Female led relationships

[chevalier]

The feminists I know, both men and women, would never expect this. They expect marriage to be a partnership, not an arrangement in which one person is “in charge.”

Yup.

OTOH, I know several men who can’t conceive of a relationship without having someone in charge. So if it’s not the man, it must be the woman.

Yup.

As to the surnames, I have to say that I don’t understand why in the US (I am not originally from the US) anyone male or female would have to change their surname for the wife/husband’s surname when they get married to me the surname change has zero to do with religion and is more from what I’ve seen a US thing.

Not really. There isn’t really such a thing as zero to do with religion. There are moral considerations in many, many decisions, and everything which has anything to do with morality also has to do with religion (because morality has to do with religion).

It’s fundamentally not my business whose family the couple decide to continue (or even jointly take a new name), but I’m worried when they’re doing it for the wrong reasons such as manifesting grrrrl power or emasculation. (Or the woman who, ‘won’t take a name from a man,’ forgetting that she – in most real-life situations – has inherited her current name from her father. So it comes to dad > husband, similarly to the mum > wife scenario that many women dread.)

Again, the surname isn’t important here. Several hundred years ago in many places of Europe surnames didn’t even exist. Nobles named themselves after their castles and estates, farmers and artisans had hereditary or not even hereditary nicknames (Carpenter, Cobbler, Smith, Foreman, Mason – all names of professions). It’s not about the surname. It’s about the statement one’s making by changing or not changing it.

Good grief, submission is not cowering, but a willingness to serve instead of being served.

I have an impression that in this example we’re discussing the idea of a man not submitting in the sense you’re talking about but closer to taking orders from a wife who’s made the designated boss of their marriage. (By boss I mean boss tout court, not the economic decision-maker or whatever.)

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This is really interesting. …

Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Man Song!

(He’s the man!)
(He’s the man!)

I don’t take no **** from anybody
[else but you]
I wear the pants around here
[when I finish with your laundry]
Coz I’m a guy you don’t wanna fight
[When I say “Jump”, you say “Yeah right!”]
I’m the man of this house
[until you get home]

(He’s the man!)
(He’s the man!)

What I say goes around here
[right out the window]
and I don’t wanna hear a lot of whining
[so I’ll shut up]
The sooner you learn who’s Boss around here
[The sooner you can give me my orders, dear]
Coz I’m Head-Honcho around here
[but it’s all in my head]

(He’s the man!)
(He’s the man!)

And I can have sex anytime
[that you want it]
Coz I’m a man who has needs
[but they’re not that important]
And don’t expect any flowers from me
[Coz if I’m not mistaken you prefer jewellery]
I’m the King of my castle
[when you’re not around]

(He’s the man!)
(He’s the man!)

And I’ll drink and watch sports whenever I wanna
[get in trouble]
And I’ll come home when I’m good and ready
[to sleep on the couch]
Coz a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do
[And I’m gonna do what you tell me to]
Because I’m Top dog around here
[but I’ve been neutered]

(He’s the man!)
(He’s the man!)

(You the man!)

 

[severus68]

Submit? I don’t even like the sound of that word, makes me think of a cowering dog being screamed at as it runs down the hall with it’s tail between it’s legs. I think as long as both parties have mutual respect for each other and have a basic understanding of each other’s strengths and weaknesses it can be worked out. I don’t believe in a one size fit’s all mentality when it comes to marriage. Individuality has to come into play somewhere; my husband is good with figures and I’m better at everything else

Well said.

 

[severus68]

The feminists I know, both men and women, would never expect this. They expect marriage to be a partnership, not an arrangement in which one person is “in charge.”

Exactly.

 

[severus68]

No. Men and women are not interchangeable, we don’t simply play “roles” we are husbands and wives. A man can no more be a wife than he can be pregnant. The man, not the woman, in a marriage is, unpopular as this might be, called to be the Head of the family. The woman is called to be the heart. The woman is called to submission to her husband, the husband is called to servant-leadership to his wife. These roles are established by God and cannot be switched by the fancy of man.

All that being said, who stays home and who works to earn an income is accidental (in the sense of non-essential) to headship. A woman can be the primary earner for a family, while the husband stays home, but the husband cannot abrogate his God given role as head of the household. He will be, as the wife will not, held accountable for the spiritual welfare of his family on the last day.

God given role? No, marriage is a partnership made out of love. The wants of a couple and the dynamics of each marriage is different. Each adult person - man and woman has responsibility for themself.

 

[Walking_Home]

There is one head in a marriage – and that is God. God is the guide for both-- husband and wife.

 

[Estevao]

I’m not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but during the time in which St. Paul wrote ephesians, “the head” was not seen the same as it is now, rather many jews saw it as being used to absorb and deflect heat from the body. It was the heart that was the centre of thought. So in effect the meaning is that men are there to protect their wives.

