Zone1 We Know Men’s duties and obligations to women, but what are women’s duties and obligations to men?

[Paradoxical#1]

HAha - speaking of Paradoxical
The outcome of that has not been so great now has it? Almost every measure you can think of for having a happy life is worse now. Inarguable. And a good part of what that is - is post modern feminism.
Women's liberation and suffrage were two noble causes that were damn right, and ended gross unfair situations for women.
Post modern feminism - has been a total destructible force in every society that has embraced it. No exceptions.

The "happy life" was for the males because they could use scripture to subjugate women. For the women it wasn't so fun to kiss the males' ass, do housework all day, take care of the kids, have lots of babies, not work and make money so she could leave when the guy mistreated her.

 

[Hafar1014]

That is not a direct quote from Genesis, which says Genesis 2:18 (NIV): "The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’"

As I believe the rules of the site call for this to be said, the following is just a partial list from YOUR bible that prove women were considered inferior to men and the property of men and I have not included all of them in the interest of brevity:

In Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21 (The Tenth Commandment):

• Text (Exodus 20:17, NIV): "You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
• Implication: The wife is listed alongside property (house, servants, animals), suggesting she is part of the household under the man’s ownership. The Hebrew word ‘ishshah (wife) is grouped with possessions, reflecting a patriarchal structure where a wife was under her husband’s authority.
• Context: In ancient Israel, marriage often involved a bride price (e.g., Exodus 22:16-17), reinforcing the idea that women were transferred from a father’s to a husband’s authority, resembling a property transaction.

Leviticus 27:1-7 (Vow Valuations):

• Text (Leviticus 27:3-7, NIV): "Set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver... for a female, set her value at thirty shekels... For a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels and of a female at ten shekels..."
• Implication: This passage assigns monetary values to people dedicated to the Lord via vows, with women consistently valued at a lower rate than men (e.g., 60% of a man’s value for ages 20-60). This reflects a societal structure where women’s economic or social worth was deemed lower.
• Context: These valuations likely relate to labor or economic contributions in a temple context, but they codify a gender-based hierarchy in worth.

What people do is to cherry-pick the passages of the bible they like and even at that offer strained interpretations of those passages by claiming different Hebrew interpretations. They could get away with this utter nonsense before the age of the internet and specifically AI, where a regular old commoner like me can instantaneously prove the bibliolator or bible expert wrong using scripture that the believer conveniently ignores. That the bible DOES subjugate females and many don't realize it or claim that it doesn't was ignored in the past because it would take someone days to scour the bible on his own and so that person shut up and accepted what the bibliolator said. No more. This is why religion is waning and will eventually go the way of the dodo bord.

The Hebrew word used is kengado
The argument goes like this. The word עֵזֶר (ezer) in Genesis 2:18, which is usually translated “helper”, has wrongly been understood to connote the idea of subordination or inferiority. However, when you look at the word עֵזֶר (ezer) in the Hebrew Bible it is never used of a subordinate – only of a superior or an equal. In fact, apart from a few occurrences, the word is always used of God in his role as saviour, rescuer, or protecor (e.g. Ex. 18:14; Deut. 33:7). So rather than communicating the idea of subordination or inferiority, עֵזֶר (ezer) actually connotes the idea of saving or protecting. The conclusion, then, is that in Genesis 2:18, Eve functions somehow as Adam’s saviour, rescuer, or protector – with any implications that this might suggest about the male-female relationship and gender roles.
Orthodox Rabbis who study the Torah define this as not above or below him.

 

[ding]

The "happy life" was for the males because they could use scripture to subjugate women. For the women it wasn't so fun to kiss the males' ass, do housework all day, take care of the kids, have lots of babies, not work and make money so she could leave when the guy mistreated her.

Your objectivity is astounding.

 

[Zincwarrior]

In todays world of low wages and high cost of living, one can work full time, save like crazy living at home for awhile, and have a nice nest egg saved up before leaving the nest. I see nothing wrong with that. And. They can work our too.

What I did. It worked out as my parents started to fail. By the time all that was done I had paid off student debt, and had enough to buy a good house with the wife.

 

[ding]

The Hebrew word used is kengado
The argument goes like this. The word עֵזֶר (ezer) in Genesis 2:18, which is usually translated “helper”, has wrongly been understood to connote the idea of subordination or inferiority. However, when you look at the word עֵזֶר (ezer) in the Hebrew Bible it is never used of a subordinate – only of a superior or an equal. In fact, apart from a few occurrences, the word is always used of God in his role as saviour, rescuer, or protecor (e.g. Ex. 18:14; Deut. 33:7). So rather than communicating the idea of subordination or inferiority, עֵזֶר (ezer) actually connotes the idea of saving or protecting. The conclusion, then, is that in Genesis 2:18, Eve functions somehow as Adam’s saviour, rescuer, or protector – with any implications that this might suggest about the male-female relationship and gender roles.
Orthodox Rabbis who study the Torah define this as not above or below him.

