Introspection about Nagging and Criticism

[HannahT]

But I still don't see your objection to stereotyping, since there are some women who do this habitually. The abuse wheels often use 'she' for the abuse. Do you complain about that stereotype?

Nope. Abuse is not gender specific. Everyone knows that! I think of all the fairy tales with the evil stepmother for example - she was the abusive party. Most parties that speak on abuse - as you know many males do as well - tend to use the 'she' more often because they find that the tendency is more often 'she'. Yet, you know that too. The objections were your terminology, and yet I think you know that.

I personally think you see the point when using the word stereotyping, and you know that isn't an accurate term. Yet, you continue to use it inaccurately. I think also realize that was more to the point of the discussion, and you seem to be ignoring it. You are intelligent enough to grasp it, but blow it off. That's personally telling to me. How sad.

My grandfather was like the lady in the article, and yet sadly he never got his 'aha' moment. I hope this women continues in her efforts to act rationally and lovingly towards her husband. I even bet she would replace a term in a discussion to a more relevant and accurate one if the error was pointed out to her. It's part of cordial debate.

Yet, I don't think that is what you are after.

 

[beaverpond]

I agree that it is far from gender specific...I have seen where my MIL has done this to my FIL and I have seen how my SIL did this to my brother before he had enough and kicked her to the curb, but there is a lot more to the story than just this type of abuse. She also had several extramarital affairs. However, two of my Uncles were like this to my Aunts and my grandfather was similar to this to my grandmother in his younger years according to my Dad.

So yup, the door swings both ways on this issue as to being both men and women.

 

[LinkH]

If you vowed it, you should do it. Personally, I think that is a bad thing to make a vow about. Vows that are difficult or impossible to keep, may be one of the reasons that the Bible warns 'swear not at all.' Maybe you and your wife happen to have personalities that this will work for.

I tried doing what you are saying. My have has matured, but earlier in our marriage, if she was angry it could take her a while to calm down. And if she was angry at night, it was harder to calm down. I've read (from a post on the Internet so it must be true ) that most arguments between couples start after 10 PM. That's when people are cranky.

The Bible says not to let the sun go down on your wrath. That means if you are angry after sundown, e.g., late at night after 10 PM when you are both cranky, you've got until sundown the next day to make it right. So it's okay to rest up, be in a better mood, and kiss and make up in the morning.

I made the mistake of keeping my wife up trying to reconcile when I was a bit younger and didn't know better. If we argued, I could calm down really quick and reconcile. She wasn't the same.

Fortunately, my wife doesn't take so long to make up over some little offense or being cranky these days, either. The before going to bed thing would probably work for us now if we had a conflict late at night, but it is not going to work for people who need a little time to calm down or think through things.

 

[LinkH]

Most parties that speak on abuse - as you know many males do as well - tend to use the 'she' more often because they find that the tendency is more often 'she'. Yet, you know that too.

Maybe slightly more males do the classic domestic violence thing, or at least more are reported. If you count the stuff in the article as abuse, who knows which gender abuses more in our culture.

What I see is women posting links to probably female-run feminists sites who call the abused 'she.' I don't go around listening to men lecture on abuse, so I don't know how typical it is for men to call those who are abused 'she.' But that sort of terminology does reinforce certain feminisist's beliefs that all men are potential abusers and other anti-male rhetoric.

The objections were your terminology, and yet I think you know that.

What are you talking about? I just posted an article.

I personally think you see the point when using the word stereotyping, and you know that isn't an accurate term. Yet, you continue to use it inaccurately. I think also realize that was more to the point of the discussion, and you seem to be ignoring it. You are intelligent enough to grasp it, but blow it off. That's personally telling to me. How sad.

You are being condescending and vague, and, no, I don't know what your concern is about the 'point of the discussion' unless you specify it. I'm not a mind-reader. And your condescending comments are not conducive to cordial debate, either.

What I see is that Mkgal1 doesn't like words like 'harp' or 'nag' applied to women. I think the descriptive language was good and painted a picture that the reader could relate to. The target audience is female. If a woman reads that and doesn't do those things, then she has no reason to be offended. The culture of hypersensitivity and political correctness isn't helpful when discussing these kinds of issues.

As far as 'stereotyping' goes, I don't see a problem with pointing out that there are certain types of women who belittle their husbands and criticize them for every little thing, or why that is bad 'stereotyping' but 'categorizing' abusive male personalities on an 'abuse wheel' is not. The difference between calling something categorizing or a stereotype is if one things the categorization is too broad or unfair.