This of course would be in addition to the other theological significance of that passage from eph.

 

[Miss_Felicity]

God given role? No, marriage is a partnership made out of love. The wants of a couple and the dynamics of each marriage is different. Each adult person - man and woman has responsibility for themself.

Exactly my line of thinking. Thats why my only caveat in my first post was that BOTH people be on board for this set up and nobody is coerced. How two people willingly set up their marriage isn’t generally the business of other people outside of that union.

 

[chevalier]

Actually, how people set up their unions affects the society. It’s not just a private matter.

This is not to ostracise henpecked husbands or overbearing wives, though, but only to oppose the idea that forming an expressly female-led relationship (i.e. defined to be like that) isn’t merely a private matter.

 

[Kamaduck]

I’m not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but during the time in which St. Paul wrote ephesians, “the head” was not seen the same as it is now, rather many jews saw it as being used to absorb and deflect heat from the body. It was the heart that was the centre of thought. So in effect the meaning is that men are there to protect their wives.

This of course would be in addition to the other theological significance of that passage from eph.

That makes so much more sense. Wow. How did I not see this before. I knew people saw the brain as nothing more than an organ to release heat, but I didn’t make the connection to “head” being something that took care of that dangerous heat. And all this time people (not here, but elsewhere) have been telling me that being the “head” means making all the decisions and having the last word.

You have taught me something awesomely cool today.

 

[Book_Worm]

(This is my private opinion only.) I can understand the following things:

– man staying home and keeping the house, with woman working (especially if she has more earning potential);
– man being less active, while his wife is a more active sort;
– man not trying to make unilateral decisions about what’s best for the two of them;
– man deferring to woman’s superior knowledge or skill in those matters where she’s the more competent one of them;
– man recognising woman’s intellectual or moral superiority where that’s the case;
– situations like Prince Philip’s, where the woman happens to be the queen – things might be a bit similar for a man marrying his own female boss or landlord or someone with a much higher aristocratic title in Europe or a traditional (tribal) ruler family in Asia or Africa or Indian tribes;
– man and woman symbolically/legally continuing her family rather than hers (e.g. when she’s the last of her kin and he has brothers to pass the name on).

But I don’t understand the business of wanting to become some sort of subordinate husband, obeying the woman (barring the Prince Philip exception above where she’s basically his liege).

And if you’ve run into a woman who says she won’t marry you unless you make her the boss… well, run while you still can (and she’s got some counselling to take).

Finally, even when you make decisions as a head of family, those decisions are what you decide rather than what you want. You may end up doing what someone else wants all the time (basically granting the various wishes and desires of family members), even if the decisions are made by you all the time and not by them. Especially when you want to avoid giving a semblance of abusing your position.

Would you also say that a woman should run from a relationship if a man tells her he wants to be the boss? Why do I have a mental image of a three - year - old with her arms crossed, saying “You’re not the boss of me?”

 

[Miss_Felicity]

Actually, how people set up their unions affects the society. It’s not just a private matter.

This is not to ostracise henpecked husbands or overbearing wives, though, but only to oppose the idea that forming an expressly female-led relationship (i.e. defined to be like that) isn’t merely a private matter.

First things first, “henpecked husbands and overbearing wives” is REALLY problematic language. I think the excuse of how unions affect society really is an excuse in this instance. The concept has some validity but it can only be stretched so far, some things simply come down to a choice between two people. We don’t tell people that watching TV for entertainment is better or worse than going to the opera or seeing theatre. We don’t tell people that being vegan is better than being vegetarian or pescitarian. We don’t even have a hard and fast rule about if it is better to home school vs private school vs public school (or some other educational configuration).

Unions affecting society is not a get out of jail free card to expect everyone elses union to be set up in a way that makes you comfortable (you, in the general sense, not you specifically)

 

[severus68]

Exactly my line of thinking. Thats why my only caveat in my first post was that BOTH people be on board for this set up and nobody is coerced. How two people willingly set up their marriage isn’t generally the business of other people outside of that union.

Agreed.

 

[chevalier]

Would you also say that a woman should run from a relationship if a man tells her he wants to be the boss?

Yes.

Why do I have a mental image of a three - year - old with her arms crossed, saying “You’re not the boss of me?”

I don’t know, I’m not inside your head.

 

[IBombAtomically]

No. I think everyone needs to look back through this thread at the post by EasterJoy and MarcoPolo (I apologize if I missed someone). They get it. This is a concept that goes beyond “I’m the boss/you’re the boss.”

