|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Feb 11, 2010 8:48:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hannahthomas on Feb 11, 2010 9:06:10 GMT -5
You pretty much nailed it! They refuse to acknowledge it either. If you point it out they say YOU are the one that took it that way, and that is NOT what we meant. YET they keep repeating it, and repeating it and repeating it. Most books do revisions and such when they are reprinted. Their doctrine? it just keeps being vomited out, and its pretty much your fault if you didn't grasp something the right way. Its pride and arrogance - things the bible speaks out about. Its lack of grace in the worse way. They want people to confess their sin, wrongs, etc. THEY on the other hand don't have to do much correction. Its everyone else's issue if you can't grasp it. They tell you to find your happiness in Jesus, and yet tell you to concentrate on those 'ego' aspects of men to be sure they are 'feeling' it. Its like Jesus should be 'enough' for you, but the men need SO much more...only YOU can give them that! (where is the barf icon? lol)
|
|
|
Post by madame on Feb 11, 2010 9:25:22 GMT -5
Hannah, I'd never seen it stated so clearly: They tell you to find your happiness in Jesus, and yet tell you to concentrate on those 'ego' aspects of men to be sure they are 'feeling' it.
Its like Jesus should be 'enough' for you, but the men need SO much more...only YOU can give them that!
I have a huge issue with Complementarian/patriarchal teaching (can you tell? lol!). They call the man "the leader", but in actual fact, what they are doing is letting men get away with selfishness.
I was thinking about my in-laws and our landlord and landlady. Both live very traditional marriages. He's the boss, she serves him. Both men put their wives down, to the point that people around them see it and feel uncomfortable around them. The landlord and landlady don't claim to follow Jesus. My in-laws do. How is it that "heathen" male chauvinists instinctively know how to be "godly command men"? How is it that "heathen" wives instinctively obey and submit to their disrespectful and commandeering husbands?
My MIL read Bunny Wilson's book on submission. Has anyone on here read it?
|
|
|
Post by musicmom on Feb 11, 2010 9:58:33 GMT -5
Too true! I remember feeling on top of the world when my husband seemed content and pleased with me and the kids and the house. It was like, I was in Heaven already and I felt God smiling upon me. I pitied all the other people in the world who didn't absolutely KNOW in their hearts that they were doing God's will. I knew that I was, because my husband's approval of me was like God Himself giving me a hug and saying "Well done, good and faithful servant!". Not so pleasant were the days that he came home from work in a grouchy mood and took it out on the kids and me. It wasn't just that he was irritable. For me, it was that I maybe had lost my salvation that day, that GOD was not pleased, that I hadn't tried hard enough somehow - else, why was the smile of God not smiling today? Thus illustrating the complete insanity of basing your worth on the approval of another human (fallible) being. But do those books point out that little fact? It sounds ridiculous to me now, but I'm trying to be compassionate with myself and see that yes, I really was taught this stuff! How many times did I read the part about Sarah being such a good wife because she called her husband "Lord"? Idolatry? Yes, indeed. But that is what we were taught to do, and I did it well. I remember, in the midst of my QL life, feeling and hearing these other convictions and thoughts about what I should be doing which were contrary to my husband's will. For a while, I dismissed them as "the flesh" or "the devil" trying to get to me. I later realized that that was the very voice of my own conscience, trying to say "What the HELL is going on here??? You need to make this stop and you need to start protecting those children!" It continually astounds me what a great deal this all is for the husband. What's better than having another adult giving you everything and working for your approval as if you are God - because she has been taught that you truly are? OMG However, I do see that all of this doesn't really, in the long run, serve the husband either. But certainly it's a good enough deal for him that he's never going to change things, or call a halt to the abuses. Too sweet of a deal for these guys. Thanks for listening, all.
