"Marry Him and Be Submissive - "One Italian Wife’s Countercultural Message to Women

  • Thread starter Thread starter SAVINGRACE
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a lot of reservations about Mr. Eggerichs.

I really do not understand love and respect as being utterly distinct from each other. Respect is a kind of love. Respect without love is really hard to imagine–if I respect Churchill, doesn’t that mean that I (in some sense) love Churchill? Meanwhile, love without respect is equally hard to imagine–it would be patronizing or condescending.

I know Mr. Eggerichs believes that women do not need respect–but I personally do, and not getting respect makes me feel unloved.
 
Interestingly, NY has a very low divorce rate.

statisticbrain.com/u-s-divorce-rate-statistics/

They only got no-fault divorce in 2010.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_divorce_law

Also:

“In New York, spousal support is rarely granted on a permanent basis, except in cases of physical or mental disability or when the parties are elderly (about 60 years old or older). Generally, it is granted for a set period of time so the other party can get back on their feet after the termination of the marriage. The length of time depends on the facts of the case as the judge sees fit to award.”

So, even NY is not that happy to grant permanent spousal support…
Someone I’m close to is a family law attorney in New York for about 20 years. He’s only personally seen one instance of alimony in those years. It was an older woman who had a disability.
 
I have a lot of reservations about Mr. Eggerichs.

I really do not understand love and respect as being utterly distinct from each other. Respect is a kind of love. Respect without love is really hard to imagine–if I respect Churchill, doesn’t that mean that I (in some sense) love Churchill? Meanwhile, love without respect is equally hard to imagine–it would be patronizing or condescending.

I know Mr. Eggerichs believes that women do not need respect–but I personally do, and not getting respect makes me feel unloved.
I think the love vs. respect thing uses to wrong words to express a very sweet, common phenomenon in a cheap and insulting way.

But the point is still there. In general, men want to be seen as the hero of the family who does things no one else could/would/would think of doing to make his family happy. More like a form of admiration than just respect. Women, in general, want to be viewed as worth doing these things for. The word isn’t ‘loved’ exactly, but it’s something close.
 
Pardon me for ugly formatting.

SST said: "50 states, 50 different laws, all of which are subject to interpretation by a judge."

But that cuts both ways–it means that the Red Pill divorce horror stories can’t possibly represent average experience in the entire US. And given the $430 average monthly child support I mentioned, Red Pill horror stories can’t even be the average experience–it’s mathematically impossible.

Also, what are the odds of getting the exact same unfair judge repeatedly? People frequently go back to family court to revisit financial and custody arrangements as circumstances change.

**SST said:

“As I have pointed out previously, the state has a direct financial incentive to award custody to the mother.”**

And yet, as BlueEyedLady was pointing out, when fathers fight for custody in court, they usually get it. (I believe court fights are actually the minority of custody cases.)

That’s a really funny way for the state to show a mother-preference…

"Alpha tingles, beta bux."

In that case, why not get married as early as possible and get the divorce gravy train running without wasting any time? Why waste time by waiting until 27 to get married if the conditions are so very lucrative for divorcees?

"How does that have anything to do with requiring documentation of how the money is spent?"

Let me explain. In the average child support situation, the child support is so small ($430), that if the child is 0-5 and the mother is working, her childcare costs will immediately absorb the $430 a month. There’s no need to get a forensic accountant involved.

Furthermore, having a school age child does not automatically reduce child support costs to zero–there may be a need to pay for child care before school, after school, on sick days, half days, holidays, winter break, spring break, summer break, etc. I was just looking it up, and a (very affordable) church day camp runs 11 weeks during the summer, 7:30-5:30 and it’s $100 a week. POOF! The $430 a month for those three months is gone.

Again, I don’t think you (or a lot of Red Pill guys) understand how expensive children are–especially in situations where the family needs to start paying for services that used to be produced in-house.

This is getting long, so I may do another post.
 
I think the love vs. respect thing uses to wrong words to express a very sweet, common phenomenon in a cheap and insulting way.

But the point is still there. In general, men want to be seen as the hero of the family who does things no one else could/would/would think of doing to make his family happy. More like a form of admiration than just respect. Women, in general, want to be viewed as worth doing these things for. The word isn’t ‘loved’ exactly, but it’s something close.
If that is where the Eggerichs is coming from, that does make sense.

