Things women do that disappoint their boyfriend

[NonTimendum]

So to clarify, does this go both ways? Should a man not disagree with his woman in public?

He should not unless he sees a good reason to do so. He does reserve the right to in certain cases because he is the leader and if he does she should accept the correction with humility and grace, thus allowing the public to see that she accepts his authority. If he abuses this power and she is not married yet, she can break off the engagement if it is a big deal. If they are married she can bring it up in private, but also understand that he is the voice of authority and does not have to accept her reasoning.

If she feels like this is a great burden then she should examine why she has so much pride that she cannot accept his leadership even in public and should allow it as an opportunity to humble herself.

Strictly speaking however, unless there is just cause a man should not contradict his wife, but he is the determiner of what constitutes just cause and she has no authority or place in determining this. It is between him and God. Her only place is to humbly voice her concerns and accept his decision as final.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

He should not unless he sees a good reason to do so. He does reserve the right to in certain cases because he is the leader and if he does she should accept the correction with humility and grace, thus allowing the public to see that she accepts his authority. If he abuses this power and she is not married yet, she can break off the engagement if it is a big deal. If they are married she can bring it up in private, but also understand that he is the voice of authority and does not have to accept her reasoning.

If she feels like this is a great burden then she should examine why she has so much pride that she cannot accept his leadership even in public and should allow it as an opportunity to humble herself.

Strictly speaking however, unless there is just cause a man should not contradict his wife, but he is the determiner of what constitutes just cause and she has no authority or place in determining this. It is between him and God. Her only place is to humbly voice her concerns and accept his decision as final.

I have some difficulty with this concept…if a man holds an opinion contrary to that of his wife he would be wise to be silent in public rather than potentially bring upon her any measure of frustration by his volubility.

Certainly he would at the very least have brought about his own discomfort by being so tactless as to broach the subject with her nearby–expecting her silence, which the public must view as a sign of tacit agreement, rather than a tactful rebuke.

For imagine if the husband might be very much anti-religion and the wife faithful…? Would one really advocate for her to allow his comments to set the tone of all discussions of the subject in public?

 

[NonTimendum]

I have some difficulty with this concept…if a man holds an opinion contrary to that of his wife he would be wise to be silent in public rather than potentially bring upon her any measure of frustration by his volubility.

Certainly he would at the very least have brought about his own discomfort by being so tactless as to broach the subject with her nearby–expecting her silence, which the public must view as a sign of tacit agreement, rather than a tactful rebuke.

For imagine if the husband might be very much anti-religion and the wife faithful…? Would one really advocate for her to allow his comments to set the tone of all discussions of the subject in public?

She should present tacit agreement with her husband to the public so that all may know that no outside influence can disrupt the harmony of their union. A husband should be charitable and should not abuse his authority, but it is not the wifes place to determine what is an abuse or not (within reason). He would be prudent to be wise in his corrections, and in voicing his opinion when he knows she disapproves, but as a rule he is within his rights to do so and she is not. If the situation is grave enough to justify her public contradiction then she will have to decide what is important and live with the consequences, keeping in mind that God Himself has ordained her husband to be her leader and authority.

Even if the husband is irreligious, the wife should submit to this in public and keep her silence. Like Paul says, she should by her surpassing grace and humility prove the worth of her faith by action and not risk alienating her unbelieveing husband by using God as an excuse to usurp his God-given authority. Though this is also a good reason why Christian women should not marry non-Christian men. But that is a different topic.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

If there might be times when I may have been potentially emasculated by my wife, it must needs be moments when I had only myself to blame.

For instance, if I fail to attend to a matter of home repair in a timely manner and she, rather than nag, simply fulfills the task without comment, is it truly she who might be potentially at fault for my alleged emasculation at having had the work taken from my idle hands?

Seemingly it would appear that most situations of alleged emasculation simply could not persist in the home of a driven or even partially conscientious man.

Now is it possible that a woman might persist and thus render a man complacent due to her ‘consistent rising to the occasion’ well ahead of his slower momentum? Most potentially this may be so, but here again one must be hard-pressed to imagine a particularly established man falling prey to such an ongoing occurrence.

