S
SWolf
Guest
I think we’ve reached an empasse. For now, we’ll have to agree to disagree
. I enjoyed our conversation, seriously.God Bless.
- Status
I think we’ve reached an empasse. For now, we’ll have to agree to disagree
. I enjoyed our conversation, seriously.God Bless.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
Re the Duggars, they’ve been discussed on CAF a lot, though not as much recently even though their show is still going strong. Possibly, this is because one very anti-Duggar poster, who claimed to have been part of the same evangelical subculture, was banned and others aren’t as passionate about the whole issue.
But even I get the feeling that the more extreme aspects of the Duggars’ beliefs have been toned down for television, especially if you compare the coverage of Jill’s wedding, which was full of comments from Jim-Bob about “giving your daughter away” that IMHO made it pretty obvious that he meant it literally, to the coverage of Jessa’s wedding, which was edited to look a lot more like a conventional one.
Now, I suspect part of the reason that was the case, is because Jessa’s husband Ben is a teenager two years younger then her who was working as a handyman for his future in-laws, and he did NOT ever give the impression he was mature for his age it all, and the idea of him as really being able to take on the “traditional lead” husband role was pretty ridiculous.
Though the Duggars letting him court and marry Jessa at the all might suggest that they’re not as successful at implementing their own ideals as they might want to be. Or that they somehow felt trapped by the show demands into letting the wedding go forward.
Although OT, I do hope Jessa and Ben do have a successful marriage despite the reality TV coverage, and not go down the road of the Gosselins (divorced) or the Roloffs (separated last I heard but I wouldn’t be surprised if they eventually divorce too). Especially because they likely would NOT be able to easily divorce or separate, they might just be trapped in a miserable marriage. Or might even resort to committing adultery to provide an “out”, although I don’t know if the Duggars believe adultery is ground for divorce, I know many evangelicals do.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Here are some differences:
- Men are bigger and stronger
- Men often make more money, or the only money coming into a household and are able to use that as a lever of control
- Men don’t get pregnant and aren’t physically encumbered by pregnancy or the care of infants and small toddlers in the same way women are.
- Men’s earning potential potential isn’t nuked by parenthood the way women’s is.
- Single and divorced mothers (unless they are very lucky) face the near certainty of poverty for themselves and their children.
- Men aren’t killed by wives or female intimate partners at the same rate women are.
- Husbands of SAHMs usually leave the house all by themselves 5 days a week.
- Men have a handy dandy list of verses (which you have helpfully shared with us) justifying why their wives need to submit and keep submitting and then submit some more if that doesn’t work. While theoretically it would be possible for a wife to use a different list for evil, one rarely hears of wives managing to get much mileage out of saying, “You’re supposed to lay down your life for me! Go get some overtime so we can get a new leather sofa!” Almost everybody would realize instantly how disgusting and selfish it is to say that, but people don’t instantly see how disgusting it is to justify selfishness with “submit” verses.
Also, bear in mind that in these discussions the choices on the table are male leadership versus egalitarian marriage, despite the fact that there is a third logical possibility (female leadership). Although Lord knows it happens in practice, I’ve never seen anybody making the case for female leadership in marriage. Hence, it’s a bit disingenuous to talk about male abuse and female abuse as if they were identical in the context of family power-sharing. People who argue for egalitarian marriage want equal power between spouses and hence if they manage to pull that off, those relationships are inherently less susceptible to falling into abuse by either spouse.
(I acknowledge that there is often a large difference between people’s theories and their practice. How often do we meet theoretically traditional couples where it’s clear to everybody but the couple themselves that the wife is in charge? Or how many theoretically egalitarian marriages between uber liberals does one encounter where the wife is living a life defined by kitchen and children? Lots.)
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
I don’t have any problem with anything that you’ve said on this thread. I also agree with most of what Xantippe has said, and I don’t think that they are contradictory.
My husband is the unequivocal leader in our family. Just as my stepfather is the head of my mom’s household, and my grandfather was the head of his family. We are three generations of smart, hardworking, strong, and self-sacrificing women. I’m studying to be a lawyer, and cooking and cleaning is done by whoever has a moment. Generally, we spend a little time cleaning together on Sunday morning. But leadership and submission (and masculinity and femininity) have nothing to do with who does what tasks or who works what job.
