Those of you with traditional marriage roles

[marbel]

I appreciate all the responses and am mulling them over.

 

When I say traditional gender roles, I think I mean less the division of labor aspect and more the superior/inferior (positionally, not intrinsically) dynamic.  The one where if one of you does something against the other's wishes (however minute), it could be classified as defiant or insubordinate, while if the roles were reversed that terminology would definitely not apply.  Does that make sense?

 

I see.  No, if my husband asks me to do something and I say no, I am not being defiant or insubordinate.  

 

But I'm having a hard time coming up with something my husband has asked me to do that I would want to say no to.    I can't think of a situation in which one or the other of us has does something against the other's wishes.  Well, maybe when he went to Lowe's the other week for some plants and came back with too many, and none of the ones on my list. Dang, I wanted some bee balm!  But they didn't have any, so he made other choices. Seriously that's all I can think of right now.  Pretty tame stuff.

 

Now my husband asks me to do things all the time.  And I ask him to do things all the time. We are free to say no, but we don't, because we make reasonable requests. 

 

Neither of us gives the other permission to do anything.  We check with each other to be sure things are convenient.  We are both pretty good about putting things on the calendar but we will still check in before making any plans in case someone forgot something.  We discuss expenditures and since I do the bills, I will tell him when nonessential spending needs to be curtailed for a period of time.  He "obeys" me because he knows that I know what I'm talking about, and not just willy-nilly cutting off his beer supply or whatever. 

Edited July 8, 2017 by marbel

[winterbaby]

I don't think that's what it means.  If he does that (do whatever he wants just because he is in charge) then he is destroying the relationship.  That is using headship/traditional marriage as an excuse to be an ass, because that is not what headship or leadership is.

 

But headship/leadership oriented leaders and communities are often content to be used as such an excuse - there are too many stories of women being told to submit to abuse, too many books published about how the key to happy marriage is for the wife to be a doormat. There's a hint of No True Scotsman in these points about what headship "really" is. It's not the loving, gentle husbands that people are worried about.

 

[goldberry]

I guess I can give an example of what I see as a "traditional" head-of-household arrangement.

 

I have a friend whose husband gives her an allowance.  She has a certain amount of money to buy groceries and if she needs money for anything else, has to ask for it.  Sometimes it will be granted, sometimes it won't.  Her husband makes the final decision on how all money is spent.

 

I know many MANY women who have to basically ask for permission to go out with friends.  The default is that she is in charge of dinner, kids, bedtime rituals, etc. and if she wants to change that, she needs to ask.   She cannot go out even if he has no other reason than he "doesn't feel like" doing any of those things.

 

One of many things that led to my divorce was ex had a lot of resentment when I returned to school.  We discussed it (I was collecting unemployment, working under the table, and had free tuition so very little expense involved, it would have led to much better situation for the family), but it turns out he resented that I did not "ask his permission" to return to school.   Discussion did not matter, I should have explicitly asked him to allow me to do this.   He resentment led to actual behaviors that led toward our divorce.  No, we under no circumstances had a "traditional" marriage in this sense up to that point.

 

In our relationship I am in charge of the money and DH is on an allowance.  We both agreed this was best.  If he needs or wants extra money for anything, he isn't asking my "permission" but does let me know and lets me know why.  Occasionally I might say, "Do you really need to do that right now, because xyz."  Occasionally I might say, "No, that money isn't really there it's already spent on something else."  If it's just a matter of opinion (the money is there but I think the purchase is stupid), I might say I disagree, but I would never say NO.  He's a grown person and it's our money together.

 

I have never had to ask permission to do anything.  We talk about what we want to do and how it would impact the family, then reach a decision.  When DD was little and I wanted to go out with friends, I would coordinate and say, hey this day I want to go out, does that work for you to be home, or do you have any conflicts?  That's just courtesy, not permission.

[goldberry]

But headship/leadership oriented leaders and communities are often content to be used as such an excuse - there are too many stories of women being told to submit to abuse, too many books published about how the key to happy marriage is for the wife to be a doormat. There's a hint of No True Scotsman in these points about what headship "really" is. It's not the loving, gentle husbands that people are worried about.

 

 

I agree with this statement and am absolutely opposed to what you are describing.

[Guest]

But headship/leadership oriented leaders and communities are often content to be used as such an excuse - there are too many stories of women being told to submit to abuse, too many books published about how the key to happy marriage is for the wife to be a doormat. There's a hint of No True Scotsman in these points about what headship "really" is. It's not the loving, gentle husbands that people are worried about.

 

But it doesn't take that sort of model for someone to be abusive. The abusers will do it regardless and a women doesn't have a whole lot more protection when they decide to be egalitarian and it somehow devolves into a power struggle and denigration anyway.

 

There is nothing inherently dangerous in a traditional marriage and gender roles that couldn't go wrong in another setting too. It's ALWAYS about the individuals involved, not the form chosen.

[marbel]

That's how it works with us and with all of the marriages I know that don't have one person as "head" (I actually only knew of one me-man-you-woman marriage and I didn't know them very well. They were friends of a homeschool friend). Just because one person isn't officially in charge doesn't mean both partners are just doing whatever they want or going completely against the wishes of the other. I'm sure people in these traditional marriages will say the same - that their dh in charge doesn't just do whatever he wants. The difference is that at the end of the day he can do whatever he wants because he's in charge.

 

I have actually never seen it work that way.  I'm not saying it doesn't, but I've never seen it.  And most of the people closest to me are in traditional, male-headship marriages.

 

Because the way it is supposed to work is like this:

 

The man doesn't do whatever he wants.  He does what is best for his wife/family, sometimes at the cost of what he wants.  

 

Now I'm not denying that some people do it wrong; surely there are people who do, and there have been some examples given here. But done right, it has nothing, not one thing to do with the man doing whatever he wants because he's in charge.   

 

ETA: Actually, I remembered a couple I knew that had a male headship marriage done wrong. The guy was a jerk. He tossed out "I'm the head of the family!" anytime anyone disagreed with him or suggested doing something a different way.  His wife divorced him, with help from her church.  He was abusive and clearly not loving his wife.  

Edited July 8, 2017 by marbel

[Carol in Cal.]

