Women/Wives

[LethalMouse]

Well, that’s a bit of a problem, isn’t it, if it’s so easy for wifely submission to turn into something horrible?

From an earthly standpoint much horrible can come from listening to God, you have heard of Martyrs? The question is if you trust God more than fear earth. It took me a few decades, but I have almost learned to trust God and let go of fear.

 

[LethalMouse]

Well, that’s a bit of a problem, isn’t it, if it’s so easy for wifely submission to turn into something horrible?

Also, especially in a secular culture that supports the woman in a divorce and takes from the man. In a situation where a man truly led as Christ did, do you have any comprehensionof how much like slavery treating your wife like she is truly an inseperable part of you can be? As a previously married man who didn’t even necessarily do this to itsproper extent, I can tell you that getting married and giving anything of myself should scare me beyond words. I was threatend with false charges of abuse if I didn’t succumb to slavery, which those threats were attempted to be carried oit. I have lost unimaginable sums of money. I have had to fight tooth and nail to be a father to my son. Many years it took to realize I needed to trust God and not live in fear. Marriage to me is probably the scariest thing imaginable for my personal well being… but I will hopefully one day do it correctly as I give that fear up in place of listening to and tusting God.

 

[on_the_hill]

Also, especially in a secular culture that supports the woman in a divorce and takes from the man. In a situation where a man truly led as Christ did, do you have any comprehensionof how much like slavery treating your wife like she is truly an inseperable part of you can be? As a previously married man who didn’t even necessarily do this to itsproper extent, I can tell you that getting married and giving anything of myself should scare me beyond words. I was threatend with false charges of abuse if I didn’t succumb to slavery, which those threats were attempted to be carried oit. I have lost unimaginable sums of money. I have had to fight tooth and nail to be a father to my son. Many years it took to realize I needed to trust God and not live in fear. Marriage to me is probably the scariest thing imaginable for my personal well being… but I will hopefully one day do it correctly as I give that fear up in place of listening to and tusting God.

You know, not so long ago I would have dismissed this as an exaggeration aimed at taking down women. But not so much, anymore.

A friend divorced about three years ago. It was only in the past couple weeks that I found out that it started when his wife had had an affair and moved out with their children. The new man basically replaced him in every sense. Now my friend struggles to get ‘face-time’ with his children. The reason the wife moved on? She wanted more money, to live a lifestyle she was accustomed to as a child and feels entitled to as an adult. And it’s not like my friend is a schlub. Between the two of them they were earning enough $$ for a very comfortable middle-class lifestyle in a good school district.

By the way, he’s a non-practicing Episcopalian and she had been a fairly strong Catholic when I knew her.

 

[LethalMouse]

You know, not so long ago I would have dismissed this as an exaggeration aimed at taking down women. But not so much, anymore.

A friend divorced about three years ago. It was only in the past couple weeks that I found out that it started when his wife had had an affair and moved out with their children. The new man basically replaced him in every sense. Now my friend struggles to get ‘face-time’ with his children. The reason the wife moved on? She wanted more money, to live a lifestyle she was accustomed to as a child and feels entitled to as an adult. And it’s not like my friend is a schlub. Between the two of them they were earning enough $$ for a very comfortable middle-class lifestyle in a good school district.

By the way, he’s a non-practicing Episcopalian and she had been a fairly strong Catholic when I knew her.

Sorry to hear about your friend, and thanks for the positive view of my post

I would add to any onlooker I in no means mean to put down women with the above, we both have things that can happen to us that are bad. The fact that bad things can happen to men does not negate bad things that happen to women and visa versa.

 

[Xantippe]

From an earthly standpoint much horrible can come from listening to God, you have heard of Martyrs? The question is if you trust God more than fear earth. It took me a few decades, but I have almost learned to trust God and let go of fear.

Let’s retrace the line of discussion:

1. I gave a link to a post in which the Protestant blogger at iprefercaptain talked about how trying to live a “strong” form of wifely submission hurt her, left her husband in the dark about how much she was suffering while trying to submit to him, allowed him make years of selfish choices that hurt their family, and hurt their marriage.
2. You wrote in response to the iprefercaptain post: “A strong view of slavery, not wifely submisson. And “letting someone lead” who was not leading.”
3. I wrote “Well, that’s a bit of a problem, isn’t it, if it’s so easy for wifely submission to turn into something horrible?”
4. Then we arrive at your current post: “From an earthly standpoint much horrible can come from listening to God, you have heard of Martyrs? The question is if you trust God more than fear earth.”

