Submission and obedience.

[Endeavourer]

But threads like this, narratives like this, and so much more, are part of that complicated and messy reality. It would help if, when men who don't share these controlling views encounter this kind of discussion, they could see the problem with the attack on women, rather than jumping straight to "don't talk about abuse as a gendered reality!" In the context of this thread, it's very much a gendered discussion.

OK I will admit that I did jump into the thread not intending to participate in the general discussion on the initial topic of the thread (although I did give a few thoughts on the general topic at some point). I was just skimming through it and saw something that peaked my interest and commented on it. I am guilty of hijacking the thread. We'll call it a venial sin.

I've found men who hold the opinions of the OP, and others like @Thir7ySev3n and @Minister Monardo are intractable and unteachable on these threads. They like to have the "God given" power and authority to have their own way at their wife's expense, and to usurp the "right" to have the final decision over the wife, and they want to hear nothing to the contrary. They can't give you a verse that gives them that right - they only quote verses to the wife. There is **NO** verse telling a husband to usurp authority over his wife.

When you look at this philosophy, and the paradigm it creates, where only men are delivered by salvation from bondage from sin and women may be delivered from the bondage of their sins but into the bondage of their husband's sin, it doesn't make sense at all with rest of the Bible or the gospel story. Was Galatians written only to men? Do women not have the same liberty from legalism that Paul is urging? Are they instead enslaved to the legalism of bondage to their husband's sin? Paul says not. He says that men, women, bond, free... ALL have the same liberty in Christ.

These men have constructed a parallel "Bible", extracting the marriage verses out of the whole, to create an abhorrent doctrine of enslaving and bonding women to serve the sinful nature of the husband. (I dare any husband to come on here and say he doesn't have a sinful nature and he doesn't sin.

But their parallel "Bible" is entirely without context to the rest of the Bible. If they would just give their headship doctrines a thought for a quick minute, they would see how out of context to the rest of the Bible they are. Is Christ not the authority of the woman as well? The ONLY way you can pursue a headship/authority doctrine out of their headstone verse, 1 Cor 11:3 is if you say Christ is NOT the woman's authority, that only the man is the woman's authority. You would also have to say that God the Father only has authority over Christ (not over man or woman), and only Christ has authority over man (not over the woman) and only the man has authority over the woman. That her relationship to Christ is through the man. But they carve this verse up to apply it only partially here and there according to their fancy. Their fancy being that the man is the woman's authority, so there.

The only reason I post to counter them is to challenge the Biblical "reality" of women who might be reading with another perspective. As you can tell from some of the posts in this thread and others like it, women are reading these threads also, some who are in abusive marriages, who are trying to muster up the strength to continue submitting to abuse because they feel the Bible calls them to it.

I personally labored in an abusive marriage for 25 years under these doctrines, not having been exposed to a glimmer of thought challenging the reality of them. I have multiple degrees, going on to have a challenging and thrilling career, assigned by my company to lead and close the toughest negotiations with the customers who bullied us, or the most complex deals. They would fly me all over the country for toe to toe dealings on these situations. I am a fearless and bold negotiator who could not be rattled by anger outbursts by a CEO or CFO sitting across the table, so was very successful at what I did (and still do). Yet, I would return home to an abusive husband, so innervated and trapped at home, thinking it was my Biblical duty to submit to his temper with a quiet word that he might be won to Christ. I continued in this marriage for 25 years until my health broke down and I suffered permanent damage to my body.

At that point I realized that God does not deliver women to their husbands for destruction. That there isn't a parallel, partial gospel deliverance for women and a full gospel deliverance for men. This started my journey towards taking a second look at the appalling application of those doctrines and I realized how they conflicted with the whole message of the rest of the Bible. I have enjoyed an amazing and beautiful journey to real, true and FULL liberty in Christ, as my studies reveal more and more of God's unbounded love for women that is JUST THE SAME as his full unbounded love for men.

I give you my own story just so you can see it's not just meek, stupid women who can't think for themselves who are trapped in this unGodly paradigm. Women who are trapped in this range from sheltered to highly educated, and likely all, regardless of other factors, have a strong background knowledge in God's word - just according to a twisted filter. It's those trapped women for whom I invest my time responding on these threads.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't think there is anything wrong with taking a set of traits and labeling them as "A" and another set of traits and labeling them as "B" and then saying that group A tends to exhibit A more than group B, and group B tends to exhibit B more than group A, if you note that both members of group A and group B exhibit A and B. If you were running a scientific experiment with a group of rats, or anything else you could speak and analyze tendencies in that manner.

If you replace A and B with "masculine" and "feminine" you have the same thing. I think your issue with the terms is that you believe that they suggest that certain traits are exclusive to men and that others are exclusive to women, or that the traits have an extremely high correlation with the respective genders (e.g. "men are rational, women are emotional").

If you wanted to change the terms from "masculine" and "feminine" to something else ("A" and "B" for example), to lessen the danger of the stereotyping effect of the terms themselves, I would be fine with with that, but I would still take the position that men are still more likely to exhibit "A" and women are more likely to exhibit "B".

Well, my deeper issue is that those kinds of stereotypes are used to pigeonhole both men and women. Women are kept out of roles which are seen to call for "masculine" traits, and men are kept out of roles which are seen to call for "feminine" traits, despite where each individual person might actually fit with regard to any of those traits.

