Many of my readers are already familiar with Sheila Gregoire and her blog, To Love, Honor and Vacuum. After looking at how big name sites like Bible.org and Ask.com reframed Biblical marriage, I was curious how faithful Sheila was in her teaching to the biblical command that wives submit to their husbands (especially given her graduate level education in women’s studies). I used Amazon’s search feature for her book, To Love, Honor, and Vacuum: When You Feel More Like a Maid Than a Wife and Mother. I was pleasantly surprised to see her quoting the scriptural command for wives to submit to their husbands (P. 116 of the paperback):
Whether we like to be reminded of it or not, the Bible calls for wives to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22).
While she is of course understating the command by only referencing one of the many places this is commanded in the New Testament, the reference itself is there. However, what really struck me when I read a bit more before and after this line is the context she is referencing this in. The chapter is titled “The Family That Cleans Together”, and the section the quote is included in is titled “Let Him Know He’s Needed”. The same section includes this bit of scriptural rationalization*:
Many biblical commentators think that the meaning of “the husband is the head of the wife” in Ephesians 5:23 implies something similar to “source,” like the head of the river. The wife draws energy and support from her husband, and the husband finds part of his identity in supplying his wife with what she needs.
She then explains that wives who are too self sufficient are depriving their husbands of the opportunity to “fulfill their God-given role”, and also rob themselves “of the gift of being cared for”. She warns us that such husbands “will feel distant, perhaps like a failure”, even if they can’t pinpoint what the actual problem is. But what is she talking about? What exactly should wives do to avoid depriving their husbands of what they desperately need while giving themselves the gift of being cared for? After reminding women to not forget to appreciate that their husband usually works outside of the home, she advises wives to not deprive their husbands of the opportunity to do his share of the housework:
Then take the opportunity to show him he’s needed at home, too. Often men feel superfluous at home, like they don’t even belong, because you manage everything. Make honest requests of him that allow him to help support you and feel involved in building your home.
Note the complete inversion of the concepts of headship and help meet. In her framing, husbands were created to serve their wives and it would be cruel for wives to deprive them of the opportunity to serve her both outside of and inside the home. Further down she gives instructions on how wives should manage their husbands, including a segment titled “Delegate Appropriately for Him”:
If you want your husband to take responsibility for certain chores on his own, without being asked, you need to find a delegation method that conveys to him what needs to be done without threatening him.
Leaders delegate, and she clearly sees the wife as the leader of the husband despite her lip service to the concepts of headship and submission. She follows with a table that explains how to translate straightforward requests into language husbands can understand. After the table she suggests that wives give their husbands lists of chores:
My husband is motivated by lists. If I just tell him I would like him to help clean up after dinner, he doesn’t know what to do. But if there is a list of daily and weekly chores on the fridge, and he can see what is left to be done, he’s like a Tasmanian devil whirling around the house, cleaning.
*This rationalization is thoroughly debunked in this paper.
See Also:
Ah. Now I see. Submit to your husband by delegating. Give him the same chore list you would give to a servant. *sigh* I’ve been doing it wrong.
Wow… the honey-do list as evidence for who’s really leading. Crazy. What would things be like if I was making the lists…? That’s… that’s… *unthinkable*! The house would surely collapse in ruin within a year….
Ah well.
Here are some other tells.
* Who sets the social calendar?
* Does the wife give the husband an allowance from the family budget?
* Does the husband have to earn a “kitchen pass” before he is allowed to leave the house on evenings and weekends?
* Is the husband actually allowed to leave the house…? Ever…?
* Do men at the church meet at fast food restaurants and coffee shops because they wouldn’t dare to ever impose on the hospitality of the wives?
* Do the wives even know what hospitality is?
* If you ask a guy to do something socially and he agrees to come… does he end up calling you the next day to tell you that his wife has something else planned for him…?
One wonders how she would feel about her husband giving her a similar list for the bedroom. Would she whirl about like a Tasmanian devil making sure she did everything he set down for her?
If I just tell him I would like him to help clean up after dinner, he doesn’t know what to do.
———————————————————————————-
What?
Oh man, the poor clueless bull in her china shop. She must have gotten her ideas watching network sitcoms
You do realize that is all pedestrian tripe packaged for quick sale, filled with those oh so cutesy tongue in cheek one liners that preachers use weekly when they self efface describing how they handle their own marriages, and the crowd chuckles dutifully. I bet there is a sermon aid book somewhere with man jokes for pastors. If there isnt, there oughta be
True story: The pastor I referenced in the Courageous thread has predictably been pushing the movie points in his recent sermons. In the most recent one he related some story about how sorry he felt for some kid he was watching at the mall who was being henpecked (he couldn’t say “pussy whipped”) by his girlfriend.
He said something to the effect about how frustrated he was that this boy wouldn’t stand up to her and be a Man, because either he had no Father or his Father was a failure (ala Courageous) for not instructing him in ‘Man-Up 101’.
He then addresses the women in the congregation – “Ladies if he can’t stand up to you, how will he ever stand up for you?” I was almost hopeful for a moment that he was going to hold their feet to the fire, but then he states, “Ladies you need to allow us to that, you need to allow us to stand up to you.” Fail.
I can’t begin to tell you how maddening it is to hear complaints about gender relations and advice, wrapped in a veneer of biblicalism, that admonishes men for not being Men all while subconsciously, latently, recognizing the feminine as the overall arbiter and authority of anything men could do. Women must allow us to be men?
I felt like Mugatu at the end of Zoolander – “It’s ALL the same look! How can you all not see that?! I FEEL LIKE I’M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!!”
okrahead, I’m sure she would – so long as none of it made her “uncomfortable” (See her Feb. series for details).
::Sigh::
Just another reminder that logic is bullshit. I mean, logic and reasoning are fine if everyone involved in engaged in a good-faith, impartial effort to find abstract truth, but in the other 99.9% of cases it’s just a tool for producing a pretzel argument to reach a pre-determined conclusion.
I’m sometimes amazed that when the limits of rigorous logic are so clearly demonstrated by mathematics (look at the number of open question in that field, and the complexity and subtlety of its proofs) that people imagine that they can magic up a real argument with the slippery words and concepts of common speech.
Getting from “Wives, submit to your husbands” to “Wives, give your husbands a list of chores” is, unfortunately, not even remarkable in a society that (for many years) found a right to an abortion, but no right to bear arms, in a document that never mentions the former and specifically protects the latter.
BTW: “Whether we like to be reminded of it or not”? When TF do Christians ever talk this way about other biblical imperatives? “Whether we like to be reminded of it or not, the Bible calls for us to keep the Sabbath holy …”
This reminds me of your very first post you referenced the other day, on field-stripping babies. Sheila’s household leadership model is a good reason not to change diapers except when she absolutely cannot, or do housework. It doesn’t matter if you or I see X job as women’s work–everyone else does, so she does. Unless you want to fight about it (guilty) later, it’s best to just not start.
If my wife told me she’d like help cleaning up after dinner, I’d say: “I know. That’s why I knocked you up four times.”
Empathologicalism writes: “You do realize that is all pedestrian tripe packaged for quick sale, filled with those oh so cutesy tongue in cheek one liners that preachers use weekly when they self efface describing how they handle their own marriages, and the crowd chuckles dutifully.”
That dutiful chuckling is one of my worst memories of Churchianity. It was like hearing the death rattle of the West.
“Ladies you need to allow us to that, you need to allow us to stand up to you.”
Hah! That reminds me of a scene in the documentary “Blood in the Face,” where a scruffy American lowlife in an SS uniform (with long hair and a beard, no less) whines, “We’re the Master Race. Give us a break.”
When the wife needs help, I take charge, and tell the kids to hop to it.
@Rollo
I think I know where that preacher was coming from. A woman who constantly hen pecks, or a woman who sees only your immediate popularity, rather than your inherent worth, is a woman who can never be tamed into a wife. She’s a 3 month fling at best. It doesn’t matter how assertive you are with her; you’ll be having to confront her every single night, as she tests you, and tests you, and tests you!
If women want to be treated like wives, they need to earn by allowing a worthy man to lead them.
Dalrock, I previously defended Sheila Gregoire and you basically challenged me to come up with evidence. I think you have now produced irrefutable evidence that she cannot be defended.
Pingback: The house would collapse in a year. Not. | Dark Brightness
@Cane Caldo
Earlier in the chapter she suggests that if the couple isn’t fighting the wife is likely not making her needs known (P 114/115):
Thanks ukfred,
Sheila is frustrating because at times she really seems to get it, especially when someone else points it out. But then after stating the problem with great clarity she goes right back to her feminist/denial ways.
@Dalrock
Ha! Mrs. Caldo needs a fight. I used to strive for peace, until I figured that out. Now I take the fight to her. This might sound like a lose-lose scenario, but the difference is when I’m tired of it, I stop the offensive, and it’s over. There’s no continuation. There’s no bringing up old shit. She’s just glad it’s over.