We started out both wanting and planning on an egalitarian marriage, but it was contentious and stressful, and we both found that when we just relaxed and enjoyed each other, the traditional roles kind of emerged. We’ve talked about it at length many times, and we both agree that he’s in charge and we don’t want it any other way. And I believe that bit about more sex. Both of our attraction levels sky rocketed when we started acting more like a traditional family than equal business partners. I see him as much more masculine and decisive, and he started treating me with more of that “old school” care and respect.
I believe that wifely submission can and often does work out very well. But the position that Xantippe is arguing against is a perverted oversimplification. The guys on sites like Dalrock don’t want wives to submit to their husbands. They just want all women to submit to their desires. I always find it interesting that if I did the things that those guys think would make me an ideal wife, I would be going against my husband’s expressed wishes. I will NOT take out my facial piercings because they were my husband’s idea and he loves them. I won’t quit my job or drop out of school, and my husband would be angry if I did. I won’t grow my hair out even though I would prefer it because my husband likes shorter, more trendy hairstyles. They also seem to think that civil law and society as a whole should enforce their male leadership on women. That isn’t true leadership or true submission-it’s the aforementioned slavery.
I plan on teaching my sons to relish the fact that as men they will be bigger and stronger. I want them to be good, strong, decisive, and protective leaders. And I want to each my daughters the value of letting their men be men. I want to teach them to be more charming than demanding, and to let themselves enjoy masculine energy without feeling like it is an affront to their dignity. I also want them to understand that a man who gives them whatever they want and doesn’t stand up to them will never stand up for them either. These are lessons that my traditional, rural family taught me, and at least in my experience, its true.
I have friends my age who think I’m crazy when they hear about my marriage or see it in action. But then they get jealous of how thoughtful and generous my husband is and they don’t understand why they can’t find someone like him. But putting him in charge gives him the opportunity to be generous (and manly, and decisive) that more egalitarian arrangements just don’t offer.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
I will say this, if our incomes weren’t cutting it, my husband would not allow me to take a second job. He would work a second one, but regardless of what arguments I put up, he would laugh in my face and put his foot down if I said that I was going to get one too.
D
DebChris
Guest
I always acknowledge gentlemen with a comment such as,“I like gentlemen.” That really makes those little eyes light up. I realizes this thread is about femininity, but so often in the past while there has been much talk about empowering women, we have forgotten to empower our young boys at the same time. I am happy when I see men stepping up to be mentors and positive role models for the next generation.Yes! It is so nice to see little gentlemen in training. I was at a restaurant and there was a wait. A family was standing beside the door and when I was walking up to the door his mother told him to hold the door for me. He was so proud when I told him, “thank you.”
Front porch sittin’ is one of the best things. I’m sure you’ll bond soon with your new neighbors.
Studies continue to show that there is a difference between men and women. As women we reflect back what we have received. I don’t really like using the term “princess” because of its connotation with Disney. If we have been treated with honor, we are more likely to exude confidence that can be seen in our walk and the way that we communicate with others. This is much more attractive than a person of either gender who hides away out of timidity because of past abuse.
One of the other posters asked the question when in 1st world countries does a man have to protect a woman? Riding the bus, one of the men was talking. He finally said something to the single mother with her son. In a simple confident tone, the young man who could not have been more than 6 years old put him in his place and the whole bus applauded. The old man was quiet for almost 5 minutes and he didn’t dare say another insinuating word to the mother.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
Since SWolf has supposedly “agreed to disagree”, you may not hear from him, but his comments about “feminist thought” and the “decimation of Marriage” makes me think it wouldn’t be a bad guess that his answer would be, “Everything Was Great Until Those Evil Godless Feminists Came Along” and they wanted change just because they were Evil Like That. And likely, that they were opposing “traditional” marriage roles is merely as a cover for an attack on marriage in general.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
So if the mother had been with her 6 year old daughter, and she said the same thing, the old man would have - what? Ignored her? Insulted the daughter, too? Or would he also have shut his mouth, ashamed that a child had pointed out how uncharitable he was being?
That’s what I see in that scenario, not a man protecting a woman.
I also wonder, so women have no obligation to protect men at all? Now, I do not carry a gun, but many women in the US do. If a hypothetical assailant was to attack the husband of a woman who just happened to be armed, is she allowed to shoot? Or is she somehow being “unfeminine” by doing that?
Imagines traditionalist husband actually berating his wife for saving his life; "It’s not your place to protect ME, Woman! I’d rather be DEAD than be shamed by my WIFE in public the way you just did!"
