Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 88 of 88

Thread: Your Views on Patriarchy

  1. #81
    tWebber MsJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Mount Prospect, IL
    Faith
    Evangelical Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    75
    Amen (Given)
    21
    Amen (Received)
    68
    Question for the women on this thread who think "the husband gets to be a tie-breaker":

    I got divorced in 2014 after 11 years of marriage. There were a lot of reasons for that, but the beginning of the end occurred when my then-husband became infatuated with his co-worker. I never found any evidence of anything physical between them, but he was spending an intense amount of time with this woman.

    You see, she lived in Chicago proper, and she took a job at my then-husband's place of business 27 miles away in Northbrook. The problem? She had no transportation to the job, and there were no public commute options that could get her to her shift and back on-time.

    My then-husband's solution was to offer to drive this woman back and forth to and from work. Every. Single. Day. It took him 3 hours a day to do this and was costing us hundreds of dollars extra in gas, to say nothing of the wear-and-tear on our aging vehicle. He did not consult with me before making this decision, he just started doing it. There was no time frame on the rides, either; this wasn't temporary help. He intended to keep giving her the rides until she got her own car, and there was no sign of that happening any time soon.

    I eventually told him point blank that I wanted the rides to stop, that she was a grown woman who needed to be responsible for her own transportation to work. I told him that I felt it was inappropriate for him to be alone in the car with this woman for 3 hours a day, and we couldn't afford these rides, and I needed his help at home. (I was 4 months pregnant at the time, trying to finish a master's degree, and our first child together was disabled.)

    He responded that he had prayed about it and God had told him not to stop giving this woman rides, so he wasn't going to stop, and I didn't get any say in the matter.

    What do you think I should have done in this situation? Should I have submitted myself to his tie-breaker vote?

    I have thick skin and won't take your answers personally, I promise.

  2. #82
    Thread Killer QuantaFille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Thulcandra
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    995
    Amen (Given)
    328
    Amen (Received)
    472
    The Bible is pretty clear that we should avoid even the appearance of wrong-doing, and if it looked like he was having an affair, you were right to confront him. The course of action is:

    If your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained back your brother. But if he doesn’t listen, take one or two more with you, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly. If he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector.

    There are roles in marriage. If either one fails to fulfill their duty, they should be corrected. People like to harp on and on about women having to submit to their husbands, while neglecting to mention that men are supposed to be someone worth submitting to.

    In your specific situation, without knowing all the details I can't say for certain, but the way you've laid it out it seems likely to me that he was having an affair, or as close to the appearance thereof as to make no difference. That's pretty much the worst way a man can abdicate his responsibility as head of the household. Adultery is the only exception God gives to the no-divorce law, so in your case I think you did the only thing you could. If he refused to stop seeing the woman (which is a red flag) and had no interest in repairing your marriage, then I think you were in the right.
    Curiosity never hurt anyone. It was stupidity that killed the cat.

  3. Amen One Bad Pig amen'd this post.
  4. #83
    tWebber MsJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Mount Prospect, IL
    Faith
    Evangelical Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    75
    Amen (Given)
    21
    Amen (Received)
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by QuantaFille View Post
    The Bible is pretty clear that we should avoid even the appearance of wrong-doing
    Thanks for your answer. For the record, that's a mistranslation in the KJV. 1 Thess 5:22 actually reads, "Avoid evil of every kind."

    But, I do think that ignoring your pregnant wife and disabled child so you can spend an extra 3 hours a day with your co-worker is evil for sure. (He was also staying out with her until 6 AM on Friday nights, partying with her and their friends. He refused to stop because he said they were getting drunk and needed rides home, and he was their designated sober driver, so partying with them was what Jesus would do. For real.)

    I never found evidence of a physical affair with the co-worker. Anything is possible, but my evidence is limited to "he was spending lots of time alone with her and was clearly obsessed with her." A little over a year later, I easily caught him cheating with another woman by checking his phone, so I really do believe the co-worker was "just" an emotional affair.

    If your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained back your brother. But if he doesn’t listen, take one or two more with you, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly. If he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector.
    Interesting. I've never heard this passage applied to a marital dispute. This was pretty much what I did though. Friends and family talked to him, my doctor talked to him (it's written all over my delivery charts, "husband is unsupportive"), and his church leaders talked to him. When he still wouldn't stop giving the co-worker rides, I asked for a separation.

