I appreciate your feedback, Rhia, and I want to respond with the same polite intentions that you showed. I am not offended, and I don't want to offend you.

First, I want to note that I did not "create" a battle of the sexes. It has existed since Adam and Eve.

Second, I certainly do NOT love a good argument. In fact, I think there is no such thing as a "good" argument. Conflict is horrible. What I hope for in this thread is dialog, not debate. Everyone says his/her own piece, and all viewpoints are accepted, even if not agreed with. That's why I asked that people please don't get into a fight about the Bible. I'd like to hear your feedback on some of my other posts in this thread too, not just the OP.

You say you don't even have to think about the fact that you are equal. To you it is a given. I'd like to be as comfortable with it as you are, but when I see women and men treated differently on the basis of gender, for whatever reason, I can't say I see equality.

I notice that we are from different cultures. You are from a more liberal nation than I am, I think, and I am from an area in my country that is among the most conservative, at least where religion is concerned. Although I live in the Pacific Northwest now, I grew up in the South, in an area that's known as the "Bible belt." My uncle was not the only chauvinist in my family. In fact, his way of thinking was pretty much the norm in my environment. Most of the men who have been a part of my formative years thought like him. I singled my uncle out because he in particular was stuck on "quit trying to be the boss" any time a woman so much as asserted herself. I wanted to illustrate that he, for one, doesn't have a concept of equality. If a woman is not submissive, then she's trying to reverse the roles completely and wants men to grovel. That isn't what *I* want. That's what *he thinks* I, and other women who believe in equality, want.

My father and my first husband, on the other hand, were experts at using the Bible to get their own way. If there was a disagreement, they'd pull out those "women submit to your husbands" Scriptures and play them like a trump card, and a woman who wouldn't give in after that was just a Jezebel. Since then, pastors have reassured me that "submission doesn't mean, stay on the floor and let him walk all over you." In fact, one pastor's wife defined the word "submission" as "standing back so God can get a better shot at him."

This, however, relates little to what we have been taught is courtesy, but when you look beneath the surface, it's a reminder that women are "less" or "weaker." I don't mind at all when a man holds the door open for me, even if I were not physically disabled. That's not the issue. It's only an example of the issue. A man who would hold the door open for all women, and only women, just because they're women, I've got to wonder what his thinking is. I'm not angry, only wondering.

To me, treating a woman differently simply because she is a woman just doesn't make logical sense. What if the division were based on something else that is purely anatomical, rather than on gender? What if all green people (so I don't step on any toes) were taught that it is common courtesy to hold the door open for all orange people, just because they are orange people? What if all green people were expected to stand when an orange person enters the room, give up their seat to an orange person, always let the orange person go first, tip their hats to an orange person, help the orange person put on and take off a coat, light the orange person's cigarette, and so forth, again just because they are orange people and that's the way it's done? What conclusions would we draw from this? Does it sound fair?