I’m finding all of the twists and turns hard to follow, but basically, you go from saying that the situation the blogger describes is a mis-application of the idea of submission to arguing that that sort of horrible situation is OK, because it’s a kind of martyrdom.

Who wants that sort of marriage if it can be avoided?

 

[Xantippe]

Here’s a newer post from the blogger at iprefercaptain.

iprefercaptain.com/2016/03/remember-the-complementarian-woman/

Some quotes with commentary:

“Submission is framed as suffering for Christ.”

Hence, rather than seeing suffering imposed by her husband as an argument against submission, the submissive wife is encouraged to see it as a feature, not a bug. (See your own use of the term “martyrdom.”)

**And yet, how many men want to live with a martyr-wife? How much fun is it, really, to live with a quietly suffering woman who is exerting every nerve to just to stay married to you?

Maybe there’s a better way to do this?**

“The loss of agency and decision-making power is seen as “dying to self.””

“On a daily basis, a Complementarian Christian woman will submit to, agree with, and devote herself to her husband, as an act of worship.”

A wee bit idolatrous, isn’t this?

“She may do all of this without her husband knowing that it’s a struggle. He may think she wants to do all of this, because she’s been told to do everything without arguing or complaining, and so shine like a star in the universe. Why would she do all of this? Because she loves Jesus, and puts Him and His desires first.”

So we arrive at a situation where the husband of the submissive wife doesn’t really understand her at all or what makes her tick and thinks everything is tickety boo. And yet he’s the guy in charge…

" When things go horribly, terribly wrong—as a result of a husband’s bad decisions, or the cumulative effect of stress on the family, or poverty, etc—she will trust in God’s sovereignty."

“She just needs to try harder, be content with what she has, and trust that God will make a way.”

**It’s not that big of a surprise that these women snap fairly regularly, much to their husband’s surprise, but to nobody else’s.
**

 

[LethalMouse]

Let’s retrace the line of discussion:

1. I gave a link to a post in which the Protestant blogger at iprefercaptain talked about how trying to live a “strong” form of wifely submission hurt her, left her husband in the dark about how much she was suffering while trying to submit to him, allowed him make years of selfish choices that hurt their family, and hurt their marriage.
2. You wrote in response to the iprefercaptain post: “A strong view of slavery, not wifely submisson. And “letting someone lead” who was not leading.”
3. I wrote “Well, that’s a bit of a problem, isn’t it, if it’s so easy for wifely submission to turn into something horrible?”
4. Then we arrive at your current post: “From an earthly standpoint much horrible can come from listening to God, you have heard of Martyrs? The question is if you trust God more than fear earth.”

I’m finding all of the twists and turns hard to follow, but basically, you go from saying that the situation the blogger describes is a mis-application of the idea of submission to arguing that that sort of horrible situation is OK, because it’s a kind of martyrdom.

Who wants that sort of marriage if it can be avoided?

You are using the misapplication as the standard and not the exception.

Most Catholics are NOT martyred, tortured etc. Especially in the USA where there are laws. Just as the laws of today protect women at least vastly more than the times when most point to as the dark ages of women’s roles.

Basically your logic is some Catholic somewhere was once martyred and that sucks, therefore I should not be Catholic because it might be bad and I am scared.

Basically we would all prefer not to be dragged by horses along the ground and slowly eed to death, but we also believe that if this injustice is done while we are attempting to follow God that we will be rewarded.

So basically NO you should not want said horrible slave marriage, nor should any man want to be treated that way. But if we do what is right and get wronged we are supposed to believe that God will be there for us and most notably if your marriage is turning into slavery you have right! All these arguements are based on some vague reference to a world where you don’t. The Catechism specifies to stop it if you are being treated unfairly.

Again every post negating what I have said have left God and the Catechism out of it and even cut it from my posts of reference. If this were an atheist forum I would actually submit that logically you should man or woman avoid the trappings of marriage and keep yourselves void of too much entanglement to keep yourselves safe. However the Catholic stance is even anti prenup… so we are not having a purely worldly debate.

