLike
And as usual around here, you leave off verse 21.
Don’t you know that when you leave off verse 21 you leave verse 22 with no verb?
It goes like this “And be subject to one another in the fear of the Lord, wives to your own husband as to the Lord.”
In the original Greek the second part of this sentence refers back to the first part of the sentence for it’s verb.
Translators have cut this sentence in half, put a space between them and made them separate verses and sentences. You cannot do that without doing violence to the text.
Everyone is supposed to be submitting to everyone, including wives to husbands and husbands to wives. Paul just gives husbands extra umph as to what submission might look like since in their culture men never submitted to women. To do so would make them appear weak. So Paul had to pull on the analogy of Christ as He submitted and served. Back then only slaves and women washed other people’s feet. Christ was breaking this obsession with “who is in charge”. But people keep obsessing over it.
I tell you the truth, the Proverbs woman was the manager of her house. She was not managed. She did the managing. Don’t worry. She didn’t manage her husband. He didn’t need it. Nor did she need him to manage her. And he didn’t manage her.
The Hebrew woman was far more liberated than the Greco-Roman woman in Ephesus.
Paul really had to work with those men to figure out what submission might look like. It involved love and sacrifice for their women. Something they never had to do before. It really must have knocked their feet out from under them.
Therefore Paul had to assure them that when they did this love/sacrifice thing, it wasn’t a license for women to start becoming disrespectful. Women needed to continue in respect even as their husbands were trying to learn love and sacrifice (other terms for submission that are easier to swallow for men).
Paul was so turning their cultural understanding of marriage upside down. He did it with the idea of liberating both men and women from the oppression of the Greco-Roman marriage. Now men use these verse (present company excluded, for the most part) to do the opposite.
As in I Cor 3, so in Ephe 5, Paul (the man who said that he would become all things to all men in order to win a few), this Paul is sensitive to the restrictive, gentile cultures he was speaking to.
And it is beautiful what he says until men start using it a license to rule. It was never intended for that.
LikeLike
I did not submit the verses to support a notion of misogynistic oppression. In fact, I purposely went the lengths I did to show that men have their part to play as regards submission and service to his spouse. I believe my last sentence should have exposed my position fairly well.
But I think you take a few liberties of your own. Your comments seem to assume that only men had a twisted idea of the ideal marriage. But as noted, Paul is telling women they should submit to their husbands in a manner similar to how they should submit to the Lord. He makes no such proclamation to the husband, but instead tells him to love the wife as Christ loves His church. Though in general both are serving each other, there is still a distinction between the two; roles for each that are not identical because men and women are not identical. Perhaps women needed to be told that they should willingly submit to their husbands and not do so merely because they were given no choice.
I wonder if you’re not one of those who take offense that men were made in God’s image and woman from man. This does not make us unequal. But if God did not think of us as distinctively different, why were only men to be His priests?
LikeLike
Marshall: I actually like most of what you have said on this post. One thing bothers me though in your latest comment. Are you saying that women are not made in the image of God? Yes, God made Eve out of Adam’s rib. That’s clear. But when Gen 1:27 says that God created “man” in His own image, this clearly indicates “mankind” – i.e. men AND women – seeing as the following sentence says that “male and female He created them” and “them” refers to the “man” introduced in the previous sentence. If “them” did not refer to the “man” reference from the previous sentence, it would explicitly say “people” instead of “them”.
LikeLike
“BTW, my parents marriage was saved because my dad figured out what the Bible really does tell men to do. It tells them to love their wives, sacrifice and lay down their lives. No where does it say lead.”
Can’t say I agree with that last sentence:
http://carm.org/apologetics/women-ministry/1-cor-113-word-head-does-not-mean-authority
LikeLike
Something else you need to know about I Corinthians 11:10
The words “symbol of” does not exist.
You see, Christ is also the head of woman.
(Go ahead, I dare you to tell me He’s not.) And in the Greco Roman culture the man was the undisputed head of the woman.
Therefore, if Christ is the head of the woman and so is the man then she has two heads.
It was not a disgrace for a man to pray with his head uncovered in that culture.
But in that culture it was a disgrace for a woman to have her head uncovered out in public for any reason.
Paul was dealing with the complication of their culture and the rock and hard place a woman is placed in. She is also made in the image and is the glory of God. It says so in Genesis. They were both made in His image, not just the man.
(If you try to say it wasn’t cultural, what the heck does a woman having her head shaved have to do with anything? It was cultural.)
Anyway a woman was not to have a “symbol of” authority ON her head. She was to have authority over her own head since if her husband was an unbeliever, he would not understand her praying with her head uncovered in the public assembly and he would be disgraced.