It’s not as though God has stayed silent on this topic, and it is up to us to figure it out on our own based on current societal whims. God is clear about how He created marriage to be. We are free to go against it, of course, but don’t things work out better when we abandon ourselves to the Will of God? There are some ideas floating around this thread that being equal partners is somehow new and inconsistent with the Biblical teachings of marriage. It’s not! Both husband and wife are charged with responsibility for each other and called to sacrifice for their spouse. This responsibility and sacrifice is manifested in different ways, each consistent with the individual beauty of the masculine and feminine. This **does not **mean each person isn’t allowed to use their talents for the betterment of their family-- whether it be financial decisions, discipline, career status, cooking, and so on-- if it’s inconsistent with gender stereotypes. It’s deeper than that. If God’s design seems repugnant or superfluous, it means we don’t fully understand what the Church teaches.

 

[chevalier]

First things first, “henpecked husbands and overbearing wives” is REALLY problematic language.

No, it isn’t. It just happens to offend someone who’s too much into political correctness. It’s normal English and even somewhat humorous. I used this language for a reason, as well: This is to stress that I’m not ranting against uxorious husbands and strongheaded wives. My problem is with a man and a woman sitting down together and designating the woman as the leader of their relationship. Do I have a problem with a ‘lord and master’ view of the husband’s role? Sure. But designating the woman as the leader of the couple is unnatural and feels like some sort of feminist statement or a man who can’t carry his weight.

The concept has some validity but it can only be stretched so far, some things simply come down to a choice between two people. We don’t tell people that watching TV for entertainment is better or worse than going to the opera or seeing theatre.

I don’t normally, but there is no reason why we shouldn’t, in an appropriate context. Context is what you are missing here. You don’t come to someone’s house telling him or her that he should watch opera rather than baseball on the TV, or switch the thing off and go see real opera. But, when there is a discussion dedicated to the TV vs the opera, then that’s another matter.

Here we have a thread titled, ‘female led relationships.’ Expressing opinions here is hardly uninvited. You’re taking political correctness too far therefore.

We don’t tell people that being vegan is better than being vegetarian or pescitarian.

Doctors and dieticians may. And the point is mood when you’re in an Internet forum posting your answer in a thread titled, ‘vegan vs pescitarian, discuss,’ (plus poll).

We don’t even have a hard and fast rule about if it is better to home school vs private school vs public school (or some other educational configuration).

Yes, and about one billion threads all over the Internet specifically dedicated to discussing the subject among people who feel like talking about it and sharing opinions.

Unions affecting society is not a get out of jail free card to expect everyone elses union to be set up in a way that makes you comfortable (you, in the general sense, not you specifically)

Still, it’s good enough to rule out homosexual unions or concubinage, for instance. Something like a dedicated ‘female-led relationship’ is obviously not so hard-and-fast as a homosexual or unmarried relationship, but it isn’t quite all right, either.

And again, I’m not talking about a situation where both of them realise than in their specific case the woman is smarter or more capable in handling economy or making decisions about the schooling of their children. That’s basically a version of the Prince Philip situation, anyway. I’m more concerned with the whole business of defining a female-led relationship, designating the woman as the leader.

Perhaps this is similar to the whole talk of changing names. One or two couples taking the woman’s name for a good reason, or even occasionally for no reason at all, is one thing. One could say it’s their business. But more of that, and for no other reason than making a grrrl power statement, and we’ve got the fabric of the society eroding. So yes, you can insist that if we look at the individual couple, then it very much looks like their own business. But take a wider perspective, and it’ll stop looking like that.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Actually, how people set up their unions affects the society. It’s not just a private matter.

This is not to ostracise henpecked husbands or overbearing wives, though, but only to oppose the idea that forming an expressly female-led relationship (i.e. defined to be like that) isn’t merely a private matter.

You seem very wary of strong women in relationships. I would be wary of any person or couple who sat down and designated a boss. It wouldn’t matter to me if it was the man or woman who walked away with the designation.

 

[chevalier]

You seem very wary of strong women in relationships. I would be wary of any person or couple who sat down and designated a boss. It wouldn’t matter to me if it was the man or woman who walked away with the designation.

No. I agree with you other than designating the woman does worry me more that designating the man.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

No. I agree with you other than designating the woman does worry me more that designating the man.

No way. If the couple designated the man, I would be more concerned about potential abuse, control, or manipulation. I’ve known too many women who have mad their husbands “the boss” only to end up isolated, dominated, and sometimes abused.

Both are problematic, but a man who wants to dominate his wife sends off dangerous alarm bells. A woman who wants to dominate her man is more likely to just be crazy or mean.

 

[chevalier]

No way. If the couple designated the man, I would be more concerned about potential abuse, control, or manipulation. I’ve known too many women who have mad their husbands “the boss” only to end up isolated, dominated, and sometimes abused.

Both are problematic, but a man who wants to dominate his wife sends off dangerous alarm bells. A woman who wants to dominate her man is more likely to just be crazy or mean.

You can look at it that way when it comes to domination, but like I said before, while designating leaders in romantic relationships is odd in general, making the woman the explicit head of household is more unnatural than putting the man in the role.