Yes, we must folllow the bible ... no argument there.  But in my studies, I have more than a few times been set straight by good female writers.  Kierkegaard is my favorite theologian, with a few other males coming in second, third, etc., but I read "First Things Magazine" regularly, and I know I have read several females who stand out, and who have brought me to a better understanding of the truth than I felt I could have gotten from anyone else at that particular moment, on that particular subject.  

My wife promised to trust and obey me, and I promised to love and cherish her, and that's clearly the way it should be, while I listen carefully to her every command, and do everything she says.  That is my joy and my love.

By the way, it is now 6:54 in South Korea, and my wife, heroine of my life, just pumped out my fourth son for me, while I held her hand, sang Swing Low Sweet Chariot, wiped her brow with my free hand, ate whole grain bread, nibbled some smoked cheese from COSTO, and kept peppering the nurses with questions to make the relax and smile. 

His name?  Jonathan David.   My wife wanted that name.  I thought Christian Shakespeare would be fine but defered to Wifey.  Isn't that the way it should be, anyway? 

We have a saying from the South, "If Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."  Thus speaketh Southern Appalachian Culture.

@Koolou@xanga - 

@thechris38@xanga - I found a couple of links on the web that might lead you in the direction I was leaning in:

Horus vs. Jesus

"The Christian myths were first related of Horus or Osiris, who was
the embodiment of divine goodness, wisdom, truth and purity...This was the
greatest hero that ever lived in the mind of man -- not in the flesh -- the
only hero to whom the miracles were natural because he was not human."

Youtube: Horus Vs. Jesus

I'll have more for you in a bit.

@aka_RESi@xanga - "..although i must say there are some women who really do want to have all the control. but i especially do not believe that this produces children who become insecure with their sexual identity. i do not even see a link there! and 'healthy examples of their gender, & the role they play in marriage and the family' 

"..how about simply a general healthy example of how a good person should act!? which would also include nonviolence for any reason."

That is exactly what I am talking about.  Children learn by observation.  Without consistently clear and healthy examples of both genders, the male child will not adequately learn how to become a healthy man, husband and father, nor how to recognize and interact with a healthy woman.  The reverse is also true for women, though the results are often not as obvious. 

As for nonviolence for any reason.  I think that is unrealistic idealism.  While men should learn that violence should only be employed in defense of self or that of others, it should nevertheless be taught as an option as that is a part of men's role in relationships and in society. 

"there are probably also children who come from parents who do not have this domination issue and still struggle about their sexual identities, and at the same time there are probably those whose parents fight all the time and dont have any sexual identity issues. and what about those who only come from single parent families??" 
 
Of course there are exceptions to virtually every rule.  But that doesn't negate the reality of the rule itself. 

-For more information on this subject, please check out my post:  Sexual Identity Confusion. 

I would also like to add that even gender roles are only as good as the people involved in the relationship.  It all comes down to love, which cannot be legislated, or learned as a formula.  But it is my belief that love comes far easier, remains longer and is far more productive in a relationship when there is less friction and striving for power.  And that happens best when each persons knows and embraces their separate gender role.  Further, I believe that in such a clearly-defined and loving relationship, those involved will find that they do not feel the need to dominate the other person. 

There is a world of difference between being dominate, vs being dominating. 

"Also you say that 'woman are more open to angelic influence than men" ..now, mistake me if i'm wrong but 'angelic influence' sounds like a good influence to me. angelic. angel. heaven sent?"

According to the Bible there are good angels and bad angels.  And the bad ones can appear as the good ones.  "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.  It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness.  Their end will be what their actions deserve."  - 2 Corinthians 11:14 & 15. 

In fact the name of Lucifer (the original name for Satan) itself means 'light-bringer.' 

"And  like that other person said, i do not believe that a man being the 'head of the woman' necessarily means that they have complete authority & dominance over them." 

Well, according to the Bible, in effect it does and it doesn't.  God is a God of order, not disorder or chaos.  However, again, it all comes down to love.  Where there is love, there is grace.  And where there is grace, there is liberty from legalism, which cannot by itself please God, or ultimately bear good and lasting fruit.  But love does not coexist with fear, envy or strife. 

Does that mean the man should treat his wife like a slave, no.  That is not love.  Am I suggesting a woman should have to endure abuse?  Of course not.  Does it mean they cannot get a divorce?  No, even Jesus admitted as much.  But what did He say on that subject? 

"Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.  But it was not this way from the beginning.  I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.'"  - Matthew 19:8 & 9. 

"Finally, why would you say that it is men who are suppressed in society? I dont believe thats true. Perhaps it seems that they are suppressed because more women are becoming so independent and are standing up for themselves and their rights, at least in the U.S. There are still inequalities between men and women in the world, with men having the advantages."

Actually I do believe this is true.  Relationally, socially and legally women hold far more power than men.  Additionally women have become united against men for this very purpose.  It isn't about (legal) equality anymore, but about women attaining power, domination over men in relationships and in society.  In effect reversing the roles of men and women; ie, gender roles. 

The notion of legal equality is essentially moot.  It is no longer an issue in this country.  However, what women want (and have achieved) is social and relational power.  Although, there are areas where women would seem to be biased against, there are areas where men are as well. 

Like it or not, men and women are different, created for different roles, both in marriage, in the workplace and in society.  To ignore that fact, or to try to change it is to do so to all our detriment.  To try to say that men and women are the same in all ways, (which is not the same as equality; whether legal, intrinsic, or any other) is to invite chaos, confusion and strife.