Things women do that disappoint their boyfriend

[reggieM]

And the reason we can’t really have a proper discussion is because you guys talk such utter nonsense.

No, I understand your point of view. It’s actually very common - it’s the default idea for guys today. I just don’t see much sense in trying to deal with it.

 

[reggieM]

It isn’t a 50% divorce rate and it isn’t 80% of divorces being filed by women.

I believe the real numbers are something like 40% and 69% (with substantially better divorced numbers depending on demographics). Interestingly, the percentage filed by women is very similar in a variety of times and places.

"Social scientists have known for decades that women are more likely than men to initiate a divorce. In 1956, sociologist William Goode discovered that, among couples in Detroit who’d gotten divorced in the 1940s, the wife had instigated about two-thirds of the breakups.

“Since then — in spite of shifts in gender relations, advances in women’s rights and profound changes in our attitude towards marriage itself — that finding has been replicated repeatedly, in different contexts and cultures; researchers have found the same pattern to be true in Europe and Australia.”

nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/08/24/why-women-are-more-likely-than-men-to-initiate-a-divorce/

Ok?

 

[Walking_Home]

Bruised Reed;14878481**:

I used to think there was wisdom in the counsel to wives not talk to others about shortcoming if their husbands. Later, I realized that abuse could go on and a wife wouldn’t have someone to tell her that the abuse was wrong. Now I have to say be discreet but for safety reasons have someone to confide in.

Spousal abuse is insidious because there are often no signs before marriage. Family and friends can be so charmed that they can’t see the abuse and don’t believe it when she finally asks for help.​

Yup – an abuser will want to isolate the wife from anyone that can interfere with his control over the wife.

 

[DarkLight]

There’s a lot I could say here but … Just thank you. Yes, I know what you mean from much experience. It’s a guy-thing. Many are enablers.
One thing I notice on CAF is that there can’t really be discussions on relationships/roles from a male perspective because in every case women come piling in with their opinions about themselves and their supposed expertise on what men are thinking or what men should do for them.
As you said - men need to start thinking and to wake up to the Catholic Faith and what it demands.

Welcome to how we feel about half the modesty threads.

More seriously, the concern for many of us is that, by experience, there are men out there who use submission, even Christian concepts of submission, in order to put women in relationships that are neither healthy nor sustainable for the woman. And then talk like the woman isn’t “submissive enough” if she complains about it. You end up with a system where the fact that the system produces what the man wants means it’s working.

Xantippe pointed out upthread that relationships where one party isn’t free to express their needs (and have them addressed appropriately) don’t work well. It’s much more likely that the “submissive” woman is going to develop ways of being petty or manipulative simply because directly saying “this is not ok for me, I’m burnt out and stressed, something has to change” isn’t acceptable.

 

[IWantGod]

If my wife took a dump in my cereal, that would make me feel emasculated.

 

[Xantippe]

**More seriously, the concern for many of us is that, by experience, there are men out there who use submission, even Christian concepts of submission, in order to put women in relationships that are neither healthy nor sustainable for the woman. **And then talk like the woman isn’t “submissive enough” if she complains about it. You end up with a system where the fact that the system produces what the man wants means it’s working.

Xantippe pointed out upthread that relationships where one party isn’t free to express their needs (and have them addressed appropriately) don’t work well. It’s much more likely that the “submissive” woman is going to develop ways of being petty or manipulative simply because directly saying “this is not ok for me, I’m burnt out and stressed, something has to change” isn’t acceptable.

Right.

I think it’s rather telling that guys who are really into hard core wifely submission never seem to feel like women are submissive enough. Nothing is ever good enough.

 

[reggieM]

More seriously, the concern for many of us is that, by experience, there are men out there who use submission, even Christian concepts of submission, in order to put women in relationships that are neither healthy nor sustainable for the woman.

Yes, I know what you’re getting at and I am fully sympathetic to your point of view.
At the same time, those of us who have been formed and taught American secular feminism (men and women) will find it difficult or impossible to see things another way. The ideology is deeply embedded in the identify of the person and in our culture. I don’t see any way to change that except by a miracle of grace, but God will not force it either.

And then talk like the woman isn’t “submissive enough” if she complains about it. You end up with a system where the fact that the system produces what the man wants means it’s working.