Perhaps, then, the question must be asked whether–or, more properly, how–such a man of slower expectations might be encouraged in his tasks in order to be enabled to more often rise to the occasion…although such answers would necessarily leave the purview of the original question…and yet further, must not such a man necessarily be considered already emasculated if he should require, as a source for his sense of masculinity, his wife’s persistent prodding and shoring up of same?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

She should present tacit agreement with her husband to the public so that all may know that no outside influence can disrupt the harmony of their union. A husband should be charitable and should not abuse his authority, but it is not the wifes place to determine what is an abuse or not (within reason). He would be prudent to be wise in his corrections, and in voicing his opinion when he knows she disapproves, but as a rule he is within his rights to do so and she is not. If the situation is grave enough to justify her public contradiction then she will have to decide what is important and live with the consequences, keeping in mind that God Himself has ordained her husband to be her leader and authority.

Even if the husband is irreligious, the wife should submit to this in public and keep her silence. Like Paul says, she should by her surpassing grace and humility prove the worth of her faith by action and not risk alienating her unbelieveing husband by using God as an excuse to usurp his God-given authority. Though this is also a good reason why Christian women should not marry non-Christian men. But that is a different topic.

Though it might be admitted that such a fair and discrete display of solidarity on the part of both spouses would be laudable, it must surely be equally admitted that differing temperaments must certainly yield far less predictable results in general…for we all know of the overly-expansive husband who is taken to exaggeration, or of the quiet, brooding husband who might use his natural passive-aggression to avoid direct confrontation by expressing questionable ideas in reverse.

Further, should a child be able to bear witness to the off-color jokes of his/her father while his mother may merely stand mutely and awkwardly by? Where is the line between mere differences of opinion and more egregious lapses in judgement?

Finally, is not a husband, who might be fully aware of his wife’s necessity to silence, not potentially placed into the path of temptation to take advantage of same on the occasion, such as during moments of weakness, self-doubt, spite, or otherwise?

 

[1neophyte]

She should present tacit agreement with her husband to the public so that all may know that no outside influence can disrupt the harmony of their union. A husband should be charitable and should not abuse his authority, but it is not the wifes place to determine what is an abuse or not (within reason). He would be prudent to be wise in his corrections, and in voicing his opinion when he knows she disapproves, but as a rule he is within his rights to do so and she is not. If the situation is grave enough to justify her public contradiction then she will have to decide what is important and live with the consequences, keeping in mind that God Himself has ordained her husband to be her leader and authority.

Even if the husband is irreligious, the wife should submit to this in public and keep her silence. Like Paul says, she should by her surpassing grace and humility prove the worth of her faith by action and not risk alienating her unbelieveing husband by using God as an excuse to usurp his God-given authority. Though this is also a good reason why Christian women should not marry non-Christian men. But that is a different topic.

Beautifully stated. I wanted to say these same things, but wouldn’t have been able to do it with this much grace.

 

[Xantippe]

Disagreeing with and or contradicting your man in public.

About anything?

He says, “Wonder Woman was the best movie of the year!” and the good girlfriend needs to nod her head, even if she thinks that Dunkirk was better.

Likewise, if he tells a friend, “I’m free Tuesday night,” a good girlfriend will keep her lips zipped, even if she knows he’s got a work dinner.

 

[NonTimendum]

Though it might be admitted that such a fair and discrete display of solidarity on the part of both spouses would be laudable, it must surely be equally admitted that differing temperaments must certainly yield far less predictable results in general…for we all know of the overly-expansive husband who is taken to exaggeration, or of the quiet, brooding husband who might use his natural passive-aggression to avoid direct confrontation by expressing questionable ideas in reverse.