Bradley Nowell was right: “Fuckin’ and fightin’, it’s all the same.” Similarly, Roissy is right, too: “Tingles are born in the defensive crouch.” It’s my pleasure to fill the void.
It doesn’t matter how assertive you are with her; you’ll be having to confront her every single night, as she tests you, and tests you, and tests you!
If women want to be treated like wives, they need to earn by allowing a worthy man to lead them.
——————————————————————————-
Oh no no no no
This simply demonstrates a lack of sound game. Go back, do three *Hail Roisseys* come back less supplicant, shove your right hand in your right front pocket….move it left…..feel those? THATS what it takes to have game bub…..ballz
Ladies you need to allow us to that, you need to allow us to stand up to you
Epochal Civilization-Destroying FAIL. If she needs to “allow” it, she’s still in control. A man just does it, and she either submits, or sinfully refuses.
That said, it is his responsibility to be firm-yet-gentle rather than abrasive in his leadership, and he’s a fool if he makes decisions without at least considering her opinions on the matter at hand. BUT.. in the end, the decision is HIS. Whether she likes it or not.
There’s something to be said for the MGTOW movement, but they miss one key point. Men going their own way applies to married men too! After carefully considering all options, examining the moral dimension, and listening to wise counsel (which may well include her), in the the end, YOU chart the course. You go your own way, and she either follows… or does not.
“Ladies if he can’t stand up to you, how will he ever stand up for you?” I was almost hopeful for a moment that he was going to hold their feet to the fire, but then he states, “Ladies you need to allow us to that, you need to allow us to stand up to you.”
I agree that this is not just a fail, but an epic fail. However, I must admit that I have myself implored wives to stop being so defensive and stupid when their husbands try to tell them the truth. I actually ended a post with this once:
Because I have some idea what this preacher was getting at, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. His biggest mistake was in directing wives to “allow” their husbands to do anything. My husband always said what he meant, meant what he said, and told me what he thinks regardless of how I took it. It wasn’t about my feelings all the time.
This preacher was pandering to the feelings of wives when he should have been telling the husbands to stand up to their wives without being moved by their emotional reactions and tirades. If a husband stands his ground and leads, his wife will fall in line and if she’s any kind of woman at all, will learn to embrace the security firm leadership provides.
This preacher was pandering to the feelings of wives
—————————————–
Yep, lest they write letters and withhold attendance.
Funny the note about letting husbands tell the truth…..Im going on the limb to say MOST marriages have this dynamic, at least sometimes….man finds its easier to tell less than truth, or even lie, than endure the grilling or whatever consequence. It may be even a minor consequence, but its exhausting, and if the issue is not very important, eh, just lie…..it can and does happen, until he just stops doing it hell or high H2O.
She will bitch about him not opening up, then pick apart and mull over and over and over, and did I say over every expressed opinion, is it morally and aesthetically pleasing enough
empath, there are women that can, and will, test a man to the destruction of a relationship. They cannot be content, they constantly are testing. The amount of alpha required to quiet them down is more than most men are willing to exert. A man has to ask himself if the woman in question is worth the effort it will take to calm her. How much drama as a daily routine, can the man in question stand to deal with? Is her presence worth the trouble? Only he can answer that question, but it is worth noting that if it takes a great deal of Game to keep a woman in line at the beginning of a relationship when she is on her best behavior, what will it be like when she’s become familiar with him (familiarity breeds contempt…)?
With regard to “fighting”: any woman who encourages married women to “make their needs known” sufficiently to start a “fight” is like a dentist handing out hard candies and caramels. Today I choose to put “fight” in quotes, because what these women are doing is not a fight it is a spat, or an argument. In a real fight people get hit hard and even beaten to the ground, or worse. In a spat or an argument, words are tossed around in lieu of blows. In a fight, there often is a real winner and a real loser, in spats/arguments there may be no winner, or there may be two sorta winners, etc. Modern Western men have a lot of mental barriers, as a rule, that prevent them from fighting with women in general, and female relations in particular. Being yelled at by a woman will crank up the fight-or-flight response, and yet we are prohibited from doing either. The resulting stress can be physically harmful, even painful. As a result, many men who are betaized will just give up and withdraw, rather than prolong verbal jousting that is stoking up ancient responses designed for a genuine threat.
Cane Caldo’s approach will work for some men. It is worth considering, especially for those men who have become so betaized as to be numbed to verbal abuse. One must be aware that the initial reaction on the part of a modern Western woman will be fury, and have a plan to deal with that already worked out. As a last resort, a man always needs to know that he can get another woman, if need be, through confidence, self respect and some Game. So if standing up to a woman in an LTR or marriage drives her away, he should just be glad such an irritant & source of lifespan-reducing stress is gone from his world.
Better to beg forgiveness than beg for permission.
There is no room for “allow”, even subliminally, if my status as a Man (and all the liabilities I’m implored to accept that entails) includes real authority.
Maybe it’s from having been unplugged from the Matrix for so long, or maybe it’s my constant observation and writing about it, but I am very sensitive to the choice of casual words men use when talking about gender issues. It’s been acculturated into feminized men’s vernacular to use words, idioms and presumptions that are assumed, on the subconscious level, to be more neutral or inoffensive to women-as-authority. I can pick out the subliminal self-deprecations men filter into their conversations, often with a nervous laugh, or else they’ll drop some blunt truth only to casually ridicule themselves or men in general for being ‘how they are’ as if it were some kind of apology.
I’ve got one christian friend who’ll always abdicate to his wife’s authority by saying “Gotta clear that with the boss” in reference to his wife when we’re making some plans to hang out. Tells me everything I need to know about his perception of gender and his history of success with women in general.
I never make those stupid jokes about deferring to one’s wife and I have told other men not to.
Elspeth’s advice is golden. If a man can simply have the courage to ignore his wife’s swinging emotions, typical of most females, he will have success as a husband. Or at least with most women. Men are so brave in most areas but they seem to be weak with wives.
For example, the proper reaction to ” I will leave you ” is something like, ” Goodbye. Have a nice trip “. Call her bluff. It usually works.
“She then explains that wives who are too self sufficient are depriving their husbands of the opportunity to “fulfill their God-given role”, and also rob themselves “of the gift of being cared for”.
What God given role is she talking about? and when are we promised the gift of being cared for? Cared for how? Pampered? That’s not what my Bible says.
If Sheila took a look at Proverbs 31 it states (v.23) “Her husband is known in the gates where he sits among the elders of the land.” That doesn’t tell me his God-given role has anything to do with housework. He is a leader; a leader leads, delegates, especially to his wife. A leader must keep his house in order, this mainly means his wife since how she behaves directly influences how he is seen among those in the community. If he is to be taken seriously as a man then she must put herself under his leadership, this is his God-given role.
Also in v. 28 it says “her husband also(will call her blessed), and he praises her.” But this is after she has worked and completed all that she should do as told to her in v. 11- 27 that she has earned his praise.
I also want to throw in v.11, “The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain.” She can be trusted by him that she will not be running around looking elsewhere at any other men. In this she ensures that he will provide well, which she will also benefit from.
So think about it ladies, you keep his home as you should and he has a good reputation, you keep his heart happy and he is unhindered by stress and all that goes with it and provides well for you and the family; should be no need for hypergamy.
@AR
It’s true that this approach won’t work for all men, nor will all women require it, or respond well to it. I’ve stood up in the middle of a sermon, said “We’re leaving.” and dragged us all out of the church we were considering. (The pastor came to my house (twice) and asked me why. I told him. The second time he asked if I’d consider being a deacon.) I’ve thrown people out of restaurants (but never worked in one.) I got fired for telling my VP I didn’t trust him, or his management team–during his presentation…in front of 500 coworkers. Three months later, I had a better job with higher pay.
The point is that you have to establish a frame for your life, not just your wife. Make the decisions that the man you want to be would make, and don’t let her derail you. She’ll thank you for it.
She still wants my babies.
I would say “helpmeet” in itself is too light, given that the expectation of Marriage 2.0 is that the husband not only be helpmeet but servant, emotional tampon, continual courtship machine, and several other things she has no right to expect or he has no business in being. In other words, the husband has all the responsibility for making the marriage work with none of the benefits, the wife holds all the benefits.
Ultimately, the best designator for modern marriage today (2.0) is “slave”.
David….if she leaves when you say Have a nice trip, well, you still win
Cane…Ive ditched several sermons exactly like that. Ive taken everyone (I have 4 kids) out, and there were a few occasions I just took my boys out. My 2 boys are now as good, maybe better at seeing through red pill lenses, the church and the sermons and whats being said, after church we have a debrief almost weekly where we trade “did you notice that?” questions. My 21 yr old daughter, Im not convinced she is well sorted and she has taken up some of the wrong tendencies, accuses me of being an angry misogynist….oh well,
Sounds like she just got tired of writing and plagiarized wholesale from a child training manuel.