 

[mkgal1]

If you vowed it, you should do it. Personally, I think that is a bad thing to make a vow about. Vows that are difficult or impossible to keep, may be one of the reasons that the Bible warns 'swear not at all.' Maybe you and your wife happen to have personalities that this will work for.

Link, what's this in response to? Did something get deleted or did I miss something?

ETA: I see now. Never mind.

 

[mkgal1]

What I see is that Mkgal1 doesn't like words like 'harp' or 'nag' applied to women. I think the descriptive language was good and painted a picture that the reader could relate to. The target audience is female. If a woman reads that and doesn't do those things, then she has no reason to be offended. The culture of hypersensitivity and political correctness isn't helpful when discussing these kinds of issues.

What I'm *sensitive* to (not hypersensitive) is this gender divide and competition within genders of "who is BEST" instead of striving for personal integrity and truly encouraging others. I also have an aversion to things that are disguised as one thing, but are---in fact---another (which is what this seems to be in really taking a look at it).

I find it very damaging to make things out to be a competition (either between men VS women; women vs women; or men vs men)---it's ALL destructive.

 

[mkgal1]

well now there is a stereotype if I ever saw one...Any of the conservative churches I have belonged to or attended except for one have always said that while wives must submit to their husbands and husbands must love their wives, we also acknowledge that we must have mutual respect and love for each other and work together as a team.

When my wife and I got married we always vowed that we would never go to bed angry with each other even if it meant staying up all night, we have only done that a few times over the last 20+ years. I have to wonder if more couples did this if the divorce rate would be lower....one only knows.

I seem to be seeing more and more of these types of articles recently. I'm glad you and your wife have heard balanced teaching.

I don't know if I agree with staying up all night if things can't be resolved right away---but I *do* agree with the idea of trying to maintain compassion even through disagreements and upsets. This is one of my favorite quotes about that:

"When we allow the mistakes of others to manage us, to dislodge us from our goal of being loving and respectful, we've actually submitted to the spirit of fear." ~Danny Silk...Keep Your Love On

 

[beaverpond]

I wish I could say my wife heard balanced teaching when looking at her parents. I think she had to look further back and see how her grandparents did it and one of her Aunts and Uncles has done it as many of them have divorced or are living in abusive situations. I know she looked at my parents and asked them how they did it as they never argued or at least never in public. She looked at a few of my other relatives and asked them similar questions. I had to let her do this to find out what her vows would be and figure out what our stances in marriage would be...Biblically, physically, emotionally, and then how to support each other through all of this.

We had a wonderful growing experience that some couples don't get. We got to work at a Christian Summer Camp for kids just before getting married. I was a camp director and she worked in the kitchen. We got to spend some time together, but not a lot. Enough to get to work some things out without parents, friends, and family around trying to stick their noses into things. I stayed and worked on the boys side of camp and she was housed on the girls side of camp, but worked on the boys side of camp. There was an East and West side of camp as this is also how the lake was divided...girls on East and boys on West.

It is amazing what you can work out in a situation like this.

 

[HannahT]

Maybe slightly more males do the classic domestic violence thing, or at least more are reported. If you count the stuff in the article as abuse, who knows which gender abuses more in our culture.

What I see is women posting links to probably female-run feminists sites who call the abused 'she.' I don't go around listening to men lecture on abuse, so I don't know how typical it is for men to call those who are abused 'she.' But that sort of terminology does reinforce certain feminisist's beliefs that all men are potential abusers and other anti-male rhetoric.

You are presenting your argument as a competition as to which gender abuses more. Abuse isn't gender specific. That's been pointed out to you for years now.

You get so hypersensitive about the 'she' word, and assume it must be the females talking other females into being 'anti male'. Most of the time when I see this discussion its more in general terms, and people realize its not gender specific. If you need a footnote or something to make sure its politically correct enough for you - start requesting it! Most people are able to figure it out all by themselves.

Link I have also noticed that anything you don't happen to agree with is 'feminist'. You also tend to write in a anti-female rhetoric. Pot meet kettle!

There are plenty of males that speak on this subject, and its not hard to find either. There are plenty of women and men that call themselves feminist (and heck even those like myself/husband that don't label themselves as such) that don't view men as potential abusers, and follow that line of thinking. Sadly, you have a problem acknowledging that. If you were truly interested you could find them, but because you aren't interested you go on the assumption since you haven't seen it...well...

