A few readers have challenged my observation that when complementarians say husbands are guilty of “not listening” to their wives what they mean is husbands aren’t doing what the wife says. I’ve recently offered multiple examples where complementarians do this (here and here), and so far no one has offered any counter examples. I’ll offer some more examples in a followup post, but we should also consider the different meanings of the expression itself and the context in which complementarians are using it. We should also consider the practical implications in real life marriages of what is at best a terribly vague charge.
Saying someone “isn’t listening” very commonly does mean the person isn’t doing what you told them to do. The distinction comes with the position of the person using it in relation to the person they are talking about. If a boss complains that his employees aren’t listening to him, he isn’t saying they won’t hear him out; he is complaining that they aren’t doing as instructed. The same is true for a parent who complains that their children aren’t listening to them. Outside of feminised Christianity there really is no controversy here. The term does mean not doing as they were told if the person doing the telling is considered to be in a position of authority.
Moreover, while they like to be coy about this fact, modern Christians do see the wife as being in a natural position of authority over the husband. This is why we frequently have Christian wives exhorted to tell their husbands no, set boundaries, and enforce consequences. If a husband were to “set boundaries” and enforce consequences on his wife, the term for this is abuse. Even pointing out that this would be abuse if the sexes were switched is itself a form of abuse. This is the complementarian position.
I have shared a long list of examples where wives are taught to give their husbands the wakeup call when the husband isn’t doing what the wife wants him to do. Joel and Kathy call this lowering the boom. Kathy Keller “submitted” to her husband Tim by throwing a “godly tantrum” and breaking their wedding china. Dr. Mohler explains that it is God’s plan for wives to deny sex if their husbands aren’t doing what they should be doing. In Fireproof the wife brings about God’s will to fix her husband by filing for divorce and starting an affair. In the advertisement for ReEngaged the wakeup-call came in the form of the wife having an affair. In the case of Bill and Vonette Bright, Vonette gave Bill a wake-up call by threatening to leave him and take the kids. FotF’s Glenn Stanton explains that civilization exists because wives make their husbands do the right thing. FotF’s president and Dr. David Clarke explain that God’s plan is for wives to teach and lead their less astute and less virtuous husbands. I could go on further because the examples are everywhere, but will stop at this point.
Having established both:
- The term does mean “doing as I say” when used by someone in authority.
- Complementarians present wives as being in authority over their husbands.
There really can’t be a question as to how complementarians are using the term except for the cloak of deception complementarians use to deny #2. “Listen to your wife” is the perfect expression here, because complementarians can play Motte and Bailey with the two established meanings until everyone tires of the game.
But there is another advantage for complementarians in stealthily selling female headship with this term. When wives disagree with what their husband is doing, their natural inclination is to demand to continue to discuss the question forever. Children do this too, and the effect (even if not done consciously) can be to wear out the decision maker with objections until they relent. In the case of the Kellers, Tim and Kathy tell us that they had discussed the issue of his workload for months before Kathy threw her “godly tantrum”. Tim listened to her concerns about his workload for months, he just didn’t agree to work less. It wasn’t until he agreed with her that he was finally listening. Likewise in the complementarian threesome the couple had discussed the issue for weeks before the husband finally made a decision. For making a decision his wife disagreed with he was deemed unloving and guilty of the sin of not listening.
Even if “not listening” didn’t have the commonly accepted meaning of not doing as told by a superior, this would still be a deviously clever way to enact feminist headship while pretending to honor biblical marriage roles. Wives would be free to continue objecting to every decision they disagreed with forever, and husbands would be in sin if they didn’t continue to listen. The husband would retain full responsibility for all decisions, but the wife is the one who is really in charge. This is the very definition of complementarianism.
Pingback: Not listening. | Neoreactive
If a husband were to “set boundaries” and enforce consequences on his wife, the term for this is abuse.
This is kind of what I was getting at in the pervious thread, but did not get there overtly.
Excellent post.
A similar thing I’ve noticed in business and private matters is an appeal to compromise outside its appropriate domain.
1) If two people want to see different movies together, seeing the one first and the other later is a reasonable compromise.
2) One of my ex-bosses accused me of owing him money that I did not owe him.
(1) is fine. During (2), I asked advice of some friends in the business world and they said to ‘compromise’ and negotiate the number down. I said he could take me to small claims court if he wants, but will get nothing because I owe him nothing. Clearly any ‘compromise’ would be in his favor.
“Middle English: from Old French obeir, from Latin oboedire, from ob- ‘in the direction of’ + audire ‘hear’.”
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/obey
Dalrock, you are absolutely killing it lately. Almost nobody else is writing this stuff, but it really resonates. This subtle redefinition you refer to has happened over a period of years and is now a problem in virtually every community of Christians today. God bless you, bro, and keep it up.
I think you make a strong case that “not listening” as communicated regarding marriage means not doing what they say.
However, “not listening” in many leadership positions certainly means not getting appropriate feedback or not understanding the position of others. Like many things, the complementarians have subverted the language, as you have demonstrated, to the point where if you wanted to communicate about leadership style in marriage its probably better to adopt totally different language like understanding your wife, getting feedback, having a discussion etc.
“Not listening” is now code for not obeying the wife.
Those readers just aren’t listening to you. 🙂
Pingback: Not listening. – Manosphere.com
It’s a bit hard for me to relate to this post, because I am not having problems like this. But I’ve been fairly straightforward with my wife- talking with her about whatever the action is, explaining my thoughts, laying out my position, -then listening to her and talking about her position. At this point it is fine for me to go ahead and make my decision and tell her what it is. She doesn’t want to make the decision, she just wants to be sure she has influence.
Maybe the new feminist trained ladies want to be in charge of everything, but normal women NEVER WANT TO MAKE A DECISION.
Nailed it again, Dalrock. I wish I had money for every time I was accused by my (now ex-) wife of not listening to her. Repeated, detailed responses — along the lines of “I heard you, I understand what you’re saying, I understand why you feel [of course] that way, but I just don’t agree with you and here’s why” — accomplished nothing. I could just as easily say that she wasn’t listening to me — and that would have been more accurate, because invariably her description of my analysis would be a caricature rather than a fair one. Yet somehow it’s only men who “don’t listen.”
@zehrgut1
All women want to get their way without having to make a decision. This is why complementarians have crafted it this way. Wives get to create roadblocks to decisions they don’t like, even throw tantrums as needed, without being responsible for any decisions.
