(I'm sort of forcing myself to post this because apparently I'm existing in a brain fog. Doctor said it should clear up in another month though. In the mean time I do sort of really hate that this fatigue set in right after I decided to make a public commitment to blogging more. Way to save face there, Natalie.)
Ok, so why are marriage blogger and food bloggers alike? Because a lot of them post based not on what is normal but on what is abnormal. And even if they're supposedly writing about what is "normal" (marriage bloggers) they often come out of abnormal contexts. Let me give you an analogy. What does a healthy person eat? A healthy person eats ice cream and carrot sticks and pizza and salad and bagels with jam and grilled salmon and occasionally washes everything down with an ice cold root beer. If you're absolutely aghast at what I'm writing then I invite you think hard about your own life. Why do you eat healthy? Because at some point you felt really lousy and decided to change your diet. You were unhealthy. If you're still not getting it, let me further point out that, based on what I see around the internet, most people who are switching over to a "healthy" diet aren't doing it because they were eating a steady diet of cheetos and twinkies. They ate a perfectly normal diet that sustains hundreds and thousands of perfectly normal people. Who is the healthier person? A person who can eat a hamburger and fries without feeling like they're about to die or the person who ends up curled up in a bed a week later?
Now, because this is the internet and people assume things, let me hasten to add that not all hamburgers are made alike and not all diets are made alike. On the other hand, a Five Guys burger shouldn't actually make you wish you were dead. Go ahead make your own burgers from grass fed beef and freshly milled flour - sure it's going to be healthier and quite possibly tastier. Go ahead and eat plenty of veggies because they're so good for you. I'm totally in favor of that. Just understand that when your body really is strong and healthy and whole it doesn't require a whole lot of catering to in terms of allergies and sensitives and things like that. It can handle it.
So on to marriage bloggers. I'm thinking about a few blogs I know of either through reading them regularly or the contributions of their authors in other contexts. Most of them are written by people from rather dysfunctional backgrounds. These are people who experienced, either first or second hand, (ie through their spouses) promiscuity, infidelity, addiction, etc. The Driscolls would be another fairly high profile case (of Mars Hill Seattle fame). I don't have any particular insight here, but it does make me curious about the prevalence of dysfunctional people turning around and teaching others about marriage. Perhaps since so much marriage is dysfunctional now that's exactly what we need? Perhaps people who have seen abnormal can teach us more about normal? Is it possible that a couple who married young and made it work with minimal fuss for fifty years really can't articulate what made their marriage so strong?
Ok, that last thing sounds suspect to me. Like I said, I don't really have anything insightful to say here. It just struck me as odd that we take health advice from a blogger with a list of allergies longer than my grocery list for the week and we take marriage advice from men/women who were promiscuous growing up or who slept around for the first ten years of their marriage and yet now consider themselves very, very capable of pointing out just how wrong other people are. And sometimes they really do have valuable insights. I get this. On the other hand, there are some wounds you really only grow around and not over. Like a tree shaped by a boulder or the wind, the impress is still there, and I occasionally wonder if a person from a normal background and a normal marriage would see the same issues and if not does that tell us more about marriage in general or about the people critiquing it?
If I can try to bring this home - God uses wounded people. This is one of my chief comforts in life. Sometimes though, I wonder if maybe we're ignoring the ordinary stories. Why aren't we learning more from the altogether functional family of six that honestly does get along pretty well? Why not take a little health advice from the 75 year old cake lady at church?
I don't know. You tell me.
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Monday, January 7, 2013
Dalrock, Sheila Gregoire, and internet debates
I'd like to start the discussion by posting the video below. In all future internet debate type posts please mentally refer back to the video. It's not so much that I think I'll change someone's mind as that I like poking ideas with a stick and then reflecting on how clever I am. In short, I have dude brain :)
Ok, now that's out of the way I'd like to point y'all in a couple different directions. First, go visit Dalrock to see what the trouble is all about. Then I suggest you go poke around Sheila Gregoire's blog.
So as you can see the main trouble is that Dalrock and Sheila have two very different ways of writing about marriage, and according to Dalrock Sheila's way is wrong and detrimental to the state of marriage as a whole. Many of the commenters vehemently agree. I did comment with my two cents, but in an effort to stay on topic I thought I'd toss this little post up here.
To open with an academic cliche, I think that Dalrock and Sheila both have their points. On one hand, I love how Sheila has encouraged me to love my husband and put thought into our marriage. On the other hand, people like Dalrock are like a deluge of cold water in the barren wastelands of today's modern marriage - rather shocking but extremely necessary if we're to restore beauty and fertility to today's marriage culture. To that end I would love to see more collaboration from men like Dalrock when they encounter other public figures like Sheila (to anyone from the manosphere who may read this - collaboration doesn't necessarily mean whatever dreadful hell corporate America has turned it into as I'll explain shortly) instead of the wholesale denouncement of her person, marriage, and ministry that is so common. When I say collaboration I mean that men/marriage bloggers should indeed challenge her when they believe it's necessary, but they should do so in a manner that acknowledges they're challenging a woman writing in a different context from theirs to what is possibly is a different audience and with the expressed goals of helping Christians have more fulfilling sex lives. On other words, Sheila and Dalrock might be fighting on different fronts, but they're still on the same side.
So how do I think that would look? First let's consider what they are saying. Take Sheila's post on what it means to deprive a spouse of sex. Part of her context is that there are men who think they hold all the cards and can dictate universally the quantity and kind of sex they have, and there are women who go along with this and build up a reservoir of hurt and frustration. So she gave men and women what I felt like was a pretty decent take on what it means to sexually deprive someone and how women can take a little ownership of the sexual relationship. Naturally, this is problematic for manosphere bloggers because their context is almost universally inverted. In their experience women are the ones taking all the sexual prerogative and who assume the right to dictate the frequency and nature of all sexual contact, and these men's approach is largely aimed at helping men regain sexual initiative and fulfillment. So we have men talking about getting more sex and women talking about having less sex, and everyone gets highly freaked out and points fingers saying "There - that's the problem. See! S/he said that men/women need to start pushing for more/less sex!"
I think the most helpful approach someone like Dalrock could take in writing about someone like Sheila would be to re-contextualize her position in light of what most modern marriages face and point out where she could strengthen and/or further her argument. Here's a quick example of how that might go:
This could be followed with an outline of the specific circumstances which might merit a wife pushing back sexually (illness, particular practices, etc) and continue into a discussion of responsive desire and describe how women who aren't "in the mood" can change their minds when they experience a display of desire from their husbands. I think this is important because what did bug me most about that article was the man who commented saying that he had essentially trained or convinced himself to wait for his wife to initiate. I really just wanted to shake him by the shirt collar because I know his wife, however unfair this may be, is probably insanely frustrated that "he never wants her." This is why being high drive can be hard on a woman. We were, by and large, made to respect and respond to a man's leadership. This mean that "leading" in the bedroom can be as frustrating as leading in other areas of marriage. This is also where blogs like MMSL (explicit warning) and Dalrock can be so crucial because, whereas your average Christian marriage blog emphasizes "service" (ie flowers and chores and the like), MMSL and Dalrock emphasize building leadership/husband skills that result in things like men having more sexually responsive wives. While I don't buy everything I read other there (hence in large part my desire to write more about marriage) I do believe they are a invaluable resource for understanding and dismantling the reigning gynocentric culture. Part of my work here is looking towards what will replace it.
Back to the main point however. Naturally much of this particular discussion is frivolous if you believe that "do not deprive" means "never say no." Short answer, Allen and I don't. It's just too tricky in practice. For instance, how sick is too sick? As a woman I could technically be nearly comatose and still "participate." This is where people would likely say to "use some common sense." My response would be that, in which case, I'll use my common sense to say that either party can, in the context of a generous and healthy marriage, small "r" refuse the other person with the understanding that the other person's tacit consent is solicited and that feeling the need for a hard, capital "R" refusal signals a deep rift in the marriage. Either way, I feel the discussion could be carried out in a more constructive manner than it currently is.
Ok, now that's out of the way I'd like to point y'all in a couple different directions. First, go visit Dalrock to see what the trouble is all about. Then I suggest you go poke around Sheila Gregoire's blog.
So as you can see the main trouble is that Dalrock and Sheila have two very different ways of writing about marriage, and according to Dalrock Sheila's way is wrong and detrimental to the state of marriage as a whole. Many of the commenters vehemently agree. I did comment with my two cents, but in an effort to stay on topic I thought I'd toss this little post up here.
To open with an academic cliche, I think that Dalrock and Sheila both have their points. On one hand, I love how Sheila has encouraged me to love my husband and put thought into our marriage. On the other hand, people like Dalrock are like a deluge of cold water in the barren wastelands of today's modern marriage - rather shocking but extremely necessary if we're to restore beauty and fertility to today's marriage culture. To that end I would love to see more collaboration from men like Dalrock when they encounter other public figures like Sheila (to anyone from the manosphere who may read this - collaboration doesn't necessarily mean whatever dreadful hell corporate America has turned it into as I'll explain shortly) instead of the wholesale denouncement of her person, marriage, and ministry that is so common. When I say collaboration I mean that men/marriage bloggers should indeed challenge her when they believe it's necessary, but they should do so in a manner that acknowledges they're challenging a woman writing in a different context from theirs to what is possibly is a different audience and with the expressed goals of helping Christians have more fulfilling sex lives. On other words, Sheila and Dalrock might be fighting on different fronts, but they're still on the same side.
So how do I think that would look? First let's consider what they are saying. Take Sheila's post on what it means to deprive a spouse of sex. Part of her context is that there are men who think they hold all the cards and can dictate universally the quantity and kind of sex they have, and there are women who go along with this and build up a reservoir of hurt and frustration. So she gave men and women what I felt like was a pretty decent take on what it means to sexually deprive someone and how women can take a little ownership of the sexual relationship. Naturally, this is problematic for manosphere bloggers because their context is almost universally inverted. In their experience women are the ones taking all the sexual prerogative and who assume the right to dictate the frequency and nature of all sexual contact, and these men's approach is largely aimed at helping men regain sexual initiative and fulfillment. So we have men talking about getting more sex and women talking about having less sex, and everyone gets highly freaked out and points fingers saying "There - that's the problem. See! S/he said that men/women need to start pushing for more/less sex!"