In fact if we negate Catholicm I actualy concede 100% as a human that my stance is unquestionably wrong. But I am speaking purely as someone who wants to believe I can trust and love God more than any emotion I have toward the world…

 

[BlueEyedLady]

You are using the misapplication as the standard and not the exception.

Most Catholics are NOT martyred, tortured etc. Especially in the USA where there are laws. Just as the laws of today protect women at least vastly more than the times when most point to as the dark ages of women’s roles.

Basically your logic is some Catholic somewhere was once martyred and that sucks, therefore I should not be Catholic because it might be bad and I am scared.

Basically we would all prefer not to be dragged by horses along the ground and slowly eed to death, but we also believe that if this injustice is done while we are attempting to follow God that we will be rewarded.

So basically NO you should not want said horrible slave marriage, nor should any man want to be treated that way. But if we do what is right and get wronged we are supposed to believe that God will be there for us and most notably if your marriage is turning into slavery you have right! All these arguements are based on some vague reference to a world where you don’t. The Catechism specifies to stop it if you are being treated unfairly.

Again every post negating what I have said have left God and the Catechism out of it and even cut it from my posts of reference. If this were an atheist forum I would actually submit that logically you should man or woman avoid the trappings of marriage and keep yourselves void of too much entanglement to keep yourselves safe. However the Catholic stance is even anti prenup… so we are not having a purely worldly debate.

In fact if we negate Catholicm I actualy concede 100% as a human that my stance is unquestionably wrong. But I am speaking purely as someone who wants to believe I can trust and love God more than any emotion I have toward the world…

Do you believe that women retain their basic human rights when they marry? Do they have a right to be free from violence, name-calling, and public humiliation? A right to maintain relationships with their friends and family? A right to pursue their passions and goals to the extent that it doesn’t negatively impact the family’s time or resources? A right to express their wishes and even their displeasure?

Or from your perspective, do women become Dobby the House Elf upon the exchange of vows? Because you really seem to want it both ways.

 

[Xantippe]

You are using the misapplication as the standard and not the exception.

Most Catholics are NOT martyred, tortured etc. Especially in the USA where there are laws. Just as the laws of today protect women at least vastly more than the times when most point to as the dark ages of women’s roles.

Basically your logic is some Catholic somewhere was once martyred and that sucks, therefore I should not be Catholic because it might be bad and I am scared.

Basically we would all prefer not to be dragged by horses along the ground and slowly eed to death, but we also believe that if this injustice is done while we are attempting to follow God that we will be rewarded.

So basically NO you should not want said horrible slave marriage, nor should any man want to be treated that way. But if we do what is right and get wronged we are supposed to believe that God will be there for us and most notably if your marriage is turning into slavery you have right! All these arguements are based on some vague reference to a world where you don’t. The Catechism specifies to stop it if you are being treated unfairly.

Again every post negating what I have said have left God and the Catechism out of it and even cut it from my posts of reference. If this were an atheist forum I would actually submit that logically you should man or woman avoid the trappings of marriage and keep yourselves void of too much entanglement to keep yourselves safe. However the Catholic stance is even anti prenup… so we are not having a purely worldly debate.

In fact if we negate Catholicm I actualy concede 100% as a human that my stance is unquestionably wrong. But I am speaking purely as someone who wants to believe I can trust and love God more than any emotion I have toward the world…

1. Most Catholic wives aren’t “martyred” because very few Catholic couples take the “strong” view of submission. The very strongest (and least nuanced) form is found among our Protestant brethren.
2. With regard to the wives that do take the strong view of submission, we have a bit of a problem in figuring out if they are martyred or not, because part of the philosophy of the “strong” version of submission is not showing distress or suffering, but just sticking on a smile and carrying on.

Hence, husbands of these women and bystanders are often not in a good position to judge their internal state. They might be happy, they might be miserable. Only they know which.