Understanding a Catholic patriarchal system requires a different set of criteria by which to judge and evaluate the goals and results. Again, if we judge that structure by secular-feminist values of course it’s not going to work. The two world-views are opposed. The default view for our society, for virtually all the Catholic women here, is the secular feminist. That has certain goals and ideals established. A person can improve upon or refine their marriage and relationships based on feminist goals, certainly. But it’s a different standard. A non-feminist world view has different goals, different standards and seeks different outcomes. If the person rejects the non-feminist view from the start, there’s no sense in trying to analyze it using feminist categories and standards. It’s a mis-match of values. Misunderstandings will follow from that - as we see here all the time.

Xantippe pointed out upthread that relationships where one party isn’t free to express their needs (and have them addressed appropriately) don’t work well. It’s much more likely that the “submissive” woman is going to develop ways of being petty or manipulative simply because directly saying “this is not ok for me, I’m burnt out and stressed, something has to change” isn’t acceptable.

If a person wants to adopt a non-feminist view, then that is a total change in perspective. It has a different starting point and a different end.
For that reason, I find it pointless to try to convince anybody who simply does not accept the validity of that worldview from the beginning. All I can do is wish them the best and pray for them. But I’m a bit odd in that regard – I believe secular-feminism (which is equivalent to Catholic-feminism) is an evil mind-set that endangers souls.
I don’t expect anyone else to agree with me and I’m not condemning any persons - I’m just talking about ideologies. I’ve been affected by (and actually believed in) feminism for years and it has taken a lot to be converted from it (I’m still suffering the effects).

 

[reggieM]

Right.

I think it’s rather telling that guys who are really into hard core wifely submission never seem to feel like women are submissive enough. Nothing is ever good enough.

Can you point to an example - quoting - on this thread?
I haven’t seen it, but I certainly may have missed it.
Thanks.

 

[Xantippe]

Can you point to an example - quoting - on this thread?
I haven’t seen it, but I certainly may have missed it.
Thanks.

I think there are some examples in the thread, but it’s true outside the thread–men who are into hard core submission are never satisfied.

 

[DarkLight]

Yes, I know what you’re getting at and I am fully sympathetic to your point of view.
At the same time, those of us who have been formed and taught American secular feminism (men and women) will find it difficult or impossible to see things another way. The ideology is deeply embedded in the identify of the person and in our culture. I don’t see any way to change that except by a miracle of grace, but God will not force it either.

Understanding a Catholic patriarchal system requires a different set of criteria by which to judge and evaluate the goals and results. Again, if we judge that structure by secular-feminist values of course it’s not going to work. The two world-views are opposed. The default view for our society, for virtually all the Catholic women here, is the secular feminist. That has certain goals and ideals established. A person can improve upon or refine their marriage and relationships based on feminist goals, certainly. But it’s a different standard. A non-feminist world view has different goals, different standards and seeks different outcomes. If the person rejects the non-feminist view from the start, there’s no sense in trying to analyze it using feminist categories and standards. It’s a mis-match of values. Misunderstandings will follow from that - as we see here all the time.

If a person wants to adopt a non-feminist view, then that is a total change in perspective. It has a different starting point and a different end.
For that reason, I find it pointless to try to convince anybody who simply does not accept the validity of that worldview from the beginning. All I can do is wish them the best and pray for them. But I’m a bit odd in that regard – I believe secular-feminism (which is equivalent to Catholic-feminism) is an evil mind-set that endangers souls.
I don’t expect anyone else to agree with me and I’m not condemning any persons - I’m just talking about ideologies. I’ve been affected by (and actually believed in) feminism for years and it has taken a lot to be converted from it (I’m still suffering the effects).

I grew up in a patriarchal church. I’m more familiar than you might think with the traditional mindset. That’s why I’m more critical of it.

In my case…I ended up in a relationship where it was quite clear that my having any skills or desires of my own was a problem. My job was to shut my mouth, like the things my boyfriend liked, not talk about anything I liked, and generally tell him how wonderful he was.

What would have happened if I’d married him? We’d have been having sex when he liked, even if it was difficult or painful for me. I’d be fixing him the food he liked, even if I hated it. I wouldn’t be having interests or hobbies because to his mind, they were “stupid” and I was wasting my time, and he wouldn’t have wanted me to spend my time or money on them. I’d be going to the (completely musicless) service he wanted. I wouldn’t be allowed to ask him to change anything, because that would offend him.