I feel like I'm submissive in that I treat my husband with respect even if I don't feel like it.  I regard that as the right thing to do.

But dang.  If he told me what to do, I'd do something else specifically to avoid rewarding that kind of behavior.

What does that make us?  

[winterbaby]

But it doesn't take that sort of model for someone to be abusive. The abusers will do it regardless and a women doesn't have a whole lot more protection when they decide to be egalitarian and it somehow devolves into a power struggle and denigration anyway.

 

There is nothing inherently dangerous in a traditional marriage and gender roles that couldn't go wrong in another setting too. It's ALWAYS about the individuals involved, not the form chosen.

 

Saying that every man who is abusive or domineering would be the same if it weren't for an ideology telling him that it's ok to be abusive and domineering - and whatever you and I may believe, there really are groups and leaders who say that - is like saying that ideas and beliefs don't matter, because they never influence behavior. In that case what does it even mean to say you live according to certain beliefs?

 

And what about the influence on women's behavior? If a woman is being abused, and her pastor tells her to submit, so she keeps on being abused, that's abuse that wouldn't have happened if she believed otherwise. Even supposing that the husband didn't interpret it as a license for what he is doing. But he will. In many places the nominal teaching is "the wife must submit to the husband, and the husband must love the wife," but only the first part has any real force. Churches where a woman will be disciplined or thrown out for leaving an abusive husband, but nothing will ever happen to an abuser. Knowing that he has effective impunity in his community, but his victim will lose everything (even supposedly her salvation) if she stands up to him, will absolutely empower an abuser. And though obviously not all conservative churches are like that, I think it is fairly widespread for people to implicitly regard the submission part as the really serious, binding aspect and the "love your wife" aspect as pretty window-dressing. This exploits women's consciences, because she has to keep submitting no matter how unloving he is.

[eternalsummer]

I see.  No, if my husband asks me to do something and I say no, I am not being defiant or insubordinate.  

 

But I'm having a hard time coming up with something my husband has asked me to do that I would want to say no to.    I can't think of a situation in which one or the other of us has does something against the other's wishes.  Well, maybe when he went to Lowe's the other week for some plants and came back with too many, and none of the ones on my list. Dang, I wanted some bee balm!  But they didn't have any, so he made other choices. Seriously that's all I can think of right now.  Pretty tame stuff.

 

Now my husband asks me to do things all the time.  And I ask him to do things all the time. We are free to say no, but we don't, because we make reasonable requests. 

 

Neither of us gives the other permission to do anything.  We check with each other to be sure things are convenient.  We are both pretty good about putting things on the calendar but we will still check in before making any plans in case someone forgot something.  We discuss expenditures and since I do the bills, I will tell him when nonessential spending needs to be curtailed for a period of time.  He "obeys" me because he knows that I know what I'm talking about, and not just willy-nilly cutting off his beer supply or whatever. 

 

 

I am out of likes, all, sorry.  Thanks for the responses :)

 

Re: the bolded, this is exactly the kind of scenario I mean (only with the genders reversed, of course).

[marbel]

I am out of likes, all, sorry.  Thanks for the responses :)

 

Re: the bolded, this is exactly the kind of scenario I mean (only with the genders reversed, of course).

 

I guess I should have added - I didn't get mad at him for bringing different plants.  He wouldn't have gotten mad at me if I'd done it.  All that happened was... we planted the things he bought. They are lovely and attracting lots of bees, which was the ultimate goal.  :-)

 

Now, if he'd said "I threw away your list, because I wanted something different"... that would have been a different story.  But if that kind of thing started happening, I would take him to the doctor for a checkup because something would be wrong.

[MommyLiberty5013]

I think it is important to note that men abusing their wives in any way has nothing to do with what sort of defined marriage they have re: submission/love or not, or anything else. Unhealthy marriages occur across the spectrum from religious to not religious couples.

 

This Christian submission/love cycle, which it truly is, as it pertains to that Bible verse from Ephesians 5 is two-way. No wife need submit to her husband's authority if he is not loving her the way Jesus loved the Church, which is with kindness, gentleness, patience, self-control, faithfulness, peace, and etc.. and as he (the husband) loves his own body and cares for it.

 

The Jesus/Church picture is a model for Christian marriages.

 

Authority is not to lord something over someone else. I see marriage as a co-laboring. We are equal and we do it together. If there is an impasse, which for us is rare, then DH gets to decide. Yes, bottom line, at some point one person has to decide when a decision is required. As we divide responsibilities, I have my things in which I get the final say and DH has his. On matters we overlap, when we disagree and a decision is required, DH decides with my weigh-in and opinion in mind and for those things can that be revisited, after time passes and maybe our situation changes as a family, we do revisit things for new and fresh dialogue.

 

I find it refreshing that we do not have to keep hashing out things. It's pretty cut and dry. I like that.

 

 

 

 

[winterbaby]

This Christian submission/love cycle, which it truly is, as it pertains to that Bible verse from Ephesians 5 is two-way. No wife need submit to her husband's authority if he is not loving her the way Jesus loved the Church, which is with kindness, gentleness, patience, self-control, faithfulness, peace, and etc.. and as he (the husband) loves his own body and cares for it.

 

But it doesn't say that. It doesn't say that the wife is off the hook if the husband is unloving. In fact many authors and leaders actually teach the opposite - that if a husband is unloving, the only solution is for the wife to submit even more.

[Guest]

But it doesn't say that. It doesn't say that the wife is off the hook if the husband is unloving. In fact many authors and leaders actually teach the opposite - that if a husband is unloving, the only solution is for the wife to submit even more.

People being sinful doesn't mean the Bible is wrong.

 

Suffice to say in the churches I have attended the rare times of spousal abuse have been met with calls to the appropriate authorities, protection for the wife and kids, and discipline for the husband within the congregation. All three things.

[Guest]

Authority is not something someone has over an equal, at all.

 

I don't sit around hashing things out all the time, either.

[Carol in Cal.]