I think the most helpful approach someone like Dalrock could take in writing about someone like Sheila would be to re-contextualize her position in light of what most modern marriages face and point out where she could strengthen and/or further her argument. Here's a quick example of how that might go:
Sheila's argument about "do not deprive" can be valuable under certain circumstances. My concern is that those circumstances aren't widely reflected in the circumstances facing many married men. In fact, for these men the opposite is frequently and sometimes aggressively true, and the advice given here will likely only add more fuel to the fire of selfish entitlement that threatens to sweep away society's most basic foundations. That given, there are instances where this advice applies. However, I would frame the argument with the clear understanding that sex is a fundamental tenet of marriage and that no woman worth the title "wife" would ever consider her sexual preferences as more worth meeting than those of her husband.
This could be followed with an outline of the specific circumstances which might merit a wife pushing back sexually (illness, particular practices, etc) and continue into a discussion of responsive desire and describe how women who aren't "in the mood" can change their minds when they experience a display of desire from their husbands. I think this is important because what did bug me most about that article was the man who commented saying that he had essentially trained or convinced himself to wait for his wife to initiate. I really just wanted to shake him by the shirt collar because I know his wife, however unfair this may be, is probably insanely frustrated that "he never wants her." This is why being high drive can be hard on a woman. We were, by and large, made to respect and respond to a man's leadership. This mean that "leading" in the bedroom can be as frustrating as leading in other areas of marriage. This is also where blogs like MMSL (explicit warning) and Dalrock can be so crucial because, whereas your average Christian marriage blog emphasizes "service" (ie flowers and chores and the like), MMSL and Dalrock emphasize building leadership/husband skills that result in things like men having more sexually responsive wives. While I don't buy everything I read other there (hence in large part my desire to write more about marriage) I do believe they are a invaluable resource for understanding and dismantling the reigning gynocentric culture. Part of my work here is looking towards what will replace it.
Back to the main point however. Naturally much of this particular discussion is frivolous if you believe that "do not deprive" means "never say no." Short answer, Allen and I don't. It's just too tricky in practice. For instance, how sick is too sick? As a woman I could technically be nearly comatose and still "participate." This is where people would likely say to "use some common sense." My response would be that, in which case, I'll use my common sense to say that either party can, in the context of a generous and healthy marriage, small "r" refuse the other person with the understanding that the other person's tacit consent is solicited and that feeling the need for a hard, capital "R" refusal signals a deep rift in the marriage. Either way, I feel the discussion could be carried out in a more constructive manner than it currently is.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Happy Epiphany - let's get down to work :)
Firstly, I woke up New Year's Day with feeling sickish and have been rather down and out ever since. I guess this is what happens when you finally get a break from hosting/remodeling/traveling/decorating. Body says "Woohoo -germ fighty time!" And there I was thinking I could relax with hot cocoa, some old movies, and a few rounds of cards with Allen. But now that I'm feeling better I've started thinking more about how I want the next few months to go. A couple of those goals will affect my blog presence. Since blogger has give us some new tools I'm going to start experimenting with separating out some of my content so that it's easier to pick what sort of thing you want to read. To go with that I plan on putting out some new content - specifically more book reviews, marriage talk, and photography. Yep, I'm one of your three thousand friends who likes taking pictures and has a pretty non-shoddy camera :) Seriously though, my goal was to start taking, editing, and (hopefully) posting at least one photo a day, but I figured that since nobody wants to see artistic renderings of kleenex I could put it off until Monday.
So blog goals for the next 12 months:
Finish Created to Be His Helpmeet (seriously - I should probably get an award for most drug out book review) and move on to a few other books. I have ideas but feel free to make suggestions.
Post more pictures. Take a picture everyday. Post at least biweekly. Allen bought me a new photo editing software for Christmas so I really have no excuses.
Write more about marriage. There are some interesting ideas wandering around loose that I'd love to consider, and writing is a great way for me to do that.
The unwritten, implied goal, is to take this blog and my writing a bit more seriously over the next 12 months. This past year my brain has been stuck on "house, House, house, house, HOUSE, house" and I'm really thinking it's time to take a sanity break and focus on getting some more personal goals in order. After all, traveling and dreaming and writing are what gave me the inspiration to put this house together in the first place.
So blog goals for the next 12 months:
Finish Created to Be His Helpmeet (seriously - I should probably get an award for most drug out book review) and move on to a few other books. I have ideas but feel free to make suggestions.
Post more pictures. Take a picture everyday. Post at least biweekly. Allen bought me a new photo editing software for Christmas so I really have no excuses.
Write more about marriage. There are some interesting ideas wandering around loose that I'd love to consider, and writing is a great way for me to do that.
The unwritten, implied goal, is to take this blog and my writing a bit more seriously over the next 12 months. This past year my brain has been stuck on "house, House, house, house, HOUSE, house" and I'm really thinking it's time to take a sanity break and focus on getting some more personal goals in order. After all, traveling and dreaming and writing are what gave me the inspiration to put this house together in the first place.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Created to be His Help Meet: Part 2 (Home minded, good women)
Once again I'm putting two chapters together because honestly this far into the book many of the pages start running together. Mrs. Pearl receives a letter from someone. She tends to react somewhat harshly or histrionically to something she can't possibly know based on the letter as given. Somewhere amid the wild over-generalizations and bad exegesis she throws in some rather good pragmatic advice for dealing with recalcitrant husbands. Rinse and repeat. It's tempting to throw in the towel since I really do feel that I've amply shown why any sane woman should avoid this book like she'd avoid a blind taxi driver. But, I still keep finding bits I think are worth refuting. Also, every once in a while it just feels good to finish what you start.
In "Keepers at Home" Mrs. Pearl goes over why she feels its so important for women (especially mothers) to be physically and mentally present in the home. It's a laudable goal so far as it goes. I think in our modern, slap dash, scattered to the four winds kind of culture a woman who clearly makes her home a priority can be a lovely, unshakeable beacon for the weary and restless. I see the modern design trend for reclaimed wood and distressed furniture as a nostalgia for some mythical age where life was more solid and grounded. Our own histories are so often broken and jumbled, but we can rave over the patina on an old sideboard and reminisce about the past we wish we had - strong grandfathers and merry grandmothers and rows of pies set out for Thanksgiving and platters of fried chicken in the summers when our parents were young and our whole world was limitless as a fairy tale and we reveled in the innocent immortality of children. At our dream's heart are women with twinkling eyes, strong hands, and tender hearts whose home overflowed with the burgeoning joy of giving, creating, and loving. These are the story book mothers, and insofar as Debi Pearl teaches that sort of womanhood I'll stand aside and cheer. Instead, women get a load of fear and guilt that must surely cripple any heart felt joy in homemaking.
Opening this chapter, Mrs. Pearl relates the story of a missionary wife whose child was molested while the mother was briefly assisting in some ministering capacity. She strongly implies that the mother committed blasphemy by leaving her child those few moments and that this was the natural consequence. Let that sink in for a moment. A missionary couple, particularly the mom, left their child (unattended or not it doesn't say) for a few minutes and came back to discover their child was being/had been molested. And it's the mother's fault. There really are no words for such hateful lunacy. Unless Mrs. Pearl is holding back that these parents left their child with strangers whom they barely knew and had no reason to trust there really is no reason to blame this mom for recklessly abandoning her post. But in Mrs. Pearl's world there is no room for grace. You get what you sow, and if you don't like what you've got then you must have done some bad sowing in there somewhere. To continue the guilt she furthermore states that God will never make you choose between obeying Him and obeying your husband. If you have the right attitude towards God and your husband then everything will work out. How do you know if you've got the right attitude? Because things worked out. You see where this is going. Good things happen to good people. Tell that one to Job.
The rest of the chapter is basically a footnote on how using the phone and social media can be modern ways of "wandering about from house to house" and that keeping your home involves more than being physically present in it. She also contains a brief note on hospitality. Considering that I believe this one way women can really shine (see above) I wish she'd spent more time here.
The next chapter focuses on what it means to be "good." On a very practical level there's a lot to like here. Good women are indeed thrifty, industrious, compassionate, intelligent, wise, and respectful of their fathers/husbands/appropriate male authority. A good woman married to an ornery man will be wise to make the most of it and not expose their family to ridicule insofar as she is able. As I write this I recall that Jane Austen wrote an almost perfect description of what I mean:
According the Mrs. Pearl the opposite of a good woman is a "Dumb Cluck" (218). How do you know if you're a dumb cluck? It just means you aren't an herb administering, do it yourself, improving book reading kind of woman. Honestly. The top three questions are about alternative vs conventional medicine. I land somewhere on the alternative medicine spectrum myself, but I also go see an endocrinologist and an ob/gyn and avoid judging people who pursue conventional medicine in good faith. The context of this "Dumb-Cluck Test" being a woman who is frustrated that her husband doesn't ever fix up or care for his own home and family but always has time for some poor widow lady. As Allen said, the issue isn't the issue. The question the woman was really asking is "Why doesn't my husband invest in our lives more," but in her answer Mrs. Pearl treats this woman as though she was spending her afternoons with her feet up reading a book instead of getting in there and helping out. That might be the case. The important fact is that we don't know this. Her husband might have already tried to fix the sink and failed. He might have told her to call a plumber, but she refuses because she's decided not to spend the money and is taking her decision out on him. He might actually be a deadbeat who enjoys the thrill of being a hero to some poor widow but can't be bothered to serve people who've heard him belch at the dinner table. We don't know. Practically speaking, if her husband really refuses to help her then she really does need to figure out a way to fix things either herself or perhaps with her father or brother's help, but to say a woman is stupid and lazy because she has a messy yard, a leaky sink, and busted screen door is harsh and judgmental. Again, there is no grace for you.
I'll close with a few words about this quote from chapter twenty-two: "Although a good woman can lift up a poor husband, a good man cannot make up for the deficits of a poor wife and create a family with a good reputation. A man married to such a wife usually becomes a hopeless loser, no matter how hard he tries to win" (216). In general terms there's some truth to this. A good woman can help promote her husband's "real respectability," whereas a bad woman will bring shame on her husband. Is this because the wife saves the husband and not visa versa? It almost looks that way, but I think it's something even more fundamental. Even today, if only in a nominal capacity, a husband is presumed to have some real authority over his wife's behavior (ie "Why can't he keep her in line?"), but a wife has no such presumption of authority (ie "Poor woman, it's a hard life with his kind."). However, when Mrs. Pearl says that a man "cannot" make up for his folly of a wife she expressly denies his ability to guide, instruct, and exert an appropriate measure of authority over his wife's actions. True, people will judge him differently than were the situation reversed, but that's merely an affirmation of his leadership and not an abrogation of it.
The next chapter is on obeying one's husband. Oh boy.
