Wife won't let husband be spritual leader of house?

[pensmama87]

Here’s something I am mulling over as I read this thread. I think in many marriages, women naturally submit “more,” not necessarily as a result of cultural indoctrination, but especially once children come along. Pregnancy and childbirth, and the postpartum period, necessitate a lot of sacrifice, and putting a lot of trust in others that we will be taken care of. For healthy, mentally stable women, I think that transition still takes some time and adjustment but most of us get there - the physical reality we live with helps make it happen. Now, I am a woman, so I can’t say for sure what goes on in a man’s mind, but from what I’ve experienced and in discussing with female friends, it seems to take men a lot longer to adjust - not because they’re bad or mean, but just because they don’t have those built-in “nudges” the way that women do.

This thinking isn’t really polished yet - it only occurred to me today to put it together like this, but it explains why I get so miffed with all this “wives need to submit” talk. I think most women who genuinely desire to be good wives and mothers will submit because the realities of marriage and especially child-rearing demand it. Meanwhile, our husbands don’t experience these the same way (that chapter from the Pearl book was a perfect, if horrifying example of a stunning lack of awareness) and for those of us who are in the throes of only having littles, it can be really, really hard.

 

[Xantippe]

Here’s something I am mulling over as I read this thread. I think in many marriages, women naturally submit “more,” not necessarily as a result of cultural indoctrination, but especially once children come along. Pregnancy and childbirth, and the postpartum period, necessitate a lot of sacrifice, and putting a lot of trust in others that we will be taken care of. For healthy, mentally stable women, I think that transition still takes some time and adjustment but most of us get there - the physical reality we live with helps make it happen. Now, I am a woman, so I can’t say for sure what goes on in a man’s mind, but from what I’ve experienced and in discussing with female friends, it seems to take men a lot longer to adjust - not because they’re bad or mean, but just because they don’t have those built-in “nudges” the way that women do.

This thinking isn’t really polished yet - it only occurred to me today to put it together like this, but it explains why I get so miffed with all this “wives need to submit” talk. I think most women who genuinely desire to be good wives and mothers will submit because the realities of marriage and especially child-rearing demand it. Meanwhile, our husbands don’t experience these the same way (that chapter from the Pearl book was a perfect, if horrifying example of a stunning lack of awareness) and for those of us who are in the throes of only having littles, it can be really, really hard.

Yes.

 

[Xantippe]

It isn’t pride men are the natural leaders. Girls have natural good qualities that men don’t…

All all male persons are natural leaders?

Really?

Also, as has already been pointed out, it’s offensive to use “girls” as the counterpart to “men.”

Girls should not be getting married.

 

[Xantippe]

In previous posts I said his power is not unlimited he can’t be abusive, make immoral decisions, etc.

No one whether it’s your religious superior, your dad, your husband, etc. can order to you to commit a sin and you would be expected to carry it out.

So, what do you think abuse looks like?

I’ve already shared a link with an abuse checklist, and I think it’s basically sound, so my definition of abuse would be doing stuff on the list, and not stopping when it’s pointed out that the actions are abusive. I think it is quite possible to do some of the things accidentally, without realizing how wrong or harmful they are, but I think that a non-abuser will stop when this is pointed out.

I get the feeling that unless somebody gets a black eye, you wouldn’t understand that it was abuse.

Unfortunately, I am beginning to think that submission and abuse go together like peanut butter and jelly–obviously, they do exist separately, but they go together really well. In practice, submission is an extraordinarily convenient idea for abusers.

 

[pensmama87]

Another problem is behavior that’s frequently cited as “submissive” is actually enabling abusive behavior. I can’t see it as spiritually beneficial for either spouse to be continually offering near occasions of sin for the other.

I haven’t been married long, but I know things generally work better in my marriage if I “keep my eyes on my own paper.” Worrying about what my husband is or isn’t doing is a great recipe for huge resentment. But if I take responsibility for myself and my actions, and then hold my husband accountable/set limits on what is or isn’t OK, then I am doing more to help him grow than if I just went along with what he wanted.

I’m also confused by the comparison to children submitting to parental authority. Our children do not remain under our authority forever - only until they are adults. The primary reason they submit to us is because they lack the capacity to provide for themselves and make reasoned decisions. Even if women are supposed to submit “less” to their husbands than children to parents, it’s a really insulting comparison to make.

 

[Xantippe]

Another problem is behavior that’s frequently cited as “submissive” is actually enabling abusive behavior. I can’t see it as spiritually beneficial for either spouse to be continually offering near occasions of sin for the other.