|
|
becky
New Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by becky on Feb 11, 2010 10:01:22 GMT -5
The landlord and landlady don't claim to follow Jesus. My in-laws do. How is it that "heathen" male chauvinists instinctively know how to be "godly command men"? How is it that "heathen" wives instinctively obey and submit to their disrespectful and commandeering husbands? Unfortunately I don't remember who on the boards has previously mentioned this, but it has been said on here before that some of the hard-complementarian authors say that examples like this show that the patriarchal hierarchy is actually written into the Order of Creation. The fact that we see patriarchy "even" among Muslims or traditional societies is viewed as something that supports their argument about the universality of their claims. [Edited for clarity]
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Feb 11, 2010 10:35:41 GMT -5
"I later realized that that was the very voice of my own conscience, trying to say "What the HELL is going on here???" I sure am glad your conscience won out in the end! As for 'listening' - any time
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Feb 11, 2010 10:41:24 GMT -5
People were chastising you for not knowing it was abuse, Journey? Are you serious? As though if you had gone to your church friends or another pastor to discuss any of those incidents they would have told you "that is not an acceptable way for him to behave." BS. Those bitches would only have told you that you weren't submitting enough, to try harder and that would make him be a better husband. Unbelievable that they would pull that shit when if you had said anything they only would have encouraged you to stay in that situation.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Feb 11, 2010 12:18:37 GMT -5
Em, You're right. And they probably would have sternly reprimanded her for "gossipping" about her lord (erm.. husband).
My MIL was told off for sending her abusive husband away and, according to the pastor, putting him in the way of temptation and sin.
Someone else reprimanded her for basically deserting him and divorcing him without Biblical grounds.
Damned if you put up with it, damned if you take a break or, heaven forbid, leave.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 11, 2010 12:24:21 GMT -5
What gets me is how all this obedience-crap is rationalized with military analogies. The "need" for absolute, knee-jerk obedience in the military, is so that soldiers will kill on order, without asking why and without stopping to feel any compassion.
I've heard that some soldiers, as part of their basic training, are encouraged to go around in fields stomping on birds nests.
So ... this complementarian/patriarchal stuff seems to be asking two very contradictory things of women: on the one hand, to be ever-ready to give knee-jerk obedience to all of hubby's commands, even if it means shutting off compassion for children (and for themselves) and concerns about husbands being too harsh with the children (and with them) --
But on the other hand, to be ever soft-hearted and meek toward the husbands. I mean, at least soldiers aren't expected to yield sexually to their drill-sergeants! Or to make them feel loved!
Reading this article brought back a memory of a former boss I had, back when I was an early childhood teacher. One day shortly after I started working there, it was time for our 30 minutes outdoors and the kids and I hurriedly picked up the toys.
I guess I wasn't careful enough about making sure that everything got put back in the right bin, because when we came back in from playing (at this point it was time to set our table for lunch, then eat, brush teeth, and quickly get the kids' cots out and put them down for nap) --
Well, my director had come in the room while we were outside and overturned every. single. toy-bin onto the floor. I initially thought some kid must have come in and done this! But my coworker said the director does this to any class that gets something into the wrong bin.
I was like, all she needed to do was say, "Please, no matter how rushed you are, take a moment to make sure things are getting put in the right place." I can actually understand that at any moment, there might be a prospective-parent touring, so I'm sure there was good reason for her to want me to be more careful --
But her way of expressing this just seemed so disrespectful and unnecessary. One of my friends told me that that's exactly what she does if her children are too hasty and sloppy in cleaning their rooms -- she just goes in and dumps out all their drawers and makes them redo everything.
But what about the Scripture about not inciting our children to wrath?
This all seems to be tied in with the expectation that people lower in the hierarchy are supposed to show continuous respect for those above -- but not to expect any respect. I.e., I'm sure that my friend would have been furious if her children had ever dumped out her drawers because they thought they were too messy.