When I was in college, I remember some women in a very conservative sect (not mine, and not one I would join or a teaching I would subscribe to) talking in hushed tones about the trials of another woman due to her husband being domineering.  Their attitude was, wow, that is really too bad, because of course she has to submit to her husband and she was unfortunate enough to get one that is inconsiderate.  The only example they had was that he insisted on a fresh meat and potatoes meal for dinner every day.  And I at the time thought that that was pretty appalling and control freaky--both the assumption that she had to comply, and the kind of unreasonable work expectation, in the manner of a master/servant kind of relationship.

 

But now I see it differently.

 

For one thing, I wouldn't accept the assumption that your husband is your doom and will never ever change.  I see even the most unequal of marriages as somewhat of a dance, and don't see absolute head/foot relationships even in the most conservative circles that I know of.  For another, I now think that it would be nice to know what the spouse likes to eat, and that it's not really oppressive to make a bit of an effort to make sure that that's generally part of the offerings.  But just in general, I'm older, and this stuff seems more amusing than serious to me now.  If I heard a bunch of younger women talking like that now, I'd say, Well, take out is always an option, and Gosh, he'd have to get over that if I were his wife, because I believe in LEFT OVERS! and He sounds pretty insecure--has he always been like that?  I wouldn't have any more sympathy for the hushed tones than I do for any other drama.  Because I have seen real, hard things, and don't believe in making something into a Real Hard Thing that is supposed to be a mutual joy or that is, at worst, a bit of an inconvenience.

Edited July 8, 2017 by Carol in Cal.

[MommyLiberty5013]

Saying that every man who is abusive or domineering would be the same if it weren't for an ideology telling him that it's ok to be abusive and domineering - and whatever you and I may believe, there really are groups and leaders who say that - is like saying that ideas and beliefs don't matter, because they never influence behavior. In that case what does it even mean to say you live according to certain beliefs?

 

And what about the influence on women's behavior? If a woman is being abused, and her pastor tells her to submit, so she keeps on being abused, that's abuse that wouldn't have happened if she believed otherwise. Even supposing that the husband didn't interpret it as a license for what he is doing. But he will. In many places the nominal teaching is "the wife must submit to the husband, and the husband must love the wife," but only the first part has any real force. Churches where a woman will be disciplined or thrown out for leaving an abusive husband, but nothing will ever happen to an abuser. Knowing that he has effective impunity in his community, but his victim will lose everything (even supposedly her salvation) if she stands up to him, will absolutely empower an abuser. And though obviously not all conservative churches are like that, I think it is fairly widespread for people to implicitly regard the submission part as the really serious, binding aspect and the "love your wife" aspect as pretty window-dressing. This exploits women's consciences, because she has to keep submitting no matter how unloving he is.

 

Then, this church and this marriage are unhealthy. Period. And the pastor, leader, husband and the wife are not following what the Scriptures say and have perverted the Scriptures' intended meaning. There is absolutely no exception to this. And, there are other Bible verses that demonstrate people who do this to this verse are taking it out of context. There are always grave errors made when people cherry pick Bible-verses and take them out of context or away from the rest of Scripture.

 

But this is NOT the intent of this verse of Scripture - for a perverted man-only role with a wifey-poo doormat. Just because some people pervert the verses, does not mean the entire Bible passage is garbage...because a lot of marriages do this really well and have healthy, happy lives together with their children and/or extended families and community.

 

I said this in one of my PPs. The wife and husband submit/love thing is a cycle. Wives do not have to submit to their husbands if their husbands are not loving their wives as Jesus loves the church.

 

[marbel]

But it doesn't say that. It doesn't say that the wife is off the hook if the husband is unloving. In fact many authors and leaders actually teach the opposite - that if a husband is unloving, the only solution is for the wife to submit even more.

 

I have no doubt that what you are saying here (and in your previous post) are true. 

 

But, I feel like the only response I can give is:  what should be done about it?   If I saw that happening in my church, I would speak up about it.  But it wouldn't happen in my church because the leaders don't teach that women should submit to an abusive, unloving husband.  If I stumbled into a church like that I would leave.    

 

I don't know, I don't disagree with you and I'm not arguing, but I feel like you are not getting the response you want, but I don't know what that is.  I feel like you are making a call to action but I don't know what it is you want me to do.  

 

(I'm not really taking it that personally but I feel there is frustration behind the posts and want to respond in a useful way, but I can't figure out what it is.  Anyone kwim?)

[winterbaby]

People being sinful doesn't mean the Bible is wrong.

 

Suffice to say in the churches I have attended the rare times of spousal abuse have been met with calls to the appropriate authorities, protection for the wife and kids, and discipline for the husband within the congregation. All three things.

 

I didn't say the Bible is wrong. But there is something deeply wrong with the culture around this in some circles, and protesting that they aren't doing it right doesn't really change that. They would say that you aren't doing it right. It's nice that you go to a nice church; abused women who don't go to nice churches are SOL. I don't think it's right for the broader Christian community to sweep this under the rug as having nothing to do with the real doctrine of submission.

[MommyLiberty5013]

But it doesn't say that. It doesn't say that the wife is off the hook if the husband is unloving. In fact many authors and leaders actually teach the opposite - that if a husband is unloving, the only solution is for the wife to submit even more.

 

The verse begins, "Wives submit to your OWN husbands, as you would to the Lord." So, first if a pastor, church, or congregation says a wife has to submit in a certain way, no, she does not. The Scriptures says to your OWN husband. The man and woman leave their parents and make a union together - no one else is involved and has a say to order them to behave a certain way re: submission/love. That is between the holy union of husband and wife.

 

In terms of abuse...the reality is many people are in unsafe situations emotionally and physically. Any church that promotes an ideology and actions/words by which a person can abuse another person is not Christ-like AT ALL. And as I said before, to justify this or to promote ways in which wives just stay in abusive situations, telling them to submit more, is not in line with the spirit of the Lord. There are plenty of verses about leaving places in which people do not want to hear the Good News AKA Gospel, AKA Love of Jesus Story. An abusive marriage is not loving and therefore is not in line with the heart of Christ and no woman must stay in it.

[Carol in Cal.]

I didn't say the Bible is wrong. But there is something deeply wrong with the culture around this in some circles, and protesting that they aren't doing it right doesn't really change that. They would say that you aren't doing it right. It's nice that you go to a nice church; abused women who don't go to nice churches are SOL. I don't think it's right for the broader Christian community to sweep this under the rug as having nothing to do with the real doctrine of submission.

