Again using this very specific argument, there would be no difference You were 'obedient' (and believe me, my husband would never use that word in regard to me. Actually using those kinds of words is a red flag) by trying to find the alternative truest to what you thought his request was. You didn't go out and grab the 2% in the plastic bottle which he definitely wouldn't want because it was easier. You thought about it and made the best decision you could to your husbands preferences. You made the 'wrong' choice because neither of you had ever gone into great conversational depth regarding the why and how of buying milk. You now know for next time, and next time you'll know he prefers the right bottle (if you remember, because, seriously, I'm not going to remember that and my husband knows it would be unreasonable for me to remember that many tiny meaningless details, so he would just deal for a week with a plastic milk bottle.) To imply that a lack of 'obedience' caused the wrong milk to be bought also implies a lack of trust on the part of the husband to believe that you have his best interests at heart. If you remember, trust is a part of love-as-a-verb. You did the best you could do provide what he preferred, so you were obedient regardless of the actual outcome. But, seriously, if my husband got this fussy about milk we would have bigger problems.

It IS fundamentally different. My argument that it is similar is within day to day interactions, but at it's heart, the dynamic and the psychological meaning behind everything is fundamentally different. We are complementing parts of a single body, not two people doing life together. That seems like fancy words but it is a meaningful difference to me. I do not relate to the two people doing life together idea at all. It does negate the egalitarian aspect that you're probably thinking of. But, the difference for me is, the negation of the egalitarianism does NOT negate the love, in fact, for me, it fulfills love in a greater and fuller way that full egalitarianism could. However, it's not for everyone, especially if you have no religious bind to it. I believe in this in part because it is symbolic of Jesus and the Church. Without that symbolism, and without a religious factor to gender roles, I don't see many persuasive reasons to do it. And I absolutely don't believe it's something your husband could force you into now, after years of marriage. You have to agree to it, or he is domineering. This is not against my will, this is not forced on me, I embrace it as a blessing. If it were against my will, it would be wrong. If you can't reconcile your beliefs with his newfound desires, perhaps you can talk about what he really wants (more control? more respect? more autonomy?) decide if it is a reasonable desire or a negative one, and see if there is a compromise which does not make you feel unloved within your marriage.

As described, he deals with the stresses of work, of providing, of maintaining a home and a car and keeping the lights on and food on the table. When things go wrong, when things get complicated, when things are stressful it falls to him. He is responsible emotionally for every member of his household as leader, he is responsible to the outside world for the actions of his family. He also has responsibility to church, community and country that I do not believe I have as a woman. His stresses and emotional labour are not constant but when they come they are intense. Mine are more ongoing but also far lighter. Also, I might remind you, you're the one who brought up the phrase emotional labour for this. I probably wouldn't have used that phrase, as I associate it with the nitty gritty work of running a home that I am responsible for, not DH. I more think of him handling the stress load rather than the emotional labour. I think I may have incorrectly used the terms interchangably in my earlier post. Obviously you mean something else. You're right, in those terms the emotional labour falls in large part to the woman so far as nitty gritty household details go, and I am quite happy with that, because much of the stress, physical labour and public work of our family fall to him. It's a fair division.

All I can say to that is that it's not the case for me or people I know. Women do most of the emotional labour within the home, men do most of the emotional labour outside the home, that is the divide in the situations I know. In addition, men take on the responsibility for the labour done in the home to outsiders, a big part of the leadership thing. I know in most modern relationships women do most of the emotional labour regardless, but, in most modern relationships men aren't the leaders either. In the marriages I know with a male headship, this isn't the case, simple as that. We are the minority, so you can't apply the majority circumstance to our relationships. I see you've come from a place where male headship means something very different, so, please see it as something very different. What you describe in your last line is, plain and simple, not what it is for us and our marriages. It just isn't. If mine, and others, previous explanations don't illustrate that then I don't know what can. They're two different things. You're speaking of cultural male superiority, we're talking of religious male leadership

