Female led relationships

[Walking_Home]

LOL.
Everytime I see you on a thread, I kick myself for not thinking of yer clever moniker first

In my experience and travels, and historically, I think most women have and do define “feminist” as I do.
But the definition on this forum seems to be one that is much more extreme–and every group has it’s ultra-extreme, angry fringe members, even Christians–and one that is not the majority.
The origin of the “feminist movement” is about women having fair treatment, opportunities, and respect–voting, following their talents, being able to support themselves and others with jobs and careers, being taken seriously in jobs like science, as your wife is.
None of this, as you know, was possible several decades ago.
Honestly…like it or not…your ability to do the switcheroo re working inside/outside the home would be considered by most “feminists” as the ultimate expression of the original “cause” of the “movement”.
I used quotations on those words because…the words are quite archaic now.

As you might see if you re-read what I wrote, I didn’t say anything about your masculinity/femininity or holy vocations and such.
I talked about the flexibility and reason you both have. You said your wife is the scholastic superior, so then it makes sense for her to pursue that. She has a respected career as a Scientist, so it makes sense for her to “play the career game” and “make the money” if it works for both of you.
When the movie “Mr. Mom” came out 30 years ago, this kind of set-up was considered rather shocking.

But this is exactly what the original “feminists” fought for, this kind of understanding and flexibility that doesn’t have to do with gender, but with personality and talents.
Women fish and pass gas and like football too, you know…I’m sure. That doesn’t make her less a woman. And you can take great care of the household and kids, and that doesn’t make you any less a “man”.

And as you can see, the “feminist movement” benefits not only women, but men, too…you are reaping the benefits and joys of this kind of liberation and you and your wife are able to carve out a more unique set-up that suites you both beautifully.

Forty years ago…this may not have been so “accepted” or possible.
So please, do not feel offended by the “F” word. Because what you and your wife are doing is exactly what women were fighting for all along

.

I think what has happened is that some do not differentiate the actions of the radical feminists - from feminism.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

LOL.
Everytime I see you on a thread, I kick myself for not thinking of yer clever moniker first

In my experience and travels, and historically, I think most women have and do define “feminist” as I do.
But the definition on this forum seems to be one that is much more extreme–and every group has it’s ultra-extreme, angry fringe members, even Christians–and one that is not the majority.
The origin of the “feminist movement” is about women having fair treatment, opportunities, and respect–voting, following their talents, being able to support themselves and others with jobs and careers, being taken seriously in jobs like science, as your wife is.
None of this, as you know, was possible several decades ago.
Honestly…like it or not…your ability to do the switcheroo re working inside/outside the home would be considered by most “feminists” as the ultimate expression of the original “cause” of the “movement”.
I used quotations on those words because…the words are quite archaic now.

As you might see if you re-read what I wrote, I didn’t say anything about your masculinity/femininity or holy vocations and such.
I talked about the flexibility and reason you both have. You said your wife is the scholastic superior, so then it makes sense for her to pursue that. She has a respected career as a Scientist, so it makes sense for her to “play the career game” and “make the money” if it works for both of you.
When the movie “Mr. Mom” came out 30 years ago, this kind of set-up was considered rather shocking.

But this is exactly what the original “feminists” fought for, this kind of understanding and flexibility that doesn’t have to do with gender, but with personality and talents.
Women fish and pass gas and like football too, you know…I’m sure. That doesn’t make her less a woman. And you can take great care of the household and kids, and that doesn’t make you any less a “man”.

And as you can see, the “feminist movement” benefits not only women, but men, too…you are reaping the benefits and joys of this kind of liberation and you and your wife are able to carve out a more unique set-up that suites you both beautifully.

Forty years ago…this may not have been so “accepted” or possible.
So please, do not feel offended by the “F” word. Because what you and your wife are doing is exactly what women were fighting for all along

.

I agree 100%. I’m not sure where this “anti-man” stereotype came from, but it has not been my experience. Even when I took the required gender studies course in college, I didn’t see a lot of the feminism that people describe on here.

And feminism does benefit men in many ways. It is because of the feminist movement that employers can’t ask women about their plans for children and marriage. It’s because of the feminist movement that pregnant women aren’t fired, and that moms of young kids can’t be fired. It’s because of the feminist movement that women are legally entitled to make the same that men do, and that allows them to support a family. (Big help to families where the mom is the main source of income, either because the man is unemployed or a SAHD). In the 1970’s, my mother was told by a car insurance company that they won’t cover divorced women, because they might use their cars to run over their ex-husbands. Yes, things needed to change from that.

If George R.R. Martin and my huge, burly, rough and tumble, gross businessman husband can call themselves feminists, I think I can also proudly use the word.

 

[IBombAtomically]

I’m not sure what the OP means, but in Catholic theology, the wife’s “submission” is emblematic of the Church’s relationship to Christ. In other words, the man, as figure of Christ, “submits himself/dies to himself” for his bride. The wife, in turn, submits to receiving this love. In modernist lingo, people too often think of “submit” as some sort of slave-master relationship where the submitter just takes “orders.” That is explicitly condemned in papal documents, such as Pope Leo’s Arcanum. In other words, unless both parties are doing their proper submission to one another, as it says in Ephesians:*Eph. 5:21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.*then the balancing act collapses. That’s why both the modernist-feminist attitude of “I’m not submitting to anyone!” or the chauvinist attitude of “She better do what she’s told” are failed attitudes.

