Welcome to Gaia! ::

No, ham sandwiches and sex aren't inherently mutually exclusive. That's not the point I was making. I was saying a few different things, but perhaps I didn't explain each thing enough.

1. The Hebrew Bible forbids a Jew from eating pork (among other things), but permits Jews including clergy/religious leaders to marry and have marital relations. It does not forbid a non-Jew to eat pork, or any other food, as long as the animal is fully dead before it is butchered.

2. The Christian Testament contains at one point a statement that it doesn't matter what a person eats, including a Jew, if they believe that Jesus is the Jewish messiah. Later, in a separate topic/chapter/subject, a passage indicates that it is better (holier, more desirable by God) to avoid marriage and marital relations, BUT that if one can't controle one's sexual impulses, better he should marry and go ahead than to have relations that are not within marriage.

So, though eating pork and having sex can of course be done by the same person, they will not be done by the same person if the person is EITHER an observant Jew (who can have sex but not pork) OR a fully observant Christian (who could be one of any number of Christian clergy including Catholic clergy, or some non-clergy of various fully-celibate Christian groups including the Shakers).

I'm still not sure I've expressed my point adequately. Let me know if there are other difficulties.

Well, you know that I've been defending you in that ridiculous Christian Women - Slaves? thread. It's amazing. In one group of people, submission is bad *unless* it's religiously motivated. In another group, submission is bad *if* it's religiously motivated.

Fioce, a great comment for your first thread post! You nicely highlight the differences in frames of thought. For both Christians and Jews, who both use the Hebrew Bible (or a translation thereof) as their holy text, I'd like to suggest that in both camps, there needs to be a reminder of some of the wisest words within that text: "Know before whom you stand."

That's good advice when standing before God; good advice when standing before human authority figures; good advice when standing before a mugger or bank robber; good advice when standing before a potentially hungry animal; good advice when standing before a mirror. Know your own attributes, and know the attributes of the other party/parties, and act accordingly.

If you yourself aren't much of a leader, but you are knowledgeable in a way that is useful, "Know before whom you stand." You're with a natural born leader, who doesn't happen to have the expertise you have? Ask them to take your idea and present it to others in a way that will get them enthusiastic about taking on your project. If you're a great leader, but don't have the knowledge and skills that are required, seek out someone who does, and ask them to tell you what needs doing so that you can get people fired up about a plan of action.

A "naturally submissive" woman may "suggest" to her "naturally dominant" husband all she wants, and then allow him the authority to make a final decision. Now, watch that "naturally dominant" man at work, and how he willingly submits to an employer who inspires or motivates him, or at least has the ability to control the amount of his salary raise that year. Amazing -- he has been able to suppress his "natural dominance" in the interest of serving his needs as an employee. So, you see, it can be done; and likely, no one had to tell the "naturally dominant" man that there was a time in which submission to a higher authority or a better-informed source was necessary and desirable.

And watch as, once the final decision has been made on some topic, by her husband, that "naturally submissive" woman then turns to her relatives and says, "No, Wednesday isn't a good time for everyone to come over. Thursday would be better." Watch how she then organizes the children to their various duties, handles the dishwasher repair man and the exterminator who come by to serve the needs of her household, deals quite competently with a parent/teacher conference. Amazing -- her "natural submissiveness" is nowhere to be seen. Chances are, she didn't actually have to be taught that there was a time when her "naturally submissive" nature would have to be put on hold, so that she could competently attend to the needs of herself, her family, her job, or any other thing which she holds to be important.

Now, look at the exact same couple. The "naturally dominant" man is looking over the complicated household finances. He'd like to buy a new car. His old car works fine, but he's had it for a few years and simply wants another one. Whose authority does he seek out? That's right, his "naturally submissive" wife gets to judge on this situation. "No," she says, "your car works fine. We could afford a new car in a year or two, but right now we've got an anniversary party to plan, Toby needs braces, and we've just bought the tickets to fly out to your sister's wedding. At this time, the finances are a bit tighter than I'd like." He bows to her authority, knowing full well that she understands the exact nuts and bolts of the financial status of the household. He brings in the money, but she decides where it goes once it's in the family account.