Well, this is what I get for sleeping while people are talking, lol I wonder if this is worse in the US than here.... I mean, I have always been taught that divorce because you 'fell out of love' or decided you loved someone else or whatever is wrong, marriage takes work. I was taught that love is a verb, an action, so you don't fall out of love, but it does take work and effort to maintain the relationship. Even arranged marriages work, and until recently many marriages were not based on love at all, because love is an action, so just not being 'in love' is not considered a fair reason. BUT I was also taught that that doesn't mean women should stay with abuse, or should be shamed because their husband abandons them, or should remain with a criminal. That the laws of divorce are about not getting 'bored' and moving on, not about keeping women in oppression. I also think there was more community justice in earlier times, the brides family or the community stepping in if she's being mistreated. The only time I've ever heard divorce preached about from the pulpit, it wasn't even against divorce, the pastor said sometimes divorce absolutely needs to happen and women should never stay in abuse was one of his points. His preaching was about whether or not they can remarry after leaving for 'good' reasons like abuse (he believed they couldn't, I'm on the fence myself) Growing up in church I can think of three divorced women, and one of them RAN the sunday school for awhile. To my knowledge none were shamed. My longest-time christian friend is divorced and remarried, she's the one with the argument about the death penalty and she lives as if her ex husband is dead to her. So I guess, to me, the divorce argument and all that baggage just doesn't come into it. I've seen it online, but never in real life. I would not hesitate to support a woman getting a divorce to leave abuse, and during the bad patch I mentioned with my husband where I would not submit as I did not feel he loved me at that time due to some massive wrongs on his part, one of my even-more-conservative-than-me friends discussed separation with me and how she could help me to leave, as she believed my husbands sins justified separation if not divorce. So, first he is domineering and controlling and has all the power, and now I am the one shirking my responsibilities to him which is unfair to him. I suppose we should figure out which one of us is the bad guy here :laugh: In reality, the two balance themselves out. Rather than equally sharing the responsibilities and the 'control', he takes the good and bad entirely, which leaves me free to focus my efforts on mothering. We haven't mentioned that much so far, but, I believe a part of why it was laid out this way in the bible is because all of this is done to protect the children. Rather than us both standing side by side against the world, he protects me while i am a second barrier protecting the children. Of course this was more relevant in times gone by than today, but, I believe that drive for him to protect me as mother of his children is an important factor in this. Keeping the world at the door, keeping me and our home safe and secure and taking care of all that gives me safety and rest while pregnant (once far more important than it is today), gives me a safe 'nest', a haven to give birth or bring a newborn home to, gives me focus and mental clarity to raise children and security to tend to them without stress or outside influences battling for my attention. So he takes on the responsibilities of the world outside our home, and to do that effectively he also takes on the control, the ability to steer us, which is only fair when it all falls to him in the end. And all this is to provide a cocoon of safety for me and his children, and to allow me to focus on the more-important-than-anything-else role of raising our kids. It's a totally different dynamic to today when looked at in those words (even if, day to day, it does look quite normal in practical activities), but if we are both happy with it, if we would both choose nothing else, then I can't see how it is wrong. Right. so I might help him, or I might try to make his burden easier. It's just, to us, it's his burden ultimately, while my responsibility is to help him. We both talk about the electricity bill and what to do about it and I do my best to make changes I look at the cars with him and help pick out problems, and tell him what I'd like I support him emotionally if he's being criticised by outsiders Or, if I can't directly help, I do something to make his burden lighter I know he will be up early so I pack his lunch, or going to bed late so I check on the kids and bring him a coffee I know he is forgoing buying himself shoes so I see if there's a way to help his last longer, see if I can scrape a little money out of the grocery budget, and I certain ensure I'm caring for the ones he did buy me properly And the car breakdown example is exactly right and exactly how it would play out here. I'm not sitting in the car while he works if there's something available for me to do. But, it would default to him to sort out towing and things later unless he specifically asked me, and if we had to replace the car, well, we've already covered that. But, it still protects me, because I can still ultimately let go of those things. Helping with someone else's burdens is different to working together on your own, psychologically. And he WANTS me to not have these