Just because an article uses the word 'she' doesn't mean what you assume it does. You admitted yourself that you haven't checked out enough material on the subject, and you should know that means you are speaking from your small world prospective. Yet, your attempting a larger one. That doesn't fit at all.

What are you talking about? I just posted an article.

You know what I'm talking about. People objected to your terminology (ie stereotype - among others), and you even acknowledged it. Now you are playing the 'what you are talking about' game? Seriously?! I'm not being vague if you read what was said.

You are being condescending and vague, and, no, I don't know what your concern is about the 'point of the discussion' unless you specify it. I'm not a mind-reader. And your condescending comments are not conducive to cordial debate, either.

What I see is that Mkgal1 doesn't like words like 'harp' or 'nag' applied to women. I think the descriptive language was good and painted a picture that the reader could relate to. The target audience is female. If a woman reads that and doesn't do those things, then she has no reason to be offended. The culture of hypersensitivity and political correctness isn't helpful when discussing these kinds of issues.

As far as 'stereotyping' goes, I don't see a problem with pointing out that there are certain types of women who belittle their husbands and criticize them for every little thing, or why that is bad 'stereotyping' but 'categorizing' abusive male personalities on an 'abuse wheel' is not. The difference between calling something categorizing or a stereotype is if one things the categorization is too broad or unfair.

You mention the word stereotype, and it was pointed out that it wasn't an accurate term when referencing behavior traits on the wheel. Then you acknowledge that you know the word has negative cogitation, but then continue to use it. That is condescending.

Stereotypes tend to start with 'most women' or 'most males' or 'most blacks' or whatever group they are targeting. When we point out your terminology is to broad or unfair? You call us hypersensitive. MG mentioned why she didn't feel it was appropriate in general terms, and you call her hypersensitive because you seem to feel her POV doesn't count. That's condescending.

You originally said the abuse wheel was stereotypes, and it was pointed out that isn't an accurate term for the abuse wheel. Now you go down a new rabbit trail, and almost pretend you didn't say that...you were talking about the lady in the article. How women can do this to men. Stereotyping is 'most women' do this to men. Is that what you claim the author is saying? MOST women do this? No. You said 'certain'. So, the word stereotype is not accurate here either.

It was also pointed out the wheel is used for habitual abusive behavior - not abusive male personalities. Your anti-female rhetoric is showing again!

Its not condescending to call you out on your junk Link.

 

[LinkH]

You are presenting your argument as a competition as to which gender abuses more.

I was responding to another comment. If we talk about which gender abuses the other more that doesn't mean we are having a competition between genders. A spouse beating competition? Really?

Abuse isn't gender specific. That's been pointed out to you for years now.

Another obnoxious condescending comment.

You get so hypersensitive about the 'she' word, and assume it must be the females talking other females into being 'anti male'.

More obnoxious condescension, and not conducive to cordial debate. It's not true either.

It's not something I've thought about much, but calling abusees 'she' and abusers 'he' does fit with the thinking of some feminists that men are potential abusers and rapists and potentially out to hurt the kids, too. It was a spur of the moment point, and maybe a weak one, but one with some validity, and not something I'm hypersensitive to.

Notice your pattern here of making personal attacks against me. Can't you defend your opinions without trying to paint the person who disagrees with you a certain way?

Link I have also noticed that anything you don't happen to agree with is 'feminist'.

That's false. ISIS isn't feminist. I disagree with a lot of their beliefs and actions.

There are plenty of women and men that call themselves feminist (and heck even those like myself/husband that don't label themselves as such) that don't view men as potential abusers, and follow that line of thinking. Sadly, you have a problem acknowledging that.

Horse manure.

Where did I ever say that all feminists see all men as potential abusers? My position, is that some feminists think that. You can't disagree with that, can you? I suppose I could look something up, but surely you have read or heard this idea, at least if you are as old as I am.

Why would you make something like this up. If you thought about it, surely you'd realize that you can't back up that claim. Have you noticed that your recent posts toward me have been personal attacks? I don't care for feminist ideology, especially when it relates to trying to away with what scripture teaches on marriage. I make comments about an ideology, but you attack me personally. Most of your attacks are vague, sometimes condescending. Here, you posted a flat out slander, so I'm calling you out on it.

If you really want this cordial debate atmosphere on the forum, then you personally need to lay off on the personal attacks and condescending comments. We can disagree on ideas without making stuff up about other people. Here, your attack isn't even based on fact.

You know what I'm talking about. People objected to your terminology (ie stereotype - among others), and you even acknowledged it. Now you are playing the 'what you are talking about' game? Seriously?! I'm not being vague if you read what was said.