I think that everyone IS saying that that is wrong, and IS saying that that is not really Biblical.  Unfortunately persuasion and prayer and modelling doing it right are the only ways to attack this false teaching, which is pretty much what most of the Christians in this thread are saying they would do or their churches would do.

[MommyLiberty5013]

I didn't say the Bible is wrong. But there is something deeply wrong with the culture around this in some circles, and protesting that they aren't doing it right doesn't really change that. They would say that you aren't doing it right. It's nice that you go to a nice church; abused women who don't go to nice churches are SOL. I don't think it's right for the broader Christian community to sweep this under the rug as having nothing to do with the real doctrine of submission.

 

The broader Christian community does not sweep this away under the rug when it is known or discovered.

 

What do you mean by the "real doctrine of submission" phrase?

 

[winterbaby]

The broader Christian community does not sweep this away under the rug when it is known or discovered.

 

What do you mean by the "real doctrine of submission" phrase?

 

I mean that whenever abuses are mentioned, they're dismissed as not counting, because anything that goes wrong doesn't reflect true headship. Nobody wants to admit that the teaching itself may contain a liability, that telling people that another person has to submit to them may present a problematic temptation.

 

I guess it's a way of disowning the problem, is what bothers me. If you have an ideal marriage where your husband always respects you and never orders you around, that's not what someone who is troubled by the concept is talking about, so saying "well my marriage is rosy and loving" is kind of a dismissal of concerns.

[winterbaby]

I have no doubt that what you are saying here (and in your previous post) are true. 

 

But, I feel like the only response I can give is:  what should be done about it?   If I saw that happening in my church, I would speak up about it.  But it wouldn't happen in my church because the leaders don't teach that women should submit to an abusive, unloving husband.  If I stumbled into a church like that I would leave.    

 

I don't know, I don't disagree with you and I'm not arguing, but I feel like you are not getting the response you want, but I don't know what that is.  I feel like you are making a call to action but I don't know what it is you want me to do.  

 

(I'm not really taking it that personally but I feel there is frustration behind the posts and want to respond in a useful way, but I can't figure out what it is.  Anyone kwim?)

 

Someone might not know they were in "a church like that" until it was too late. Random congregants in a church would certainly have no way of knowing if an abused wife privately went to the pastor and received only teaching on submission and the sinfulness of divorce. I personally know of cases like this in churches that superficially seem very reasonable.

 

What I am looking for, I guess, is recognition that the problems with this aren't all happening somewhere else, among totally unreasonable people that nobody nice would never get mixed up with, who are totally misinterpreting the Biblical passages because nothing they contain is remotely problematic in and of itself. I believe in the Bible but this is tough, ok? It's tough that it says submit and, no matter what one may wish to believe, the text itself gives no way out or conditionality on that. It's tough that it says no divorce and the only exception given is for adultery, no matter what one may wish to believe it gives no exception for abuse. It just doesn't suit me to pretend that the actual teaching is all sweetness and light and that Christians who oppress women have no basis in the text. I don't know exactly what the solution is but it troubles me.

[Lady Florida.]

I mean that whenever abuses are mentioned, they're dismissed as not counting, because anything that goes wrong doesn't reflect true headship. Nobody wants to admit that the teaching itself may contain a liability, that telling people that another person has to submit to them may present a problematic temptation.

 

I guess it's a way of disowning the problem, is what bothers me. If you have an ideal marriage where your husband always respects you and never orders you around, that's not what someone who is troubled by the concept is talking about, so saying "well my marriage is rosy and loving" is kind of a dismissal of concerns.

 

Exactly. Even in this thread people are saying oh but that's not what it's really like. No true Scotsman.

[marbel]

I'm on my phone, making dinner. So I can't quote but winterbaby, I want to come back and respond to you. It might be a while.

[marbel]

Someone might not know they were in "a church like that" until it was too late. Random congregants in a church would certainly have no way of knowing if an abused wife privately went to the pastor and received only teaching on submission and the sinfulness of divorce. I personally know of cases like this in churches that superficially seem very reasonable.

 

What I am looking for, I guess, is recognition that the problems with this aren't all happening somewhere else, among totally unreasonable people that nobody nice would never get mixed up with, who are totally misinterpreting the Biblical passages because nothing they contain is remotely problematic in and of itself. I believe in the Bible but this is tough, ok? It's tough that it says submit and, no matter what one may wish to believe, the text itself gives no way out or conditionality on that. It's tough that it says no divorce and the only exception given is for adultery, no matter what one may wish to believe it gives no exception for abuse. It just doesn't suit me to pretend that the actual teaching is all sweetness and light and that Christians who oppress women have no basis in the text. I don't know exactly what the solution is but it troubles me.

I'm sure that those problems aren't all happening "somewhere else." But if they are found to be happening where I go to church, and people bring it to the attention of the leadership, it is dealt with. I can think of 4 or 5 situations in local churches in my denom, in the past 10 years (how long I've been here) in which this sort of abuse was discovered or reported, and the leadership helped the wife divorce the husband (and the husband was excommunicated). In another case, the leadership worked with the couple to bring about reconciliation - not as in "hey wifey, do a better job submitting" but as in "hey, dude, do a better job loving your wife." Obvs not quite that simple; it's an ongoing process, but it's happening.

 

So these things weren't happening somewhere else but they were dealt with. And when it comes up again, it will be dealt with.

 

I don't know what else I can say or do.

 

A lot of the bible needs interpretation. I know it's not clear and easy, believe me. But I don't know what else I can do. I don't know what you mean by people on this thread dismissing it. If I have come across flippant or breezy about it, I'm sorry; of course I don't mean to.

 

When I had premarital counseling, the pastor went over that Ephesians section in great detail. He was very firm with my fiance about what it means to "love your wife as Christ loves the church." It can be a hard teaching. And many times since then (we have been married 22 years - 1 day :-) ) I have heard that preached on. The bar is set high for men. How can they love their wife as well as Christ loves the church? Yet that is the standard Of course we all fall short. But sometimes when we fall short we need help getting on track, right?