I haven’t been married long, but I know things generally work better in my marriage if I “keep my eyes on my own paper.” Worrying about what my husband is or isn’t doing is a great recipe for huge resentment. But if I take responsibility for myself and my actions, and then hold my husband accountable/set limits on what is or isn’t OK, then I am doing more to help him grow than if I just went along with what he wanted.

I’m also confused by the comparison to children submitting to parental authority. Our children do not remain under our authority forever - only until they are adults. The primary reason they submit to us is because they lack the capacity to provide for themselves and make reasoned decisions. Even if women are supposed to submit “less” to their husbands than children to parents, it’s a really insulting comparison to make.

Also, if a woman were genuinely incapable of making good decisions by herself, one might well wonder whether or not she had the psychological maturity necessary to enter a valid marriage.

 

[marymary1975]

**

Frankly, I’m embarrassed that Catholics believe that pain in childbirth is connected to The Sin Of Eve, which is borderline fable anyway.

Taken any red pills lately? I’m having a hard time being Christain by not excoriating some of these posts with a flaming flamethrower.

Threads like this one make me want to quit CAF because so many posters are tragically out of touch with Catholicism.

I am in total agreement with you on the hill. I am more embarrassed that despite the church having a clear teaching on the subject and soany documents reinforcing that teaching, people here continue arguing that it is not what the church says instead is their own personal interpretation of what they want to read.

The most tragic thing is that we have JPII who spent so much effort in clarifying what the church teaches to have catholics themselves arguing that that is not what they teach.

And also as a note, not all women experience pain during childbirth. There are women out there who have given birth with no meds and with no pain at all

 

[marymary1975]

Then why do we inherit Original Sin?

Edit: and concupiscence . I was asking how I should interpret that passage since I am doing incorrectly.

The way that the church indicates is that the events are true however we cannot read it on the fundamentalist protestant word by word. Original sin indeed was caused because of the fall. Original sin is basically a consequence of the fall. Pain according to st Thomas Aquinas is a consequence of mortality (you may benefit from reading Aquinas with regard to this as he explains it in detail. Before the fall they did not feel any pain but with the fall mortality entered into the human world and is part of it. Read the summa it is much better explained there

 

[Bannan]

If it were that easy, there’d never be any abuse, there’d never be any divorce, and there would never be any adult children who are so skeeved out by what they witnessed of their parents’ marriage that they don’t ever want anything to do with marriage, kids, or faith.

Bad marriages are a tremendous source of scandal, particularly bad Christian marriages.

Banaan,

Getting warmer!

My position has remained unchanged since the start Xantippe I think our understanding of eachother is what’s getting warmer, lol.

 

[Bannan]

All all male persons are natural leaders?

Really?

Yep, at least in the context of a marriage, because naturally, God said so

OK OK, before the conversation goes sideways again, I’ll try and stop fighting for the meat without the milk.

The love is equal to the authority. Marriage was clearly not designed so that either party submits more than the other. As everyone agrees, its mutual right? So what does that look like then?

His authority should be in everything, because she is willing and ready to submit, in everything. I’ve been saying this all along, but what I haven’t said yet, probably for the wrong reasons, is the other side.

His love for her means that he is submitting to her, in everything. In a different way, he is under her authority, because he values her as he values himself. He submits his will to her entirely!

Putting her first and foremost in his mind, and all he does should be for her. He is expected to know her unspoken desires, and when he feels something should be done that she isn’t ready to do, even when it seems like the right thing, he has a balance to his authority. An entirely mutual balance. That balance is love. When she isn’t OK with something, it should bother him just as much as it bothers her. Plenty of times I’ve defaulted to my wife’s heart against my own headship, because I wasn’t absolutely certain of anything except her heart! I’ve come to trust her heart just as much, maybe even more, than I value my own intellect.

I submit to my wife entirely because I am enslaved by my love for her to the death!

Don’t go crazy on my responses please just because these statements didn’t have the excessive clarifications behind them. For example, while I didn’t mention that the wife should submit in things only when she feels God would want that for her, I still believe she should examine that facet prior to any decisions to submit in something.

We could banter nuance until infinity, but the gist of what I’ve been trying to speak to is that the goal in marriage is two people who trust each-other, in diverse ways, totally. Infinitely, even. The point I’ve been trying to make all along is that trust is increased proportionally to vulnerability. Marriages become invulnerable proportionally their vulnerability to each-other, proportionally to their openness to each-other, and by being open in this way to each-other, they become more open to God in their lives. More vulnerable to God’s will.

