pinklight

“In all honesty it seems like it is the egal attempt to discredit the distinctions made by some comps on essence/roles.”

I can see what you are saying, Mark. But, a role (based on sex – “male” or “female”) is different from essence (“womanhood” and “manhood” or “man” and “woman”). The terms “male” and “female” are used for not only humans in Gen 1 but also animals, as in the ones that boarded Noah’s Ark. So “male” and “female” as used in the bible, designate sex (whether human or animal), and so it’s not where it’s at since sex is a different thing from essence or nature. “Man” and “woman” mean humans either male or female, not just “male” and “female”. Femaleness (sex) cannot be seperated from womanhood (essence or nature).

So when MORE distinctions are made by comps between essence or nature (man or woman) and sex (male and female) then comps could see the egal view. Rather than discrediting the distinctions made by some comps on essence and roles, egals actualy make further distinctions between essence and sex. A role based on sex alone – “femaleness” – might as well be for the birds or a dog.

What is the essence of a woman? Does a woman have the same human power and authority as a man has? Since she is equal in essence to the man, then she has to. She owns power and authority in her very being as a man does. So if she has the same human power and authority as a man does, then why is a woman created with a different “role” from the man to not use her power and authority? If the woman were created with a different role to not use her human power and authority it would have to be because she is simply “female” (animal perhaps?) and NOT “woman” (human that is female).

Hope I made sense. ;P