This is an amazing response.

I’d add that if by “head of the household” you mean doing the finances, that could be interchangeable. But as a Spiritual head of the household, men hold that position whether they choose to fulfill it or not. Research (which has been discussed on this board at length) tells us quite clearly that the religiosity of the father has a far greater impact on future religiosity of the children than that of the mother. That happens whether we consciously want it to or not.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

My wife is soft, pretty, emotional, and very fragile.

I used to be soft, pretty, and very feminine looking. Used to be. Now, if you saw me, you would probably think I was an enraged feminist nightmare. (Among other things)

These days, I have 5 facial piercings and many tattoos that are visible in casual (not business) wear. All of my tattoos are on my legs and back, except for the quarter sleeve on my right arm.

All of this has happened since meeting my husband. I had always toyed with the idea of getting a facial piercing, and my husband thought it would be cute, so with his outright encouragement, I went for it. He loved it so much we kept going. Now I have 5. I think I’m done, but if my husband found another he liked, I’d consider it. Of course, at work I wear clear retainers instead of jewelry, so they aren’t visible unless it’s after work or on weekends. (Since I’m a law student there are days that I will wear visible jewelry, and other days where I’m meeting people from firms so I don’t. It just depends on the day.)

Prior to meeting my husband, I had a few tattoos. I was flirting with the idea of more, and he loves them, so he encouraged me to go for it.

My hair color changes every month like clockwork (because roots are ugly). Sometimes he picks the color, sometimes I do. When he does, it’s usually a particularly bright color.

So, if you met me and commented on my admittedly noticeable appearance, I would probably smile and say something like “I know, I never thought I would have all of this, but my husband thought that they would look nice and I agreed with him”. It isn’t the most feminist response, but it’s the truth. Then you would see my very conventional, successful husband walk in the room.

 

[marymary1975]

I agree 100%. I’m not sure where this “anti-man” stereotype came from, but it has not been my experience. Even when I took the required gender studies course in college, I didn’t see a lot of the feminism that people describe on here.

And feminism does benefit men in many ways. It is because of the feminist movement that employers can’t ask women about their plans for children and marriage. It’s because of the feminist movement that pregnant women aren’t fired, and that moms of young kids can’t be fired. It’s because of the feminist movement that women are legally entitled to make the same that men do, and that allows them to support a family. (Big help to families where the mom is the main source of income, either because the man is unemployed or a SAHD). In the 1970’s, my mother was told by a car insurance company that they won’t cover divorced women, because they might use their cars to run over their ex-husbands. Yes, things needed to change from that.

If George R.R. Martin and my huge, burly, rough and tumble, gross businessman husband can call themselves feminists, I think I can also proudly use the word.

Just as clarification Blueeyedlady, the reason why many practicing catholics do not want any association with the word feminism despite believing in equality for women is because today by far most of the feminist movement is intrinsecly liked to be pro abortion, pro gay marriage, pro contraception and many other things that practicing Catholics do not agree with, not because of the anti-man idea. I think so far I have only heard from one feminist group, feminist for life, whose ideas match the catholic belief. Because of that many people in this forum (including me despite me being 100% equality for women) do not like to be associate at all with feminism.

Nothing to do with anti-man myth (I know many feminist who are not anti man) but more because it is against the pro life culture.

 

[clem456]

Oh, clem, You and I probably agree on many an issue. I’m certain we can agree while we worship God forever in heaven should we be lucky enough to make it.

You are my brother. And brothers don’t shake hands, brothers gotta hug!:hug1:

Get the F eminism away from me…

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Nothing to do with anti-man myth (I know many feminist who are not anti man) but more because it is against the pro life culture.

That I can respect.

I think that the modern feminist movement is very fractured. The issues of working moms vs SAHMs, pornography (some feminists are pro, others think it’s degrading to women), and abortion have really divided women.

Honestly, I think it’s great. It is because of the success of prior movements that women can educate themselves on the issues and form their own opinions without having to be lumped under an umbrella and have one set of activists speaking for them. We have come far enough that modern feminists are comfortable publicly disagreeing with one another! That’s just awesome.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Nothing to do with anti-man myth (I know many feminist who are not anti man) but more because it is against the pro life culture.

That I can respect.

I think that the modern feminist movement is very fractured. The issues of working moms vs SAHMs, pornography (some feminists are pro, others think it’s degrading to women), and abortion have really divided women.

Honestly, I think it’s great. It is because of the success of prior movements that women can educate themselves on the issues and form their own opinions without having to be lumped under an umbrella and have one set of activists speaking for them. We have come far enough that modern feminist leaders are comfortable publicly disagreeing with one another! That’s just awesome.

