Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
One other thing - the husband is displaying passive-aggressive behaviors that are just as damaging to communication and to marriages. I have several people in my life who engage in p/a behaviors, including my boss, and it drives me crazy. I'm in favor of direct, open discussion and honesty. Also perhaps if the guy after how many years managed to remember not to mix his laundry up, perhaps that would help? That is strictly infantile behavior which begs for a wife to act like a mom.
This article had the potential to be an informative and introspective piece......BUT there were so many subtle implications (and NOT so subtle implications) that it got ruined, IMO.
For one thing: what's the need to assign specific words for behavior to one gender that *both* genders may exhibit (like "nagging" and "harping")? Why not use words like "ungracious" and "critical" that may apply to everyone?
Another thing: She wrote that she doesn't see this behavior as a "typical male characteristic". Well....that's because of how that word (nagging) is often used--we perceive it as "looking" a certain way. That's another problem with the use of those words.
Yet another issue: She assigned this behavior to "too many women" and then went on using the "we" pronoun in her sentences. She started off as sharing her insight (which *could* be helpful) but then it turned into a lecture (one that *both* genders could hear & apply....but she already dismissed the idea by that point that some men might need to hear it).
So....overall: a possible good article was destroyed by the gender divide (again) and a female author's attempt to be a "cool girl".
No I don't believe I am saying that this is what all women do. I'm saying you have a group of American women that lack a certain exposure and in order to make up for that exposure they adapt and fall into social norms. I don't think we can reject the fact that these are social norms and are considered acceptable for certain genders. I think to ignore the reality that this is expected from women and women themselves fall into the trap of social norms needs to be addressed.There's no doubt that women (and men) have these expectations (this author is one of them---and there're articles every day just like this). I agree that just because it's common (both sides of it--boys will be boys and girls will be girls) doesn't mean it's right (not that you said that in those exact words---but I'm getting the same concept from your post). I just think it's simpler (and less confusing) to just speak about unhealthy behavior w/o bringing gender into it. It doesn't matter who is misbehaving---it ALL damages relationships.
No I don't believe I am saying that this is what all women do
There's no doubt that women (and men) have these expectations (this author is one of them---and there're articles every day just like this). I agree that just because it's common (both sides of it--boys will be boys and girls will be girls) doesn't mean it's right (not that you said that in those exact words---but I'm getting the same concept from your post). I just think it's simpler (and less confusing) to just speak about unhealthy behavior w/o bringing gender into it. It doesn't matter who is misbehaving---it ALL damages relationships.
Ok it is my belief that this behavior is acceptable and expected. Therefore women that live in cultures where it is ok to treat men as servants will defend these actions. It's not right no matter what gender does it.Pardon? Could you maybe re-phrase that, Avniel?
The challenge comes when a stereotype that an author is arguing against is gender specific. Trying to treat the issue without addressing the gender specific stereotype dilutes the message and lessens the impact to her very audience - those who have bought into the stereotype as acceptable behavior (and isn't that one of the biggest dangers of stereotypes?)
I read that article and the one thing that caught me was how he had the look on his face that her son would have when she scolded him. That aha moment of treating her husband like a child. This is her life partner not her child and should be treated as such.
But.....I guess the issue I have is the promotion of *any* stereotype---and that's what I see this article as (a promotion/encouragement of believing stereotypes....whether they are acceptable behavior or not). It's not just that people believe or accept the behavior---it's that they assign this behavior specifically to women at all (instead of being able to recognize it as a human issue).
But mkgal1 - acknowledgement is not promotion! In fact, the author is trying to get people to see the stereotype exists and has been used as an excuse so that they can stop being part of it. You cannot fix an issue without acknowledging that it exists!
Okay....well, there you go. You just helped me to clarify my point. My complaint is that it can be used to fuel the stereotype---just as you just did.MkGal1, I think the political correctness chokes out useful conversation sometimes.
The Bible addresses certain commands to husbands and certain commands to wives. It's okay to address problems that are more common with wives. The article describes a problem common to certain wives. But I think we all know that wives can be very different in this regard. Some are critical like this article describes, and some are sweet, respectful, etc.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1431698694306-1'); });
If she'd have chosen gender-neutral language, I don't think people could have related to the article as well.
I don't think I'm expressing myself very well :/
Maybe let's start here: do we all agree that a stereotype is a bias against a particular group of people? IOW...assigning a character trait to people just b/c they are in a certain group. Because people each have their own unique personalities---then within a stereotyped group of people there can be some that fit...and some that don't. I think I have something in my signature line about that---that it's not that they [stereotypes] aren't true stories....but that they make one story the *only* story.
For example: let's say someone has a bias that (I'll try to keep it on a less touchy and hopefully less personal topic) people that wear jeans and sandals as their go-to attire are liberal "tree-huggers" that put the environment over humans. If conversation begins from the point of assuming that about that person.....(without knowing if it's true or not----or if it's ALL true or only somewhat true)...then everything that follows that is already a bit on shaky ground....right? You said, "you can't fix an issue w/o acknowledging that it exists".....but *what* particular issue would we be addressing when we're not even sure about the details? Do you see what I mean? Does this clarify it: (going with the jeans/sandals guy)....if you said to him, "You know.....I used to also believe that we should do all we could to protect wildlife. God created this world and everything in it, but I realized how wrong I was.....yada yada". If that guy didn't in fact have those beliefs.....would that conversation even be of any value to him? Does that resolve anything (other than demonstrating that people look on just the surface and are too lazy/disinterested to get to know others)? Do you see what I mean now?
Okay....well, there you go. You just helped me to clarify my point. My complaint is that it can be used to fuel the stereotype---just as you just did.
You bring up something that I actually liked about the article: that the implication is that this wife (and, as she wrote, too many others as well) ought to behave more like their husbands do. IOW.....not follow separate "commands" but be guided by grace, respect, and humility in an effort to forge a partnership.
I disagree about using gender-neutral language and people not being able to relate as much. The way I see it---it includes *more* people to use gender-neutral phrases as she discounted half of our population by using "harping" and "nagging".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?