They draw two parallel lines showing actual differences and two parallel lines showing socialized differences.

The actual differences are less than the socialized differences. So… my point is that socialization of differences needs to be accounted for.

Also differences do not mean incapacity. I may be different but not incapable. I will only utilize my difference and approach a task or role differently. It does not mean incapable.

Finally, there are 16 different personality types according to myers and briggs. Why on earth would we divide persons only into male and female personality types.

These are errors in complimentarian thinking and reveal their agenda once again.

I have a blogful of studies on kephale and authentein etc. I have images of the Greek texts that used to be used as evidence that authentein meant “to have authority.” Since that claim is clearly bogus now, I think most exegetes argue that we know the meaning of authentein only from context and nothing else.

Actually, I am losing interest in this fight since complementarians have so obviously constructed bogus arguments over and over again that I can’t take them seriously any more. But if you want any particular evidence find my email on my blog in my profile and email me.

Thanks. I missed reading this for a few days.

It seems they were assuming a radical difference in sexuality and psychology between the sexes that somehow gave males an edge over women. It appears that they weren’t considering the “nature vs. nurture” aspect of male and female development. Is that a problem you often have with complementarians in dealing with “differentiation”?

I kept asking them how they saw women as different apart from the physiological, and I don’t think they ever answered that.

Perhaps they think that if women are different from men, they don’t feel the same need for respect as men do, or they don’t mind not being treated as equals. It comforts them to think that women were created for subordination and don’t have the same ambitions and feelings that men have. I don’t know.

Your link is dead. I clicked on several of your posts and all of them took me to a dead link.

http://evepheso.wordpress.com/

At this blog Mike Aubrey deals with the assumption that when submission is used in the New Testament it always refers to submission to authority. Mike Aubrey gives evidence to dispute this. Go there and read his post. You will enjoy it.