I still don't know what I'm talking about. I could play your game and say that you are intentionally being obnoxious. You know you are being obnoxious, and that you know how you are being obnoxious. But maybe you don't realize how obnoxious you are being, so I suppose I should not do that.

If you want me to know what you are talking about, refer to some specific words. I used the words that were used in the article I posted. I don't know which post of mine you are referring to unless you tell me. This practice of yours of throwing accusation against me without details and then saying I know what you are talking about and I'm smart enough to know what you are talking about is annoying and obnoxious.

If you want to have cordial discussion and debate on here, stop with the accusations, especially vague accusations where it isn't clear what you are basing them on, and the false accusations. Personal attacks are bad for cordial dialogue.

Stereotypes tend to start with 'most women' or 'most males' or 'most blacks' or whatever group they are targeting. When we point out your terminology is to broad or unfair? You call us hypersensitive. MG mentioned why she didn't feel it was appropriate in general terms, and you call her hypersensitive because you seem to feel her POV doesn't count. That's condescending.

Is this the basis of your vague accusation where I was supposed to know what you were talking about? Or was it something else?
If I don't think I've used 'stereotype' in an inappropriate way, when understood in context, I'm not going to have any idea what you were talking about in the last post? Other people have different perspectives, and they can't read your mind.

If this is what you were referring to, then you are really getting bent out of shape over some small insignificant thing, IMO, a difference of terminology. A stereotype is a category in our minds where we think certain types of individuals fit certain characteristics. That's the same process that goes on when we categorize an abusive personality, or when we categorize the type of behavior the article in the OP mentions (which may also be considered abusive.) 'Stereotype' does have a negative connotation the way it's commonly used. It doesn't make sense to object to using an abuse wheel and being okay with it when it applies to an abusive husband, but being opposed to the idea of describing the characteristics of a wife like the one described in the article, rejecting it as a 'stereotype', IMO.

I've also seen abuse wheels that were written in such a way that they could describe non-abusive people in marriages with a lot of conflict. Some of the behaviors on some of the abuse wheel diagrams are either normal human behaviors, or Christian behaviors that an atheist abuse counselor may not like, (quoting Ephesians 5, I Peter 3, etc.) Someone could go through the will and condemn a reasonably normal person for not giving money on demand, quoting scripture, giving a look, rolling eyes, etc. There is also the problem with taking the pattern from one murderer and trying to extrapolate that as a kind of general pattern. We've talked about the abuse wheel in other threads.

 

[mkgal1]

Abuse isn't gender specific. That's been pointed out to you for years now.

and the response was:

Another obnoxious condescending comment.

How else should that have been expressed (what Hannah was trying to say about how it's been said many times---directly to you (Link) that abuse isn't gender specific)? Why is it "obnoxious and condescending" to bring up something that's true--especially when something has been an ongoing issue?

I happen to agree with this here:

Can't you defend your opinions without trying to paint the person who disagrees with you a certain way?

.....so why are you doing that?

 

[LinkH]

Mkgal1,

Look at the comment again,

Abuse isn't gender specific. That's been pointed out to you for years now.

When have I ever said that abuse was gender specific? Which gender would I have argued it was specific to? Have I ever said that women can't be abusive? Of course not. Have I ever said that men can't be abusive? Of course not. But she rights her comment as if I've been trying to deny some very obvious fact, and that she and others have been trying to persuade me otherwise.

I don't like her being condescending while misrepresenting me in her posts, so I confronted it head on. If it were a one-off comment, I might let it go, but her posts toward me have been full of this stuff so I pointed it out.

 

[mkgal1]

By "condescending" and "obnoxious"....do you mean "correct" and "I'm not willing to admit that"?

 

[Dave-W]

Where did I ever say that all feminists see all men as potential abusers? My position, is that some feminists think that.

Well - the question then comes to "Are those who self-identify as feminsts but DON'T believe that truly feminists?"

I do not consider anyone a true feminist unless they have a serious hatred of men.

"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." That sort of attitude.

 

[mkgal1]

 

[LinkH]

MkGal1,

"People need to repent of their sins if they want to call themselves Christians. This has been pointed out to you for years now.


"You need to love your mother. This has been pointed out to you for years now."

If I write stuff like that to you, how does that make you feel? What does that imply? While both could be factually true, those statements imply that you don't believe Christians should repent or that you don't love your mother enough. If you haven't been arguing that Christians don't need to repent and you don't have a problem loving your mother, then wouldn't it be obnoxious for people to post those things to you as if they represented the truth?