 

Are you sure adultery is the only basis for divorce stated in the Bible? I'm honestly not sure. I will try to look it up, but I thought that abandonment was included somewhere (and that covers a lot of ground; there are many forms of abandonment). I am not a biblical scholar, if that isn't obvious. In any case, I have never heard it limited to adultery alone. I'm not challenging you, just a bit confused/puzzled/unsure on that part.

Edited July 9, 2017 by marbel

[winterbaby]

Please don't think I think you're dismissive of actual abuse when it happens. All I'm saying is that theologically, I can't let the teaching itself completely off the hook and maintain that every time a woman is oppressed, it's a total misinterpretation. Because it says right there that she has to submit, and it gives no out. I have trouble seeing how that isn't inherently oppressive to some extent. I guess I am just more comfortable saying that I have doubts - I think there is something to the idea that these statements are conditioned by the culture of the time - whereas other people stand on the infallibility of the Bible, but then insist on a more comfortable interpretation for which I see little support in the text. The text simply doesn't condition the command to submit on the husband's fulfilling the command to love.
 

You're right about divorce and abandonment (1 Corinthians 7:15); I was speaking sloppily. But I think stretching "abandonment" to mean any bad behavior is probably not a supportable interpretation. Everybody wants these things to be there. But they're not. That troubles me.

Edited July 9, 2017 by winterbaby

[abba12]

What I am looking for, I guess, is recognition that the problems with this aren't all happening somewhere else, among totally unreasonable people that nobody nice would never get mixed up with, who are totally misinterpreting the Biblical passages because nothing they contain is remotely problematic in and of itself. I believe in the Bible but this is tough, ok? It's tough that it says submit and, no matter what one may wish to believe, the text itself gives no way out or conditionality on that. It's tough that it says no divorce and the only exception given is for adultery, no matter what one may wish to believe it gives no exception for abuse. It just doesn't suit me to pretend that the actual teaching is all sweetness and light and that Christians who oppress women have no basis in the text. I don't know exactly what the solution is but it troubles me.

 

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. 

[MommyLiberty5013]

I mean that whenever abuses are mentioned, they're dismissed as not counting, because anything that goes wrong doesn't reflect true headship. Nobody wants to admit that the teaching itself may contain a liability, that telling people that another person has to submit to them may present a problematic temptation.

 

I guess it's a way of disowning the problem, is what bothers me. If you have an ideal marriage where your husband always respects you and never orders you around, that's not what someone who is troubled by the concept is talking about, so saying "well my marriage is rosy and loving" is kind of a dismissal of concerns.

The Scripture is sound. It's the people that screw it up re: sin. If you believe Scripture and all of it is God breathed then you trust the Word, even the tough parts. And anywhere there is trouble it is not the Scripture, it is the human beings messing it up.

 

I disagree in an idea of a "doctrine of submission." Submission and love between husband and wife is not a salvational matter. It's a life here this side of Heaven matter. The Bible is clear that the only way to get to Heaven is through following Jesus, believing He died for one's sins, and having faith in Him as the atoning sacrifice.

 

Everything else the Bible offers is about living in life and doing good works. But none of these, while important, is salvational.

[abba12]

Please don't think I think you're dismissive of actual abuse when it happens. All I'm saying is that theologically, I can't let the teaching itself completely off the hook and maintain that every time a woman is oppressed, it's a total misinterpretation. Because it says right there that she has to submit, and it gives no out. I have trouble seeing how that isn't inherently oppressive to some extent. I guess I am just more comfortable saying that I have doubts - I think there is something to the idea that these statements are conditioned by the culture of the time - whereas other people stand on the infallibility of the Bible, but then insist on a more comfortable interpretation for which I see little support in the text. The text simply doesn't condition the command to submit on the husband's fulfilling the command to love.

 

You're right about divorce and abandonment (1 Corinthians 7:15); I was speaking sloppily. But I think stretching "abandonment" to mean any bad behavior is probably not a supportable interpretation. Everybody wants these things to be there. But they're not. That troubles me.

 

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. 

[Carol in Cal.]

Please don't think I think you're dismissive of actual abuse when it happens. All I'm saying is that theologically, I can't let the teaching itself completely off the hook and maintain that every time a woman is oppressed, it's a total misinterpretation. Because it says right there that she has to submit, and it gives no out. I have trouble seeing how that isn't inherently oppressive to some extent. I guess I am just more comfortable saying that I have doubts - I think there is something to the idea that these statements are conditioned by the culture of the time - whereas other people stand on the infallibility of the Bible, but then insist on a more comfortable interpretation for which I see little support in the text. The text simply doesn't condition the command to submit on the husband's fulfilling the command to love.

OH!

 

You're right, it's not conditional, but it IS contextual.

 

And in context, actually, all Christians are told to submit to each other, before the passages about wives and husbands.  So that is the overarching context for the marriage specifics, and it means that husbands have an obligation to submit to wives as well, but not to the same extent, but nevertheless as fellow Christians.

 

Here is the passage more completely:

 

15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise,16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil.17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart,20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 â€œTherefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.â€32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise,16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil.17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart,20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 â€œTherefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.â€32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Additionally, although I don't personally know Greek, I have been told that the specific instructions here are actually subordinate clauses to the original 'submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ'.  

 

So in the original my understanding is that it's more like 

 

'submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ; wives to your own husbands...husbands loving your wives...'

 

In that sense the mutual submission of all Christians is the overarching message of the text, which then goes into some amplified specific examples of how to go about this.

[winterbaby]

You guys are right... I think I'm just jaded from seeing vv. 22-24 treated as the "meat" and the rest as pretty window dressing.

[Carol in Cal.]

You guys are right... I think I'm just jaded from seeing vv. 22-24 treated as the "meat" and the rest as pretty window dressing.

I do get that.

 

There was a nondenominational church here in town that I attended a few times in my 20s mostly because they had the latest Sunday morning services around plus a couple of my friends went there.  I attended maybe 3-4 regular Sunday services and 1 wedding there, and literally every single one had OTT sermonizing about wives submitting to men, with very perfunctory mention of husbands loving their wives and none at all about the overarching duty of mutual submission that all Christians owe each other.  I felt that this was annoying, inconsistent with the 'whole counsel of God', and agenda driven.  