Bursts out laughing
D
DebChris
Guest
I don’t know where you are going off. I was responding to a post about gentlemanly behavior and honoring a young man who had acted like a gentleman on the bus while protecting his mother’s honor.So if the mother had been with her 6 year old daughter, and she said the same thing, the old man would have - what? Ignored her? Insulted the daughter, too? Or would he also have shut his mouth, ashamed that a child had pointed out how uncharitable he was being?
That’s what I see in that scenario, not a man protecting a woman.
I also wonder, so women have no obligation to protect men at all? Now, I do not carry a gun, but many women in the US do. If a hypothetical assailant was to attack the husband of a woman who just happened to be armed, is she allowed to shoot? Or is she somehow being “unfeminine” by doing that?
Imagines traditionalist husband actually berating his wife for saving his life; "It’s not your place to protect ME, Woman! I’d rather be DEAD than be shamed by my WIFE in public the way you just did!"
Bursts out laughing
I was reared in a very traditional and pragmatic family. By that I mean, my parents were very much in charge. I didn’t meet my father until I was over a year old since he was at war when I was born. I didn’t know who this stranger was who decided he was going to discipline my brother. The family story is that I threw a block at him. Did I get in trouble? No, I was rightfully protecting my brother.
As mentioned earlier, there was no division of labor in my family along gender lines. Where boys are not available, girls naturally take over their responsibilities and vice versa.
A woman does not lose her femininity by her capability to defend herself and her loved ones.
X
Xantippe
Guest
With regard to differences between “traditional” and egalitarian marriages, one thing that comes to mind is that some of the most intolerable female behavior that you will ever see is “traditional” bad behavior. See C.S. Lewis’s Mrs. Fidget (from The Four Loves) for a paradigmatic case:
wedgewords.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/mrs-fidget/
See also any number of CAF posts from daughters and daughters-in-law (and the occasional son or son-in-law) that are suffering from a mother or MIL well-versed in the traditional maternal arts of guilt and blackmail.
Traditional Jewish mothering is the advanced course:
buzzfeed.com/louispeitzman/35-signs-you-were-raised-by-a-jewish-mother#.ywDGJkQQK
I think there’s a tendency to put all unpleasant female behavior in the “feminist” bin, and not to recognize that even if Betty Friedan had never been born, there would still be women treating their husbands and children badly in very traditional ways, often in the name of love.
I also think that (paradoxically), a lot of the really bad traditional female behavior is driven by these women having no official power and having to do everything via covert action. If they had official power in their families, if they felt free to be open and honest about what they want, maybe things wouldn’t get so weird. I think it should be possible to say, “I want this, you want that, how can we both be happy?” But hey, I’m just a big hippie–what do I know?
C.S. Lewis talks about this problem in The Screwtape Letters (but without discussing it specifically as a woman’s problem):
kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/30280/
C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape says (when discussing the Generous Conflict Illusion Game):
“You see how it is done? If each side had been frankly contending for its own real wish, they would all have kept within the bounds of reason and courtesy; but just because the contention is reversed and each side is fighting the other side’s battle, all the bitterness which really flows from thwarted self-righteousness and obstinacy and the accumulated grudges of the last ten years is concealed from them by the nominal or official “Unselfishness” of what they are doing or, at least, held to be excused by it.”
wedgewords.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/mrs-fidget/
See also any number of CAF posts from daughters and daughters-in-law (and the occasional son or son-in-law) that are suffering from a mother or MIL well-versed in the traditional maternal arts of guilt and blackmail.
Traditional Jewish mothering is the advanced course:
buzzfeed.com/louispeitzman/35-signs-you-were-raised-by-a-jewish-mother#.ywDGJkQQK
I think there’s a tendency to put all unpleasant female behavior in the “feminist” bin, and not to recognize that even if Betty Friedan had never been born, there would still be women treating their husbands and children badly in very traditional ways, often in the name of love.
I also think that (paradoxically), a lot of the really bad traditional female behavior is driven by these women having no official power and having to do everything via covert action. If they had official power in their families, if they felt free to be open and honest about what they want, maybe things wouldn’t get so weird. I think it should be possible to say, “I want this, you want that, how can we both be happy?” But hey, I’m just a big hippie–what do I know?
C.S. Lewis talks about this problem in The Screwtape Letters (but without discussing it specifically as a woman’s problem):
kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/30280/
C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape says (when discussing the Generous Conflict Illusion Game):
“You see how it is done? If each side had been frankly contending for its own real wish, they would all have kept within the bounds of reason and courtesy; but just because the contention is reversed and each side is fighting the other side’s battle, all the bitterness which really flows from thwarted self-righteousness and obstinacy and the accumulated grudges of the last ten years is concealed from them by the nominal or official “Unselfishness” of what they are doing or, at least, held to be excused by it.”