And I suppose complementarians would see NO justification for a wife giving her husband a list of chores he needed to do before he could go to bed. I recall one wife telling me how her husband had got baptized in the Holy Spirit, and he came home and told his wife that she needed to come to the meetings with him and get baptized in the Spirit, too.
Only, she didn't feel like she wanted to, but she went along until finally it happened for her, too. I told a mutual friend because the husband's approach seemed so overbearing to me -- and she said this was acceptable for husbands to do to wives -- but that if a wife ever tried such tactics with her husband it would backfire.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 11, 2010 12:34:29 GMT -5
I guess it's just this whole idea that the person "over" you can get into your space as much as they want to -- but you are always supposed to respect their space.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Feb 11, 2010 13:22:07 GMT -5
Journey,
I don't know how Comp/patriarchal theology get away with considering wifely submission and husband authoriy/leadership as necessary for salvation.
I think it all starts with the notion that every marriage is supposed to mirror Christ as Lord and Master of the church and the church as obedient servant of her Lord. I've never understood that teaching.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Feb 11, 2010 13:25:57 GMT -5
I guess it's just this whole idea that the person "over" you can get into your space as much as they want to -- but you are always supposed to respect their space. And out the window go "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "esteem others as above yourself", "love never seeks it's own" etc...
|
|
|
Post by madame on Feb 11, 2010 13:29:41 GMT -5
So ... this complementarian/patriarchal stuff seems to be asking two very contradictory things of women: on the one hand, to be ever-ready to give knee-jerk obedience to all of hubby's commands, even if it means shutting off compassion for children (and for themselves) and concerns about husbands being too harsh with the children (and with them) --
But on the other hand, to be ever soft-hearted and meek toward the husbands. I mean, at least soldiers aren't expected to yield sexually to their drill-sergeants! Or to make them feel loved!
Ah, Susan, you're so right! Also, why do they always have to explain the need for hierarchy by using worldly examples? They say the husband is the big boss, but the wife is the second boss. She's still boss, just a little bit less. (they use military examples that I would probably mess up...) They don't call the wife a mere employee, but she must always operate under the authority of her husband. Frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by musicmom on Feb 11, 2010 13:50:15 GMT -5
"Ah, Susan, you're so right! Also, why do they always have to explain the need for hierarchy by using worldly examples? They say the husband is the big boss, but the wife is the second boss. She's still boss, just a little bit less. (they use military examples that I would probably mess up...) They don't call the wife a mere employee, but she must always operate under the authority of her husband. Frustrating."
Yes, the dreaded "middle management" position - serving those above us and below us and never able to please both!
I think the military metaphor is interesting and apt. Isn't it sad that the model suggested to us as Christian wives in a family (including helpless little children), is the same one required of men so that they can be counted on to go kill others and win wars? Is running a family such an unnatural, traumatic thing that we require the absolute obedience and submission without question required to wage state-sponsored violence?
I never once questioned this metaphor when I was fully QF. I really felt that there needed to be this unquestioning chain of command and that obedience was key in getting the job done and winning the war for Christ.
Now, I see that the traditional Christian family needs this kind of hierarchy and fear-based requirements because it is inherently unfair towards almost all its members. When you are abusing people's human rights (in this case, abusing children and women) I guess you better have the same tactics in place as army generals use to abuse their privates and the enemy.
