F
Feanaro
Guest
I agree princess, your posts and marriage are inspiring.
- Status
F
Feanaro
Guest
D
duskyjewel
Guest
Feanaro’s military analogy is totally off…
If you are given an illegal/immoral order, you are REQUIRED NOT TO OBEY IT! So…yet another justification down the drain. I wish people would actually know something about the legal environment of the military before they make these comparisons.
*posted with 6 yrs experience as an active duty Air Force wife
If you are given an illegal/immoral order, you are REQUIRED NOT TO OBEY IT! So…yet another justification down the drain. I wish people would actually know something about the legal environment of the military before they make these comparisons.
*posted with 6 yrs experience as an active duty Air Force wife
R
RWMorris
Guest
Malia and Hubby,
I so much appreciate both of your (name removed by moderator)uts on this thread. It’s nice to see you both try to work out this issue in a loving way. Be thankful for such a mature, honest marriage!
My two cents…My husband is retired military so he is still very much the sergeant. However, when we got married I was NOT at all submissive! We had lots of disagreements and I am sad to say, even fights. Now twenty-one years later, I’ve learned to “let it go” and he’s learned not to bark orders. We’re both idylically happy. When decisions are to be made, he consults me or I him, but in the end I’ve learned to be respectful of his authority because it just makes sense and he gives me back love and cherishing beyond all measure.
When it comes to the children, he and I often have differing opinions but in the end, he’s the boss. I know he’ll never do anything to hurt the children and if I don’t agree with his decisions, I just let it go and let my opinion be known. Truth be told, he’s often wished he’d followed my advice, especially when the children were babies!
I so much appreciate both of your (name removed by moderator)uts on this thread. It’s nice to see you both try to work out this issue in a loving way. Be thankful for such a mature, honest marriage!
My two cents…My husband is retired military so he is still very much the sergeant. However, when we got married I was NOT at all submissive! We had lots of disagreements and I am sad to say, even fights. Now twenty-one years later, I’ve learned to “let it go” and he’s learned not to bark orders. We’re both idylically happy. When decisions are to be made, he consults me or I him, but in the end I’ve learned to be respectful of his authority because it just makes sense and he gives me back love and cherishing beyond all measure.
When it comes to the children, he and I often have differing opinions but in the end, he’s the boss. I know he’ll never do anything to hurt the children and if I don’t agree with his decisions, I just let it go and let my opinion be known. Truth be told, he’s often wished he’d followed my advice, especially when the children were babies!
F
Feanaro_s_Wife
Guest
**Ummmm, my hubby is IN the military. He is going on 13 years.
Of course you aren’t supposed to follow orders to do anything illegal or immoral. That is not what we’re talking about. It’s more along the lines of Private Smith says “don’t go that way because I just came from there and the road is blocked”. But Lt. Jones says “no it’s not, let’s go men!!!” They have to follow him into a situation they know is going to cause a big waste of time because he is their superior officer. Simple. Marriage…not so simple.
Malia**
D
dulcissima
Guest
Right in post #1 Feanaro’s wife said: “For example, my husband is under the impression that he should have the final say in all disagreements (major/minor and spritual/secular). As long as he is not advocating something immoral then I should always submit to his ideas and opinions.”
That the husband is not advocating anything illegal or immoral and is acting in the best interest of his entire family has been a given from the start.
M
mariam1976
Guest
not that kind… as not that kind of a person… just had to put my 2 cents in as i felt i had hurt feelings of great friends who had been there in my time of trouble but was rushing out for easter service…chevalier… you have posted everything in the best way possible and thank you so much… the one who gets you will be the luckiest of all!!!
Feanaro… if i did end up hurting your feelings… i am sorry… didnt really mean to… and I see from your wife’s response that you are really not that kind…
so did not quite read the post that i wrote
glad to know you got what i meant…
C
chevalier
Guest
Thank you… at late night hours, I guess the brain takes too much energy and not enough is left for the heart.
Thank you.chevalier… you have posted everything in the best way possible and thank you so much… the one who gets you will be the luckiest of all!!!