P
pensmama87
Guest
This is the case for my father’s mother. Absolutely everything she says is code for something else. I’m sure the men in her life don’t care because they just skate right over her. It drives my mother and me bonkers, and my mother is definitely a pretty naturally submissive person by nature. My mom has often felt that she ended up being on the receiving end of a lot of that kind of treatment because her MIL felt like she “couldn’t” do it to her husband or her sons, or that they simply ignored it and did whatever they felt like anyway.
It makes me dread obligatory social calls to their house, which means that when I do call I get an earful about how my grandmother never knows what’s going on with me and she’s just “so grateful that I bothered to call.” I can tell you, it really makes me look forward to the next one.
I wonder how different it would have been if she had told my grandfather early in their marriage, “Hey, you’re kind of being a huge jerk and you should cut it out.”
E
edlinked
Guest
I got interested in this thread, not because I wanted to see what is right or not (as in my case the point is not to be right, is to do good, so that we don’t “hurt”), but because we get to see another point of view. What is femininity or how do we perceive it. I am a guy so I can see it only from my point (although we need to try to see things with “Gods eyes”, but as we are not perfect and not saints, we know probably that we are not absolutely correct (but I guess that’s the point)).
I can see that men when they don’t understand or want to understand God or are not religious (there are exceptions of course), they can take a very bad take on the roles of men and woman. That’s why the standard is to love each other, where we need to have many traits or virtues to get there, which can come when we decide, because we understand, that we need them.
In my opinion it is important that women are strong (but wise) and try to find God (understand God), and have faith in God (which is very important), because I believe that If we come from a good interiority (good intentions for others, not for our own I) we are going in the right direction. Why do I say they have to be strong, because doing good is not easy, and the devil (sin) make us blind for God, so they need to make a stand (in the right direction of course), and as men only see what they see, we need the other point of view to complete the picture, and do what is right. (Although saints see the full picture because they see it with Gods eyes, though) (That’s why we believe in the church, she follows the whole picture in a sense)
I like a saying that states that we can only see what our eyes permits us, because we can only see things from the point we stand (that we understand, from where we understand). Men sees the world from their point of view, and woman sees the world from their point of view, then everyone sees it from their own. (But this shouldn’t be enough in my understanding, as you should love others like yourself. Meaning we should relate and try to understand the other part of the picture because we need to love others the same way we love ourselves, so we need to try to see if there is something we are missing from the other side. In a similar way that we need a man and a woman to give a new life (for completion and unity in a sense)). Were things begin to clash is when we feel our dignity is not being met (to some degree I guess). I believe the dignity that the person has is the one given by God and not the one that we think we have (this means we can’t do what we want, but the problem is, what is “good”, what is correct (the science of good and evil)).
I don’t know how swolf can state that John Pauls II writings contradict with other church writings (didn’t the Pope read the other writings too and understood them the way they should be), because the point is the interiority in a sense, like someone said, the churchs writings conform a whole, when you get all the pieces you will understand the context (well that’s what I believe though).
I always like to talk about Love and responsibility from Karol Wojtyla (as I believe it gives a very important lesson), the point is to follow the commandments (specifically how to see Gods love, so that we can act it). Were love comes from the “standard” that God has given it (as He is love). Men and woman don’t contradict each other but they complement each other. The one who serves the most is going to be the first (this is where you need to start, to see how you act, in my understanding). For this we need humility, we need softness of the heart, we need love.
Can we see Christian femininity in what can women be, do? Can it have many facets? For example in being a mother, to care like a mother, to love like a mother, to relate to life in a mothers point of view, to be a vessel of life, to put your “heart” (softness of heart) and its feel on the outside to make it a little bit more real (more” reachable, touchable”). So can “femininity” bring all the traits that can give this results in one way or another, or does a woman has “the femininity” because it is in her nature and it depends what traits are “stronger” (in some sense) in her interiority to show them (or the need to show them); to be strong (character), to be passive, to be tender, caring, beauty, empathy, sensitivity, patience, joyful, prudence, etc.
It is said that woman tend to be more affective than men, so could this mean it is in its nature. And can these “traits”, this “femininity” be there for a reason.