Since my divorce, I have come to see that when everyone is being respected and their needs are being met - Eureka! No punishment is needed to accomplish what we need to do. Things just kind of flow - not that we never have problems, but I NEVER have to resort to anything close to the coercive measures that we had in place for years with Chris.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 11, 2010 14:33:27 GMT -5
Since my divorce, I have come to see that when everyone is being respected and their needs are being met - Eureka! No punishment is needed to accomplish what we need to do. Things just kind of flow - not that we never have problems, but I NEVER have to resort to anything close to the coercive measures that we had in place for years with Chris. ((((hug)))) I'm so happy for you and for your kids! The more I think about this whole military-model, the more I'm reminded of something Tapati talked about in another thread. Back before there was understanding of the male role in reproduction, women must have seemed rather godlike to our male primate ancestors, with their ability to grow a whole new human being inside their bodies, similar to how the earth bears fruit. So, "mastery" of women must have seemed like mastery of God, or like becoming gods themselves. Tapati's analoagy has really made me think of the ways that most religions are either "masculine" or "feminine." Throughout histroy, Christianity has been pretty much masculine, with a hierarchical chain of command ... although, it seemed like there was an earlier breaking away from hierarchy, in that everyone was considered equal in Christ, and partakers of the Holy Spirit, and of the gifts of the Spirit to be used for builing up the Body of Christ. Although I realize The Davinci Code is fiction, I don't think Dan Brown was totally just pulling stuff out of a hat. It seemes like there was a forceful early move to subdue the Church and erect a male authority structure, in order to control the direction of the Church (like men wanting to control the flow of the river). And it seems like some aspects of pagan religion were more matriarchal and female-dominated -- and I think there has always been a male movement to control this. I.e., Wicca seems much more feminine and focused on oneness with all the Earth -- whereas Christianity's predominant leaders have tried to turn it into a military religion with an empasis on power over, instead of the feminine focus on oneness with. And yet, I feel like Christianity itself has very feminine aspects. God is sometimes likened to a nursing mother or a mother hen with her chicks. Males for some reason have always wanted to subdue this -- but they've never stamped it out entirely. And this anti-feminine force seems to be what's behind the whole fundamentalist objection to environmentalism, and concern for "Mother Earth." This seems to be changing, in that many Evangelicals are now asserting that we need to care for our environmental impact. But up to this point, I've sensed a strong insistence that we are NOT to see ourselves as connected to the Earth. When you think about it, the Earth is indeed like the womb of a woman. It's masculine and feminine together that create life. But masculinity seems to keep on perceiving femininity as a threat -- perhaps because of our closer connection with bearing and nurturing the life, within which masulinity's role is supporting the feminine role. But of course, we all have masculine and feminine aspects to our personalities, and there are many ways in which men can join in with nurturing life. But I guess some don't like drawing upon their feminine side. Because we've become so steeped in the war-imagery, masculinity wants to dominate and exploit femininity. Masculinity wants to be central, when really, I think it's femininity that's central to life-giving, and masculinity should surround and protect femininity, and much of the time should let femininity lead the way. This makes sense becasue femininity has a drive to nourish everyone and help them to be more fully themselves -- so femininity nurtures masculinity and doesn't try to trample it, whereas when masculinity becomes central it seems to destroy/subdue everything in its path. This is not intended as an anti-male treatise -- since, as I've said, I think men have a feminine side and women have a masculine side.
|
|
|
Post by musicmom on Feb 11, 2010 15:04:57 GMT -5
Susan,
Yes, I definitely think you're on to something here with the male dominated/military way of seeing things and feeling like the feminine power was something to be subdued and controlled rather than nurtured and protected.
I remember when I finally switched got enough of male obstetricians trying to take over the birth process for me - rather violently, I though. I went into it thinking that they would help me and make it all safer, and I came to see that I was the one who would deliver this baby and they were just trying to take over and make it all harder for me. That's when I started using midwives/having home births.
But I have read feminist writings likening the overuse of C-sections and forcepts, etc. to a man trying to "own" the power of reproduction and harness its energy for himself. It is sort of like rape, I suppose.
