Senate Candidate Expects His Wife to Fix Him Dinner Every Night

[Volante Nocturno]

Yeah... that does come across as misogyny. Not everyone is as thick-skinned (or pig-headed) as me, and many will just walk away from trying to discuss things with someone who characterises them in that way.

Whatever....I'm just going by experience. I do appreciate women like you though, that are willing to carry out their part.

 

[Archivist]

Some people seem to think that a genuine partnership of equals is impossible in marriage?

Very sad.

 

[Archivist]

Whatever....I'm just going by experience. I do appreciate women like you though, that are willing to carry out their part.

That certainly has not been my experience. Perhaps you need to get out more often and start meeting more women.

 

[Go Braves]

You know that post is flaming, don't you?

I'm know that it's not flaming, Pat, on account of verifying that it's not.

My post was referring to the Senate candidate this thread is about, Pat. Not you. Now maybe I should have called him by name instead of just saying he, but I did say that he's 37 & engaged. It says you're 53 & single, so I'm not sure why you'd think it was about you since the ages and relationship status don't match up. I hadn't thought there'd be any confusion.

It wasn't "flaming" a political leader either. If that's what you're trying to say? It was commentary that was honest.

Let's break this down.
Courtland Sykes is fit, tall, many ladies would find him attractive. If he was fat, balding, out of shape, then maybe that could be why he was still single at his age. He's educated, has got some impressive degrees. He's got solid professional work experience. This isn't a man sitting on his butt playing around on the internet all day long, living off his mama, he's an earner. He strikes me as a lady's man. He doesn't have that "40 year old virgin" thing going on at all. So he checks off all the boxes most ladies would want for a husband, but yet he's middle aged & not married. It's pretty dang reasonable to think that it's his attitude that is an issue. A lot of smart, self respecting ladies wouldn't want to tolerate that, and I say good for them.

If you care about folks insulting others, you ought to care about what he said, which was insulting on several levels. The whole thing is a pretty transparent attempt to appeal to a certain kind of Trump voter, but it's playing straight into a negative stereotype about them.

 

[Dave-W]

Really! All a man looks for is a woman who is willing to do her part..as you described....That's not misogyny. It's reasonable.

If "her part" goes beyond the pale, it is misogyny. Example:

His part:
work so I can afford to go fishing, hunting and attend pro sports events
Watch pro football and baseball on TV as much as possible
hang out with my fishing and hunting buddies
Enforce "her part" by quoting bible verses

Her part:
Work full time to pay bills
raise the kids
Cook all the meals
Wash and iron my clothes
Immediately fetch me a cold one when I call, even if you are in the middle of something else
be an available sex partner any time day or night

 

[MoonlessNight]

Well his attitude is probably why he's 37 & only engaged to be married when most fellows that age would already be married.

Heck, if he followed the advice of Modern Christians, not only would he be married, but he'd already be divorced. In fact, he is old enough to have been married and divorced twice.

 

[Archivist]

Heck, if he followed the advice of Modern Christians, not only would he be married, but he'd already be divorced. In fact, he is old enough to have been married and divorced twice.

What "Modern Christians" are advising people to get divorced? Evidence please. At one time women were told that they should stay in marriages even if they were being physically abused. While researching an article that I am writing I recently found a law review article from around 1900 advising disciplinary wife spanking in marriage. Thankfully I think that most "Modern Christians" now agree that is wrong and a woman who is being physically abused should get out of the marriage. I would hope that you would agree with that. But otherwise I don't see a trend on the part of Christians today urging couples to get divorced.

 

[MoonlessNight]

What "Modern Christians" are advising people to get divorced? Evidence please. At one time women were told that they should stay in marriages even if they were being physically abused. While researching an article I recently found a law review article from around 1900 advising disciplinary wife spanking in marriage. Thankfully I think that most "Modern Christians" now agree that is wrong and a woman who is being physically abused should get out of the marriage. I would hope that you would agree with that.

"What 'Modern Christians' are advising people to get divorced? Evidence please. Now, apropos of nothing, let me talk about when people should get divorced."

But let's get all of your cards on the table here. Are you really taking the stand that physical abuse is the only possible scenario in which case you'd endorse a divorce?

 

[Paidiske]

I'd widen it a bit to any form of abuse; physical, sexual, emotional, financial, spiritual. Also abuse of children in the marriage, to protect them. Maybe severe addiction, if it's causing one spouse to significantly mistreat the other (which is really a sub-category of abuse).

Adultery has a Biblical endorsement. Apart from that, I can't think of any other reason for which I'd say divorce was a good remedy.

 

[Archivist]

"What 'Modern Christians' are advising people to get divorced? Evidence please. Now, apropos of nothing, let me talk about when people should get divorced."

But let's get all of your cards on the table here. Are you really taking the stand that physical abuse is the only possible scenario in which case you'd endorse a divorce?

I asked you for evidence. You provided none. When you provide the evidence that I requested I will answer your question.

BTW, who are you quoting in your first paragraph? You put quotation marks around the entire paragraph, but I certainly didn't say all those words, nor has anyone else in this thread. You shouldn't be incorrectly attributing words.

 

[Go Braves]

Heck, if he followed the advice of Modern Christians, not only would he be married, but he'd already be divorced. In fact, he is old enough to have been married and divorced twice.

