yes.
2006-11-22 05:30:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by Alternative Chick 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Equal, yes. Identical, no.
Men have physical advantages in some ways - larger muscles and greater stature, on the average. Women generally have greater small-motor skills and better color perception. None of this changes the basic equality, but it may make certain divisions of labor sensible. And of course some women may be taller and better muscled than some men, etc - plenty of variation in both sexes, so people should always be judged by what they can do, not by whether they are male or female.
Whatever relationship an adult couple works out that is satisfactory to both parties is fine and is nobody else's business. But, think about it - a 50/50 relationship is the kind most likely to please both. Nobody wants to be dominated or to be the one who is always giving and never getting.
2006-11-22 05:41:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by Maple 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes, certainly. That does not mean that they have to be the same. As we are in the R&S section may I do a little"preaching"? When the Bible talks about wives submitting to their husbands and husbands loving their lives in a sacrificial way, it is right after talking about submitting to one another. Both have to submit. If a man must love his wife and give his life for her (I'm not talking about lying, I'm talking about living for her) then he needs to understand the principle of submission.
To use such texts to justify inequality ina married relationship is prostituting a text to suit one's own selfish egocentricity. The man is saying "it's all about me!" I cannot understand, either, how it is that in our present society, with all the semmingly forward movements made in women's rights (and I agree, some have been made), it is still possible to hire a woman for the same job as a man and not pay her the same salary. It's an aberration that just doesn't make sense. It should simply be impossible. While it should not be even necessary for women to have to fight for this, I ask: where are all the woman parliamentarians and cabinet ministers? (Canadian - if in USA, "Secretaries", I guess). Why are they not saying: "I'm not cooperating on anything else until this is fixed! NOW!) On many issues I would be considered a real dinosaur, but I here is one area that I believe our western nations need to learn a whole lot of "progressiveness".
Edit:
I agree with the 100% - 100% remark. I've always insisted on us. I was thinking more about the question on equality. Also, whenever two people walk together, one of the two maturally sets the pace. There will be leadership. Sometimes the man leads in one area, and the woman leads in another. My wife leads totally in the financial area. which sometimes gives her an unequal "power" in our relationship - although I do have a veto, and could always insist on having my way (generally we operate by unanimity in any financial decision - if we can talk of unanimityhy among 2 people). But if I were to lead in financial area, we would have gone through bankruptcy a few times by now! lol. As we do ministry together, I usually lead in the area of ministry - although I often change tracks because of her advice.
2006-11-22 05:40:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mr Ed 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe a woman has a right to be given equal pay and respect for the same job done well. I believe there should be a nice division of responsibilities in the home...no one should have to carry all the load of work outside or inside the home.
Having said that, if a woman and her husband agree that she wants to stay home and raise the children and take care of the household, then that is how they should do it. I think many times people get caught in in the whole I can do it too thing and forget that just because you can do something that doesn't necessarily mean you should. There should be a balance. Woman should be womanly and man should be manly and that is how they compliment each other.
2006-11-22 05:37:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Equal in what way? How can two things that are entirely different be considered equal? Are a cat & dog equal? They both are animals, they both have four legs & a tail, so they should both be treated the same? No, you're cat isn't going to appriciate being taken for a walk on a leash & your dog wouldn't look to kindly at being told he had to start catching mice & eating fish.
Men & women are uniquely different. That DOESN'T mean however that they both don't have rights. But, the fact that their rights differ doesn't make one inferior to the other. Just different.
2006-11-22 05:51:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by cici1978 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your question raises a question. I'm curious as to why you used the term 'should be'. However, since we all are created in God's image and likeness, we are all equal. Relationships rarely reflect that equality but to work at all, I think an understanding that sometimes 'more' or 'less' is required of each, according to need. Inequality begins with ego and it's need to be better or right.
2006-11-22 05:47:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by openarche 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Impossible. That would require them to both function at 100% 24/7. No one can do that. One of them will always at some point or another have to bear the load. And if it is real love that person will gladly do it. There will be times when things are even, but you do what is needed of you for the relationship
2006-11-22 05:37:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by crystalonyx3 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes and no. Men and woman are 100% equal; however i hate the 50/50 ratio. it should be 100/100. See in a good relationship you should not give yourself only 50%, but instead 100%. And your partner should do so also.
2006-11-22 05:35:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, it should not be 50/50. It should be 100/100. Both should be trying to take care of things 100% of the time out of love for the other. When you start keeping track of who is doing what you miss the focus.
2006-11-22 05:33:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by handsomeworshipper 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
it depends what equal means, we are certainly equal before God but not with each other in the sense of strength and other attributes, and then as individuals we are all unique and so the equality again is hard to define.
if you mean should there be equal rights for both then yes of course, but equality can be made to fit so many descriptions, and the poor man is not equal to the rich woman, nor is the woman working on the shop floor equal to the managing director.
2006-11-22 05:38:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by Sentinel 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why on this good green Earth should I settle for being equal?
Seriously, though; we are different. We have different capabilities, but that should not be reason to declare that one is superior to the other.
And I'm certainly not going to take the word of long-dead men on the issue.
As for personal relationships, I think that ought to be worked out between the parties involved.
2006-11-22 05:33:30
·
answer #11
·
answered by Praise Singer 6
·
1⤊
0⤋