Paul was extending grace to women in this, not trying make sure everyone knew that men were the authority and women weren’t. This was not even questioned in that culture.
My original point in all of this is, even in context in I Cor 3, the Bible still doesn’t instruct men to lead their wives. It never does, ever.
And the new point I’m making after reading the link is this.
The Bible is awesome and perfect in it’s original languages. Bible translators are not perfect and are subject to the biases of their culture.
Since verse 10 of I Cor 11 was confusing to them, they add the words “symbol of” to try to make sense of it. Adding just those few words has really confused the issue here.
A woman has authority over her own head when she goes out in public, even in our own culture, now. She can wear a hat in the grocery store or in church. A man may not wear a hat in church.
LikeLike
Oops.
Sorry.
Forgot to say, excellent points Alisha.
Selfishness is ugly, no matter which gender it is displayed in,
LikeLike
Thanks, Mara. I was starting to fear not too many people were actually reading my post.
Let me make this clear: while I understand where WK is coming from, I feel the advice I was trying to give has been lost, both in the comments I’ve read on Facebook and here. I encourage those who are curious to take the time to read my blog.
The original title is “For Girls Who Consider Divorce When the Rainbow is Not Shiny Enough”, which is an admittedly corny play on a play from the 70s which has recently been made into a Tyler Perry movie, “For Colored Girls”.
I am speaking, using personal interactions, to specifically WOMEN who are considering quitting their marriages based on selfish, whimsical or flighty reasons. Society today has pushed the message on both sexes that the biggest reason to get hitched is for personal happiness. If you’re not happy anymore, leave. WRONG.
Our vows say “for better or for WORSE”. What I was attempting was to encourage women to look at how their own actions might be causing problems in their marriage and yes, hurting their husbands.
While I love being mentioned on popular blogs, I really want my message to women to remain intact and not lost in a debate of he versus she. We all need to examine our beliefs, thoughts and actions in light of God’s Word and how He entreats us to “love one another”. I find it heartbreaking that we often show the most hatred towards the ones we are closest to.
Also, WK, I would be careful not to call someone “bad”… remember WE ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALLEN SHORT. Also, both men and women make the choice to marry. I’m advocating personal responsibility for both sexes.
LikeLike
Well, I agree with you and the original message of your post.
I was just adding that men should be aware of this tendency of some women to view marriage this way and to be careful to test for it during courting, because if they don’t detect this, they have no one to blame but themselves. There no use complaining once you make the decision – you own it.
LikeLike
@Alisha: And an excellent blog post it is too. Read it, folks! Mary says so. ;-P
LikeLike
Overall, I agree with WK’s sentiments regarding what a man should do along the way of selecting a mate. But there is a trust factor that cannot account for a major drawback: some women (some men do this as well) assume the “I do’s” will compel changes in their husband that his history doesn’t suggest is likely. They’ll go years expecting these changes and when they don’t arrive, they look to bail out. If one does not express one’s vision, one’s vision may never appear and that vow thing will complicate the situation. But just as important as expressing one’s own vision, one must insist that the prospective spouse does as well. Insist on total honesty and talk about how, together, those ends might be achieved. The risk is that the relationship will end, but that’s really a gift as the the risk could be greater if the relationship is allowed to go on under false pretenses.
LikeLike
Thanks Marshall.
I have to tell you I have been reading about this belief that women have in the malleability of men after marriage, along with the woman’s tendency to deny men sex and pack on a bunch of weight and it scares me. I used to listen to Dr. Laura’s show and I would hear women talk about all the things that their husbands were not doing and then when Dr. Laura would ask them about things like sex and fitness, they would say that they didn’t have to care about that. I will never forget that. The “double standard” and dismissal of moral obligations are talked about a lot in the Care and Feeding of Husbands. Also, when I listen to Dr. Morse, she seems to be aware of it as well. She talks about no-fault divorce and the danger that is caused by thinking that relationships are about having happy feelings instead of obligations. If a woman is not interested in your problems before marriage, she isn’t going to feel obligated to do anything after marriage.
The thing I hate about men is that they think that sex means that the woman is going to follow your lead later. Women have sex before marriage because sex is FUN. It means NOTHING when you ask whether they are going to submit to you after marriage. In fact, it probably means that they view sex as a SUBSTITUTE for having to serve you and care what you think. I knew one Christian woman who explained to me how she used sex to control men in a very frank way. Once I understood that women use sex as a substitute for having to care for a man and help him, I began to really dislike the way that men court women. The point of courting is to detect and avoid selfish self-centered women. Obsessing on their appearance and allowing yourself to be brainwashed by sex is a bad plan.