burdens. He wants my mind clear for MY burdens that he doesn't think about, like schooling and food and our home. We agree that the other person stressing and carrying burdens does not lighten our load, just doubles both our loads. So we happily divide those burdens, halving our stress, and still help each other wherever we can. The bible is quite clear about the roles of husband and wife as separate things, so since we are speaking from a biblical perspective, the man is the head. The reasons why the bible chose that? I don't presume to know the mind of God, but, I do believe men and women are generally wired differently. Yes, women can be leaders and men can be nurturers, but, generally speaking, men make less emotional decisions, women are better are fine details. We are each better suited for our own roles as a general rule. What about the exceptions? That's a huge topic in and of itself so PM me if you actually want to debate it further. But, basically, we NEED gentle, nurturing men in the workplace and in leadership and politics and everywhere else. We NEED women with leadership potential and rational minds in our communities, homes, schools and churches. Right now in society, all the leaders are in one sphere, all the nurturers are in another sphere, and both spheres are crumbling. Business is becoming less and less moral (except where the customer is demanding it), politics is becoming less personal and less connected to the people, more money driven. And communities are crumbling because no one is organising anything, no one is running anything, and most volunteer committees are too spineless and emotional and indecisive to do much. It's my belief that God always intended for there to be some strong dominant women and gentle quiet men because we need balance to make things work. By removing the gender lines, peoples skills have polarised, we have no balance, and in my opinion this has been for the worse. Like I said, huge topic, don't want to derail this thread with it, but, feel free to PM if you actually want to hear more. I don't think it's how the bible laid out for us to live, but, their life, their problem. Most of us aren't out with picket signs in front of gay weddings, I for one am fairly live and let live, I'm more worried about what my family is doing than anyone elses. I might not become best friends with that family, because their roles indicate that we would probably not have much in common, they may well not respect me and I would see them as living outside the order God set down. But if they're athiests they have no reason to live within biblical guidelines anyway and I don't hold athiests to biblical standards, so I would say nothing at all and treat them just like anyone else. If they professed to be Christians, I might graciously mention my opinion if it came up since a good mental sparring match like we've had right here is good for everyone (since I cover, it hardly needs to 'come up' at all, I find some women are offended simply by the sight of my covering even when I've said nothing negative at all to them, because they're assuming judgement which isn't there simply from my own symbol), and that indicates our theologies are probably vastly different so we will probably never connect as likeminded families. But I'm sure we'd get along just fine at church so long as they aren't criticising me for my choices. I have gay friends, I have feminist friends, I have friends who live together unmarried. They aren't my besties, and I don't go to them when I'm struggling with marriage issues, or dealing with problems that arise directly from my unpopular life choices, but I don't have to approve of someones life choices to be friends with them and get along with them, even laugh and have a few drinks with them either. I guard my closest circle of friends carefully, but, my wider circle is open to anyone who is capable of sitting with someone with a vastly different lifestyle without judgement, and I offer the same courtesy. I'm not judging anyone on this thread. If you're athiest, none of this applies to you anyway and I don't act as if it should. If you're Christian, I believe God convicts people of different parts of his Word at different times. Obviously I think I am 'right' or I wouldn't be arguing, but, it is impossible for us to follow ALL of God's word perfectly here on earth. Some of us are arms, some of us are legs, in the body of Christ. God has convicted me strongly of these issues, but he has not convicted me strongly of prayer issues or missionary work as he has some people. That's ok. Maybe God is directing you toward prayer, or missionary work, and doesn't need you focused on this aspect of your faith right now. Maybe you'll be led here later, maybe you never will be. Maybe he will convict me of missionary support in the future, maybe not, these aren't salvation issues, just how-to-live-life issues, so there's no condemnation for how you follow these commands. I don't think we were intended to be capable of following everything asked of us in the bible all at once perfectly here on earth. If we were, then what room is there left to grow during the rest of our lives?! God will reveal what important to YOUR life and the mission he has for YOU as needed. These women's issues tie into my past and my testimony in a way that I believe God will use one day. Missionary work, right now, doesn't tie into my life much at all, and I feel at peace about that. Perhaps the opposite is true for you.