Well to be clear I never put much stock in the particular picture that you posted. I don't think it is based on any real, hard data, but was presented as more of a conceptual schematic to illustrate an idea. To get an actual idea for what the actual distributions are I think we would need much more than that, if that task is even possible at all. It's not exactly easy to measure "aggressiveness," "emotional expressiveness," or numerous other behavioral characteristics in a truly quantitative matter. Even defining the terms themselves and the methodology used to test for them would be subject to considerable debate.

Sure; that picture was something of a conceptual aggregate of a number of different measures. But the basic underlying point remains the same; most of the diversity in humanity is not attributable to sex/gender.

I think this is essentially the "nature" versus "nuture" debate that has been going on for the past 100 years. My view on that is that behavior is attributable to both genetic and environmental factors. I think that to ignore the significance of either factor would be incorrect.

Having studied genetics at university (my first degree was in science) I come down pretty heavily on the nurture side of things. Very, very little behaviour is attributable to our genetics in a way that is not mediated and moderated by environment.

I'll say this though, I think that concept is incongruent with using terms like "toxic masculinity", "male privilege", and "the patriarchy". Terms like that, in my view, tend to lump all of together as exhibiting certain behaviors or having certain benefits resulting from an unjust society. The use of the terms denies each of our own unique experiences as men on the Earth, in my opinion.

I would say you're misunderstanding the terms and their use, then. They are not intended to lump all men together, but to describe trends at work in our society at a level above that of individual experience.

Probably there I could use better terminology than "natural". I meant it in the sense that depending on the particular environment in which one finds oneself, it may be generally more efficient for men to work. Like, if you are cavemen living in a cave, and one person has to go out hunting, it may be better for the men to go out, because well, we run faster than ya'll.

I didn't mean that in an absolute sense, without considering the environment. Obviously we are no longer living in caves, its more efficient to have a different balance when it comes to work roles.

Even when you look at any given environment, I don't think we can neatly divide work tasks up by sex, because there is so much complexity. Take the hunting example; a woman may have skill in creating traps or fishing nets, and be a more successful "hunter" than someone trying to spear something. Or she may not! But it's not sex/gender that's going to determine that.

The main point I was attempting to make with that discussion was that norms with respect to work can develop based on the physical differences between genders.

This is often claimed but not, I think, ever well demonstrated. And it may not be that the cultural norms are directly intended to benefit men in the first place; for example, it may be that women are discouraged from working outside the home for other reasons - to do with modesty (as in purdah), or to do with views about the proper roles of women in public vs. private life (as in the Greco-Roman world), or to do with views about protecting women from threat, and so on.

But we need to be open to critically reflecting on what the unintended consequences of those things are, and when we find that they do, in fact, disadvantage women, open to challenging and changing them.

I'm actually somewhat surprised to hear about your personal experience because my impression is that Anglicans are one of the most progressive denominations when it comes to women pastors. I suppose that impression is unfounded in some areas of the church.

There is a lot of diversity on this in Anglicanism. In America what you've said is probably true. In Australia it's a mixed bag. I'm a priest in Melbourne, but I would not be allowed to serve as a priest just up the road in Sydney; at best there I could hope to hold the bishop's licence as a deacon. In other parts of the world my ordination wouldn't be recognised at all.

I'm not sure why it is gross. I did not say that the mother loves the child more than the father. What I meant was that, all other things considered equal, the woman is the one who has to physically carry the child for nine months. That is not an investment that the man makes. Whatever support he offers, I think it would be difficult for him to invest something that matches that.

"Bonding" isn't just about what you've invested. In fact, sometimes having "invested" more - say, having had a difficult or risky pregnancy - can make bonding harder rather than easier.

Thanks. That is a fair point. Yes, I think those fears could be a factor that causes a woman to stay with an abuser. In that case I would say that we should offer more social support structures, so that that fear can be eliminated.

Completely agree.

True. I think that is kind of the image that persists, but its interesting to me that the vast majority of divorces in the USA are now initiated by women. I think that most divorces are initiated by women here is some evidence that they lack dependence on men, and have a good ability to thrive on their own. But it could be the case that most women who divorce are the ones who have more successful careers, as opposed to one who are the more "stay-at-home" type. Would be interesting to see some data on it.

My guess is that now, women with some skills and/or resources have less reason to tolerate infidelity, abuse, or the like, because they know they can leave. So they initiate divorces when perhaps in the past, due to lack of options, they'd have stayed and put up with it. Which is to say, those divorces aren't happening because men are "expendable," so much as because women no longer need to stay in unsafe or miserable situations.

I think we have a lot of work to do, as a society, on how we prepare men and women for marriage.

Given that the underlying concept can be framed and dismantled as "toxic masculinity" or "toxic femininity" as you note above, why is the issue only framed and discussed in terms of "toxic masculinity"? I'll offer my opinion on this all-too-important question. Because the concept that you described above is merely a guise. The intent behind the use of the term is simply to denigrate men and behavior such as aggressiveness, stoicism, etc., which are more commonly exhibited by men. It is a thinly veiled attack on men themselves, and one could easily have found another way of discussing the concepts above without using a term that implies by its very words that masculinity is toxic.