Men don't like being asked "When did you stop beating your wife?" which implies that the man beat his wife. You wouldn't like someone asking, "When did you stop cheating on your husband?" The question contains a false assumption.

 

[mkgal1]

Neither of those statements are comparable to what Hannah posted.

You were arguing about the abuse wheel "stereotyping men as abusive" (and that's been an ongoing argument that has become a strawman b/c the people you're addressing don't even believe that abuse is gender-specific). Do you see how it's a moot point to even attempt to make it a competition of genders?

 

[LinkH]

Neither of those statements are comparable to what Hannah posted.

You were arguing about the abuse wheel "stereotyping men as abusive" (and that's been an ongoing argument that has become a strawman b/c the people you're addressing don't even believe that abuse is gender-specific).

I don't think you get what I'm trying to say. Having a list of characteristics of an abusive personality is, what you call a 'categorization' or 'stereotype.' Some people say 'stereotype' if they think the characterization is not accurate or unfair in some way. My point earlier is that the same psychological or mental process goes into stereotyping or categorizing the abuse wheel that goes on with categorizing or stereotyping a type of women who acts like the one in the article.

So I certainly think it's arguable to say the abuse wheel is a stereotype if it's taken from one killer's characteristics. Another problem with the abuse wheel and similar lists is that it includes good Christian practices that liberal atheists don't like (e.g. quoting scripture), normal human behavior, and parts that could be used to blame relationship problems on the other party being 'abusive.' If a couple fights and then makes up a lot, that doesn't necessarily mean the problem is that the husband has an abusive personality. But that's another kettle of fish.

Do you see how it's a moot point to even attempt to make it a competition of genders?

I agree with you that the 'competition of genders' thing is a problem on the forum. But I'm looking at it from a different perspective. But what I see is when someone brings up marriage problems that certain women cause, that certain posters don't like women being characterized a certain way. And back when it was allowed to discuss a woman's Biblical responsibilities in marriage (in Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, I Peter 3), many posters wanted to argue them away, but of course keep a man's responsibilities in marriage (Ephesians 5).

The fact some posters in the past (and we probably have a bit different group now) fight against women taking any blame has come up on the forum, but I've also seen it discussed a bit on the married men's forum (which has pretty much been dead for quite a while.)

 

[beaverpond]

Pastor and I sat and discussed this article for a little bit the other day. Then we revisited the issue when finding out that my wife and I were discussing this at length to find out if we were doing this to each other. He found it interesting that we were looking at our marriage to see if were guilty of this. So then he brought this article up for sharing and discussion instead of Bible Study one night because we have seen so many marriages fail because of one thing or another, sometimes for what is stated in this article and sometimes not. Still worth the discussion. Some of the men agreed they were guilty to some degree, some of the women said they guilty to some degree, but none of the men and women said they were innocent of everything of what was discussed in this article or even a side track of similarities. Our Pastor even said he would be bringing it up at his next Pastor's conference to discuss what came out in our discussions and see if other Pastors have had similar discussions or if they would be willing to try this little experiment. He is not trying to hang anybody or guilt them into something, his hope is to create stronger marriage relationships. He said he may use this in marriage counseling.

 

[mkgal1]

I don't think you get what I'm trying to say. Having a list of characteristics of an abusive personality is, what you call a 'categorization' or 'stereotype.' Some people say 'stereotype' if they think the characterization is not accurate or unfair in some way. My point earlier is that the same psychological or mental process goes into stereotyping or categorizing the abuse wheel that goes on with categorizing or stereotyping a type of women who acts like the one in the article.

Not true. I posted earlier the distinction and I'm too lazy to repeat it. It's not the same. At all.

So I certainly think it's arguable to say the abuse wheel is a stereotype if it's taken from one killer's characteristics. Another problem with the abuse wheel and similar lists is that it includes good Christian practices that liberal atheists don't like (e.g. quoting scripture), normal human behavior, and parts that could be used to blame relationship problems on the other party being 'abusive.' If a couple fights and then makes up a lot, that doesn't necessarily mean the problem is that the husband has an abusive personality. But that's another kettle of fish.

No.....it's not arguable. "Killer's characteristics"? No.....the wheel isn't taken from *any* one person's characteristics---it's describing unhealthy and destructive behavior that occurs in a range of levels. I don't think you understand what spiritual abuse is (going by your mention of quoting Scripture as being on the list).