Even him aside entirely, I was taught that my academic skills were basically worthless, except for the education of primary school children. The only possible reason I could want to study theology or philosophy was so I could make myself better than a man. I was clearly good at academics, but anything beyond what I needed to educate any children I had was worthless and dangerous, because it would only encourage me to do “men’s” work.

Feminism or not, does that sound like a healthy, sustainable relationship? But this was the kind of man I was taught to value as a strong leader and the kind of life I was taught that I should hope for. Do you really think I needed any feminist movement to be unhappy? I can tell you it caused no discontent or frustration that I didn’t already have simply from the sense that “using the abilities God gave me” and “being a submissive wife” were not compatible. What it gave me was a sense that I didn’t have to burn out and be miserable and hate myself for my entire life in order to be a woman obedient to God.

 

[reggieM]

I grew up in a patriarchal church. I’m more familiar than you might think with the traditional mindset. That’s why I’m more critical of it.

Understood. But I’m also talking about a Catholic view which is quite different than the non-Catholic.

But nonetheless, I was sorry to hear about your experiences in that relationship and I do sympathize with your concerns.

I would just offer that an abuse of something good does not mean that the good itself is really evil. But I can’t speak about what non-Catholic groups do in these regards. I keep in mind that Islam has some Christian roots (some call it a Christian variant) but clearly they have a different view of patriarchy than the Catholic view. The same is true of Evangelical and Protestant churches. It’s a different worldview than the Catholic.

 

[reggieM]

I think there are some examples in the thread, but it’s true outside the thread–men who are into hard core submission are never satisfied.

Yes, we can say all sorts of things about all sorts of people. But unless I know what you’re talking about it’s just a sweeping generalization. I don’t deny your experience it just doesn’t help me much (all men? into ‘hard-core’?, ‘never satisfied’?).

 

[Xantippe]

Yes, we can say all sorts of things about all sorts of people. But unless I know what you’re talking about it’s just a sweeping generalization. I don’t deny your experience it just doesn’t help me much (all men? into ‘hard-core’?, ‘never satisfied’?).

How about this–you can identify men who are taking wifely submission too far by the fact that they are never satisfied.

There’s a very visible and identifiable lack of contentment wafting off of men who are obsessed by wifely submission.

If a guy is contented and satisfied, I’m not talking about him.

It’s a very noticeable difference, once you start looking for it.

Also, they’re unwilling to accept any limit to their power over their families. It is very odd to hear a Catholic guy (like NonTimendum) preaching total husbandly authority over wives and talking as though the only alternative to total husbandly authority would be wives grabbing authority for themselves when (duh!) Catholics always have the option of taking their issues to their parish priest or confessor. It’s like these guys have a special version of Catholicism with no Church at all…

Pretty weird!

So, tldr, if a guy is continually dissatisfied and discontented and is unwilling to submit (!) to the authority of his church, there is a pretty good chance that he is turning wifely submission into a sort of idol or heresy.

 

[LightBound]

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.

No. Her only place is to keep him satisfied in the bedroom and the kitchen. She’s nothing more than a child with a woman’s body. The only time she should open her mouth outside the bedroom is to say “yes dear” and if she opens it in the bedroom…well, that’s all she’s good for.

You need to take your trolling red pill self back over to Dalrock and quit rejoining CAF after you get banned time and time again.

 

[Xantippe]

Understood. But I’m also talking about a Catholic view which is quite different than the non-Catholic.

But nonetheless, I was sorry to hear about your experiences in that relationship and I do sympathize with your concerns.

I would just offer that an abuse of something good does not mean that the good itself is really evil. But I can’t speak about what non-Catholic groups do in these regards. I keep in mind that Islam has some Christian roots (some call it a Christian variant) but clearly they have a different view of patriarchy than the Catholic view. The same is true of Evangelical and Protestant churches. It’s a different worldview than the Catholic.

A few problems:

–You haven’t explained how your view is distinct from the bad Protestant view. It would help a lot if you would explain your view.
–There is actually a lot of cross-pollination between Protestants and Catholics who are way into wifely submission (see, for example, Dalrock’s comment threads).

 

[DarkLight]

Understood. But I’m also talking about a Catholic view which is quite different than the non-Catholic.

But nonetheless, I was sorry to hear about your experiences in that relationship and I do sympathize with your concerns.