Jacquie that reminds me of a point regarding “fights”. As noted above, we have a churchian “family expert” stating that women should expect arguments / spats if they are “making their needs known”. Anonymous Age 70 once remarked back when he was Anonymous Age 68 or so that he cannot find any where in the Bible that men are instructed to subdue their wives. No one has been able to contradict his claim with any quote, not that I have seen.
But he did mention a few quotes from Proverbs, such as 21.19, 25.24 : the gist is it is better to live on the roof than stay in a house with a contentious wife. So it is not just modern men that find argumentative women to be tiresome and a pain in the neck to be around. It would be mildly interesting to see what kind of spin Gregoire would put on that set of Bible quotes. But only mildly.
Anonymous Reader wrote:
It’s hard to deny that in history there was always controls placed upon the women who didn’t honor God by submitting first to her earthly father and then to her husband. If she violated them and sinned against God by doing neither, there was always authority to bring penalty upon her for this if she didn’t repent. The father always had authority over her, then her husband, and then the church had authority from there in the process of Matthew 18. There was a certain degree of shame involved for both the husband and the wife if it got to this point.
Those that take orders within a structure, for example military, will know the problem immediately. Responsibility without authority over that responsibility is always impossible to fulfill. To use a material example, if I’m given the responsibility to keep a plane in working order so the pilot can fly it at a moment’s notice, the commensurate authority matching that responsibility must be given. This means access to the plane, access at will to all necessary replacement parts and training to perform the repairs, access to tools, access to additional manpower if required, and full support from the superiors regarding interference of this authority. In essence, to undertake a responsibility from a superior, the requisite authority to accomplish that responsibility must be provided.
But unfortunately today, any authority that comes with the husbands responsibility has been stripped away at all points. Evangelicals still hold the husband to responsibility yet give him no means to fulfill that responsibility, in fact they are as hostile to him as the rebellious woman he is indentured to. These controls were on men within the church, too, if he were to transgress logical bounds with his wife. But that’s beside the point, given what things are today. Unfortunately, Marriage 1.0 hasn’t been practiced wholeheartedly for a very long time (longer than the lifetimes of most that are living), and requires studying some really old texts to find examples of such things in practice.
O. T.: A debate about divorce, from 1926: The Forum.
Experts on stress say that the worst situation to be in is to have a lot of responsiblity and no power. That seems to be the situation today of many Christian husbands. I genuinely feel sorry for these men. Having to fight in the workforce only to come home to a wife who is worse than any boss. At least at work you have some authority and influence.
Its why men stay at work longer than they need to. I have a colleague who is that man, big time
Antigrrl summed it up pretty well there.
Sheilia’s “advice” and prescriptions are terribly condescending, and not anything to be done for someone who has any respect for their partner.
Make him a chore list? “Help” him feel involved in housekeeping? Help him feel like he is part of the house?
Is he an idiot? A clueless stranger? Or your freaking husband?
What is this, the guide to helping a slighly retarded roommate? It reads like a manual on how to run a special needs classroom for chrissakes.
“Now, now, make sure Jimmy has lists so he feels involved”
“Now, now, make sure Jimmy has something to do so he’s not bored or restless”
“Now, now, make sure you let Jimmy feel like he has some input in your decisions so he can feel important”
Perhaps Sheila could help her husband find his balls.
“Ultimately, the best designator for modern marriage today (2.0) is “slave”.”
Well, BDSM is big now. Especially among women.
Sounds like she just got tired of writing and plagiarized wholesale from a child training manuel.
Found him: http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/e7/4/AAAAAhn89V8AAAAAAOdKNA.jpg?v=1206971620000
Unfortunately many of today’s men feel they need some sort of permission speak honestly and sometimes bluntly to their wives. They (ironically) feel as if they need permission to delegate, take the lead, etc. It’s probably a result of a lifetime of social conditioning for men to “keep wifey happy” along with mental laziness that avoids planning and organizing the household. It is true that women may complain, protest or throw out a few “i told you so’s”. The risk is the same for any form of leadership, be it a household, a business or managerial position.
The truth is a man needs to assume leadership – headship is the term you Christians use – from the very beginning without question. It should start with his own life and seamlessly express itself in a relationship. It’s my experience that women get annoyed when they have to answer questions of “what are we doing this weekend” “who is going to fix/clean/repair that” or “should we buy this”. We’re not talking an Iron Law here, just leadership 101. For women it’s often mind relieving and peaceful to be with a man who leads.
The problem is twofold. You have men who grew up either dissuaded from or not knowing how to lead in a relationship. You also have law system that severely undermines a man’s authority to lead i.e the Sword of Damocles that is Family Law. After-all you can be a talented inspiring leader all you want but if the wife can at anytime push “the button” and dynamite the family keeping the remains for herself then who’s really in charge?
It’s a difficult conundrum I do not envy for you marrying types. Life is about taking the good with the bad, but Marriage 2.0 has been stripped of all the good – at least for men anyhow.
David Collard
Perhaps Sheila could help her husband find his balls.
The first place to start looking would be in her purse…
Antigrrrl, I have wonderd off and on if the increase in BDSM isn’t in part due to women’s need for domination by an alpha, in combination with the fact that many women are their own beta. So they need a whole lot of Alpha in order to become content.
Dalrock at 219,
I’ve occasionally wondered how it is that people can seem to understand issues. But clearly they don’t. Parroting beliefs means little. If it hasn’t been personalised into behaviour and internalised in terms they use, then it has not penetrated.
AR, Fifty Shades etc., which it appears is a bestseller at the local university bookshop, is probably just a bodice ripper for elite women. Mills & Boon romance novels have always been full of alphas. I saw one titled, no kidding, The Millionaire Doctor. There is an Australian writer my wife likes, Mrs Helen Bianchin, who usually includes a spanking scene.
I would be curious as to your definition or understanding of “submission”. It simply means respect and it is mutual. It seems like you might be defining it differently.
@DC
It’s worse than that. Fifty Shades of Grey started out as fan fiction set in the Twilight world of teen vampires.
A couple years ago we were at a church function, and a woman of about 35 said she couldn’t wait for next week to go see the second Twilight movie. Then she did that thing women do where they look around at the other women, nodding her head in anticipation of the support. Sad for her, I beat them to punch, and barked a laugh.
“You’re a Twi-mom?”
“Well they’re really good books…”
“Yeah, about teenage vampires being melodramatic and silly.”
Then she became defiant, and spat out that the main teen vampire is really hot. More looking and head nodding, butnone other wives just looked into their drinks while I tried not to sneer at her husband. He was just standing there beside her, listening to her lust for a fictional teenage vampire, out loud, at a church party…right in front of him.
Not long ago, their one child, a daughter, was allowed to wear makeup. Now she comes to church looking like a prostitute from a Tim Burton film. Mrs. Caldo sometimes gets exasperated about the conclusions I draw about others from what TV shows they watch, or what music they listen to. I think she’s tired of me being right.
Anonymous Reader says: May 17, 2012 at 3:22 pm
“…he should just be glad such an irritant & source of lifespan-reducing stress is gone from his world.”
Other than less time with my son, this was the biggest change in my life from divorce.
Here is a list:
Lose 90 pounds.
Buy some nice lingerie.
Learn how to dance in a provocative manner.
Clean the house every night.
Get to bed by 9.
Wake up friendly.
Develop your carpentry skill.
Learn to bake fine pastries and hearty bread,
Grow a bumper crop of veggies
Can them.
(And then you can stop sleeping on the couch and I might consider snuggling you in bed). Which will hereafter be known by all who read and understand this as “mutual submission”, thank you very much.
Oh, hi honey,
Or if she can’t dance, she can just pose half-naked.
I suggest ignoring the “mutual submission” query. It is a Christ-Feminist distraction.
Perhaps some of the people here want to comment on Sheila Gregoire’s blog where she has a posting about adult male influence on children.
What men here should do is develop a honey-do list for wives. Sheila might learn something.
Lose 90 pounds
LOL? Unless she weighs 250 pounds or more that seems like a lot. Equivalent to a whole person.
There is an interesting study of apostate pastors here:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2010/03/disbelief_in_the_pulpit/all.html
Some pastors lose conventional faith (e.g. in the literal virgin birth and physical resurrection) when they learn about the Bible at seminary. However, they continue to preach things they do not believe, because this is what their congregations expect. They often stay in the ministry because they believe that the Church is a force for good, or because they have a social mission. In addition, they will learn at seminary the importance of raising money, and recruiting members.
It seems to me that, if these views are widespread, the battle that Dalrock and others are fighting cannot be won. If pastors do not accept the Gospels as a matter of faith, they will not accept appeals to biblical authority. If a pastor does not believe that Jesus was a real person who died for our sins, there is literally no point in asking him to preach a biblical view of marriage. He will preach either his own beliefs, or what the majority of his congregation – the women – want.
“Antigrrrl, I have wonderd off and on if the increase in BDSM isn’t in part due to women’s need for domination by an alpha, in combination with the fact that many women are their own beta. So they need a whole lot of Alpha in order to become content.”