LikeLike
Here’s the Dr. Morse talk on “Retreat from Relationship”:
http://ruthinstitute.libsyn.com/retreat-from-relationship
LikeLike
I think it was Chuck Swindoll who once made a comment about men having sex before marriage having given something away in a manner apart from merely one’s virginity. Something on the order of authority or standing or whatever, that always results in a negative situation to one degree or another within the marriage. Whatever some may believe, I would submit that a man must enter into a marriage, not so much as a figure of authority over the wife, but as the place where the buck stops, assuming responsibility for everything, particularly the moral character of his home and family members. To that end, he must assert himself even at the risk of bad feelings at having “pulled rank” on the wife. At the risk of raising hackles, before we were married, I had insisted to my wife-to-be, with whom I had a seven year courtship, that should a situation arise over which we were at loggerheads, no compromise possible, we would have to go with MY path since I assume and bear responsibility for all. Hopefully we will never be at such a point. But I don’t see how there can ever be two heads of a household. Co-equal partners for the most part. But at some point, only one can have the ultimate say. I think it is the husband’s role and frankly, I don’t think that’s being overbearing as much as accepting all that means to the family and to God.
LikeLike
I switched gears a bit there, but the beginning leads to the end in that if a man gives in to his urges before marriage, he will likely cede some of that moral authority I believe he is supposed to assume as head of the household. I don’t know if things actually play out this way, but Swindoll does. But as we shouldn’t engage in sex before marriage anyway, and one can’t try both to see which better affects the marriage, it’s a rather moot point.
LikeLike
I am going to ‘one up’ you here a bit because I have a slightly different take on this.
I don’t think the time to figure this out is during courtship, I think the time to figure a lot of this out is before courtship – when one can still objectively view the other person’s life and the choices they make. I knew my wife for three years before there was any talk of courtship. We were in ministries together, we were in small groups together, I saw how she interacted with other women who were friends of mine and hers. I saw how she treated leaders and people she was ministering to.
I saw how she handled difficulties and finances, failures and successes, and how she chose her relationships with men. And then after being satisfied that she really was who she appeared to be and that she had the character neccesary for a lifetime commitment, I talked to her about being in a relationship that would lead to marriage.
And 16 years and 4 kids later, I have to say that evaluation was completely accurate.
LikeLike
You are right, this is the way to do it.
LikeLike
The flaw here is knowing whether or not one’s assessment is accurate or the result of being smitten. I think one can become smitten with someone one already has known for some time, and in fact the knowledge of the person’s character might have resulted in being smitten. But I think generally, being smitten comes first. In any case, one must get through that phase of the relationship before making rash decisions, such as marriage. Thus a longer courtship, rather than a brief one, is the ideal rule of thumb.
LikeLike
I think the best way to be objective about such a situation, ‘being smitten’ always being a possibiity, is to be objective about what one needs to see in person’s life before one would even consider them as a spouse, confirming that one sees that in their life before one begiins any sort of relationship with them, and having other mature believers confirm that what one is observing is accurate.
LikeLike
To be honest they are some women out there that are credit card happy. I am not obsessed with clothes if I do buy something it will be with my OWN money. Any women that enters a marriage to get stuff/ everything they need be prepared to be disappointed only God can full that gap.
Men lets be honest for most of you if a woman earns more money than you, you get resentful, not sure why but most do. I for one would hate to feel like a kept woman but if it means a better income for OUR house not HIS then I would be for it. If a man does well in his job it is bound to make you proud ( well for me it would). Sorry but it doesn’t tend to work the other way round ladies.
I think in courtship you need to have a balance of a little bit of fun and a few discussions about the future and both sides need to be heard not just the man hurling his plans at her. You can usual tell if the person is shallow if they are not willing to talk seriously about the future after a fair while. I would suggest getting rid of them as they are not emotionally available in the long term.
LikeLike
Mary,
Regarding your last response to me, I was suggesting how some women take the Scripture, not how I do. I was wondering if Mara was one of those who did see it that way. I believe there is no difference between men and women insofar as we are both created in His image, but that we do have distinct differences (obviously) and different roles to play. And even then, I’m speaking in general terms, as in an ideal. Not being perfect beings, the ideal might not be attainable for most. But the ideal exists.
I also think that many of each sex are not pleased with their roles and seek to changes them or abdicate from them.
LikeLike
Thanks for the clarification, Marshall. We are in agreement. :)
LikeLike