I would just offer that an abuse of something good does not mean that the good itself is really evil. But I can’t speak about what non-Catholic groups do in these regards. I keep in mind that Islam has some Christian roots (some call it a Christian variant) but clearly they have a different view of patriarchy than the Catholic view. The same is true of Evangelical and Protestant churches. It’s a different worldview than the Catholic.

Most of what I see passed around in American Catholic circles I daresay has more in common with American Evangelicalism than genuine Catholic tradition.

I was actually reading a very conservative blog that pointed out one disadvantage of modern patriarchy is that we’re much more in a situation where the nuclear family is expected to be a little kingdom to itself. This means there are much fewer social controls on the patriarch of the family, and it’s much easier to isolate a woman.

In a more interconnected village setting, it would be almost impossible to isolate a woman, and if you did it would be very immediately noticeable and draw attention. If a man mistreated his wife it would come out and in most places he would face repercussions from his community.

 

[Xantippe]

One of the drivers of hard core submission is a total refusal to accept the idea that women have real needs. The idea is that wives and mothers are supposed to be a sort of perpetual motion machine that keeps running indefinitely without refueling. Whatever she’s told to do, she ought to be able to do it–and with a smile!

As women do have needs (being human beings) and aren’t capable of doing literally everything they are asked to do (given the limitations of space and time and budget), this means that the hard core submission husband is always going to be disappointed and dissatisfied.

 

[reggieM]

A few problems:

–You haven’t explained how your view is distinct from the bad Protestant view. It would help a lot if you would explain your view.
–There is actually a lot of cross-pollination between Protestants and Catholics who are way into wifely submission (see, for example, Dalrock’s comment threads).

The Catholic view is informed by the teaching of the Magisterium the writings and doctrines of Popes, encyclicals, counciliar documents - as well as the fathers, doctors spiritual teachers and lives of the saints.
Boundaries are given to the role of father and husband so the excesses and abuses you’re concerned about have already been addressed.
None of this is true for the Protestant view which is sola scriptura based and is open to subjective interpretations which end up as a distortion of the true teaching.

A good book that covers the Catholic view is “Three Marks of Manhood” by Dilsaver.

 

[reggieM]

One of the drivers of hard core submission is a total refusal to accept the idea that women have real needs. The idea is that wives and mothers are supposed to be a sort of perpetual motion machine that keeps running indefinitely without refueling. Whatever she’s told to do, she ought to be able to do it–and with a smile!

As women do have needs (being human beings) and aren’t capable of doing literally everything they are asked to do (given the limitations of space and time and budget), this means that the hard core submission husband is always going to be disappointed and dissatisfied.

You speak about hard-core and being “way into” but the impression that comes across to me is that you reject the notion of obedience and submission from the wife entirely. Again, to merely speak of abuses or what you don’t like about it would leave that impression.

 

[reggieM]

Also, they’re unwilling to accept any limit to their power over their families. It is very odd to hear a Catholic guy (like NonTimendum) preaching total husbandly authority over wives and talking as though the only alternative to total husbandly authority would be wives grabbing authority for themselves when (duh!) Catholics always have the option of taking their issues to their parish priest or confessor. It’s like these guys have a special version of Catholicism with no Church at all…

Pretty weird!

So, tldr, if a guy is continually dissatisfied and discontented and is unwilling to submit (!) to the authority of his church, there is a pretty good chance that he is turning wifely submission into a sort of idol or heresy.

We are required to submit to the authority of the Church in all things that pertain to that authority. In the Catholic view, a wife is actually required to give advice to her husband on decisions when he seeks it (and he is required to seek it on important matters) as she should participate in her husband’s leadership role by contributing to it.
The husband can seek spiritual guidance also - and confession is necessary.
All of that, however - the priest or spiritual teacher does not have authority over the family. The priest cannot command the husband, under obedience, on matters that are the husband’s authority. This is with exception to matters of sin or abuse. But in other matters, it is the father’s role. Just as it is the pastor’s role to make decisions about the parish.
St. Augustine compared fathers to bishops - as they are entrusted with leading their flock to heaven and both have the responsibility of leadership.
Women may think that leadership is a matter of having some fun and bossing people around, but true fatherly leadership is a burden and responsiblity that the man must take.
Most men today do not want that. They’re embarrassed by it. They think they’re not worthy of having their wife obey them in that way. But it’s not a question of that - it’s what God has commanded, leadership for the man, obedience for the wife.