Elaine Pagels has written some wonderful books on the history of early Christianity, and how the inclusion of certain books over others in the New Testament canon enabled the early church to eradicate the influence of all the Roman/Greek Goddesses and the whole idea of women having spiritual influence or control, from the idea of Christian orthodoxy. Pagan culture was pretty friendly to the feminine spirit, as was Buddhism and Hinduism. However, the Jewish religion had always been patriarchal. How to take this little tiny minority of people and channel that idea into what became Christendom is a very interesting story, but a huge loss for the feminine side of spirituality.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 11, 2010 15:28:11 GMT -5
I remember when I finally switched got enough of male obstetricians trying to take over the birth process for me - rather violently, I though. I went into it thinking that they would help me and make it all safer, and I came to see that I was the one who would deliver this baby and they were just trying to take over and make it all harder for me. That's when I started using midwives/having home births. But I have read feminist writings likening the overuse of C-sections and forcepts, etc. to a man trying to "own" the power of reproduction and harness its energy for himself. It is sort of like rape, I suppose. Yes. Though I realize that some branches of the QF/P movement seem to want to take away women's options by telling them they're not trusting God "enough" if they seek medical assistance, and that homebirth is the "godly" way to give birth -- I had a wonderful experience when my second daughter was born at home. BUT, my husband and I were fully open to transporting to the hospital should an abnormal situation present itself. For me, it was a matter of feeling empowered to choose what was best for me and my baby -- whereas for poor Vyckie, whose midwife pried open her cervix while she begged her to stop, and also backed up Warren in his unfair expectations of the children, homebirth can actually be used as a tool of the Patriarchy to victimize women, too. It's kind of like the decision to homeschool. I feel empowered as a homeschooler -- but many women in QF/P feel forced into that as well. These writings sound interesting. I love reading Tao Te Ching, which really emphasizes choosing the feminine.
|
|
|
Post by abagailmae on Feb 11, 2010 15:28:55 GMT -5
This is a wonderful site I have enjoyed looking through the articles. Please I don't want anyone to feel like I am judging them. I believe when a women and children are being abused and the husband and church are unwilling to recognize and change it, then I believe the wife has every right to leave. So the last thing I want is someone to read this and think I am judging them... So now for my thoughts. This has been very interesting to me as my husband and I are looking forward to having a "quiverfull" family. I don't believe we will call it that though! Whether we will or won't have any children is up to God, as of yet there are no children in our future. We are however not your typically quiverfull young couple. We play video games, watch movies, and talk about things most of those young couples wouldn't dream of talking about. However I think it is important for any couple to communicate. (The Best book we have read is "Love and Respect.") I am thankful that although I have read all these books "Helpmeet", and "Excellent Wife" and I enjoy them and believe 95% of what they have to say, my husband is a steady type man who would rather delegate duties to me...not to control me so that I have freedom to decide what to do and when to do it. He wants me to be a joyful wife and woman. Does that mean I am perfect no way does that mean he is perfect no way and I don't ever expect either one of us to be.... I think to often the men in these families are like this I think they forget their wives are to be their best friends...and yes that means sometimes speaking the truth in love and if there is something wrong the Biblical order of confrontation should be followed. My husband is wonderful! But my first priority is to God, then my husband, and then my children. Our Pastor told us a story of a husband who literally put his wife over his knee and spanked her for something she did wrong, WOW the fireworks that would have happened at our house and one sad and lonely husband might not have walked away! Anyway I appreciate this and it helps me to realize that although I look forward to have a wonderful Godly family it is important to recognize that sometimes it DOES go to far and that those situations do need to be watched. But that is in any realtionship. Because as some people have noted even people outside of the church have this same issue. Well anyway I am glad to have found this site and look forward to visiting again!
|
|
|
Post by musicmom on Feb 11, 2010 16:01:29 GMT -5
Abilgailmae,
It is great that you are reading this board and seeing where this philosophy can easily lead. I do NOT want to sound patronizing in any way to you because I truly do believe that everyone's journey is different and people need to follow where they are led.
However, do consider a few things and be wary of them:
My ex and I started off on a very equal footing too. He never talked down to me and if he even started to, I called him on it and he apologized. He truly did not want to treat me as less than him. The problem comes about very gradually, so gradually that you may not even notice the little indignities accruing every day. (Frog in the boiling water comes to mind). A man leading a large family in today's 2-child world will undergo significant stress too, but he will expect himself to be able to do it all and do it as God's appointed leader.