 

[Walking_Home]

Get the** radical** F eminism away from me…

---

Fixed it for you --

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I used to be soft, pretty, and very feminine looking. Used to be. Now, if you saw me, you would probably think I was an enraged feminist nightmare. (Among other things)

Now, I have 5 facial piercings and many tattoos that are visible in casual (not business) wear. All of my tattoos are on my legs and back, except for the quarter sleeve on my right arm.

All of this has happened since meeting my husband. I had always toyed with the idea of getting a facial piercing, and my husband thought it would be cute, so with his outright encouragement, I went for it. He loved it so much we kept going. Now I have 5. I think I’m done, but if my husband found another he liked, I’d consider it. Of course, at work I wear clear retainers instead of jewelry, so they aren’t visible unless it’s after work or on weekends.

Prior to meeting my husband, I had a few tattoos. I was flirting with the idea of more, and he loves them, so he encouraged me to go for it.

My hair color changes every month like clockwork (because roots are ugly). Sometimes he picks the color, sometimes I do. When he does, it’s usually a particularly bright color.

So, if you met me and commented on my admittedly noticeable appearance, I would probably smile and say something like “I know, I never thought I would have all of this, but my husband thought that they would look nice and I agreed with him”. It isn’t the most feminist response, but it’s the truth. Then you would see my very conventional, successful husband walk in the room and be confused.

LOL!

BEL You crack me up sometimes.

Now, if you saw me, you would probably think I was an enraged feminist nightmare. (Among other things)

And if you saw me you would be like, “a guy that can burp the alphabet is teaching the alphabet to his kids while homeschooling in camo pants!?”

 

[BlueEyedLady]

And if you saw me you would be like, “a guy that can burp the alphabet is teaching the alphabet to his kids while homeschooling in camo pants!?”

Totally sounds like a few friends of mine, actually. I have a couple of friends who are married to military women, so they stay home with the kids and, well, behave like you do.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Get the F eminism away from me…

LOL why do they even have the “huggy icon?” Blech!

It is an example of the butterflies and rainbow theology the feminists have brought us!

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Totally sounds like a few friends of mine, actually. I have a couple of friends who are married to military women, so they stay home with the kids and, well, behave like you do.

Today I have worn pants for 1 hour! Probably should put some on and comb the kids hair before my wife comes home and demands her beer cold and her supper hot or else I will get slapped again.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Today I have worn pants for 1 hour! Probably should put some on and comb the kids hair before my wife comes home and demands her beer cold and her supper hot or else I will get slapped again.

At least you know where the pants are!

My husband and I joke when people talk about “wearing the pants” that we are so busy we lost the pants in the shuffle. We’re naked but happy!

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

At least you know where the pants are!

My husband and I joke when people talk about “wearing the pants” that we are so busy we lost the pants in the shuffle. We’re naked but happy!

“Don’t forget to tip your waitress on the way out!”
“You have been a great audience”

Seriously though, gotta go clean…

 

[clem456]

We’re naked but happy!

Could it be any other way?
I mean “in the beginning”…and God does want us to be happy…so makes sense to me.

 

[Julianna]

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 what I was going to say.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m not sure what the OP means, but in Catholic theology, the wife’s “submission” is emblematic of the Church’s relationship to Christ. In other words, the man, as figure of Christ, “submits himself/dies to himself” for his bride. The wife, in turn, submits to receiving this love. In modernist lingo, people too often think of “submit” as some sort of slave-master relationship where the submitter just takes “orders.” That is explicitly condemned in papal documents, such as Pope Leo’s Arcanum. In other words, unless both parties are doing their proper submission to one another, as it says in Ephesians:*Eph. 5:21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.*then the balancing act collapses. That’s why both the modernist-feminist attitude of “I’m not submitting to anyone!” or the chauvinist attitude of “She better do what she’s told” are failed attitudes.

If submission is a dirty word to you, someone has either misled you about what that word means or you don’t really want to be a Christian. From the plain meaning of the New Testament, I don’t know how anyone has the idea that a person who refuses to submit themselves to anyone else will ever enter the Kingdom of God. Resistance to that submission required by the service of love is that contrary to the mind of Christ.

 

[on_the_hill]

This is really interesting. I think our marriage almost falls into this category. My wife is the planner, she’s more intelligent (just a little ) , etc.

She likes to see our arrangement as an equal partnership, but most people we know (family and friends) would regard her as the head. I’ve even caught some flak (and insults) from members of her family. And a lot of times, when people call the house to make plans, both the men and women will say, “I need to talk to your wife,” if I answer the phone. Even my mom!

When a big decision needs to be made, we make it together. But when it comes to day-to-day life, it’s more often my wife calling the shots.

A few years ago we had a really rough weekend of arguing about something rather trivial. Finally it came down to her asking, “Who’s in charge here?!” And before I could analyze the situation and come up with a good answer, she stated it pretty clearly, “I am. This house can have only one leader. I’m the leader.”

That’s o.k. with me. She’s better at it. But if I were to ask her today, she’d say we’re an equal partnership.

 

[chevalier]

hello all,

i was just wondering if it is ok for a woman to be the “head of the household”?
basically if it would be ok for a man to submit to his wife or even take her name? for instance could someone marry a woman with plans to be a househusband who would take his wife’s surname and submit to her?

any answers would be appreciated.

(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.