Ok, ok, so if I go along with the "only one CEO" analogy when talking about marriage...?

Question

Why does the man automaticly have to be the CEO?

This is in response to my last question, in which more than one person said something similar to "Can there be two CEOs of a company or two Presidents of a country? No, one will be in charge and one will be second in command," implying that this is also the way it should be in a marriage. Now I don't agree with this (I know of plenty of companies run by partners), but for the sake of arguement, if we were going to assume this was true, why is the man automaticly the one in charge? Why can't the woman take the head?

Please explain.

Of course not, NH Baritone, I'm an Agnostic. I'm just curious how this is justified.

Answer 1

There is absolutely no reason that she could not take the lead. When my wife and I were discussing marriage, she decided to put "obey" in her vows (I was indifferent on the subject) because she trusted my judgment. I thought that was nice.

Answer 2

Very good question Girl Wonder!!

I hope the other person that posted the CEO analogy will answer.

But in my marriage the reason my husband is the CEO is that I feel more comfortable allowing my husband to be in control. Note that when I say he's in control I am not the "whatever you say" type of person. To me, my marriage is more important than being right or in control.

What I mean by that last comment is, let's say that you insist on equality, both of you have equal rights. You don't like his viewpoint, so the two of you start to argue more. Now the argument has escalated. It's not about the original subject, but now it's a matter of control. This is where relationships start to break down, when we both insist on being right and neither side will back down. In most cases, both people insisting on being right can create serious issues that often result in the relationship being damaged, or worse yet...the two feel they can no longer work together.

Would I rather lose one battle because I have to be right, or would I rather give in and maintain an otherwise loving relationship.

But Girl Wonder, I want to give you some food for thought on this issue. If a marriage is truly based on Biblical principles, the man is required to love the wife "as Christ loved the church" What that means is that the man needs to put his wife's needs above his own. So, any husband who is following Biblical principles will listen to his wife when she is right.

I hope this makes sense because at 1:36 in the morning, I'm just too tired. Have a good night! If you want to chat further, please click on my avatar and e-mail me.

Answer 3

I know cases where woman have taken charge, they have played the dominant role and kept their boys under strict control. There are cases where women have put the trousers and done the earning while they kept their men at home to cook and clean. These marriages have worked perfectly. But two people, a boy and a girl, cannot head simultaneously. Both think differently and are more enemies of each other than friend.They both tend to pull in the opposite direction.
Men are automatically in charge because it is as per the marriage vows, where he promises to look after, love, provide for his wife.
As per what I see, if man is dominant the marriage has 60% chance of being successful. If woman is dominant the marriage has 90% chance of being successful. I think the marriage vows should change. Whether the man or woman is dominant should be determined by their aggressive and leadership qualities, not just the sex.

Answer 4

I want a partner, not a political position. And I won't touch the "woman take the head" remark.

But assuming there is some natural law requiring one leader, perhaps many religions recognized the (general) ability of women to act laterally, and the need of (many) men for hierarchy. This becomes an acknowledgement of a womans ability to act from the wing, and the ego problems often created by testosterone. But I think it was probably just a way to compensate for (protect women from) the inflexibility of men living in a highly militant society. Either way, it's outdated.

Answer 5

I know a lot of Christians are going to give me a thumbs down for this. Don't care.

The verse is from Ephesians. And it's an analogy Paul tells a congregation. It is a misreading to believe it means women are to be subservient. In fact, many quote the verse incompletely. Paul tells husband and wife to serve EACH OTHER. Interesting how so many leave off the second part.

Answer 6

Because women are evil, cursed beings that are second to man in all manner of speaking.

They were formed from man, they caused the fall from grace, they were cursed by God twice (which is pretty bad since the serpant and adam only recieved one cursing a piece).

So shut up, get naked, cook my dinner and make me some babies!!!

(please note the extreme sarcasim in everything I said, for those that are a little slow and take everything literally)

Answer 7

Suppose you're talking about Ephesians 5.

It is just telling us what roles we are to play. Man is the spiritual preist of the home. Yes it says the man is the head. But read 1st corinthians...it tells us all the parts of the body are equally important in chapter 12.

Ephesians 5:29-33 in the Message version says:
No one abuses his own body, does he? No, he feeds and pampers it. That's how Christ treats us, the church, since we are part of his body. And this is why a man leaves father and mother and cherishes his wife. No longer two, they become "one flesh." This is a huge mystery, and I don't pretend to understand it all. What is clearest to me is the way Christ treats the church. And this provides a good picture of how each husband is to treat his wife, loving himself in loving her, and how each wife is to honor her husband.

Two becoming one sounds equal.

And Galatians 3:28
In Christ's family there can be no division into Jew and non-Jew, slave and free, male and female. Among us you are all equal.

The CEO thing is not in the Bible.

Perhaps if more lived by the Bible instead of out of the Enquirer, we wouldnt have 51% divorce rate. Yes, alot of Christians dont live out of the Bible either, I know. But the oners I know who allow men to be spiritaul heads and submit to that, pray together, do all the things the Bible suggests....their marriages are BLISS.

Blessings, thanks for hearing my 2 cents!
David T

Answer 8

Relationships are not employment contracts. They are fluid, living, breathing entities. Relationships should not be based on a chain of command, because loving relationships are not controlling or segmented like the corporate structure of a business or government.

Intimacy in a loving relationship requires TRUST.

The success of business is reliant on ECONOMIC RATIONALITY.

Relationships are not commercial commodities. They are the physical and spiritual manifestation of love.
Businesses are never based on love.

The "CEO" principle is stupid.

Answer 9

England and egypt were both powerful nations ruled by a king and a queen, and ther can be two ceo's and two presidents for companies--why back down?

Answer 10

The woman is always in the lead. She just lets the man pretend he's in charge.