And insofar as he knowlingly abuses his authority, he sins. But unless the sin is so egregious as to become intolerable (truly intolerable), the wife should keep her peace in public and wait until the privacy of their home to express her concerns. Why would she feel the need to do it in public unless she wanted to either publicly declare her separation from her husband or to use the public as allies in her struggle? Neither of those are acceptable. The public is not to be made aware of any distance between husband and wife, and is NEVER to be used as allies against her husband. Plus, most people don’t like being put in the middle of an argument between husband and wife and those that do enjoy such an uncomfortable position are the last type of people who should be given the opportunity.

Further, should a child be able to bear witness to the off-color jokes of his/her father while his mother may merely stand mutely and awkwardly by? Where is the line between mere differences of opinion and more egregious lapses in judgement?

This would be one of the cases where she would have to make a prudential judgement. Is the behavior so egregious that it cannot be addressed later, in private? Is the correction she gives going to be gentle and good-natured and given in total humility? Can she not resolve it in any other way? She will have to make a decision based on her best knowledge, keeping in mind that it is no sin to err on the side of caution when stepping over the normal bounds of one’s authority. If she truly feels it is necessary to step in and issue public correction, it MUST be done humbly and graciously.

Finally, is not a husband, who might be fully aware of his wife’s necessity to silence, not potentially placed into the path of temptation to take advantage of same on the occasion, such as during moments of weakness, self-doubt, spite, or otherwise?

He is, but this is an unavoidable temptation and it is his responsibility to be equally humble and gracious in his behavior so as not to alienate or abuse his wife’s goodness. And he can rest assured that any abuse of his authority will be answered by the Father, who brings punishment upon all tyrants.

 

[1neophyte]

About anything?

He says, “Wonder Woman was the best movie of the year!” and the good girlfriend needs to nod her head, even if she thinks that Dunkirk was better.

Likewise, if he tells a friend, “I’m free Tuesday night,” a good girlfriend will keep her lips zipped, even if she knows he’s got a work dinner.

In your first example, of course she could offer her own differing opinion. But if she were to say something like, “No, I think you liked Dunkirk better,” it would be time to reconsider the relationship. There are women who will do/say things like this.

In the second example, there are thoughtful ways to correct someone discreetly so as not to embarrass them. If a woman (or man) were to say to her/his mate, “Ugh! You never remember anything! You are NOT free on Tuesday!”, she (or he) would have to go.

It’s really just common sense. If you don’t know how to act kindly, you’re not going to be good in a relationship.

 

[NonTimendum]

About anything?

He says, “Wonder Woman was the best movie of the year!” and the good girlfriend needs to nod her head, even if she thinks that Dunkirk was better.

Likewise, if he tells a friend, “I’m free Tuesday night,” a good girlfriend will keep her lips zipped, even if she knows he’s got a work dinner.

The first would be fine. Obviously she is not a slave, and good-natured disagreements are fine, especially in minor things like opinion about movies. Now if she used the opportunity to ride him down and insult him for his taste, that would be out of line. But he would equally be out of line to do that to her.

The second is fine as a reminder, again though it should be done in humility and grace. But if he says in response: “No it is Wednesday that I have the dinner!” And she knows it is not, she should probably just wait until they are in private to correct him. That is just politeness. Likewise if she says she is free to her friend and he says no, they have plans, she should wait until they are in private to disagree.

Of course a husband can always instruct his wife as to his personal standards of obedience, and if he is more lax that is fine, but she should still err on the side of caution. Not in small part because bickering couples are horribly annoying amd embarassing to everyone around them!

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

She can let him know how she really feels in private.

 

[Norseman82]

Embarrassing / verbally abusing him in public (and private as well)
Silent treatment / pouting when she doesn’t get her way
Not “saving herself” for him when he did so for her
Failure to recognize men have an “ego” and “competitive spirit”

And as said before, this applies both ways.

 

[DarkLight]

And insofar as he knowlingly abuses his authority, he sins. But unless the sin is so egregious as to become intolerable (truly intolerable), the wife should keep her peace in public and wait until the privacy of their home to express her concerns. Why would she feel the need to do it in public unless she wanted to either publicly declare her separation from her husband or to use the public as allies in her struggle? Neither of those are acceptable. The public is not to be made aware of any distance between husband and wife, and is NEVER to be used as allies against her husband. Plus, most people don’t like being put in the middle of an argument between husband and wife and those that do enjoy such an uncomfortable position are the last type of people who should be given the opportunity.

