Genesis 3:16 - As to ALL Women... or One Woman? A Favor, Please...

by AGuest 60 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AGuest

  May you all have peace!

  So, as some of you might know (or discern)... or not... I am not your usual submissive/in subjection kind of girl. Given what some apparently expect of women... as wives, daughters, female friends... and in general... I was curious about the greater fulfillment of Genesis 3:16, because many are of the belief that it applies to ALL women as to ALL men... (including those that aren't their husbands)... and not the just one being addressed at the time (Eve as to Adham).

  Personally, other than Paul's position on women teaching in public (which was borne of what was occurring in the region at the time, due to by-then Jewish culture and Roman occupation)... and Peter's admonishment for wives to submit themselves to their OWN husbands... that I know of nothing that validates a woman being in subjection to anyone other than her own husband, and even then such "subjection" is not puerile or unrestrained (so as to just be a given), but borne of love and respect FOR her husband (in which case it should not be difficult)... who is obligated to honor HER, as well.

  So... I took the matter to my Lord, just in case I was missing something. Partly because the expectation of women... even from other women... is sometimes fascinating to me. Men who are forthright, no-nonsense, to the point, even blunt are well-regarded (indeed, to be so is often considered a strength!), while women are "supposed" to be... well, the word that comes to mind is "nice" (which, IMHO, actually translates to weaker... in mind and emotion), and more "giving" (which, IMHO, actually translates into "taking more" guff, sometimes even with head bowed and eyelids lowered) and things like these.

  Rather than share here what I received on the matter, I want to ask anyone here who would care to respond as to what THEY might think:

  1. Under what circumstances do you believe, if you do so believe, a woman is to be in subjection to, say, a man who is NOT her own husband... and what is the basis for that?

  (Note, I realize that this is the case in many cultures; some, women are even in subjection to their sons, once these are deemed to be "men." Based on what is recorded in the Bible, however, all of the reverent men up and including Christ didn't seem to have this position; some, not even as to themselves as husbands.)

  2. On what, besides custom and tradition, do you, if you do, believe that women are to be in subjection to men (other than perhaps her own husband)?

  3. Do "strong-willed" women who appear to "have a problem with" submission make you nervous and, if so, why?

  4. Do you consider a woman who is NOT submissive to men in general... and/or fails to recognize the customary establishments (or attempts to establish) a "pecking-order" among a group of women (and there is indeed such a custom albeit unspoken among women, but it is ONLY a custom)... "concerning"?

  These are not trick questions nor are they "bait" or attempts to lure anyone into any kind of a discussion they might not want to have. It may turn out that there is some spiritual discussion (because I believe a lot of the beliefs related to these matters come from religious teachings), but not necessarily. I am just truly curious to hear what others might have to say on these matters, so I hope others do comment.

  Again, peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  xelder

  Howdy Shelby,

  Haven"t visited with you since we were at Walnut Creek and met Candice and her mom. Nice to hear from you, hope husband and puppies are well.

  Gender aside, abrasive people annoy me. Now I will admit that as a JW all my life, I had extra annoyance with an abrasive female. I don't think that was fair and I try to correct that. I appreciate people who consult, consider other opinions, etc. Now I must also admit that I have been abrasive much more than I care to admit. (Work in progress)

  I suppose that some roles require a super confident "A" type personality. (A Fighter pilot has to believe in himself, and so his or her strong personality fits a purpose I suppose.)

  My source is just a sense of community fairness (not biblical). It seems a good goal would be to appreciate the natural gifts that TEND to go with each gender. (TEND ... not stereotyping here) I have certainly met many females over the years who I respect and would not want to have to try to win a match of wits (you included). All that said....US GUYS ARE THE BEST :) :) :)
• 

  AGuest

  Greetings, dear xelder, and the greatest of love and peace to you and the dear Mrs (and thank you AGAIN for that kind invite and WONDERFUL time then... as well as your kind response here!). Hubby and pups are doing QUITE well and we've added a family member (Layla) since Tahoe. She is a SWEET, soft ball of fur and I am sure will have as great a time as the other two idjits did next year!

  I have PMd you a... fuller... parlay, but for now:

  It seems a good goal would be to appreciate the natural gifts that TEND to go with each gender. (TEND ... not stereotyping here)

  And THIS is what I think I'm getting at: ARE they natural? Or are they cultural/custom/tradition? Is there not a tendency for people to adopt a... mmmmmm... "mindset"... that the "majority" SAYS they should/must? For example, in the WTBTS: if the majority there SAY women should be "submissive"... even to men that aren't their own husbands... and even women accept this... and put it upon other women... even if it's not a natural tendency... wouldn't most women who either wanted to be accepted BY the majority... or perhaps FEARED the majority (for some other reason)... fall in line and start being "submissive"? NOT because it's natural but because others SAY it is [supposed to be]?

  I have certainly met many females over the years who I respect and would not want to have to try to win a match of wits (you included).

  Smile. Nahh, I'd cut you some slack... just 'cause I like your missus! LOLOLOL!

  All that said....US GUYS ARE THE BEST :) :) :)

  I have to admit, that given the choice, while I would much rather be a woman than a man (the world's "pressures" are/can be different and IMHO, you all have it a bit harder because of the kind of... appearances... and, well... "manning up" that you have to do). However, I much prefer the company of men when discussing matters. Not because women aren't as intelligent (often times they are much more so)... but men seem to take offense less quickly, listening a little more (versus already thinking in their heads what to say next or that they already know what you're going to say), and prefer straight-shooting over "niceties." This is could be because I was raised by a man (in whose company I spent many, many hours discussing all manner of things - primarily auto parts/functions... and life)... and so wasn't taught the usual "social graces" during my formative years that many women tend to discuss... and apparently expect. As with many men, such rarely even cross my mind except as an afterthought.

