Man and woman marriage, and the head/leader

[Haruko]

To be a better read atheist, I have bought a book that has all the major "spiritual" writings of one of the most popular, modern Christian apologists, C.S. Lewis. The passage quoted below has to do with the subject specified in this header, and preludes my reason for this thread.

... In Christian marriage the man is said to be the 'head'. Two questions obviously arise here. (1) Why should there be a head at all—why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man?
(1) The need for some head follows from the idea that marriage is permanent. Of course, as long as the husband and wife are agreed, no question of a head need arise; and we may hope that this will be the normal state of affairs in a Christian marriage. But when there is a real disagreement, what is to happen? Talk it over, of course; but I am assuming they have done that and still failed to reach agreement. What do they do next? They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of two there can be no majority. Surely, only one or other of two things can happen: either they must seperate and go their own ways or else one of other of them must have a casting vote. If marriage is permanent, one of other part must, in the last resort, have the power of deciding the family policy. You cannot have a permanent association without a constitution.
(2) If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say 'Poor Mr. X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.' I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own 'headship'. There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule. But there is also another reason; and here I speak quite frankly as a bachelor, because it is a reason you can see from outside even better than from inside. The relations of the family to the outer world—what might be called its foreign policy—must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if you child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbors as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?

— C.S. Lewis, The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics, book 3: "Christian Behavior", ch. 6: "Christian Marriage", pp. 96-97

I have found the above words disagreeable and even repulsive. I am very interested to know what you guys here think of his assertions.

[Darth Wong]

Why does anyone take CS Lewis seriously in the first place? The guy is a complete retard. His argument for God's existence basically boils down to "all human societies agree that murder is bad ... therefore the Christian God is real". The fact that he actually wrote that and thought it made sense tells you all that you need to know about his thought processes.

Non sequitur, thy name is CS Lewis. It should come as no surprise that he thinks the idea of bilateral negotiations is impossible unless someone is allowed to dominate the other partner.

Interestingly enough, that is also how the Bush Administration approaches the idea of negotiation. They honestly don't seem to have any comprehension of how one negotiates without being able to bully or dominate the other party.

[Astarial]

Out of curiosity, when was that book published (or the passage written)?

[Haruko]

Out of curiosity, when was that book published (or the passage written)?

The passage goes further back than the compilation book I mentioned (published in February 6, 2007). It is from "Mere Christianity".

[Astarial]

Out of curiosity, when was that book published (or the passage written)?

The passage goes further back than the compilation book I mentioned (published in February 6, 2007). It is from "Mere Christianity".

Which seems to have been published as a whole in 1952, and in separate books during the 1940s.

So it's a bit outdated.

But yes, it's repulsive.

[Haruko]

So it's a bit outdated.

I wouldn't say too outdated. The very reason I got C.S. Lewis' books, including Mere Christianity, it because I kept reading it mentioned on Christian websites, and I kept getting it recommended to me by Christians.

[Haruko]

Oops, I don't mean to assert that you said it's too outdated, but I mean to imply that even if it's a bit outdated, his books are still very popular, which leads me to believe they aren't outdated enough to be on top of Christian apologetics.

[Astarial]

his books are still very popular

Unfortunately true.

Isn't his reasoning pretty much circular, though? Women and men are raised to believe that women are inferior, thus women don't rule their households, and because they don't, it must be unnatural, which means we must raise them not to do it, etc.

[Frank Hipper]

C.S. Lewis got angry at god during WWI; he couldn't understand how any god would allow things like he witnessed to transpire, so he decided he was an atheist.

Typical, as is the outcome:

Sometime during the 1940s, he was walking and talking with friends, when a gust of wind stirred some leaves at a highly coincidental point in the conversation, and he re-converted back to Christianity instantly...I find nothing admirable about that story except for the level of instruction on irrationality it provides.

[Dark Hellion]

They are clearly outdated, it's just that many Christians do not like to admit that ethics evolve as we grow as a society and as our technologies evolve. For them the 1850's, 1950's and 2050's should have the same ethical systems, and as they fear change will go with those that already exist over the arbitrary system of what should exist.

His examples are foolish and stupid. They speak of his bachelorhood strongly, and they are horribly outmoded, and just plain ignorant. Women dislike powerful women for the same reason that all men hate that bastard Fabio. We don't like our competition, and has nothing to do with the "natural place" of women. His other example is so muddled by his failure with women that rebuttal should be so easy that it needn't be pointed out.

Frankly, C.S. Lewis is more interesting for who is was and why he wrote, not for what he wrote himself. And by interesting I do not mean right, just a matter of interest.

[Redleader34]

Cs Lewis Writings seem almost incoherent. I cannot understand his points at all, Has anyone else had that problem?

[Haruko]

Cs Lewis Writings seem almost incoherent. I cannot understand his points at all, Has anyone else had that problem?