Obviously all marriages vary. I'm not sure, for my case, that I could say DH takes on the most emotional labour. But, certainly, he takes on the heaviest. My homeschooling research and meal planning pales in life-long significance compared to his car purchasing and job progression and retirement savings And money aside, I suppose he also takes on the heavier burdens in our relationship. When we lost an ectopic pregnancy I leaned on him, not the other way around. He plans dates, not me, He makes a lot more token gestures in our romantic relationship than I probably do. So, again, I handle the million little things, to free him up to calmly and rationally handle the big things.

I can see a loop occurring, yes. That's why communication is key. It's harder to bounce off a reaction if it's clear what that reaction is and why it's there. But yes, a church community, certain social expectations, peers and support and our own desires all help toward preventing it from veering off too badly. Most people WANT their marriages to work. If one does not then in my opinion it's doomed from the start regardless of what the other does. The reverse is also true to an extent, yes. But here we must first define that love, bibilically, is a verb, it's an action. It's not butterflies in the stomach and floaty romance feelings. The following is love Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Now, with THAT in mind, and also considering the self sacrificing love that Jesus models for the church, I personally think that it would be difficult for a man to display THIS kind of love to it's fullest extent without his wife submitting in turn. (wives are also called to love, of course, but there is a way that a husbands love at this standard within the traditional gender roles of marriage complements a wifes submission perfectly. Plus, I think this kind of love sometimes comes easier to women than men, especially in the time period those letters were written, which is why I believe the admonition was made specifically to men and not to everyone). Servant leadership is putting your follower above yourself. Jesus washed his followers feet. He didn't demand they wash his feet in the correct essential oil from the glass bottle, not the plastic one. Jesus died for his followers, he didn't send them to die to bring himself glory and victory as a King might. Servant leadership is when we are both exhausted, but DH insists I go to bed without him while he finishes financial paperwork Servant leadership is when DH tells me not to think about the unexpectedly high electricity bill that I know he's worrying about, that that is his job and that I don't need to worry or become anxious, he will take care of me Servant leadership is when DH lies awake at night worrying about buying a new car, while I sleep soundly, and feeling no resentment whatsoever toward me, but rather, love and happiness at being able to protect me and provide for me Servant leadership is getting up at 4:30 in the middle of winter to go to work to provide food and shelter for me and my children, while I lie in a warm house spending the day with the children he would love to spend his every day with, but he leads by sacrificing his own time with them to provide for me to be able to. Servant leadership is taking more risks than me and pushing himself physically in ways he would never expect me to, by seeing me not as a 'weaker' and thus worthless vessel, but as a more delicate one whom he serves in a physical capacity as well as an emotional/practical one (in part due to a perceived higher value of myself, as mother of his children) Servant leadership is stepping in when things are too hard to remove my burdens and place them on himself, to stand and represent our family against criticism as leader (and protecting me in the process). Servant leadership is seeing that he and I both need new shoes but only being able to afford one, and making the decision to buy my new shoes and make his last a little longer Servant leadership is deciding he is needed for family responsibilities at home, and foregoing a night out with the boys to take care of his duties to his family. Servant leadership is making the big decisions, and then taking full and complete responsibility for them if they go wrong. Not only that, but also taking my decisions and taking full and complete responsibility for them to anyone outside of our marriage. We may deal with my mistake or decision between us if it goes wrong, but to the outside world, the buck stops with him as the head of our household, not me. The same is true of the children up until a certain age, if people have an issue with any one of our family, their issue is with DH For all these things and a million more, all he asks is two things, 1. that I work as hard as I can within the sphere God has given me, and which we have agreed upon together, to help reduce his stress, reduce the number of little things he has to keep track of, and free him up for the big things he takes responsibility for and 2. that I trust him and follow his lead when big decisions get tough, that I let the person who is providing for and protecting me and my children to steer the ship when the seas get rough. Frankly, I am not even remotely jealous of his supposed 'power'. The sacrifices he makes are more than I deserve, if not for my additional place as mother of his children. I don't think that letting him steer, and handling the smaller tasks of daily life, are too much to ask. Also, as a side note, this doesn't mean I don't do big things. I am writing a book I hope to sell one day. I have helped organise big events, I run my own business that he does not micromanage. I am not incapable of big things. But my big things are generally those I choose and with my husbands blessing, not the harshness of life that continually throws things our way.

I hope you don't think that's the kind of 'submission' we've been advocating for this thread, btw. Because it's most certainly not. The friend I said I was concerned about? My concern was over a few incidences, one in specific being that she had to ask his permission to collect some second hand outdoor toys from me for her sons, because her husband might decide they don't need any more or that he doesn't want toys in the garden or whatever, something that she should have been able to decide for herself as primary caregiver. Also a situation about her husband being happy for her to go out without the kids but being unwilling to do the bedtime routine so she couldn't go out for an evening event, and a few other minor things, all done specifically in the name of traditional gender roles, her asking permission for everything and his considering putting the kids to bed as 'babysitting'. Compared to your examples, my friend's situation was harmless! So if I was concerned about that, I hope you can see your examples are definitely not what I have been arguing for through this thread, nor anyone else here I suspect. That's not headship, that's just being a jerk.

I'm not getting into this one on a public forum right now, but I do cover and am happy to PM about it if you'd like to chat I found this website very helpful in putting my thoughts together on it. They have now published a book which is, essentially, the website in hard copy. I don't agree with everything they write but we have the same general ideas and it's a good starting point. http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/articles-series

I definitely get that. I fell for that mistake myself very early on. These days, I immediately click off of any blog/website/essay which quotes the first half without the second half. (I haven't seen much about the commands being subordinate to the previous submit to one another though, that's really interesting and I want to study that further now. Obviously I've read it all together numerous times but it never entirely clicked like it did just then from the previous post) I am now extremely passionate about the concept as a whole, contextual model of Jesus and the Church precisely because of that misrepresentation. A husbands command to love is just as important, and just as challenging to live out sometimes. To be called to love me as Jesus loved the Church, how could anyones husband ever live up to that! There is an element who pull out three verses in isolation. They do incredible harm to marriages, no doubt about that. But that also doesn't mean those verses are wrong when placed in their correct context. In their correct context, it is my pleasure to submit to a man who aims to love me like Jesus, giving up everything to place me before himself.

