|
Post by km on Aug 21, 2010 21:41:21 GMT -5
Oh, and PS, I agree that it's good to have you back, madame.
|
|
|
Post by andromeda on Aug 22, 2010 0:15:20 GMT -5
I remember a conversation I once had with a man who didn't understand why I was having such a problem with Warren being the "head" of our family. This man has been married to his wife for over 30 years ~ they both believe that the bible teaches the man is to be the head of the home. What does that mean? I wanted to know. Well ~ he explained ~ it means that in situations in which the two of them could not reach a decision that they both agreed on ~ then it would be up to him to make the decision. "And how many times in your 30 years of marriage have you had to pull rank on her?" Well ~ actually ~ when he tried to think of a single instance when that had happened ~ he came up blank. "I guess we always have managed to work something out together." He told me. That is NOT Patriarchy. No wonder that man could not understand what my problem was with Warren. Warren insisted that I should consult him before making any decision ~ no matter how minor ~ even when it came to areas in which he had no knowledge or experience and I had plenty. Yup, I have known several couples that have actually made a running joke of this. They'll say that the husband makes all the important decisions, but that in XYZ years of marriage, there's never actually been an "important decision" yet. There was patriarchy in theory, but mutuality in actual practice, which is very different from the micromanaging you describe.
|
|
jo
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by jo on Aug 22, 2010 9:34:52 GMT -5
You know, Vickie, a good friend and I process exiting this life together a LOT. She left because she could not reconcile Patriarchy to the command by her husband that he wanted to bring more wives into the marriage and she refused, though it eventually meant the end of her marriage.
We both think that ANY marriage that is healthy and claims to be wife-only submission is not actually a wife-only submission marriage. Like the man you spoke with, the marriages which are healthy are truly egletarian and merely give lip service to the idea of Patriarchy/wife-only submission. Those men would never actually pull rank on their wives. And, my friend and I suspect, their wives would never truly tolerate a pull rank situation were it to be tried.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Aug 22, 2010 14:32:33 GMT -5
Vyckie and KM, it is nice to be back. I am not the most faithful poster on here, but I read most every story on the main site. Sometimes I don't post for lack of something to say and sometimes for lack of time.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Aug 22, 2010 14:36:43 GMT -5
I remember a conversation I once had with a man who didn't understand why I was having such a problem with Warren being the "head" of our family. This man has been married to his wife for over 30 years ~ they both believe that the bible teaches the man is to be the head of the home. What does that mean? I wanted to know. Well ~ he explained ~ it means that in situations in which the two of them could not reach a decision that they both agreed on ~ then it would be up to him to make the decision. "And how many times in your 30 years of marriage have you had to pull rank on her?" Well ~ actually ~ when he tried to think of a single instance when that had happened ~ he came up blank. "I guess we always have managed to work something out together." He told me. That is NOT Patriarchy. No wonder that man could not understand what my problem was with Warren. Warren insisted that I should consult him before making any decision ~ no matter how minor ~ even when it came to areas in which he had no knowledge or experience and I had plenty. Yup, I have known several couples that have actually made a running joke of this. They'll say that the husband makes all the important decisions, but that in XYZ years of marriage, there's never actually been an "important decision" yet. There was patriarchy in theory, but mutuality in actual practice, which is very different from the micromanaging you describe. I can't imagine a wife being happy in a marriage where her husband makes all the important decisions. I don't think it's standard complementarian teaching. In fact, I have always heard that important decisions ought to be made together, but if they can't agree, then the husband must have the final say. Only very patriarchal men who think Complementarianism is not good enough have something to say against joint decision making.
|
|
|
Post by MoonlitNight on Aug 24, 2010 10:44:40 GMT -5
Per abuse: I've been seeing some interesting conversations on the web lately about how there is often love that coexists with abusive relationships--and that this is why it can be so difficult for some people to leave them. There can be love mixed in, I think especially when the abuser is an abuse survivor as well. They may be repeating patterns without realizing how hurtful or dangerous they are, or not know how to do better. This goes double or triple for abuse survivors who did not ever really heal much, but simply learned to cope. Coping and healing are not the same... When there is love mixed in and abuse is accidental as much as intentional, it is even more confusing and hurtful, in some ways, than a situation where the abuse is clear and there is nothing to salvage. The abusee might not be able to realize that ______ is abusive or abnormal, or to decide to cut off contact completely, because the abuser is still <relation> and actually does love the abusee. Like me. I can't just throw my relationship with my mother completely away, and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by ladygrace on Sept 5, 2010 2:39:00 GMT -5
The whole of Christianity is based on the person of Jesus, right? Did he ever submit to anyone? Did he not break absolutely every rule supposedly given by God in the Hebrew Scripture? Did he not scandalously mingle, eat, and cohabitate with some of the most despised people in his society? Did he ever preach a message of "thou shalts" that wasn't part of a larger message of "love one anothers"? I've thought about this before. Jesus, as a person historians agree existed and as a man-god of the modern Christian religion, hung around with and befriended the equivalent of today's sexually loose clubbers, and he loved and accepted them as they were without demanding they change who they are. He only asked that they love and accept everyone, have patience, understanding. "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." by Mahatma Gandhi.
|
|
|
Post by ladygrace on Sept 5, 2010 2:45:22 GMT -5
I can't imagine a wife being happy in a marriage where her husband makes all the important decisions. I don't think it's standard complementarian teaching. In fact, I have always heard that important decisions ought to be made together, but if they can't agree, then the husband must have the final say. Only very patriarchal men who think Complementarianism is not good enough have something to say against joint decision making. I'm in a relationship where I default the important decisions to my fiance. I don't handle stress well, and too much of it causes seizures. I'm comfortable defaulting decisions to him because I know he will ALWAYS consider what I would want, and he's actually more likely to go against what he'd want to do what he thinks I'd want. However usually the decisions come after a bit of discussion and I get to the point of telling him, "Eh, you can decide." But not only is there extreme mutual respect, this is MY decision, and I'm safe if I disagree. I can vocalize it without fear of retaliation or harm. In fact, if I disagree and tell him, MY word will be final. All in all, we really have a partnership. It works well for us. It's hard to believe, and sad to know, that many women are forced into positions of absolutes. Absolutely no say, absolutely no rights, absolute terror at speaking up.
|
|