While each of them may very well think that they're fulfilling "natural" roles of "dominance" and "submission," they would be equally correct to think that they share equal authority. The only difference is how one views their duties. The world may see, "He works, she stays home." Or they may see, "He works for the household benefit, and she works for the household benefit." And I humbly submit (pun fully intended) that if she was in the office and he was in the home, their relative status would not change in the slightest. The ONLY real oppression or inequality would be if either of the partners wasn't happy with the arrangement. The PERCEIVED inequality lies in the observer's eyes: Why do you think household work is valued less than work done for money? Is it because of the money?

Divash, that's a fabulous explanation. Why don't you post something like that on that other thread?

In our home, I am most definitely submissive to my partner, Khunn. He has the final say in all things. BUT - quite frequently, he'll look to my experience and knowledge and ask me "Ok, so what should we do about this?" When we spent $1500 to repair the car, it was a week-long discussion between both of us until we both agreed that it was absolutely necessary.

My ex was very clear, by the way, when it came to the value of people. As far as he is concerned, people are valuable directly relative to the amount of money that they earn. Therefore, full time home keepers are absolutely worthless. He married someone who wanted to be a wife, mother and full time home keeper, and then he despised me for being exactly that.

(And the less I talk about him the better).

Actually I already know it. I grew up with feminism, so the difficulty lies in realizing that tradition should not be thrown out wholesale. That is what I was arguing for, and why it exists, and why it is unfair that anyone be derided on Gaia or anywhere for wanting to choose a traditional path.

Ah. I think I see the difference. Thanks for adding to my understanding.

Yes, I've read the Christian Testament. Thoroughly. More than once. I think it's not only a duty, but an act of self-defense, for a member of any ideological minority to understand the mindset of the majority/mainstream population. Since I'm Jewish and live in a country in which about 3/4 of the population profess to be Christian or some subset thereof, it's up to me to know what 3/4 of my country thinks and believes. That way, I understand why certain laws are enacted (like the liquor laws in some areas, stating that you can't buy liquor on Sundays; or like the fact that the postal service won't deliver on Sundays). I feel it's important, and encumbent on me as a member of a minority, to understand why the majority think, speak, feel, act, and legislate as they do. Otherwise, I'll always be mystified by my own country's culture and by just about everyone around me.

Of course, there are holes in my Christian education. I choose to use most of my religious learning time to become more educated in my own religion instead of others. But learning about the majority's religious beliefs is simply a good way to understand the people around me, and be able to hold a meaningful conversation in which I understand the nuances of what's being said to me.

Like Divash said, just because a woman chooses to be a homemaker doesn't mean that she is completely submissive to her husband.

In my house, my parents are a team. They make the major decisions together, and handle the finances together, and make parenting decisions together. My father goes to work at a 9-5 type of job, brings home the main money, and my mother stays at home most of the time and manages the children and the house. However, now that she has all of her kids in school, she's returned to being a substitute teacher, and teaches about once or twice a week.

If it were an outsider's view of a "naturally submissive" woman and a "naturally dominant" man type of relationship, she would stay home all the time, cooking and cleaning. But because they both value and respect the opinion of their spouse, they're more effective building strong relationships with each other and their kids.

However, something I would like to point out is that if there is ever a discrepancy in the way they think something should be done or something like that, my mother will go with my father's decision. They're in charge, but he's the head of the family, and she respects that authority because he does not abuse it.

I guess my point is that the type of relationship here is not about being submissive or dominant, it is about being respectful like you said in your thread title, Poppy, and achieving a balance of power and authority that works for the both of you. The two people have to realize that one is not less important than the other just because of how they choose to run their family.