 

It bugs me that there are churches like this.  But I don't have to go to one or endorse their beliefs, and I don't.

[Rosie_0801]

But that's my point though I didn't say it that way.

 

Both parents felt strongly about it and could not come to an agreement.  My father conceded to my mother.  It turned out she was wrong.  And he resented it. 

 

 

There's a difference between potential money not attained and actually losing something you already had.

 

 

If you don't make an investment that would have turned out well, you have no less money than you started with. Annoying, but it hasn't ruined you.

 

If you make a bad investment, there's a lot of money that you did have, don't any more and may not be able to make back again.

 

 

I think the real problem in conflict situations comes from one person insisting on power while they simultaneously insist on not having the responsibility.  

[AimeeM]

Pretty much exactly what she said (minus living in Silicon Valley, lol).

We have a traditional, 1950s style marriage (he works, I don't).   I guess we came into it gradually.  

 

We were both in our 30s when we married; both working.  When I got pregnant, the expectation was that I would go back to work after maternity leave.  That was how it worked where we lived (Silicon Valley, 1990s).  But, when the child arrived, I didn't want to go back to work.  Financially, at that time, we had no particular need, and we couldn't find childcare that we liked. So, I stayed home. Then we started homeschooling.

 

We have a division of labor that works for us. I run the household as best I can without his input or participation except as needed.  He does the heavy lifting stuff which I physically cannot do, and the computer stuff because that's his gig.  Sometimes I think of myself as his personal assistant, which might sound awful to some but it frees him up to focus on work. We make decisions together but when we have had trouble deciding something - not an impasse in which we disagree, but rather can't decide between two or more choices - I tend to leave it up to him.  He's smarter than me, for one thing, and he is the one financially responsible for the family.  So far we have not had any disagreements we couldn't resolve together, but if it happened, I would probably be the one to accede to his decision, because, as I said, he is smart, he cares for our family, and would make the best decision.  I tend to be more emotional and decisions based on emotion can often go horribly wrong.  In fact I made a decision based on emotions a few years ago that had severely negative consequences; if he'd stepped in and said 'no, we have to do it this way' we could have avoided some heartache.   (I'm not blaming him; it was my error through and through.)

 

We are Christian but I'm not sure it would be any different if we were not.  Some of it is a function of our personalities.  However we do try to live by Biblical standards for marriage such as outlined in Ephesians 5, and my husband takes very seriously the admonition: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...  He basically gives himself up for our family every day.  

 

[abba12]

You guys are right... I think I'm just jaded from seeing vv. 22-24 treated as the "meat" and the rest as pretty window dressing.

 

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. 

[Guest]

You guys are right... I think I'm just jaded from seeing vv. 22-24 treated as the "meat" and the rest as pretty window dressing.

I can understand that, but that really isn't the experience of most of us who have complementarian marriages. It's not what has been modeled for us among more mature believers, what is preached from the pulpit, or what is reflected in our homes. It can happen but it isn't inherent in the teaching nor the norm in practice, especially in this country where the societal protections for women are a lot stronger and the cultural pressures in marriage aren't of the abusive, domineering bent :)

 

Oh, and if we see that sort of dynamic and don't try to help or intervene and reprove the perpetrator, I'd argue we are sinning in our lack of love for the woman involved. Our accountability is to God not only in our marriages but in our relationships with one another, and allowing a sinning husband to keep hurting or endangering his wife is NOT okay.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[Southern Ivy]

I appreciate all the responses and am mulling them over.

 

When I say traditional gender roles, I think I mean less the division of labor aspect and more the superior/inferior (positionally, not intrinsically) dynamic.  The one where if one of you does something against the other's wishes (however minute), it could be classified as defiant or insubordinate, while if the roles were reversed that terminology would definitely not apply.  Does that make sense?

DH and I have pretty traditional gender roles. We both grew up in very strict, traditional denominations, but the one we go to now is far more relaxed (at least according to our earlier experiences). 

For me, the whole "going against the other's wishes" isn't so much about gender roles as much as it's about respect. I would be incredibly hurt and mad if he did something that we had agreed not to do and I know he would be the same. I don't think it's a subordination issues. It's having respect for the wishes of the other. 

 

Now, there HAVE been times when we can NOT agree on something and DH will make the final decision. They're very rare because we typically talk things out and come to a compromise or both agree. In these instances, though, I have learned to trust him. I see things far more emotionally than he does and he has proven, though our marriage, that he is wise with his decision. So, even if it makes me mad and even if I think he's an idiot for choosing to do something a certain, he's usually right (and let's not talk about how mad that makes me haha). 

 

But, we don't have "insubordinate" roles and "dominant, I can do whatever I want" roles. That's not a marriage. That's just control and manipulation, imho. 

[MotherGoose]

I'm never intended to end up as a sahm. Dh and I were reading, with great hilarity, some of the journals I kept during college and early adulthood. I was going to BE some body. I was going to earn most money of the couple, and nobody had better ask me to scrub a toilet. Well I got to BE somebody, and I realized I didn't want to do that forever. Also, dh job gave us a lot more money. Way more, to the point of why are we running around doing all this stuff we can't accomplish during the workeeek on the weekend when you make a pittance compared to dh.

I didn't want to put babies in daycare, and so me staying home was logical.

[MotherGoose]

Dp

Edited July 9, 2017 by MotherGoose

[MercyA]

Did you always see the relationship between husband and wife this way...

 

Yes. See Ephesians 5.

 

If so, was it difficult?

 

Yes. I am not naturally a submissive person. 

 

How did you manage?

 

Thankfully I am married to a very wise and very kind man. We rarely disagree on major issues, and even when we do, he always values my input and often compromises to make me happy. 

 

Also, I trust my husband. I trust that he will make good decisions for our family. And I know that even if he doesn't, I am still doing the right thing by following his leadership. 

 

Growing in my faith has helped me. I realize that while many decisions have only temporal consequences, other decisions affect my soul, my relationship with God, and my eternal state. Obeying Scripture is--or should be--more important to me than being "right" or getting my way in a particular decision. 