The verse to love comes directly alongside the verse to submit, it's not like it's pulling from two different sections, they go together hand in hand, they cannot exist without one another. And no, the bible doesn't explicitly say 'if he doesn't love you then you don't have to submit' but it's painting a perfect ideal, for both parties to strive towards. It's basic logic that if one party isn't upholding their end of the bargain, the other party will have to compensate somehow. The bible also commands us to do many things in addition to submitting, and many of those things we could not do if we were submitting to a controlling, heartless man. The proverbs 31 woman (putting aside it's own controversy for now) was not a doormat, and I don't see her asking permission to buy her fields and source her goods. We need to look at the whole context of the bible, not individual verses. So, the commands for submitting and loving should allow for us to aspire to the proverbs 31 example of what women are capable of. Submitting to a loveless brute makes that aspiration impossible, it also makes impossible the commands in Titus 2 and the basic commands of sharing God's word and about children and numerous other things. Nothing else the bible commands us to do can happen when we submit to a loveless, cruel man. So, in my opinion, when the submission effects our ability to live biblically we are no longer called to submit. God and his commands come before everything, including our husbands. As for the divorce debate, I would disagree, but that's a whole other debate. Succinctly, the best argument I have heard is that marriage is until death. The thing is, biblically, in old testament law, many of the other reasons for divorce were punishable by death. There was no need to say that if your husband killed someone you were allowed to divorce him, because he'd be dead. No need to say if your husband turned out to be a paedophile you could divorce him, because he'd be dead. I believe there is also some allowance for abuse there but I don't have specific verses to be sure right now. So what I have been taught is that anything which was punishable by death in biblical law is solid grounds for divorce in modern times. We've removed the death penalty, but we have not made allowance for the 'until death do us part' nature of marriage. Of course it's far more complicated than that, but, that's the gist of the best argument I know for it.

Yes, some people use this teaching as an excuse for abuse. Yes, some people are genuinely misguided into believing abuse is acceptable under this teaching. Does that mean no one should practice it because some people get it wrong, or can't see the command within the greater context of the bible? It feels like you're attacking submission as a concept because some people misuse or misunderstand it. Do you also attack alcohol consumption as a concept because some people are alcoholics? Yes, the teaching can be twisted into something terrible. That does not mean the teaching is wrong or bad, it means that it's very serious and must be understood within the wider context of the bible. It must be understood in light of what Jesus love for the Church looked like. I think there is an issue here, where, there is an oversaturation of exposure to Gothard style patriarchy (especially among homeschoolers), but families like mine and the others here are not seen, we're not heard, we're just busy doing our own thing in our own corner and not making a big fuss of it. The vast majority of traditional role marriages do not contain abuse, they do not look like the duggars or other extreme examples, and they value women highly. But you don't hear about those, because they're not notable, there's nothing to see. You can't tell from looking at most of us that we let our husbands lead big decisions (ok, you can with me since I cover, but most do not). The vast majority of the time you see/hear about a traditional marriage dynamic, it will be in the context of abuse, either because it's big news or because it's someone you see personally where the signs of abuse have become obvious to outsiders. A few of you have talked about women you know in these 'traditional' situations who are being abused, but, do you know for certain that some of the rest of the women you know are not also following a traditional model, except without abuse or controlling behaviours? The women I know who submit to their husbands don't advertise this fact, they don't make a big fuss over it, there is no outward sign whatsoever that would let you know they're deferring to their husbands judgement, especially since they generally have full control of their calenders and day to day finances just like anyone else, and if there was a situation of their husband making a decision they didn't like (which is rare), you wouldn't know it because they'd have thrown themselves into the decision right or wrong, and generally we know to only talk about those sorts of struggles with like-minded women. Before I covered, no one knew my marriage dynamic, and were quite shocked when it all came out after I began covering. For myself, I have one friend who I am concerned may be veering into slightly abusive/controlling territory (very mildly, having to ask permission for something that I feel she should have had autonomy over), and when I got that feeling, I called her up on it and told her exactly what I thought and the line I felt her husband might be crossing. She thanked me for my concern and for being willing to say something and offer some sort of 'accountability' because she hadn't questioned it previously, she said she appreciated knowing that there was someone looking out for them. She has my words in her mind now, and did reflect on something possibly being a step too far, and we will see what happens in that situation in the coming months. If I hadn't said anything, I guarantee our mutual friend would have done the same. I guarantee our church would never teach 'submit harder'. Yes, there's churches where these situations flourish and which do teach that, but, what would you like me to do about it? I decry those teachings at every opportunity, but, that doesn't mean submitting is wrong and doesn't change how we live. There is literally nothing I can do for those outside my circle of influence. I'm not going to state that these teachings are bad just because some people misuse them. People misuse power all the time in all spheres of life.