In "Keepers at Home" Mrs. Pearl goes over why she feels its so important for women (especially mothers) to be physically and mentally present in the home. It's a laudable goal so far as it goes. I think in our modern, slap dash, scattered to the four winds kind of culture a woman who clearly makes her home a priority can be a lovely, unshakeable beacon for the weary and restless. I see the modern design trend for reclaimed wood and distressed furniture as a nostalgia for some mythical age where life was more solid and grounded. Our own histories are so often broken and jumbled, but we can rave over the patina on an old sideboard and reminisce about the past we wish we had - strong grandfathers and merry grandmothers and rows of pies set out for Thanksgiving and platters of fried chicken in the summers when our parents were young and our whole world was limitless as a fairy tale and we reveled in the innocent immortality of children. At our dream's heart are women with twinkling eyes, strong hands, and tender hearts whose home overflowed with the burgeoning joy of giving, creating, and loving. These are the story book mothers, and insofar as Debi Pearl teaches that sort of womanhood I'll stand aside and cheer. Instead, women get a load of fear and guilt that must surely cripple any heart felt joy in homemaking.
Opening this chapter, Mrs. Pearl relates the story of a missionary wife whose child was molested while the mother was briefly assisting in some ministering capacity. She strongly implies that the mother committed blasphemy by leaving her child those few moments and that this was the natural consequence. Let that sink in for a moment. A missionary couple, particularly the mom, left their child (unattended or not it doesn't say) for a few minutes and came back to discover their child was being/had been molested. And it's the mother's fault. There really are no words for such hateful lunacy. Unless Mrs. Pearl is holding back that these parents left their child with strangers whom they barely knew and had no reason to trust there really is no reason to blame this mom for recklessly abandoning her post. But in Mrs. Pearl's world there is no room for grace. You get what you sow, and if you don't like what you've got then you must have done some bad sowing in there somewhere. To continue the guilt she furthermore states that God will never make you choose between obeying Him and obeying your husband. If you have the right attitude towards God and your husband then everything will work out. How do you know if you've got the right attitude? Because things worked out. You see where this is going. Good things happen to good people. Tell that one to Job.
The rest of the chapter is basically a footnote on how using the phone and social media can be modern ways of "wandering about from house to house" and that keeping your home involves more than being physically present in it. She also contains a brief note on hospitality. Considering that I believe this one way women can really shine (see above) I wish she'd spent more time here.
The next chapter focuses on what it means to be "good." On a very practical level there's a lot to like here. Good women are indeed thrifty, industrious, compassionate, intelligent, wise, and respectful of their fathers/husbands/appropriate male authority. A good woman married to an ornery man will be wise to make the most of it and not expose their family to ridicule insofar as she is able. As I write this I recall that Jane Austen wrote an almost perfect description of what I mean:
His good looks and his rank had one fair claim on his attachment; since to them he must have owed a wife of very superior character to any thing deserved by his own. Lady Elliot had been an excellent woman, sensible and amiable; whose judgement and conduct, if they might be pardoned the youthful infatuation which made her Lady Elliot, had never required indulgence afterwards.--She had humoured, or softened, or concealed his failings, and promoted his real respectability for seventeen years; and though not the very happiest being in the world herself, had found enough in her duties, her friends, and her children, to attach her to life, and make it no matter of indifference to her when she was called on to quit them. (Persuasion)A sensible woman in a difficult situation, who wants to live in relative peace, should deal wisely and discreetly with her husband's faults. I don't necessarily believe that it will make her husband act more kindly towards her, and I don't believe that she should conceal what others really do have a right to know. It's one thing to gloss over your husband's boorish behavior or obnoxious arrogance and another thing to see him take the office of elder when you know for a fact that he visits strip clubs while on business trips. A smart wife picks her battles and realizes there are probably fewer of them than her emotions think. It's not an assessment the Pearl's would like, but that's ok with me.
According the Mrs. Pearl the opposite of a good woman is a "Dumb Cluck" (218). How do you know if you're a dumb cluck? It just means you aren't an herb administering, do it yourself, improving book reading kind of woman. Honestly. The top three questions are about alternative vs conventional medicine. I land somewhere on the alternative medicine spectrum myself, but I also go see an endocrinologist and an ob/gyn and avoid judging people who pursue conventional medicine in good faith. The context of this "Dumb-Cluck Test" being a woman who is frustrated that her husband doesn't ever fix up or care for his own home and family but always has time for some poor widow lady. As Allen said, the issue isn't the issue. The question the woman was really asking is "Why doesn't my husband invest in our lives more," but in her answer Mrs. Pearl treats this woman as though she was spending her afternoons with her feet up reading a book instead of getting in there and helping out. That might be the case. The important fact is that we don't know this. Her husband might have already tried to fix the sink and failed. He might have told her to call a plumber, but she refuses because she's decided not to spend the money and is taking her decision out on him. He might actually be a deadbeat who enjoys the thrill of being a hero to some poor widow but can't be bothered to serve people who've heard him belch at the dinner table. We don't know. Practically speaking, if her husband really refuses to help her then she really does need to figure out a way to fix things either herself or perhaps with her father or brother's help, but to say a woman is stupid and lazy because she has a messy yard, a leaky sink, and busted screen door is harsh and judgmental. Again, there is no grace for you.
I'll close with a few words about this quote from chapter twenty-two: "Although a good woman can lift up a poor husband, a good man cannot make up for the deficits of a poor wife and create a family with a good reputation. A man married to such a wife usually becomes a hopeless loser, no matter how hard he tries to win" (216). In general terms there's some truth to this. A good woman can help promote her husband's "real respectability," whereas a bad woman will bring shame on her husband. Is this because the wife saves the husband and not visa versa? It almost looks that way, but I think it's something even more fundamental. Even today, if only in a nominal capacity, a husband is presumed to have some real authority over his wife's behavior (ie "Why can't he keep her in line?"), but a wife has no such presumption of authority (ie "Poor woman, it's a hard life with his kind."). However, when Mrs. Pearl says that a man "cannot" make up for his folly of a wife she expressly denies his ability to guide, instruct, and exert an appropriate measure of authority over his wife's actions. True, people will judge him differently than were the situation reversed, but that's merely an affirmation of his leadership and not an abrogation of it.
The next chapter is on obeying one's husband. Oh boy.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
You can be too humble
In my rambling across the blogsphere I came across Haley's Halo. She falls in line with a lot of generally conservative blogs except that she blogs more about things from a "Game" perspective. (Short, possibly inaccurate version - Game is a theory/practice whereby men are able to project/accrue status in a way that attracts and retains a higher class of mate(s) and avoids "nice guy syndrome.") Anyway, it's not something I see a whole lot of women writing about, so I was curious. Well, she's come across some real gems - one of which being this post on the trend of men (particularly Christian men) acting absolutely amazing that their wives manage to put up with their sorry backsides. It's rather silly how much they go on about how they don't deserve these women and how they'd be a complete mess without them ad infinitum. It sounds all humble and servant-y and sacrificial when in reality it's just a bunch of guys running themselves down in front of the women are supposed to be respecting, following, and looking up to them. To which the guys might respond "Well, she knows all the bad stuff anyway." Sure she does, and the expectation is that she'll continue to deal with the junk and find a way to respect and love you through that just as you're expected to deal with her junk while still loving and honoring her. If you're running yourself down all the time it sets up two scenarios. First, you're just looking for her to come right back and tell you how wonderful and caring and inspiring you are and how actually she's the one who doesn't deserve just a crazy awesome spouse. Secondly, you really do think she's displaying extraordinary perseverance in the face of your glaring faults. If the first is true you're resorting to jr high levels of interpersonal manipulation and neediness, and if the second is true you're giving her the idea that your bad stuff is special and she does deserve special credit for putting up with you and that if she was with another man she wouldn't have to put up with all this junk because, as you've said all along, she really deserves a man who will treat her better and not put her through the rigors of his imperfectly sanctified humor. The first thing is annoying, but the second thing is toxic because there's a good chance that if you tell a woman this long enough she'll come to believe you. Oops! Now instead of being ingratiatingly humble you're being berated or sighed at for stuff that just happens in marriage - like not being able to read her mind and spontaneously bringing home pizza for dinner one night when she spent all day making lasagna. I know what I'm talking about guys - if you tell your wife often enough how bad you are at something she'll start to believe you. Instead, give her reasons to respect you. Talk about something you accomplished at work. Explain why some politician/theologian/mechanic is completely up a tree on some issue and what they should be doing differently. Look for chances to flex your integrity muscles and help your wife grow in character and righteousness. Fill up her respect tank so that when you do come home feeling utterly defeated and disparaged your wife can dish it right back out to you. (And by which I don't mean that wifely respect should be conditional - it's just that it's easier to respect a man when has respect for himself.)
Along those lines I'd like to share one of the most honest love songs on the air today.
Along those lines I'd like to share one of the most honest love songs on the air today.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
How a word healed my wedding day
There's one word I wish I'd heard at least once during my wedding preparations - "elope." I don't mean that I wish Allen and I had run away and gotten married at sunset in a tiny ceremony at Vogelsang High Sierra Camp in Yosemite because I wouldn't have missed sharing that day with his family for worlds. But his family. I think I saw my granny and aunt for about five or ten minutes before they went into the sanctuary. No pictures of my mother tenderly adjusting my veil. No sisters cracking jokes with me while we put on our make-up and jittered through the long wait between photo taking and entrance. No father to squeeze my hand and grin in pride as we walked up the aisle together. Instead of pages in a photo book I have empty spaces in my mind where these memories ought to be. I know roughly what shape and size they should be; I can see the picture frames I should have filled, but not a single memory or photo exists to fill those blanks. My family barely came to the wedding. I didn't know until a week before the wedding whether they were coming at all, and they certainly didn't sit the front row to cheer me on (or even passively approve). They sat together in a pew on the left somewhere around the middle. I saw them when I entered on the arm of an elder who generously offered, based on his spiritual authority, to give me away in place of the father who refused that honor. He wasn't a man I knew very well, but he represented both the groundswell of love and support that flowed from my church and my poverty that required such aid. He is in my photo book.
People told me to smile at my mother when I saw her and have hope that my bridal array and token of fidelity would melt her heart, and when I saw her I smiled. Allen and I dashed out the door after the recessional to greet them and thank them for coming when they tried to slip away without one word. Now I almost wish we hadn't. But you see I didn't realize that, whereas Allen was getting married, I was eloping. I fought so hard for a normal Christian wedding. At a normal Christian wedding the bride and groom speak with the bride's parents and so Allen and I rushed out to grab that little bit of normal, to reassure my parents and ourselves that we weren't rejecting them. It didn't work. It wasn't normal, and it didn't reassure them. Every minute I fought for normal meant one less minute dealing with the abnormal.