Yes. His response to the second objection had me scratching my head.

[Superman]

Cs Lewis Writings seem almost incoherent. I cannot understand his points at all, Has anyone else had that problem?

Yes. My dad, for example, thinks he's up there with Steinbeck, Tolstoy, Plato... For the life of me, I can't figure out why. He was an incoherent pseudo-intellectual, and one of Christianity's foremost apologists. His books are fluffy evangelical tripe. At least writings by someone like Augustine went pretty deep into Christian theology and appeared to be well thought out (if still bogus). Lewis was more like the traveling evangelist; his writings were dumbed down so that even the average fundie could comprehend them.

[Darth Wong]

For someone who claims to have temporarily been an atheist, CS Lewis' writings are remarkably difficult for an atheist to relate to. Which only underscores the point that he was obviously never an atheist; he was simply a resentful Christian.

"Mere Christianity" should have been titled "Feel Good About Yourselves, Christians!" because that's clearly what it's aimed at. It's nothing more than a collection of flimsy self-justifications, all of which require that you're already a Christian before you start reading the book because they don't make sense otherwise.

[Patrick Degan]

The only way for C.S. Lewis to qualify as an intellectual is by redefining the term as the capacity to spew rank sophistry at length.

[CmdrWilkens]

As a sociologist he certainly was a product of the male dominated British society which was raised belieivng it was their duty to be civilizing overlords to much of the rest of the world. The imperial duty an such nonsense leads to a great deal of the underpinnings of his writings at least in a sociological sense. The reason Christians quote him as a great writer is that his theological perspective. In other words once you accept the premise that God is true and are arguing solely about how to interpret the bible into the modern world. Obviously this isn't too helpful or really useful if you are unwilling to accept the initial argument and his attempts to justify the premise are weak at best. Still if you already accept the basic idea that God exists and that Jesus lived and died for the forgiveness of sin then the rest of his writings are a worthwhile study and if you don't then don't bother reading him because its just not gonna make sense.

[Hillary]

If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if you child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress?

I found this rather amusing on the basis that most people would find it far scarier to deal with Mrs H than me.

The man is an obvious moron - I really wouldn't waste my time on his books.

[Mobiboros]

Cs Lewis Writings seem almost incoherent. I cannot understand his points at all, Has anyone else had that problem?

His points? Hell, all his writing. Prior to narnia being made a movie I thought "Okay, let me read the book and then I'll see the movie and I'll be able to put faces to characters." His writing style pissed me off so much that I still haven't seen the movie. It's basically one long Deus Ex Machina with main characters stumbling around talking like they wish they were in a better written story while waiting for the lion to do something.

[Spoonist]

I have found the above words disagreeable and even repulsive. I am very interested to know what you guys here think of his assertions.

His assertions are based upon circular logic and false dilemmas. Thus they are flawed from the beginning. However when preaching to the choir that is usually very effective, since you only need to rationalize an already accepted idea. Now it is clear from his arguments that his biggest logical mistake is that he will not test the validity of the basic idea, instead he seeks only to give his own opinions to reinforce the idea based on nothing but his own biased faith.
However while I find the ideas themself repulsive I don't find his arguments repulsive since he insert lots of caveats like talk first etc and only gives his own thoughts as explanations. Delusional would be a better word.

Now before I respond to some of his quotes I just have to get this out of my system:
*pun* of course there should be some "head" in a marriage without it foreplay would be boring */pun*
sorry it had to be done.

The need for some head follows from the idea that marriage is permanent.

False. In the context of christian marriages it comes from the bible. Also just because an instituation is permanent, it doesn't follow that it needs to have the same leadership all the time. Instead for an instituation to be as effective as possible it follows that the most qualified person for the task assumes leadership for that task. Also, like anyone who has worked for a major corporation knows, an authorative boss will make more bad decisions because they are less likely to ask for differing opinions and it gets worse as their position of power increases. The same goes for marriage, in cultures where the male is definately in power they make more selfish decisions and work less for the benefit of their family.

They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of two there can be no majority.

A majority of two is two vs nil or one vs nil.

Surely, only one or other of two things can happen: either they must seperate and go their own ways or else one of other of them must have a casting vote.

False dilemma. Negotiations, compromises and common rules are all fundamental social tools.
Also one can continue an unhappy marriage and is so encouraged by christian dogma.

There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule.

Circular logic. Just because there is a social stigma against something doesn't make it unnatural. For example, sex is natural regardless of all the social stigma surrounding it.

A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world.

Circular logic. The one who is spending most time with the children will usually bond more. In modern society where men and women spend more time together and with their children we have the problem where both parents defend their kids/spouses whatever they do, in societies where they are more seperate this bond will be weaker.
The same goes with all pack instincts, it is harder to take a different stance than that of a pack member, instinctively you respond by defending the pack member.

If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if you child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress?