We went into our marriage with traditional views on roles. Some of the ideas we had have changed over the years, some more liberal, some more conservative, but those movements have generally happened together and fluidly through our shared life experiences. So it's been something we've been comfortable in from the beginning. I do actually wear a headcovering as part of these beliefs, for however that colours what I have to say. I know of abusive relationships where the man will micromanage what his wife is doing, but that isn't considered the norm among complementarians I know. The generally accepted model is that we both are equally valuable, skilled and intelligent people, but we use our skills in different areas, we each work within our own domain, and that our roles complement each other. Neither of us could get by without the work of the other. As such, we respect each other in these roles. We ALWAYS talk about decisions, because we both have a right to know what's going on in our family unit and because we help each other and an outside influence can help with clarity. But generally the person who's domain it is has far higher influence in decision making. So, I pick curriculum for schooling. DH asks questions, usually out of genuine interest, sometimes out of genuine concern. I ask him to look over my choices, because I would LIKE his imput, not because I have to check everything by him. But, after discussions are had, ultimately picking the curriculum is my responsibility and he has never overridden me or refused something I've decided on. He trusts my research, my efforts and my skills. In turn, I don't fuss about how he handles retirement planning and funding. We talk about it. When I have a concern or hear about something that I've not heard him consider I will mention it. I ask questions and understand what's happening, and I have at one point asked him to do further research on something because I felt it was more important than he did. But, ultimately, I trust him and his knowledge and skills, and allow him to handle that without interference. In your table example, the house is my domain, so, unless he had a significant reason why he disliked the idea (I'm going to run into that when I walk out bleary eyed in the morning) he would not interfere. If he DID have a reason, we would discuss it, but, if after discussion and with a loving heart toward him I still decided the table should go there (you'll learn to remember it's there within a week or two, and it's far more functional in that spot) he would accept that. For your cleaning example, I've heard of that happening in abusive relationships, absolutely. But, for my family, if he wanted to criticise the tiny details of my cleaning methods, he could clean it himself. It would be the highest insult to me for him to micromanage my domain that way. It shows a lack of trust, respect, or acknowledgement of my skills and intelligence. In the reverse, he is currently buying a car, and while I have stated my preferences and what I need out of the car, I am having very little to do with the finding and purchasing of it. I'm quite pleased to leave that in his hands, one less thing for me to stress about. We also don't see that the lines have to be completely hard and fast about who fills which roles. In our family, DH and I are both disabled. He can only work part time medically, so I also work part time from home, and while he handles all my taxes and stuff, he does not interfere with my business at all except for helpful suggestions occasionally. And my disability makes heavy cleaning a big issue for me, so, he does the majority of the household chores, and I do not criticise how he does it, but will give helpful suggestions and sometimes point out things I particularly need done. Maybe not 'traditional' roles, but the roles we have found ourselves in, and we apply the same domain approach to it even if it isn't me cleaning and him working, because we still believe God has given us our own domains, and we still believe they are to complement each other and that we are responsible for our areas and not for each others. It has the side benefit of lowering stress for us both too. I'm not stressing about the car purchase, and he isn't stressing about the 6yo who has decided reading is boring and she will never read another book again. We share our struggles, absolutely, we talk about these things, but we trust each other enough to let each other deal with their own things. We aren't letting stress cause us to start fighting about the car because that's his thing, we aren't letting anxiety cause us to start fighting about the 6yo because that's my thing. We are supporting each other in our roles, acting as help, bouncing suggestions and giving encouragement, and then letting them be to do what they need to do. We've learned that having one 'project leader' goes FAR more smoothly than two people trying to equally share responsibilities who continually butt heads over things and who feel overwhelmed because EVERYTHING is 'their problem'. divide and conquer has been huge for us. Half the stress, and all the responsibility, for better or worse. It does mean that if DH buys a lemon car that's all on him, or if 6yo forgets how to read through lack of practice that's all on me, but, to be honest, I think we both prefer taking full responsibility good or bad, than trying to blend two peoples opinions and ideas into EVERYTHING we do smoothly (or not smoothly, as is more likely) There are some decisions which don't belong to anyone's domain, and that's where the male head of the household comes in. These situations, my husband makes the decisions. But even in that, we discuss everything. I am willing and happy to submit, but, DH has a responsibility to listen to my opinion fully and to lovingly make a decision with my needs and desires in mind. I expect and demand that of him, and in turn, if after he has done that he decides against my opinion I will throw myself into his decision anyway and try to make it work to the best of my abilities with minimal complaint. In truth, he has only 'pulled rank' twice in our marriage, and both times over theological issues (baptism, and official church membership, two areas where we differ theologically). Every other time, we have come to agreement after discussion, or he has decided something is more important to me than to him and decided on my course of action out of his command to love me. You mention you aren't religious, but I don't feel I can talk about this subject, especially not somewhere so familiar with Gothard and other patriarchal teachings, without bringing up this theological discussion. The first half of this command in the bible is so often quoted and enforced, but the second half is generally forgotten. you need BOTH halves of this command for a healthy relationship. If your husband acts out of love to you, then submitting to him is rarely a hardship. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. ... Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ... In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. Christ died for the Church. Our husbands are called to love us as Christ loved the church, to give themselves up for us. If they actually uphold their end of the bargain, then how can a man acting out of that kind of selfless love ever force us to submit to something truly harmful or abusive? I run far away from any movement or group which emphasises the first half and ignores the second, and it is only with assurance of that love that I submit. We went through a bad patch in our marriage, during which I felt my husband did not act in love for me at all, and doubted his love for me entirely. During that time, I refused to submit to him, and stated quite clearly I would not uphold half of that command without the other half being upheld. That may be controversial (some would argue that I should have done my part no matter what he did) but, critics of patriarchy are quite correct, submission without love is ripe for abuse. That's the key to this whole thing working. I may be moving off on a tangent here, you seemed to be asking for practical advice not philosophical discussion, but I suspect it will veer that way before long anyway lol. This is a pet topic of mine, so I'm rather passionate about it. I hope there's something useful to your original question in my post :)