What you may want to come to grips with in your own mind is the in which Christianity really does support the man/husband ALWAYS, even when he is wrong. Pressures and troubles come - in any marriage. These times will be difficult for your husband, as well as you. He is human. It will be very easy in those circumstances, for him to play the "submission card" - even more so because he will think he is right in doing it, and the church will support him. It is BY FAR easier than working out disagreements in a marriage, which, in any marriage can be challenging. When push comes to shove, the fact that you have a Christian marriage will probably not bode well for YOU, because the decision has already been made in favor of your husband. Just know that - the church will not protect or help you, despite what you might hear.
The other thing is that, if children do come, your priorities will shift. I found myself often doing what was best to keep my children out of harm's way, even if I would bear the brunt of the injustice. It is much harder to stand up for yourself and defend yourself when your children are involved because he may turn around and punish them for your "willfullness". This puts you between the proverbial rock and hard place, and most moms will pick their kids' best interest (in the short term) every time.
I honestly feel that this lifestyle is not usually sustainable - at least while respecting the human rights of mothers and children. Someone has to pay the price for this large family - to make it all work and keep husband functioning and happy.
However wonderful your husband is, this system might very well bring out the worst in what otherwise might have been a great man. And, with your children innocently brought into the situation, you might have to pay the price. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Who will check his power when you are protecting your children? The church? nope.
Please forgive me if this is way more than you wanted to hear. You should be informed of what MIGHT lay ahead of you.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 11, 2010 16:07:30 GMT -5
Hi, Abagailmae! I'm glad you are here. You and your husband sound similar to me and my husband when we first got married. We'd both been taught the Biblical model of wifely-submission -- but my husband was pretty easygoing and never tried to lord it over me. When submission got harder, was after we started our parenting journey together. While pregnant with our older daughter, I got involved with La Leche League and soon became fully-immersed in Attachment Parenting. Thankfully, my husband was very supportive of this. We both loved holding our new baby continuously, and carrying her around in our arms or "wearing" her in a sling, sleeping with her nestled between us in the bed, and my husband was also fully-supportive of child-led breastfeeding and child-led weaning. He backed me up when I got some negative feedback in our church, because some felt I wasn't "discrete" enough in my breastfeeding of our oldest as she was nearing three years of age. However, he was less enthused about what I was learning about Gentle Discipline. While engaged, we'd both agreed that we'd spank our children. But as I grew as a mother, I realized I no longer felt spanking was right. This is where I followed my gut-instinct to keep arguing the point with my husband, because I knew it would be so wrong to give knee-jerk obedience and spank when I didn't believe in it. And my husband is now glad that I held my ground on this! This is one reason why I feel some concern over your following statement: But my first priority is to God, then my husband, and then my children. I've seen some fundamentalists use this in ways that are harmful to children. I.e., I'm thankful that my husband has always been supportive of my breastfeeding relationship with our two daughters, and supportive of them sharing our bed for as long as they've wanted to (he was actually the FIRST one to be in favor of co-sleeping -- back when I was scared of rolling over on Baby!) -- But I've heard that some husbands feel "left out" of the breastfeeding relationship, and want their wives to wean their children at young ages. Or don't like sharing their beds with a baby. Or don't like their wives' reduced libido. This is concerning for a lot of reasons -- but here I'll just talk about in relation to QF philosophy. My husband and I don't use birth control either -- but I also didn't marry 'til age 35, so now at age 45, I have two daughters, ages 9 and 4. I believe child-led breastfeeding and co-sleeping had a powerful effect on my fertility -- and though it doesn't effect all women so powerfully (most will only get a two or three-year spacing -- NOT a nearly five-year spacing like I did ... and for some women, breastfeeding and co-sleeping and babywearing have no effect at all, and they get pregnant right away no matter what) -- I just think that for most mothers, natural child-spacing occurs when they breastfeed on-cue (in response to Baby rooting for the breast) and don't schedule feedings, and when they let their babies meet all their suckling needs at the breast, rather than using pacifiers or bottles, and when they stay in continuous skin-to-skin contact with their babies all throughout the day and night. So, if the wife puts the husband first -- and he's not in favor of this attached kind of parenting which fosters frequent suckling at the breast -- then I feel like the wife needs to do something else to prevent herself from becoming pregnant before her body's had time to recover from the last pregnancy. (I actually think the wife should go ahead and follow her heart with her baby anyway -- but for now I'll just focus on the fertility-aspect.) Also, if the wife discovers that she's one of those rare women who is fertile again right away, even while exclusively breastfeeding (I guess the only way to discover this is to get pregnant with her second child while still exclusively-breastfeeding her first) -- then I think it's a good idea to use some other form of birth control so her body has time to restore itself, and so her current babies can get more time being babied, before the next pregnancy). I am REALLY hoping that your pastor shared this as an example of what NOT to do!?