 

Recognizing that Biblical submission often makes things easier for me has helped. There is less pressure and less stress not being the leader, and I actually like that. 

 

I'm not interested in debating with anyone about this issue and am only answering because the OP asked.  :)

 

Edited July 9, 2017 by MercyA

[Pam in CT]

re individual actions vs forms of systemic support / sanction:

But it doesn't take that sort of model for someone to be abusive. The abusers will do it regardless and a women doesn't have a whole lot more protection when they decide to be egalitarian and it somehow devolves into a power struggle and denigration anyway.

There is nothing inherently dangerous in a traditional marriage and gender roles that couldn't go wrong in another setting too. It's ALWAYS about the individuals involved, not the form chosen.

 

I think it is important to note that men abusing their wives in any way has nothing to do with what sort of defined marriage they have re: submission/love or not, or anything else. Unhealthy marriages occur across the spectrum from religious to not religious couples....

 

 

I agree abuse can happen in any relationship, in any model.

 

The systemic "surround" can discourage, condone or sanctify individual actions.  Systems can protect the abuser, or the abused.  

 

 

When -- as was true in the US not so many decades ago-- both law and culture construed domestic abuse and marital rape as normative, when women's access to employment was constrained, those legal and cultural systems constrained women from getting out.  Law and norm, as systems, condoned the abuser more than they protected the abused.  Plenty of individual couples were loving and mutually respectful; but when an *individual* acted abusively, the aggregate dynamics of the *system* discouraged the victim from naming or acting on the abuse.

 

Traditional communities can sustain similarly systemic dynamics.  A traditional norm that exhorts women to be sexually available to their husbands cuts close to a systemic denial that marital rape can exist.  A tradition that both exhorts submission and also forbids divorce can easily have the effect of systemically encouraging victims of domestic violence to just endure it.  A tradition that discourages women from meaningful education and/or employment can greatly constrain their ability to change their circumstances.

 

All of these norms and teachings exist within some forms of and communities in Judaism; and many threads on these boards have discussed them in other faith traditions as well.  That many *individual* couples have loving and successful relationships does not mitigate the ways in which such norms and teachings can, *systemically*, provide a type of cover for abusive dynamics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

re Quakers and waiting to achieve consensus before taking a decision:

... The Quakers never make any decision except by 100% consensus among relevant parties. If that means that some times things get shelved indefinitely, then so be it. Really. If they can do it in large groups when passions run high, you can betchur buns two people in high(est) accord with one another can do it too.

My eldest spent many years in Quaker education, and the first few times I witnessed this we-don't-take-action-until-everyone-is-on-board I just about lost my mind.  JUST TAKE A VOTE ALREADY AND MOVE ON.  

 

I eventually came, however, to respect it deeply.  And, as you say, they *are* able to make it work (though it is also true that the sort of people who are called to be Quaker is self-selecting; the sort of people who believe there has to be a quarterback, or the sort of people who are unable to stay with and hold the conflict, are unlikely to be in that community).

 

There *is* a formal mechanism for community members to "stand down," which means something along the lines of "I'm not quite there, but I don't feel strongly enough about this to hold up the decision, so though I don't agree with the direction of the room I will step out of the circle to enable a decision to go forward."  Which in practice may not be so different from the "we go with the view of whoever cares most" marital model many pp have described.

 

 

[eternalsummer]

DH and I have pretty traditional gender roles. We both grew up in very strict, traditional denominations, but the one we go to now is far more relaxed (at least according to our earlier experiences). 

For me, the whole "going against the other's wishes" isn't so much about gender roles as much as it's about respect. I would be incredibly hurt and mad if he did something that we had agreed not to do and I know he would be the same. I don't think it's a subordination issues. It's having respect for the wishes of the other. 

 

Now, there HAVE been times when we can NOT agree on something and DH will make the final decision. They're very rare because we typically talk things out and come to a compromise or both agree. In these instances, though, I have learned to trust him. I see things far more emotionally than he does and he has proven, though our marriage, that he is wise with his decision. So, even if it makes me mad and even if I think he's an idiot for choosing to do something a certain, he's usually right (and let's not talk about how mad that makes me haha). 

 

But, we don't have "insubordinate" roles and "dominant, I can do whatever I want" roles. That's not a marriage. That's just control and manipulation, imho. 

 

When I am talking about doing something against the other's wishes, I mean a scenario like this:

 

You go to the store for groceries.  You intend to buy milk.  You know DH prefers whole milk in the glass bottle, but there is no whole milk in the glass bottle.  There's 2% in the glass bottle or whole in the plastic carton.  You get whole in the plastic carton, knowing he doesn't like you to get whole in the plastic carton but figuring the percentage of fat is more important than the container (to your knowledge, he's never bought 2%, nor have you).

 

Or something like this: your in-laws come to visit for several days; you work from home.  DH and in-laws start a board game while you are working and invite you to play; you say no, I am working.  After about 10 minutes, DH says "come get the baby, he is messing up the game"; you say, "No, I am still working."

 

How does that scenario play out in a traditional gender roles relationship vs whatever you would call the kind of relationship where there is no authority difference between the genders?

[eternalsummer]

Well, no.

 

If I'd been dating the sweetest and most loving man and he'd told me that he'd always value my opinion but if we couldn't agree he expected to have the final say I would have called off the relationship on the spot. That is an absolute deal-breaker for me. It goes against what I believe about God, about humanity, about love, about partnership, about marriage, and about what it means to live together in Christ.

 

Obviously abusive and domineering spouses are a whole additional problem on top of it, but I am "troubled by the concept" in any case.

 

My question, more than these things, if anyone can answer it, is how do you adjust if you start the relationship in one mindset (one in which you are "troubled by the concept") and one member morphs into another (one where he expects to have final say)?  

[eternalsummer]

 

Thank you for answering; I am not interested in debating either, but rather understanding.

 

Please don't be offended at the following questions, and if you are, feel free to say, "That's offensive you obnoxious woman!" and I will apologize :)

 

When you have female friends, I assume you don't feel like one of you must submit to the other.  When you had childhood friends, or even when you were friends with your husband before you were married, I assume you didn't feel that way either (but I could be wrong, please correct me if so).  Do you feel like there is a qualitative difference in the friendship part of your relationship with your friends and the friendship part of your relationship with your husband?  Or is there no friendship component to your relationship with your husband?