I was 17 when DH and I became engaged. Within two months of the engagement, my parents had a very messy divorce. I wasn't able to live with either for various reasons, so I was, for all intents and purposes, homeless. I wasn't allowed to sleep at my fiances family's home even for one night when we were first trying to work out what the hell I was going to do. We could be out and about alone all we wanted (while we didn't have sex, plenty happened that probably shouldn't have in cars and other places), but, I couldn't sleep at the opposite end of a huge home with 8 kids the night I was kicked out of my mothers house, because we might sneak into each others rooms. There was no 'others might see' going on, they lived in the country with their house non-visible from the road. No sibling issues, the kids knew what had happened. But, for pure legalism, I had to find a couch in an acquaintances home to crash onto at 10pm that night. I ended up bouncing between a few peoples houses, and avoiding his family's home pretty widely, in a holding pattern until the wedding in 4 months time. I agree with the sentiment that boyfriend girlfriend sleepovers aren't to be encouraged. I would not allow one to be planned. But knowing how shamed and alone and helpless I felt, when I just wanted to be near the only person in my life I felt safe with at that moment, who I was engaged to marry with a date set for 4 months later... Obviously this was all a ruse to get into bed with him right? Even though we could have made tea a thousand times before this at my house, the car, and other places we were alone in for hours at a time. Right... Anyway, for this reason, I have no intentions of turning away a BF/GF who needs a place to crash just because they're romantically involved. I don't want anyone to feel the way I felt that night.

Oh heck no lol I am quite happy dealing with medical stuff at home. If it were just pink and swollen with a white head I'd even just try to drain it myself, have done before. But the only colours it should ever be is pink, white, and maybe a tiny bit purple depending on placement. That one is much too colourful for home treatment.

I get infections on my fingers all the time. Generally I do try to open them before using hot water/antibiotic cream. Just, for future reference, so the infection can actually leave. However, I've never had one go white and definitely never had a newly developed black spot. That would get me to the doctor.

Just... wow.... I have nothing nice to say about this.

I'd cook it for an hour or so, check with a toothpick, and be prepared to remove the centre ones and just take the outer rows

To make church a fun and interesting thing for kids, like extended sunday school And to give an opportunity for prolonged social interaction and friend-making. The kids at our church are spread out across 7 or 8 different schools (we live in an odd school area with lots of small schools close together) so having a week of solid interaction jumpstarts friendships with other christian kids. Salvation is not covered directly, however, inviting of non-christians is very encouraged, the idea being an eventual salvation by going from VBS to wanting to come to sunday school or continue being friends with the christian kids.

I have never quite let go of a pang of bitterness over my wedding. Life was hard, his family disapproved, it was the middle of my parents messy divorce. His family decided in their mind what the wedding would look like and i was too quiet, messed up and busy with family drama to do anything about it I told dh I wanted a vow renewal a couple years later and he was deeply offended. He understands now, but theres no money at this stage in our life. I tell myself it was just a stupid party, what does it actually matter in the grand scheme of things. But occasionally it stings a little.

