Anglican Archbishop of Sydney wants women to "submit" to their husbands in marriage vows

[Thumbwitch]

As described in this article.

He wants men to take more responsibility, to be the "man" of the family and achieve Christ-like status as befits a man - and for his wife to then submit to this set up.

Like hell! How to set feminism back by several decades. If not centuries.

I believe here you still can use the old form of words where the bride promises to obey her husband.
I have a DF who did say obey because she believed that someone should have the last word.

Why in earth it should be her DH when they are both highly educated articulate and jolly nice people I don't know.

When the vicar got to that bit in our pre wedding chat he just looked at me and smiled.

He knew I wanted to keep my wedding vows. He also knew I'm a committed athiest, I don't do anyone's bidding, not God's and certainly not DH's.

Not that that stops DH believing he's always right

WTAF

And the church wonders why numbers continue to fall...

All this 'surrendered wife' discourse makes me want to gag.

Oh lordy, he sounds just like one of these blogs about how fantastic it is to be a submissive wife. It all always sounds like some kind of kinky sexual fantasy to me. But perhaps I am being unreasonable and narrow-minded to reduce everything to sex.

You still get a lot of this attitude in certain circles of the church here. I hate the attitude that oh it's so much harder for the man because he has to exercise so much self discipline, poor thing.

This story was in the Daily Torygraph the other day. I didn't post about it because I thought it might be an Australian equivalent of an April Fools' Day piece (what with the seasons being opposite and all).

My feeling is that if a man and a woman are so insecure that they are incapable of forming a partnership without one (the man, naturally) being top dog I feel sorry for them.

Real women don't need to submit - they have more self respect - and real men don't need to be submitted to - they have enough self respect without having to be boss.

I have utter contempt for women who accept this and utter contempt for men who demand it.

at Aussie April Fool's Day - no, we still have that on 1st April, same as you. :)

I am awaiting a story of a woman punching him on the nose, saying 'my husband told me to do it!'.

'I have utter contempt for women who accept this and utter contempt for men who demand it'

Harsh but I feel the same way. I know someone whose mother is like this - she is a very devout Christian and believes that men are by nature the decision makers of the family and women must submit to them. She was gutted, properly gutted, when her daughter got married and didnt' change her name She has been married a long time and recently found out that her husband (this man with 'perfect' judgement just by virtue of being a man )has a long-standing online hardcore porn habit and may well have been unfaithful. Nice. I feel sorry for her but frustrated by the daftness too.

WTAF? Dear goodness, that is vile and so damaging. I can only hope that no vulnerable young women are being take in by this crap, sadly I imagine there will be some.

Lotta: She has been married a long time and recently found out that her husband (this man with 'perfect' judgement just by virtue of being a man )has a long-standing online hardcore porn habit and may well have been unfaithful. Nice. I feel sorry for her but frustrated by the daftness too.

Ah, the perfect symmetry of karma

To be fair, Peter Jensen is a complete mentalist on most issues.

'Referring to ''partners'' rather than husband or wife gives no special challenge to the man to demonstrate the masculine qualities which he brings to a marriage.'

How ludicrous! And not representative of wider Anglican thinking at all in my experience. I have been to quite a few Anglican weddings and never once heard the bride promise to obey.

''Referring to ''partners'' rather than husband or wife gives no special challenge to the man to demonstrate the masculine qualities which he brings to a marriage'

Masculine qualities??? I would love to hear more - oh no wait, maybe I wouldn't

When XH and I were having our pre-wedding chat, a couple of centuries ago, the vicar asked whether we wanted to use "obey". XH said "yes" and I said "no" simultaneously (vicar tried not to laugh). So why do you not want to use it, he asked me. I replied that I thought a proper life partnership was built on mutual respect and negotiation, not one giving orders to the other, and I was not about to make any promises I did not intend to keep. So why do you want to use it, he asked XH. Well, er, it's traditional, innit, said the arse. We did not use it.

Of course many years later when we were divorcing XH tried to tell me I had promised to obey him. Very selective memory, that man.

I think masculine qualities refers to taking the bins out, Lotta.

It's not uncommon for women to use 'obey' in evangelical Christian circles. The usually quoted Biblical reference is a two part instruction. Wives should obey their husbands and husbands should love their wives and give themselves up for them as Christ did for the church. The implication is that this is a two way process of sacrifice. HOWEVER I think the modern understanding of using 'obey' does not imply the sacrifice inherent in the Biblical intent and that's whats wrong with this Archbishop's statement. An overwhelming patriarchal society does not give itself up for women. 'Submission' is used to create inferiors not equal partners. I didn't say 'obey', I don't expect my daughters too and I seethed all through one wedding sermon which was based on this passage and stressed the 'obey' and forgot about the 'give yourself up' bit!
I would like to see different wording altogether which recognises marriage as a unit of two equal partners, founded in love and respect to live, raise children if that is their hope and be part of a community living in line with what Jesus taught. To love one another, to love your neighbours, forgive your enemies and to give glory to God.

The thought popped into my head a while ago (as random thoughts often do) that that is quite probably why some people have a big problem with single-sex unions. Because it undermines the two-part hierarchy if one of the partners doesn't have a "natural" position at the top; if both or neither possesses the Dangly Mighty Mace of Office. The man is the natural master, but they're both men, or neither of them are. It's all... equal n shit! Does not compute.

What, he wants men to "achieve Christ-like status" by staying celibate, is that it?

What I always listen for in a wedding service is "With my bdy I thee worship". Hardly anyone ever says it.

Body. Everybdy should proofread before posting.

Completely agree with Anniegetyourgun. A disturbing number of people do still have these rigid views about what being a 'wife' means and being a 'husband' means, and it's all rooted in restrictive and archaic ideas about gender. It's part of the reason I want nothing to do with marriage - the whole things seems like it belong to another era and most of society has moved on.

But it doesn't have to be like that, Lotta - although I can understand your point.

I attended a Roman Catholic wedding last year where one of the readings was the bit from Genesis about the woman being created out of Adam's spare rib...at the same ceremony the priest delightedly announced to the groom that he would henceforth be in charge of his bride...I have rarely felt so uncomfortable in my life.

I know what you mean Thumbwitch. I have lots of other problems with it too!

Lotta I am rabidly pro gay marriage for exactly the same reasons as those you state in your 12.23 post ... 'traditional marriage' is dead and gone, a dominant husband and submissive wife has (thank feminism) gone the way of the dodo. But a widespread acceptance and uptake of same-sex marriage will start to wipe away the expectation that marriage should 'look' or 'feel' like a Traditional Patriarchal Ownership Ritual. I get some good-ally points for being a frothingly pro-gay-marriage-activist type, but laughingly tell my gay friends that it's all secretly to further my feminist agenda of destroying the traditional marriage and/or family.

I used to be ambivalent about marriage (perhaps I still am) but I don't think we'll ever get rid of it - far, far better to change what it looks like and feels like, so it's a genuine partnership. And I think same-sex marriages do that.

Which is, of course, why they make the bigots' heads explode - win-win!