I was wrong
Every now and then I reach a sort of a breakthrough, where new understanding suddenly floods my existence and all the world seems clearer. Sometimes it is truly a breakthrough, sometimes it is merely that I find a better way to express what the heck I mean.
I recently made the argument that men and women could never be exactly equal. If they could, men should be able to demand that they be allowed to bear children, the silliness of course intended to show that it isn't possible. I was then rightfully accused of setting up straw men.
I figured out the flaw in my argument. To sum it up in a couple of sentences: When two people go into a partnership, they usually bring different things to the table. The fact that they bring different things to the table does not affect the fact that they are equal partners.
What my fellow irc lurkers perhaps didn't understand, mostly due to my inability to express my thoughts, is that the partnership between men and women is one where the partners inevitably bring different things to the table. Exactly how different is of course still up to debate, but different it is.
Stop reading now if you have an aversion to religious matters.
The bigger argument at the time was whether Paul (the one from the Bible) was being a chauvinist when he told women to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22 in case you're interested), ignoring the fact that that was not the only thing he said: There is also the bit about submitting unto each other (5:21) and some useless stuff on how to treat your slaves (chapter 6). If you read the whole thing in context it appears he was telling people what they are supposed to bring to the table. Perhaps he made a mistake, after all, where does he get off telling people how to do things? On the other hand, perhaps it made perfect sense to his target audience. I don't know for sure, but what does seem clear to me is that he is definitely advocating a partnership and that almost everyone misses the point. Including many Christians.
There, I just needed to get that off my chest.
I recently made the argument that men and women could never be exactly equal. If they could, men should be able to demand that they be allowed to bear children, the silliness of course intended to show that it isn't possible. I was then rightfully accused of setting up straw men.
I figured out the flaw in my argument. To sum it up in a couple of sentences: When two people go into a partnership, they usually bring different things to the table. The fact that they bring different things to the table does not affect the fact that they are equal partners.
What my fellow irc lurkers perhaps didn't understand, mostly due to my inability to express my thoughts, is that the partnership between men and women is one where the partners inevitably bring different things to the table. Exactly how different is of course still up to debate, but different it is.
Stop reading now if you have an aversion to religious matters.
The bigger argument at the time was whether Paul (the one from the Bible) was being a chauvinist when he told women to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22 in case you're interested), ignoring the fact that that was not the only thing he said: There is also the bit about submitting unto each other (5:21) and some useless stuff on how to treat your slaves (chapter 6). If you read the whole thing in context it appears he was telling people what they are supposed to bring to the table. Perhaps he made a mistake, after all, where does he get off telling people how to do things? On the other hand, perhaps it made perfect sense to his target audience. I don't know for sure, but what does seem clear to me is that he is definitely advocating a partnership and that almost everyone misses the point. Including many Christians.
There, I just needed to get that off my chest.
posted by ispburger at 11:00 am
1 comments