I remember a thread on this a few years ago and it got pretty nasty unfortunately No, I don't sit down and play tea parties or cars with my kids. They can do that pretty well on their own, I add very little value to that type of play, and I would rather my time with them be spent on something more valuable (not that play isn't valuable, but MUMMY playing isn't necessarily valuable). I would rather spend that time doing something they can only do with me, like bake, or talk, or go our exploring with me as a guide, or getting their help to do an adult task (bonding AND learning, woo!), or do something where my participation actually makes a considerable difference. I have limited hours in the day, and I have to decide, is it better to play tea parties, or bake muffins. Also, I just plain don't enjoy tea parties and doll houses and cars, and I don't want my kids to fall into the trap of not seeing me as anything more than mummy, I want to be a person with my own likes and dislikes that they know and care about. How they treat me and respect my preferences is their first lesson in how to how to give and take with their peers later on. I don't like those things, so, sometimes I will do them because they mean something to the kids and I care about their preferences, but most of the time I will not because I don't enjoy it, just as my kids have things they do and don't enjoy. They seem to understand this pretty well. Along a similar vein I DO play wrestle and such because I happen to enjoy that, and I DO colour alongside them because I like to colour. I don't like little kid board games but when they're a bit older I will play board games with them because I like them. But generally, i have a pretty hands off attitude to their playtime altogether. My parents certainly never 'played' with me, most parents in my demographic (low income) didn't. People grow out of the desire to play, we understood that and it wasn't really an issue.

Except that that's not even remotely what I said, but, whatever.

I think part of the problem is that this assumption permeates discussion. But, truthfully, you've been surrounded by mommy bloggers and pinterest culture and homeschoolers invested in their kids for too long. In actual fact, I doubt 90% are giving 'a whole whole lot to their kids', giving everything of themselves to teach and raise those little ones. There is a great big grey area, as has been mentioned before. There's lots and lots of parents who give 'just enough', people who keep the kids fed and clothed but put very little emotional investment into parenting. They aren't abusive, they just aren't sitting down having the deep discussions with teenagers, or guiding their kids through childhood. They expect daycare and school to pretty much raise the kids, so they don't do any of that emotional development and life skills 'nonsense'. They have some fun times, do some good things, go on holiday, maybe have a family games night from time to time. But they're not really giving 100% to this parenting thing, it's just one more chore alongside cleaning the bathrooms and getting to work on time. And they certainly aren't going above and beyond. It's not because they don't love their kids, they do, very much, but they just don't see parenting as needing to be so hard and drama filled and involved, and figure kids pretty much raise themselves with the help of a good school, food and a roof. I think these types of parents are more common among the low income, but they certainly exist in all demographics. My step mother raises her kids this way and does not understand why they have nothing to do with her when she was little more than an evening babysitter for most of their lives, but she wasn't abusive and definitely wasn't evil, just didn't invest too much effort into parenting. Most of my friends growing up had similar parents. I'm not even saying it's a 'wrong' way to parent, but I understand the lack of obligation to parents who parented like this. There's just no connection to build from. It's not amazing parent or evil, there's a sliding scale, and lets stop pretending that anyone who doesn't beat their kid is an amazing mother worth celebrating. It does a disservice to children who grow up with uninvested, busy-with-other-things parents. Especially today where both parents working is becoming so common, and some families literally only see their kids as they are waking them up and putting them to bed during the week because they've been at extended hours daycare. It takes serious effort to be an involved parent in that situation particularly. I think, being involved homeschooling parents, many of us have lost touch with the fact a lot of parents are only seeing their kids a few hours a day on weekdays, much of that spent on homework. Unless that parent is intentionally talking and connecting during those couple hours (which some do, this isn't a bash against working parents, but I think it is a problem more commonly seen among them due simply to a lack of time making a real relationship a very intentional endeavour, and because stay at home parents are usually staying at home specifically to be an invested parent.) what, exactly, is the child supposed to feel obligated about? Their hard work to keep food on the table? In my experience these families aren't very intentional with their lives and just follow the basic messages of society, so the kids have iphones and the newest video game systems. the parents aren't working for food and shelter, they're working for the luxuries that have become status symbols in our culture. Not something I'd base my obligation to them on, and the reason why there's a huge difference between the single mother struggling to put food on the table who's kids adore her and who makes sure to talk to each one privately before bed every night, and the two income family who's kids have been encouraged to take care of themselves, who have been taught inadvertently that family time is unimportant, and confide more in their teachers than their parents. Kids are smart, and they can see motivations. Same hours, very different situations. None of this is directed to the OP, who it sounds like is probably dealing with mental illness, not poor parenting.

I NEED 9 hours to feel rested. 8 will wake me up in the middle of a sleep cycle and I'll feel awful, must be 9. However that's not terribly practical many days. I usually end up with 6-7 (I can wake up within that window alert-enough, as opposed to the walking-dead feeling I have at 8) and then a 2 hour nap in the afternoon to make up for it helps me a lot. DH, however, has never needed 9. He seems to need 6-7 to be at his best, though a siesta would help him too. I've read that oversleeping is just as bad as undersleeping, so finding that sweet spot is important. I know that when I have gotten to sleep in from time to time that an 11 hour weekend sleep in usually feels worse than a 6 hour night. I'd rather the useful hours.