I have noticed, though, that many very conservative, “Christian patriarchy” type people misapply the concept, because they see the marriage relationships as not only an unequal one but an extremely unequal one. They don’t see it as a “pilot and co-pilot” relationship but a “general and private” relationship.

BTW, I do find that the pilot and co-pilot analogy comes the closest, at least when it comes to the modern cockpit. It used to be that the copilot always deferred to the senior pilot without question, but then many airplanes crashed when the senior pilot made a mistake and the copilot did not feel comfortable speaking up.

Now, although the senior pilot is still ultimately responsible for the plane, the copilot is expected to speak up if needed, and the relationship is closer to equal colleagues than a tyrant and servant. Also, even in the old days, the copilot actually would do at least half of the actual flying of the plane, though the senior pilot was expected to supervise, offer advice, etc. Other than pre-planned shift changes, the senior pilot was only expected to take over the controls in an emergency.

So, as a woman, I’d certainly be comfortable signing up as the co-pilot for such a marriage.

Christian patriarchy types don’t see it that way, though. For they see women as perpetual minors, who were created that way by God, and never meant to be independent of a man. They see a husband as necessarily exercising a quasi-parental role, and actually see the wife as owing as much respect to the husband. as she did her father before marriage. (They also see widows as being subject to either their oldest brother or oldest son.)

So, a husband is certainly expected to love, protect, and lay down his life if necessary for the wife, as he would for a child; but he is NOT expected to accord the wife any more independence and respect, than he would for his child. And a wife is expected to treat him as much respect as she would give her father, even if she’s not feeling very loving, same as a child would. (They also tend to be favor very authoritarian parenting, and in case of the Gothardites, the only way even a boy can become independent of the family patriarch, is to marry. Yes, I do find this to be a recipe for invalid marriages)

The other problem is that, despite the circle, most seem to assume all marital trouble is the wife’s fault. At least, it seems that 90% of written and blogged output blames the wife for not respecting the husband enough, not the husband for not loving the wife enough.
 
SST said: "Take a look at the stats on single mothers sometime. Then explain to me how that arrangement is in the best interests of the child."

It’s been a while since I geeked out on divorce stats, but as I recall, the outcomes of never-married mothers and divorced mothers are quite distinct, so you should not be pointing to poor single mother outcomes to demonstrate why divorced mothers should get less custody.

By the way, this is interesting:

pewsocialtrends.org/2013/07/02/the-rise-of-single-fathers/

"A record 8% of households with minor children in the United States are headed by a single father, up from just over 1% in 1960, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Decennial Census and American Community Survey data.

“The number of single father households has increased about ninefold since 1960, from less than 300,000 to more than 2.6 million in 2011.1 In comparison, the number of single mother households increased more than fourfold during that time period, up to 8.6 million in 2011, from 1.9 million in 1960.”

“There are some notable differences between single mothers and single fathers. Single fathers are more likely than single mothers to be living with a cohabiting partner (41% versus 16%). Single fathers, on average, have higher incomes than single mothers and are far less likely to be living at or below the poverty line—24% versus 43%. Single fathers are also somewhat less educated than single mothers, older and more likely to be white.”

The bit about single fathers being more likely to cohabit is interesting, because that’s a typical Red Pill/MRA bogeyman–that single mothers are all shacked up with random men.

“Overall, two-thirds (67%) of households with children are headed by two married parents; in 1960, this share was 92%.”

“Some experts suggest that changes in the legal system have led to more opportunities for fathers to gain at least partial custody of children in the event of a breakup, as well.”

“The educational attainment of single father householders is markedly lower than that of married father householders. About one-fifth (19%) of single dads lack a high school diploma, while just 10% of married fathers lack one. Among single mothers, this share is 15%. Equally dramatic differences emerge at the other end of the education spectrum; just 17% of single fathers (and 18% of single mothers) have a bachelor’s degree, compared with 40% of married fathers.”

“In terms of household financial status, single fathers are much better off than single mothers, and much worse off than married fathers. Median adjusted annual income5 for a single dad household of three is about $40,000—a far cry from the $70,000 median among households headed by married fathers, but much higher than that of households headed by single mothers, where the median adjusted annual income for a three-person household is only $26,000.”