 

Do you feel like you can relax around him, fully? Like, for instance, I obviously was great at submitting to authority in school, because I was a goody-two-shoes.  I never got in trouble.  But I think submitting to my husband is a wholly different thing, both because it feels like a violation of the friendship we share and because it was exhausting in school to be constantly on good behavior instead of just relaxed and myself.  Does that make sense?

[brehon]

I suppose I'm having a difficult time with your examples. In the milk scenario, dh would shrug and say ok, hopefully next time there will be glass bottles (to the extent that he cared at all). In the second scenario, well, it wouldn't arise in my house. If I were working, he would watch the baby and not even ask me to interrupt my work so he could play a game.

 

Both your scenarios posit a man who is being an ass. Whereas in my house and, I dare say, many Hivers' homes the spouses are respectful and considerate of each other, regardless of whether or not headship (in whatever form) is practiced.

[abba12]

When I am talking about doing something against the other's wishes, I mean a scenario like this:

 

You go to the store for groceries.  You intend to buy milk.  You know DH prefers whole milk in the glass bottle, but there is no whole milk in the glass bottle.  There's 2% in the glass bottle or whole in the plastic carton.  You get whole in the plastic carton, knowing he doesn't like you to get whole in the plastic carton but figuring the percentage of fat is more important than the container (to your knowledge, he's never bought 2%, nor have you).

 

You couldn't do as he preferred, you would have done so if you were able to, but you were not through no fault of your own. You made a judgement call that you should have absolutely had the authority and autonomy to do in that situation. If there was any kind of shaming or anger over that then he was out of line. Not to mention, getting all high and mighty over the milk bought is micromanaging at best, and manipulatively abusive at worst. This scenario would not occur in our home. My husband might ask why I got the other milk, but not in judgement, just curiosity, maybe slight disappointment at the situation (not at me). And while he has a preference for his own milk and would ask for that if possible, he would not dictate the milk I must buy for the family, and certainly not to the detail of container type! That's my job and he trusts me to do it.

 

Or something like this: your in-laws come to visit for several days; you work from home.  DH and in-laws start a board game while you are working and invite you to play; you say no, I am working.  After about 10 minutes, DH says "come get the baby, he is messing up the game"; you say, "No, I am still working."

 

Wouldn't happen. Just as he expects not to be bothered with calls from the kids when he's at work, if I am working he is expected to step up and take care of the kids. Yes, I have the role of primary caretaker, but, he has the role of primary breadwinner. If I am helping out with the breadwinning he can certainly help out with the childcare, and that day's chores to boot! He doesn't get to have his cake and eat it too, if he wants me to be the sole parent he had better find a way to make up that extra income himself (of course, it would never come to that, because my husband loves being a father and has no problem being parent-in-charge when I'm busy or just need time out.)

 

Being the primary child carer means that I keep track of things, their skills and struggles, what they want for their birthday and what makes them tick, all that stuff. It does NOT mean that DH never does day to day care. When DH comes home from work I actually 'check out' for an hour or two for a little down time and rest, and he handles late afternoon activities. When I work (from home) he is in charge of the kids for the day. It's not babysitting, it's parenting. Just because I track all the nitty gritty details and what we should do and the decisions involved doesn't mean I am the only one responsible for changing baby's diaper, though, it will generally default to me unless there's another circumstance (working, cooking dinner, busy with toddler)

 

How does that scenario play out in a traditional gender roles relationship vs whatever you would call the kind of relationship where there is no authority difference between the genders?

 

Exactly the same, imo. These aren't gender role issues or submission issues, there's are general life issues. Drama about milk your wife couldn't buy or refusing to care for your child while your wife works isn't a head of the household thing, it's a selfish jerk thing. If this were a regular pattern I would be extremely concerned for the woman involved. So, I don't believe that these specific scenarios would see any difference between the two kinds of relationships.

 

 

My question, more than these things, if anyone can answer it, is how do you adjust if you start the relationship in one mindset (one in which you are "troubled by the concept") and one member morphs into another (one where he expects to have final say)?  

 

I don't think you can. Both parties have to be on the same page or it cannot work (and if the scenarios above are real examples, I would say it's veering into controlling and abusive, not a more defined head of household)

 

I consider our roles and all that goes with it a blessing. If the wife finds it a violating, dehumanising offence then it would be wrong to impose it on her in that way. The husband needs to lead her toward the same viewpoint, or recognise that these issues take time to come around to. And I believe you said you're not religious, that this is just traditional roles not tied to religion specifically? In which case, I don't think there's any argument for the husband to demand that his wife suddenly obey him to the levels the above scenarios suggest, when she does not believe that is the way relationships should work.

 

 

Do you feel like you can relax around him, fully? Like, for instance, I obviously was great at submitting to authority in school, because I was a goody-two-shoes.  I never got in trouble.  But I think submitting to my husband is a wholly different thing, both because it feels like a violation of the friendship we share and because it was exhausting in school to be constantly on good behavior instead of just relaxed and myself.  Does that make sense?

 

All I can say is that I don't feel that way. I can imagine how I could, if submission was defined as the sorts of scenarios above, of course you're going to be constantly on eggshells to get things right. That's why it has to come with trust and delegation and love and everything else. But, no, in our actual situation I do not feel a need to be on good behaviour, and it doesn't feel like a violation of our friendship, because I know he trusts me to do my job and I trust him to do his, and I know he is protecting me and loving me, and I can feel safe letting go of the stress and worry and placing the big things in his hands. There's no petty judgements over milk and I know he's always there to help me as I am to help him, so there's no best behaviour and eggshells. I am totally relaxed with him, and that's how it should be. 

 

Edited July 9, 2017 by abba12

[abba12]

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.

Edited July 9, 2017 by abba12

[eternalsummer]

I am not religious, so it's a bit of a mystery, and I am just trying to better understand.  It's hard to see from the outside how the dynamics of such a thing might work; the broad strokes I can see (division of labor, ultimate decision making) but the day-to-day details are harder to envision, and hardest to envision is how it works psychologically, especially if it is not something both parties feel is right for them.