  Curious to me: on many, many occasions over the years here I've been addressed as "brother," which is always surprising to me. I go back and read what I wrote and think, "Now what, in that, sounded 'male'?" When I explain that I am a "she", those who mistook me explain that they've never heard a woman/"sister" speak "as" I do... and I wonder as to the women they have spoken with (because those I work with are usually pretty forthright, even more so, actually, at least in my industry).

  Anyway, thank you, again. I have PM'd you with my full response, but didn't want to take up space with it, here.

  Again, peace to you and the missus (my apologies - I can't recall her name!)... and your dear household!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  cofty

  The idea of any woman being in subjection to any man - husband or not - is a foolish anachronism.
• 

  Bobcat

  I posted comments concerning what the WT would call "headship" here. The comments were based on what Numbers 30 says about vows.

  I think this covers some of my answer to your first question, at least from a Biblical standpoint.

  There is an interesting take on Genesis 3:16 in the New American Commentary. The writer notes the lexical simlarites to Genesis 4:7

  (Genesis 4:7 NWT) . . .But if you do not turn to doing good, there is sin crouching at the entrance, and for you is its craving; and will you, for your part, get the mastery over it?. . .

  In 4:7, "craving" and "mastery" are the same words as in 3:16, "desire" and "dominate." The author postulates that if the similar phrasing is purposeful, then, in 3:16 it might fortell of an ongoing struggle for headship between the man and woman, with man coming out on top (no pun intended).

  History, for its part, shows that male headship has often been tyrannical. So there is some basis for taking "dominate" in an overbearing way.

  Take Care
• 

  xelder

  Hi again Shelby,

  I think scripture has been used to influence many. But, my theory is that male domineering attitudes may predate scripture. People will tend to dominate the physically weaker and vulnerable. Not only was he almost always stronger than her, but she had to be pregnant and take care of little ones. This made her (and still does) have to submit to the jerk and his power play. Hebrew culture seems to have been full of this.
• 

  AGuest

  The idea of any woman being in subjection to any man - husband or not - is a foolish anachronism.

  I agree, C. Yet, some do expect that and find themselves... mmmmmm... unable to deal with much different. I realize that for the WTBTS it's just another tactic to foment mind control, but I marvel that many, even women, seem to "like" it, even want it. I was curious because the justification used is the prophecy to Eve. But that statement was made to her as to her relationship with HER husband. And even Peter's reiteration was with regard to a wife's OWN husband.

  Yet, I was reading the thread about "weird" stuff at Bethel and there were comments about how some women were told to where skirts (had to), and how the young men sometimes behaved, etc., and I wondered... now that folks are out of the WTBTS, on what do they base this tenet if they still accept/look to it?

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  cofty

  IMO the opposite problem is at least as likely. Ex-JW women may continue to act out the whole subjection role becasue that is how they were taught to behave from childhood.
• 

  AGuest

  I posted comments concerning what the WT would call "headship" here. The comments were based on what Numbers 30 says about vows. I think this covers some of my answer to your first question, at least from a Biblical standpoint.

  Thank you, dear BobCat (peace to you!). I read your other comments and they make sense... for those who adhere to the Old Law (i.e., maybe Jews and certainly the WTBTS, who have resurrected that "head" of the wild beast. The WTBTS doesn't necessarily use the Law Covenant, however, as much as they use the statement to Eve... and I'm trying to understand how any who may have gotten over the WTBTS (or say they have), see that verse addressing anyone other than Eve.

  Someone might say it applies to all women because of the whole birth pangs thing, but not all women experience such (I did with my first, didn't with my second), whether with vaginal birth or C-section. So, does it only apply to those who HAVE birth pangs?

  Your other comments re the WTBTS' views as to "all baptized males as having headship over females," is kind of what I'm talking about, too! Where did they GET that, other than their own false teachings??

  History, for its part, shows that male headship has often been tyrannical. So there is some basis for taking "dominate" in an overbearing way.

  Yes, I understand that... for everyone, perhaps, except those who call themselves "anointed," "FDS," "GB", etc. I think perhaps some of those who might still believe in that tenet should take a moment and stop and think and ask themselves why they still do believe in it.

  Thank you, again, dear BC, and peace to you!

  Your servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  AGuest

  Hi again Shelby, I think scripture has been used to influence many. But, my theory is that male domineering attitudes may predate scripture.

  Hi, again, to you, too, dear xelder (and, again, peace to you!). Yes, I agree with that. I'm trying to understand the "scriptural" basis the WTBTS uses to support it. Of course, there is none... but I'm not sure all understand that.

  People will tend to dominate the physically weaker and vulnerable. Not only was he almost always stronger than her, but she had to be pregnant and take care of little ones. This made her (and still does) have to submit to the jerk and his power play. Hebrew culture seems to have been full of this.

  Yes, and with regard to a natural dominance/submission due to physical differences, I can understand how this could come about. But, again, Eve's craving would be for HER husband and HER husband would dominate HER... and Peter stated wives were to be in subjection to their OWN husbands. So where is all of that melarkey about women just being in subjection to men in general... and particularly in a time when physical differences don't really matter all that much... finding place in the WTBTS... other than in the insecurities of a bunch of men (and perhaps a desire to be pleasing to men, in general, and not just their own husbands by some women)?

  I am just trying to find out if such thinking is not the brainchild of insecurities, etc., versus an actualy prophesy as to the relationship between men and women, as taught by the WTBTS.

  Again, thank you... and peace to you!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA