Those of you with traditional marriage roles

[eternalsummer]

I think this question got lost in the shuffle.

 

I know of no agreement, contract, covenant, or promise where one party gets to unilaterally change the terms of the agreement. If you entered into an egalitarian marriage and your husband has decided he wants to be in a male-headship marriage you get to decide if that's a change you want to/are willing to make. You are perfectly within your rights to tell him, "no, that is not what I agreed to and I'm not agreeing to it now."

 

Is this something you've decided to agree to and are looking for advice on how to reconcile yourself to it, or are you trying to decide whether or not to agree to it and trying to figure out what it would be like if you did?

 

I wish it were this simple; it is not that he's decided to change the way our relationship works, but that the way he sees our relationship (and marriage in general) has changed.  Because I'm not religious, I don't really have a good framework for understanding it, and I think a lot of what I've seen of that sort of model in others, like some of the scenarios I mentioned, I had trouble squaring with anything I could recognize as a marriage, or as love. 

 

Even in its best incarnation, as described eloquently by many posters here, I still have trouble seeing it as something not fundamentally different from the more-or-less egalitarian model I always assumed; I also have trouble seeing a traditional dynamic as something other than a negation of the egalitarian aspect of the relationship, and furthermore, I have trouble separating the negation of the egalitarianism from negation of love as a whole, if that makes any sense.

[Bluegoat]

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?

 

 

I wouldn't say that the person's happiness is a non-factor.  I think it would be unusual for most Christian groups to claim that one needs to be married to be happy, or that being unhappy about being unmarried needs to mean unhappiness in general, even if it involved particular struggles.

 

I mean, many of us have circumstances in our lives that are constraining.  Some people never have a spouse or child for reasons entirely outside their control.  Typically Christians I am involved with would say that focusing too much on such circumstances to the point of being entirely unhappy was a sign of larger problems and requires healing and community to overcome.

 

But as far as severing ties to a person, yes, it would be ethical in some circumstances.  Typically groups like Catholics might compare it to dealing with a terrible sickness - sacramentally, they believe the husband and wife are joined in an almost biological way - they become a new organism.  But if one spouse is behaving in a way that is truly damaging to the other, that is not just, it is not loving.  A pension which is a livlihood, or being on the hook for gambling debts, or contracting a serious disease, not to mention something like being beaten or abused - these is not small or petty things - they are like a cancer or terrible auto-immune disorder.  If what it takes is cutting off your arm to stop it, that is what you do.  But it is violent and messy, and the healing is typically imperfect.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Bluegoat

[kbutton]

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.

 

It's exhausting. I have no theological way to say it's "okay" or not "okay" to be that way, and I didn't know it's what I signed up for. 

 

ADHD is in the mix. I wish Christian organizations (churches, people who do conferences or right books on marriage, etc.) would stop acting like my kind of marriage, where my running point all the time seems to be not only necessary but desirable, didn't exist.

 

I agree that there can be families where the solution to a deadlock is to not act by default, wait for consensus, whatever, but ADHD can test even that dynamic--like stretching a rubber band until it's basically a string, not something that has useful tension. We do solve things by that method whenever possible, but sometimes we're both stretched--one gripped with hesitation, indecision, inertia (endless variety of "not deciding and no one can make me" behavior) and one forced to make a decision while feeling like it totally sucks to be left holding the decision-making bag.

 

Life moves, and sometimes people stick their head in the sand. Something has to give.

 

Thanks for giving me a chance to chime in, lol!

[abba12]

I've read plenty of these threads over the years.

 

What emotional labour does the man do outside the home?

 

As described, he deals with the stresses of work, of providing, of maintaining a home and a car and keeping the lights on and food on the table. When things go wrong, when things get complicated, when things are stressful it falls to him.  He is responsible emotionally for every member of his household as leader, he is responsible to the outside world for the actions of his family. He also has responsibility to church, community and country that I do not believe I have as a woman. 

 

His stresses and emotional labour are not constant but when they come they are intense. Mine are more ongoing but also far lighter.

 

Also, I might remind you, you're the one who brought up the phrase emotional labour for this. I probably wouldn't have used that phrase, as I associate it with the nitty gritty work of running a home that I am responsible for, not DH. I more think of him handling the stress load rather than the emotional labour. I think I may have incorrectly used the terms interchangably in my earlier post. Obviously you mean something else. You're right, in those terms the emotional labour falls in large part to the woman so far as nitty gritty household details go, and I am quite happy with that, because much of the stress, physical labour and public work of our family fall to him. It's a fair division. 

[eternalsummer]

It makes a great deal of sense. It is fundamentally different. At its best it might not look different in day-to-day interaction, but it is a very different understanding of what it means to be married.

 

Yes!  I suppose it is almost as different as going from atheism to belief, or the other way around. In a good relationship, the interactions might not look very different, but the meaning behind them is so different that I have trouble working out how to accept it.

 

For instance, assume that in the milk scenario (wife buys the wrong milk), the husband's reaction is not unpleasant but is rather mostly unperturbed.  "Oh, I wanted the other one, " he says.  "The container is more important than the percentage of milk."  No big deal, all is well.

 

But if you assume a relationship in which the wife was supposed to get the right milk because she is obedient to her husband, instead of one in which she was supposed to get the right milk because it's nice to get your spouse what he wanted, it's a huge difference, right?  Even if he is kind about it.

 

And if he is unkind about it, well, that would be worse to deal with in a day to day basis, but the being kind about it doesn't change the actual conundrum, which is that obedience is expected.

 

It's like, if you're in school and your teacher is nice about your mistakes, great, good teacher, friendly, easier to live with than mean teacher!  But the difference between that relationship and one in which there is no power differential, no authority dynamic between you - that is so fundamental that I can't seem to grok it.

[abba12]

Even in its best incarnation, as described eloquently by many posters here, I still have trouble seeing it as something not fundamentally different from the more-or-less egalitarian model I always assumed; I also have trouble seeing a traditional dynamic as something other than a negation of the egalitarian aspect of the relationship, and furthermore, I have trouble separating the negation of the egalitarianism from negation of love as a whole, if that makes any sense.

 

It IS fundamentally different. My argument that it is similar is within day to day interactions, but at it's heart, the dynamic and the psychological meaning behind everything is fundamentally different. We are complementing parts of a single body, not two people doing life together. That seems like fancy words but it is a meaningful difference to me. I do not relate to the two people doing life together idea at all. 

 

It does negate the egalitarian aspect that you're probably thinking of. But, the difference for me is, the negation of the egalitarianism does NOT negate the love, in fact, for me, it fulfills love in a greater and fuller way that full egalitarianism could. 

 

However, it's not for everyone, especially if you have no religious bind to it. I believe in this in part because it is symbolic of Jesus and the Church. Without that symbolism, and without a religious factor to gender roles, I don't see many persuasive reasons to do it. And I absolutely don't believe it's something your husband could force you into now, after years of marriage. You have to agree to it, or he is domineering. This is not against my will, this is not forced on me, I embrace it as a blessing. If it were against my will, it would be wrong. If you can't reconcile your beliefs with his newfound desires, perhaps you can talk about what he really wants (more control? more respect? more autonomy?)  decide if it is a reasonable desire or a negative one, and see if there is a compromise which does not make you feel unloved within your marriage. 

[SereneHome]

My marriage is not a democracy and so it would not make sense to say that DH has 51% of the vote and I have 49%. We discuss big things together. I give my input. I do a lot of "have you considered X, Y, and Z?"

 

His friend recently tried to talk DH into investing in the friend's startup. I did not agree. When we first got married I would've tried to tell DH that he "couldn't" invest the money, which would've set off a power struggle. Instead, I told him that he could if he really thought it best for our family, but here were the long list of reasons why I didn't think it was a smart investment. He ended up agreeing with my reasoning and passing on the opportunity.

 

I think that was handled very wisely.

 

Curious - would you have been upset if he invested anyway?

[abba12]

Yes!  I suppose it is almost as different as going from atheism to belief, or the other way around. In a good relationship, the interactions might not look very different, but the meaning behind them is so different that I have trouble working out how to accept it.

 

For instance, assume that in the milk scenario (wife buys the wrong milk), the husband's reaction is not unpleasant but is rather mostly unperturbed.  "Oh, I wanted the other one, " he says.  "The container is more important than the percentage of milk."  No big deal, all is well.

 

But if you assume a relationship in which the wife was supposed to get the right milk because she is obedient to her husband, instead of one in which she was supposed to get the right milk because it's nice to get your spouse what he wanted, it's a huge difference, right?  Even if he is kind about it.

 

And if he is unkind about it, well, that would be worse to deal with in a day to day basis, but the being kind about it doesn't change the actual conundrum, which is that obedience is expected.

 

It's like, if you're in school and your teacher is nice about your mistakes, great, good teacher, friendly, easier to live with than mean teacher!  But the difference between that relationship and one in which there is no power differential, no authority dynamic between you - that is so fundamental that I can't seem to grok it.

 

Again using this very specific argument, there would be no difference

 

You were 'obedient' (and believe me, my husband would never use that word in regard to me. Actually using those kinds of words is a red flag) by trying to find the alternative truest to what you thought his request was. You didn't go out and grab the 2% in the plastic bottle which he definitely wouldn't want because it was easier. You thought about it and made the best decision you could to your husbands preferences. You made the 'wrong' choice because neither of you had ever gone into great conversational depth regarding the why and how of buying milk. You now know for next time, and next time you'll know he prefers the right bottle (if you remember, because, seriously, I'm not going to remember that and my husband knows it would be unreasonable for me to remember that many tiny meaningless details, so he would just deal for a week with a plastic milk bottle.)

 

To imply that a lack of 'obedience' caused the wrong milk to be bought also implies a lack of trust on the part of the husband to believe that you have his best interests at heart. If you remember, trust is a part of love-as-a-verb. You did the best you could do provide what he preferred, so you were obedient regardless of the actual outcome.

 

But, seriously, if my husband got this fussy about milk we would have bigger problems. 

[eternalsummer]

For both DH and me, religion is a vehicle through which fundamental moral principles are delivered, or a language in which they're encoded.  Where you might say that you see the headship model as correct because of what God says in the bible, DH would say that he sees it as correct because it is what makes sense according to the fundamental principles of the universe.

 

It's easier to explain with something more basic, maybe - some Christians see divorce, separate of adultery/abandonment/abuse/infertility, as unacceptable because of religious conviction. DH and I see it as unacceptable with the same caveats because we believe it to be ultimately harmful, both individually and to the social fabric, and against the ideal order of the universe.

 

 

[eternalsummer]

Again using this very specific argument, there would be no difference

 

You were 'obedient' (and believe me, my husband would never use that word in regard to me. Actually using those kinds of words is a red flag) by trying to find the alternative truest to what you thought his request was. You didn't go out and grab the 2% in the plastic bottle which he definitely wouldn't want because it was easier. You thought about it and made the best decision you could to your husbands preferences. You made the 'wrong' choice because neither of you had ever gone into great conversational depth regarding the why and how of buying milk. You now know for next time, and next time you'll know he prefers the right bottle (if you remember, because, seriously, I'm not going to remember that and my husband knows it would be unreasonable for me to remember that many tiny meaningless details, so he would just deal for a week with a plastic milk bottle.)

 

To imply that a lack of 'obedience' caused the wrong milk to be bought also implies a lack of trust on the part of the husband to believe that you have his best interests at heart. If you remember, trust is a part of love-as-a-verb. You did the best you could do provide what he preferred, so you were obedient regardless of the actual outcome.

 

But, seriously, if my husband got this fussy about milk we would have bigger problems. 

 

Well, luckily we don't drink milk so I doubt we will ever have this problem :)

 

I can see that mutual trust is at the heart of the issue.  I am not sure why I see a difference in trust between the two types of relationships; the egalitarian model implies trust to me, and the obedience/submission model does not, for whatever reason.  I can see that that may be an incorrect interpretation, though.

[Bluegoat]

For both DH and me, religion is a vehicle through which fundamental moral principles are delivered, or a language in which they're encoded.  Where you might say that you see the headship model as correct because of what God says in the bible, DH would say that he sees it as correct because it is what makes sense according to the fundamental principles of the universe.

 

It's easier to explain with something more basic, maybe - some Christians see divorce, separate of adultery/abandonment/abuse/infertility, as unacceptable because of religious conviction. DH and I see it as unacceptable with the same caveats because we believe it to be ultimately harmful, both individually and to the social fabric, and against the ideal order of the universe.

 

Well, you know, the problem might be that your dh is wrong about this particular idea about the order of the universe.

 

And FWIW, I don't think traditional marriage roles have ever universally been quite like that.  Often, where they were closer, there were also reasons - in some cases women and men were educated very differently, for example, so in that instance it might make a lot of sense for the man to make a lot of the decisions.

[eternalsummer]

And yes, I agree that forcing me into it would be unkind, not to mention impossible (as the model does seem to require not only consent but belief from both parties); on the other hand, forcing him into an egalitarian model when he doesn't feel that it is natural or correct for him/us is not a solution for similar reasons.

 

So I am trying to understand the thing better, especially from the female perspective, which of course he lacks.

[winterbaby]

I wouldn't say that the person's happiness is a non-factor.  I think it would be unusual for most Christian groups to claim that one needs to be married to be happy, or that being unhappy about being unmarried needs to mean unhappiness in general, even if it involved particular struggles.

 

I mean, many of us have circumstances in our lives that are constraining.  Some people never have a spouse or child for reasons entirely outside their control.  Typically Christians I am involved with would say that focusing too much on such circumstances to the point of being entirely unhappy was a sign of larger problems and requires healing and community to overcome.

 

But as far as severing ties to a person, yes, it would be ethical in some circumstances.  Typically groups like Catholics might compare it to dealing with a terrible sickness - sacramentally, they believe the husband and wife are joined in an almost biological way - they become a new organism.  But if one spouse is behaving in a way that is truly damaging to the other, that is not just, it is not loving.  A pension which is a livlihood, or being on the hook for gambling debts, or contracting a serious disease, not to mention something like being beaten or abused - these is not small or petty things - they are like a cancer or terrible auto-immune disorder.  If what it takes is cutting off your arm to stop it, that is what you do.  But it is violent and messy, and the healing is typically imperfect.

 

But the same argument about "not necessary to happiness" could be applied to not wanting to be in debt, etc. There's a decision being made that a person is to be constrained in one way, but not another, and it just *happens* to be aimed at the most tender spot, the desire for love and companionship. I have seen up close how ugly and painful it is.

 

It's one thing for a person to decide they don't need something to be happy, or to resign themselves to circumstances that stand between them and the thing. It's another for a community or authoritative body to say they're not allowed to have it, no matter how they feel about it. And then gloss that over with a lot of talk about the ~true meaning of happiness~. The bit about "requiring healing and community" to overcome it is ironic considering that what communities often do is deliberately rub the person's nose in their situation as punishment. Only recently was I unable to unpack my lifelong "preference" for always sitting at the extreme back of the church when it dawned on me one day that my mother didn't raise us that way as a preference, as she let us believe, but because as a divorcee she was considered unworthy, and considered herself so. Yes my parents messed up but I don't believe God begrudged my mom her eventual relationship with my stepdad. I don't believe God holds even severe, messy mistakes over people's heads permanently like that.

[abba12]

Well, luckily we don't drink milk so I doubt we will ever have this problem :)

 

I can see that mutual trust is at the heart of the issue.  I am not sure why I see a difference in trust between the two types of relationships; the egalitarian model implies trust to me, and the obedience/submission model does not, for whatever reason.  I can see that that may be an incorrect interpretation, though.

 

I think, in the public eye, we see trustful egalitarian relationships held up as wonderful ideas, and we see very little of abusive relationships that began egalitarian, because by their nature they usually become controlling which is often confused with submission

 

On the other hand, we don't see healthy headship-model relationships in the media or public eye, because the truth is, to outsiders, it's rarely visible unless specifically spoken about. You might know people with this model but you've assumed they're egalitarian because that's the default assumption these days. What we DO see, however, is abuse, domestic violence, the duggars and Gothard families, and other distorted perceptions of this model, and so it's much more natural to see a lack of trust here for an outsider. It's culturally conditioned to see no trust, and abuse of control, when we talk about a male headship. 

 

But there's lots of terrible egalitarian marriages. There's lots of amazing headship based marriages. They just aren't seen or focused on. It's like the media showing us every single child abduction case in great detail, but rarely reporting on children groomed or bullied through the internet except in vague and general terms. Parents are far more frightened of letting their kids go to the park alone in the middle of the day than they are of their teenager using their phone for facebook every night, but of the many many children who go to the park every day, how many are actually abducted? When you only see the bad outcomes, you're conditioned to assume they're there. 

 

I've seen a few times in this thread, people who still can't break out of the idea that my husband rules over me with an iron fist, despite thousands of words to the contrary. Because it's an image so ingrained due to various social pressures that for some people it's nearly impossible to break out of. A loving, trusting, beautiful submission/headship marriage is a completely foreign concept to some people. 

[winterbaby]

For both DH and me, religion is a vehicle through which fundamental moral principles are delivered, or a language in which they're encoded.  Where you might say that you see the headship model as correct because of what God says in the bible, DH would say that he sees it as correct because it is what makes sense according to the fundamental principles of the universe.

 

I'm not sure what force "fundamental principle of the universe" has for you, but I think it's fairly obvious that on a natural level, males are the dominant sex. Contra feminism it's not an accident, mistake, or conspiracy that throughout history, they have generally been the leaders. But I don't see how it follows from that, that women should never assert themselves. Because it's clearly also part of the natural order of things that men and women have an individually varied mix of shared qualities, and that women have a lot of leadership potential and decision-making ability as well. If God or the Universe didn't intend for these qualities to be exercised, they wouldn't be there.

[eternalsummer]

I'm not sure what force "fundamental principle of the universe" has for you, but I think it's fairly obvious that on a natural level, males are the dominant sex. Contra feminism it's not an accident, mistake, or conspiracy that throughout history, they have generally been the leaders. But I don't see how it follows from that, that women should never assert themselves. Because it's clearly also part of the natural order of things that men and women have an individually varied mix of shared qualities, and that women have a lot of leadership potential and decision-making ability as well. If God or the Universe didn't intend for these qualities to be exercised, they wouldn't be there.

 

 

Well, interestingly I totally agree with him that males are the dominant sex, and see traditional gender roles as ideal, in the abstract.  I'm not sure I'd ever even vote for a woman as President, for instance.  I am very conservative and traditional in my sociopolitical beliefs and in mores.

 

It's just that I am having trouble feeling like that belief can really apply to my marriage without jettisoning what I originally thought marriage and love should be and was, if that makes sense.

[Carol in Cal.]

. Yes my parents messed up but I don't believe God begrudged my mom her eventual relationship with my stepdad. I don't believe God holds even severe, messy mistakes over people's heads permanently like that.

 

I don't either.

I mean, look at the woman at the well.

Look at every single messed up disciple.

Look at how He forgave and restored Peter, who claimed not to even know Him to save his own skin.

Look at how He called Paul into apostleship after he had participating in the first known martyring of someone for being Christian, plus a bunch of notorious persecutions as well.

 

[winterbaby]

Well, interestingly I totally agree with him that males are the dominant sex, and see traditional gender roles as ideal, in the abstract.  I'm not sure I'd ever even vote for a woman as President, for instance.  I am very conservative and traditional in my sociopolitical beliefs and in mores.

 

It's just that I am having trouble feeling like that belief can really apply to my marriage without jettisoning what I originally thought marriage and love should be and was, if that makes sense.

 

That sounds like a very fundamental and heartfelt objection. Have you told him that?

 

And like... what exactly does he even have in mind, practically speaking? If it's so natural, why does it have to be acted out in a certain way?

[Carol in Cal.]

Well, interestingly I totally agree with him that males are the dominant sex, and see traditional gender roles as ideal, in the abstract.  I'm not sure I'd ever even vote for a woman as President, for instance.  I am very conservative and traditional in my sociopolitical beliefs and in mores.

 

It's just that I am having trouble feeling like that belief can really apply to my marriage without jettisoning what I originally thought marriage and love should be and was, if that makes sense.

 

Well, it might be good to try to figure out what he is thinking.

Have you discussed it much?

It could be that you've fallen into an Ozzie and Harriet lifestyle so it feels natural to him to have more of a leadership role particularly as it pertains to things outside of the home.  Or he might have some new conviction.  Or he might have never really felt comfortable with being egalitarian to the extent that you guys were, and now that is coming out.  Or it could be that he feels protective of you with the kids and all.  Or he could be really stressed and just turning into a bit of a jerk. 

 

It's important to figure this out, not necessarily just in conversation, before you know how to deal with it and what it would feel like to you.

 

 

[Bluegoat]

But the same argument about "not necessary to happiness" could be applied to not wanting to be in debt, etc. There's a decision being made that a person is to be constrained in one way, but not another, and it just *happens* to be aimed at the most tender spot, the desire for love and companionship. I have seen up close how ugly and painful it is.

 

It's one thing for a person to decide they don't need something to be happy, or to resign themselves to circumstances that stand between them and the thing. It's another for a community or authoritative body to say they're not allowed to have it, no matter how they feel about it. And then gloss that over with a lot of talk about the ~true meaning of happiness~. The bit about "requiring healing and community" to overcome it is ironic considering that what communities often do is deliberately rub the person's nose in their situation as punishment. Only recently was I unable to unpack my lifelong "preference" for always sitting at the extreme back of the church when it dawned on me one day that my mother didn't raise us that way as a preference, as she let us believe, but because as a divorcee she was considered unworthy, and considered herself so. Yes my parents messed up but I don't believe God begrudged my mom her eventual relationship with my stepdad. I don't believe God holds even severe, messy mistakes over people's heads permanently like that.

 

You know, sometimes communities behave badly.  That doesn't really tell us much about whether the principle is sound.  Given the theology of Christianity, it would be surprsing if people didn't fail to live up to their calling. It would be surprising if we didn't have baggage.  That is essentially the instantiated meaning of original sin - we do not do what we should, we do not know what we should do, we do not find ourselves able to do it.

 

Communities and authoritative bodies say things all the time about what can and cannot be, even when individuals feel differently or disagree on principle.  Modern western civilization, even at its most progressive and liberal, does this all the time. 

 

I don't think I would characterize "not wanting to be in debt" as the same, at all.  It's both less and more serious.  A couple, even though they are married, still represent two wills.  One can choose to act against the interests of the other.  A civil divorce is a legal proceeding. It separates the interests of the couple, legally - the ill will of the one cannot bankrupt the other.   In theological terms, it doesn't negate the sacramental aspect. - in more "natural" terms, it doesn't sever the emotional connection, the history, it doesn't mean shared children no longer exist, it doesn't even necessarily negate other kinds of obligations of care for the person being divorced.  All it does is protect the one individual from being harmed by the other.  Something that the person should have done by choice, and since they can't or won't, the community needs to step in to provide.

 

This isn't somehow intrinsically connected to the idea that remarriage to some other person should be a possibility.  That depends entirely on your theology of marriage.  But, even if you think remarriage is not possible - and that is the teaching, not that it isn't allowed, but it isn't possible - it doesn't mean that legal divorce or some similar legal construct is never going to be useful or called for.

[Bluegoat]

Well, I don't entirely believe this, but when I look back at my thought processes when my kids were small, I sometimes think I can see why maybe it might make sense to have men running things.

 

I was freaking nuts a lot of the time, with crazy protective hormones compunded by lack of sleep.  When I look at moms in a similar place, I am often struck by their craziness.

 

If we lived in a society with no birth control and women were having babies say, every two years, that would be potentially a long time that they would be not only busy and tired and physically burdened, but probably relativly nutty.

 

That being said, I think a lot of the language that gets used around so-called traditional marriage is actually pretty new,and not as traditional as people would like us to believe. 

 

It might be an idea to ask your dh where he is getting his picture of what this is supposed to look like? 

[Carol in Cal.]

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.

 

In context it is kind of like the distinction between sort of honorable and sort of dishonorable discharge from the military.  The reason it comes up is that the idea that abuse is abandonment is a fairly novel one, but it makes it easier to feel like you are justified in leaving, Biblically.

 

No more Patient Griseldas.

 

Personally, I think that the church got pretty legalistic about marriage compared to the way that it was in the Bible.  I mean, look at Abigail.  Or even Bathsheba.  in the Bible people do bad things, they realize this, they deal with it, and they move on.  We need to get back to that a bit more than we have.

 

[winterbaby]

You know, sometimes communities behave badly.  That doesn't really tell us much about whether the principle is sound.

I don't think that quite works. There's something about knowing trees by their fruits. It's not a decisive consideration, but it can't be so easily brushed aside.

 

 

Given the theology of Christianity, it would be surprsing if people didn't fail to live up to their calling. It would be surprising if we didn't have baggage.

I also don't think that works when it's been explicitly taught for a VERY long time, and only recently and tentatively revised, that the people being hurt are the ones "not living up to their calling," and the people doing the hurting are righteous. Saying well we all sin ain't gonna cut it as an excuse for how the concept of sin has been used as a cudgel against the weak and vulnerable.

[Catwoman]

And yes, I agree that forcing me into it would be unkind, not to mention impossible (as the model does seem to require not only consent but belief from both parties); on the other hand, forcing him into an egalitarian model when he doesn't feel that it is natural or correct for him/us is not a solution for similar reasons.

 

So I am trying to understand the thing better, especially from the female perspective, which of course he lacks.

  

Well, interestingly I totally agree with him that males are the dominant sex, and see traditional gender roles as ideal, in the abstract.  I'm not sure I'd ever even vote for a woman as President, for instance.  I am very conservative and traditional in my sociopolitical beliefs and in mores.

 

It's just that I am having trouble feeling like that belief can really apply to my marriage without jettisoning what I originally thought marriage and love should be and was, if that makes sense.

I think the real question here is what kind of relationship have you had up until recently? It sounds like this whole "head of the household" thing is something you weren't expecting. What happened to make your dh want your relationship to change? Why would you feel badly about insisting on following an egalitarian model if that's the kind of marriage you have always had? Why should you have to be the one to change? How is it in any way fair of him to expect that you will make such a dramatic change in your relationship?

 

I feel like your dh is being unfair to you. Honestly, I find it very odd that someone who has always had an equal relationship with his wife would suddenly decide he wanted to be in charge and have his wife be submissive. That makes no sense to me at all, and if I were you, I would be asking a lot of questions to try to figure out where he came up with this idea and why he would think you would be onboard with it.

 

Maybe I'm missing something here. I know you've given some examples, but can you explain what this "head of household" thing would look like in your daily life? Are we talking about little things, or big things like all of a sudden he's the only one who can access the bank accounts and his is the only name on the deed to the house?

 

I'm sorry to sound so harsh about your dh. I hope I'm completely misunderstanding your posts because I'm seeing some red flags here and I really want to be wrong. I know you have a new name but I know who you used to be and you're always so nice, and I would hate to think that your dh is as far out of line as I'm picturing him to be. But again, I apologize if I'm totally misreading your posts!!!

[eternalsummer]

It's not sudden for him at all, and I think he always saw our relationship that way more than I did.

 

No, we share a business and bank accounts and all of that, and that would not be different.  

 

The thing is, it *wouldn't* be a dramatic change in terms of function, really - he already always drives, and always has, and I do tend to defer to him on major decisions, and always have, largely because he cares more about them and thinks about them more seriously and etc.

 

I wouldn't say that he wants to impose a certain model of relationship on our marriage - instead, the way he views both our marriage and the relationship between men and women in general has changed gradually over the years, and I've largely stuck my head in the sand about it because I didn't understand it and sort of hoped it was just a phase.  

 

He wouldn't want to force me to behave a certain way - that would be the opposite of the way he sees our relationship as functioning, really. 

 

I am trying to think of an analogy - it would be sort of like if one member of a marriage, where both members had previously been atheists, or at least agnostics, developed over time a belief in God and specifically in say the Catholic Church as the correct religion (my terminology may be off here).  My understanding of Christianity is that the relationship between the Christian and Jesus is paramount, or primary, or some other similar thing, and that the marital relationship can really only be properly understood and carried out in the context of the relationship with Jesus.

 

For the atheist member, this would feel, I think, like a personal rejection of sorts.  There would be no point in saying, well, it's the newly religious member's fault and that person is being unkind or unfair or whatever in saying to the atheist that his view of God and thus their relationship has changed; it's just a fact, to be dealt with and negotiated by both parties.

 

 

So I am sort of trying to negotiate how it works.  Because I am not religious, I don't have a lot of direct experience, either philosophical or practical, in this type of relationship, and the exposure I do have (mostly through popular media or the news or whatever) leans toward the less kind dynamic. So first, I'm trying to understand what it looks like for people for whom the dynamic works; second, I'm trying to understand what they do that makes it work, and third, I'm trying to understand what they may have gone through and how they may have worked it out inside themselves to make it work, if they've gone from an egalitarian model to a complementarian one.

 

 

[eternalsummer]

A lot of it is the principle of the thing.   To me, to say to your spouse that you love them and that you think there is an authority implicit in the male side of a marriage are contradictory statements.  You can't love someone in a spousal love sort of way over whom you have any authority at all - that is my feeling.

 

Of course I've seen several people in this thread say that they do feel as if their husbands love them, and DH would agree, but to me it just seems like anathema.

 

So I am trying to understand the perspective.  

[Guest]

A lot of it is the principle of the thing. To me, to say to your spouse that you love them and that you think there is an authority implicit in the male side of a marriage are contradictory statements. You can't love someone in a spousal love sort of way over whom you have any authority at all - that is my feeling.

 

Of course I've seen several people in this thread say that they do feel as if their husbands love them, and DH would agree, but to me it just seems like anathema.

 

So I am trying to understand the perspective.

Respectfully, this is not an issue with us and our marriages - it's an issue with yours and trying to look at others for an explanation of a disconnect in your own beliefs with his goals isn't really going to work.

 

Submission/gender roles/etc is a choice we make in our marriages, out of love and respect and a desire for it for whatever religious, pragmatic, or emotional reasons.

 

It is NOT something someone, anyone, can choose for you. If you see submission as incompatible with love (it isn't intrinsically, but it may be for you) then you cannot willingly (let alone joyfully) engage in this with your husband. And you need to explain it to him for your own sake and his. Get on the same page and find an agreement moving forward that works for both of you.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[Rosie_0801]

As described, he deals with the stresses of work, of providing, of maintaining a home and a car and keeping the lights on and food on the table. When things go wrong, when things get complicated, when things are stressful it falls to him.  He is responsible emotionally for every member of his household as leader, he is responsible to the outside world for the actions of his family. He also has responsibility to church, community and country that I do not believe I have as a woman. 

 

His stresses and emotional labour are not constant but when they come they are intense. Mine are more ongoing but also far lighter.

 

Also, I might remind you, you're the one who brought up the phrase emotional labour for this. I probably wouldn't have used that phrase, as I associate it with the nitty gritty work of running a home that I am responsible for, not DH. I more think of him handling the stress load rather than the emotional labour. I think I may have incorrectly used the terms interchangably in my earlier post. Obviously you mean something else. You're right, in those terms the emotional labour falls in large part to the woman so far as nitty gritty household details go, and I am quite happy with that, because much of the stress, physical labour and public work of our family fall to him. It's a fair division. 

 

Your husband seems unusually useful.

[Rosie_0801]

What do you mean?

 

I meant what I said. I'm not sure what sort of explanation I can provide.

[Rosie_0801]

Well, interestingly I totally agree with him that males are the dominant sex, and see traditional gender roles as ideal, in the abstract.  I'm not sure I'd ever even vote for a woman as President, for instance.  I am very conservative and traditional in my sociopolitical beliefs and in mores.

 

It's just that I am having trouble feeling like that belief can really apply to my marriage without jettisoning what I originally thought marriage and love should be and was, if that makes sense.

 

Males are the dominant sex because they are allowed to be.

[Bluegoat]

I don't think that quite works. There's something about knowing trees by their fruits. It's not a decisive consideration, but it can't be so easily brushed aside.

 

 

I also don't think that works when it's been explicitly taught for a VERY long time, and only recently and tentatively revised, that the people being hurt are the ones "not living up to their calling," and the people doing the hurting are righteous. Saying well we all sin ain't gonna cut it as an excuse for how the concept of sin has been used as a cudgel against the weak and vulnerable.

 

Um, it's not an excuse.

 

It's a description of reality.

 

You can set up any set of ideals you'd like, people are going to screw them up. 

[eternalsummer]

I agree.

 

Not all societies have been, are or will be patriarchal.

 

It's certainly not inevitable.

 

Well, that's kind of a different thread, and one I would avoid like the plague on these forums :)

[winterbaby]

Um, it's not an excuse.

 

It's a description of reality.

 

You can set up any set of ideals you'd like, people are going to screw them up.

I don't see how it's a screw up - it's just a natural consequence of the principles. If you hold the idea that there's something a person can never be allowed to move on from no matter what, there's going to be stigma. There's no avoiding that.

[EMS83]

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 do think in these terms (sort of; "wishes" is not the right term), but it's not as severe as it comes across, and I guess it helps because I don't think my husband does.  He tends to think in terms of mutual respect, which is right.  I see the two as dove-tailing, rather than opposing.  If DH "puts his foot down" about something, that is the rule.  It's rare, and usually not offensive things.  With desires, I try to accommodate those, but am not always able to, and he's ok with that.  He may want tacos tonight, for example.  And if I have the stuff, I'll make them.  If I don't, I'll put it on the menu for next week.  Not making tacos just because he said he wanted them isn't insubordination, unless he commanded I make tacos.  And then he wouldn't be being godly.  Make sense?

 

I think you're thinking in military terms, which is ok.  I've used that analogy with the kids.  I want to be very careful using terms like superior/inferior and defiant/insubordinate because the concept is abused by some professed Christians, and because the Christian marriage has a specific dynamic of mutual sacrifice and submission in which that terminology is safely played out, whereas if that dynamic is absent, the door is open for a lot of abuse.  I'm sure others have addressed that at this point; I just wanted to respond to this.

Edited July 10, 2017 by CES2005

[Carrie12345]

I get so very confused in these threads, because the "good" and "proper" examples people give of men-as-heads-of-household play out exactly as they do in my household, where all hell would break loose if either one of us were to declare ourselves The Head.

 

We operate in each other's best interest.

We actively seek each other's counsel.

We take each other's input to heart.

And no one needs a dominant title or permanent veto power.

 

But he's still not getting another dog.  :001_tt2:

[Bluegoat]

I don't see how it's a screw up - it's just a natural consequence of the principles. If you hold the idea that there's something a person can never be allowed to move on from no matter what, there's going to be stigma. There's no avoiding that.

 

Perhaps it will. 

 

That doesn't mean its the idea is in itself wrong.  I think fathers, even if they want nothing to do with the child, are morally obligated to love and sup[ort the child, and I think they should be legally obligated to support financially.  The cannot "move on" from that.  It's the nature of becoming a father, in some ways the nature of having sex that fatherhood becomes possible. 

 

That fathers may face social stigma that could even be inappropriate in some cases, or that they may feel trapped, really tells us very little about whether or not they are forever tied to that child in some way.

 

There is no principle of ethics or relationships that you can find that will not have the effect you are talking about. 

 

Sometimes - in fact I would say very often - "moving on" is going to have to include the consequences of a situation through time. 

 

The screw up is that people judge in a way that is inappropriate at times, no matter whether the principle is sound or not.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Bluegoat

[BlsdMama]

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.

 

So here is an interesting thing:

 

I believe in biblical submission and the idea that DH would be "responsible" for the decision making is foreign to me.

 

Hm.  Interesting thought.

 

And, no, I was raised that women were more capable of making good decisions and men were little more than large children.

[maize]

I've been thinking about this question. My concern with the conception that husbands should always have the final say in marriage is the inflexibility. If it works for a particular couple in a completely non-controlling and non-abusive way I don't see a problem with it. But the realities of life do require flexibility.

 

It would not work, would be profoundly problematic, in my own marriage if I felt I needed to defer to my husband when there was a difference of opinion. My husband is a person for whom I have profound respect and intense love, but he is also a person who has struggled with chronic mental health problems throughout our marriage. He cannot be relied on to make well considered and rational decisions at all times. In practice, while we aim for equality, I very much hold the reins in our household. I don't really like it that way, I'd rather the responsibilities be more equitably shared, but it is the necessity of our circumstances. 

 

I would be concerned for a person in my situation who felt that she had a religious obligation to defer to her husband. Doing so would have destroyed my family many years ago.

[Zinnia]

nm 

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by Zinnia

[mytwomonkeys]

Yes! I suppose it is almost as different as going from atheism to belief, or the other way around. In a good relationship, the interactions might not look very different, but the meaning behind them is so different that I have trouble working out how to accept it.

 

For instance, assume that in the milk scenario (wife buys the wrong milk), the husband's reaction is not unpleasant but is rather mostly unperturbed. "Oh, I wanted the other one, " he says. "The container is more important than the percentage of milk." No big deal, all is well.

 

But if you assume a relationship in which the wife was supposed to get the right milk because she is obedient to her husband, instead of one in which she was supposed to get the right milk because it's nice to get your spouse what he wanted, it's a huge difference, right? Even if he is kind about it.

 

And if he is unkind about it, well, that would be worse to deal with in a day to day basis, but the being kind about it doesn't change the actual conundrum, which is that obedience is expected.

 

It's like, if you're in school and your teacher is nice about your mistakes, great, good teacher, friendly, easier to live with than mean teacher! But the difference between that relationship and one in which there is no power differential, no authority dynamic between you - that is so fundamental that I can't seem to grok it.

FWIW, like you, I can't even wrap my brain around that scenario or anything similar to it. A man who would see his wife's milk purchase as a "mistake" when the other milk wasn't available to buy is just....well... that's just so demeaning, controlling and down right weird. If my husband corrected me (especially over something so trivial and I clearly was trying my best to implement a good solution) we would probably have a serious heart to heart.

 

The reality though is my husband would just never ever speak to me that way or think of me as less than capable.

 

For example, I oversee all of our finances & he has no clue what's going on. Even if I tried to talk with him, he doesn't want to know - he trust me. I'm good with our finances, so that falls to me. We have total trust in each other that I'm working our finances to best meet our family's needs.

 

If we were going to buy a car, we would go with each other and have a budget, but the one who was going to drive the car would ultimately pick it out. However...If my husband wanted a small sports car that didn't fit all four of us in it, well...that wouldn't work for me. And likewise, if I wanted a car that he couldn't sit in comfortably (he's 6'3) then he would have a problem with that. But, in reality, neither of us would ever choose cars that only meet our personal wants. Our decisions don't reflect our own desires being more important when they negatively affect one another.

 

As for hobbies.. he's a musician and I'm a crafter. We totally support what we need to budget for to buy things we love. I don't need to know why he needs another guitar pedal and he doesn't need to understand my sewing machine gadgets or fancy soap molds. We don't have to agree that these purchases are necessary to support each other's hobbies. If they were a financial strain, I'd say we need to wait. Not because I'm the boss, but because I know our finances best & he trust me. YKWIM?

 

Anyway - all this to say... I do consider my marriage to be pretty traditional in our roles. But like you, I can't relate to leadership equating to a husband that micromanages his family or speaks with a demeaning tone, or has a very controlling attitude. That just sounds exhausting, living on eggshells to keep one member of the family happy sounds miserable.

[Zinnia]

I get so very confused in these threads, because the "good" and "proper" examples people give of men-as-heads-of-household play out exactly as they do in my household, where all hell would break loose if either one of us were to declare ourselves The Head.

 

We operate in each other's best interest.

We actively seek each other's counsel.

We take each other's input to heart.

And no one needs a dominant title or permanent veto power.

 

But he's still not getting another dog.  :001_tt2:

 

I think, if pressed, we would say that dh is the "head" of our household.

 

But, in 16 years of marriage, I don't think he's ever made a decision for the family that we didn't come up with and agree with together.  He doesn't question any of the small details of life that I decide unilaterally--the running of the household, the budget, the curriculum choices for the children, the allowance he gets every week.  :)  

 

So much of this discussion, in our lives at least, is just very theoretical and not real life.  

[Garga]

Nm

Edited July 10, 2017 by Garga

[MaeFlowers]

I get so very confused in these threads, because the "good" and "proper" examples people give of men-as-heads-of-household play out exactly as they do in my household, where all hell would break loose if either one of us were to declare ourselves The Head.

 

We operate in each other's best interest.

We actively seek each other's counsel.

We take each other's input to heart.

And no one needs a dominant title or permanent veto power.

 

But he's still not getting another dog. :001_tt2:

I agree completely and am somewhat confused. It comes across that the idea of headship is really nothing more than that...an idea/belief and it's practical reality is meaningless.

[winterbaby]

Perhaps it will. 

 

That doesn't mean its the idea is in itself wrong.  I think fathers, even if they want nothing to do with the child, are morally obligated to love and sup[ort the child, and I think they should be legally obligated to support financially.  The cannot "move on" from that.  It's the nature of becoming a father, in some ways the nature of having sex that fatherhood becomes possible. 

 

That fathers may face social stigma that could even be inappropriate in some cases, or that they may feel trapped, really tells us very little about whether or not they are forever tied to that child in some way.

 

There is no principle of ethics or relationships that you can find that will not have the effect you are talking about. 

 

Sometimes - in fact I would say very often - "moving on" is going to have to include the consequences of a situation through time. 

 

The screw up is that people judge in a way that is inappropriate at times, no matter whether the principle is sound or not.

 

Are you seriously comparing an abused woman eventually hoping to have another partner to a man abandoning his children?

 

But if those things really are comparable, why is judgment inappropriate?

 

You're free to judge - you just can't have it both ways as to whether you're judging or not. There's no nice, kind way to do legalism.

[J-rap]

I'm a Christian and have had a pretty traditional marriage/family life, but it just kind of worked out that way.

 

I was from a fairly conservative (not over-the-top though) and traditional family growing up, and my dh (a Catholic when we first married) was from an extremely liberal family.  I assumed he'd take on the role of head of the family, but he felt uncomfortable in that role and challenged me on it.  We both spent a lot of time studying this within the Christian context, and came to the conclusion that God works within cultures of the day but that His ultimate desire is to do away with gender-based authority and replace it with gift-based authority.

 

So, we probably still appear to be quite traditional to some, but in actuality we both lead in the areas in which we are most gifted or knowledgeable.  Also, I do think that among couples there is naturally one who is more dominant than the other, or who has stronger opinions, makes a better leader, etc.  I think it's funny when I see a couple (and I see many like this) that is adamant that the husband is the head of the family whereas it's perfectly obvious that it's the wife.   :)  Why not just admit it;  it works out for them and everyone is happy!

 

I also don't believe that males are the dominant sex.  Well, physically they often are of course, but mentally, we have equal abilities.

 

To the OP:  If living a more traditional role with your dh as the head comes naturally to you both and you are both comfortable with that, I think that's fine.  But as stated, the reasoning behind this for me would not be because it's a religious requirement but simply because it is what seems to work out well for your family given natural gifts, interests, personalities, etc.

[regentrude]

 I totally agree with him that males are the dominant sex, 

 

:confused: Huh???

Why? 

In what sense? I mean yes, they on average have more muscle mass. But that can't possibly be the justification.

So what, except for societal constructs, makes them so in your opinion?

Edited July 10, 2017 by regentrude

[Bluegoat]

Are you seriously comparing an abused woman eventually hoping to have another partner to a man abandoning his children?

 

But if those things really are comparable, why is judgment inappropriate?

 

You're free to judge - you just can't have it both ways as to whether you're judging or not. There's no nice, kind way to do legalism.

 

 

The whole point of a comparison is that the thing you are comparing is in some way different, and in some way the same.  It's very similar to the idea of testing variables while holding other elements constant.  You take the logic, and see if it holds up for other circumstances that are in some way analogous, but seem to have a very different emotional content.  In this case, you suggested that it should be ethically possible to "move on" from a difficult thing or mistake.  Yet clearly there seem to be many cases where that is not in fact the case.  The principle seems to be faulty.

 

Generally, judgement isn't always inappropriate, but it surely is when you don't know much about the circumstances, or it isn't something that should fall under your responsibility.  Which will be the case in the divorce of someone you don't really know.  And the Catholic Church allows for civil divorce, so what is there for someone to judge about that?  If they do, its presumptuous, at the very best, and very likely from a Catholic perspective, sinful.

 

I'd also say it isn't appropriate to judge a particular father when you really don't know anything about the circumstances and are not in a position of responsibility.  It's entirely possible to do so while maintaining parents are obligated to care for their children. 

 

You seem to be using legalism to mean what you don't agree with.  Catholics don't think a dissolution of a marriage is impossible just to have a lot of rules.  They think it is impossible, metaphysically and sacramentally.  It's rather like a child can become legally emancipated - but they can't somehow get that parents dna out of his body - that connection will always exist. 

[StaceyinLA]

I've always been in a traditional role in the sense that I've stayed home and my dh has worked. I wouldn't say I'm traditional (at least not conservative) in the submissive sense, and I make, or at least help make, most major decisions. The only things I don't really participate in are things I'm not super knowledgeable about like picking out lawnmowers and tools or remodeling (although I could nix the purchases/spending if needed). My husband is more than willing to help with housework, laundry and cooking whenever needed though, so he is by no means tied to his "role."

 

I grew up in a traditional family. My mom always stayed home and was very much a homemaker (sewed our clothes, cooked 3 meals/day, did all the laundry, cleaning, etc.) My dad was a chemical engineer and plant manager, and he did all the "man's work," like car repair, appliance repair, mowing, etc. I wouldn't consider my mom submissive either though; she certainly had plenty of input.

[Catwoman]

Well, interestingly I totally agree with him that males are the dominant sex, and see traditional gender roles as ideal, in the abstract. I'm not sure I'd ever even vote for a woman as President, for instance. I am very conservative and traditional in my sociopolitical beliefs and in mores.

 

It's just that I am having trouble feeling like that belief can really apply to my marriage without jettisoning what I originally thought marriage and love should be and was, if that makes sense.

I have to admit that I'm trying to understand what you mean, but it honestly isn't making sense to me.

 

You have provided several analogies as explanation, but can you post a few actual situations that are making you uncomfortable? If your dh wants to be viewed as the head of the household (or whatever title he has in mind for himself) and you're supposed to be viewed as the subordinate, how does that actually work in your marriage? Has your dh always been the decisionmaker and had the final word on things and this current issue is only about the "titles" involved, or has he recently started acting like more of an authority figure and treating you like you're a less-than-equal part of the relationship?

 

I'm sorry I'm having so much trouble understanding this. I guess I should mention that I don't view men as being dominant, I have already voted for a woman for president, and my dh and I view our relationship as an equal partnership, so I am starting to think I may not be your target audience here. ;)

Edited July 10, 2017 by Catwoman

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't view men as naturally dominant.

 

I think that there are a lot of capabilities that women statistically have been more heavily endowed with as a group that tend to be pooh poohed or undervalued by society, like a better ability to multitask, and intuition (a type of intelligence), and refraining from physical violence.  

 

I think that in a good marriage roles are defined by playing to people's strengths, and minimizing or mostly equalizing the amount of scut work each must do.