    Yes, the Bible says you can divorce over adultery, but it's rather fuzzier on the subject of emotional affairs.

    There are roles in marriage. If either one fails to fulfill their duty, they should be corrected. People like to harp on and on about women having to submit to their husbands, while neglecting to mention that men are supposed to be someone worth submitting to.
    So, a woman has veto power on submission if she decides that her husband is acting sinfully?

    If he refused to stop seeing the woman (which is a red flag) and had no interest in repairing your marriage, then I think you were in the right.
    Thanks. There were other factors, but it started with the co-worker. I have told my story here and here.

  5. #84
    tWebber MsJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Mount Prospect, IL
    Faith
    Evangelical Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    75
    Amen (Given)
    21
    Amen (Received)
    68
    Darth Executor, since you are taking such a great deal of interest in my reasons for divorce over in the Fraternity, as I mentioned before, I have told my story in detail elsewhere. Here it is again:


    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    It's not fuzzy at all, it explicitly prohibits divorce except for adultery.
    Your knowledge of what the Bible says about divorce is deficient. As far as the New Testament goes, adultery and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse are both given as acceptable reasons for divorce (1 Corinthians 7:15), so I'm covered on both counts. The Bible isn't entirely coherent on what is acceptable for divorce though; for example, God commanded the Israelites to divorce their foreign spouses in Ezra 9-10, for no other reason than that they were foreigners who followed foreign gods.

    First century Christians wouldn't have recognized a difference between an "emotional affair" and a physical one. A married man who spent hours upon hours of time alone with another woman and chose to support her rather than his own family absolutely would have been charged with committing adultery---which is why I say that the Bible is fuzzier on the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    It's his job and his money, if she's living off him she really does have no say whatsoever. You can't reject the Patriarchy and then demand your husband support you while you mooch off him.
    Behold what patriarchy really thinks of women! It tells women to stay at home and let a man support them, and then calls them "mooches."

    In reality, I was staying at home because I had a disabled child to care for (which has already been mentioned). We had jointly agreed on me quitting my full-time job to care for her after she was born and we learned of her disability. I don't think that makes me a "mooch;" I guess patriarchy doesn't think disabled children need caregivers.

    But telling women that they have no say in the household finances, even when a man is spending the household money on another woman instead of providing food and housing for the family, is exactly why patriarchy is an abject failure. How was I supposed to feed my family and pay rent with our rent and food money going to this other woman? We can't eat "charity rides to a co-worker."

    Bottom line, never marry a feminist. They're not honest about what they want, and they routinely aim their attacks at the people trying to accommodate them the most. They are never satisfied and the extra effort isn't worth the lesser reward.
    I really, really don't think men like you have to worry about feminists marrying them.

  6. #85
    tWebber MsJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Mount Prospect, IL
    Faith
    Evangelical Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    75
    Amen (Given)
    21
    Amen (Received)
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor View Post
    Abandonment means someone divorced you.
    Wrong. It means someone left you. Not everyone who leaves formally seeks a divorce.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    I believe you said you separated yourselves (which sounds like a stupid idea when he's chasing another woman, if you really want to save your marriage).
    I asked for a separation so that he would see the financial side of the picture. His job wasn't making any money and he was forcing me to return to work to support the family; there was no way I was going back to work pregnant so that he could siphon off the money I was earning for himself and his not-quite-mistress. He was also making a lot of financial decisions that were making it impossible to run a household (like spending the rent money on work expenses just before rent was due and not telling me about it, signing up for expensive weight training lessons without telling me, etc). I asked for a separation to protect myself financially.

    He later chose to secretly begin a relationship with another woman all while acknowledging to me that our marriage was still intact and other women were off limit. When I found out, he was the one who filed for divorce.

    I also found out that he had an affair in the first year of our marriage; I'd have left him then had I known. So, no matter how you slice it, my divorce was biblical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    The OT isn't even relevant at all considering the completely different marriage structure.
    The OT isn't relevant because a minority of Jews practiced polygamy? You know they were still doing that in New Testament times, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    Your implausible interpretation of what "First century Christians" would have done has no bearing on what the Bible says.
    You are welcome to find me some examples of first century Christians who thought it was acceptable for married men to spend excessive amounts of time alone with women who weren't their wives and wouldn't have called that adultery. I'll wait.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    I am only calling you a mooch because you advocate for feminism when it suits you and patriarchy when it doesn't.
    Egalitarianism does not teach that women must always work outside the home. That my then-husband and I mutually agreed that he would work and I would stay home to care for our disabled child doesn't mean I was "advocating for patriarchy."

