eternalsummer Posted July 9, 2017 Author Share Posted July 9, 2017 Also I am out of likes but I deeply appreciate every post in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 (edited) 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. I think that what is easy to lose sight of is how this is rooted specifically in the relationship between Christ and His Church. See, He was the ultimate Hero/Victor/Victim/Sacrifice. And the Church is she for whom He fought and ultimately vanquished sin and death, laying down His life to do so, emptying Himself of His power to do the all-powerful. It's very glorious and paradoxical at the same time. The Church marches through history, flags flying, the Bride herself, the victory having already been won, but with mopping up operations in progress. The Bride is the Saved, the Loved, the infinitely valued one, the Chosen. The very Body of Christ. The Church and Christ should ultimately be the model for marriage. So, that is weighty. I don't fulfill this, my marriage does not, heck, even my church does not show this the way we should. But that is the lush gorgeous ideal. It is worth striving for. It is a great gift. It is what makes this all fit together--I'm not sure that it can do so otherwise. Now, marriage is not the be all and end all of relationships. Extended family, fellow Christians, community--these are all precious. God tells us that He sets the lonely into families. Not necessarily marriages, but close relationships. We are to live that out, too. But marriage is modeled specifically on Christ and the Church, uniquely so. Edited July 9, 2017 by Carol in Cal. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted July 9, 2017 Author Share Posted July 9, 2017 I am not religious, but I see religion as a useful vehicle for a universal Order of Things, or Natural Morality, or whatever else you might call it. I can see how a non-religious person might see a (what is the right word? complementarian?) relationship as ideal or correct - it makes functional sense for a wife to submit to her husband, in all the ways that many on this thread have described how it works in practical terms. I am not as sure how that same person might see the necessity for the husband to love his wife (in the way that Jesus loved the Church?), especially if she is not submitting. Maybe it is a moot point, but I doubt it, because many people across the world and in different religious traditions or even no religious tradition have a very similar model of husband/wife relationship, so there must be some way to universalize/ de-religiousize it that makes sense in functional terms. Those of you who have said that if he doesn't try to love her as Jesus loved the Church, then she doesn't have to submit - is the reverse true? (ie if she doesn't submit, does he have to love her in that way?) If so, doesn't it sort of set up a bad feedback loop? Or is this largely ameliorated by having a church community that can set the couple on the right path if they veer off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 Again, both are to love and submit, because that is required of all Christians for each other, and THEN there is the specific ways to submit, husband with sacrificial love and servant leadership, wife with love and honor and following leadership, but both are to love and both are to submit, as well. So it's more organic, if you will, than a strict division of labor would be. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted July 9, 2017 Author Share Posted July 9, 2017 What would servant leadership look like in real terms? I know what good followership looks like in real terms, because I was in marching band :) And I know the value of good followership, and wish schools would quit emphasizing leadership without coequally valuing followers, who are imo just as essential to any organization. Is the angst of having to figure out how to handle finances and big decisions (and in past times, maybe how to defend the family from intruders or how to keep the family alive during a war) what is meant by sacrificial leadership? Or is it the time put into figuring out things like which milk container is the right one to buy, or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 What would servant leadership look like in real terms? I know what good followership looks like in real terms, because I was in marching band :) And I know the value of good followership, and wish schools would quit emphasizing leadership without coequally valuing followers, who are imo just as essential to any organization. Is the angst of having to figure out how to handle finances and big decisions (and in past times, maybe how to defend the family from intruders or how to keep the family alive during a war) what is meant by sacrificial leadership? Or is it the time put into figuring out things like which milk container is the right one to buy, or something? I don't think there is just one answer to this question. It is not so much specific roles. It's not so much he's working outside the home while she is working in the home. Those are possibilities, but not rules. Rather it's more, at least ideally, he is pitching in even more so than he's expecting others to do. Not with everything but with responsibilities in aggregate. He is persuasive rather than jerky in leadership. He loves and honors his wife, and compensates for her usually being physically weaker than he is. He puts Christ first in their relationship and in how the children are raised (if there are any). He and his wife figure out where their strengths and weaknesses lie, and how to get things done in a way that honors their capabilities. That's more or less the ideal. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted July 9, 2017 Author Share Posted July 9, 2017 I can see how religion (Christianity in particular as my exposure to Judaism is largely not philosphical but rather ritualistic, since I left it as a child) can be a force for good in people's lives. The ideal is a worthy ideal. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abba12 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 Those of you who have said that if he doesn't try to love her as Jesus loved the Church, then she doesn't have to submit - is the reverse true? (ie if she doesn't submit, does he have to love her in that way?) If so, doesn't it sort of set up a bad feedback loop? Or is this largely ameliorated by having a church community that can set the couple on the right path if they veer off? 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). What would servant leadership look like in real terms? I know what good followership looks like in real terms, because I was in marching band :) And I know the value of good followership, and wish schools would quit emphasizing leadership without coequally valuing followers, who are imo just as essential to any organization. Is the angst of having to figure out how to handle finances and big decisions (and in past times, maybe how to defend the family from intruders or how to keep the family alive during a war) what is meant by sacrificial leadership? Or is it the time put into figuring out things like which milk container is the right one to buy, or something? 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. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted July 9, 2017 Author Share Posted July 9, 2017 Well, I really wish I were not out of likes now. Thank you for that, abba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 What would servant leadership look like in real terms? Taking on most of the emotional labour? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalsummer Posted July 9, 2017 Author Share Posted July 9, 2017 What is emotional labor? Do you mean the worrying? I wish I could offload the worrying, it is a burden! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 What is emotional labor? Do you mean the worrying? I wish I could offload the worrying, it is a burden! Yeah, the worrying. :lol: All the thinking, researching, planning, noticing, rationing, initiating etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abba12 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 Taking on most of the emotional labour? Yeah, the worrying. :lol: All the thinking, researching, planning, noticing, rationing, initiating etc. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 (edited) What would servant leadership look like in real terms? I know what good followership looks like in real terms, because I was in marching band :) And I know the value of good followership, and wish schools would quit emphasizing leadership without coequally valuing followers, who are imo just as essential to any organization. Is the angst of having to figure out how to handle finances and big decisions (and in past times, maybe how to defend the family from intruders or how to keep the family alive during a war) what is meant by sacrificial leadership? Or is it the time put into figuring out things like which milk container is the right one to buy, or something? In my marriage? My husband leads by sacrificing much of himself, his time, and his preferences to show love and respect to me and the kids. He doesn't take the lazy way or easy way even after a hard day - he jumps right in and asks how he can help. He looks after our needs before attending to his own, as a general knee jerk reaction. He works his rear off for our betterment and comfort, even when he could do less and be perfectly satisfied. I try to do the same - anticipating his needs and prioritizing his goals and making them my own. Choosing to focus on the areas I know he cares about, even if I don't intrinsically agree with the priorities, because I know it pleases him and makes the home more restful and enjoyable for him after being gone all day. Things like that. It's mutual love and respect acting itself out in our specific roles and with our specific skills. He works as hard or harder than me at the things he is tasked with, and comes alongside to help me on top of that out of love and tenderness for me. I try to do the same for him, but I have a lot less responsibility day to day - my own work is serious and time consuming stuff, but it's not the biggies like keeping a roof over our heads or making sure the lights stay on. To turn an inelegant phrase, he's the book cover and I'm the pages and binding. He strengthens and protects me and I give him the color and joy (with the kids and the environment and attitude I create in the home). For better or worse I set the mood but he scaffolds it all while working with and trusting me to my own areas of skill. That's as much as I can secularize/neutralize it. But the model we follow and the drive behind it is all from the Lord and holy scripture, so it's hard to explain how we both can work together for the betterment of the other, without succumbing to sinful patterns or plain old laziness and selfishness, without talking about the supernatural work that is being done in each of our hearts whereby we consider our roles and work in marriage and parenting to be an act of worship to a Holy God. I tried though - excuse anything that didn't come across clearly :p Edited July 9, 2017 by Arctic Mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runningmom80 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 OP, I just finished The Dance of the Dissident Daughter by SUe Monk Kidd (The Secret Life of Bees). It's more about her journey from conservative Christian to embracing the divine feminine and feminism, but she talks a bit about this topic. It's pretty good, but I'm a huge fan of hers so YMMV. Just thought I'd throw it out there! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 Thank you for answering; I am not interested in debating either, but rather understanding. Of course! I'm always happy to clarify. My comment about not wanting to debate wasn't directed towards you. ;) 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 :) LOL. I hope I'm never offended at honest questions--and the ones you've asked don't bother me a bit. 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? Yes. I am much closer to and more comfortable around my husband than my female friends. He knows me much better. Or is there no friendship component to your relationship with your husband? He is my best friend. Do you feel like you can relax around him, fully? Yes. It might be difficult if he demanded perfection, or if he micromanaged me in my spheres in the home. There is a freeness and easiness in our relationship that comes from many years of being together and from love for each other. We have fun together. We enjoy each other's company. 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? It makes sense, but that is not the kind of relationship I have with my husband. It *would* be exhausting if I felt like I had to always do everything perfectly around him. But, really, there are a very limited number of things he asks that are challenging for me. So, for instance, I am uncomfortable around him if I am running late, because he hates to be late and asks that I be on time. But I am not uncomfortable if he sees me wasting time on the computer when I should be working, for example, because he doesn't object to that. It is not like an employee/employer relationship, or a teacher/student relationship. It is a family relationship, just as parent/child or believer/God relationships are family relationships. Hope that makes sense. :) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 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. Hey, we have been married 22 years and one week! We got married the Saturday before you did! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 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? Can I ask you something? Were you that goody two shoes when you married him and you have changed? I am just trying to get a picture of what might be going on. There is no judgement, we all change to come degree.....but I am wondering if you are feeling that you don't want to be that person anymore because it is too exhausting for you and as you are changing, he isn't quite understanding the changes? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 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? I take issue with the word submit. I just do. Ephesians 5:21 says to submit to one another. However, submission in a non-Biblical text seems odd to me, it leaves all to whatever that word may mean to you, not clear boundaries and guidelines. Although, as you can see, even the Biblical text can be interpreted differently. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 If it's his money he can do whatever he wants with it. If it's our money, we both have to agree. There is no "his" money. We live in a community property state so it's all "our" money. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 If her husband can do with it what he wants despite her objections, as crimson said in the post I quoted, it's not their money, it's his money. If it we're THEIR money, she could remove it to another bank account he can not access, despite his objections, while they decided, together, whether or not to invest it **without fear of reprisal or lingering bad feelings of any kind**. That would be illegal because we live in a community property state. I cannot just steal from the community property without facing legal repercussions. Forensic accountants make a good living in our state uncovering where soon-to-be-exes have hidden stolen community property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 Oh good grief.....I am saying that if my husband wants to invest $5,000 into a friends' new business and I think it is a really bad idea, but he goes ahead and does it anyway, I would be upset. And yes, when we couldn't pay for my son's community college tuition, this conversation might come up! And I would expect it to come up if it were the other way around.....not because we are vengeful people, but because we are human and we expect each other to RESPECT the other's opinions. But thankfully, we are NOT in that kind of marriage and this will NEVER happen. I am getting piled on by everyone BUT the person to whom I addressed it. The person to whom I was speaking referenced a book which really sets off my triggers as I watch so many women suffering with bad husbands. Wow, I spend the day at the beach with my kids and come back to find a "pig pile". I think I'll bow out of this conversation now. Carry on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 Wow, I spend the day at the beach with my kids and come back to find a "pig pile". I think I'll bow out of this conversation now. Carry on! I hope you have learned your lesson Missy! DO NOT GO AWAY FOR THE DAY! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterbaby Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 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. See that's a good point, but not one that would ever have occurred to me because I grew up seeing divorced people treated as pariahs. If your marriage failed you became a moral non-entity at best so the idea that there are any other values left for such a person to fulfill, in the eyes of the Christian community, is novel to me. The divorced Christians I knew only seemed to find dignity by leaving the church. (Of course, there are other ways to "not submit" than getting a divorce, but "don't get a divorce" is a big part of what submission seems to mean in practical terms to those who advise it to abused women, so I don't really see the two issues as separate.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusyMom5 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 I hate threads like this b/c I always get the feeling that there are so many women out there in what I consider abusive relationships that justify the behavior with their religion. I cringe at the idea of headship! That said, I would consider our gender roles to fall into 'traditional' roles, b/c I mainly take are of house, food, kids, and he mostly works outside, yardwork, ect. That does not mean that he has more say than I do on anything! And vice versa. We don't typically argue about money, because we see it as an equal thing that we both have to agree upon- he trusts me when I say I need to spend $500 on something, and I am considerate to let him know when big expenses are coming up. If we get a bill that is higher than he thought, he lets me know and I explain why. In 17 years of marriage he has never once complained about the food I buy or how much I spent on food. If I forget something, it happens. If something isn't available, that happens, too. I'm pretty sure that food is his #1 item not to skimp out on, so he has never questioned our food budget. We have ran a business together pretty much since the beginning of our marriage (and I did paperwork, so know exactly where it all is, expenses coming up ect.), so it is very natural for us to talk about all money- household, business, investment, and personal property. I cannot imagine DH making a big decision with our money without asking for my input- infact I would have to listen to his reasons why we need to buy XXX, then try to counter them. If I agree, I have to be able to give a justification, too. We feel two heads are better than one on all money matters- we debate both sides even when we agree- we are probably weird like that. We may not always agree, but I think we have done a very good job of being equal partners in money decisions. We try to plan out quite a bit in that department. I cannot imagine 'giving' him authority to make all money decisions, or 'giving' him the checkbook and having to ask for permission to buy kids clothes or whatever. Every relationship I have witnessed this in was abusive in other ways, and money was a way to control the submissive spouse. I am sure there are exceptions, but I think they are rare. Money is a joint decision, no matter who 'makes' the money. If one spouse chooses to not be as involved, that's fine, but both spouses should know where money is, what money is going for, and the approximate cost of daily expenses. As for the toys example- that might depend on if we are decluttering (which I am trying to do), and wanting to make sure both spouses are on the same page about stuff coming into the shared space. I don't make big decisions like that w/o asking him, and he woulcn't make them without consulting me. It isn't about submission so much as making sure we are on the same page. Right now we are trying to get rid of anything we don't need, so bringing more stuff into the house isn't something either of us would do without consulting the other. I grew up in a church that was very traditional- divorce was a shame and even if it was 'Biblical' the woman still seemed shamed. This is wrong to me. We should not ask women to stay in abusive relationships! We should not 'give' men 'authority' over women. I am sure there are good husbands that are okay with this model, but there are a lot that will use it to lord over their wives. I think this model feeds into the way society sees women, rape culture, blaming women for men behaving badly- and it gives men an excuse FOR behaving badly (she dressed in a provocative way, her walk was too sexy, she was asking for it). I'll be honest and say I do think the Bible teaches this, but I still think it is 100% wrong! It makes women feel guilty, and excuses men's bad behavior. Don't take this teaching at face value, stop and think about the subliminal messages you are sending your sons and your daughters. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Ivy Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 (edited) 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? Since I don't know if you're referring to your own relationship or someone close to you, I'm just going to be blunt. If I knew, I'd probably phrase more nicely. lol 1) If my husband were to get upset over something a trivial as milk, we would need counseling because that's just being an arse. That's not "traditional roles", that's just someone having control issues and being high maintenance, especially if he can not accept an explanation of They were out of your favorite milk, so I grabbed this one since we needed milk." I've done stuff like this and DH is always very gracious. He lets me know if it's something he minds having again or if he'd prefer to just go without next time. There's never an issue. I buy the groceries and try to get what he likes, but he also is smart enough to understand about stores and inventory. 2) I do actually work from home. So, I can speak from my own experience. If I ran into this scenario, DH would be man enough to suck it up, be a father, and take care of his own child. Having traditional gender roles doesn't negate his responsibility as a parent and it doesn't give him an excuse to avoid any kind of childcare. Also, if he is expecting me to work, then it's understood that I'm not working AND keeping house AND keeping the kids. He has to accept responsibility for portions as well. Edited July 9, 2017 by Southern Ivy 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mytwomonkeys Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 Wow. Just finished reading through all of this. Interesting discussion! I think the biggest problem I see is we are all speaking from our own experiences and scenarios, so when someone is trying to explain from their perspective it's being interpreted through another lens. For me, leadership doesn't mean ownership. If I look to my husband for leadership, it doesn't mean I check my intellect at the door. If my husband is trying to belittle me for buying the wrong container our milk came in, then our marriage has huge problems, way bigger than beverage preference. Leadership is not manipulation, control, bullying, power tripping, or selfishness. To me that is simply abuse and a man that still behaves like a boy. When I met my husband we were both very strong in our faith. The idea of marrying a man that I trusted and knew had my best interest at heart has stayed with us for the past 18 years. We are very like minded, and the thought of being so divisive about something that can't be resolved isn't an accurate reflection of who we are. And likewise, if we did have an issue arise, it isn't weird for me to totally trust him to make the best decision on behalf of me and the kids. For example, when we moved here, my husband interviewed without me and found a house for us to rent (the kids were too little and my coming just would have been more than I wanted to deal with). So when we moved here, I had no idea where I was coming. But I had total faith in my husband to know what would make a good home for us. And he did a great job! He always wants what's best for me and the kids & that's the place I operate out of too, love. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Ivy Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 (edited) I also want to add - the idea of submission is not about being a doormat. Like mytwomonkeys said so well - leadership doesn't mean ownership. So, submission doesn't mean that I do EVERYTHING that my husband wants and completely forgoing anything for myself. It's not about dominance, but trust. And honestly, I don't feel like "submission" is an every day occurrence. We have discussions, we make decisions together - he asks my opinion and I ask his. We take those opinions and feelings and typically come to a mutual agreement. Growing up, my parents had a very traditional marriage. Dad was the breadwinner, Mom was the at-home mom, except when she taught school at the church's private school. However, they set such a healthy example for me. I watched them navigate disagreements, I watched my mother defer to my dad's decisions if he truly felt it was the best decision, I watched my father come back and apologize for a poor decision as well. Mom was free to express her disagreement, but she also never held it over him if something didn't work out. In the case of godly submission, communication and trust is vital. I do not think I would be a "submissive" wife if I didn't trust my husband to make the best choices for the family. It's been a growing season for me. I like to be in control, so learning to trust that 1) my husband has a lot of wisdom and 2) that I'm not always right has been hard. But, as I said earlier, my husband has proven his reliability in our marriage, so I have no problem deferring to him (or submitting) if he truly believes it's for the best. Have you ever read the book Love and Respect by Dr. Emerson Eggerichs? It perfectly addresses an earlier question you had about submission/love and the husband/wife relationship. It's a codependent circle - my respect of him depends on the love he gives and the love he gives depends on the respect I give. It has really helped me to see how our reactions to each other are dependent upon what we put in. To answer the friendship/submission question - my husband and I have a good relationship. I don't see my submitting to him affecting that relationship because he sees me as an equal in this relationship, because I love him and respect him, and because he loves and respects me. I think it actually makes the submission easier when those scenarios arise. ETA: I just asked DH if I was a submissive wife. He laughed and walked a away. HAHAHe finally did answer and said that for the most part, yes. I asked for an example of when I wasn't and he said "I don't keep track." - great answer because "love keeps no record of wrongs." **big mushy sigh** :001_tt1: Edited July 9, 2017 by Southern Ivy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Ivy Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 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. *mic drop* Dang, abba!! Fantastic post. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 (edited) 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 See to me, all of that is stuff that should be shared. A marriage is two adults shouldering the burdens and sharing the joys and I can't see it being put all on one person. It's both of our jobs to worry about things and both of our jobs to find solutions. We buy a car together. Dh works and I stay home because we wanted one parent to stay home and his job paid more (I was a ps teacher). If mine paid more he would have stayed home. Gender didn't play into that decision. We each step in and take over things if the other one is overwhelmed. Actually, we don't wait until it gets to that point. We share responsibility for things that go wrong. I'm sure your arrangement works for you and you seem fine with it. I just cannot imagine turning all responsibility for the above over to dh. He's not my father. He's my equal partner and that's why we share equally (which doesn't mean we do exactly the same things, we do, by mutual agreement, each handle certain things) in running our house and raising our child. Edited July 9, 2017 by Lady Florida. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Ivy Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 (edited) See to me, all of that is stuff that should be shared. A marriage is two adults shouldering the burdens and sharing the joys and I can't see it being put all on one person. It's both of our jobs to worry about things and both of our jobs to find solutions. We buy a car together. Dh works and I stay home because we wanted one parent to stay home and his job paid more (I was a ps teacher). If mine paid more he would have stayed home. Gender didn't play into that decision. We each step in and take over things if the other one is overwhelmed. Actually, we don't wait until it gets to that point. We share responsibility for things that go wrong. I'm sure your arrangement works for you and you seem fine with it. I just cannot imagine turning all responsibility for the above over to dh. He's