Keeping this relation of mother and femininity there is a song called the mothers hymn or something like that in spanish that has this verse (Iam just putting it here because for me its great):
“a)En el nombre de madre se encierra
b)La más alta expresión del amor
c)Porque no puede haber en la tierra
d)Una imagen más clara de Dios.
a)In the name of Mother is enclosed
b)The highest expression of love
c)Because there cannot be on earth
d)A clearer image of God.”
I can see that men when they don’t understand or want to understand God or are not religious (there are exceptions of course), they can take a very bad take on the roles of men and woman. That’s why the standard is to love each other, where we need to have many traits or virtues to get there, which can come when we decide, because we understand, that we need them.
In my opinion it is important that women are strong (but wise) and try to find God (understand God), and have faith in God (which is very important), because I believe that If we come from a good interiority (good intentions for others, not for our own I) we are going in the right direction. Why do I say they have to be strong, because doing good is not easy, and the devil (sin) make us blind for God, so they need to make a stand (in the right direction of course), and as men only see what they see, we need the other point of view to complete the picture, and do what is right. (Although saints see the full picture because they see it with Gods eyes, though) (That’s why we believe in the church, she follows the whole picture in a sense)
I like a saying that states that we can only see what our eyes permits us, because we can only see things from the point we stand (that we understand, from where we understand). Men sees the world from their point of view, and woman sees the world from their point of view, then everyone sees it from their own. (But this shouldn’t be enough in my understanding, as you should love others like yourself. Meaning we should relate and try to understand the other part of the picture because we need to love others the same way we love ourselves, so we need to try to see if there is something we are missing from the other side. In a similar way that we need a man and a woman to give a new life (for completion and unity in a sense)). Were things begin to clash is when we feel our dignity is not being met (to some degree I guess). I believe the dignity that the person has is the one given by God and not the one that we think we have (this means we can’t do what we want, but the problem is, what is “good”, what is correct (the science of good and evil)).
I don’t know how swolf can state that John Pauls II writings contradict with other church writings (didn’t the Pope read the other writings too and understood them the way they should be), because the point is the interiority in a sense, like someone said, the churchs writings conform a whole, when you get all the pieces you will understand the context (well that’s what I believe though).
I always like to talk about Love and responsibility from Karol Wojtyla (as I believe it gives a very important lesson), the point is to follow the commandments (specifically how to see Gods love, so that we can act it). Were love comes from the “standard” that God has given it (as He is love). Men and woman don’t contradict each other but they complement each other. The one who serves the most is going to be the first (this is where you need to start, to see how you act, in my understanding). For this we need humility, we need softness of the heart, we need love.
Can we see Christian femininity in what can women be, do? Can it have many facets? For example in being a mother, to care like a mother, to love like a mother, to relate to life in a mothers point of view, to be a vessel of life, to put your “heart” (softness of heart) and its feel on the outside to make it a little bit more real (more” reachable, touchable”). So can “femininity” bring all the traits that can give this results in one way or another, or does a woman has “the femininity” because it is in her nature and it depends what traits are “stronger” (in some sense) in her interiority to show them (or the need to show them); to be strong (character), to be passive, to be tender, caring, beauty, empathy, sensitivity, patience, joyful, prudence, etc.
It is said that woman tend to be more affective than men, so could this mean it is in its nature. And can these “traits”, this “femininity” be there for a reason.
Keeping this relation of mother and femininity there is a song called the mothers hymn or something like that in spanish that has this verse (Iam just putting it here because for me its great):
“a)En el nombre de madre se encierra
b)La más alta expresión del amor
c)Porque no puede haber en la tierra
d)Una imagen más clara de Dios.
a)In the name of Mother is enclosed
b)The highest expression of love
c)Because there cannot be on earth
d)A clearer image of God.”
P
pensmama87
Guest
D
DebChris
Guest
At the Last Supper, Our Lord gave us the example of servant leadership.
If we accept that the husband is the head of the household, and his is a leadership position, it is also a position that recognizes the gifts and talents of the members within his household. A true leader is not intimidated by those gifts and talents.
It is actually rather selfish for one spouse to keep the other spouse in the dark when it comes to the financial affairs of the household, for instance. Is anyone of us immortal? Marriage involves trust. A lack of trust is involved when spouses fail to communicate in this area, which is why I think it is the major reason for most family breakups. Just as a confident woman maintains her femininity, there is a mistaken belief that somehow a man is less masculine if he shows vulnerability.
Catholic femininity accepts the vulnerability of the man. At the moment I am thinking of an old French film, titled Man and Woman that portrays femininity and masculinity most accurately at the moment when the man is most vulnerable emotionally. The woman protects the man, but not in sense one normally thinks of protection as in “Let’s put up the barricades and stand behind them with our rifles.”
