Jody, I don't think that all women who espouse male headship are fair weather complementarians, just most of those who speak loudest on its behalf. At the last London Women's Convention, there was a seminar on 'Submission in Marriage' or somesuch during which questions were asked about how a submitting wife should deal with 'difficult' behaviours in a husband, such as violence. The response was that 'God doesn't want you to submit in those circumstances'. I tend to think that "those circumstances" would extend to cover any and all eventualities that might result in the nice, reasonably affluent, comfortable lives these women lead coming to an end. Those who attend and speak at the London Women's Conventions are overwhelmingly white and middle class - it's a very narrow sub-strata.

You're right, of course, that many women who stay in violent marriages have internalised messages that they have no worth and only deserve abuse; I'd suggest the two women you knew fell into this category - the male headship business was probably accidental. I'd also agree that whenever I've seen male headship in operation, it has seemed questionable - usually women deferring to whatever their husbands want because long experience has taught them that failure to do so results in 'punishment' - sulking, shunning, bullying and so on. Also, I've had disturbing experiences when I've disagreed with men who are male headship wallahs over particular issues - their inability to deal with being questioned or challenged by a woman and the speed with which they morph from affable chaps into nasty pieces of work made me wonder what they're like behind closed doors.

Foxy John, sorry, can't help you; no idea what a fair weather egalitarian would look like. A contradiction in terms, perhaps?

Hi

Fern, actually I think I disagree about the 'fairweather' nature of MH women.  I know of at least two women who subscribed to MH whose husbands used them like dogs.  I think that the root of this goes so deep that it bypasses what we might hope that God has for us.  It is what keeps women in abusive marriages beyond all odds and ultimately I think that women are conditioned to think that this is really what they 'deserve'.

I know that those who subscribe to MH will say that this is an abuse of MH, but the only time that I have seen headship asserted within a marriage it has been done in a way that is questionable.  Most MHers will say that they don't need to 'have the final say', because the husband and wife work together - so it is like a contract which doesn't need to be acted out, as it were.  The question is that if this is the case then what kind of a contract is that?  One that isn't enacted and, when it is, is felt as abusive?  That should send out warning bells to anyone.

John F, I am intrigued as to the purpose of this forum for you.  I don't think I am easily offended, but you do say some quite deeply offensive things which I am offended by, not in the sense that I take umbridge, but in the sense that you have committed an offence and so, I am offended against.  Most here seem to want dialogue, but you seem to do your utmost to shut down real conversation,  what's the deal?  Also, real names are a really good protection which ensure that I don't post without the full knowledge that anyone who wants to will know exactly who I am.  It ensures that I stay within some kind of boundary.  A boundary that I think you might be missing...

Jody

Now John Foxe, you mustn't pay any attention to Jody. Truth is all us ladies are pea-green envious of Mrs Foxe who so luckily snared such a non-wimpy, non-effeminate, non-new man like yourself. There is a Mrs Foxe, isn't there?

You are correct that, in the doctrine of male headship, no account is paid to the husband's personal qualities. My point (and I suspect Karen's) is that those articulate, educated women who turn up at gatherings like the London Women's Conventions to sing of the joys of female submission are fair weather complementarians who would cease to propagandize on its behalf pdq if they were not married to nice, affable men. I think you'd find they would cease to be convinced of the 'truth' of male headship faster than that twinkling of an eye in which we'll put on incorruption.

wimpy, effeminate, new men,

Not sure if I fit the bill well enuff Jody! But I'll try! (howi wish we had smilies here! : -) HopeI'm effeminate enough -probaly would be okay for JohnF --but may not be wimpy in spases.

Basically, in general terms,  it is superfical, shallow and based on untenable gender and gender role sterotyping, which overlooks the speificity and variablity of culture(s).

More specifically, in  particular it objectifies women and is demeaning.   As if a woman's sensibility, spiritually or rationality depended on her husband.

The days have long since passed when a church leader would advise women to keep quiet and inquire of your husband at home !.....Tell me I'm right !

That do for now ?

 Any more offers ?

'It might be easy to be a female egalitarian if married to wimpy, effeminate, new men, but neither would that make it true.'

I find this offensive on so many levels and, actually, I can't be bothered to articulate it at the moment, maybe one of the wimpy, effeminate, new men on this forum would care to do that for me?

John I know you can't be told anything, -- and are only interested in what is hammered on your own anvil.

You are a past master of condescension.   

Dear 974,

not really. Karen's message isn't infintely plastic and the range of things she is telling us is rooted in what she wrote. She wasn't telling us how to make a victoria sponge, for instance. Further, you can look at Karen's messages and come to a reasonable conclusion as to which interpretation is correct. And, of course, Karen can give us a canonical answer!

J.F.

JF's 'communication' to Fern exempliefies how we all red and hear things differently, through the lens of our own experience and personality. This includes the Bible 'John'.  Lovely own goal !   In fact, you reveal a lot more than you meant to.

It's the instability of the signifier.

Dear Fern,

well, you read Karen differently from me. Particularly in the light of her comparing female complementarians with Platonic troglodytes, I still think I read her correctly. However, if all she meant was what you refer to as 'lifestyle' I'm sure she can tell us.

The truth of 'male headship' is not, though, determined by how nice your husband is. Nor does complementarianism excuse, encourage or pander to the sinful behaviours you list in your post. It might be easier to be a complementarian if you are married to a 'nice' husband, but it doesn't make it truer. It might be easy to be a female egalitarian if married to wimpy, effeminate, new men, but neither would that make it true.

J.F.