" Single fatherhood is generally more prevalent among younger, less educated, poorer and non-white fathers."

“The prevalence of single fatherhood is closely linked to educational level; the more education a father has, the less likely he is to head a single father household. While about one-fourth (26%) of fathers lacking a high school diploma are single fathers, the share drops to 22% for fathers with a high school degree. Among dads with some college, 17% are single fathers, and just 7% of fathers with a bachelor’s degree fall into this category.”

Okay, I will stop quoting–but it’s very interesting!
 
I have a lot of reservations about Mr. Eggerichs.

I really do not understand love and respect as being utterly distinct from each other. Respect is a kind of love. Respect without love is really hard to imagine–if I respect Churchill, doesn’t that mean that I (in some sense) love Churchill? Meanwhile, love without respect is equally hard to imagine–it would be patronizing or condescending.

I know Mr. Eggerichs believes that women do not need respect–but I personally do, and not getting respect makes me feel unloved.
Same. I’m still quite surprised that people, including priests, keep using “love” and “respect” in such a black or white manner.

If women were to prioritize love over respect, feminism wouldn’t have such a huge presence in the past/now/future. That’s a pretty obvious sign imo
 
Surely both people in a marriage need love and respect.
It all depends on what you mean by marriage. If you see the relationship between husband and wife as analogous to that between parent and child, then the idea that the wife only wants love, and the husband only wants respect, makes perfect sense.

Especially if you see the parent child relationship itself as a very hierarchical one, in which the parent doesn’t have any obligation to respect the child’s autonomy and life choices, either, and approaches the child with the attitude “You don’t have to love me or even like me, as long as you respect me and obey me unquestioningly.”

Now, I actually would question even that assumption, especially when it comes to “children” who are actually above the age of majority. But this is part and parcel of the Christian patriarch model, that sees the patriarch as essentially as a domestic monarch, even a benign tyrant, chosen by God, with absolute power over his wife and children, who he is supposed to love and protect, but is not all obligated to respect as autonomous people.

ETA: Now, I know the Catholic Church does NOT endorse Christian patriarchy. Nor do I find anything “Christian” about it. Note that even God Himself actually DOES respect the free choice of humans!
 
Yeah, but this Protestant guy thinks they are TOTALLY different:

christianbook.com/love-respect-most-desires-desperately-needs/emerson-eggerichs/9781591451877/pd/451876

But in practice, it’s like asking–which blade of the pair of scissors is more necessary? Without both blades, the scissors don’t work.
Well I’ve never read the book and at least according to the book blurb you linked, he is not claiming men don’t need any love, or that women don’t need any respect. What he does claim is:
Women are wired to need unconditional love and men need to feel unconditionally respected.
Not that I agree with that, either. Back to my pilot analogy, there are cases of copilots remaining quiet even as the senior pilot was literally about to crash a plane and kill everyone on board, including himself. I doubt most pilots, even the really cocky, arrogant ones, would prefer that kind of “unconditional respect” to, you know, actually making it home alive from a flight, as opposed to dying along with the passengers he’s supposed to protect.
 
Well I’ve never read the book and at least according to the book blurb you linked, he is not claiming men don’t need any love, or that women don’t need any respect. What he does claim is:

Not that I agree with that, either. Back to my pilot analogy, there are cases of copilots remaining quiet even as the senior pilot was literally about to crash a plane and kill everyone on board, including himself. I doubt most pilots, even the really cocky, arrogant ones, would prefer that kind of “unconditional respect” to, you know, actually making it home alive from a flight, as opposed to dying along with the passengers he’s supposed to protect.
I also think that “unconditional respect” is nonsensical.

While there is such a thing as basic civility (which everybody should get), “unconditional respect” that is completely unmoored from the recipient’s actual actions and merits is often not going to be valued by the recipient.

What we’re talking about is essentially a sort of plastic marital participation trophy.
 
I also think that “unconditional respect” is nonsensical.

While there is such a thing as basic civility (which everybody should get), “unconditional respect” that is completely unmoored from the recipient’s actual actions and merits is often not going to be valued by the recipient.