Agreed. Dateline or maybe 20/20 had something to that effect, basically the more dominating the woman the more likely that she preferred to be in a submissive position in the bedroom.
Please don’t judge me by what I watch, I do not have remote privileges in my house.
@James K
I’ve come to the conclusion that I had it backwards in the game for pastors post. The men in church shouldn’t be looking for the pastor to rescue them. They need to take command of their own households first, and then seek out a church which isn’t ashamed of biblical marriage. Right now their choices are slim and none in that regard, but as more and more men change their own frame and start to become the rightful leaders of their families then the options to come together with like minded heads of households will become better.
“as more and more men change their own frame and start to become the rightful leaders of their families then the options to come together with like minded heads of households will become better.”
That would be great to see happen. It needs desperately to be passed on to the next generation.
A man with daughters should require a younger man with an interest in marrying into the family to have the same mind. She may feel she loves a cetain gentleman, but she will grow to resent him if he does not strongly lead her. If the young man’s father has neglected to teach his son, then the young mand should learn from a strong leader how to be a leader before vows are exchanged or he should be asked to move on to save the pain that could follow down the road. Too many parents cave to the attitude that children should get what they want instead of what they need. Proper instruction needs to be passed down for widespread change to happen.
Yes I think I have managed to teach my sons this very well. I see it manifest in my 19 yr old who, when he was senior in HS had a full on babe chasing him, he agreed to accompany her to the prom, I asked why the reluctance, his answer was that he was taking my advice, watching out for controlling shrews, and they ALL seemed to be controlling shrews.
This one became a GF, she was cool as a GF from our (wife and I) perspective. But….turns out her mother is from Germany, married her Dad while he was on some State Dept assignment, oh my, the germanic controlling mom became the germanic controlling GF…..they dated for 9 mos….he dumped her by SMS! Priceless.
My daughter, not so much, she runs her poor wimpy BF ragged.
IAL, funny list, and funny you call it mutual submission. Guess what, they , if in that description, would readily call it mutual submission. I say often, that term has zero meaning, it just makes them feel all fuzzy and warm and balanced and stuff ya know
As to men leading, IAL you can attest, I can name 3 women on CF who must have husbands that are utterly checked out because the wives are like terrible twos throwing scripture tantrums daily
Jacquie, if you openly model obedience to your husband, visitors will get the message.
You can help too by shaming disobedient women on the Internet, woman to woman.
You want to know the kicker David, we are battling this in our own home right now.
My husband and I have not been perfect parents, we are learning late the things we did not see before. None of our children are married yet but two are talking marriage, one being my son. The christian young lady he is with is nice, she looks great on the outside but I have seen things I would not have noticed before. I have brought these to the attention of my husband and he sees as well. I have tried talking to her woman to woman, while my husband is trying to enlighten our son and is planning on giving him the MMSL book. Hopefully he will read it and learn, but he no longe lives in our home so there is only so much we can do. The young lady has not been very receptive of what I have told her even though her words tell me she arees with all I say from a biblical view. I have chosen to say nothing more but model for her how her behavior should be.
My husband came home the other day from work just about enraged about a conversation he had with our son on the phone. My son basically bad mouthed me to his dad reiterating the things that his gf has been telling him about me. What hurts most is that my son has become so enamoured by her that he believes what she is telling him and has told his father he now sees it as well. This same young woman spends a good amount of time with my daughter and has been taking her to a bible study weekly at her church. My daughter is apparently also believing the same things and apparently believing that I have turned into something ugly because I do not behave as this young woman feels I should. She has also said to each of my children that she notices that I act differently toward them when my husband is around than when he is not. Not sure if she thinks this will put a wedge between my husband and I or not, but it reeks of something. On top of that she left a sugary happy birthday greeting for my husband on his voice mail a few days ago very much like the sugary mother’s day greeing I got over the weekend. My husband could not be any more upset.
I have been instructed not to speak to the any of them about the situation. I am away this weekend and have been told by my husband that he will deal with the situation and confront the young lady face to face with our children present. I am not sure what will come of it, but I am already paying the price for what I say and what I do. I can not lose much more than that so I will continue to say what needs to be said. My prayer at this time is that my children will clearly see the leadership that my husband has taken, the strength he has and that they will learn from it and realize what is truly going on. He is strongly advising my son from marrying this girl and telling him we will not support it.
Didn’t mean to get long, I jsut didn’t realize what a true battle this was going to be or how much the losses could be. If this had been a year or two earlier we would have never seen what we see now in this young lady. I just hope that it’s not a matter of a day late and a dollar short where my children are concerned.
@ Elspeth, 90 would be no problem. I sometimes think eating is passive-agression.
@ empath, 3? It seems like they are breeding like bunnies in there. I had a “submission” “debate” with a new one where I cited the scriptures from Re-Marriage 1 and instead of refuting me she told me she had a bachelors in Religion from Liberty, AND most importantly that she had dragged her house-husband over to the computer and the HE agreed with her…..imagine that.
By the way, if enough people agree, we can apparently overrule and ignore the Bible.
@ David Collard, I’m aware of the history of the query. If giving me a honey-do is submission giving her one must be “mutual”, no?
Jacquie has a good point. It leads to a larger issue. Few men are natural born leaders, yet history, especially the history of warfare, clearly shows that many, many men can be taught leadership principles. The problem for modern men in the west is multifold:
* we are often not taught leadership in any form,
* the modern egalitarianism actively derogates leadershihp by men while glorifying leadership by women
*many millenials grew up / are growing up in houses where men are absent due to divorce or single-mother babymomma syndrome, and thus have no way to see household leadership modeled.
So for a lot of men, they do not know how to lead, and they don’t know that they don’t know. This is “unconscious incompetence”, the first stage of a learning process. One function of the androsphere is to tell men “There are some important things that you do not know, and here is why they matter”. The next step is conscious incompetence – “I don’t know how to do this, but I am aware that I don’t know”. And so forth.
A man must be able to lead himself – that is self control – before he can lead others. But even to get to that, he has to believe that leadership is a good thing that is worth doing, and that he can learn how to do it. In the modern, feminized world, that’s something far too many men don not know, and they do not know they don’t know it.
Leadership of a family is not the same as military leadership or business leadership but there are some common principles. The first step IMO is for a man to believe in his heart that he is fit to lead, and that he can do good by leading his family. It is a challenge for a man to come to this stage if he’s been told all his life that he’s a brutal, stupid beast who should defer to women in all situations…
Jacquie,
Tread carefully. Follow your husband’s lead. Anything you say to the kids may not contradict him, but it may detract from his message if they perceive you to be the “bad guy.” Try to keep your fear in check, and have faith in his leadership. He will tell you how you can help.
Thank you Suz, this is a learning experience for me. He told me what the problem was, and the basic points of what he plans to do about it. I don’t know the details. He didn’t discuss with me how he thought I should handle it or what I thought, although he did let me voice some of my feelings on the matter (I felt hurt). I will not say anything to the children even after the fact, although it was difficult yesterday with my daughter. They need to see that this is Dad handling it, the head of our house. If I even mention anything to them afterward it may come out as me reenforcing the lesson from dad, not my place. It is going to be very different for them. I just hope they get it.
There’s a very sad thread at CF where it’s so painfully clear that the guy has completely bought into the “its all always the man’s fault” mentality. I’m currently banned so I can’t say anything to him but the gist of it is that his wife has been having flirtatous interactions with other men and yet he’s thinking that his angry reaction to that, and whatever his failures are up to now that “made” her do it, are the bulk of the problem.
Here’s a link if anyone wants to check it out:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7657191/
He’s in desperate need of a spine if anyone can give him one.
James K: Some pastors lose conventional faith (e.g. in the literal virgin birth and physical resurrection) when they learn about the Bible at seminary. However, they continue to preach things they do not believe, because this is what their congregations expect… If pastors do not accept the Gospels as a matter of faith, they will not accept appeals to biblical authority
Barna has exposed this problem also. And he quantifies it:
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/133-only-half-of-protestant-pastors-have-a-biblical-worldview
And of course, the biblical worldview is the magic ingredient that reforms individuals and society. Without it, the church is toast, and so is our culture; with it, all things become new:
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/131-a-biblical-worldview-has-a-radical-effect-on-a-persons-life
“They need to see that this is Dad handling it.”
Yes.
Chaz that guy is pathetic
IAL, a degree from Liberty eh?
Best you shut up and sit down, you are done and dont know it, you are a knuckle dragger and you are addressing a woman of letters
“Chaz that guy is pathetic”
I feel literally nauseated after reading that poor guy’s post.
“I feel literally nauseated after reading that poor guy’s post.”
The situation itself is sad enough but what’s truly sad and disturbing is that he’s taking on all the blame for the whole situation. And what’s even more sad is that even with a husband who is willing to take on an unfair amount of the blame, she still get’s mad that he wrongs are brought up in counseling.