You articulated that nicely.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

The Hebrew word used is kengado
The argument goes like this. The word עֵזֶר (ezer) in Genesis 2:18, which is usually translated “helper”, has wrongly been understood to connote the idea of subordination or inferiority. However, when you look at the word עֵזֶר (ezer) in the Hebrew Bible it is never used of a subordinate – only of a superior or an equal. In fact, apart from a few occurrences, the word is always used of God in his role as saviour, rescuer, or protecor (e.g. Ex. 18:14; Deut. 33:7). So rather than communicating the idea of subordination or inferiority, עֵזֶר (ezer) actually connotes the idea of saving or protecting. The conclusion, then, is that in Genesis 2:18, Eve functions somehow as Adam’s saviour, rescuer, or protector – with any implications that this might suggest about the male-female relationship and gender roles.
Orthodox Rabbis who study the Torah define this as not above or below him.

You just proved my post where people go to different translations from Hebrew, and then IGNORE all the other passages that say women are less than men. I included only two verses. There are many others.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Your objectivity is astounding.

Sorry, you don't like me quoting ALL verses instead of just the ones you like and can reinterpret,

 

[Hafar1014]

You just proved my post where people go to different translations from Hebrew, and then IGNORE all the other passages that say women are less than men. I included only two verses. There are many others.

What I find interesting is as a any religion becomes more orthodox it becomes more oppressive towards women and ignores its own dogma except for Islam which just puts it out there.

 

[ding]

Sorry, you don't like me quoting ALL verses instead of just the ones you like and can reinterpret,

Pointing out your lack of objectivity due to your bias has nothing to do with any verse and everything to do with the bias in which you read those verses.

 

[DStar777]

1. We want to do them for the good of society and to love those we seek

First mistake.. What society wants doesn't matter.. where is the "We are in the world, not OF IT" philosophy that runs through Christianity? "Set your mind on the things above (in heaven), not the things that are on the earth" (Col 3:2)
Loving those we seek isn't about society's expectation. Society didn't command us to love our spouse. God did.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The "happy life" was for the males because they could use scripture to subjugate women. For the women it wasn't so fun to kiss the males' ass, do housework all day, take care of the kids, have lots of babies, not work and make money so she could leave when the guy mistreated her.

Haha - the obviousness of how little you know is transparent

 

[DStar777]

I would say the obligations of men and women are captured in their wedding vows.

A point that is lost in the debate. Feminists complain about nothing. In the current culture, no one is obligated to get married. Even the Bible doesn't command anyone to marry. If you CHOOSE to get married.. THEN you obligate yourself to your spouse.

 

[ding]

A point that is lost in the debate. Feminists complain about nothing. In the current culture, no one is obligated to get married. Even the Bible doesn't command anyone to marry. If you CHOOSE to get married.. THEN you obligate yourself to your spouse.

Sure, but that doesn’t mean we have no obligations to others. Standards of conduct exist for logical reasons. When we deviate and normalize our deviation from these obligations, the reason these standards/obligations existed in the first place will eventually be discovered. Usually through predictable surprises.

 

[DStar777]

Sure, but that doesn’t mean we have no obligations to others.

Mostly in the form of a negative.. the obligation not to violate the rights of others or to harm them. What else did you have in mind?

 

[ding]

Mostly in the form of a negative.. the obligation not to violate the rights of others or to harm them. What else did you have in mind?

I wouldn’t necessarily call that the negative. I get that you are saying it means what not to do. I’ve thought that whenever practicable, we should explain or see things in the affirmative. For example, most people would say atheism is not believing in God. That’s stating what atheism isn’t. Stating atheism in the affirmative would be atheists do not believe in anything beyond a material existence. That whatever spirituality exists only exists because it proceeds from the material. So getting back to your question, what I have in mind is virtue. Our obligation is to be virtuous.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

What I find interesting is as a any religion becomes more orthodox it becomes more oppressive towards women and ignores its own dogma except for Islam which just puts it out there.

Christianity used to torture and kill people for disagreeing with their bible interpretations. Those memes (being killed) stay ingrained in humans who are still afraid that Christians will get royally pissed at people like me who quote scripture to them. If you did that in the Middle Ages, they would kill you.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Pointing out your lack of objectivity due to your bias has nothing to do with any verse and everything to do with the bias in which you read those verses.

Quoting the bible is being biased?

 

[ding]

Quoting the bible is being biased?

Your interpretations of it are.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Haha - the obviousness of how little you know is transparent

Says one who wasn't taught by nuns, studied the bible, was an altar boy, went to church regularly

 

[ding]

Says one who wasn't taught by nuns, studied the bible, was an altar boy, went to church regularly

That doesn’t mean anything. Your beliefs and interpretations are at odds with the Catechism. You are not a credible witness or spokesperson. That would be like having a Sox fan singing praises for the Yankees.