I remember vividly driving to the church after meeting Allen for breakfast and being absolutely scared spitless. I think the main reason I didn't run is that when you run from your own wedding you have to leave your best friend behind, and that scared me even more. I was scared of marriage and its newness, scared of sex, scared of how we might change, and only God knows what else. I wanted and needed a sympathetic mother to grab my shoulders and tell me to breathe and remind me, perhaps not that marriage is glorious, but that it's worth it. All I got was my own head chatter. Coming as it did from the brain of a girl who'd been pushed out of her home, verbally abused, and then nearly shunned you can imagine just how helpful and wise a companion I had as I turned into the church parking lot. Afterwards I had friends and soon-to-be-family around me helping me get dressed and bringing us lunch, but I don't remember having anyone who could look at that tangled snarl of emotions in my chest and encourage me. To be honest, they might not have known I needed it.
This is why I think it would have been so very helpful if someone had sat down with me and made it explicit that I was, emotionally at least, eloping with my fiance and not simply getting married. I needed to know this wasn't normal and that I didn't have to treat it as such. I needed emotional space and permission to wrestle with what it meant to enter a marriage ungiven and alone. More than that I needed a word to describe my situation. When I met Allen I was lost in a miasma of stuffed feelings and forbidden thoughts until, largely through our conversations, I came to realize that those feelings I didn't like and tried to ignore largely fit under two categories: "verbal abuse" and "emotional abuse." Suddenly I could begin talking about things and understanding what went wrong instead of blaming myself for feeling rebellious and unlovely. Four years later I needed another word to define and clarify my experience, but I didn't get it for almost another six.
Elope.
I eloped.
Despite my parent's objections I eloped with Allen.
When my dad refused to give me away and my mom steadfastly ignored all my softly anxious requests to look at wedding dresses with me, I decide to elope.
This isn't something I tell everyone. After all I did have a moderate sized wedding in a church downtown in a city close to where both our families reside with a reception and dancing and the throwing of flower petals. Not your standard elopement. Yet it describes the emotional reality of getting in a car by yourself and driving to a church where not a single family member is putting up decorations or marshaling the food and then waiting for the ceremony during an interval which involves no tender familiar reminisces or adrenaline fueled hilarity among people whom one has known and loved one's entire life. At such times any other substitute becomes utterly inadequate, and one is left, essentially, alone.
And so, after all, I married Allen, with nary a regret and many a thanksgiving for all the people who rallied around us to make our marriage, our elopement, a wonderful celebration of family, faith, and the ability of people we barely know to love infinitely. Your faithfulness has made me strong.
People told me to smile at my mother when I saw her and have hope that my bridal array and token of fidelity would melt her heart, and when I saw her I smiled. Allen and I dashed out the door after the recessional to greet them and thank them for coming when they tried to slip away without one word. Now I almost wish we hadn't. But you see I didn't realize that, whereas Allen was getting married, I was eloping. I fought so hard for a normal Christian wedding. At a normal Christian wedding the bride and groom speak with the bride's parents and so Allen and I rushed out to grab that little bit of normal, to reassure my parents and ourselves that we weren't rejecting them. It didn't work. It wasn't normal, and it didn't reassure them. Every minute I fought for normal meant one less minute dealing with the abnormal.
I remember vividly driving to the church after meeting Allen for breakfast and being absolutely scared spitless. I think the main reason I didn't run is that when you run from your own wedding you have to leave your best friend behind, and that scared me even more. I was scared of marriage and its newness, scared of sex, scared of how we might change, and only God knows what else. I wanted and needed a sympathetic mother to grab my shoulders and tell me to breathe and remind me, perhaps not that marriage is glorious, but that it's worth it. All I got was my own head chatter. Coming as it did from the brain of a girl who'd been pushed out of her home, verbally abused, and then nearly shunned you can imagine just how helpful and wise a companion I had as I turned into the church parking lot. Afterwards I had friends and soon-to-be-family around me helping me get dressed and bringing us lunch, but I don't remember having anyone who could look at that tangled snarl of emotions in my chest and encourage me. To be honest, they might not have known I needed it.
This is why I think it would have been so very helpful if someone had sat down with me and made it explicit that I was, emotionally at least, eloping with my fiance and not simply getting married. I needed to know this wasn't normal and that I didn't have to treat it as such. I needed emotional space and permission to wrestle with what it meant to enter a marriage ungiven and alone. More than that I needed a word to describe my situation. When I met Allen I was lost in a miasma of stuffed feelings and forbidden thoughts until, largely through our conversations, I came to realize that those feelings I didn't like and tried to ignore largely fit under two categories: "verbal abuse" and "emotional abuse." Suddenly I could begin talking about things and understanding what went wrong instead of blaming myself for feeling rebellious and unlovely. Four years later I needed another word to define and clarify my experience, but I didn't get it for almost another six.
Elope.
I eloped.
Despite my parent's objections I eloped with Allen.
When my dad refused to give me away and my mom steadfastly ignored all my softly anxious requests to look at wedding dresses with me, I decide to elope.
This isn't something I tell everyone. After all I did have a moderate sized wedding in a church downtown in a city close to where both our families reside with a reception and dancing and the throwing of flower petals. Not your standard elopement. Yet it describes the emotional reality of getting in a car by yourself and driving to a church where not a single family member is putting up decorations or marshaling the food and then waiting for the ceremony during an interval which involves no tender familiar reminisces or adrenaline fueled hilarity among people whom one has known and loved one's entire life. At such times any other substitute becomes utterly inadequate, and one is left, essentially, alone.
And so, after all, I married Allen, with nary a regret and many a thanksgiving for all the people who rallied around us to make our marriage, our elopement, a wonderful celebration of family, faith, and the ability of people we barely know to love infinitely. Your faithfulness has made me strong.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
A rant - on men and marriage and blogs without comment moderation
I've tried to keep this post tame, but you might not want your kid reading every single word.
Over the past few months (year?) I've done my fair share of rambling through the world of manosphere/Game/anti-feminist/marriage oriented blogs. And it's depressing. Like really depressing. I realize that our no-fault-take-the-kids-and-all-his-money divorce system is also really depressing, but this other stuff is also bad? Why? (Now remember this is a rant ie not a carefully thought out series of syllogisms). Because it's patronizing. And whiny. And vicious. And contains about at much logic as the ocean contains longleaf pines. On one hand the guys have a point - marriage in America is messed up, but it goes beyond that. From elementary school onwards men are increasingly pushed into ways of thinking and acting that come easier to girls - in skills ranging from fine motor skills in kindergarten to collaborative thinking in offices to "sharing" at the church's men's group. It's hard being a rough and tumble boy in this sociological climate. Heck, it's hard being a quiet, studious, won't take guff from anyone kind of boy. Unless you're into "feelings" and telling women what they want to hear it's hard to fit in anywhere. So we get the manosphere/men's rights movement. And I'm not just rolling my eyes. For one of my philosophy classes I elected to report on The Myth of Male Power. Not exactly a feminist screed. And what I read really amazed me and changed the way I felt about men in general. I didn't realize that in many ways sex discrimination had swung so far over as to actually discriminate against men - particularly with regards to the law. But the way the author is this book reacted against it was all wrong. The way most men react to this reality is all wrong. Instead of "manning up," a phrase they hate, they do a whole lot of whining about how this b*^&% left them with no clue and took everything. They whine about the pastors who shame men and praise women. They whine about the women who won't sleep with them, and then they whine they can't find some little virgin to have their babies. If a girl disagrees with them they just refer to her menstrual cycle or compare her brains to rodent wheel. When a girl does kiss up to them they accept her contributions as fitting tributes to their maleness. Then they whine some more when a woman says that women can divorce for reasons beyond "And I caught him bed with that whore when I came home late one day after driving all over town to find his favorite brand of car wax!" Just because your last wife accused you of "emotional cruelty" doesn't mean that your neighbor's wife didn't actually experience it! Now who's arguing based on their emotions? Really?
And for the record I really don't think men suck. I do think they should in general behave in a more assertive/less PC gentle manner than they currently do, but I don't think men suck. I just think men are capable of a whole lot more than finger-pointing and blaming. If you hate the church you're attending you could talk with the pastor, start a group for men to discuss issues pertinent to them, or even decide to join the pastorate yourself and start a church that is able to value men and women without devaluing either one. If your wife drags you to a counselor who plays the "mean man" card then calmly but firmly tell your wife that you won't be coming back (or paying for her to go back) until you find a counselor who is able to respect both your roles. If you haven't been having sex for months don't be surprised when she divorces you! You should have been talking about this after 7-10 days! Of course her reasons for leaving you are BS! She's probably fighting the real reasons tooth and nail. You've got a couple of options. Listen to her rail at you and then go whine to your blogfriends, or ask her what's really going on and keep working at it until you figure it out. Any savvy counselor knows that the reason most likely isn't the reason. Here's a question. Ask what's got her so scared. If things have been rocky she might be scared you don't care if she leaves, so maybe she's going to test the waters. Maybe no one ever told her that women can be attracted to multiple men and therefore she's scared she made a mistake (or that she's going to make a mistake). Whatever you do, don't just stand there. Unless of course you're a radical egalitarian and don't believe that men have ecclesiastical or paternal headship. In which case you should probably just go back to your man cave and pray to your large screen tv. It probably won't do any good, but at least you can watch the game. But if you're a MAN that means that you've got agency, authority, and responsibility. In short, you can act. Incidentally is also means that when your wife leaves that she left under your watch. That doesn't mean you were a crappy husband, but it does mean that you were supposed to be there at the wheel guiding things along and that you actually being down the hold counting rocks doesn't change anything. To extend the metaphor, an unfaithful wife is guilty of desertion and not mutiny. It's still your ship even if she decides to scupper the bilge and scram.