I’ve got to blush now. Let’s hope that’s true and she’ll wind up one day. The typical reaction is charmed but not wanting anything too relationshippy, followed by the “friend kind of guy” kind of reaction as the second most popular. Yep, but have you read the first posts from Malia carefully? She expressly said that she had the impression her husband expected her to obey unless he was requesting something immoral. Besides, no one even suggested that illegal orders were to be obeyed. The fact that such an exception is not specifically pointed out doesn’t mean that the people who talk about the subject are clueless. Logically, if you don’t mention an exception which is presumed to exist, it doesn’t mean you waive that exception (e.g. if you make a new general law, you don’t thus invalidate all the singular, specific laws). Yet another thing is that we aren’t talking about illegal (immoral) requests by the husband but about such situations as when the wife and the husband simply have different views on what’s right to do.
In fact, the military analogy is not so actually inapplicable. Just as the military is subject to the law, we have God’s law, the natural law, the laws of the Church and the laws of men. The wife is certainly not expected to submit if that would mean breaking a command of God: Jesus specifically told us to listen to God more than to men and that was what the Apostles told to those people of authority who tried them for their “crimes”. What’s a bit off is pulling ranks. But think of a situation where there are two officers of the same rank and one is the commanding officer (and the other is not a chaplain or medic or whatever). Theoretically, one can be of a higher rank than his commanding officer (I guess that mostly happens to medics or chaplains…) but let’s leave that aside. Then the commanding officer can’t pull rank, but he has a higher charge and because of the orders from the higher authority, he’s expected to be obeyed within the limits of the law and as befits relations between two officers of the same rank of whom one is the commanding officer. Not a perfect analogy, but hey. Someone’s got to be the advocatus diaboli.
F
Feanaro
Guest
Once again chevalier, good post. I especially like the analogy of the two officers of the same rank.
F
Feanaro_s_Wife
Guest
I’d really like to hear thoughts on my previous question about business partners. Same investment of time and money. Mostly the same knwoledge and experience. If they disagree, then what?
malia
malia
D
dulcissima
Guest
Then what? Their business will surely not flourish if one of them doesn’t relent. A power struggle will never lead to success, but submitting will at least give you a 50% chance for success. I think the odds are even higher though if, as has been discussed, he is not seeking something immoral or illegal and has the best interests of “the business” at heart. I think communication between the two partners is what’s key. Plus, it might be best if they have special areas where they are considered “experts” and their (name removed by moderator)ut in that particular area would be the one that is given preference.
M
mariam1976
Guest
i actually asked this question to my friend as i struggle with this question too frequently in my opinion… in cases like this, when you disagree, you just have to let your husband make the decision… the reason is that he is ultimately to be the provider for the family… and as you mentioned, you have the same knowledge, experience, time and money invested, so one would be just as good as the other… i do realise sometimes that we are not able to accept the other’s decision becos it might be too big a risk, at that time, we just have to leave the outcome in God’s hands and trust in HIM to bring you through it safely…
also if things do not work out well, you can then be assured that he will pay more attention to your opinion in the future… also, remember he is not perfect and will make mistakes… we can only hope that they learn from them…
after all a child has to fall many times in order to learn how to walk!!!if there is a problem later on, you have to always remember that the vow was " for better or for worse, in sickness and in health for richer or poorer"
i dont know if i answered this appropriately…
C
chevalier
Guest
Thanks.
Mediation.
Okay, to be a little bit more elaborate: mediation for sheer decision-making, though I’d get some expensive know-how, if I could afford it, together with the partner, if it were a serious business and we couldn’t agree between us two. If there were a threat of disaster (heavy losses, not just one million out of twenty versus a trusted partner’s instinct and his opportunity to shine
), I’d dissolve the company and grab my half rather than take the risk of ending up impoverished. A positive decision on the part of the partner could always be blocked by lack of assent on my part, in a singular matter exceeding day-to-day operations, because he would need my consent to proceed with a decision. Similarly, he could block mine. If he tried to gain the upper hand in ordinary governance or typical day to day operations and I had no wish for a struggle, I would dissolve the company rather than continue with the hassle. Same if he started making poor decisions and couldn’t be talked out of that pattern.
M
mariam1976
Guest
huh???Thanks.
Mediation.
Okay, to be a little bit more elaborate: mediation for sheer decision-making, though I’d get some expensive know-how, if I could afford it, together with the partner, if it were a serious business and we couldn’t agree between us two. If there were a threat of disaster (heavy losses, not just one million out of twenty versus a trusted partner’s instinct and his opportunity to shine
can we have layman language please… there are others trying to learn something here… ya know???