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    But you don't live (and never lived) in a patriarchal society
    Thank God! We've got thousands of years of human history to tell us what it was like for women in patriarchal society. If they did not have a direct male sponsor, their only options for supporting themselves were prostitution and menial labor for low wages. Feminism fixed that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    You live in an egalitarian society where there is no culture or law to compel him to fulfill sexist patriarchal duties.
    There never was anything to compel men in patriarchal societies to fulfill what you call "patriarchal duties." Male misbehavior was treated with a wink and a nod, and there was absolutely no social safety net for women who lost their male sponsor through no fault of their own. My marriage could have just as well imploded in a patriarchal society. The difference is, the egalitarian society we live in enabled me to get an education, get a job, and get away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    In a patriarchal society your father (or some other close female relative) wouldn't have even allowed you to marry a Mormon in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    You'd be surprised. But there are some desperate souls out there, many on this very board, that might consider making that mistake. My warning is for them, not me.
    I have a boyfriend who is already planning on proposing to me, so you can rest assured that the fair men of this forum are safe from me.

  7. #86
    tWebber MsJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Mount Prospect, IL
    Faith
    Evangelical Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    75
    Amen (Given)
    21
    Amen (Received)
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor View Post
    I doubt they even had a formal divorce mechanism [in the first century]
    Your ignorance is on display again.

    http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstud...ewishWomen.htm
    http://www.womenintheancientworld.co...ncientrome.htm

    It was entirely possible for a spouse to leave without going through a divorce process, leaving the Christian to decide whether to make the divorce formal or wait, hope, and work for the unbeliever's return.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    The OT isn't relevant because God sanctioned, and in at least one case (brother's widow) MANDATED it. And Jesus explicitly states divorce was only given in the OT as a concession.
    Sorry Marcion, there is nothing in the New Testament commanding us to dump the whole of the Old Testament. Jesus said that men writing their wives certificates of divorce was no longer relevant. Ezra 9-10 is about God specifically commanding men to divorce for non-adultery. BIG difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    I'd be shocked if you could find a first century person who believed in modern nonsense like "emotional affairs". spending so much time alone with a woman would have been viewed with suspicion for the obvious reason that he would be suspected of ACTUAL adultery.
    Nice to know that "put up or shut up" scared you into agreeing with what I said in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    What you are now saying (that your husband broached a mutually agreed upon EGALITARIAN contract) contradicts your earlier claims (and your article) blaming patriarchy for your failure.
    My husband was raised in a heavily patriarchal culture, then agreed to marriage with me on egalitarian terms, then decided to practice patriarchy in the marriage without my consent. Not sure why that's so hard for you to grasp other than your inhuman need to blame women for everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    "single mothers" IE: people who make irresponsible decisions and now expect others to sweep up their mess.
    Yes, every woman who was raped and chose to keep the baby, every woman whose husband cheated on her and walked out on her, and every woman who is a widow simply made irresponsible decisions and now expects others to clean up her mess. That is how the world works.

    BTW, you do know that the Bible contains dozens of admonitions to care for widows (who were often single moms), right? Sounds like God expects you to "sweep up their mess," too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    By contrast, traditional Christian/Jewish patriarchy placed burdens on both sexes
    And, as I said, failed to punish men who violated patriarchal familial ideals. One need look no further than the history of prostitution to see this was the case. Thomas Aquinas reasoned that prostitution was a necessary evil because married men couldn't possibly be expected to limit sex to marriage, and young men couldn't possibly be expected to save sex for marriage, and it was better for lusty men to visit prostitutes than have affairs with married women. He compared this to the sewer system in a palace: disgusting, but without it the palace would overflow with sewage.

    Pretty apt analogy for how patriarchy treats women though. It turns them into conduits for men's crap.

    You want modern day examples? Look at the Sovereign Grace Ministries scandal. Children were being raped and abused, C. J. Mahaney knew about it and covered it up, powerful evangelical leaders from Albert Mohler to D. A. Carson circled the wagons to save Mahaney.