See this is more a case where I really don’t see why it only applies to the wife. Public arguments just aren’t a good idea in general and everyone should strive not to embarrass their spouse in public.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

See this is more a case where I really don’t see why it only applies to the wife. Public arguments just aren’t a good idea in general and everyone should strive not to embarrass their spouse in public.

+1

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

See this is more a case where I really don’t see why it only applies to the wife. Public arguments just aren’t a good idea in general and everyone should strive not to embarrass their spouse in public.

Yeah, but…SUBMISSION!!!

 

[reggieM]

A counter point which is perhaps less negative is “As a woman, how can I help build up and encourage his masculinity”?

How can I “masculate” him?

The man must know what this is and what it means first - otherwise he’ll get upset when you’re actually doing something good for him.

Men need to encourage and help build up a distinctly feminine character and virtues in their wife also.

A good Catholic book for men: The Three Marks of Manhood.

 

[macstar]

otherwise he’ll get upset when you’re actually doing something good for him.

Spot on! This is a red flag, too.

 

[Xantippe]

I din’t think a woman should disagree with her man in public. It is disrespectful to take sides against your family. On substantial issues definitely, and on little things it depends on the nature of the disagreement. If he says “movie X is the best ever” and she says “I like movie Y” or “I hate that movie!” that isn’t really a big deal.

Even if the man is wrong, unless it is a life or death situation, the woman should wait until they are in private to voice her disagreement and contradiction. He is the leader and as far as the public is concerned there should be no space between them, they should present a united front.** However, he can disagree and contradict her in public because he is the leader and she should humbly accept the correction as long as they are in public. Rip him up in private if you want (not a good idea but not as emasculating) but in public allow him to be seen clearly as the boss.**

Some men don’t care and that is fine for them, but I would hazard a guess and say many more men do care than would admit it. Most men who bring up any real issues in topics like this are instantly set upon by both men and women in a bullying campaign to emasculate them as insecure and weak for not wanting a Strong Independent Womyn to tell them what to do.

I grew up in a family with a similar public/private rule and I have to say, it’s pretty dysfunctional. As a kid growing up in that kind of family, you get whiplash from the public/private distinction–it’s like you’re dealing with two completely different people. People who know my mom (who is in public very mild-mannered and ladylike) would never realize how out-of-control and violent she could be at home dealing with kids. Likewise, there was a lot of yelling and screaming at home when my parents had arguments–in fact it’s taken me literally decades to realize that yes, it is possible to disagree pleasantly and politely.

I would encourage people to try to be good at home and good in public, rather than having a “nice” persona that gets dropped as soon as the garage door closes.

 

[Xantippe]

He should not unless he sees a good reason to do so. He does reserve the right to in certain cases because he is the leader and if he does she should accept the correction with humility and grace, thus allowing the public to see that she accepts his authority. If he abuses this power and she is not married yet, she can break off the engagement if it is a big deal. If they are married she can bring it up in private, but also understand that he is the voice of authority and does not have to accept her reasoning.

If she feels like this is a great burden then she should examine why she has so much pride that she cannot accept his leadership even in public and should allow it as an opportunity to humble herself.

Strictly speaking however, unless there is just cause a man should not contradict his wife, but he is the determiner of what constitutes just cause and she has no authority or place in determining this. It is between him and God. Her only place is to humbly voice her concerns and accept his decision as final.

You got a Catechism cite for that?

 

[NonTimendum]

See this is more a case where I really don’t see why it only applies to the wife. Public arguments just aren’t a good idea in general and everyone should strive not to embarrass their spouse in public.

Because the husband has the authority as the man to determine the public face of the family. If he corrects his wife wrongly, he is exercising his authority wrongly, if the wife corrects her husband, even rightly, she risks usurping his authority.