Ignorant example. Depends on the culture, the people and my relation to them, but as a generic rule I'd go to the female since they are smaller and thus less likely to use violence to resolve a conflict.

[Darth Wong]

Cs Lewis Writings seem almost incoherent. I cannot understand his points at all, Has anyone else had that problem?

His points? Hell, all his writing. Prior to narnia being made a movie I thought "Okay, let me read the book and then I'll see the movie and I'll be able to put faces to characters." His writing style pissed me off so much that I still haven't seen the movie. It's basically one long Deus Ex Machina with main characters stumbling around talking like they wish they were in a better written story while waiting for the lion to do something.

The movie is totally retarded as well. I can't fucking believe that at the end of the movie, when all is lost, the lion comes back to life because the evil witch queen didn't read the fine print in the rulebook. The good guys won by a fucking legal technicality in the magic scrolls.

This would be like "Return of the Jedi" ending by Luke discovering that there's a fucking addendum to some ancient Jedi scroll which says that Palpatine can't win.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I think part of the reason why he is popular is that he's seen as a great writer, and people transfer that "classic writer" status to his non-fiction work.
He's seen as one of the literary masters, but this is also a product of the artificial boost he gets from literary critics and curricula. He's a lot like many "great" writers people are forced to read because the people who mould culture tells us we should like him; we are stupid if we don't. So we make ourselves like it through habit and so we don't look uncultured. I think it's self-perpetuating. Many of the writers I am forced to read and told are good I don't like.

Since he's an ok rhetorician, and since he has "culture capital", and since he's arguing in their favour while being high profile, he gains even more popularity by those who already believe what he says. He becomes the hero of the movement. Everyone wants a smooth talking figure head who is popular.

I think of him as the celebrity Pepsi hires to advertise their product based on fame and expertise in something entirely unrelated. He just looks good.


People tend to have a similar literary opinion of Tolkien and Heinlein. I can't stand them either, but everyone says how great and profound they are, and many are forced to read their "greatness."


I think Lewis was a Medieval Literature professor, or something. I don't see how that expertise is relevant to other fields he talked about.

[Bluewolf]

The movie is totally retarded as well.

To be fair, it was a book to film movie. If they would of changed the ending then bucketloads of Narnia fans would whine like hell(or heck since a good deal are Christain. Some are so fanatical about it that they would boycott the next, upcoming movie if they named a nameless character.

[Zwinmar]

Cs Lewis Writings seem almost incoherent. I cannot understand his points at all, Has anyone else had that problem?

His points? Hell, all his writing. Prior to narnia being made a movie I thought "Okay, let me read the book and then I'll see the movie and I'll be able to put faces to characters." His writing style pissed me off so much that I still haven't seen the movie. It's basically one long Deus Ex Machina with main characters stumbling around talking like they wish they were in a better written story while waiting for the lion to do something.

The movie is totally retarded as well. I can't fucking believe that at the end of the movie, when all is lost, the lion comes back to life because the evil witch queen didn't read the fine print in the rulebook. The good guys won by a fucking legal technicality in the magic scrolls.

This would be like "Return of the Jedi" ending by Luke discovering that there's a fucking addendum to some ancient Jedi scroll which says that Palpatine can't win.

The ending of the movie represented the book(s) very well, exact same technicality was brought up. It get even worse in the following books (IMO)

[Patrick Degan]

Cs Lewis Writings seem almost incoherent. I cannot understand his points at all, Has anyone else had that problem?

His points? Hell, all his writing. Prior to narnia being made a movie I thought "Okay, let me read the book and then I'll see the movie and I'll be able to put faces to characters." His writing style pissed me off so much that I still haven't seen the movie. It's basically one long Deus Ex Machina with main characters stumbling around talking like they wish they were in a better written story while waiting for the lion to do something.

The movie is totally retarded as well. I can't fucking believe that at the end of the movie, when all is lost, the lion comes back to life because the evil witch queen didn't read the fine print in the rulebook. The good guys won by a fucking legal technicality in the magic scrolls.

This would be like "Return of the Jedi" ending by Luke discovering that there's a fucking addendum to some ancient Jedi scroll which says that Palpatine can't win.

This actually is how Armageddon theology works as well: I've heard it quoted by many including TV preachers the line that God's really already won the battle but that Satan's simply out to take down as many souls as he can. The central point being that the fix is already in, the fight's rigged, and betting on Satan is pointless because he's going to lose anyway and he just didn't get the whole Omnicience/Omnipotence deal God's got going for him no matter how weak he may seem at any one time.

The theological mind at work.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

C.S. Lewis basically followed H.P. Lovecraft's advice and fled from the new terrifying vistas of the cosmos opened up by science to a new dark age of comfortable mythology. In Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra the main character, who is obviously a stand-in for Lewis himself, more or less says as much. The rest of his life and work is basically an ad-hoc justification of that retreat.