What we’re talking about is essentially a sort of plastic marital participation trophy.
Well, I can see someone stating “I respect the office of the POTUS, even if I think its current occupant is a buffoon”, and hence refraining from, say, engaging in catcalling during the State of the Union while the President is speaking. Not sure what the marital equivalent of that is, but I guess NOT calling your husband very insulting names might be one. But perhaps you’d call that “basic civility”.

I also find the idea that anyone deserves or wants “unconditional love” to be problematic, too. I have seen this idea used among women, that true love is unconditional, so if you love a guy, you have to accept and support him 100% no matter what he is and what he does. The Twilight approach to love, that some women sadly use as an excuse to accept abuse in a relationship.

And while it is certainly more difficult for women to physically abuse men, they can still abuse them in other ways and the “unconditional love” seems to suggest husbands just stay and accept that and offer “unconditional love” anyway.
 
Well, I can see someone stating “I respect the office of the POTUS, even if I think its current occupant is a buffoon”, and hence refraining from, say, engaging in catcalling during the State of the Union while the President is speaking. Not sure what the marital equivalent of that is, but I guess NOT calling your husband very insulting names might be one. But perhaps you’d call that “basic civility”.

I also find the idea that anyone deserves or wants “unconditional love” to be problematic, too. I have seen this idea used among women, that true love is unconditional, so if you love a guy, you have to accept and support him 100% no matter what he is and what he does.
The Twilight approach to love, that some women sadly use as an excuse to accept abuse in a relationship.

And while it is certainly more difficult for women to physically abuse men, they can still abuse them in other ways and the “unconditional love” seems to suggest husbands just stay and accept that and offer “unconditional love” anyway.
Yep. I would call that basic civility.

I was thinking along similar lines with regard to “unconditional love.” Love is a duty, and all that–but I think most of us wish to feel that we are in some way lovable, rather than that our family and friends are just white-knuckling it through their daily interactions with us.
 
And those are just the financial benefits of staying married. Sorry, but women aren’t being pried out of marriage with riches. They fare worse than men post divorce anyway.
It is a combination of factors, money is one of them. Female entitlement, hypergamy and the “you go girl” attitude that society has is another part of the puzzle. End of the day, women initiate divorce proceedings at a far higher rate, so apparently they do not perceive it as a ruinous option.
Yeah, the 50% divorce rate is more myth than reality. It never quite materialized, though this doesn’t stop certain people from asserting it as hard fact.
With no fault divorce, the actual rate does not really matter that much. It is however commonly accepted and makes a good starting point in the conversation when explaining why civil marriage is one of the most inane things a man can do.
But that cuts both ways–it means that the Red Pill divorce horror stories can’t possibly represent average experience in the entire US. And given the $430 average monthly child support I mentioned, Red Pill horror stories can’t even be the average experience–it’s mathematically impossible.
Your stats are just general. They include the highschool quarterback, working at McBurger Kong who was smart enough not to marry a woman who puts out on the first date. More relevant are the stats when someone has “grown accustomed to a certain standard of living”.
Also, what are the odds of getting the exact same unfair judge repeatedly? People frequently go back to family court to revisit financial and custody arrangements as circumstances change.
You are quite right. I know a guy who had all his ducks in a row. His judgment in women was poor unfortunately. They split, and he had full custody but no child support. Think that would ever happen if the genders were reversed? Now, he only has partial custody and has to pay child support. What happened? All the drug abusing mother with no stead job had to do was pressure his son into saying the magic words, “I don’t feel safe here.” Now my cousin has no criminal record, is a good man, and has an excellent job. The judge should have tossed her out his courtroom.
And yet, as BlueEyedLady was pointing out, when fathers fight for custody in court, they usually get it. (I believe court fights are actually the minority of custody cases.)
This proves nothing. I already pointed out an alternate explanation which covers the facts just as well.
In that case, why not get married as early as possible and get the divorce gravy train running without wasting any time? Why waste time by waiting until 27 to get married if the conditions are so very lucrative for divorcees?
As I pointed it out, that makes it harder to “have it all”.
The bit about single fathers being more likely to cohabit is interesting, because that’s a typical Red Pill/MRA bogeyman–that single mothers are all shacked up with random men.
Duluth is not a boogeyman. Though to ask Beyoncé a question, if you like it why does it benefit a man to put a ring on it? Answer, it does not.
 
If the actual divorce rate “doesn’t matter all that much”, then why aren’t you using the far more accurate 25% rate (which has data to support it) rather than the completely false 50% rate which does not?