I almost only have ever used “you’re not listening” from a position of authority. When I’m not in that position, the proper phrase is “I do not think you understood what I said”. And that’s just basic personal life/business stuff. This point seems really lost on people grasping for a rationalization that they’re not wallowing in their own evil.
@Dalrock:
It always comes back to never having to take responsibility for yourself. Which is to make yourself God, in your own heart. There’s a reason idolatry comes naturally to humans.
Active listening
The whole “you’re not listening” thing reminds me of this scene from “Office Space.”
Peter Gibbons: [Explaining the plan] Alright so when the sub routine compounds the interest is uses all these extra decimal places that just get rounded off. So we simplified the whole thing, we rounded them all down, drop the remainder into an account we opened.
Joanna: [Confused] So you’re stealing?
Peter Gibbons: Ah no, you don’t understand. It’s very complicated. It’s uh it’s aggregate, so I’m talking about fractions of a penny here. And over time they add up to a lot.
Joanna: Oh okay. So you’re gonna be making a lot of money, right?
Peter Gibbons: Yeah.
Joanna: Right. It’s not yours?
Peter Gibbons: Well it becomes ours.
Joanna: How is that not stealing?
Peter Gibbons: [pauses] I don’t think I’m explaining this very well.
Joanna: Okay.
You’re not “listening” is the same as you’re not “getting it.”
Silence is a gift.
The content of this post is one of the major reasons it is so hard to be a husband in this day and age. Society is making what would be a simple shit test, impassible. While I was visiting a buddy of mine, he was got into it with his wife who was accusing him of not “listening” to her. It was very uncomfortable for me, because she was throwing her fit while I was present. She was threatening to involve their pastor and take the conflict to the next level (implication of possible church cuckolding if she didn’t get her way). Scott handled it like a boss. He’s a fairly calm guy, but in a very raised and authoritative voice he told her he had absolutely heard everything she had told him, and that it was her who hadn’t been listening to him when he told her NO. She started bawling and throwing a fit, and trying to argue with him more. He told her to go to her room until she calmed down; pointing out how disrespectful of not only him, but of me she was being. She went wailing down the hall to her room. I later asked Scott how things resolved, he told me when she finally stopped crying she came cooing and apologizing in private. He was going to make her apologize to me, but I told him to just let it slide unless it happened again.
Too many enabling morons in churches and governments are handing wives figurative guns to hold to their husbands heads. As a man, you have to have a ‘consequences be damned’ attitude to maintain control of your household these days. Scott’s wife eventually understood that no matter what she did or threatened, he wasn’t giving in to her demands or her attempt to take headship.
Unfortunately I’ve seen this thing myself. Even years ago this was a common path of an argument.
Eventually I stopped trying to be diplomatic and said, “I’ve heard you fine, I just disagree with you.” That doesn’t always solve the situation, but it does throw her off, and gets the monkey off my back.
For what it’s worth, I often try to distinguish between not listening and not heeding.
I think it helps to avoid the classic trap of doublespeak that Dalrock wrote about in this post.
@looking Glass
And especially to women…
Ah, the rhetorical trick known as “shifting meaning”: get listeners to agree that “not listening” in sense1 (hearing) is bad, then proceed as if listeners have agreed that “not listening” in sense 2 (obeying) is bad. An oldie but goodie that can appear in different guises. Just a few days ago Hillary, having been forced by press of circumstances to admit that not caring about “inequality” in sense 1 (wealth inequality) is bad, said that she has long been on the record against “inequality” in sense 2 (gender inequality). Of course she has no record of being against wealth inequality, having long viewed that as nothing but a golden opportunity for solicitation of bribes.
@Dalrock says: All women want to get their way without having to make a decision. This is why complementarians have crafted it this way.
_______
Bingo. I have a recent example of this. My family took a cruise and there was a formal night with family photos. My wife narrowed it down to two favorites, then wanted me to decide between them. Here is how the conversation went:
Husband: This is way to expensive, we could get this done at home for much cheaper.
Wife: I know, but it’s my 40th and it’s a special occasion. It would mean a lot to get one for the frame in our living room.
Husband: I understand. I like the one over the balcony better.
Wife: So do I, but the drop on the other one would go better in the frame I have.
Husband: Well, it’s almost as nice or a picture. If it matches a frame we already have, then we’ll have this one.
Wife: I know, but I like the other one of the family more.
Husband: You’re hoping I’ll by them both.
Wife: But that’s way to much money.
Husband: I pick this one.
Wife: But the frame, but the portrait, but the money, etc.
We were stuck in a loop, because she wouldn’t accept passing on the price because of memories, wouldn’t settle for the balcony because of the frame, wouldn’t settle for the matching backdrop because of the portrait, and wouldn’t take responsibility for the cost of buying both.
I’m not complaining, just illustrating. She wanted both pictures. And the only reason she didn’t say “yes” when I said “you want both” she didn’t want the responsibility for the cost. She wasn’t lying by not saying yes, she was answering the question in a solipsistic (her perspective) manner, where the phrase “that’s way to much money” is short for “that’s way to much money for me to accept responsibility for spending.”
This makes perfect sense to women, but the infinite loops are truly frustrating to men. This was a simple picture (which in the end I got both for a discount after talking to the salesman), but it really takes its toll when the infinite loop is around her desire to buy a new house or an extravagant vacation while he’s unemployed and trying to find a new job.
God bless.
“Not listening” is the reason so many churches preach “servant leadership.” They say it is like Jesus, but what they really want is for the husband to take a lead role in serving the wife’s whims. Which is almost blasphemous, considering Jesus served the church by dying on the cross and looking out for the church, not by changing the rules when His apostles refused to listen.
If Jesus lead the church like complementarians say husbands lead the family:
Jesus: He who lusts after a woman has committed adultery in his heart.
Apostle: Okay. But is it really that bad to look at the menu when you’re on a diet.
Jesus: It’s not good for your marriage. It hurts your wife.
Apostle: As long as I don’ touch, what’s the harm?
Jesus: It just isn’t a good idea.
Apostle: I won’t cheat, but I really want that magazine. But i’ll do what you want.
Jesus: I’ve told you it’s not a good idea, the answer is no.
Apostle. You’re not listening to me, I just like to look. There is no harm in looking.
Jesus: sigh
Apostle: Don’t you love me? You aren’t supposed to abuse me by making me feel so unloved.