So when I say "man up" what exactly am I saying? I'm not saying that men should be more touchy-feely, sacrificial, whatever-says-goes appeasers. Although I haven't seen the movie I think that given what I've heard "Fireproof" is a pretty dumb movie. Buying your wife's love isn't being a good husband. My dad was an appeaser. Let me tell you, it often sucked. You're heard the saying "If Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy!" It should read, "If Momma ain't happy she should keep it to herself and stop blaming the kids!" While I do talk with Allen when I'm frustrated I really do try to keep in a "I"m trying to work out my emotions" vein and not a "you know you really tick me off because (insert inconsequential reason here)." That said, if I'm not talking about appeasement, what do I mean by "manning-up"? I mean that men can and should be proactive with their wives. They should be talking enough to know when she's bringing home bad attitudes from her fabulous single bar-hopping friends so that he can encourage her to spend time with other women (young moms, her aunts, a deacon's wife, his friend's wife) who can encourage her personally and as a wife. Note that I'm saying husbands have a measure of authority/responsibility over how their wives spend their time. In a similar vein he can be on the lookout to encourage efforts at womanliness - compliment her when she wears a nice skirt or when you're at a bookstore ask if there's a cookbook or home design book she's been eying that y'all could get while you're there. If she already cooks for you then appreciate it, and teach your kids to appreciate it. If all that sounds too wishy-washy for you, try this one - keep encouraging her to do things that please you. I tend to not put the lids back on things, but after a year of Allen saying "Hey, Natalie, I'd appreciate you putting lids back on things" it's actually a pretty consistent habit with me. Allen is happy there aren't lids cluttering up the counters, and I'm happy that I'm doing something of which Allen approves. Finally, this is something Allen mentioned early on in our marriage. Men should look for ways to genuinely say yes to their wives. Hear me out. This doesn't mean that men need to bend over backwards to a wife's unreasonable demands. With some men it might seem like all her demands are unreasonable, but keep looking. If from a cloud of BS you suddenly hear, "And this darn faucet has been driving me crazy 'cause half of it sprays sideways when you try to use it" then let me suggest you hie yourself to Home Depot so you can replace her faucet. What have you done? You've listened to her. You've met a legitimate need. You've provided. You've done what a good husband should do. Hopefully you've even spoken to her heart. At any rate, you aren't just standing there anymore.
And finally, can I just say that the emotions and language used by these manosphere bloggers is just over the top and often gross? Allen says to not read the comments because nothing good happens in comment threads, but I like to scan them to get a sense of the context in which a post or blog exists. Whoo boy. The manosphere isn't for the faint of heart. If someone even suggests that men have responsibility in a marriage that's broken up or that they're swaggering around with egos like a couple of big balloons taped to their puffed out chests then the finger pointing, sarcastic, patronizing "wit" that is man scorned descends on the sinners head like crude oil erupting from an old Texas geyser. And here's where my woman card probably comes the most into play. I don't get it. These guys all talk game theory and then when someone on the internet says something they don't like, instead of ignoring it with alpha male disdain, they show up en-mass and complain. And by complain I don't mean refute. I mean they toss around words like "strawman" and "feminits" and "wimmin" and "betrayal" and generally pound their chests a lot. I recently saw a great deal of this on a blogpost talking about power dynamics in relationships and ego. You'd 'a thought she posted pictures of a diminutive nature and attached their name to it. My stars! But here's the deal, "hurt feelings" is a (immature) woman's game, and men who do it pretty instantly lower their status. So they have to do a whole lot of patronizing and posturing so it doesn't look like they're complaining. "Oh, what's that? I'm not licking my wounds. This is an old injury I got the time I bagged a supermodel while wrestling a boa constrictor on a peak in the Alps. I just think it's a pity you're probably eating cold ramen alone with your eight cat." On another site I also saw several references to whether or not it'd be a good idea to deliver some verbal smack down to an opponent since it would lead all the women reading said smack down to become sexually aroused. EWWWW! Creepy old internet dude. I'm beginning to wish I'd followed Allen's advice to not read the comments. For being a bitter old man who doesn't care about women he seemed pretty intent on the reactions he could elicit from said women.
Speaking of comments (and I promise I'll close with this), I saw plenty of comments relegating women to the role of disobedient child. It seems like all us wimmin need a firm disciplining hand in order to be good woman and receive the sexual fulfillment we crave. I gotta ask - where was this "firm hand" when that wife your were excoriating three comments ago left you? I suppose you woke up and learned game and have been having a high time of it since. But how many chaste, emotionally stable women have you attracted? Oh, 0. That's what I thought. While the principles of being alpha (ie displaying assertive, confident, somewhat dominant characteristics) might be generally attractive to women, the only women who are attracted to guys who think all women are emotional unstable are...(wait for it)...emotionally unstable. Maybe that's why some of these guys are so up in arms about "emotional abuse." Although I'll agree that the definition of emotional abuse has been stretched to mean something more like "and I just wasn't very happy," if you'll read a little about hardcore game theorists a lot of what goes on is certainly manipulative and at least borderline abusive. Just because she likes the bad boys doesn't mean that jerking her around constantly is in any way, shape, or form moral or manly. Trying that sort of BS on emotionally mature, chaste women will get you exactly no where, and men who respect women will despise you. By respecting women I mean men who are willing and able to lead their wives and daughters and who understand their wive's feminine gifts as a unique complement to their own. They aren't threatened when women roll their eyes at the funny things men do because they're either too busy doing those things or rolling their own eyes at the funny things women do. High status or low, they are confident enough in their own masculine ways of thinking and doing that they aren't offended when their wives express a similar confidence and pleasure in her own ways of doing things. These are the men who can protect and love women without becoming or creating either slave or tyrant.
Ok, so what does this amount to? Stop whining. Respecting yourself doesn't mean disrespecting women. God made men to be leaders - abdicating doesn't make it the woman's fault. Yes, there are some messed up women out there. You can still keep praying and looking. I was a messed up woman once myself, but Allen hasn't had any complaints :)
Over the past few months (year?) I've done my fair share of rambling through the world of manosphere/Game/anti-feminist/marriage oriented blogs. And it's depressing. Like really depressing. I realize that our no-fault-take-the-kids-and-all-his-money divorce system is also really depressing, but this other stuff is also bad? Why? (Now remember this is a rant ie not a carefully thought out series of syllogisms). Because it's patronizing. And whiny. And vicious. And contains about at much logic as the ocean contains longleaf pines. On one hand the guys have a point - marriage in America is messed up, but it goes beyond that. From elementary school onwards men are increasingly pushed into ways of thinking and acting that come easier to girls - in skills ranging from fine motor skills in kindergarten to collaborative thinking in offices to "sharing" at the church's men's group. It's hard being a rough and tumble boy in this sociological climate. Heck, it's hard being a quiet, studious, won't take guff from anyone kind of boy. Unless you're into "feelings" and telling women what they want to hear it's hard to fit in anywhere. So we get the manosphere/men's rights movement. And I'm not just rolling my eyes. For one of my philosophy classes I elected to report on The Myth of Male Power. Not exactly a feminist screed. And what I read really amazed me and changed the way I felt about men in general. I didn't realize that in many ways sex discrimination had swung so far over as to actually discriminate against men - particularly with regards to the law. But the way the author is this book reacted against it was all wrong. The way most men react to this reality is all wrong. Instead of "manning up," a phrase they hate, they do a whole lot of whining about how this b*^&% left them with no clue and took everything. They whine about the pastors who shame men and praise women. They whine about the women who won't sleep with them, and then they whine they can't find some little virgin to have their babies. If a girl disagrees with them they just refer to her menstrual cycle or compare her brains to rodent wheel. When a girl does kiss up to them they accept her contributions as fitting tributes to their maleness. Then they whine some more when a woman says that women can divorce for reasons beyond "And I caught him bed with that whore when I came home late one day after driving all over town to find his favorite brand of car wax!" Just because your last wife accused you of "emotional cruelty" doesn't mean that your neighbor's wife didn't actually experience it! Now who's arguing based on their emotions? Really?
And for the record I really don't think men suck. I do think they should in general behave in a more assertive/less PC gentle manner than they currently do, but I don't think men suck. I just think men are capable of a whole lot more than finger-pointing and blaming. If you hate the church you're attending you could talk with the pastor, start a group for men to discuss issues pertinent to them, or even decide to join the pastorate yourself and start a church that is able to value men and women without devaluing either one. If your wife drags you to a counselor who plays the "mean man" card then calmly but firmly tell your wife that you won't be coming back (or paying for her to go back) until you find a counselor who is able to respect both your roles. If you haven't been having sex for months don't be surprised when she divorces you! You should have been talking about this after 7-10 days! Of course her reasons for leaving you are BS! She's probably fighting the real reasons tooth and nail. You've got a couple of options. Listen to her rail at you and then go whine to your blogfriends, or ask her what's really going on and keep working at it until you figure it out. Any savvy counselor knows that the reason most likely isn't the reason. Here's a question. Ask what's got her so scared. If things have been rocky she might be scared you don't care if she leaves, so maybe she's going to test the waters. Maybe no one ever told her that women can be attracted to multiple men and therefore she's scared she made a mistake (or that she's going to make a mistake). Whatever you do, don't just stand there. Unless of course you're a radical egalitarian and don't believe that men have ecclesiastical or paternal headship. In which case you should probably just go back to your man cave and pray to your large screen tv. It probably won't do any good, but at least you can watch the game. But if you're a MAN that means that you've got agency, authority, and responsibility. In short, you can act. Incidentally is also means that when your wife leaves that she left under your watch. That doesn't mean you were a crappy husband, but it does mean that you were supposed to be there at the wheel guiding things along and that you actually being down the hold counting rocks doesn't change anything. To extend the metaphor, an unfaithful wife is guilty of desertion and not mutiny. It's still your ship even if she decides to scupper the bilge and scram.
So when I say "man up" what exactly am I saying? I'm not saying that men should be more touchy-feely, sacrificial, whatever-says-goes appeasers. Although I haven't seen the movie I think that given what I've heard "Fireproof" is a pretty dumb movie. Buying your wife's love isn't being a good husband. My dad was an appeaser. Let me tell you, it often sucked. You're heard the saying "If Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy!" It should read, "If Momma ain't happy she should keep it to herself and stop blaming the kids!" While I do talk with Allen when I'm frustrated I really do try to keep in a "I"m trying to work out my emotions" vein and not a "you know you really tick me off because (insert inconsequential reason here)." That said, if I'm not talking about appeasement, what do I mean by "manning-up"? I mean that men can and should be proactive with their wives. They should be talking enough to know when she's bringing home bad attitudes from her fabulous single bar-hopping friends so that he can encourage her to spend time with other women (young moms, her aunts, a deacon's wife, his friend's wife) who can encourage her personally and as a wife. Note that I'm saying husbands have a measure of authority/responsibility over how their wives spend their time. In a similar vein he can be on the lookout to encourage efforts at womanliness - compliment her when she wears a nice skirt or when you're at a bookstore ask if there's a cookbook or home design book she's been eying that y'all could get while you're there. If she already cooks for you then appreciate it, and teach your kids to appreciate it. If all that sounds too wishy-washy for you, try this one - keep encouraging her to do things that please you. I tend to not put the lids back on things, but after a year of Allen saying "Hey, Natalie, I'd appreciate you putting lids back on things" it's actually a pretty consistent habit with me. Allen is happy there aren't lids cluttering up the counters, and I'm happy that I'm doing something of which Allen approves. Finally, this is something Allen mentioned early on in our marriage. Men should look for ways to genuinely say yes to their wives. Hear me out. This doesn't mean that men need to bend over backwards to a wife's unreasonable demands. With some men it might seem like all her demands are unreasonable, but keep looking. If from a cloud of BS you suddenly hear, "And this darn faucet has been driving me crazy 'cause half of it sprays sideways when you try to use it" then let me suggest you hie yourself to Home Depot so you can replace her faucet. What have you done? You've listened to her. You've met a legitimate need. You've provided. You've done what a good husband should do. Hopefully you've even spoken to her heart. At any rate, you aren't just standing there anymore.
And finally, can I just say that the emotions and language used by these manosphere bloggers is just over the top and often gross? Allen says to not read the comments because nothing good happens in comment threads, but I like to scan them to get a sense of the context in which a post or blog exists. Whoo boy. The manosphere isn't for the faint of heart. If someone even suggests that men have responsibility in a marriage that's broken up or that they're swaggering around with egos like a couple of big balloons taped to their puffed out chests then the finger pointing, sarcastic, patronizing "wit" that is man scorned descends on the sinners head like crude oil erupting from an old Texas geyser. And here's where my woman card probably comes the most into play. I don't get it. These guys all talk game theory and then when someone on the internet says something they don't like, instead of ignoring it with alpha male disdain, they show up en-mass and complain. And by complain I don't mean refute. I mean they toss around words like "strawman" and "feminits" and "wimmin" and "betrayal" and generally pound their chests a lot. I recently saw a great deal of this on a blogpost talking about power dynamics in relationships and ego. You'd 'a thought she posted pictures of a diminutive nature and attached their name to it. My stars! But here's the deal, "hurt feelings" is a (immature) woman's game, and men who do it pretty instantly lower their status. So they have to do a whole lot of patronizing and posturing so it doesn't look like they're complaining. "Oh, what's that? I'm not licking my wounds. This is an old injury I got the time I bagged a supermodel while wrestling a boa constrictor on a peak in the Alps. I just think it's a pity you're probably eating cold ramen alone with your eight cat." On another site I also saw several references to whether or not it'd be a good idea to deliver some verbal smack down to an opponent since it would lead all the women reading said smack down to become sexually aroused. EWWWW! Creepy old internet dude. I'm beginning to wish I'd followed Allen's advice to not read the comments. For being a bitter old man who doesn't care about women he seemed pretty intent on the reactions he could elicit from said women.
Speaking of comments (and I promise I'll close with this), I saw plenty of comments relegating women to the role of disobedient child. It seems like all us wimmin need a firm disciplining hand in order to be good woman and receive the sexual fulfillment we crave. I gotta ask - where was this "firm hand" when that wife your were excoriating three comments ago left you? I suppose you woke up and learned game and have been having a high time of it since. But how many chaste, emotionally stable women have you attracted? Oh, 0. That's what I thought. While the principles of being alpha (ie displaying assertive, confident, somewhat dominant characteristics) might be generally attractive to women, the only women who are attracted to guys who think all women are emotional unstable are...(wait for it)...emotionally unstable. Maybe that's why some of these guys are so up in arms about "emotional abuse." Although I'll agree that the definition of emotional abuse has been stretched to mean something more like "and I just wasn't very happy," if you'll read a little about hardcore game theorists a lot of what goes on is certainly manipulative and at least borderline abusive. Just because she likes the bad boys doesn't mean that jerking her around constantly is in any way, shape, or form moral or manly. Trying that sort of BS on emotionally mature, chaste women will get you exactly no where, and men who respect women will despise you. By respecting women I mean men who are willing and able to lead their wives and daughters and who understand their wive's feminine gifts as a unique complement to their own. They aren't threatened when women roll their eyes at the funny things men do because they're either too busy doing those things or rolling their own eyes at the funny things women do. High status or low, they are confident enough in their own masculine ways of thinking and doing that they aren't offended when their wives express a similar confidence and pleasure in her own ways of doing things. These are the men who can protect and love women without becoming or creating either slave or tyrant.
Ok, so what does this amount to? Stop whining. Respecting yourself doesn't mean disrespecting women. God made men to be leaders - abdicating doesn't make it the woman's fault. Yes, there are some messed up women out there. You can still keep praying and looking. I was a messed up woman once myself, but Allen hasn't had any complaints :)
Friday, August 10, 2012
And we're here
Last Sunday Allen and I celebrated our 6th wedding anniversary and simultaneously moved back into our house (actually we just drove in from our trip to Tennessee - I'd finished the moving in the week before while Allen was out of town). It's so very good to be home. Admittedly home still involves large numbers of boxes and not knowing where my cup measures are, but it's still home. The funny part is that it didn't feel like hope until Allen and I shoved a bookcase in the den nook. I don't even have any books on my bookcase - it just feels better having it there with my papasan chair pulled up beside it ready for my next jaunt through Shakespeare. It's a familiar little corner in what's still a rather unfamiliar home. I think it was in Grace Livingston Hill's Cloudy Jewel where she described the whirlwind process of buying a house and all the furnishings for it and finally settling "to get acquainted with their tables and chairs." That pretty well sums it up. It's odd to look around and realize that at least two thirds of our furniture we didn't own before we bought our house. We've gone from a little two bedroom beige apartment to a five bedroom house full of colors, our single couch has grown to two and a loveseat, and our dining room can sit eight comfortably. It's quite a change.
Speaking of which, I'm eternally grateful for second hard furniture. Fortunately I like fairly simple styles, because we couldn't afford half of this at full retail price. In fact, almost everything we bought was on sale or price matched. Aside from appliances and building materials, our new couches are the only truly new items we bought, and they were a last minute find at a store going out of business that very day. Everything else came from Craigslist, Ebay, and second hand stores. It takes time though. I looked around for maybe five months before we ordered our dining room chandelier. That meant sifting through literally tens of thousands of light fixture on craiglist, ebay, home depot, and etsy in addition to perusing online retailers and various home decor stores like West Elm and Ethan Allen. But when I clicked the "buy it now" button last night I was pretty confident that we were getting a good product at a good price. We saved at least $100 off retail and at least $300 by finding a chandelier we liked better than the pricier Ethan Allen one we'd both liked previously. Not a bad reward when you realize that the difference I saved would have paid for the easy chairs in my den. Even though I have moments where I wish I could just place an order and get it all done, I'm pretty proud at what I've been able to pull together. I don't know that any of my deals have been worth of the bargain hunter's Olympics, but they've been good enough for us.
Although sometimes I wonder why I've moved on to furniture when my kitchen still needs it's final touch up painting. And my dry goods need putting away. Also, where are my measuring cups? And while I ponder these questions a few more pressing ones come to mind - like what native flowering tree am I going to plant beside my front driveway and is it available at my local nursery? Yep, homemaker's ADHD setting in here. Too many projects and not enough time/energy/brain cells to go around. We're working on that too though :) For now we're just glad to be in our own home with our own fridge and our own pantry of spices and our own chairs. And I'm super glad we've got a gas range. It means I get to officially play with fire as part of my housewifely duties. That's awesome!
Speaking of which, I'm eternally grateful for second hard furniture. Fortunately I like fairly simple styles, because we couldn't afford half of this at full retail price. In fact, almost everything we bought was on sale or price matched. Aside from appliances and building materials, our new couches are the only truly new items we bought, and they were a last minute find at a store going out of business that very day. Everything else came from Craigslist, Ebay, and second hand stores. It takes time though. I looked around for maybe five months before we ordered our dining room chandelier. That meant sifting through literally tens of thousands of light fixture on craiglist, ebay, home depot, and etsy in addition to perusing online retailers and various home decor stores like West Elm and Ethan Allen. But when I clicked the "buy it now" button last night I was pretty confident that we were getting a good product at a good price. We saved at least $100 off retail and at least $300 by finding a chandelier we liked better than the pricier Ethan Allen one we'd both liked previously. Not a bad reward when you realize that the difference I saved would have paid for the easy chairs in my den. Even though I have moments where I wish I could just place an order and get it all done, I'm pretty proud at what I've been able to pull together. I don't know that any of my deals have been worth of the bargain hunter's Olympics, but they've been good enough for us.
Although sometimes I wonder why I've moved on to furniture when my kitchen still needs it's final touch up painting. And my dry goods need putting away. Also, where are my measuring cups? And while I ponder these questions a few more pressing ones come to mind - like what native flowering tree am I going to plant beside my front driveway and is it available at my local nursery? Yep, homemaker's ADHD setting in here. Too many projects and not enough time/energy/brain cells to go around. We're working on that too though :) For now we're just glad to be in our own home with our own fridge and our own pantry of spices and our own chairs. And I'm super glad we've got a gas range. It means I get to officially play with fire as part of my housewifely duties. That's awesome!
Monday, June 25, 2012
Thoughts from a thinker - regarding sex ed.
Lately I've been spending a whole lot of time reading the Thinking Housewife. Talk about information overload! She is a prolific poster on many aspects of Christian and Western European/North American culture. For the most part I highly recommend her blog, but every once in a while I came across a comment that just made my fingertips itch. Right now I plan to get in a little scratching. I'm going to schedule some of them out though so that it doesn't become an extended monologue :)
In the comments following a post about some crazy Canadian educators who think sex ed should cover ways to tell if a drunk girl is really "consenting" I found, what I felt to be, a rather disturbing statement of the hyper-conservative kind.
Mary posted the following:
Frankly, I think Mary has been parenting with a bucket on her head if she thinks she can just allude to some rather pleasant "procreative act" and leave her teenaged children to a sort of pre-Christmas blissful ignorance. Heaven help the poor kids if they visit a farm, pick up a book from the library (or the bookshelf - Dr. Dobson's book for adolescents anyone?), or spend a couple hours walking around the mall. Regrettably, we live in a highly sexualized culture, but we can't just wish it away. While I think that telling kids sex isn't something they shouldn't really be thinking about (ie concerned with) for a few years it probably good encouragement, I think that discussion should be framed with the understanding that kids will get as much information as they want (and is appropriate) from their parents. An older woman I know once told me she thought a girl could get pregnant if she was wearing a swimsuit and sitting next to boy also wearing a swimsuit. We hear stuff like that and laugh, but I'm sure it probably caused more than a little unnecessary anxiety on her part.