|
|
|
Post by journey on Feb 11, 2010 16:20:08 GMT -5
I'm short on spare time, but really have enjoyed peeking in on the conversation here. Musicmom, it's kind of freaky to read your comments, because there are so many similarities...
This...wow. It was uncannily similar:
Triple yes to all of the above. This was my life.
One thing that really bowled me over later was reading "Codependant No More" and realizing that the Biblical womanhood books (particularly when combined with a controlling authoritarian husband) had carefully *trained* me to become codependant!
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on Feb 11, 2010 16:26:14 GMT -5
Also, if the wife discovers that she's one of those rare women who is fertile again right away, even while exclusively breastfeeding (I guess the only way to discover this is to get pregnant with her second child while still exclusively-breastfeeding her first) -- then I think it's a good idea to use some other form of birth control so her body has time to restore itself, and so her current babies can get more time being babied, before the next pregnancy). My wife (and I) made just that discovery. And we call the discovery "Patrick." And he's a delight, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 11, 2010 16:43:19 GMT -5
Also, if the wife discovers that she's one of those rare women who is fertile again right away, even while exclusively breastfeeding (I guess the only way to discover this is to get pregnant with her second child while still exclusively-breastfeeding her first) -- then I think it's a good idea to use some other form of birth control so her body has time to restore itself, and so her current babies can get more time being babied, before the next pregnancy). My wife (and I) made just that discovery. And we call the discovery "Patrick." And he's a delight, by the way. Oh, congratulations on Patrick! I feel sure that a mother, with good support, can recover well from just two very closely-spaced pregnancies. But where I think it gets dangerous, is where she and her husband discover this about her fertility, and yet do nothing to space further pregnancies.
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on Feb 11, 2010 16:48:48 GMT -5
Journey, Not meaning here to assail Abagailmae, who has just declared her belief in 95% of "The Excellent Wife," I find the entire thing insidious. Most disturbing--perhaps because it sounds so much like Vyckie in her younger days--is this passage you quoted: “You may be smarter, wiser, or more gifted than your husband, but you are still to respect the position God has given him. You are like the soldier who stands at attention, salutes, and says, ‘Yes, Sir!’ to his superior officer…" Is that sort of metaphor supposed to make a woman feel good about her marriage? A smart soldier working for a doufus lieutenant?
|
|
|
Post by runawaybride on Feb 11, 2010 16:52:37 GMT -5
I can't wait to read everyone else's thoughts.. but I had to say this before I jumped in...
This book is the #1 reason why I stayed in a marriage where I was abused, where I watched a drug addled fool piss away over 100K, and where, I later found out, my daughter was being abused. I wish I could sue Martha Peace and her publishers. The woman is Satan to me.
Now, I'll read what others had to say.
|
|