Jesus: Okay, you can get the magazine and look at other women, just don’t let it go further. Happy?
Apostle: My wife is mad at me, but I told her you said it’s okay.
Jesus: I warned you.
Apostle: But you said, I just did what you said, you can’t blame me.
_______
Women would be miffed if husbands received advise like this, but it isn’t unlike the advise actually given in churches under the guise of “servant leadership”
Churchians really don’t know the consequences of what they say. They just like feeling good about themselves, despite the discord they sow between husbands and wifes.
Dalrock, Dal, Dal, Dal,… didn’t you know that all it takes for a Christian wife to get her husband to listen to her is paying for three sessions of “Praise Coaching”?
http://theconnectioncrafts.com/work-with-me/#
nastynate says:
January 29, 2016 at 3:19
Any so-called “adult” woman who behaves the way your friend’s wife did — like a spoiled 13-year-old — deserves to be treated like a child. That means not only “not listening” to her, but making all her decisions for her until she grows up, if she ever does.
So did he know that she was this way before he married her? If he did, my sympathy meter isn’t pegging for him.
@Rollo Tomassi says:
Dalrock, Dal, Dal, Dal,… didn’t you know that all it takes for a Christian wife to get her husband to listen to her is paying for three sessions of “Praise Coaching”?
______________
No, no, no, didn’t you buy Dr. Harley’s book? All a wife has to do is this:
1. Continue being nasty and rebellious to your husband for several months, while hiding money and finding an apartment.
2. When you’re close to sneaking enough money to afford it, start being a biblical wife. Be nice, deferential, enjoy sex with your husband.
3. Then ambush your husband with a surprise separation and move out. It is imperative he cannot find you. You should do this even sooner than planned if you are tempted to have an affair, because they only way to prevent the affair is to have your own bed in a secret location where your husband can’t find you (and I wish I wasn’t making this up, but it was his advice).
And remember, your husband is the leader. You just only need to follow him if he’s leading the way you want, otherwise you need to force him to lead you properly.
Best,
Trust
Office Space Adaptation
Pastor to Husband: I understand you’ve been missing a lot of date nights lately
Husband: I wouldn’t actually say Ive been missing them.
@Trust
That dialog with wife…..I used to post a similar one that was fictitious. I’d use it at Christian Forums to illustrate the forensics of the mode of discussion, or lack thereof.
W: Next week is aunt Mary’s 80th and I want to send her this nice arrangement for $80
H: We have 500$ in the account, and $700 owed in bills before the next paycheck
W: But it is her 80th
H: Honey, we don’t have the money
W. But we have never sent her anything and we sent your mom a gift certificate last August
H: Last August we had received a dividend
W: We probably will again next August, and aunt Mary will be so thrilled if we send it
The wife walks away and seems to, in her mind, have literally deposited money into the account and made the problem go away, tangibly. Your example ” She wasn’t lying by not saying yes, she was answering the question in a solipsistic (her perspective) manner, where the phrase “that’s way to much money” is short for “that’s way to much money for me to accept responsibility for spending.” is perfectly illustrative.
I raise this to say it is this stuff that makes the idea of this convoluted female headship nonsense all the more crazy. Take for example Insanitybytes post that Rollo linked to in the prior thread. She claims that we are here ghoulishly salivating over the pending divorce of the Abedinis when we are doing precisely 180 degrees opposite of that. We are LAMENTING the destruction of the marriage. But IB can say that because that is the reality she needed at that moment. Ive used the comparison before, its like facts are layered on the way photo and video editing software edits media, layers can be added and taken away. The better the software the more layers possible and the more functions that can be layered. Its a great metaphor for the called out female when she gets challenged, …..dialog like the Yul Brenner robot in Westworld
Women say they have abandoned feminism but the damage has been done. Lately I’ve seen young couples where the woman is bossy and the nice guy caters to her. Wow, its the end of the World right here. Anyone stupid enough to believe women should be in charge should take a woman to Baskin Robbins and watch her take a half hour trying to decide what flavor she wants and then deciding on chocolate. Women make wild claims of how they always get along and that if women ran the World we would have World Peace. Uh no.
I’ve seen catfights that could draw an audience on pay-per-view because two women wore the same outfit to the same get together. Have you seen how well your ex-girlfriend takes it when she meets your new girl? You better get out of the way. Having women run the World would be a World full of Queens. Two Queens cannot coexist peacefully. Men have Alpha males, but women follow Queens. And like Highlander there can ONLY BE ONE..
“Women make wild claims of how they always get along and that if women ran the World we would have World Peace.”
Lol, I’ve always found that laughable. Even though women will protect the female collective, individually they hate each other. Example? Here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html
@feericker
“So did he know that she was this way before he married her? If he did, my sympathy meter isn’t pegging for him.”
According to him, that extreme of behavior is rare. I’ve known the guy for a long time and that’s the first time I’ve ever seen it that bad. I think the argument was over one of their children that was being mildly verbally bullied at school. It’s still doesn’t make her behavior excusable. She is a bit of a mother hen and he felt she was overreacting to the situation. Their son is 13, and has a very mild form of asperger syndrome, so he has a bit of difficulty interacting with others sometimes. He wanted to counsel their son on how to be a man and deal with the situation by himself if possible; whereas she wanted to blow the situation up involving the school, other parents, blah, blah, blah.
Let me just add that this phenomenon dates back to the 1800s. It’s mentioned in the book “These Happy Golden Years” (pub. 1943) that when Laura Ingalls married Almanzo Wilder in 1885, the word “obey” was not part of her wedding vows, as it had been for their mothers.
Jim Donald dates the rot to 1820, when King George IV demanded a divorce from Queen Caroline for her flagrantly unchaste behavior, and the public sympathized with Caroline.
Complementarians always struck me as churchians who were crafting a theology that let them feel like they were hueing to anti-feminist passages while still being able to agree with the feminish worldview.
But even at its best it wasn’t actually Biblical. Here we see at its worst it is simply feminism with a healthy dose of ungodly deception to make you think its actually biblical. Its completely two faced.
They’d do better to just reject the scripture and teach feminism straight. Hot, cold, lukewarm and all that.
@Trust — YES!!! Oh my goodness the self recognition in that dialogue. I do that!
My husband and I are trying to buy a house. Huge stress. I know which house I think we should buy (he doesn’t agree and said no to making an offer on it for now)- but I’m terrified of the thought of being the one to make the decision.