I don't have kids yet, but I don't plan to let my daughters (and sons) wander around in an information vacuum. Kids are curious little buggers and will often keep asking questions until they get an answer. Be glad they're asking you and not running off to a librarian or the internet. I wasn't told more than the bare minimum (which I already knew thanks to the good doctor mentioned above), and when I looked for more information I didn't always find the good stuff. I'm not saying that you should sit your kids down for a full move by move discussion, but it should be more than "Tab A, Slot B, feels good, makes babies, but don't until you're married." Talk to them about temptation and chastity. Don't leave them vulnerable to someone who might prey on their ignorance. Give them a true innocence that sees the good in God's order and dismissed all mankind's perversions. And if you can't parent up and deal with a little embarrassment then at least find some Mother in Israel who can answer their questions and fears and desires with humor, dignity and wisdom. Heaven knows someone needs to do it.
P.S.
I find it hilarious that she refers to a "sacred" "procreative act." Sex might be all that, but it's not only that. There's a whole lot of warmth and humor and enthusiasm and just plain old play as well. Sex is a pretty boisterous part of life and not something you pack away in dried lavender along with your first locket and Nana's lace hankies.
In the comments following a post about some crazy Canadian educators who think sex ed should cover ways to tell if a drunk girl is really "consenting" I found, what I felt to be, a rather disturbing statement of the hyper-conservative kind.
Mary posted the following:
Parents abdicated because they were convinced by educators that one must discuss the *mechanics* of sex with their children. This is patently absurd and most unnecessary, as obviously the human species has managed to proliferate without classroom instruction for time immemorial. There is nothing embarassing about telling children that the procreative act is beautiful and sacred and reserved for marriage; delicate language delivers the message home without awkwardness because the children are not hearing nonsense or embarrassing detail from a stranger in a classroom full of people, but they are receiving eternal truth from the person designed by God to instruct them in eternal truths; and so they are beautifully receptive to it..
Especially in this day and age when they’re bombarded with images to the contrary, it’s a actually relief for children and teenagers to be told that this is something they don’t have to worry about yet, that they can take their time and grow up; that physical intimacy is one of the goods of married people and until they are married they need not be concerned about it. They are free to wonder in innocence and look forward to something lovely and to in confidence move beyond the pervasive sexual pressure present in our society. (emphasis mine)
Frankly, I think Mary has been parenting with a bucket on her head if she thinks she can just allude to some rather pleasant "procreative act" and leave her teenaged children to a sort of pre-Christmas blissful ignorance. Heaven help the poor kids if they visit a farm, pick up a book from the library (or the bookshelf - Dr. Dobson's book for adolescents anyone?), or spend a couple hours walking around the mall. Regrettably, we live in a highly sexualized culture, but we can't just wish it away. While I think that telling kids sex isn't something they shouldn't really be thinking about (ie concerned with) for a few years it probably good encouragement, I think that discussion should be framed with the understanding that kids will get as much information as they want (and is appropriate) from their parents. An older woman I know once told me she thought a girl could get pregnant if she was wearing a swimsuit and sitting next to boy also wearing a swimsuit. We hear stuff like that and laugh, but I'm sure it probably caused more than a little unnecessary anxiety on her part.
I don't have kids yet, but I don't plan to let my daughters (and sons) wander around in an information vacuum. Kids are curious little buggers and will often keep asking questions until they get an answer. Be glad they're asking you and not running off to a librarian or the internet. I wasn't told more than the bare minimum (which I already knew thanks to the good doctor mentioned above), and when I looked for more information I didn't always find the good stuff. I'm not saying that you should sit your kids down for a full move by move discussion, but it should be more than "Tab A, Slot B, feels good, makes babies, but don't until you're married." Talk to them about temptation and chastity. Don't leave them vulnerable to someone who might prey on their ignorance. Give them a true innocence that sees the good in God's order and dismissed all mankind's perversions. And if you can't parent up and deal with a little embarrassment then at least find some Mother in Israel who can answer their questions and fears and desires with humor, dignity and wisdom. Heaven knows someone needs to do it.
P.S.
I find it hilarious that she refers to a "sacred" "procreative act." Sex might be all that, but it's not only that. There's a whole lot of warmth and humor and enthusiasm and just plain old play as well. Sex is a pretty boisterous part of life and not something you pack away in dried lavender along with your first locket and Nana's lace hankies.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Of wives and kingdoms
You know how you'll be driving around town running errands and have a bunch of ideas just sort of collide in your brain? This isn't just me is it? Anyway, if this post seems more fanciful than usual just blame it on the boredom of an hour spent in traffic :)
In all the words spilled on how women are like "this" or should be like "that" I haven't read much on the subject of crowns. Specifically I'm thinking of that bit in Proverbs 12 which says, "An excellent wife is the crown of her husband, but she who brings shame is like rottenness in his bones." Of course the first question I started asking myself when that verse came to mind was "What exactly is a crown?" Besides being a generally circular and often shiny bit of headgear, it's largely a symbol. People talking about stealing crowns and overthrowing them and then restoring them don't mean (by and large) that they're going to break into HRM's wall safe. Instead they mean they're working to arrange a transfer of royal power either to themselves or some other person. Therefore a crown signifies authority, dominion, and legitimacy. When the guy with the crown shows up people tend to say "Yes, sir" a lot. This tells me that when we as wives are doing our jobs well our husbands will accrue respect and authority. Consider this - there's a whole group of people out there (mostly men and sociologist) who've decided that women really like high status men and that they'd rather compete for partial attention from a high status male (read: sleep around) than settle for a lower status man. I think there's a fair bit of truth to that (Hello, New York women/Hello, fundy Mormons), but here's something I just thought. Why aren't any of these women considering how they can increase their man's status? I'm not saying you should go around trying to reform smucks, but just think about for a second. These women are all upset that there aren't enough high status men to go around when it would seem that at least part of the solution is in their own hands. Be the right kind of woman! I don't think that would solve everything, but it sure couldn't hurt. According to Proverbs, the opposite of a crown is essentially osteoporosis, and that sure ain't cool. You can't go around physically tearing men down and then have rational grounds for complaining about the lack of decent men.
What kind of behavior might be considered "excellent" or crown-worthy? The Old and New Testaments are full of examples and exhortations for wives, but I'd say that a short list should include activities that increase your husband's reputation, dominion, and authority. In my world this means resolving to speak well of Allen at every opportunity, helping him serve and love his friends, and making space for him to pursue projects outside work. This is on top of generally trying to be a helpful, non-crazy person - which is harder than it has to be some days :P Also, just for clarity's sake, this doesn't mean that I can't/don't talk to anyone about the vagaries of husbandly behavior. I have a short list (ie under five names) of people that Allen and I both know and trust and to whom I will go if there's something bothering me. For everyone else - it's called need to know, and you don't. This applies double for prayer requests. How would you feel if your husband's accountability group was praying over your inability to discipline the kids or keep your temper with his mom? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Part of what kicked off this whole blog post, though, was the idea the crowns come in all shapes and sizes. You've got your super-shiny-monarch-of-Great-Britain crown, there's your basic prince-in-exile tarnished crown, elfin circlets - just think about all the different stories you've read or seen in movies and how the different crowns look and the stories they help tell. Some women are definitely old gold and rubies material. They're gracious, capable, beautiful woman, and it's easy to see how they adorn their husband's lives. Other women seem a little more dinged up on the surface, but underneath they're pure gold and testify to years of hard work and dedication. That's how it is. A farmer might not have much use for a Sunday to go meeting crown, and a lawyer might need something a little less wash and wear. The woman who adorns her big town banker husband's life would be pretty blingy and useless as the wife of a small town hardware store owner. Same basic job description with hundreds of different ways to fulfill it. That's why I get frustrated with overly specific how to manuals for wives - it's one thing to be a faithful and chaste wife and another thing to know when your husband needs you to speak up and when to keep quiet. Our lives, our marriage, and our gifts all look different. This sounds a little sappy, but it needs to be said. It doesn't matter who you are, when you're being a faithful wife you're a beautiful and glorious woman whose life bespeaks and confers honor and dignity.
In all the words spilled on how women are like "this" or should be like "that" I haven't read much on the subject of crowns. Specifically I'm thinking of that bit in Proverbs 12 which says, "An excellent wife is the crown of her husband, but she who brings shame is like rottenness in his bones." Of course the first question I started asking myself when that verse came to mind was "What exactly is a crown?" Besides being a generally circular and often shiny bit of headgear, it's largely a symbol. People talking about stealing crowns and overthrowing them and then restoring them don't mean (by and large) that they're going to break into HRM's wall safe. Instead they mean they're working to arrange a transfer of royal power either to themselves or some other person. Therefore a crown signifies authority, dominion, and legitimacy. When the guy with the crown shows up people tend to say "Yes, sir" a lot. This tells me that when we as wives are doing our jobs well our husbands will accrue respect and authority. Consider this - there's a whole group of people out there (mostly men and sociologist) who've decided that women really like high status men and that they'd rather compete for partial attention from a high status male (read: sleep around) than settle for a lower status man. I think there's a fair bit of truth to that (Hello, New York women/Hello, fundy Mormons), but here's something I just thought. Why aren't any of these women considering how they can increase their man's status? I'm not saying you should go around trying to reform smucks, but just think about for a second. These women are all upset that there aren't enough high status men to go around when it would seem that at least part of the solution is in their own hands. Be the right kind of woman! I don't think that would solve everything, but it sure couldn't hurt. According to Proverbs, the opposite of a crown is essentially osteoporosis, and that sure ain't cool. You can't go around physically tearing men down and then have rational grounds for complaining about the lack of decent men.
What kind of behavior might be considered "excellent" or crown-worthy? The Old and New Testaments are full of examples and exhortations for wives, but I'd say that a short list should include activities that increase your husband's reputation, dominion, and authority. In my world this means resolving to speak well of Allen at every opportunity, helping him serve and love his friends, and making space for him to pursue projects outside work. This is on top of generally trying to be a helpful, non-crazy person - which is harder than it has to be some days :P Also, just for clarity's sake, this doesn't mean that I can't/don't talk to anyone about the vagaries of husbandly behavior. I have a short list (ie under five names) of people that Allen and I both know and trust and to whom I will go if there's something bothering me. For everyone else - it's called need to know, and you don't. This applies double for prayer requests. How would you feel if your husband's accountability group was praying over your inability to discipline the kids or keep your temper with his mom? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Part of what kicked off this whole blog post, though, was the idea the crowns come in all shapes and sizes. You've got your super-shiny-monarch-of-Great-Britain crown, there's your basic prince-in-exile tarnished crown, elfin circlets - just think about all the different stories you've read or seen in movies and how the different crowns look and the stories they help tell. Some women are definitely old gold and rubies material. They're gracious, capable, beautiful woman, and it's easy to see how they adorn their husband's lives. Other women seem a little more dinged up on the surface, but underneath they're pure gold and testify to years of hard work and dedication. That's how it is. A farmer might not have much use for a Sunday to go meeting crown, and a lawyer might need something a little less wash and wear. The woman who adorns her big town banker husband's life would be pretty blingy and useless as the wife of a small town hardware store owner. Same basic job description with hundreds of different ways to fulfill it. That's why I get frustrated with overly specific how to manuals for wives - it's one thing to be a faithful and chaste wife and another thing to know when your husband needs you to speak up and when to keep quiet. Our lives, our marriage, and our gifts all look different. This sounds a little sappy, but it needs to be said. It doesn't matter who you are, when you're being a faithful wife you're a beautiful and glorious woman whose life bespeaks and confers honor and dignity.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Created to Be His Help Meet: Part 1 (Concerning Mysteries and Kingdoms)
We're finally closing out Part One of CTBHHM, and I wanted to share an insight I gained talking with my mother-in-law. As we discussed some of the problems I have with this book she pointed out that at least some of my reactions are probably heightened because I saw my mom and dad acting out a codependent relationship with my mom at the center. Even though my mom would swear up and down that my dad called the shots, her emotional state is what, from my perspective, actually ruled the family. Hence I get really jumpy listening to Mrs. Pearl talk about how women can have a perfect marriage regardless of their husbands - once again all that talk about respect and authority masking the real position as wife firmly in the central, guiding role. On the other hand, women who grew up seeing their moms (or other women around them) getting along despite a recalcitrant husband might actually be encouraged by hearing that they can have a "good" marriage regardless of the man's attitude. I still think it's potentially problematic for wives to take some of Mrs. Pearl's very pragmatic advice into healthy, maturing marriages, but I understand a little more why some women might miss so much of what completely turns me off of this book.
Chapter 13 opens with the "great mystery" of Ephesians 5:32-33 and the return of Dubious Exegesis Debi. I'm going to block quote Ephesians 5:32-33 once as cited in CTBHHM and follow with Ephesians 5:22-33 as per my Bible. Although I typically use ESV I'll post the second quote from KJV just for comparison's sake.
I realize those at just a couple hunks of text tossed on the (virtual) page, but I wanted to provide a means of contrasting and contextualizing Mrs. Pearl's reference. It doesn't take an advanced degree in English to see that Mrs. Pearl is leaving a whole lot out of her quote. The Bible says "This is a great mystery:but I speak concerning Christ and the church." Basic reading here: "but" contrasts with "mystery" and attempts to provide some sort of information about this mystery. It doesn't say "and" which would you lead you into another topic. This is about the mystery. What mystery though? Is it wives reverencing husbands? The preceding sentence says "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery." Any common sense reading of this passage would equate the "great mystery" with the "one flesh" of marriage. If you look back up at the extended quotation you'll that Paul is constantly going back and forth between the unity of marriage and the unity of Christ and Church. Based on his argument I'd say that this "great mystery" refers to the "one flesh" union of marriage and furthermore applies the metaphor of marriage to Christ's union with His Church. Could Mrs. Pearl be right? Maybe. But, although I can excuse her elipsing out the husband's role she also left out this ticky little "Nevertheless." If we took the husband out of that passage it would still read "Nevertheless let...the wife see that she reverence her husband." "Nevertheless" is approximately equivalent to "however" and signals a shift in the conversation and is therefore and important word to have been left out. Given the complete quotation it would take quite a bit of 'splaining for me to accept Mrs. Pearl's version of the "great mystery."
You might think I'm spending too much time on a simple misquote, but it's important when she's making it the foundation for understanding how a wife reverences her husband. The biggest mystery is how she missed the mystery! Once she gets past her odd exegesis Mrs. Pearl actually has some good things to say about how our marriage is supposed to be an earthly picture of Christ's union with the Church and how this prepares us for the day when we really are joined to Christ.
And now it's over the top story time! Mrs. Pearl presents us with another wife (this time one whose husband visits prostitutes) who goes out of her way to make her husband feel like the most amazing dad in the world. I suppose I'm a wildly skeptical wife, but I don't think my marriage vows include anything about coming down with an incurable venereal disease because I'm having sex with a man who has sex with prostitutes. In that same vein I don't consider staying with a man who tried to kill with a butcher knife while you're pregnant to be covered by my marriage vows. Since Sunny and Amed's story (and the outrageous advice Mrs. Pearl gave) are legendary I won't add very much. If you have a friend who refuses to leave her abuser then counseling her to do everything in her power to not set him off is valid, but it's not as valid is seeing that son a degenerate rat put in jail! Actually counseling a woman to stay with her abuser could end up with with one (or more) deaths, and I'd hate to be the woman who told that wife to stay.
But, once again, if you ignore the crazy you'll find some good advice on overlooking your spouses faults (not feeding the dog, forgetting your birthday, etc) and not trying to "punish" them with our attitudes. At best you get strife and at worse you get the freedom for a find another man who'll forget to mend the door or pick up a gallon of milk. Good marriages, as Mrs. Pearl rightly points out, are made of overlooking faults and loving the other person.
I wasn't sure about adding any more to this post since it's already getting rather long, but if you'll bear with me the next chapter is pretty short.
Mrs. Pearl closes out Part 1 with a chapter on the practical outworkings of reverencing one's husband. I could go into it point by point, but basically it means publicly and privately acting in ways that build your husband up and bring him honor. It means serving him and appreciating his attentions and company and certainly not shaking off an embrace because he might mess up your dress or your hair. (Caveat: If we were getting ready for an event and Allen tried to bear hug me in such a way that it'd be another 20 minutes putting my hair back in order I'd give him a friendly warning to that effect simply because being late/arriving deshabille could also reflect badly on us/him.) So far so good. Once again though I lose her when she says that God has installed in a men a response mechanism whereby wives can win their husbands by correct behavior and that men, conversely, really can't do anything about a recalcitrant wife. She might have a point, but if you read that as "You can lead your angry husband even if he resists, but he can't lead you unless you let him" it doesn't seem to square with the roles of husbands and wives. I don't have a chapter and verse at the moment, but it doesn't sound right.
Next time we'll start on Part 2. Stay tuned :)
Chapter 13 opens with the "great mystery" of Ephesians 5:32-33 and the return of Dubious Exegesis Debi. I'm going to block quote Ephesians 5:32-33 once as cited in CTBHHM and follow with Ephesians 5:22-33 as per my Bible. Although I typically use ESV I'll post the second quote from KJV just for comparison's sake.
This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and church...and the wife see that she reverence her husband.(emphasis in original)Compared with:
22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. (emphasis mine)
I realize those at just a couple hunks of text tossed on the (virtual) page, but I wanted to provide a means of contrasting and contextualizing Mrs. Pearl's reference. It doesn't take an advanced degree in English to see that Mrs. Pearl is leaving a whole lot out of her quote. The Bible says "This is a great mystery:but I speak concerning Christ and the church." Basic reading here: "but" contrasts with "mystery" and attempts to provide some sort of information about this mystery. It doesn't say "and" which would you lead you into another topic. This is about the mystery. What mystery though? Is it wives reverencing husbands? The preceding sentence says "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery." Any common sense reading of this passage would equate the "great mystery" with the "one flesh" of marriage. If you look back up at the extended quotation you'll that Paul is constantly going back and forth between the unity of marriage and the unity of Christ and Church. Based on his argument I'd say that this "great mystery" refers to the "one flesh" union of marriage and furthermore applies the metaphor of marriage to Christ's union with His Church. Could Mrs. Pearl be right? Maybe. But, although I can excuse her elipsing out the husband's role she also left out this ticky little "Nevertheless." If we took the husband out of that passage it would still read "Nevertheless let...the wife see that she reverence her husband." "Nevertheless" is approximately equivalent to "however" and signals a shift in the conversation and is therefore and important word to have been left out. Given the complete quotation it would take quite a bit of 'splaining for me to accept Mrs. Pearl's version of the "great mystery."
You might think I'm spending too much time on a simple misquote, but it's important when she's making it the foundation for understanding how a wife reverences her husband. The biggest mystery is how she missed the mystery! Once she gets past her odd exegesis Mrs. Pearl actually has some good things to say about how our marriage is supposed to be an earthly picture of Christ's union with the Church and how this prepares us for the day when we really are joined to Christ.
And now it's over the top story time! Mrs. Pearl presents us with another wife (this time one whose husband visits prostitutes) who goes out of her way to make her husband feel like the most amazing dad in the world. I suppose I'm a wildly skeptical wife, but I don't think my marriage vows include anything about coming down with an incurable venereal disease because I'm having sex with a man who has sex with prostitutes. In that same vein I don't consider staying with a man who tried to kill with a butcher knife while you're pregnant to be covered by my marriage vows. Since Sunny and Amed's story (and the outrageous advice Mrs. Pearl gave) are legendary I won't add very much. If you have a friend who refuses to leave her abuser then counseling her to do everything in her power to not set him off is valid, but it's not as valid is seeing that son a degenerate rat put in jail! Actually counseling a woman to stay with her abuser could end up with with one (or more) deaths, and I'd hate to be the woman who told that wife to stay.
But, once again, if you ignore the crazy you'll find some good advice on overlooking your spouses faults (not feeding the dog, forgetting your birthday, etc) and not trying to "punish" them with our attitudes. At best you get strife and at worse you get the freedom for a find another man who'll forget to mend the door or pick up a gallon of milk. Good marriages, as Mrs. Pearl rightly points out, are made of overlooking faults and loving the other person.
I wasn't sure about adding any more to this post since it's already getting rather long, but if you'll bear with me the next chapter is pretty short.
Mrs. Pearl closes out Part 1 with a chapter on the practical outworkings of reverencing one's husband. I could go into it point by point, but basically it means publicly and privately acting in ways that build your husband up and bring him honor. It means serving him and appreciating his attentions and company and certainly not shaking off an embrace because he might mess up your dress or your hair. (Caveat: If we were getting ready for an event and Allen tried to bear hug me in such a way that it'd be another 20 minutes putting my hair back in order I'd give him a friendly warning to that effect simply because being late/arriving deshabille could also reflect badly on us/him.) So far so good. Once again though I lose her when she says that God has installed in a men a response mechanism whereby wives can win their husbands by correct behavior and that men, conversely, really can't do anything about a recalcitrant wife. She might have a point, but if you read that as "You can lead your angry husband even if he resists, but he can't lead you unless you let him" it doesn't seem to square with the roles of husbands and wives. I don't have a chapter and verse at the moment, but it doesn't sound right.
Next time we'll start on Part 2. Stay tuned :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)