1. It doesn’t matter what the law is–women who are afflicted by an extreme version of submission are living in a largely self-imposed prison. That’s what the blogger here is describing:

iprefercaptain.com/2016/03/remember-the-complementarian-woman/

1. How is the submissive wife supposed to know how far is far enough? That was a lot of the point of this piece,

iprefercaptain.com/2014/07/15/

“Now, one could say, “You were taking this whole complementarian teaching waaaaaaay too far. Headship and submission doesn’t mean that! You’re supposed to have your own thoughts, your own life, and your own red delicious apples!” That’s easy to say, but very hard to quantify. No one tells you where submission should stop. No one says, “The line is drawn here! This far—no further!””

“In practice, every time I asked a pastor, teacher, or older sister-in-Christ for advice on a particular individual issue, I was pointed back to the submission passages of the Bible, told that God would lead my husband—and was reminded that I had a really strong personality.”

 

[LethalMouse]

Do you believe that women retain their basic human rights when they marry? Do they have a right to be free from violence, name-calling, and public humiliation? A right to maintain relationships with their friends and family? A right to pursue their passions and goals to the extent that it doesn’t negatively impact the family’s time or resources? A right to express their wishes and even their displeasure?

Or from your perspective, do women become Dobby the House Elf upon the exchange of vows? Because you really seem to want it both ways.

To be a little less charitablethan I have been:

Seriously? Did you even read more than maybe 10% of my post? Literally in the post you quoted in black and white it says about the rights of a woman to not “submit” when the husband is not being proper. I quote the Catechism as reference which literally states the basic rights and more of the woman. There are only 3 ways you could have possibly replied to my post the way you did:

1. You literally did not read more than maybe 10% of it.
2. Your personal ideology wont allow your brain to process anything I say that you would agree with and therefore you have a mental block disallowing you to see more than about 10% of my post.
3. You have acted with the same kind of malice as political opponents in a campaign when the intentionally pretend obly 10% of what someone said is 100% of it.

NOW due to being on my phone I can’t multi quote so my next post will contain the absolute answer that I have reference at least twice and has been skillfully iflgnored in these responses. This current answer is incomplete without my next post so if you take this by itself, I submit that as folley.

 

[LethalMouse]

If a person does not see submission to God as a freedom, I do not see how you could explain any other kind of submission in a way that person would not find demeaning or unprofitable to the person freely submitting to another person. Certainly a person hearing an explanation of the Christian concept of submission without understanding the person of Jesus Christ is going to come away with a mistaken conception.

I’d start there, then: that is, by saying, "If you don’t understand the submission of the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, to the Father, then there is no way on earth you could possibly understand Christian submission in a way that is not a veiled excuse for unjust domination. Can’t be done.

I reference her post to deaf ears and I myself ignored the last line of it. “Can’t be done.”

We all have moments of arrogance and here I tried to do the undoable which has been failed by so many. I submit the ultimate truth that it can’t be done.
I surrender.

GB.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

To be a little less charitablethan I have been:

Seriously? Did you even read more than maybe 10% of my post? Literally in the post you quoted in black and white it says about the rights of a woman to not “submit” when the husband is not being proper. I quote the Catechism as reference which literally states the basic rights and more of the woman. There are only 3 ways you could have possibly replied to my post the way you did:

1. You literally did not read more than maybe 10% of it.
2. Your personal ideology wont allow your brain to process anything I say that you would agree with and therefore you have a mental block disallowing you to see more than about 10% of my post.
3. You have acted with the same kind of malice as political opponents in a campaign when the intentionally pretend obly 10% of what someone said is 100% of it.

NOW due to being on my phone I can’t multi quote so my next post will contain the absolute answer that I have reference at least twice and has been skillfully iflgnored in these responses. This current answer is incomplete without my next post so if you take this by itself, I submit that as folley.

There is absolutely no reason to be rude. Frankly, your posts are hard to understand and your exact point of view is not coming across. Your earlier posts seem to take a more moderate tone and reflect a more moderate position than your later ones do. I thought I was with you until we got to the idea that being on the receiving end of abused authority is a form of martyrdom and that without religious reasons to marry, you wouldn’t blame someone for avoiding marriage to avoid that fate. Xantippe pointed out that you can be married and avoid that treatment, and it seemed to fall on deaf ears.

So I was asking point blank of you were saying that in marrying, a woman was relinquishing even her most basic rights. Not as an accusation, but because I don’t understand your viewpoint on this.

So given that she (at least apparently) doesn’t lose her rights, do you believe that in marrying she loses her recourse if those rights are violated? As in, should she approach whatever awful thing happens to her as a result of her sworn, undying submission to her husband as a form of religious martyrdom?

 

[LethalMouse]

There is absolutely no reason to be rude. Frankly, your posts are hard to understand and your exact point of view is not coming across. Your earlier posts seem to take a more moderate tone and reflect a more moderate position than your later ones do. I thought I was with you until we got to the idea that being on the receiving end of abused authority is a form of martyrdom and that without religious reasons to marry, you wouldn’t blame someone for avoiding marriage to avoid that fate. Xantippe pointed out that you can be married and avoid that treatment, and it seemed to fall on deaf ears.

So I was asking point blank of you were saying that in marrying, a woman was relinquishing even her most basic rights. Not as an accusation, but because I don’t understand your viewpoint on this.

So given that she (at least apparently) doesn’t lose her rights, do you believe that in marrying she loses her recourse if those rights are violated? As in, should she approach whatever awful thing happens to her as a result of her sworn, undying submission to her husband as a form of religious martyrdom?

Catechism holds the answers to my view.

Aside from having literally and directly stating said recourse.

My communication method would make sense as flawed if I did not literally follow with direct references. You have to willfully ignore my references to misubderstand me. Since you don’t like how I speak, you ignore the references and only focus on my perhaps flawed style of speech.

As I said I surrender on the original point but I will happily point out repeated efforts to falsely present me with the facts all being literally written down on this very thread. Because honestly I have nothing better to do and the fact that some people can be so malicious amazes me.

In fact not one answer has sought to address when I point out the references that were ignored. You even in this ignore the fact that it is in the exact post you originally quoted of mine. How is that not malicious?

I repeatedly and attached to this post but not shown here because it isn’t wanted to be used, posted my position in a way that can not be argued with, so you wholeheartedly ignore the second half of my post so that you can believe or put forth an image that is not true. And why the quote of me you posted has the built in “folley” and completely proves malintent by he who wielded it lol.

 

[LethalMouse]

Blueeyedlady, I am glad you commented on that other thread, but since it is in relation to our discussion on here I figured I’d post here.

I didn’t think about mixed company and knew not to look at your religion on your profile thing at the post. I did not have that discussion in a way to address a non catholic… I now kind of understand why you omitted my God references and such… if you would have at least addressed them in letting me know their irrelevance to you I would have addressed your convo much differently. Due to my assuming you were catholic, I never understood where you were coming from lol. I was not attempting to win over an atheist with my conversation but was coming from a place of discussing something within a community.

As to the thread knowing your stance? Er in the other post you mention wanting the man to make moves… there is some psychology and biology sort of for the male lead. But honestly it fades away fast with the fears you presented. Honestly, having dabbled in atheism myself in the past I can say Any arguements I have come with many exceptions. I would suspect the male for now to lead more often than not, but as men/women merge in secular society who knows in the future? And I see little value in you letting your husband lead as an atheist… you can not take my God comments out of my arguements because they were woven together, and my arguements were not crafted to stand without Him.

On the off chance you figured I didn’t realize you were an atheist and were just trolling me still awesome lol. You had me very confused

 

[Xantippe]

On a somewhat different tack, a point which has been brought up in a previous discussion (by pensmama87???) is that a certain amount of submissiveness is built in. I believe whoever said that was talking about the automatic submissiveness that is often built into a SAHM/breadwinner household. Insofar as the SAHM is the breadwinner’s economic dependent and insofar as it is usually part of the SAHM’s duties to provide a lot of support services to the breadwinner, there is a certain natural baseline of submissiveness inherent in the role.

More biologically, there is often an element of submission for the woman in the act of intercourse. And, of course, submitting to pregnancy and breastfeeding is…submissive.

So, the question arises, when there is so much natural submission built into an average woman’s life, is it really necessary to artificially load her up with more submissive gestures and behaviors? Really, that seems kind of mean, as well as redundant.