It might help to note the origins of the term: "Toxic Masculinity" came from Men's Activists, not Feminism : FeMRADebates

(There are other sources if you mistrust that one, but that article does lay it all out rather more clearly than most sources I could find).

I think it's an important concept and one which is now well enough known that we probably can't just drop or ignore it, but we do need to be careful in how we use it.

OK I will admit that I did jump into the thread not intending to participate in the general discussion on the initial topic of the thread (although I did give a few thoughts on the general topic at some point). I was just skimming through it and saw something that peaked my interest and commented on it. I am guilty of hijacking the thread. We'll call it a venial sin.

For which I'm happy to forgive you.

But it is just worth noting that when you jump into a thread like this, and seem to take sides with the pro-control, pro-abuse type crowd, your intent is likely to be badly misread.

 

[Swag365]

Well, my deeper issue is that those kinds of stereotypes are used to pigeonhole both men and women. Women are kept out of roles which are seen to call for "masculine" traits, and men are kept out of roles which are seen to call for "feminine" traits, despite where each individual person might actually fit with regard to any of those traits.

I think that is an understandable concern.

At least for my situation, I don't think that stereotyping is the big issue here in the USA. When it comes to work, I think there is widespread recognition that there is a wide spectrum among men and women when it comes to these traits (although I'm sure that some would still disagree). I personally don't feel like the phenomenon of using the stereotypes to pigeonhole people into certain jobs is the prevalent here (again, I'm sure other people might have a different perspective on that).

I would say that here the issue is that there is an unjustified correlation between certain traits and the ability to perform certain jobs effectively. For example, one of my ex-girlfriends was a lawyer. I would say that she was pretty heavy on many of the traits that are typically called "feminine" (for example, she was pretty diplomatic in her demeanor, polite, quiet spoken, etc.). She would express lack of confidence in her ability to do her job because the typical lawyer is seen as having traits that are identified as being more "masculine" (loud spoken, pushy, etc). My issue with that was always that the so-called "masculine" traits do not in fact make a person a better lawyer. A person like her was just as capable of doing the job well as a person (male or female) with more of the "masculine traits". I would say that the stereotype is often that only certain types of people/personalities are suitable for many jobs in the first place (although some personalities probably do go better with some jobs).

Sure; that picture was something of a conceptual aggregate of a number of different measures. But the basic underlying point remains the same; most of the diversity in humanity is not attributable to sex/gender.

I can agree with that.

Having studied genetics at university (my first degree was in science) I come down pretty heavily on the nurture side of things. Very, very little behaviour is attributable to our genetics in a way that is not mediated and moderated by environment.

That's cool. I am actually pretty interested in this stuff too. I was a science major too, although not genetics/biology. All of this new "evolutionary psychology" stuff to me is pretty interesting and I've been reading quite a few books on it. I would probably just say that both things are a good mix of both innate characteristics and environment. Its pretty interesting to me how like, me and my brother's personalities are so different, even though we grew up in a similar environment. But if I had to "choose" one of the two I would guess that environment is probably much more of a significant factor in determining the overall outcomes. My brother might have a higher IQ than me, but if he went to crap schools and I went to the best schools, I'd bet that my career prospects in the long run will be way better.

I would say you're misunderstanding the terms and their use, then. They are not intended to lump all men together, but to describe trends at work in our society at a level above that of individual experience.

I think the terms are frequently used to have that effect.

Even when you look at any given environment, I don't think we can neatly divide work tasks up by sex, because there is so much complexity. Take the hunting example; a woman may have skill in creating traps or fishing nets, and be a more successful "hunter" than someone trying to spear something. Or she may not! But it's not sex/gender that's going to determine that.

I agree. In my silly example, if there is a woman who can run fast, she is welcome to join the hunting team. But that's an ideal situation where we are able to match everyone's talents to their jobs perfectly. Sometimes certain norms just develop out of necessity. We might not have the time to run a race and determine who the fastest runners are. We might just want to act based on probabilities, quickly round up some men because we are faster on average, and try to find tonight's meal. While we are sitting there having a race to determine who the fastest runners are, tonight's meal is long gone.

Like if you are walking late at night by yourself in a shady part of town your reaction is gonna be different if a man approaches you than it is gonna be if a woman approaches you. Sure, in an ideal world you are gonna treat each situation uniquely and make a determination as to whether the person who approaches you is safe or trustworthy, but most women (and men) are going to be more suspicious of the man than the woman (since we can say that on average men are more of a potential threat than women in that situation). You don't have time to treat each person as an individual in that situation because your life could be at risk. Sometimes norms develop just because they are more practical to implement than treating each situation uniquely.

But I agree that its is best to treat each person and situation uniquely, to the extent that we can.

This is often claimed but not, I think, ever well demonstrated. And it may not be that the cultural norms are directly intended to benefit men in the first place; for example, it may be that women are discouraged from working outside the home for other reasons - to do with modesty (as in purdah), or to do with views about the proper roles of women in public vs. private life (as in the Greco-Roman world), or to do with views about protecting women from threat, and so on.

What about my lawn mowing example! Come on now. You know that is legit. It ain't like we have that norm cause men like mowing the lawn so much.

But yeah, I would agree that with many norms, they can develop for reasons that do not relate to the physical differences between men and women, or some other practical necessity.