We live in a fallen world, sure, but in less than 100 years every person who’s talked on this thread will have to come to terms with looking infinity in the face. Why wait, when through our marriages, we can start now?

 

[Xantippe]

His authority should be in everything, because she is willing and ready to submit, in everything. I’ve been saying this all along, but what I haven’t said yet, probably for the wrong reasons, is the other side.

His love for her means that he is submitting to her, in everything. In a different way, he is under her authority, because he values her as he values himself. He submits his will to her entirely!

**I think submission “in everything” is a terrible, terrible idea, and not what you find in papal encyclicals on the subject. **

Putting her first and foremost in his mind, and all he does should be for her.

**Really? My husband is sitting in the next room reading a fat science fiction book and (by all appearances) enjoying it immensely. I am not first and foremost in his mind and he’s not doing it for me. But that’s totally OK. He gets to have free time, and I ought to be able to have some free time, too. **

He is expected to know her unspoken desires, and when he feels something should be done that she isn’t ready to do, even when it seems like the right thing, he has a balance to his authority. An entirely mutual balance. That balance is love. When she isn’t OK with something, it should bother him just as much as it bothers her. Plenty of times I’ve defaulted to my wife’s heart against my own headship, because I wasn’t absolutely certain of anything except her heart! I’ve come to trust her heart just as much, maybe even more, than I value my own intellect.

I submit to my wife entirely because I am enslaved by my love for her to the death!

Don’t go crazy on my responses please just because these statements didn’t have the excessive clarifications behind them. For example, while I didn’t mention that the wife should submit in things only when she feels God would want that for her, I still believe she should examine that facet prior to any decisions to submit in something.

We could banter nuance until infinity, but the gist of what I’ve been trying to speak to is that the goal in marriage is two people who trust each-other, in diverse ways, totally. Infinitely, even.

**Your heart is in the right place, but that sounds kind of idolatrous. **

The point I’ve been trying to make all along is that trust is increased proportionally to vulnerability. Marriages become invulnerable proportionally their vulnerability to each-other, proportionally to their openness to each-other, and by being open in this way to each-other, they become more open to God in their lives. More vulnerable to God’s will.

We live in a fallen world, sure, but in less than 100 years every person who’s talked on this thread will have to come to terms with looking infinity in the face. Why wait, when through our marriages, we can start now?

Well, for that matter, when we face eternity, we won’t be married anymore, so maybe we shouldn’t make marriage into an idol now?

 

[Bannan]

Well, for that matter, when we face eternity, we won’t be married anymore, so maybe we shouldn’t make marriage into an idol now?

Hah! First I was accused of misogyny!!!

Free time is an obviously good thing, Jesus took a whole bunch of time away from the Church so that he would have to time to pray to God. But his prayer to God was for the Church wasn’t it? I’m positive we should take a little more R&R than Jesus did, because we are weaker. Yes, it’s easy to fall into the trap of idolizing your wife just as it’s easy to go to the other extreme.

I feel you’ve rightly learned to lessen your expectations, as I have as well. It’s a safety net for the spirit. But I still have a fire in the soul for witnessing God on earth, and the family is sacramentally an “image” of the heavenly economy. Worthy of praise, and worthy of passion!!! Of course God is higher, and all pursuits should ultimately lead to him.

I didn’t caveat and nuance everything until it was merely gibberish, but it was close. C’mon, stop being so hard-hearted with me, I’m an alright guy I swear!

 

[Bannan]

Of course God is higher, and all pursuits should ultimately lead to him.

And one of the ways you get there is through your marriage!

 

[Sarcelle]

Hah! First I was accused of misogyny!!!

Free time is an obviously good thing, Jesus took a whole bunch of time away from the Church so that he would have to time to pray to God. But his prayer to God was for the Church wasn’t it? I’m positive we should take a little more R&R than Jesus did, because we are weaker. Yes, it’s easy to fall into the trap of idolizing your wife just as it’s easy to go to the other extreme.

I feel you’ve rightly learned to lessen your expectations, as I have as well. It’s a safety net for the spirit. But I still have a fire in the soul for witnessing God on earth, and the family is sacramentally an “image” of the heavenly economy. Worthy of praise, and worthy of passion!!! Of course God is higher, and all pursuits should ultimately lead to him.