Shoot, he was old enough to have been married & divorced twice a decade ago. I lived for a while in a rural town right in the buckle of the Bible belt. Unfortunately lots of folks there put a much bigger emphasis on not having sex before marriage than they do on not divorcing. On account of that, I know quite a few who got married way too young, then divorced way too young. Then repeat.

Sadder than that, are the folks who got married way too young, when they were no where near ready, then told they couldn't divorce on account of it being against the Bible even though they were being abused.

So I agree with you but have to say that the Christians giving that advice, sure are giving bad advice. Marriage needs to be done right.

 

[Go Braves]

What "Modern Christians" are advising people to get divorced? Evidence please. At one time women were told that they should stay in marriages even if they were being physically abused. While researching an article that I am writing I recently found a law review article from around 1900 advising disciplinary wife spanking in marriage. Thankfully I think that most "Modern Christians" now agree that is wrong and a woman who is being physically abused should get out of the marriage. I would hope that you would agree with that. But otherwise I don't see a trend on the part of Christians today urging couples to get divorced.

A fellow right here on this forum not that long back wrote about how he thought men ought to have the right to physically discipline their wives. I sure do hope he was a troll, but there's plenty of sick minds who will twist the scriptures around to suit themselves.

I don't think that a lot of folks are out there advising divorce to Christians, but like I said in my last post, I think some attitudes can lead to more divorces. I've seen far more of a tolerance to divorce. My girlfriend's parents have both been divorced twice. Now her dad is getting divorced again, already got wife 4 lined up. They're church going Baptists. It's why she wants to make sure she does marriage right, wait till ready, do the marriage counseling at church. She wants 1 marriage for her life. She never wants kids she'll have to go through a divorce.

 

[Dave-W]

While researching an article that I am writing I recently found a law review article from around 1900 advising disciplinary wife spanking in marriage.

That was common in the 1960s.

 

[Archivist]

A fellow right here on this forum not that long back wrote about how he thought men ought to have the right to physically discipline their wives. I sure do hope he was a troll, but there's plenty of sick minds who will twist the scriptures around to suit themselves.

I remember that. Rather scary that some people feel that way. Hopefully he was a troll.

I don't think that a lot of folks are out there advising divorce to Christians, but like I said in my last post, I think some attitudes can lead to more divorces. I've seen far more of a tolerance to divorce. My girlfriend's parents have both been divorced twice. Now her dad is getting divorced again, already got wife 4 lined up. They're church going Baptists. It's why she wants to make sure she does marriage right, wait till ready, do the marriage counseling at church. She wants 1 marriage for her life. She never wants kids she'll have to go through a divorce.

I do agree that many Christians are more accepting of divorce today. In some cases that is a good thing--no one should be expected to stay in a relationship where one party is a victim of abuse. My point earlier was that "Modern Christians" are generally not advising people to get divorced (except in cases such as abuse) as the earlier poster claimed.

 

[LadyKay]

Missouri Republican Senate candidate Courtland Sykes told voters "I want to come home to a home cooked dinner at six every night, one that she [Sykes' fiancee] fixes and one that I expect one day to have daughter learn to fix after they become traditional homemakers and family wives." He also said that he doesn't want his daughters "career obsessed banshees who forego home life ... to become nail-biting manophobic hell-bent feminist she devils who shriek from the tops of a thousand tall buildings."

Am I the only one who is frightened by this sort of talk?

GOP Senate candidate on women's rights: 'I want to come home to a cooked dinner every night'

All I have to say is I feel bad for this guy's wife.

[/QUOTE]=hell-bent feminist she devils who shriek from the tops of a thousand tall buildings."[/QUOTE]

I read this and I have to ask myself "what is wrong with this guy"? Cause there is something wrong here.

 

[revanneosl]

He's so deep in the closet that Mr. Tumnus is about to welcome him to Narnia.

 

[Go Braves]

That was common in the 1960s.

Really? Gracious knows my grandparents, other married folks in my family back then, wouldn't have put up with that for one minute. If my grandpa had tried to do that to my granny he'd have gotten his own hide in trouble.

 

[pat34lee]

No, I believe his point was that perhaps the reason the candidate is still single at his age is because of his attitude towards women. No flaming.

What do you think flaming entails?
"He is single basically because his attitude toward women [stinks]."
While the [stinks] was implied, he wasn't giving the guy a compliment.
And his being single had nothing to do with the OP, much less why.

 

[Paidiske]

Reasoned critical comment on public figures is allowed, and not flaming under CF rules. Egregious inflammatory comment about public figures can be taken as goading CF members.

I don't think that noting that someone's attitude towards women may contribute to his lack of success in relationships, is egregious inflammatory comment.

 

[pat34lee]

How about, "I will love, honour, and cherish her; I will work together with her to work towards our shared and individual life goals, aspirations and dreams; I will respect her as a person in her own right, with her own needs and wants, and seek to make sure that our relationship is not one-way but genuinely mutually supportive?"

That's what I want in a husband; it's what I observe most women want in a husband.

And for each of those desires, the husband has a corresponding one.
They are not exactly the same because the man is not the same as
the woman. Paul told the men to love their wives, but he told the
wives to honor or respect their husbands. Why was that, anyone?
Ephesians 5