You need to stop and give your hamster some pellets, it’s probably pretty worn out racing on that wheel.
 
I should finish up talking about SST’s previous post. Apologies for ugly formatting!

SST said (about pensmama87’s piece on Sweden giving fertility breaks for workers): "You mean to tell me that one of the most feminist and pc countries in the world has a terrible fertility rate? Why I am absolutely shocked and surprised by this news. I definitely did not see it coming at all."

Here are some TFRs for comparison (I’m going with the 2016 CIA Factbook numbers from Wikipedia):

South Africa 2.31
Indonesia 2.13
Saudi Arabia 2.11
Turkey 2.03
Sweden 1.88
USA 1.87

Iran 1.83
Russia 1.61
Estonia 1.6
Spain 1.49
Bulgaria 1.46
Serbia 1.43
Greece 1.42
Poland 1.34

As you can see, Sweden actually does have nearly half a kid more than a lot of other countries. Also, if even in Saudi Arabia (where women still can’t legally drive) TFR is only 2.11 and Iran’s TFR is virtually identical to Sweden’s, maybe small family size isn’t really mostly about feminism or PC?

SST told BEL: "Okay, assuming you both work and have a combined household income of $120,000 (which puts you in the top income quintile). You get divorce and now the other half is making $60,000. That $1900 monthly adds up to about $22,800 yearly. Now looking at the 2016 tax brackets, a single person will pay between $10k and $11k in federal income taxes on a yearly income of $60k. Former husband is now living $30,000 yearly before accounting for state income taxes and any other debts."

And even by your numbers under this scenario, BEL has just kissed $30k in household income goodbye…

Why do that?
 
Yeah, but this Protestant guy thinks they are TOTALLY different:

christianbook.com/love-respect-most-desires-desperately-needs/emerson-eggerichs/9781591451877/pd/451876

But in practice, it’s like asking–which blade of the pair of scissors is more necessary? Without both blades, the scissors don’t work.
Exactly right.

Frankly,his reasoning is flawed.
Both husband and wife-in fact all humans-need mutual respect.
How can someone love someone if they do not treat them with respect?
In Slavic culture (and I’m sure in America etc culture too) we are taught as children to be respectful towards people and especially towards elderly people.
It isn’t gender exclusive.
 
On to SST’s most recent post:

"It is a combination of factors, money is one of them. Female entitlement, hypergamy and the “you go girl” attitude that society has is another part of the puzzle. End of the day, women initiate divorce proceedings at a far higher rate, so apparently they do not perceive it as a ruinous option."

Here’s an analogy. Let’s imagine that we see a series of people leaping from a building to almost certain death. There are a number of different explanations possible to explain the jumpers’ behavior, but here are a few that come to mind:

a) they’re stupid
b) they’re crazy
c) there’s something really bad going on in the building

If we know that the individuals are neither crazy nor stupid, I think we need to have a good look at c) as an option. And yes, a lot of times, it is c)–there’s some combination of adultery, abuse, addiction, refusal to treat mental illness, misuse of family resources, etc.

"With no fault divorce, the actual rate does not really matter that much. It is however commonly accepted and makes a good starting point in the conversation when explaining why civil marriage is one of the most inane things a man can do."

Let’s use the stats that best reflect reality.

"Your stats are just general. They include the highschool quarterback, working at McBurger Kong who was smart enough not to marry a woman who puts out on the first date. More relevant are the stats when someone has “grown accustomed to a certain standard of living”.

As it happens, divorce is much more of a problem among lower income people. Higher income people divorce much less frequently.

“Couples who make more than $125,000 a year (combined) cut their divorce risk in half” compared to the lowest income category ($0-$25k). This article gives a number of income categories for comparison, and the highest income people are the least likely to divorce.

theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/the-divorce-proof-marriage/381401/

"You are quite right. I know a guy who had all his ducks in a row. His judgment in women was poor unfortunately. They split, and he had full custody but no child support. Think that would ever happen if the genders were reversed?"

I expect it does occasionally happen.

"Though to ask Beyoncé a question, if you like it why does it benefit a man to put a ring on it? Answer, it does not."

If a guy wants to raise children in a middle class home, there’s really no other practical and moral way to do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top