I didn’t caveat and nuance everything until it was merely gibberish, but it was close. C’mon, stop being so hard-hearted with me, I’m an alright guy I swear!

I think you’re an alright guy. I have met a lot misogynistic men but from your posts, I don’t think you are one of them.

A married couple, celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary told me that one of the best analogies for a successful marriage is that of ballroom dancing. The man leads but the woman does her part. She does not lie there passively allowing the man to drag her to and fro, but neither are they trying to go in opposite directions. Neither is the man trying to “scrub the floor using his wife’s face.” That phrase was used as a figurative way of saying that husbands do not have the authority to degrade his wife or vice versa.

I do not subscribe to the fundamentalist interpretation of absolute male authority in all aspects of society by the way.

 

[cena]

Just the fact that you refer to males as “men” and females as “girls” speaks volumes about your condescending opinion of women and your agenda on several threads you are currently participating on here at CAF…

Leadership skills are learned and then honed throughout life, not something one is born with simply because they have a specific set of chromosomes and male reproductive organs.

She used the word men.
Girls was the first word she used when she said girls/women. I thought I didn’t have to say /women because it was implied to all females. Fine, I’ll use the word female or women to make it clearer who I am talking about.

What is my agenda?

Women are naturally nurturers/mothers. We are naturally more in touch with our emotions. You could argue that nurturing skills are learned and honed throughout life and not something one is born with because they have a specific set of chromosomes and female reproductive organs. It comes more naturally to us than it does to guys/men/males.

 

[cena]

The way that the church indicates is that the events are true however we cannot read it on the fundamentalist protestant word by word. Original sin indeed was caused because of the fall. Original sin is basically a consequence of the fall. Pain according to st Thomas Aquinas is a consequence of mortality (you may benefit from reading Aquinas with regard to this as he explains it in detail. Before the fall they did not feel any pain but with the fall mortality entered into the human world and is part of it. Read the summa it is much better explained there

Wouldn’t childbirth pain be under pain?

I know I am not supposed to read every passage word for word. Please give a website giving the Catholic teaching on that passage so I can learn the truth.

 

[Xantippe]

Women are naturally nurturers/mothers.

Some are, some aren’t. A lot of women will tell you that mothering does not come naturally to them at all.

We are naturally more in touch with our emotions.

**Some are, some aren’t.

I’m from a WASP family and have an “ethnic” husband, and let me tell you, I’m way less in touch with my emotions than my husband is.
**

You could argue that nurturing skills are learned and honed throughout life and not something one is born with because they have a specific set of chromosomes and female reproductive organs. It comes more naturally to us than it does to guys/men/males.

It does to some, it doesn’t to others.

 

[cena]

I think you’re an alright guy. I have met a lot misogynistic men but from your posts, I don’t think you are one of them.

A married couple, celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary told me that one of the best analogies for a successful marriage is that of ballroom dancing. The man leads but the woman does her part. She does not lie there passively allowing the man to drag her to and fro, but neither are they trying to go in opposite directions. Neither is the man trying to “scrub the floor using his wife’s face.” That phrase was used as a figurative way of saying that husbands do not have the authority to degrade his wife or vice versa.

I do not subscribe to the fundamentalist interpretation of absolute male authority in all aspects of society by the way.

You probably think I am a misogynist.
Yes this was what I was saying (you phrased it a lot better, I am not trying to take your post) husbands don’t have total and unconditional control over their wives, they are still the leaders and that doesn’t mean that it gives the right to be abusive. I don’t get why people assume submission means absolute and unconditional obedience in everything. It doesn’t. I have said many times that he can’t force her to sin and he does not even have near the amount of power over than he does to his children.
I don’t think absolute authority is ever okay…no one has authority to do evil, male or female. Definitely not in all aspects of authority.

 

[cena]

It does to some, it doesn’t to others.

In general, who are naturally nurturers? More in touch with their emotions? Males or females?

 

[Sarcelle]

You probably think I am a misogynist.
Yes this was what I was saying (you phrased it a lot better, I am not trying to take your post) husbands don’t have total and unconditional control over their wives, they are still the leaders and that doesn’t mean that it gives the right to be abusive. I don’t get why people assume submission means absolute and unconditional obedience in everything. It doesn’t. I have said many times that he can’t force her to sin and he does not even have near the amount of power over than he does to his children.
I don’t think absolute authority is ever okay…no one has authority to do evil, male or female. Definitely not in all aspects of authority.

No, I do not think you are a misogynist either.