    Look at the Village Church scandal. Male missionary confesses to looking at child porn, new wife decides to file for annulment. Which one of those did the Village Church side with and which one did they try to discipline? They sided with the man and tried to discipline the wife (AFTER she had already left the church).

    Look at all of the scandals in the Roman Catholic church involving known sex abusers who were quietly transferred elsewhere. Patriarchy looks out for what it values---and it only values men.

    Look at Tullian Tchividjian. Guy confesses to adultery and calls out his then-wife for adultery; gets punished with a leadership position at yet another church. Which he only loses because of an earlier affair that he did not disclose, which had been covered up by his church elders.

    Look at Josh Duggar. Josh molests his sisters and Josh's parents check him into therapy (but not his sisters). But hey, at least we can thank Anna Duggar's father for making sure she didn't marry a child molester or an adulterous jerk who would embarrass her on a national stage, right? Good job, Christian Patriarchy! You showed Egalitarianism how it's done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    There was no social safety net for ANYBODY. You were useful to somebody, received charity, or died. That's because our current economic prosperity is very, very recent. People used to actually struggle just to exist.
    You mean patriarchy was impotent to come up with the means to help anyone for thousands of years, and that help coincidentally appeared at the same time as feminism? Hmm. Wonder why that is.

    I accept that I made a bad decision with my first marriage, and I accept the consequences, but your attempts to say that my choices in life disqualify me from leadership are absurd and reflective of an unbiblical theology of grace. According to the Bible, I could be a violent insurrectionist (Simon), a serial Christ-denier (Peter), a liar who steals from the poor (Matthew), petty and power-hungry (James and John), an adulterer (David), a murderer (David), an accomplice to murder and persecutor of the church (Paul), and I STILL wouldn't have made any life choices that disqualified me from leadership.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    Looking forward to rehashing this conversation in 5-10 years.
    Looking forward to necro'ing this thread and laughing at you when you're wrong (again).

  8. #87
    tWebber MsJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Mount Prospect, IL
    Faith
    Evangelical Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    75
    Amen (Given)
    21
    Amen (Received)
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor View Post
    *talking about divorce by Christians*
    *links to divorce by jews and pagans*
    Christians still abided by the marriage laws of their land, just like they do today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    Again, it doesn't say you can divorce just because someone leaves, it says you can let them leave. You know, since you want to get hyperliteral.
    It says you can divorce if your unbelieving spouse abandons you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    Alright so I can now marry multiple women? Thanks for the clarification Joseph Smith.
    *shrug* There's not technically anything in the New Testament against polygamy. 1 Tim 3 talks about an elder being "the husband of one wife," but that isn't an injunction against polygamy, and even if it was, it's about church leaders, not all members.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    I never agreed with what you said in the first place. Nice to know "put up or shut up" reveals you had nothing to begin with.
    Let's review here. I said:

    "First century Christians wouldn't have recognized a difference between an 'emotional affair' and a physical one. A married man who spent hours upon hours of time alone with another woman and chose to support her rather than his own family absolutely would have been charged with committing adultery."

    Then later you said:

    "spending so much time alone with a woman would have been viewed with suspicion for the obvious reason that he would be suspected of ACTUAL adultery."

    Nice hepeating though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    Your husband was raised in a heavily egalitarian culture (it is impossible to raise someone in a patriarchal culture without becoming a full blown cult that cuts off most contact with the outside world in a western country).
    LOLOLOLOLOL. No.

    Mormons openly identify as patriarchal. They teach that a wife must "hearken" to her husband, that the husband is the head of the family, and that women will be subordinate to men in heaven. That they aren't patriarchal enough for you doesn't make them egalitarians. Patriarchy means "rule by men." That is it.

    But telling your wife that you get your way and that's that is ALWAYS an act of patriarchy. There's nothing egalitarian about it. Egalitarianism is mutuality and consent. Everything else is just degrees of patriarchy.

    I honestly do not care about your personal attacks on my 21-year-old self, my church, blah blah blah. You argue with personal attacks because you can't argue the facts. Speaking of which . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    loverwhelming majority of single mothers are "I'll do what I want" idiots who had sex with the wrong man and now expects everybody else to sweep up after them.
    Um . . . You do know where babies come from, right? You're not under the impression that women reproduce via parthenogenesis?

    So why are you blaming women exclusively for taxpayers having to subsidize single mothers?