I guess my view is kind of like this, I don't see human history in which the primary relationship between men and women is one of domination. I see it is as men and women getting together and developing customs so that they can mutually survive. But certainly I don't mean this in absolute terms (we can probably say that certain things, like not allowing women to vote, etc. are acts of domination).

But we need to be open to critically reflecting on what the unintended consequences of those things are, and when we find that they do, in fact, disadvantage women, open to challenging and changing them.

OK. As long as we also change this norm about me having to pay on the first date, or else I am a cheapskate!

There is a lot of diversity on this in Anglicanism. In America what you've said is probably true. In Australia it's a mixed bag. I'm a priest in Melbourne, but I would not be allowed to serve as a priest just up the road in Sydney; at best there I could hope to hold the bishop's licence as a deacon. In other parts of the world my ordination wouldn't be recognised at all.

Thanks. That's interesting. I guess it is structured more kind of like the Baptist churches in the USA. Things are handled differently at the local level. I had thought that women priests were universally accepted in the Anglican church.

"Bonding" isn't just about what you've invested.

True, but I think I wrote "all other things equal."

My guess is that now, women with some skills and/or resources have less reason to tolerate infidelity, abuse, or the like, because they know they can leave. So they initiate divorces when perhaps in the past, due to lack of options, they'd have stayed and put up with it. Which is to say, those divorces aren't happening because men are "expendable," so much as because women no longer need to stay in unsafe or miserable situations.

I would probably say its a bit of both, why we see that disparity. The stereotype is the guy who hits his mid-life crisis and divorces his wife for the more attractive younger woman, but nowadays at least here I see a lot of the same. The "Eat-Pray-Love" effect. Women who are basically in good marriages with good men, but dump them because they want more excitement or the potential to meet a more attractive/rich/popular man. I'd say a good portion of them are this sort of divorce nowadays although admittedly this is speculation. I don't exactly have that many wife-beaters as friends (at least that I know of) so my own personal experience with it may be a bit biased.

I think we have a lot of work to do, as a society, on how we prepare men and women for marriage.

Preparation? You guys still do that over there?

It might help to note the origins of the term: "Toxic Masculinity" came from Men's Activists, not Feminism : FeMRADebates

(There are other sources if you mistrust that one, but that article does lay it all out rather more clearly than most sources I could find).

I think it's an important concept and one which is now well enough known that we probably can't just drop or ignore it, but we do need to be careful in how we use it.

Well you know it is like most things. The protest starts out peaceful and it is for a good cause. Two hours later hoodlums join the demonstration and the looting begins. I kind of feel this way about feminism generally, to be honest wit you. Seems to have started out as something necessary and good, but now is used by many people as essentially as a power grab, to bash men, or just to virtue signal and feel good about oneself by proving others evil. But there are still some cool ones out there I guess.

For which I'm happy to forgive you.

Much obliged.

But it is just worth noting that when you jump into a thread like this, and seem to take sides with the pro-control, pro-abuse type crowd, your intent is likely to be badly misread.

Nope, I am firmly on team Swag365! I probably wouldn't call myself an "ally" of either crowd. Probably at a basic level (and to totally go against the gospel while I am at it) my disposition is to do what is best for me personally first. I am a man so I would probably look to do what is good for men first, and then for what is good for women to the extent that it is compatible. But I don't see how being "pro-abuse" is good for either men or women. What did MLK say, something like in a sense the people who do violence cause more damage to themselves than their victims, because they destroy their own characters. Anyway. That's a ramble. If women want to take the position that women are going to put themselves first, pursue their own interests first, and do what is best for them, it would probably fall within my general philosophy. I think that ya'll should be doing that. But if we are really gonna both try to go towards that elusive (perhaps unrealistic) goal of "equality" I think we have to be pretty careful that we are using these terms to achieve that goal, rather than just pursuing our own goals. At least from my perspective, it does seem that some women who use those terms are just doing it for pure power. The end goal seems to be to make men subservient to them, rather than having equality. Just my 2 cents on it.

 

[Junia]

The main ways we differ are to do with our physiology, not our behaviour.



But we are dealing here with stereotypes; the idea of masculine and feminine is a stereotypical binary.



But the point is, if you look at the bell curve, most of us inhabit the overlap on almost all traits. Very few of us operate outside a range that is common to both men and women.



Well, two problems with this.

1. To observe cognitive or hormonal differences does not mean we can say that particular behaviours are biologically determined; mostly they're not.
2. To use these on-average differences at a population level to define narrow and restrictive gender roles harms all those who don't fit within those narrow restrictions; which at some point will be most of us.



I am not arguing for sameness. I am actually arguing that each person is a unique individual, created, gifted and called according to God's purpose. You can't stick each of us into a box labelled "man" or "woman" and think that defines our potential. You have to take each person for who they are, and sometimes that will highly conform with our gender stereotypes, and sometimes it won't, and either way, that person is still God's good creation.


I really appreciate your openness to the discussion.



Whenever we get into the language of what is "natural" we get into the territory of biological determinism. I don't think it's got anything to do with men being more "naturally" inclined to work; I'd argue, in fact, that the industrial revolution and the rise of the "nuclear family" has severed work from home life and caring responsibilities in a way which our pre-modern ancestors would have found quite unnatural, and that that is what created this binary of "men work and women care."

In times before that, most people worked in forms of subsistence agriculture, most people lived in households of more extended family, everyone worked, and everyone contributed to care, according to their abilities and the needs of the group, because that was necessarily for survival. So you might, for example, see a grandmother caring for a clutch of small children while their mothers - who were younger and physically fitter - were out in the fields. And you still see that sort of pattern in subsistence-agriculture communities today.



No, I'm not just talking about what's attributable to a break from work. I'm talking about all the other impacts - the not being offered promotions or opportunities because mothers are seen as unreliable or not good prospects for the employer - the unequal pay for equal work (which routinely still happens), and so on.



I'm talking about the phenomenon where employers give mothers work which is less valued, and sidetrack them from opportunities, and so on.

I had a very stark illustration of that at one point. One of the bishops in my diocese gathered together all the ordained women here who had children of pre-school age to talk to us about the particular issues and struggles we face. This was a group of intelligent, gifted, capable women with a great range of skill, experience and wisdom between us.

Not one of us was working full time. Every one of us would have liked more work than we were being offered. Every one of us found that the opportunities we would have liked were offered to young fathers, but not to us, because people made negative assumptions about our ability and willingness to take those roles on and do them capably (seeing our having children as a deficit). Where they saw the young guys having a family as a bonus! And so on.

That's the "mummy track." The place women who are gifted and capable and want to do more get sidelined because people assume that as mothers, we "naturally" are not inclined to work.



I think it's pretty gross to suggest that dad is less invested. And it denies the emotional complexity of being a new mother.



I've known some people who've moved here from America to suggest that we are some decades behind, socially. I'm not sure if it's "behind" or just "developing slightly differently."

Your mum did really well. But the thing is, even if most women who do actually leave an abuser do well, the fear of homelessness - the fear of being on welfare and that not being sufficient to support your child, and so forth - all of those fears are often enough to keep a dependent woman stuck in an abusive situation.



That's horrible when it happens to anyone. Of course, lots of wives find that they get dumped for a younger, hotter model.



No, that wasn't really what I was saying. I was saying that each of us tends to develop patterns of toxic behaviour congruent with our social situation.



"Toxic masculinity" refers to more than a grouping of individual bad actions. It's about how those actions exist within narrow and repressive ideas of what it is to be a man, that define masculinity in terms of hyper-masculinity, and often in terms of violence, lack of emotion, sexual aggression, and so on. It's about the ideals our society holds and the narratives which shape it.

There might possibly be a female counterpart - narratives which provide very narrow and repressive gender roles for women, that define us in terms of hyper-femininity, in terms of passivity, excessive emotion, asexuality, and so on; but that is the flip side of toxic masculinity and again, an expression of the patriarchal norms which we inhabit; dismantling one will help dismantle both.



Well, sure. Reality is complicated and messy.

But threads like this, narratives like this, and so much more, are part of that complicated and messy reality. It would help if, when men who don't share these controlling views encounter this kind of discussion, they could see the problem with the attack on women, rather than jumping straight to "don't talk about abuse as a gendered reality!" In the context of this thread, it's very much a gendered discussion.

my mother was a woman of means. she did not have to fear homelessness. she did fear waht others thought.

oh Jesus give me a heart of compassion for my mother! i know i need to forgive her.

 

[Paidiske]

I think we agree on a lot more than might have seemed the case at first blush.

I guess my view is kind of like this, I don't see human history in which the primary relationship between men and women is one of domination. I see it is as men and women getting together and developing customs so that they can mutually survive. But certainly I don't mean this in absolute terms (we can probably say that certain things, like not allowing women to vote, etc. are acts of domination).

It might have started that way (about survival), but as we trace history we see that what might have been good choices for survival as humanity began to shift from hunter-gatherer to agrarian societies and the rise of cities (which is, interestingly, about the point that we see a shift to patriarchal cultures), hasn't necessarily all played out well since then.

OK. As long as we also change this norm about me having to pay on the first date, or else I am a cheapskate!

Is that even a thing any more? If I were dating, I wouldn't necessarily have that expectation.

Thanks. That's interesting. I guess it is structured more kind of like the Baptist churches in the USA. Things are handled differently at the local level. I had thought that women priests were universally accepted in the Anglican church.

Less like the Baptists, who govern everything at the level of the local congregation, and more like the Orthodox, who have an episcopal polity but not a "Pope" in the sense that Catholics do.

I would probably say its a bit of both, why we see that disparity. The stereotype is the guy who hits his mid-life crisis and divorces his wife for the more attractive younger woman, but nowadays at least here I see a lot of the same. The "Eat-Pray-Love" effect. Women who are basically in good marriages with good men, but dump them because they want more excitement or the potential to meet a more attractive/rich/popular man. I'd say a good portion of them are this sort of divorce nowadays although admittedly this is speculation.

I honestly can't say I've ever seen such a divorce. In my experience, divorce is an incredibly distressing, difficult, overwhelming experience; and people (men and women both) avoid it unless they've come to the conclusion that staying in the marriage is worse, long term, than going through the divorce.

Whether or not they're right about that is a whole other thing...

Preparation? You guys still do that over there?

Well, formal marriage preparation, yes. Wait, you're telling me it's not really a thing in America any more?