The way this works out is me ruminating, getting scared that we’re going to end up with a bad house or no house, trying to tell myself to trust in God and not try to take control, getting moody and overwhelmed, reaching out to my husband to talk about my fear/confusion/moodiness/questions/worries/what are we gonna do… BUT then if he seems to see my point of view about the house I want, I get so freaked out that I’m the one who is leading and plead with him not to be manipulated by my emotions, all while still wishing to get my way, but not.
Oh my goodness. It’s a lot, emotionally.
He wanted to counsel their son on how to be a man and deal with the situation by himself if possible; whereas she wanted to blow the situation up involving the school, other parents, blah, blah, blah.
Ah, ok. That puts it context. Hopefully at some point he put his foot down and said “resolution of this is a father-son issue that you need to butt out of.”
Pingback: Not listening. | Reaction Times
They’d do better to just reject the scripture and teach feminism straight. Hot, cold, lukewarm and all that.
You took the words right off of my fingertips. I could afford these people at least a little grudging respect if they would just be honest enough to admit that they are herectics who disagree with God and several millennia of human history on the proper roles of the sexes. It would still make them delusional morons worthy of nothing but derision, but at least they would stop insulting the collective male intelligence, and, even more importantly, stop insulting the Scriptures and the Lord’s commandments.
@LeeLee
I hear that, my wife is pushing for a new house too even though we just spent too much on a cruise and are a four family home on my one income. I make good money, but she also spends a lot of money on things she things are mandatory, like organic foods that she are convinced would have prevented her cancer and that are necessary to keep the girls health.
So, women are motivated largely by fear, and they largely address these by pressuring a man they don’t fear to slay their dragons, even if they are imaginary.
Let me tell you this: your husband loves you, and he wants to take care of you. You are in absolutely no danger of being in an unsuitable hours. It may not be what you want, but remember he has to not only be able to pay for it and maintain it AND make sure he has enough left to take care of a family AND enough left where he can treat you occasionally. Trust me, you may SAY you’d rather have a nice house than things, but sitting in a nice house with no money to spend on niceties or pleasure or vacations or others things will wear on you if you choose that road.
This is why you are commanded to respect him. Trust that he has your best interest at heart, and will do right by you. It’s hard enough on a man when he can’t afford all his wife wants, but for her to act as though he’s depriving her when he’s doing all he can will kill his spirit. Respect includes trusting in him. Believe me, his “no’s” aren’t to be mean… it’s to say in many cases “i would if i could but i can’t if I want to properly take care of my family.”
God bless.
This is why you are commanded to respect him. Trust that he has your best interest at heart, and will do right by you. It’s hard enough on a man when he can’t afford all his wife wants, but for her to act as though he’s depriving her when he’s doing all he can will kill his spirit. Respect includes trusting in him. Believe me, his “no’s” aren’t to be mean… it’s to say in many cases “i would if i could but i can’t if I want to properly take care of my family.”
THIS. Preach it, brother!
The Question
The whole “you’re not listening” thing reminds me of this scene from “Office Space.”
Haha, classic movie. Likewise, this thread makes me think of Kramer:
@Trust — I know. I know you’re right. The hard(er) part is that the disagreement isn’t money — he actually likes more expensive houses than I do. It’s just that he doesn’t like the one house as much as I do and thinks we can do better if we wait! It just feels less clear altogether
@LeeLee
If he likes more expensive houses than you, why are you afraid of ending up in an unsuitable one?
“You’re not listening to me” is gauche nowadays.
In today’s social climate it’s, “We need to communicate more!”
That’s when you know you’re dealing with a pro.
@Trust – combination of low inventory and a lot of competition in the area we’re trying to buy… there isn’t actually another house. He’s thinks we should hold out for a better one if it should come on the market. It’s a gamble.
@LeeLee
Look, it’s just a house. It’s a roof over your head. Don’t count on a physical structure to determine your happiness. Respect and serve your husband (hopefully he loves you. I assume he does) and let your relationship between you two with Christ be your anchor. Don’t sweat the small stuff. Just be glad you’ll have a roof over your head. There are people in the world who still don’t have running water, electricity, air conditioning, and the million creature comforts us spoiled brat westerners have.
Hell, imagine having to live in 1000BC. The horrid conditions they had to endure would scare the hell out of you. You’d be kissing your husband’s feet no matter what house he bought today. lol.
You can’t have everything.
Dear Jim:
In January, 1916, such people would not have had phones or automobiles or grocery stores. There weren’t any washing machines or vacuum cleaners (for that matter, most people didn’t have electricity running into their walls).
I have to wonder if marital instability isn’t partly a function of lots of leisure time and idleness of mind and body. (i.e. it’s the scale problem, again) It’s a lot less easy to pick one’s spouse apart when every minute of the day needs to be spent working to survive.
Boxer
” Boxer says:
January 29, 2016 at 8:12 pm
In January, 1916, such people would not have had phones or automobiles or grocery stores. There weren’t any washing machines or vacuum cleaners (for that matter, most people didn’t have electricity running into their walls). ”
Yes…..I know.
rdchemist
In today’s social climate it’s, “We need to communicate more!”
Oh. There’s an older version of that.
“What we’ve got here, is failure to communicate…”
LeeLee
@Trust – combination of low inventory and a lot of competition in the area we’re trying to buy… there isn’t actually another house. He’s thinks we should hold out for a better one if it should come on the market. It’s a gamble.
That’s not a gamble. It’s not like you’d be out in the street if his plan doesn’t work, surely.
It is a risk. Either way, you will have a roof over your head, and that’s a good thing, right?
And a house is just a house. You and he are what make any given place “home”, not the sticks and bricks.
@ AR
This is a rational, logical argument and explanation. For a man it would work. But not for a woman. They simply aren’t wired in a way for it to work as desired.
Otherwise, excellent post Dalrock.
@LeeLee
When we were looking for a new house my husband preferred the bigger more expensive ones, too. I just wanted out of the suburbs and would have been happy with less. We did it his way and waited. Now we have a house that is nicer than I ever imagined I would live in. Trust your husband and don’t worry about it.
@LeeLee: Be thankful that you have a husband who is actually as interested in homeownership as you are. Lots of men prefer to spend the household income on other things. If the house that you like doesn’t suit your husband, then it cannot possibly be the right house for the two of you. Let it go. You wouldn’t want your husband trudging off to work every day to make the mortgage payment on a house he didn’t like. Try reading zerohedge.com for a week or two! If the economy completely flies apart, as zerohedge predicts, there will be an enormous inventory of houses from which to choose. Seriously, don’t think that you absolutely have to buy a house before the baby is born, or before Little Timmy starts kindergarten or whatever. Imposing an artificial deadline on yourselves induces panic shopping.
Boxer said, “I have to wonder if marital instability isn’t partly a function of lots of leisure time and idleness of mind and body. (i.e. it’s the scale problem, again) It’s a lot less easy to pick one’s spouse apart when every minute of the day needs to be spent working to survive. ”
You’re surely right about leisure time being less of a blessing than people think it is, and it is just in the past year or so that I have started to really understand this. But in terms of marital stability, a greater culprit IMO is the ability to end any marriage at any time and the absolute right to be married as many times as you desire. Under current conditions, many people never really settle into their marriage — either they keep thinking to themselves (or, worse, “thinking out loud”) about what might have been, etc., or they find themselves married to a person to who is doing this. The person who is perpetually undecided about whether the marriage is “worth it” will be chronically unhappy, and the spouse who has to deal with this kind of nonsense (the drip-drip-dripping threatpoint) ends up feeling that the marriage is doomed and will end at some point regardless of how much effort is expended. It’s a true recipe for despair.
LeeLee doesn’t sound to me like she is freaking out. She is just telling us what it feels like.
Women make wild claims of how they always get along and that if women ran the World we would have World Peace. Uh no.
One woman actually tried a man-free workplace, hiring an all-female workforce for her TV production company. Well, let’s just say it was not as peaceful as she expected. You can read all about her story here.
Pingback: Trust and Respect | chokingonredpills
Already made that post earlier. But yes, it’s a good one.
Dalrock, you are doing a great service here. I hope that you have backups of your site in case anything ever happens. I am a bit leery about having such a powerful site hosted on the wordpress domain.
Now that marriage has become a female led instrument of male disempowerment in the rule of Western law, Do these Christian organizations which profess family as their ministry believe they have no alternative apart from aligning with that rule of law if they hope to keep marriages together in the present legal and cultural environment?
Personally, I find the solution is to never have the problem MGTOW.
@LeeLee:
We appreciate the honesty. And it’s also a good reminder why the Apostle Paul ordered Women to win their Husbands without a word. Your mind seems more chaotic than the eyewall of a Hurricane. 🙂
The fascinating bit, when dealing with Women, is that if you can get them past their emotional responses to the topic, they can be quite valuable to discuss with. It, however, can be difficult to achieve that.
@Jim:
Already made that post earlier. But yes, it’s a good one.
Thanks, Jim; didn’t see that before.
Many Christians misinterpret the phrase “Trust in God.” They think it means that God will give them whatever they want on Earth. That God will provide them with the perfect house, the perfect spouse, perfect health, perfect job, wonderful trips, and that they favorite sports team will win. All they need do is “trust in God” and wait. It will come because God’s greatest desire is their personal happiness on Earth.
But as traditional Catholicism teaches, life is a vale of tears. Life is pain and struggle. Moments of joy are rare. Struggle and pain is the norm. There are no guarantees of eventual happiness in this life.
To “trust in God” means to follow his way on Earth despite all hardships, to endure, to persist in keeping his Commandments and Sacraments, knowing that in the end — after we die — we will attain life everlasting.
We can, however, attain joy on Earth, despite hardships, through the hope that comes by knowing this.
I don’t think God really cares whether any of us find a nice house or not. If a man lives in a nice house, does that mean that God loves him more than the man who lives in the ghetto? Does it mean that the poor person did not “trust in God” as much as the wealthy person?
The ancient Hebrews thought that health and material wealth were a sign of God’s favor. The Apostles asked Jesus what sin caused a certain man to be blind. Jesus corrected them on this (John 9:1-3)
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.”
Even if a person trusts in God, it’s no guarantee that he won’t be poor or sick throughout his entire life. God might have other plans for him on Earth. Yet too many churches teach that if you accept Christ, you are entitled to happiness on Earth. Hence tantrums become “Godly” because you’re only demanding your God-given rights.
Great post. The Bible addresses this quite well and early.
The original sin was man listening to his wife, obeying her rather than God.
Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. — Genesis 3:17 (NASB)
Even if a person trusts in God, it’s no guarantee that he won’t be poor or sick throughout his entire life. God might have other plans for him on Earth. Yet too many churches teach that if you accept Christ, you are entitled to happiness on Earth.
I will have to disagree with much of this. Health and provision are part of our salvation. Throughout Scripture there is no single example of a person who trusted in God and remained sick and/or poor, even if they were sick and/or poor for a certain period of time in their lives. Even in the example that you quoted above, Jesus did not leave the blind man in his blindness.
Poverty and sickness are a result of the curse and should not be a permanent experience for any Christian. There are far too many promises of God for healing and provision (note: not wealth, but provision), and to state the contrary is to go against the plain teachings of Scripture.
Even in the OT, God made it abundantly clear that sickness and poverty were a result of disobedience. I could quote probably hundreds of passages in support of that assertion.
Sometimes, sickness and poverty may be due to a form of “inheritance” for want of a better term. The parents, due to their actions or inactions, passed on those things to their offspring. E.g. a mother who contracted HIV/AIDS from drug use, passing the disease to her innocent offspring. Same with irresponsible parents who leave no good legacies for their kids in terms of good education, godly upbringing and good examples. Of course this does not explain all cases of illness and poverty.
A lot of what we call “trust in God” is little more than “hope in God”. Trust, or faith in God is a far more aggressive holding on to God for answers, and it does not let go until the answer comes.
Personally, even if my experience does not seem to validate God’s promises, I will still let God be true, and my personal experience be less reliable. God never promised sickness and poverty to any of His obedient children. There is also a world of difference between happiness in this life, and being so sick and poor we cannot do much for the Kingdom. God never promised us happiness here, just as He never promised us poverty and sickness.
@Dave
See a Christian man that is homeless in Sydney everyday. Don’t seem to be able to get out of his poverty anytime soon.
Thank you Dalrock. As always, very insightful.
I would just add “understand” alongside “listen.” Too often, “You don’t understand” doesn’t mean that you don’t comprehend, but rather that you don’t go along docilely. I see this often in my Japanese wife. Any Japanese dictionary will tell you that the verb “wakaru” means “understand.” But we often have conversations that go something like this: “Wakaru? [Do you understand?]” “Wakaru kedo, sansei shinai [I understand, but I don’t agree].” “Ja, wakaranai wa ne [Well, then you don’t understand.]”
Not listening:
– There is only one correct answer to this conversation, and I know that answer.
– If you haven’t got to that answer you are either very stupid (and can’t figure it out), or evil (you figured it out but don’t care) or you haven’t listened (so you could get it but not yet)
– I don’t want to believe the first 2 options, so I decided you just can’t be listening.
So you are not listening; the possibility that there is more than one legitimate answer has not occurred to me. That’s impossible. So you just cannot be listening.
@Boxer,
I think you hit on something that goes beyond marriage. People just have too much actual, physical neurological wiring that has to get out and stretch its legs somehow, in some way. But when almost every primal need is automated, our brains are left with all that excess energy to do itself in or to seek make-believe, meaning-making rage/pleasures like feminism, rape culture, black lives matter etc. Most white males are simply working so they are taken care of here but all other demographics have a lot of pent-up cerebral wiring that needs to get out and play.
And women…forget it. They have all those excess emotional wiring mechanics that should be wearing itself on their five kids, twenty hours a day. Take the five kids away and that wiring has to occupy itself doing something. Enter modern life with the almost hourly indignation lightning rods…SJW movements…internet clicktivism….general shittiness towards men. A typical female mind with no children, automated housework and no real work. That’s like a 6’5″ inch Jamaican 18 year old male never getting a chance to run. Those legs need to move. A female’s emotional mind needs to get out and run….and oh does it! Logic, rationality? Sorry, no time for those details. The important thing is to just run. The direction is irrelevant.
Dave
Id disagree with your rebuttal of red pill latecomer. You are laying framework by which women actually do exactly what RPL is suggesting, conflating trusting in God with assuming you will be happy and prosperous and feeling luuuuuuvd.
@Dave,
I think you may be confusing spiritual happiness with material happiness. To wit:
[We are] fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. (Rom 8:17-18)
Dalrock, you said “This is the very definition of complementarianism.”
I think maybe you meant this is the definition of today’s upside-down, backwards, unholy complementarianism currently touted.
Normal complementarianism is God’s actual order. Man is authoity, woman complements/helps
The Bridegroom *heard* the words, “This shall never happen” (Matthew 16:22), but for his Bride’s sake (e.g. Ephesians 5:25-30, John 3:14-16, Romans 5:6-11, Hebrews 9:11-28), he didn’t “listen” in the modern — which is to say, ancient (Genesis 3:17) — sense of the word.
@ Solomon
His wording is correct IMO.
“Complementarism” was only created (in the 1960s if I remember correctly…, surprise surprise) because of the negative social stigma of correct term “Patriarchy” — husband led families. In this respect, “complementarism” is already watered down language that caved to culture… and you know what happens when you give an inch a mile is taken.
It’s little wonder that the meaning of such a word that was already a concession has been twisted and warped.
Pingback: The Patriarchy | Christianity and the manosphere
“LeeLee doesn’t sound to me like she is freaking out. She is just telling us what it feels like.”
Don’t you mean telling us what it feeeeeeeels like? Woman’s feelings are fickle and can’t be trusted.
I thought her contribution was a candid look into her psyche. It was interesting and helpful, and it serves to explain a lot of the behavior men are often confused by.
You’ve made an astute observation about women not getting their way or agreement from their man. Using “He won’t listen” is a great way to undermine male authority. I appreciate your logical ways of addressing these issues. So many man blogs I read are full of whiny writers and commenters who don’t have the courage to stand up to women in a calm and loving manner. That’s what a real Christian mans does. He refuses to react like a small child having an emotional tirade and exerts his authority by refusing to fall into emotion or appeasement. A Christian mentor I had once told me you must act like you don’t care if you lose everything to your wife. If she sees that she can take the house and kids and you fear that- your finished.
Pingback: Do not wrong [Gal 5] | Dark Brightness
So what separates women who have feelings that are valid and listened to from women who have feeeeeeeelings that should be mocked and disregarded?
@Dave says:
“”Even if a person trusts in God, it’s no guarantee that he won’t be poor or sick throughout his entire life. God might have other plans for him on Earth. Yet too many churches teach that if you accept Christ, you are entitled to happiness on Earth.”
I will have to disagree with much of this. Health and provision are part of our salvation. Throughout Scripture there is no single example of a person who trusted in God and remained sick and/or poor, even if they were sick and/or poor for a certain period of time in their lives. Even in the example that you quoted above, Jesus did not leave the blind man in his blindness.
Poverty and sickness are a result of the curse and should not be a permanent experience for any Christian. There are far too many promises of God for healing and provision (note: not wealth, but provision), and to state the contrary is to go against the plain teachings of Scripture.
Even in the OT, God made it abundantly clear that sickness and poverty were a result of disobedience. I could quote probably hundreds of passages in support of that assertion.
Sometimes, sickness and poverty may be due to a form of “inheritance” for want of a better term. The parents, due to their actions or inactions, passed on those things to their offspring. E.g. a mother who contracted HIV/AIDS from drug use, passing the disease to her innocent offspring. Same with irresponsible parents who leave no good legacies for their kids in terms of good education, godly upbringing and good examples. Of course this does not explain all cases of illness and poverty.
A lot of what we call “trust in God” is little more than “hope in God”. Trust, or faith in God is a far more aggressive holding on to God for answers, and it does not let go until the answer comes.
Personally, even if my experience does not seem to validate God’s promises, I will still let God be true, and my personal experience be less reliable. God never promised sickness and poverty to any of His obedient children. There is also a world of difference between happiness in this life, and being so sick and poor we cannot do much for the Kingdom. God never promised us happiness here, just as He never promised us poverty and sickness.”
Are you nuts ? Have you read the NT ? Name any apostles who lived in mansions, had perfect health and lived naturally to a ripe old age ?
@Dave, you have swallowed the prosperity gospel whole.
Hey, thanks for the encouragement y’all. Dalrock is right, I’m not freaking out, at the end of the day I trust God and my husband but it’s good to get that perspective 🙂
The word of the day is: iintentionality
When women use their feelings to make horrible decisions in the real world, they should be mercilessly mocked (or at least realtalked into embarrassment.) When women acknowledge their feelings and try and explain them, they should be paid attention to and their experiences should be valuable, especially to those dudes who have spent years wondering why the heck women act the way they do.
Yes Dave has bought into whats being peddled in these new books.
New Max Lucado Book: Glory Days: Living Your promised land Life Now
New Joyce Meyer Book: Let God Fight Your Battles
What does it say about Christianity when a leading pastor and writer says the real promises are much better, we can collect early, withdraw from the heavenly account with no prepayment penalty
Somehow it reminds me of Sam Beam’s lyric about the pearly gates
Leelee I do the same thing! 3 years ago we made a bad decision to buy a minivan. It was a bad decision because we ate $4000 of bad debt on a trade in. My husband had set a monthly payment budget. I knew what that amount was and when they ran the numbers the amount was about $75 monthly over what he wanted to spend. I just sat there and didn’t say anything because I thought I was being submissive. He decided to buy it. Now he would like me to have a vehicle with awd. I’d love a new vehicle but I don’t want him to make a bad decision because he wants to make me happy. So I told him I didn’t want to go with. He could drive the car and pick it out and that way he wouldn’t feel pressure to make me happy while I’m sitting there. Well he didn’t like that because he wants me to like the car. Which I appreciate but I know that my impression will weigh on him. He knows me well enough to know when I really like something. So I’m struggling with what’s the submissive thing to do? We did go look at one and I drove it. They ran the numbers and it was $50 more monthly than he wanted to spend. So when it was clear they wouldn’t increase our trade in, I picked up my purse. I didn’t say a word but that gesture was enough that my husband was able to stick to what he had wanted and not buy something for me that was too expensive. Afterwards, he said he’s glad we didn’t do it, and I’m glad he’s not burdened by another payment
Marie:
When I was a kid I used to watch the old women in my extended family. Old school women, who would fuck their man good and be submissive in all things, still managed to always get their way regardless. They did it by doing what you do. In the end they were the true masters of their lives, and had huge families of men and women who respected and adored them. They never nagged or fought with their husbands, even one day in their lives.
If you have daughters, make sure you train them up in the craft of being a skillful wife and homemaker. Keep doing it right. You will “have it all” while the feminists are dying alone with their cats. Just as it should be.
Boxer
Marie, men always want to impress their women, even “john’s” will bring hookers gifts (along with the money) apparently to impress them.
Your slight act of “this wont impress me” is enough.
@Marie:
My first suggestion would be that you might want to apologize to your Husband about the minivan, but in the specific context of “I feel like I pushed you into a decision to buy the minivan previously, and I think I did wrong by you and the Lord for it.” The valuable bit about Confession, even if you only think you wronged someone, is that you can settle the emotions and move forward. He might have felt it was worth it, even given the cost differential, but it’s very hard to figure out what all goes into the decisions others make. If your feels about the previous time are effecting you this time, confess them to your Husband so he can give you the guidance for the possible car purchase. He loves you and doesn’t want you in a vehicle you hate. Seek guidance from him for the input he needs. You’ll be amazed how much he’ll appreciate the honesty and the kindness that goes with that.
My second suggestion would be to encourage you to look into Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University. It’s very, very good for getting your money mastered. (Cars on credit, even at the low interest rates? Oy.) From a proper understanding of Christianity, there isn’t too many problems with the way Dave approaches things. The only thing I would say is: yes, it *is* the Husband’s budget, as he’s the final authority. But you both have ownership & operation of it, and the bill writing should be delegated by the Husband to the one that’s better at it.
@Dave, RPL & Minesweeper:
Both the Prosperity Gospel and the “Woe is me, in my suffering” trap are both wrong. Suffering is for a time and a season. Though that “season” could be your death. I’m quite aware of suffering. We’re on intimate terms. But it’s very hard to understand that while you’re suffering.
The topic is a lot more detailed than I have time or energy to go into right now, as God doesn’t curse Christians with suffering, but he does allow them to be afflicted. Not be healed, however, isn’t a sign of a lack of Faith, but lacking Faith can definitely create situations where you will remain in your suffering far longer than needed. Like all things, humans can (and do) turn suffering into an idol itself, putting it before God. And there’s also the issue, from the Lord’s position, of saying to us, “you’re not listening”. Because Christians have a real problem with that, as well.
“This won’t impress me” was never my intention. I thought I was being submissive by not saying anything. In effect, it was completely my husband’s decision. Afterwards, when he expressed it was a bad decision I realized he only made it because I was sitting there. I prayed a lot about what submission is. I did apologize to my husband about it and he felt there was no apology needed. So this time I thought not going with at all would be submissive but my husband said no he wanted me with. So not going was obviously not submissive. I want to honor my husband’s wishes but I don’t want him to make a bad decision out of his affection for me.
We have read Dave Ramsey but we got kicked when we were down for about 3 years straight that lead to the necessity of debt. We are working our way out of it and we have eliminated extra things (no cable, we hear with wood, I babysit for extra income, etc).
Even though it wasnt your intention, that was what he read. You didnt want anything to do with it. And he as you have previously said, wants you to like the car(s). If he dosnt think you will like his car he will quickly go off the idea.
Men always want to impress women/wives. And the woman want that also. We need admiration, women need someone to admire.
@Marie
I don’t think you did anything wrong there. The only change I would suggest is to stop thinking of it as a bad decision, or at least not to have any concerns about it. Your husband made a decision, and it sounds like he may regret it some but it also sounds like it did provide for the family. There is nothing wrong with him wanting to take care of you. These kinds of decisions are things we learn to improve and fine tune over time. If he feels like he learned something that is good (as learning is good), but not something you should worry about either way.
This sounds like a good outcome. In this case you were anticipating his move based on what he had already communicated, yet you were not grabbing the reigns. As I read this, you were signaling that you were ready to follow him by unobtrusively gathering your things. The test here would have been your reaction if he had signaled back to you that he wasn’t ready to go.
> what separates women who have feelings that are valid and listened to from women who have feeeeeeeelings that should be mocked and disregarded?
Objective truth. Feelings come and go but those based on objective truth should be considered. Those not should be mocked and disregarded.
@ Marie, etc.
The problem, in my opinion, is that wives come on here and want to discuss things about their husbands with strangers. However, they should really be discussing these things with their husbands.
It would be much better for Marie NOT to talk about her husband here with us and instead say to her husband:
“Hey hubby, remember when we bought that car? I noticed that it was slightly over budget, but I didn’t mention anything because I was under the wrong impression that mentioning it would be submissive. Sorry about that. How do you want me to handle it next time?”
At the end of the day, wives are not supposed to get the approval or disapproval of strangers on the Internet. They are supposed to be helpmeets to their husbands. Find out how your husband wants to handle these things by asking him and talking with him!
Marie you are not the only one who has done this, and you will not be the last. Don’t think I’m singling you out. Talk to your husband about your concerns, successes, and failures. That will help you build trust with him.
Sigh. Typo.
“Hey hubby, remember when we bought that car? I noticed that it was slightly over budget, but I didn’t mention anything because I was under the wrong impression that mentioning it would be unsubmissive. Sorry about that. How do you want me to handle it next time?”
“Objective truth. Feelings come and go but those based on objective truth should be considered. Those not should be mocked and disregarded.”
How do you determine objective truth from strangers writing comments online?
DS, True. I’ve noticed women seem to come here for advice yet they seem to have capable husbands at home and why are they not asking them.
Deep strength
I’ve already done that. This topic is over, I was using it as a demonstration of how women think. Like leelee’s. I was trying to show that, at least for me, feelings and emotions influence My mindset when I’m actively trying to be submissive . I was not looking for anyone to give any advice about the car.
Dalrock
I was half expecting him to say yes. He does the budget and money. I don’t see it all.
Deep Strength:
Women come here for advice because the greatest sin a woman can possibly imagine is for her husband to be too cowardly to stand up to her. Consider: Adam’s original sin was cowardice – he did not follow what God demanded of him, an.d knowing that it was his and his alone’s responsibility to do what was right before the lord, he used his wife as a shield to hide behind – I did it cause she wanted me to.
Women need, more then anything else they can possibly comprehend, to be able to respect their husband. It is so must their primary concern, they cant even say this out loud to others, let alone themselves. A woman is ruled by thousands of constant fears and fantasies, and if her husband cannot hold his own against these phantom fears, how could she possibly respect him enough to submit to his leadership?
Twenty minutes of reading a few passages in the Bible, coupled with basic reading comprehension gives us the Bible’s entire directions on marriage and leadership. If you didn’t know the answer, and in this case, the answer is quite clear, consise, and direct, then you didn’t care to know and made no effort at all to determine the Truth of the matter. Yet dozens of blog posts, books, seminars, hundreds upon hundreds of comments, and still the mindless discussion goes on.
Men, you’re not listening to the Bible (see what I did there?). The problem is you, You are just as much a coward as Adam was. Forget marriage laws and all of those delusions that simply do not matter if you are an actual practicing Christian – to you, marriage is a SACRAMENT from God, and your role, your place, and your complete responsibility for that HAS NOT CHANGED.
Churchians exist because cowards can post on blogs, but not take hold of their families, their churchs, and their community and demand that, in God’s House, the way is narrow and the path is difficult.
The problem IS US. We have failed, collectively as Christian men. And until enough of us grow a set and use them, none of this matters. Ignorance can be forgiven when one doesnt know, but when one does know, yet refuses to act according to principle, this is unforgivable. This…is evil.
If it is commanded by God that the man must lead the marriage, and he does not, whatever the outcome, for whatever the reason, the results are still his responsibility alone.
Er…..nope…..whad’d you do there sensei?
All I see is the language of evangelical arrogance. Do you raise up on your toes and back down while jingling the coins in your pocket as you type this stuff?
You are the most dangerous type of wrong among honest to goodness Christian men. Buried in all that you have said, all that you likely feel very AMOGish about, all that allows you to mezmerize a group of men who would fall in line because soaking up the responsibility for the sins of women, even for the demise of civilization, defines you as a ReelMann.
“The problem IS US. We have failed, collectively as Christian men.”
Confession is good for the soul. Confession of your sins, not those of others. How have you failed, Wayne? Be specific.
Wayne AKA Oliver Queen collectivist version.
We have failed this city
But dang its hard to shoot yourself with a bow and arrow….lemme get back to you on that
“Twenty minutes of reading a few passages in the Bible, coupled with basic reading comprehension gives us the Bible’s entire directions on marriage and leadership. If you didn’t know the answer, and in this case, the answer is quite clear, consise, and direct, then you didn’t care to know and made no effort at all to determine the Truth of the matter. ”
Blimy – someone better tell Kathy and whats his name they are out of business of marriage retreats.
No Wayne, the problem is you. Men who think they know it all, and who tinkered with the laws thinking A) they know it all, B) this is the way forward.
I’m still not quite sure how Wayne turned my comment on telling wives to talk to their husbands if they have concerns… into a man up rant blaming everything on men.
Frankly, that’s quite impressive. Not in a good way, though.
@Deep Strength, now Deep, if only you had been more of a “man” we wouldnt all be in this mess !!
Pull yourself together…
Wayne, I don’t think you know the “Truth of the matter”. You are presuming that the wife must have reason to respect her husband, even though you say that a woman is “ruled by thousands of constant fears and fantasies”. Here is a Bible passage relevant to wives respecting their husbands:
There is the reason that women should respect their husbands — because the Bible commands it. That is the Truth of the matter, clearly, concisely, and directly.
Marriages fail because we humans have free will. No matter how well the husband leads, the wife may choose to sin. If she does, her sin is her responsibility, not his.
If a Christian turns away from God, is that God’s responsibility? No, of course not! It is the responsibility of the Christian.
If God’s perfect love is unable to keep a Christian from turning away, there is no way that a husband can keep his wife from turning away.
Thank you.
There is no where else that I can go to have a mirror held up to my face. No where else to call us on our flaws with the authority of Scripture and without the vitriol of TRP/MRP.
I’ve left them, but the JWs emphasized working on ourselves, putting on the new personality. They surely had that right.
Pingback: How to tell if you are a godly man. | Dalrock
What do people mean they say “you don’t listen to me?”
Layers of “listening” in order of increasing strength:
– being unable to physically hear
– not giving attention to someone when they talk
– regarding their opinion enough to consider it fairly
– considering, then obeying (every time?) -> feminist ideal. When feminists say “I just wish my husband would listen to me,” this is what they mean.
– automatic obedience, consideration optional -> logical consequence of feminist ideal, because it’s behaviorally indistinguishable from the above.
Pingback: Something in common. | Dalrock