    For every single mother on welfare, there's a man out there who had sex, then either cut and ran or failed to pay up. Men are just as responsible for the problem of single mothers as women are, if not more so. At least the single mothers are sticking around and trying to support their children with their own earnings. The men are just sticking other men with the tab via taxes.

    Yet here you are moaning up a storm about women and their choices instead of telling your fellow dudebros to either keep it in their pants, cover up, or pay up. Like I said: you seem to have an inhuman need to blame women wherever you think you can get away with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    I was also in a disastrous relationship
    I am glad that you kept the Lord's standards and did not have sex with this woman whom you had a disastrous relationship with.

    If you want to know more about my marriage and why I married my husband, buy my memoir. It'll be out next year. Otherwise butt out, 'cuz no one asked you.

    Now let's talk about what the Bible says about single mothers and charity, versus what you're saying.



    The Bible has dozens of verses ordering believers to care for the fatherless and the widows (two groups that would have overwhelmingly included single mothers and their children in addition to orphans). Dozens. And God didn't give any craps that they didn't have what you call "economic prosperity." His order was to give and He would provide the economic prosperity.

    Yet here you are, bemoaning the idea of helping single mothers, because how dare they expect someone else to clean up what you call "their mess." Read your Bible. It teaches all over the place that since God was gracious to you and cleaned up your mess, you should be gracious to others and do the same.

    No one said anything about forced giving. It's God orders that are supposed to compel you to be charitable to single mothers and others---not the government. My point is that patriarchy was in control for thousands of years, and it never came up with any kind of a system that would care for the people that God had ordered his people to care for. It's best solution to the problem was to use women for menial labor or stick them in brothels.

    Patriarchal society had its chance, it blew it, and it's not coming back. Get over it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    Adultery was a serious criminal matter for most of Europe's history
    Adultery laws were on the books for most of Europe's history. Was it actually punished? Not often.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    I'm not even sure how single men having sex with prostitutes violates "patriarchal familial ideals"
    Indeed. If there are two things patriarchy has always been down with, it's fornication and prostitutes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    though it does seem to violate the ideals of women like you who think that completely strange men should be compelled to support you instead of paying for prostitutes.
    I think they should be compelled to support the prostitutes, too, when they get them pregnant. (Which happened in European history all the time.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    It's funny you word women's decision to become said conduit into something the patriarchy did to them. Almost as if you don't truly believe women have agency.
    Their agency was limited to: (1) Become a menial laborer making a non-living wage, or (2) take up prostitution. One of those paid a lot more than the other. It's feminism that gave women more choices.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    According to ultraliberal wikipedia it's not true.
    What's "ultraliberal wikipedia"? The Wikipedia clearly states, "the plaintiffs claimed that church leaders, including Mahaney, did not report accusations of misconduct to the police."

    And Mahaney hasn't repented of what he did, so no, he meets neither mine nor the Bible's requirements for leadership.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    The guy didn't actually rape anyone, confessed to his sin, and his wife divorced him despite not meeting your own biblical requirements for divorce.
    The case met my biblical requirements for divorce, and remains an excellent example of how abominably patriarchy treats women.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    Lol they made him do physical labour, how many ditches do you think they should have made his sisters dig?
    "Duggar's father reported to police that he had enrolled Duggar in a program consisting of physical labor and counseling."

    Not surprised that an advocate of Christian patriarchy would think that what molestation victims need is physical labor though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    women like you want strangers to take care of them for free.
    I have a job. No one takes care of me "for free."

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Executor
    Grace is about salvation, I'm not sure why you think it should absolve you of consequences
    The persons I listed were all selected for positions of spiritual leadership in spite of their failings, or were allowed to keep a position of leadership in spite of their failings. That's grace.

    And it runs completely counter to your attempts to say women like myself and Wildflower aren't qualified to lead in our homes.

  9. #88
    tWebber MsJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Mount Prospect, IL
    Faith
    Evangelical Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    75
    Amen (Given)
    21
    Amen (Received)
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by demi-conservative
    Guess what!! Under actual patriarchy, expectation in such situation is on husband to go to work, instead of you! But no, we have egalitarianism, so you, woman, have to!!!
    Guess what!! We had thousands of years of nothing but patriarchy! If you think it adequately cared for women, go and get your history book and show me!!! Okay??

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •