Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Marriage: you're doing it wrong

Matt Walsh explains why it is a mistake for a man to call his wife "the boss", even in jest:
Recently a guy, around my age, came up to me when I was waiting in line at a burger joint in town. He had read my stay at home mom post and wanted to express agreement with the sentiments I articulated.

Instead he expressed agreement with sentiments I definitely did not articulate: “My wife stays at home. And, yeah, she sounds like your wife; she’s definitely the boss.”

No, dude, my wife is not my boss. I love her. She’s an incredibly strong woman. But she’s not my boss. Most importantly, she wouldn’t WANT to be my boss. She wanted to marry a man, not a henpecked hireling. I gave my life to her. We fused our souls together in the sacred act of matrimony. I’d take a bullet for my bride. I’d die to protect her. I give everything I have and everything I am to her. Everything I do right, I do for her, and my children, and God before all.

But she isn’t my boss. She doesn’t dictate to me. I’m not a cow, and she’s not a cattle driver. She counts on me to lead the family, and I hope to never fail in that duty. If I go around belittling myself and degrading my spouse by pathetically stammering about how she bosses me around all day, I have failed. I’ve failed as a man and a leader.
If you let a dog think he's the boss, he will cease to defer to you and begin objecting, violently, when you interfere with what he now believes are his prerogatives. Women are no different.

It's one thing to turn over your social calendar to your wife due to a lack of interest in the various social obligations of the family. But checking in to see if there is scheduling conflict, or simply being courteous enough to see if your wife minds if you go to the football game does not make you an employee or a child. Therefore, it does not make her the boss. And what might have been an ironic jest in the days of Mad Men is often taken quite literally now.

Belittling yourself isn't funny. And your wife isn't smiling.


Anonymous said...

Since you mentioned dogs: virtually everything about disciplining a dog and being the pack leader applies to leading a woman (or children). I'm convinced that, if you took a woman on a 45-minute walk every day, as Cesar Millan recommended for dogs, it would eliminate a lot of her problems. Just make sure you lead her, having her take your arm and follow you where you want to go -- or use a leash if she's into that kind of thing.

That's also a good point about how men used to be able to make "better half" jokes without causing any harm. A couple generations ago, couples could joke like that because they were secure in their roles. My grandpa could let my grandma drive everywhere, because he was the undisputed leader in everything else. Now it seems like you can't afford even to joke about her taking the lead on anything, because there's so much pressure on her to take that too far already.

tz said...

"Bossy" is an affectionate term for a cow.

Crowhill said...

I know men who refer to their wives as "she who must be obeyed." I think that is very misguided.

En-sigma said...

I usually tell people, " Marriage is like a hot bath...once you've been in it a while...it aint so hot anymore..." That is my jest.

I know a lot of men who call their wives "warden" or "boss." And give the ol' "if Mama aint happy, aint NOBODY happy" garbage. Adam was keeping the peace in the household.

Saw an episode of one of my favorite TV shows yesterday. One person had a massive terrible secret that they had managed to hide for years and another person was telling them that said secret needed to come out. The person with a secret said, "but my life will unravel!" and the other answered, "sometimes your life needs to unravel before it can get better."

Men who have let their lives be dominated by their wives need to unravel that situation and build it anew in the proper way.

Peregrine John said...

All this crap comes from people taking jokes as real, then defending their sad reality by saying it's just jokes.

See also here, in which various commenters engage in some truly acrobatic dodging to avoid simple truths. Ladies and gentlemen, please go enlighten them - politely, of course, and without mention of pills or Greek letters, if you would. There is a large audience there just now (thanks to an Instalanche) which could use a dose of reality.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

Omegas, Gammas, and Deltas allow their wives to be the boss. Doing so enables them to have miserable relationships with their wives. This is especially true if they've married a woman who outranks them by 2 or more, although only Deltas will be able to pull that off.

Revelation Means Hope said...

I simply refer to my wife as my "social events coordinator". Problem solved. No one mistakes your social events coordinator as your boss. She has the role of making sure we don't double commit ourselves as a family to two conflicting social engagements.

All she asks is that when I have something that needs to be coordinated, that I check our family calendar and make sure the new thing is recorded on it. If my new event needs to override a previous commitment, whoever is best suited handles the rescheduling of the older commitment.

I could tell some of the feminists in our circle bristled when I referred to my wife by that title. Within a year, they stated that they wished they had a similar deal. The one aspect of it that I hate is that I usually have to decide which event to select or which restaurant to go to when I'm tired, and probably couldn't give a rat's fart which choice is made. No one said it would be easy and simple though.

Anonymous said...

Yep, hearing guys call their wife "the boss" grates on me bad. Personally I'm in JCclimber's camp, though I call my wife "my secretary."

"I have to check with my secretary to see what's on my schedule."

And like any good boss, I sometimes use my secretary to politely deflect unwanted meetings. And I sometimes use my secretary for other things too...

I've never noticed anyone bristle at me calling her my secretary, but it's possible I just don't pay enough attention to feminists.

Matamoros said...

I dislike the "my better half" idea as well. She is not your better half. If you believe scripture she is your lesser half, as woman was created for man, not man for woman.

Knew a guy who called his wife "she who must be obeyed", as she was a real bitch. Soon as the kids hit 18 they got divorced. And the "if momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy" I turn around into the truer - "if daddy ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."

Remember the old truism, "If women didn't have what they do, there'd be a bounty on them." Men have got to control their own lives, and that of their family, or they will never have any peace, or happiness, let alone respect.

Bobby Dupea said...

Concomitant with the wincing, tip-toeing man who says, "I'd rather be happy than right" in respect of deferring in all things to the wife.

Joshua_D said...

"Belittling yourself isn't funny." Yep.

When I was growing up, one thing that always irritated me, even as a young teen, was how some of the women in my family, my mother included, spoke to and about their husbands (my step father). They often belittled their husbands and claimed they were joking, but they weren't. Even as a teen, I realized how such actions were a sign of an unstable relationship. I lost most respect for the women who treated their men that way and for the men who tolerated the abuse.

Revelation Means Hope said...

then you are missing one of the pleasures in life. Enjoying and causing the discomfort to feminists as they get slapped upside the head by reality and by non-politically correct behavior is surely one of the more sophisticated pleasures.

Taken in moderation, of course. Because you certainly don't want to be around them too much, even if it is fun to witness their panty-twisting.

Anonymous said...

It's one thing to turn over your social calendar to your wife due to a lack of interest in the various social obligations of the family.

When I am asked to attend events with my family I always refer them to my social chairperson (sometimes I add "my lovely" before the title).

Anonymous said...

which event to select or which restaurant to go to when I'm tired, and probably couldn't give a rat's fart which choice is made

Knowing your wife's mind with a high level of accuracy helps in situations where you don't care. Then you can just pick the one she wants. It doesn't even need to be binary, after 10 years with her I could order her meal with 80% accuracy if I wanted to.

The feminist in our circle, which includes my wife's youngest sister thinks my wife has been brainwashed. I find that highly amusing because she will aggressively advocate for her position in private, but in public she is highly deferential.

I do think some of their disgust is based on naivety though. All the feminist live in apartments or condos and none have children. They lead simple employee lives with largely fixed expenses and only have to keep track of their schedule and maybe their spouse or boyfriend. When their bank account says $3k, that is money they can spend wherever and whenever. By contrast we have kids, live in an older home, own a business, etc. Both financials and schedules become a lot more complicated.

subject by design said...

@ matamoros - how is a woman "lesser"? Not saying she's better, just wondering how the Bible endorses the concept of her being "lesser". Different - of course. It's like saying that because the bacon is "for" the hamburger that the bacon is less than the beef.

Matamoros said...

subject by design said... @ matamoros - how is a woman "lesser"?

Lesser in many ways, different in others. Man is made in the image or God, woman is made in the image of man - surely that alone illustrates the lesser. Man is a creator as is God. Man has the headship in the home and society by Divine fiat. Woman was not given the fullness of reason that a man has (St. Thomas Aquinas). She also does not have the body strength and masculine virtues such as honor and decisiveness.

In marriage, the man/husband is the captain of the ship, the woman/wife is the first mate. It is not proper English to say that they are equal but different. The man is the head/captain, and the lesser position, rank, status, being, of first mate/helpmeet is the woman.

Christ is superior to the Church, man is commanded to love his wife as Christ loves His Church. The woman is told to obey, respect, submit to, etc., the man as the Church is to be submissive and obedient to Christ. It is clearly set out - no one can claim that the Church is equal to Christ, nor that woman is equal to man.

You just have to ditch the Femianity and get back to Christianity.

subject by design said...

I am not a feminist. I don't disagree that the woman is lower in rank, I simply do not equate lesser with lower. Privates and sergeants are lower in rank, but they don't have less value in battle. I do not say that men and woman are both equal and different. I don't say they are equal at all. I am in no way saying that. This is the first time I am hearing this, so I don't have much context for that sort of assertion. I have never even seen that written on game blogs.

Where does the Bible say that woman was created in the image of man? This is perhaps a theological disagreement between us. My understanding of the orthodox position is that both male and female are in the image of God.

LP2021 Bank of LP Work in Progress said...

She's the boss?

No, the husband leads the household, he is the captain, etc.

One of the aspects of dad's stroke recovery was the re-introduction to his authority of the house, his money, his dinner, what time he wants to do things, when, where, etc.

Crowhill said...

@subject by design, Gen. 1:27 seems to say that man and woman both are created in the image of God, but 1 Cor. 11:7 might be taken to imply a distinction.

Matamoros said...

subject by design said... Where does the Bible say that woman was created in the image of man?

In Genesis 1, we have a general description of the creation of Adam and Eve. Genesis two gives us the actual creation of both man, and woman. Thus, femianists and liberals only quote from Gen. 1, and do not mention the specifics of Gen. 2; nor of the New Testament.

God made man directly (Genesis 2:7), while woman was made from man (Genesis 2:21-22). [Side note: Here note that God only breathed into the man, the woman received this breath vicariously from Adam. Also, note that Adam named his helpmeet, as he named all the animals after God gave him dominion over the earth.]

1 Corinthians 11 6-8
For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;…

subject by design said...

Ok, so only those into whom God breathed the breath of life are created in his image? That would mean only Adam. Are you saying only Adam is created in God's image and the rest of us, men and women are created in the image of man? According to your logic, Seth for sure is not created in the image of God, as Genesis 5:3 says he was created in the image of Adam.

Also, I'm not sure why you refer to the arguments of liberals and feminists, of which I am neither and whose arguments are not being presented here. I did not make any references to Genesis or ignore the New Testament. My understanding of whether women were created in the image of God is not based solely upon Genesis. It is mentioned in the Psalms also. Woman does originate from man, and man originates from dust. Both were formed and fashioned by God. In Genesis 5:2 both man and woman are called "Adam", and in Genesis 1:26 God says He is going to create man (Adam) in his own image and then uses the pronoun "them." It seems from the simple reading that He is referring to the male and female as "man" which He will create in his own image.

There are different opinions about whether man still bears the image of God after the fall, and whether this is something which is restored in Christ (Col 3:10, Eph 4:24). If so, this would apply to men and women, otherwise, women have no need of salvation and have nothing to which they will be restored.

There are role-based ranks, such as the way that men and women are aligned within the context of marriage, but they don't mean that all women are lower than all men in all areas. Women are to obey their OWN husbands, not all men.

I am not disagreeing with any of the obvious facts of the scriptures you mentioned. They don't say that woman was created in the image of man. She was created from man, yes. But man was created from dirt, so what does that mean? That man is created in dirt's image? She was created for man, yes. That defines her purpose, not her nature.

As much could be made of Paul not saying that woman is the "image of man" in 1 Cor 11:7 as could be made from his saying that man is the "image... of God" If Paul was saying that man is the image of God and woman is the image of man, he could have said so, but did not.

There is nothing about my understanding that both men and women were created in the image of God that would mean that they must be therefore equal.

Revelation Means Hope said...

don't worry about it. It is pretty obvious that someone is over-reacting to the satanic doctrine of feminism.
God holds men and women of equal value.
God through the Bible writers has pointed out that they have different roles in life, because He created them with talents and interests to fulfill those different roles.
Mankind has assigned the roles that belong to males as being of greater value so therefore they assign the females, and their roles, as being of lesser value.
Mankind's standards vs God's standards.
Vox and many others have pointed out that men create and maintain civilization. Women create and raise and feed and train the next generation who will maintain civilization. Which one is of more value? Neither. Both are necessary.

Matamoros said...

subject by design said... in Genesis 1:26 God says He is going to create man (Adam) in his own image and then uses the pronoun "them."

I can see you are struggling with the concept. If man is made in the image of God, and woman is made from man, then she has a lesser or reflected image, but not the primary image of God given to Adam.

As I stated, Genesis 1 is a synopsis or summation, Genesis 2 is the actual account of the creation of man and woman. Thus Adam used in that context is the same as saying "Man" or "Mankind".

The verses I gave you from 1 Cor. clearly states that the image of man and woman are different. " For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;…"

The verse does not say she is the image and glory of God, only man. The word "glory" is from the Greek doxa, which means a thing belonging to. So let's try it with that sense: "he is the image of and belongs to God; but the woman belongs to man. Can you see the difference not just in status, but in essence?

Luke goes so far as to call Adam the Son of God (Luke 3:38). The Psalms say Adam was created only a little lower than God (Psalm 8:5).

Look also at 1 Tim. 2:11-15 - Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

There are many things that can be considered in all this. For ex: Circumcision was the Sign of the Old Covenant, but a woman cannot be circumcised, so the only way into that Covenant was by marriage, where the two become one.

I am not trying to unchurch women, or claim they do not have souls. I am pointing out that by the clear word of scripture there is a difference between man and woman from the beginning in their nature and position vis a vis God.

As one author states it: "Woman is not original creation but a by-product of man who was original creation, a spoken Word of God. Satan knew Adam was made in the image of God and could not be deceived. But the by-product, made in the image of man is the weaker vessel can deceive and be deceived. She is made that way. This is how Satan caused the fall. That she now demands equality, or in most cases greater than equality with man, proves she is made so she can be deceived, and is still deceived. And we know there is no greater deceiver than a woman."

Mark said...

It's same mentality that guys have that they were just knuckle-dragging neanderthals drooling on themselves until this angel came along and somehow made them complete and grounded.

I would encounter this all the time when I worked retail sales. A guy would be drooling over some new high end gadget and I'd have him all talked into it until he'd go "Let me go ask the boss" or "The wife would kill me." I would just give him my card and move on I can't remember one that returned to get it.

I'm a musician and one of the forums I'm on has a thread dedicated to how to hide new gear from your wife. Now if your kids don't have shoes and you just bought a $2500 guitar, that's on you. But the notion that I have to beg permission to buy a new toy or hide it is just pathetic.

Post a Comment