But I was also just talking about more informal stuff, about how we're raised, and how our church cultures form our understanding and expectation of marriage, and what we learn in school, and stuff.

Well you know it is like most things. The protest starts out peaceful and it is for a good cause. Two hours later hoodlums join the demonstration and the looting begins. I kind of feel this way about feminism generally, to be honest wit you. Seems to have started out as something necessary and good, but now is used by many people as essentially as a power grab, to bash men, or just to virtue signal and feel good about oneself by proving others evil. But there are still some cool ones out there I guess.

There are definitely feminists who have some fairly extreme ideas, or who say things just for their shock value, or the like. On the whole, though, feminism as I have experienced it (and I actually go along to feminist meetings and things) seems to me to be a movement focussing on building a society that will be healthier for everyone, and I'm content to be part of it in that spirit.

 

[Swag365]

I think we agree on a lot more than might have seemed the case at first blush.

Yeah I think so. That can often be the case with a lot of people when you sit down and try to understand where the other person is coming from.

It might have started that way (about survival), but as we trace history we see that what might have been good choices for survival as humanity began to shift from hunter-gatherer to agrarian societies and the rise of cities (which is, interestingly, about the point that we see a shift to patriarchal cultures), hasn't necessarily all played out well since then.

Yeah I would say that to a certain extent that whatever norms that developed (even ones that developed for good reason), many of them are becoming obsolete now. I think that were are kind of at a point in history where everybody is trying to figure out "what does it mean to be a man" or "what does it mean to be a woman" if these are not these ideas are not thrown out altogether (it kind of seems that you are of the group that wants to throw them out).

To me at least the question of "what does it mean to be a man" or "what type of man do I want to be" is still an important one. I do feel that at some level God created men and women to have different "roles" or "purposes" if you will (women being the ones who will give birth, for example). At some level I do feel like it "it is the mans duty to protect" or what have you (not that this duty must be exclusive to men).

Do you think there is anything like that, or do you bascially just view the genders as being exactly the same in role or function? That is, the only difference between us is that women were designed to bear children and men were not?

Is that even a thing any more? If I were dating, I wouldn't necessarily have that expectation.

I would guess that at least 50% of women here still expect that.

Less like the Baptists, who govern everything at the level of the local congregation, and more like the Orthodox, who have an episcopal polity but not a "Pope" in the sense that Catholics do.

Got it. Thanks. I didn't know that was the case.

I honestly can't say I've ever seen such a divorce. In my experience, divorce is an incredibly distressing, difficult, overwhelming experience; and people (men and women both) avoid it unless they've come to the conclusion that staying in the marriage is worse, long term, than going through the divorce.

Whether or not they're right about that is a whole other thing...

Thanks. It sounds a bit different there, like marriage is taken more seriously there than it is here. I feel like people here on both sides are quick to get out.

Well, formal marriage preparation, yes. Wait, you're telling me it's not really a thing in America any more?

I would say its only done by people who are in churches that require it. I imagine that most Christian churches require some form of it.

But I was also just talking about more informal stuff, about how we're raised, and how our church cultures form our understanding and expectation of marriage, and what we learn in school, and stuff.

I see what you meant now. It's just my personal opinion but I do not think US Society (like or our parents, our schools, our culture, etc.) prepares men and women for marriage at all. Personally, I feel that marriage in the USA is basically a broken institution. Personally, I would probably only consider marriage with someone who is devoutly religious. Most people here, in my opinion, view it is something that can be walked away from easily if it is not going perfect.

There are definitely feminists who have some fairly extreme ideas, or who say things just for their shock value, or the like. On the whole, though, feminism as I have experienced it (and I actually go along to feminist meetings and things) seems to me to be a movement focusing on building a society that will be healthier for everyone, and I'm content to be part of it in that spirit.

I would have guessed that you identify as a feminist. I guess the term nowadays is so broad that you really have to sit down and talk to the individual person to identify what his/her views are. Some are cool and then there are those that wear "Men are Trash" t-shirts and so forth. I actually dated one for a bit in my early twenties. As you may imagine, did not go well. But I can still respect people's viewpoints although I do not share all of them. Maybe things in Australia are different than the US, but at least here I would say our society is very divisive. People seem to take more of an "us versus them" approach nowadays more so than a "we are all in this together" approach. So I would say that feminism here kind of falls into that, it feels more like you are battling against someone than trying to achieve mutually beneficial goals a lot of the time.

 

[Junia]

Yeah I think so. That can often be the case with a lot of people when you sit down and try to understand where the other person is coming from.

Yeah I would say that to a certain extent that whatever norms that developed (even ones that developed for good reason), many of them are becoming obsolete now. I think that were are kind of at a point in history where everybody is trying to figure out "what does it mean to be a man" or "what does it mean to be a woman" if these are not these ideas are not thrown out altogether (it kind of seems that you are of the group that wants to throw them out).

To me at least the question of "what does it mean to be a man" or "what type of man do I want to be" is still an important one. I do feel that at some level God created men and women to have different "roles" or "purposes" if you will (women being the ones who will give birth, for example). At some level I do feel like it "it is the mans duty to protect" or what have you (not that this duty must be exclusive to men).

Do you think there is anything like that, or do you bascially just view the genders as being exactly the same in role or function? That is, the only difference between us is that women were designed to bear children and men were not?

I would guess that at least 50% of women here still expect that.

Got it. Thanks. I didn't know that was the case.

Thanks. It sounds a bit different there, like marriage is taken more seriously there than it is here. I feel like people here on both sides are quick to get out.

I would say its only done by people who are in churches that require it. I imagine that most Christian churches require some form of it.

I see what you meant now. It's just my personal opinion but I do not think US Society (like or our parents, our schools, our culture, etc.) prepares men and women for marriage at all. Personally, I feel that marriage in the USA is basically a broken institution. Personally, I would probably only consider marriage with someone who is devoutly religious. Most people here, in my opinion, view it is something that can be walked away from easily if it is not going perfect.

I would have guessed that you identify as a feminist. I guess the term nowadays is so broad that you really have to sit down and talk to the individual person to identify what his/her views are. Some are cool and then there are those that wear "Men are Trash" t-shirts and so forth. I actually dated one for a bit in my early twenties. As you may imagine, did not go well. But I can still respect people's viewpoints although I do not share all of them. Maybe things in Australia are different than the US, but at least here I would say our society is very divisive. People seem to take more of an "us versus them" approach nowadays more so than a "we are all in this together" approach. So I would say that feminism here kind of falls into that, it feels more like you are battling against someone than trying to achieve mutually beneficial goals a lot of the time.

i dont think men are trash, or women. but i reject the idea that i must stay in a marriage that is unhappy. hence why i chose to stay single. so i never have to "sin" by divorcing a man ifhe starts hitting me or worse.

 

[Swag365]

i dont think men are trash, or women. but i reject the idea that i must stay in a marriage that is unhappy. hence why i chose to stay single. so i never have to "sin" by divorcing a man ifhe starts hitting me or worse.

I don't think that unhappiness is proper grounds for a divorce, but if a spouse is physically abusive I would say get a civil divorce and pursue an annulment so that you can remarry. I guess it varies from denomination to denomination when it would be considered a sin. I don't know precisely what the Catholic view is but I would imagine they would only consider it to be a sin where the abused spouse remarried without getting an annulment first.

 

[Junia]

I don't think that unhappiness is proper grounds for a divorce, but if a spouse is physically abusive I would say get a civil divorce and pursue an annulment so that you can remarry. I guess it varies from denomination to denomination when it would be considered a sin. I don't know precisely what the Catholic view is but I would imagine they would only consider it to be a sin where the abused spouse remarried without getting an annulment first.

abuse of ANY kind surely? they all harmful

 

[Junia]

I don't think that unhappiness is proper grounds for a divorce, but if a spouse is physically abusive I would say get a civil divorce and pursue an annulment so that you can remarry. I guess it varies from denomination to denomination when it would be considered a sin. I don't know precisely what the Catholic view is but I would imagine they would only consider it to be a sin where the abused spouse remarried without getting an annulment first.[/QUOTE

abuse of ANY kind surely? they all harmful

If a woman or man were unhappy if there were no actual physical abuse but the abuse only consisted of gaslighting, yelling, screaming, put downs, not allowing access to food, money etc

what if the abuse involved threats to harm but not actual harm? and the wife or husband was walking on eggshells in fear that it MIGHT turn physical?

where do you draw the line??

 

[Swag365]

@WrappedUpinHisLove3 I'll confess that I have not contemplated every possible scenario. I guess at one end would be something like if you are like "Honey do I look fat in these jeans" one night and your husband is like "Yup. Time to hit the gym!" Not exactly a ground for divorce, but not the nicest comment surely. At the other end is if your husband is pulling out knives and is like "You look at another man and I am going to slit your throat." In that sort of situation I would say get out. I can't say that the line should be drawn here or there. I think that is for each person to decide I guess.

 

[Junia]

@WrappedUpinHisLove3 I'll confess that I have not contemplated every possible scenario. I guess at one end would be something like if you are like "Honey do I look fat in these jeans" one night and your husband is like "Yup. Time to hit the gym!" Not exactly a ground for divorce, but not the nicest comment surely. At the other end is if your husband is pulling out knives and is like "You look at another man and I am going to slit your throat." In that sort of situation I would say get out. I can't say that the line should be drawn here or there. I think that is for each person to decide I guess.

but the first scenario isnt abuse at all.

you cannot compare that with the kid fo thing women like my mother and my sister also ended up living with

 

[Junia]

@WrappedUpinHisLove3 I'll confess that I have not contemplated every possible scenario. I guess at one end would be something like if you are like "Honey do I look fat in these jeans" one night and your husband is like "Yup. Time to hit the gym!" Not exactly a ground for divorce, but not the nicest comment surely. At the other end is if your husband is pulling out knives and is like "You look at another man and I am going to slit your throat." In that sort of situation I would say get out. I can't say that the line should be drawn here or there. I think that is for each person to decide I guess.

surely God want sus to love ourselves like our neighbours. which means keeping ourselves safe?

 

[Junia]

@WrappedUpinHisLove3 I'll confess that I have not contemplated every possible scenario. I guess at one end would be something like if you are like "Honey do I look fat in these jeans" one night and your husband is like "Yup. Time to hit the gym!" Not exactly a ground for divorce, but not the nicest comment surely. At the other end is if your husband is pulling out knives and is like "You look at another man and I am going to slit your throat." In that sort of situation I would say get out. I can't say that the line should be drawn here or there. I think that is for each person to decide I guess.

God is love. He wants our happiness. if the bausive sposue is abandoned then you can just divorce and the they free to remarry.l everybodys happy.

 

[Swag365]

but the first scenario isnt abuse at all.

you cannot compare that with the kid fo thing women like my mother and my sister also ended up living with

I think that the first scenario can be abuse, especially if it were said in a mean spirit.

But yes, that would not be something serious.

 

[Swag365]

surely God want sus to love ourselves like our neighbours. which means keeping ourselves safe?

I agree. Every person has a right to be safe.

 

[Junia]

I think that the first scenario can be abuse, especially if it were said in a mean spirit.

But yes, that would not be something serious.

yes, if said in mean spirit. i read a horrendous story about a woman who was getting heavy so her husband limited how much she ate. so she had to sneak food so she did not go hungry. she felt she was starving vut was afraid if his reaction if she was seen to be eating. she was on The Transformed Wife blog. i left a comment. i told her "even if you are medically heavy, do not starve yourself. eat less but if hubby leaving you hungryk, i suggest you go behind his back and eat. eat in secret until you have enough food for youe nutritional needs." i was told that to do that would be disobedience. i ended barred from that blog!

 

[Swag365]

yes, if said in mean spirit. i read a horrendous story about a woman who was getting heavy so her husband limited how much she ate. so she had to sneak food so she did not go hungry. she felt she was starving vut was afraid if his reaction if she was seen to be eating. she was on The Transformed Wife blog. i left a comment. i told her "even if you are medically heavy, do not starve yourself. eat less but if hubby leaving you hungryk, i suggest you go behind his back and eat. eat in secret until you have enough food for youe nutritional needs." i was told that to do that would be disobedience. i ended barred from that blog!

Yeah there is a lot of outrageous stuff out there, as I am learning in this thread.

 

[Junia]

Yeah there is a lot of outrageous stuff out there, as I am learning in this thread.

it is crazy, isn;t it? the Jesus of the Bible is so compassionate and too loving to want anyone to settle for a partner who doesnt treat them like they are precious

 

[Paidiske]

Yeah I would say that to a certain extent that whatever norms that developed (even ones that developed for good reason), many of them are becoming obsolete now. I think that were are kind of at a point in history where everybody is trying to figure out "what does it mean to be a man" or "what does it mean to be a woman" if these are not these ideas are not thrown out altogether (it kind of seems that you are of the group that wants to throw them out).

To me at least the question of "what does it mean to be a man" or "what type of man do I want to be" is still an important one. I do feel that at some level God created men and women to have different "roles" or "purposes" if you will (women being the ones who will give birth, for example). At some level I do feel like it "it is the mans duty to protect" or what have you (not that this duty must be exclusive to men).

Do you think there is anything like that, or do you bascially just view the genders as being exactly the same in role or function? That is, the only difference between us is that women were designed to bear children and men were not?

I agree with you that the question of character is still really important, but I don't think it's inherently gendered. A person who has integrity, who honours their commitments, who strives to do good, who is loving, faithful, hopeful, joyful, peaceful... these are all parts of what might be an answer to "what kind of man do I want to be?" but would not be any less an answer to "what kind of woman do I want to be?" Virtue isn't really a gendered reality.

I don't really believe that God created men (as a group) and women (as a group) to have different roles or purposes, beyond what is necessitated by biology. Mostly that argument seems to be deployed to deny women opportunities (to keep us disempowered, at home, busy with children), so I view it with more than a bit of suspicion. I do believe that God creates each person, and gifts us for particular roles or purposes, that the question of vocation for each person ought to be taken seriously, but I don't believe that's split on gender lines.

Thanks. It sounds a bit different there, like marriage is taken more seriously there than it is here. I feel like people here on both sides are quick to get out.

Could possibly just be the bubble that I live in, to be fair. I haven't looked at it at an academic level.

I see what you meant now. It's just my personal opinion but I do not think US Society (like or our parents, our schools, our culture, etc.) prepares men and women for marriage at all. Personally, I feel that marriage in the USA is basically a broken institution.

I'm really sorry to hear that. Australia's far from perfect in that regard, but I think on the whole the ideal of marriage here is still a vibrant reality.

I would have guessed that you identify as a feminist. I guess the term nowadays is so broad that you really have to sit down and talk to the individual person to identify what his/her views are.

A good principle in general, I find.

Maybe things in Australia are different than the US, but at least here I would say our society is very divisive. People seem to take more of an "us versus them" approach nowadays more so than a "we are all in this together" approach. So I would say that feminism here kind of falls into that, it feels more like you are battling against someone than trying to achieve mutually beneficial goals a lot of the time.

It's funny you should mention that; I'm livestreaming morning prayer each morning while we're in shut down, and just this morning I was reflecting as part of that on the importance of not falling into "us vs. them" thinking.

I think it's tricky because although we might believe that, if we could actually achieve a feminist utopia, it would be better for everyone, of course the folks who are the powerbrokers and the gatekeepers now would lose that kind of power, and feel threatened by that. So there is an unavoidable element of battle, as there is whenever you confront any systemic injustice; but I think the challenge is not to make it personal. The enemy is the system, not the people who inhabit it.