C
chevalier
Guest
Let me try…huh???
can we have layman language please… there are others trying to learn something here… ya know???
Basically, a partner in a company can’t make important decisions without the consent of other partners, so any potential disasters can be prevented. If he messes up a lot in day-to-day matters he can do on his own in the name of the company, then you can get out of the company, go to the court to get an injunction preventing him from representing the company, whatever your law allows and you deem expedient or sufficient. In marriage, it’s only so easy with financial decisions, and you don’t get the option to get out.
D
dulcissima
Guest
I’m hoping that you are not using this as an anaolgy for a marriage.Thanks.
Mediation.
Okay, to be a little bit more elaborate: mediation for sheer decision-making, though I’d get some expensive know-how, if I could afford it, together with the partner, if it were a serious business and we couldn’t agree between us two. If there were a threat of disaster (heavy losses, not just one million out of twenty versus a trusted partner’s instinct and his opportunity to shine
C
Chancellare
Guest
In business, terms of partnership is much more quantifiable because contractual obligations are an exchange of goods and services (you deliver, I pay). Unlike in marriage, it’s a covenant, an exchange of persons (I am yours, you are mine for the rest of our lives, in sickness and in health till death…).
In a contractual partnership, when the other party fails to deliver on his obligations, the aggrieved party can claim what is due him by law and by the terms of the agreement. Partnerhips are also time-bound (Corporations have 50 years, or according to life of the the contract, etc) Normally, for a business partnership to work, it is not advisable to have a 50/50 sharing as this will lead to a deadlock. In practice they usually have 49/51 or 60/40 or 80/20, etc. One guy has to exercise the deciding vote while upholding the rights of the minority share.
But I sense in your OP the questiong of how should leadership be exercised if they are on equal footing. In practice, each partner agrees on a sharing of areas of responsibility in a mutually agreed atmosphere of trust (one decides on Finance, the other on Operations, etc, vice versa). In the event that both parties cease to trust each other, no amount of sharing of responsibility will resolve it but to “agree to disagree” and terminate the partnership.
M
mariam1976
Guest
how can it be easy with financial decisions?Let me try…
Basically, a partner in a company can’t make important decisions without the consent of other partners, so any potential disasters can be prevented. If he messes up a lot in day-to-day matters he can do on his own in the name of the company, then you can get out of the company, go to the court to get an injunction preventing him from representing the company, whatever your law allows and you deem expedient or sufficient. In marriage, it’s only so easy with financial decisions, and you don’t get the option to get out.
C
chevalier
Guest
Nope. Look at the last sentence. Marriage is a community of all life and the goal of it is not a material or worldly one, but actually salvation of the married. An analogy with partnerships and relationships between people in various fields might be helpful in understanding it, so military analogies might be helpful to some extent and so might even be business ones - just so long as one doesn’t reduce marriage to business but perhaps looks at two people who share the responsibility for a venture providing material support to them and their families, as well as certain goods for the community. It’s not that off, one just ought to make sure the perception of marriage doesn’t become too shallow from that.
C
chevalier
Guest
Nope. Look at the last sentence. Marriage is a community of all life and the goal of it is not a material or worldly one, but actually salvation of the married. An analogy with partnerships and relationships between people in various fields might be helpful in understanding it, so military analogies might be helpful to some extent and so might even be business ones - just so long as one doesn’t reduce marriage to business but perhaps looks at two people who share the responsibility for a venture providing material support to them and their families, as well as certain goods for the community. It’s not that off, one just ought to make sure the perception of marriage doesn’t become too shallow from that. If you read the whole thing (admittedly, skimming through it might give you wrong ideas), what I’m saying is that marriage isn’t just business and that the partnership is stronger, indissoluble in contrast to more mundane partnerships. Ultimately, marriage has a sacred character which isn’t there in business. Not like there’s nothing holy in the bakery or the Apostles’ fishing, but marriage is a sacrament.
Relatively, or rather compared to the more difficult decisions which a married couple sometimes has to make. For example, moral decisions between people adhering to two different sets of values, or at least at serious variance with each other on certain moral matters. Or decisions affecting the future of the children in more than just financial ways - education, values taught home, what to teach, how to punish, which schools to pick. Some of those things must be much more difficult than the purely financial choices.
- Status