not my father. He's my equal partner and that's why we share equally (which doesn't mean we do exactly the same things, we do, by mutual agreement, each handle certain things) in running our house and raising our child. I don't think Abba is saying that it's always the husband's responsibility for those and that the wife takes no responsibility. My take on what she said is that we work together as a couple and we shoulder the responsibilities together, but when needed, he shoulders the weight and I support him. Kind of like this scenario - we are traveling home and the car breaks down. We work together to get the car fixed, I try to call AAA while he tries to do whatever to the engine, I help him by handing him tools or trying to start the car. However, eventually, we see that we have no cell reception, no cars are coming, and we can't get the car fixed. At this point, we make the decision that I stay with the car and the kids, while he walks back to the gas station to call for a tow. At this point, he's taking the majority of the responsibility and doing the hard part by trekking down the road and finding help. He's not keeping me from being an equal partner here; he's just taking over the hard part so that I don't have to. I see it as a display of love and caring. Maybe that's not how she meant it, but it's how I read it. :) Edited July 9, 2017 by Southern Ivy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 See to me, all of that is stuff that should be shared. A marriage is two adults shouldering the burdens and sharing the joys and I can't see it being put all on one person. It's both of our jobs to worry about things and both of our jobs to find solutions. We buy a car together. Dh works and I stay home because we wanted one parent to stay home and his job paid more (I was a ps teacher). If mine paid more he would have stayed home. Gender didn't play into that decision. We each step in and take over things if the other one is overwhelmed. Actually, we don't wait until it gets to that point. We share responsibility for things that go wrong. I'm sure your arrangement works for you and you seem fine with it. I just cannot imagine turning all responsibility for the above over to dh. He's not my father. He's my equal partner and that's why we share equally (which doesn't mean we do exactly the same things, we do, by mutual agreement, each handle certain things) in running our house and raising our child. I think this is one thing that is bothering me and you touched on it.....I want to feel like I am married to a partner, not a father figure....in fact.....ewe. However.....I take issue with one of your points.....I got a Prius this past year. I needed something reliable for work. I wanted a Mini Cooper. I STILL want one. He talked me into the Prius. His arguments were valid.....sigh. But I didn't just say, "it is your decision, go get a car you want to get." 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt. Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 Servant leadership is the kind of leadership that is offered *only* because people tend to thrive when they are well-led. - it is always motivated by the best interests of others and initiated for their sake - it is always optional: it is an offer that can be declined at any time - it is never manditory: lots of relationships neither need nor want anyone in leadership - it should only be offered by a person who is capable, competent, and generally successful in the skills of leadership - it must only be offered by someone who is genuinely humble, someone who already loves their neighbour as themself - it can be offered by qualified women as well as by qualified men - it is the only kind of leadership that is ever acceptable for Christians: in families, friendships, fellowships or other organizations 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 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. Exactly. Those would never be an issue at all in my marriage. Those examples......maybe they are real,life because I know a lot of jerky men.....they are just examples Of a man being a jerk. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BusyMom5 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 Can I ask why it has to be the man leading in the posts above? There have been plenty of times my DH needed me to take the lead on things, and it isn't like he asks me to. It's just what a good partner does. We delegate, divide, and try to keep our home running as smoothly as possible. It's a partnership, both sides with equal say. I cannot imagine how that would work if one spouse automatically has power to make the final decision. There are certain things I am going to put my foot down over, and I sure there are things he would have serious issue with, too. One spouses should not have the final say in anything. You can justify it all you want with words like servant leadership, but in the end it boils down to are you equal partners who work together for the good of the family, or does one spouse have power over the other. If you practice headship, then one spouse does have power over the other, regardless of if they exercise it or not. It's the framework for the marriage, is your a partnership or does one spouse get more power over the other? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt. Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 (edited) Servant leadership (in the Biblical definition) only exists between equal partners. It actually can't exist -- even if the vocabulary is used -- where there is a power differential between the parties. Servant leadership is an offer-only proposition. To function it requires free and willing consent. One spouse "having the final say" is a form of "lording over another" which is expressly forbidden (multiple times) in the NT. Neither Christian men nor Christian women are allowed to exercise non-servant leadership in any relationship. (Edited to add the exception: parenting of minor children does involve an imbalance of power and a "final say". Parenting can be done in the style of servant leadership if/when the parent is very mindful and careful about their authority.) Edited July 9, 2017 by bolt. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertBlossom Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 We have what I would consider a "traditional marriage" except that we make all major decisions together. That includes major purchases like homes or cars, as well as job and career choices. I would still consider my husband a "head of household" but he leads and guides with love and doesn't boss me or the kids around. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Curious what people in traditional marriages think about marriages where the woman acts as head of the family ? Or perhaps not the head, as that implies all sorts of things that aren't there - but perhaps as the driver of the family, the more forceful? direction focused? big picture? of the two. Like my marriage you mean :laugh: 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Curious what people in traditional marriages think about marriages where the woman acts as head of the family ? Or perhaps not the head, as that implies all sorts of things that aren't there - but perhaps as the driver of the family, the more forceful? direction focused? big picture? of the two. Considering that in most relationships it is the woman who does most of the emotional labour, I kind of wonder whether this is a Cheshire Cat topic where words mean what we want them to mean. What does "he's the leader" really mean when the woman is the one who does the house keeping, most of the child raising, takes on the primary responsibility for relationship maintenance and does the finances? I come from a place where the head of the household is the one who has the power to choose not to do any of the above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Considering that in most relationships it is the woman who does most of the emotional labour, I kind of wonder whether this is a Cheshire Cat topic where words mean what we want them to mean. What does "he's the leader" really mean when the woman is the one who does the house keeping, most of the child raising, takes on the primary responsibility for relationship maintenance and does the finances? I come from a place where the head of the household is the one who has the power to choose not to do any of the above. Nodding vigorously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abba12 Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Well, this is what I get for sleeping while people are talking, lol See that's a good point, but not one that would ever have occurred to me because I grew up seeing divorced people treated as pariahs. If your marriage failed you became a moral non-entity at best so the idea that there are any other values left for such a person to fulfill, in the eyes of the Christian community, is novel to me. The divorced Christians I knew only seemed to find dignity by leaving the church. (Of course, there are other ways to "not submit" than getting a divorce, but "don't get a divorce" is a big part of what submission seems to mean in practical terms to those who advise it to abused women, so I don't really see the two issues as separate.) 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. See to me, all of that is stuff that should be shared. A marriage is two adults shouldering the burdens and sharing the joys and I can't see it being put all on one person. It's both of our jobs to worry about things and both of our jobs to find solutions. We share responsibility for things that go wrong. 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. I don't think Abba is saying that it's always the husband's responsibility for those and that the wife takes no responsibility. My take on what she said is that we work together as a couple and we shoulder the responsibilities together, but when needed, he shoulders the weight and I support him.Maybe that's not how she meant it, but it's how I read it. :) 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. Can I ask why it has to be the man leading in the posts above? 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. Curious what people in traditional marriages think about marriages where the woman acts as head of the family ? Or perhaps not the head, as that implies all sorts of things that aren't there - but perhaps as the driver of the family, the more forceful? direction focused? big picture? of the two. 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abba12 Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 (edited) Considering that in most relationships it is the woman who does most of the emotional labour, I kind of wonder whether this is a Cheshire Cat topic where words mean what we want them to mean. What does "he's the leader" really mean when the woman is the one who does the house keeping, most of the child raising, takes on the primary responsibility for relationship maintenance and does the finances? I come from a place where the head of the household is the one who has the power to choose not to do any of the above. 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 Edited July 10, 2017 by abba12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 I don't even understand this whole "women are allowed to divorce in cases of abuse" thing. A small comfort that is when so often it only makes the abuse worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 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 I've read plenty of these threads over the years. What emotional labour does the man do outside the home? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterbaby Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 I don't even understand this whole "women are allowed to divorce in cases of abuse" thing. A small comfort that is when so often it only makes the abuse worse. What do you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 re individual actions vs forms of systemic support / sanction: 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: 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. I was thinking something that resonates with what you said here. Aside from the consensus idea, I think the "keep the status quo or more conservative position" is also how understand the conciliar approach to church governance to work. If someone thinks a new way of thinking about doctrine, or a new practice, is justified, they can't make the change unless they can convince pretty much the rest of the group to the change. People find this frustrating at times, but it means that when a new approach is undertaken, everyone is on board, and it prevents people being disenfranchised from the set of relationships or organization they entered into. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMS83 Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Did you always see the relationship between husband and wife this way, or was it an adjustment you made at some point in your marriage? If so, was it difficult? How did you manage? By traditional, I guess I mean the husband as the head of household, responsible for decision-making (most of it, anyway, separate of traditional women's spheres like childcare and homemaking). The thing that would lead some religious people to (as I understand it) wear a head covering to symbolize their subordination to their husband, etc. I am not religious, but welcome religious perspectives. Just responding to OP here. We're sort of traditional, in that he works, and I stay home. We're sort of not in that I pretty much do everything that's not paid employment (or at least try). But again, traditional in that I wouldn't feel diminished if he decided to do all the "man" stuff around here. And I never want to work ever. Where it looks really traditional is decision making. He gets the final call, unless he says it's up to me. If we go on vacation, I'll do all the sifting through rental listings and come up with 10-12, toss them at him, and he'll come up with his top three, and I'll go book, starting with his first pick. Then again, one could really spin that either way, because I'm the first filter, but it's his top pick that I go for first when booking. If I don't manage to succeed, I feel bad, but he's fine. Now for he first half of our marriage, I did just wordlessly enact any and every preference he expressed, without him demanding that or even really being aware of it. I learned not to do that, but that looked traditional, but it was just me at the time, not our faith or his dominance or anything like that. I'm mostly cured of that, though. Now I'll put my two cents in, but still--if I want floors and he says we need siding more, we get siding. If I like colors A B or C and he likes F, we'll go with F unless I just hate it (which I wouldn't), for a few reasons: 1) I don't care that much, 2) it's not worth a fuss, and 3) he has a better eye than I do. If it's something that I do care about and is worth a fuss, I'll (respectfully) dig in my heels. I didn't once and still regret it, though at this point, I can sort of see his side of the issue. So I don't know if you'd class that as egalitarian or complementarian, traditional or contemporary. I think a good marriage has aspects of all four of those labels and that marriage roles go much deeper than who takes out the trash or does the dishes. :) 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterbaby Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 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. My experience was not in the US but Ireland, where divorce was actually illegal until the 1990s, and highly taboo. Separation was legal, but as you could never get properly divorced, you could never remarry. I honestly don't see what the point of allowing divorce is if you're sentencing that person to never have a partner again, especially if as is often the case the other party is an unbeliever who will have no qualms about starting another relationship. I imagine that a lot of women would stay with a bad guy rather than be alone forever. I have seen a version of those attitudes in conservative Catholic communities in the United States. A lot of people stop being Catholic, or move far away. At best, it's treated as being extremely hush-hush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 My experience was not in the US but Ireland, where divorce was actually illegal until the 1990s, and highly taboo. Separation was legal, but as you could never get properly divorced, you could never remarry. I honestly don't see what the point of allowing divorce is if you're sentencing that person to never have a partner again, especially if as is often the case the other party is an unbeliever who will have no qualms about starting another relationship. I imagine that a lot of women would stay with a bad guy rather than be alone forever. I have seen a version of those attitudes in conservative Catholic communities in the United States. A lot of people stop being Catholic, or move far away. At best, it's treated as being extremely hush-hush. Well, it allows you to cut legal ties, so it can affect things like debt and pensions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterbaby Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Well, it allows you to cut legal ties, so it can affect things like debt and pensions. But if the premise is that in God's eyes you can never really un-marry the person, is it even ethical to do so? Having to go through life saddled with someone's financial issues actually strikes me as relatively light compared to having to go through life rejecting any opportunity for companionship because you're saddled with the idea that you're somehow still the partner of someone who's long since moved on. If the person's happiness is a non-factor, who cares about pensions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.