If we accept that the husband is the head of the household, and his is a leadership position, it is also a position that recognizes the gifts and talents of the members within his household. A true leader is not intimidated by those gifts and talents.
It is actually rather selfish for one spouse to keep the other spouse in the dark when it comes to the financial affairs of the household, for instance. Is anyone of us immortal? Marriage involves trust. A lack of trust is involved when spouses fail to communicate in this area, which is why I think it is the major reason for most family breakups. Just as a confident woman maintains her femininity, there is a mistaken belief that somehow a man is less masculine if he shows vulnerability.
Catholic femininity accepts the vulnerability of the man. At the moment I am thinking of an old French film, titled Man and Woman that portrays femininity and masculinity most accurately at the moment when the man is most vulnerable emotionally. The woman protects the man, but not in sense one normally thinks of protection as in “Let’s put up the barricades and stand behind them with our rifles.”
U
underacloud
Guest
X
Xantippe
Guest
Yeah.
X
Xantippe
Guest
I just found my copy of Florence King’s Southern Ladies and Gentleman (1975), which is a sort of humorous cultural anthropology of the Southern psyche. (The CAF Southern contingent should totally read it.)
Chapter 11 is “The Meouw Corner or The Southern Woman as Friend and Foe.”
Some quotes:
“Oppressed people are treacherous for the simple reason that treachery is both a means of survival and a way to curry favor with one’s oppressor.”
“Women in competition with one another for male approval form a natural self-police state; they vie with each other to see who can set the most impossible requirements in the hope that some of their number will fall from grace, thus eliminating some of the competitors.”
“Amazingly, men never catch on [to the female misogynist], never realize that she is filleting every other woman in the room. They are too mesmerized by the worshipful looks that she sends in their direction…”
Chapter 11 is “The Meouw Corner or The Southern Woman as Friend and Foe.”
Some quotes:
“Oppressed people are treacherous for the simple reason that treachery is both a means of survival and a way to curry favor with one’s oppressor.”
“Women in competition with one another for male approval form a natural self-police state; they vie with each other to see who can set the most impossible requirements in the hope that some of their number will fall from grace, thus eliminating some of the competitors.”
“Amazingly, men never catch on [to the female misogynist], never realize that she is filleting every other woman in the room. They are too mesmerized by the worshipful looks that she sends in their direction…”
A
AnnieHall
Guest
Do you (or anyone else on this thread) have any specific examples that could help me understand what egalitarian and traditional marriages look like, in terms of day to day life? I find this topic interesting, but I feel a bit out of the loop, as I’m not really able to understand beyond broad strokes of one person “taking the lead in the relationship” or both people working together.
Is this in terms of who earns income or keeping track of finances? Or keeping up with household duties and raising kids? Or how communication works between the two? Some combination of all of those things and more? I suspect it’s one of those things where everyone has a different interpretation, but I’m curious about what different people think it means in terms of day to day life.
D
DebChris
Guest
Emily Cho had a book on fashion out many years ago. She said if the husband wants to make the salad, while you get stuck with the dishes, “Let him.” He’ll get all sorts of kudos for the delicious salad he made, but if your goal is a more efficiently run household, who really cares.
In every home, one person is more talented in one area than another… Perhaps it is the husband who is the better cook, and enjoys the cooking. He may be the one who cooks. My husband took great pride in ironing clothes. Either one of us could throw a load of laundry in the washing machine. Basically I folded while he ironed. Sometimes I would get upset with his timing, but that’s different issue.
Each family and couple is different. What works for one couple will not work for another. What I learned before marriage is that you need to give 100%. There is no such thing as a marriage in which one partner gives 50%. Otherwise you will be looking for the other partner to be giving his/her 50%. That’s one of the ways that marriages get into trouble. The dynamics within the marriage will change over time as individual needs change.
A
AnnieHall
Guest
Using the gifts and skills we have been given to work together and help keep the relationship and household happy and healthy. That makes sense to me, to not focus so much on who should be responsible for how much and which parts. I think that’s pretty similar to most relationships I’ve seen (my parents, friend’s parents, family friends, aunts and uncles, etc) so I was curious about where that would fit in with this conversation about traditional vs egalitarian. Is traditional just one that doesn’t “keep track of the score” and everyone contributes in the areas they are capable? Or is that non traditional because it’s not accounting for traditional gender roles? :whacky:- Status