I personally would love to see a large scale “invasion” of CF by 20 or 30 folks from here. That, IMO, is the only way that the marriage killing nonsense that’s peddled there can ever be countered. I know, I do care too much about that place, but it’s only because I honestly see what’s going on there as being incredibly toxic to marriages.
@Rollo, why do you still go to church there?
Chaz345 – ”He’s in desperate need of a spine if anyone can give him one.”
But, he finally got one part of it right:
”I have always made it my goal to serve and honor her in EVERYTHING. At the beginning of this year when she started doing things that she had NEVER done before, in my little pea sized brain, I was CONVINCED she was looking for something else other than what I could provide.”
Yes, she is looking for more…she wants a man with a spine.
The sad irony is that the very next thread on that forum is entitled “Starting to resent my husband” (http://www.christianforums.com/t7651790/)
In which the women states:
”On one hand, I feel like he’s a robot who will do any thing I want him to. He asks my permission before doing anything at all. I’m surprised he does not ask me if he can use the bathroom.”
I’m tempted to mock the confusion of those people, but then I am reminded that it was not so very long ago that I had those same scales over my eyes.
The thing I’m questioning is what got you banned, Chaz. If we all go on and begin telling it like it is, will we not all get banned and our comments deleted. I would like to post a comment, I’m just not sure I want to join the forum. I would probably rub alot of folks the wrong way.
“The thing I’m questioning is what got you banned, Chaz. If we all go on and begin telling it like it is, will we not all get banned and our comments deleted. I would like to post a comment, I’m just not sure I want to join the forum. I would probably rub alot of folks the wrong way.”
To a degree, what got me banned is a refusal to toe the party line. But on the other hand, another part of it is my inability to let the past go and stick to what’s being said in the current topic.
You are probably right that the end result would simply be a banning of everyone, but there’s a chance that seeing an influx of new people, ones who have no history with “the gang” as I like to call them, being met with the exact same nonsense, will wake staff up to the fact that it’s the content, the ideas and positions, that are causing the problem and not the fact that it’s just people who have too much history not getting along.
If you can simply stick to your point, and ignore/not respond to the personal attacks that will inevitably come your way, you can survive there with minimal staff correction. If IAL has managed to stay, I’m sure you can. He’s VERY plain and direct in how he states things.
@ Dalrock,
Sorry to keep turning this place into a discussion about another forum. I’ll stop if you want but it’s just that what goes on as CF is such a perfect illustration of much of what you talk about.
Oh Im banned for lifffeeeee (spoken with spittle)
But no, they wouldn’t delete your comments.
Its a petri dish of festering evangelical feminism that one could make the case is more useful as a control experiment in that here is what happens if left unchecked, when women and their personal jesus get to dole out advice
The Antigrrrl wrote:
This is likely her compensating. When I brought up “slave”, BDSM femdom is more accurate to my thought. This is the system as it is and what it is set up to produce. While there are a few women that enjoy undertaking such a role, several don’t I’m sure and are willing to sub to compensate. Almost every modern evangelical marriage today is set up in this manner.
Anonymous Reader wrote:
While I don’t disagree with these things, there is a problem before that. The system has been this way for about 50 years (the man does not lead, masculinity is an abomination, and so forth). As long as men and boys are denigrated constantly within the media, within the schools, and within greater Churchianity, these things are irrelevant. As long as women are given the power over men within family courts, Churchianity, and other things, these things will be irrelevant.
The system is producing what it is set up to produce, and will continue to work until it is destroyed. In a Churchianity sense, this means putting down the open rebellion against God that women and feminist men are engaging in. Then we can talk about re-enabling men to take their rightful masculine places in society.
A man is incapable of leading his wife as the head, even if he is competent, if he has a rebellious woman as a wife who is supported by Churchianity and the State and refuses to follow his leadership (this is what submitting to him means). It makes no sense to rebuild something that is destroyed when the destroyers are still out and about, ready to repeat their acts.
empathologicalism wrote:
This is the common arrogance that pervades those that get “religious degrees” and then become ordained. To a certain extent, the extreme pride and arrogance of these folks is a direct contributor to every single problem that exists within Churchianity today. They are incapble of seeing their own sins, therefore they are incapable of seeing the consequences of those sins.
slwerner wrote:
The irony is probably that she doesn’t see the ways that she has contributed to it. She’s probably slapped him down at every attempt he’s ever made of leading in his life. If she didn’t herself, the church probably has multiple times. I’m sure she could point to a time when he wasn’t like this, either during courtship or early marriage. If she can’t it was likely the public school system or his own mother.
She should not be surprised when the system that she has cheerlead and participated in as a member produces the results it is designed to produce.
Chaz345 wrote:
Actually from reading there regularly once upon a time and participating semi-regularly (no not divulging my nick there), I can testify that this is not the case. They will turn on you if you don’t parrot the party line. Dalrock’s recent posts involving Christianforums illustrate this perfectly. They were sniffing for blood and was ready to reveal and ban Dalrock from their forums for daring to disagree with them, although he does not participate there.
“They will turn on you if you don’t parrot the party line.”
Members will certainly, but you’ve got to do something at least a little bit against their rules in order for the staff to take significant action. The staff got so up at arms recently mostly because Empath was quoting actual posts and naming names both here and on his blog and “the gang” over their got all worked up over it. And Empath, like myself has a long history, not only of being actioned by staff, but of dealing with those same posters, on another forum before CF. Simply calmly stating a position that’s counter to the party line, and staying away from commenting on other poster’s character or motivation, and refusing to engage when they personally attack, as IAL has largely managed to do, will not result in staff action. As one sided and biased as staff is there, even they can’t/won’t ban someone without a history for doing nothing.
I can’t seem to get in. I tried setting up an account using a rather innocent ID, but told me that is was agains guidlines or something. So I played around with it while still keeping the same basic concept of the ID I wanted, added a number and I got a message saying that a moderator had to look at my registration and approve it. I’m still waiting. It’s been a few hours. Do they have so few moderators that it takes so long to approve. I can log on with the ID, but it will not let me post anything. Very interesting.
ballista — The system is producing what it is set up to produce, and will continue to work until it is destroyed. In a Churchianity sense, this means putting down the open rebellion against God that women and feminist men are engaging in.
i could have copied the whole comment!
none of us is going to Fix the System, or Fix Marriage, or etc, thats just pride — the system certainly IS functioning as designed, as rebel before God and decimator of fatherhood and masculinity
most christians are still v much in the System (Matrix) economically and elsewise, so even of the “awake” ones, most really just want to “nibble at the edges” of a System that still provides many material comforts and rewards, that in their hearts they still rely upon, instead of reliance on God
it’s extra difficult for Christians w/kids, parents worry and seek to ensure the future, and that aids the Matrix . . . our generations were taught that human progress and resolutions come from political processes and social “reforms,” from human beings and their Constitutions and Manifestos . . . not from obedience to, and love of, God
Christ, Patmos John, and many of the OT prophets tell us exactly what the fate of Babylon is, and what our proper response to her should be (shoot arrows til she falls)
we wont fix feminism, or matriarchy, or the Babylon II cultures of the West, but we CAN provide a bridge to what’s next, and what’s next is eternal
the real Christians are now gravitating to real churches, and those churches are, and will continue to be, the platform upon which the Kingdom will be built, and that Kingdom will in no way be a compromise with the current satanic models (nor an overturning of Christ/the prophets)
Jacquie, good women like you, who have realised their past mistakes and are now living in Christian subjection are needed to take the fight to your feminist sisters. I applaud your efforts.
“The irony is probably that she doesn’t see the ways that she has contributed to it. She’s probably slapped him down at every attempt he’s ever made of leading in his life. If she didn’t herself, the church probably has multiple times. I’m sure she could point to a time when he wasn’t like this, either during courtship or early marriage. If she can’t it was likely the public school system or his own mother.
She should not be surprised when the system that she has cheerlead and participated in as a member produces the results it is designed to produce.”
Feminist women are either incapable of or unwilling to see that they are the one’s that are creating the very men they can’t stand. It would be sort of funny if it weren’t so sad and unfair but when a woman or a group of women say angry or hurtful things, it’s simply an understandable reponse to their bad experiences in the past but if a man or a group of men says angry or hurtful things it’s because they inherently hate women.
“I can’t seem to get in. I tried setting up an account using a rather innocent ID, but told me that is was agains guidlines or something. So I played around with it while still keeping the same basic concept of the ID I wanted, added a number and I got a message saying that a moderator had to look at my registration and approve it. I’m still waiting. It’s been a few hours. Do they have so few moderators that it takes so long to approve. I can log on with the ID, but it will not let me post anything. Very interesting.”
They are VERY short staffed but I don’t recall having had to wait for moderator approval for a new account. It is possible that with recent bans they are reviewing things perhaps by IP number to make sure people who have been banned aren’t signing up under a new name.
David Collard says:
May 18, 2012 at 4:54 pm
Jacquie, good women like you, who have realised their past mistakes and are now living in Christian subjection are needed to take the fight to your feminist sisters. I applaud your efforts.
Me too. I fear that those that we’re opposing though are simply too closed minded to ever change their views.
Not closed minded, no, ….they are women dadgummit, and like one of them says over there:
Being a woman is how I define it for myself and its AWESOME to be a woman!
For some reason I cant get that out of my head…I mean, we are born a gender, we have nothing to do with it, and some women seem to want recognition for being female, as if they achieved it or something…..all this women and roaring and stuff, all the decades of “supporting things that show women can do it too, (see my recent post) wears me out,
I’m a man……big deal….I was born that way
” I fear that those that we’re opposing though are simply too closed minded to ever change their views.”
I hold out hope, Chaz. I was closed minded for a long time. I’m nothing special or exceptional. If I was able to eventually get my head on straight, then I have to believe there are others who can too.
“and some women seem to want recognition for being female, as if they achieved it or something”
Part of the whole Me generation thing, the whole “I’m so super special, morality doesn’t apply to me!”
@Dalrock: An early test of leadership in one’s household will be the change of church. Driving past the happy, non-judgmental, pro-feminist church attended by the wife’s neighbors, friends and family, and the children’s friends; to a more distant church that calls us out on our sins – women’s sins as well as men’s. It will be particularly hard to stand by the decision if, in addition to their biblical motivation, the pastors or congregants have old-fashioned attitudes that are not Bible-based.
@van Rooinek: Thank you for the links. They appear to show that this is a lost cause. If as few as 2% of mainstream Protestant churchgoers have a biblical worldview, then an appeal for a return to biblical marriage is futile. A new church that supports biblical marriage would have the outward appearance, if not the heresies, of a sect like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the LDS splinter groups.
The Protestant churches have largely been syncretized with the prevailing feminist culture. This is inevitable and irreversible. The best we can do is chronicle the decline.
Jacquie, you need to share your story, and your new happiness, with other women as much as you can.
Antigrrrl
I see you have waded into the fray at CF…..do tell how is the water?
I’m pretty sure I’m not in danger of teaching any women over there anyway…I’ve been really sheltered, rarely ever had a conversation with a Christian where feelings were more important than commandments. The discussions are pretty much impercebtible from conversations with non-believers.
Feminist Principle #1 was never stated much more clearly and better.
Ray writes:
One of the things I find in my studies of the Bible is that the entire New Testament operates on this principle: “What is understood doesn’t need to be discussed.” Those that say the New Testament is the only thing that is needed are losing out on the whole counsel of God’s teachings for that very reason. This said, the Israelites were broken of their idolatry after their Babylonian deportation, so it hardly ever comes up in the New Testament.
But the Gentiles haven’t been broken of such things, so we need to be aware. As for God, the profane doesn’t share space with the holy. So the only answer to the problems created by idols is to destroy the idols. There’s no compromise, no “fixing” them, no “incorporating them for good in God’s sight”, just be rid of it. There are many stories in the Old Testament that point to exactly this. That’s what is necessary for the problem to be solved. Feminism, matriarchy, and Marriage 2.0 simply need to be eliminated.
Pingback: Reframing Christian marriage part 5: sex as a weapon. | Dalrock
Pingback: Christian Marriage | Air & Space
Pingback: Sell Me Marriage | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the oh my god I can’t believe she’s wearing those heels with that skirt! | THE UNIVERSITY OF MAN
Pingback: Father Knows Best: Purely Blogroll Selection Edition « Patriactionary
Dalrock,
A guy from my church suggested reading your site when I asked him to elaborate on how men in the church feel about relationships. The little that I’ve read has made me very sad, indeed. As a woman who desires to live a godly life, giving everything back to the Creator “from whom all blessings flow” and encouraging all people, but especially my brothers and sisters in Christ, it breaks my heart to read such earnest, and apparently earned, contempt among them. I had no idea.
Honestly, I think one of the biggest problems is that not enough of these conversations are crossing gender lines. Women writing to women about men and men writing to men about women or even men writing to women and women writing to men…they are all missing something very important, something from before the fall—they are one-sided. Man and woman are made in God’s image. God said, “it is not good for man to be alone” because the Triune God is not alone. God made men and women to work together and one-sided arguments are not working together.
I mostly agree with you but would like to expand on a few points. They are crazy long, so I wanted to email them to you instead, but I didn’t see an email address. For those not interested, feel free to stop reading now. However, I’d love some feedback.
1) Yes, the apostle Paul called/charged (“commanded” seems too harsh a term, but maybe that’s just semantics getting the better of me) wives to submit to their husbands and husbands to love their wives. What we so often omit in our citations of these passages is that, although the charge was to husbands and wives, the center of it was Christ and doing all things as unto Him and to His glory. In fact, Paul’s entire letter to the Ephesians is about the freedom of surrender to Christ and living and loving in and through Him; about Him living and loving in and through us. When Paul charges women to submit to their husbands as to Lord, it is an instruction on how women can “be imitators of God” in their marriages–which are ultimately temporal symbols of the eternal relationship between Christ and the church–the church one whose behalf He came to submit Himself to the wrath of God. The church who personally handed Him over to torture and death by men, which was nothing compared to the wrath of His Father, poured out to make amends for every sin that has been, continues to be, and will be committed. Some mentor. And, yet, she is not our mentor…He is.
2) Husbands are also charged to love their wives as they love themselves…which means, if a husband expects respect, he, in turn, respects. Paul emphasizes this point by referencing Genesis 2:24 where Moses recalls man and woman become one flesh in their unity. Therefore, as one flesh, they ought to love and respect each other as they do themselves because they are no longer two entities, but one.
3) Speaking of Genesis, “helpmeet” and “helper suitable” are actually sub-par terms. A more literal translation of the Hebrew there is “a power equal to.” Scholars also believe the equality of man and woman is also demonstrated by the fact that God took a part of man’s side to make woman–not a portion from his upper quarters or lower, so that there would be no inherent superiority or inferiority. The power structure, then, wasn’t laid out until after the fall when God said to the woman, “because you have done this…your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you.” And to Adam, He said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,'” meaning that Adam’s punishment came not just from eating, but from listening to Eve over God. So, Paul reminds wives to submit to their husbands because that’s part of the retribution of the fall–woman was made equal to man and yet, because she failed in using her own judgment, falling to Satan’s ploy and trusting her own rational logic (Gen 3:6) over the Word God gave through Adam (Moses only recounts God giving the instruction to Adam, not Eve) and in doing so, sinned, part of the penance was to submit to her husband’s judgment from there on out, instead (which, is kind of ironic, given that both of their sins involved trusting Eve’s judgment over God’s Word to Adam–maybe that’s punishing Adam, too, in requiring him to take point in all things, even when it would be easier to sit back and let someone else lead the way–which is why God, in His grace, gave us judges and prophets and apostles and, of course, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, so that no one would have to take point on his or her own, ever). Pretty amazing if you ask me.
Pingback: Defining Feminism Part 1 – Religious vs. Secular | The Society of Phineas
Melissa, take what I say with a grain of salt as I have not read through the Epistles that thoroughly yet. Eventually I will get St. Theophylact’s commentary on the Epistles to the Corinthians and the Ephesians. But for now, here is how I understand things: Marriage is a symbol of the relationship between Christ and His Church. The analogy of the Bridegroom and the Bride is used repeatedly. One thing that modern ‘Churchianity’ has been forgetting is that Christ is God and the Church is man, and thus we humans in the Church from Apostle on down must submit to His will. The Church does not rule Christ. The Church does not tell Christ how to operate. That would be a most grave sacrilege. In the relationship between man and wife the man is ultimately responsible to God for his family. The wife must submit herself to her husband. In turn, the husband must unconditionally love his wife as Christ loves His Church. Christ was tortured and died for his Church and for all of humanity. A husband must be willing to lay down his very life for his wife or he is not worthy. But in the end, the responsibility is his. The wife is to submit. She can, and certainly should advise him in life, but must never command.
Also, I would be careful reading too much into Hebrew. It is a very mutable language and can pretty much mean whatever you want it to mean. Get a copy of the Septuagint. Greek is a much better language than Hebrew if you want to get into semantics. Besides, the Septuagint is significantly older than the Masoretic texts. This is what St. Paul would have been quoting.
As a side note, if you are interested in reading more here is a link to St. John Chrysostom’s Homily on Marriage: http://www.roca.org/OA/121/121b.htm. Unlike most modern pastors he admonishes husbands as well as wives.
JHSD,
I appreciate your caution about interpreting Biblical Hebrew. It is definitely a tricky language, but also very particular, which is why I chose to study it as my foreign language elective. I will be cautious. Thank you.
As for the rest, I agree with you. Please help me understand, what did I say that sounded like an argument for the wife to command the husband? Or the Church to rule over Christ? I believe in the sovereignty of God–that He rules over all and all submit to His perfect and holy will, that He works all things to His glory for the good of those who love Him.
Genesis 1:26-27 reads, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (KJV, emphasis mine)
No one is perfect, not one–expect THE ONE who was slain and defeated death and sits at the right hand of the Father to atone for His beloved–who He created, male and female, in His image and for His glory. Where is the heresy in that? The feminism? Please explain, because I don’t see it.
The perversion of the relationship between man and wife is in the above article. It seems to be a frequent error in modern Christianity. If you, like me, believe that the wife is to submit to her husband as the Church does to Christ then we have no point of contention. Unfortunately, feminism is so ingrained in most people in our society I often have to see it as the starting point for most people.
I don’t have enough time to fully rebut both of your posts here today in a thorough enough way to point out the feminism in them. Know that what you wrote is the standard religious feminist line and is nothing that I or anyone else haven’t seen multiple times. It has several statements that are indicative of feminism and the common heresies that accompany it.
The chief goal that you seem to have set out to do is pervert the God-ordained relationships between husbands and wives into something more consistent with Marriage 2.0 than anything remotely Scriptural.
Another take on this issue:
“God wanted men to have a taste of how he views mankind. As women appear generally irrational, selfish, and weak to men, so does mankind appear the same way to God. As women frustrate men, so does mankind frustrate God. And as women can have moments of loving service and reverence to men, so too does mankind have moments of loving service and reverence toward God. I suspect, then, that God designed women the way he did so that we as men have a brief glimpse of what it’s like to be God.”
http://cygne-gris.blogspot.hu/2011/12/its-bug-not-feature.html
Ballista, I’d be interested to know which statements of her’s you specifically found to be feminist? Or are you just reading into the tone? (Not ‘white-knighting’ on you, just interested where your debate lies.)
Melissa, one thing I didn’t mention earlier was your view of Genesis. I’d have to read more to have a better idea of what I’m talking about, but I don’t recall ever having read anything saying that the duty of wives to submit was a result of the Fall. Likewise, I cannot think of any writings of the Church Fathers claiming that the genders were equal before the Fall. To be honest, I doubt that it really was an issue as since Eve was without sin she would have submitted to Adam as a helper by her own will. As for the ancient Jews believing that they were somehow equal, I would refer you to the old story of Lilith to get the Jewish view on the matter.
In regards to her first couple of points, I don’t really see anything heterodox in her take on the relations of wives and husbands, especially after her clarification and in light of the Homily I posted a link to. I read through it again and he does state that the husband should be in charge, the wife should submit, but that the husband should love her unconditionally. One would be hard pressed to paint a 4th Century Bishop and Patriarch as a femifascist!
One of the things that rubs my fur the wrong way with the misandrist rants of contemporary pastors, which Dalrock has brought up on several occasions, is that they totally ignore the duties of the wife to her husband. If the man isn’t making her haaaapy, making her hamster tingle, than he’s in the wrong. He has failed in his duty to his wife. This mindset is lacking in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Then again, back then Christianity was about telling the Truth of the Gospel, not about filling pews, coddling hamsters, and most importantly – lining the offering plates.
@ Hell Hound – that’s pretty funny.
Why did God create the world, the beasts, and man before woman? He wasn’t looking for any advice.
Well, then, ballista74, (and I say this in earnest) I hope someday to hear those examples and explanations, because I cannot see how I am to change my view or adopt the proper view, when the critique only states that I am wrong, not how I am wrong or ways in which to improve. In the meantime, I understand what I have said has been said and hashed out before, so no need to recreate the wheel on my behalf. I will simply read on and attempt to glean the answer for myself–although, based on the rationale and reactions here, I suppose you would hardly consider me even slightly capable of doing so, even with all of the properly-articulated resources at my fingertips, because I must surely be some sort of illogical, irrational, hysterical, heretical, nitwit feminist.
Melissa Ink:
Here’s one of your errors, which I think is fundamental.
Men and women are equal to each other before God.
As between each other, they are not in any way equal or even equivalent. Men are physically stronger, handle conflict better, are more prone to thinking rather than feeling, and better equipped to handle longer and more strenuous and taxing work hours than women. Women are more suited to child rearing and evoking and expressing feelings than men. Women are not to have any authority over men. In church, women are not to teach or instruct men.
A husband and a wife are equal and equivalent before God in terms of their intrinsic value and their salvation.
As between each other, they are neither equal nor equivalent. Men are more suited to leading a wife and family, and teaching and training their children. Women are more suited to following the husband’s lead, and making and keeping a home for the husband and children. Men are more naturally dominant; women more naturally submissive.
Here’s your second error:
Husbands are not charged to respect wives. They are charged to LOVE their wives.
A husband who respects his wife defers to her wants, needs, desires and feelings at all times. In doing so he forgets to love her. To love her, he must sometimes tell her no, sometimes refuse her wants, and sometimes he must decide that the needs of the marriage or the family outweigh her individual needs. He must sometimes let her feel her feelings, and remind her that her feelings are not facts nor are they Truth.
Wives are not charged to love their husbands. They are charged to RESPECT their husbands. Respect must be cultivated from the couple’s first few forays together, while dating or courting. If she cannot respect a man she dates, she only invites misery for both of them if she marries him.
When a wife does not respect her husband, this quickly takes seed as disrespect, which then germinates into resentment and takes firm root in seething hatred. Respect means she defers to his leadership. Respect means if his opinion diverges 180 degrees from his, then he breaks the tie and it is done his way. Someone has to be the family unit’s leader. The wife who has a proper view of biblical roles understands that that someone is — MUST BE — the husband. If she respects him, love and deference naturally follow. She will feel secure in his leadership, and she will feel contentment.
Hello Melissa,
Pertaining to your decision to post under your real identity –
I advise you not to do so. I would highly recommend that you ask dalrock to delete the post in which your personal info was posted; I would advise you to set up a dedicated email address and wordpress account which is not linked to anything else and does not reveal your identity. Personally, I sometimes use gravatars with my real picture, but I alter them heavily so that it would be difficult to identify me; I don’t use my real name.
I have NEVER seen any regular commenter here say or threaten to do anything weird or violent, ever. However, you do not know who might be lurking but not commenting. More importantly, the SPLC has listed several manosphere blogs as containing hate speech; if you intend to continuing investigating blogs in the manosphere (and I do recommend it), you may not wish for your current or future employer to be aware of this. FWIW.
I agree, get your ID off of here asap. Not that there is imminent danger, its just good sense. There is a guy I know who, for example, had a raging feminist figure out who he was (he didnt allow his name posted) and sent his wife an email accusing him of all sorts of stuff. There is just too much that can go wrong, especially as Sunshine says with the SPLC and the hate speech and all that, with your vocation especially, there will be those who would bar you for deigning post here.
Amazing you escaped Madison with a shred of Christianity and common sense anyway.
Thank you, deti, for your responses. They are helpful.
Thank you, also sunshinemary and empath. I couldn’t find an email to dalrock?
Dalrock, are you there? Can you help me out here, please, and get my personal info off of the site? I suppose that would include my posts, even this one, and greenlander’s post with my LinkedIn profile, as well.
Melissa wrote:
I think most can understand the concept of “not right now”. For me, I ended up having the time so “not today” turned into later today. Being into journalism, I think you can understand that if someone asks you to write 1700 words on something that it’s not going to come “right now” in any event.
JHSD wrote:
It’s not something I’m reading into, it’s some very specific things.
First off:
See this for an explanation. While this is true, it’s not entirely true. In driving at this, most feminists are seeking equivalency or superiority before God to avoid recognizing the God-given
hierarchy as it relates to men. The rest of the truth that “Woman was created in man’s image” is
galling to feminists, and they resist this ordained fact of life along with the ordained consequences of it.
Note in that whole paragraph how she focuses things away from the role of the Church and only chooses to focus on Christ? Women are imitators of the Church in this and not Christ or God. See this for more detail on what marriage is meant to depict.
This quote is wholly heretical. The husband is to love the wife sacrificially, and the wife is to respect him. This is unconditionally, and not contingent on what the wife thinks or judges about the husband or the marriage. See this, where I address the conditionality issue as it goes with the pronouncements of Albert Mohler. Also, Ephesians 5:31 has nothing to do with the preceding passages anything other than Paul’s concluding thoughts regarding the nature of marriage.
Who? Feminist scholars no doubt, as a feminist would be the only one who would dare argue such a thing. It’s irrelevant, because it’s not in Scripture anyway, and Scripture contradicts this besides. See this and this.
I show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the hierarchy existed before the Fall, not after. To properly determine the meaning of Genesis 3:16, Genesis 4:7 is incredibly useful since it is the only other Scripture in which the Hebrew word which gets translated “desire” exists. The comparison of the two Scriptures along with the sum total of the other referenced Scriptures indicate that Eve didn’t have sin and therefore happily and willingly submitted to Adam before she was deceived. The only logical conclusion to take out of Genesis 3:16 is that the wife is going to rebel against her husband and he will have to rule or the better word “master” her, as God said to Cain about sin. This is consistent with all the need for posts of Dalrock and such other places and things such as game. As well, it explains the consequences we have for all the indulgences women have gotten from their husbands in the past (face it, feminism would have never existed if women weren’t indulged in it to begin with).
This post fall subjugation argument is useful for feminists since they can then go on and say “Christ abolished the law and I’m under grace now, the law said I have to submit to my husband but since I’m in Christ I don’t have to anymore”.
I could go into several of her other statements, but I think after 1700 words, the point has been made.
Ballista, thanks for the clarification. On the first point about women being “imitators of God” in marriage, I am a bit confused by the wording, though she does admit that marriage is a temporal symbol of the relationship between Christ and his Church.
Melissa, I’d be interested to know where you stand on what he’s saying. How would you explain the love vs respect relationship between man and woman? I wonder if you might have just used the wrong word based on the modern definition of ‘respect’. Do you mean that a man should respect his wife’s authority or that he should just treat her with dignity? Also, your lower or upper quarters comment, where did that interpretation come from?
Ballista, I find this part: “Christ abolished the law and I’m under grace now, the law said I have to submit to my husband but since I’m in Christ I don’t have to anymore” to be very damaging spiritually, and not just when it’s used by the feminists. I think this is a greater heresy. Christ came to fulfill the law, not change one letter of it. Modern Churchianity seems willing to eschew the law of God in many different things in addition to divorce. I think this stems from centuries of the Church being less important than the whims of individual Christians – each man his own Pope, and all that.
JHSD, Melissa has her hamster doing theology.
The Pauline texts are plain enough. The husband is to show self-sacrificial love for his wife. He models Christ in His attitude to the Church. The wife is to respect and obey the husband. She models the Church in her obedience. They are not literally Christ and Church, and they are subject to each other. But the husband’s subjection is that of Christlike leadership and sacrifice and the wife’s subjection is that of Church-like obedience to her husband.
In any case, the hierarchy, as stated throughout the New Testament, has woman below man. The order of creation in Genesis gives primacy to man. This was made more onerous on the woman by the sin of our first parents. It is now less onerous, because it is carried out in Christ. But the hierarchy is not abolished. Wives must still obey their husbands (with the usual caveats about not obeying commands to sin).
JHSD, ballista, and DC:
took one of his ribs–“She was not made out of his head to surpass him, nor from his feet to be trampled on, but from his side to be equal to him, and near his heart to be dear to him.”
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, 1871
In regard to the statement …if a husband expects respect, he, in turn, respects, I did not say, “if a husbands wants to be respected, he must first respect his wife.” In fact, I didn’t mention the wife at all, except to say that husbands are charged to love their wives as they love themselves. I worded it the way I did in reference to the golden rule and to illustrate the point that a husband’s decision to respect his wife is his own, independent of her, to glorify and submit to the will of God. He is to love her as God called him, to a sacrificial love. He is to love her as he loves his own body (Eph 5:28) and I would hope that, in loving himself, a husband also respects himself–logically, then, he would respect her—not as a kowtowing, boot-licking, sycophant, which I, personally, find unattractive, but to treat her, as JHSD said, with dignity as God has called us treat each other.
As for the necessity of a wife to respect her husband, for me (and I’m just speaking for myself, not anyone else) that is a non-issue because I, personally, would not marry a man I didn’t respect and wasn’t in love with–a privilege denied to a lot of men and women in arranged marriages, which weren’t uncommon at the writing of the Pauline epistles, and a blessing for which I am incredibly grateful. Likewise, although I can respect a man without falling in love with him, I could not fall in love with a man I don’t respect. To quote Dalrock, “But if at the end of the process you can’t fall head over heels in love with the man, my advice would be to stop there…it just isn’t ethical for a woman to marry a man she isn’t truly in love with and attracted to.”
ballista:
Hence the term “someday.”
As to the discussion about woman being the glory of man and in whose image she was made, I found this sermon (which, you may even be surprised to read, denounces feminism) insightful, even if a little redundant at times: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CEwQFjAAOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgracebible.org.au%2Fonline-sermons%2F%3Fdownload%26file_name%3D1994-08-07-am.pdf&ei=mlvuT8H9Ooqg9QSu0pWBAg&usg=AFQjCNE2HQ88dTsTmNmf-B7aGg_9hhdjSA
Also, I agree that men and women have different roles and always have–which is reinforced by the fact that God created them in different ways. It was not my intention to imply otherwise.
DC:
Sadly, with the Church isn’t always the most helpful role model for submission and obedience.
Oh no, I’ve said too much…I haven’t said enough.
Pingback: Connecting the pathological fear of husbands having power with the peter pan manboy syndrome. | Dalrock
Pingback: Suzanne Venker on what men are good for. | Dalrock
Pingback: Lowering the boom. | Dalrock
Pingback: Untethered | Dalrock
Pingback: - Everyone’s into submission fantasies now. Feminists are annoyed, while Christians are predictably useless. | The Woman and the Dragon
Pingback: The Cowardly Pastor | Sunshine Mary
Pingback: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the oh my god I can’t believe she’s wearing those heels with that skirt! « stagedreality
Pingback: Anti-patterns of Singles’ Congregations « Calculated Bravery
Pingback: Brilliant advertising. | Dalrock
Pingback: Why Christian Men Choose Not to Get Laid Before Marriage | The Reinvention of Man
Pingback: What a Typical Christian Wife Looks Like | The Reinvention of Man
Pingback: The flower of rebellion. | Sunshine Mary
Pingback: The Types of Women in Church – A Primer | The Reinvention of Man
I’m not really sure how I arrived to this webpage, but am simply amazed at this idea that women are not capable enough or smart enough to be able to determine the course of their lives. As a woman who has had strong female role models all her life, I know my inherent worth and potential as a person– and it is not subject to a man’s leadership. Do I lack a respect for males or desire to henpeck them? No, I return the same respect that is given to me as a thinking, feeling creature. I believe in compromises, in effort and interaction on an equal level. This idea that the man’s decision is always the best one is not only exceedingly self-centered, but dangerously pompous. Can you honestly say that you and your fellow men have never made mistakes or that your wives, sisters, mothers have always had the inferior stances? I know I am not right all of the time and it has nothing to do with my gender, but with being a fallible human being. My response to Biblical passages on submission is this– conveniently patriarchal council of Nicea.
One other note about the pastor who requested that women ALLOW their husbands to lead them– I think he was speaking from an understanding of a woman’s choice to submit. The New Testament (not the Old) gives the directive for women to submit to their husbands, it does not grant husbands the right to hold themselves as superior or infallible or to demand submission. God lays the task of submission before a woman, he does not lay the task of yoking a woman to a man’s will on the man. The task set before men is to love and cherish their wives. A gentlemen below implied that the way he overcame disagreements with his wife and bent her to his will was to argue so unpleasantly that she was just glad when it was over. That neither sounds like loving, cherishing or good leadership to me. Should a woman really submit herself to such abuses?
Pingback: Sandwich strike | Dalrock
Pingback: Effortless | Dalrock
“Kristine-I’m not really sure how I arrived to this webpage, but am simply amazed at this idea that women are not capable enough or smart enough to be able to determine the course of their lives. As a woman who has had strong female role models all her life, I know my inherent worth and potential as a person– and it is not subject to a man’s leadership.”
Ser Leon- As usual there is a strong idea in our feminist culture that equality=exact sameness.
All men are subject to the leadership of other men, the citizen to the sheriff, the sheriff to the governor, the governor to the prime minister, the prime minister to the citizen. etc…
Wives and women are not free of authority, but have instead exchanged the authority of a husband for the authority of a department manager.
You may say, well I can walk away from that manager should he displease me. You would be right, and you forfeit all financial provision when doing so.
How much better to have a husband, where you can walk away and still have a right to his finances.
Your worth and potential is not determined by the amount of authority you hold in society.
“Kristine- Do I lack a respect for males or desire to henpeck them? No, I return the same respect that is given to me as a thinking, feeling creature. I believe in compromises, in effort and interaction on an equal level. This idea that the man’s decision is always the best one is not only exceedingly self-centered, but dangerously pompous.”
You do not submit to your husband because your husband is perfect, but because the God who works all things according to His purpose is perfect. When you rebel against your husband you rebel against the God who gave you that husband as an authority over you.
“Kristine-Can you honestly say that you and your fellow men have never made mistakes or that your wives, sisters, mothers have always had the inferior stances? I know I am not right all of the time and it has nothing to do with my gender, but with being a fallible human being. My response to Biblical passages on submission is this– conveniently patriarchal council of Nicea.”
It is not a contest of wisdom between husband and wife, but a litmus test of your ability to obey. All humans submit to someone higher. The godly husband will not ignore his wife’s talent or council, yet he bears the responsibility for a final decision.
If you knew history and not myth you would know that the council of Nicaea did not fix the canon, nor was canon even on the agenda for that council.
Pingback: Documenting, Not Complaining | Christian Marriage Issues
Pingback: Tame or be tamed. | Dalrock
Pingback: Sheila will make a man out of you. | Dalrock