If anything, I think a lot of women need more respect from their husbands, not opportunities to grovel. The blogger I’ve quoted before at iprefercaptain certainly needed more respect from her husband…

 

[on_the_hill]

" When things go horribly, terribly wrong—as a result of a husband’s bad decisions, or the cumulative effect of stress on the family, or poverty, etc—she will trust in God’s sovereignty."

“She just needs to try harder, be content with what she has, and trust that God will make a way.”

I really kind of feel sorry for people who think these things. I guess it’s o.k. if that’s what they freely choose to believe and they live happy lives, but maybe not so o.k. for those who have been indoctrinated to believe that there is no other way.

 

[pensmama87]

On a somewhat different tack, a point which has been brought up in a previous discussion (by pensmama87???) is that a certain amount of submissiveness is built in. I believe whoever said that was talking about the automatic submissiveness that is often built into a SAHM/breadwinner household. Insofar as the SAHM is the breadwinner’s economic dependent and insofar as it is usually part of the SAHM’s duties to provide a lot of support services to the breadwinner, there is a certain natural baseline of submissiveness inherent in the role.

More biologically, there is often an element of submission for the woman in the act of intercourse. And, of course, submitting to pregnancy and breastfeeding is…submissive.

So, the question arises, when there is so much natural submission built into an average woman’s life, is it really necessary to artificially load her up with more submissive gestures and behaviors? Really, that seems kind of mean, as well as redundant.

If anything, I think a lot of women need more respect from their husbands, not opportunities to grovel. The blogger I’ve quoted before at iprefercaptain certainly needed more respect from her husband…

Sure, I’ll take credit for that. It sounds smart.

This is one of the things I like about being Catholic. We don’t have to reinvent stuff. We can have faith-filled, happy marriages without constantly saying, “Look at this thing I am doing that proves we have a faith-filled happy marriage!” Just do it. The fruits will speak for themselves.

 

[Xantippe]

Sure, I’ll take credit for that. It sounds smart.

This is one of the things I like about being Catholic. We don’t have to reinvent stuff. We can have faith-filled, happy marriages without constantly saying, “Look at this thing I am doing that proves we have a faith-filled happy marriage!” Just do it. The fruits will speak for themselves.

Yeah.

Also, ever notice that sometimes it turns out that some thing that you were doing for your husband is something he didn’t actually want you to do? I feel like some of the wifely gestures I’ve seen recommended could fall into that category for a lot of guys–a sort of “Gift of the Magi” thing.

 

[EasterJoy]

1. Don’t think you’re being mean.
2. I specifically addressed my poor ability to relate nuances.
3. It was never touched by anyone because it was so good? But I referenced EasterJoy’s post as the point I am trying to make in a more human way… I guess I am actually trying to do what she says “can’t be done” lol I am dumb…
4. Hugs

When I say “it can’t be done,” it was a “can’t be done, IF”…

I meant to ground yourself in Philipians chapter 2 before tackling Ephesians chapter 5. If the person simply cannot accept Philipians chapter 2, though, then yes, I’d say you’re going to be banging your head against a concrete wall trying to explain Ephesians 5. Everything St. Paul ever said will be taken wrong, if not taken in the context of Philipians 2. So when you read Philippians 2 and they can’t cope with it, you can say, “Ah, there is your problem, then. That is the whole key to understanding what submission is all about. If you’re not talking about submission in imitation of Christ, you’re talking about something else entirely, something as different from Christian submission as a zebra is from a horse.”

(Oh, and zebras are nasty-tempered animals, too.)

 

[LethalMouse]

When I say “it can’t be done,” it was a “can’t be done, IF”…

I meant to ground yourself in Philipians chapter 2 before tackling Ephesians chapter 5. If the person simply cannot accept Philipians chapter 2, though, then yes, I’d say you’re going to be banging your head against a concrete wall trying to explain Ephesians 5. Everything St. Paul ever said will be taken wrong, if not taken in the context of Philipians 2. So when you read Philippians 2 and they can’t cope with it, you can say, “Ah, there is your problem, then. That is the whole key to understanding what submission is all about. If you’re not talking about submission in imitation of Christ, you’re talking about something else entirely, something as different from Christian submission as a zebra is from a horse.”

(Oh, and zebras are nasty-tempered animals, too.)

If I were running for office, I’d hire you as my spokesman