False freedom is why we are miserable.

Recently, DF asked my opinion on the following exchange in which DF wrote:

Also on the topic of housework, I think you may come from a different perspective here, not being Christian, but for us, housework is just another way to show those that we love how much we care about them. We’re keepers of the home, and take pride in taking care of our homes well. I know that might make no sense to someone who doesn’t value homemaking and child-rearing as a profession, but for me, this is my job right now.

And Violet Wisp responded (highlighting mine):

“There seems to be some confusion in Christian circles about what ‘traditional Christian values’ are when it comes to the organisation of a family unit. All too often there is an unhealthy pressure for women in a marriage to abandon any paid work they might have doing, in order to exclusively take care of the home and children. This is unhealthy.

Think about how women would have lived in the majority of human societies. Family groupings in close communities; smaller generation gaps and intergenerational living; a mix of community and home based daily tasks e.g. food gathering and preparation, maintenance of common and home areas. People spent a lot of time outside, tasks were very physical and shared with others, children were exploring the world together, under the supervision of a network of adult relatives and friends when young. This is natural, this is what any traditional Christian community would have looked like.

Now think about women today in this artificial ‘housewife’ role. One lone female adult for most the day inside a block of wood and concrete doing physically simple tasks and caring for one to several young children often indoors […]

Human society is not likely to return to the natural community model any time soon. There are too many disadvantages in terms of privacy, wasted time and general comfort. The most sensible way to deal with the changed living conditions of modern society is to consider how to balance life for everyone in a nuclear family.

I take “balancing life” to mean the modern concept of the egalitarian marriage in which both spouses work full-time and split child care and housework 50/50.  The first thing to note is that Violet’s conclusion is wrong.  There may be many reasons why a housewife might feel lonely or unhappy, but since women en masse have entered the paid workforce full-time and sought to make “career” their identity, researchers Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers have found that women have become significantly less happy.  So the solution for women isn’t just to get a job, make your husband scrub more toilet bowls, and all will be well.

But even though her conclusion is wrong, her analysis of the problem is correct.  In a post here awhile back, The decline of the gens and familia: we want to live together but we just can’t get along, I wrote:

“We’ve gotten in the habit of thinking of the word “family” as meaning a husband, a wife, and several children, but this is a very narrow view of what family means and certainly isn’t what’s meant by the term “patriarchy”. A patriarchy has generally been a kin-based clan that is headed up by a senior male relative, with each man under him taking on successively smaller leadership roles. For example:

In Roman times, all citizens were divided by gens (clan) and familia(sept), determined on a purely patrilineal basis, in the same way as the modern inheritance of surnames…[t]he gens was the larger unit, and was divided into several familiae…

The idea of the nuclear family being an autonomous unit not embedded in a wider kin network seems to be fairly recent…

Are we happier this way? Maybe in the short-term we are, but I am not convinced we are in the long run.  The decline in the size of our family units has nicely mirrored the decline in our mental health:

Studies show that rates of depression for Americans have risen dramatically in the past 50 years. Research published in The American Journal of Psychiatry found that major depression rates for American adults increased from 3.33 percent to 7.06 percent from 1991 through 2002.”

So two things seem to be at the root of women’s declining happiness: leaving the home to pursue careerism and extended families breaking apart into nuclear families.  And the major cause of extended family/community breakdown is transplantism, which refers to a person or couple moving away to a different region of the country from the rest of their family, as the author of the blog Face to Face has explained in a number of very interesting posts on the subject.

For instance, transplants are significantly less likely to be in contact with both blood relatives and in-laws, and the result is a decline in happiness:

“A simple comparison between natives and transplants shows that their happiness levels are indistinguishable: 35% of natives and 36% of transplants are “very happy,” while 10% of both natives and transplants are “not too happy” (the rest being “pretty happy”).

That is despite the transplants being more educated (33% hold a college degree, vs. 20% of natives), and earning a higher average income ($58K in current dollars, vs. $47K for natives). Any boost to happiness from being upwardly mobile is apparently cancelled out by not belonging to the broader culture of the place where you live.

[…] here we see a vivid reminder of how simple it is to sever the ties to your extended family — just move away, or perhaps they will. As long as the split is not acrimonious — you’re just leaving to better yourself — no one will be bitter about the diluted and fragmented family web. It’ll be one of those things that just happen, mysteriously and uncontrollably.

I don’t see things changing course due to a change in attitudes toward family ties. There’s too strong of an impulse toward self-enhancement, rather than maintenance and enhancement of everything else that made you.”

It is really quite a paradox.  Born of a selfish impulse for self-enhancement, transplantism and the decline of the gens has actually led to reduced happiness  Truly, we do not know what is good for us.

And what is good for us?

Submission.

And not only for women, but for men too.  Because in the traditional family structure, wives submitted to their husbands but their husbands submitted to the leader of the larger family group.  Transplantism, like feminism, like no-fault divorce, like atheism, like democracy itself —like all of liberalism’s twisted offspring—is born of the desire to rebel against submission to proper authority (you can do what you want!) and a futile search for happiness in total freedom.

Paradoxically, true emotional fulfillment is only found in dying to self, and true freedom from misery is only found in submission to proper authority: children submitting to parents, wives submitting to husbands, husbands submitting to the family patriarch, family patriarchs submitting to the rightful king, and everyone submitting to Jehovah God.

Edited to added: I should clarify that I do not think it is unhealthy for mothers to be at home caring for their children.  I wasn’t clear about that.  What I do think is unhealthy is the atomization of the extended family into progressively smaller units via transplantism, divorce, and the like.

Advertisements

41 thoughts on “False freedom is why we are miserable.

  1. Back in the summer, one of my best friends and I were at the fair cooing over the cute goats, when a conversation started about how she, our mutual best friend, and I needed to all live together on a family farm and home school all of our kids together. The idea sounds better all the time.

    There are definitely drawbacks, but the benefits just keep piling up. I would do this with my own immediate family, but they are completely disinterested. So my protective instincts have shifted to my best friends and their future children.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Indeed, there is a reason why the phrase isn’t just “kin” but rather “kith and kin”, with kith being family friends you’ve known all your life who are nearly as close as a blood relative would be.

      There has been a small but increasing interest in intentional Christian living communities. A blog I often read called Nourishing Days is written by a woman whose family moved from Michigan to Texas to live in an intentional Christian community. Basically, as far as I can tell (I might be wrong because I don’t know all the details) the families purchase their individual plots of land which are part of a larger community. Everyone builds his own house (and these are on the order of pioneer cabins), but they share a religious traditions, and submit themselves to the senior community leadership. There’s a lot of subsistence farming, but I think families own the fruits of their own labor while helping each other out.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I enjoyed reading your response Sunshine, thank you!

    I think, the part that kind of got to me about Violet’s response to my post was this paragraph she wrote:

    “One parent staying at home with young children is not natural, it’s often not pleasant, and it’s certainly not approaching the range of social contact and interaction that all human beings need on a daily basis. Of course, in some family situations there are no other options and everyone just had to get on with it. But to sell this isolated and limiting set up like it’s beneficial to anyone, like it’s something to aspire to, is to sell everyone short: women are limited in their scope and all too often reduced to the proverbial doormat; children are deprived of the necessary range of adult input and child socialisation; men have a tendency to become pampered queens prancing about like the ‘important’ person in the house.”

    I spoke to one of my mentors about the post, who is in her mid-40’s, and she basically said that with a response like this, there’s no hope for real “discussion.” To completely dismiss my life (lol) as being “artificial,” and repeatedly asserting it was “unhealthy,” or “not natural,” does not give way to any kind of mutual understanding between the viewpoints sadly. We don’t feel isolated because we know a lot of other women who also stay home and have play dates together, and the ones who homeschool regularly meet together to do community classes and projects, even things like PE 🙂 It requires being proactive, but it’s certainly not natural or unhealthy! But, you know, it was interesting to see that this is the kind of advice women are still giving younger women… I thought people had moved past this stage of looking down on housewives/stay at home mothers. With voices like this that are even coming from fellow Christian women at times, declaring the role of housewife to be an unhealthy one, we need women like you all the more who are willing to **encourage** the younger wives that what they’re doing is right, is something to aspire to, and is beneficial for our kids, because I look around me at the other moms in my shoes, and they are often discouraged. Discouraged about the housework, discouraged about getting up with a baby, discouraged about not having a naptime for their kids… I talk to these women regularly in person and try to encourage them in what they could do differently or how things could get better. One friend that has a wonderful life (seriously, doctor husband, big beautiful house, a gorgeous to-die for backyard and sparkling pool), was recently feeling defeated about housework with three little ones that she’s taking care of (two of which, she’s doing the difficult work of homeschooling). Part of my encouragement to her was to not worry so much about the housework all the time, it’s not the most important thing (and she does a great job, she’s not lazy). She also expressed interest to get organized, so I offered to help her tackle whatever she wanted to do – and it was her pantry. I even suggested if she wanted to make it a mini-party, that it would make it fun and easy. In my honest opinion, this is what we need to be doing for each other. Since her parents don’t live near her (they’re actually pretty difficult people – her mother is mentally ill but won’t go on meds and she had several “dads” growing up). With the break down of the family, she really has no one, and her in-laws live hours away. The people that love her and that are in her neighborhood (I live about 5 minutes away in a less expensive neighborhood), are all she has. That’s what community looks like – your neighborhoods now in my opinion.

    It’s so easy to criticize these moms that are overwhelmed and say, “well they just need to go back to work, get more socialization, etc.” but these women need encouragement, not criticism. I don’t think it’s good to develop a critical attitude toward others, but instead, older women should be encouraging and instructive… I guess it fits the description of the Titus 2 woman.

    Violet got a lot of things right in her post that you pointed out, that it IS harder without living in a communal structure, and even our neighborhoods are not close (at least in the US) anymore like they used to be. That the lack of extended family structure has broken down, and people feel MUCH more isolated which of course, makes child-rearing harder and even possibly depressing.

    I was reading my son an old book published around 1950 that talked about neighborhoods routinely having block parties and huge Sunday outdoor picnics and everyone (even people in the suburbs) were still in each other’s lives, helping out, and seeing each other far more often than people do now.

    And while Violet was also right that it can certainly be “unpleasant” work taking care of littles on your own mostly, and housekeeping on your own, it is important work and trying to have a good attitude about it is worthwhile and something to aspire to. I’m probably going to write a post about it as well, because it really got me thinking… “well, what on earth AM I doing? Is what I’m doing really all that important? What is the importance or value of a housewife/stay at home mom?”

    Tl/dr: I loved it.

    Liked by 3 people

    • With voices like this that are even coming from fellow Christian women at times, declaring the role of housewife to be an unhealthy one, we need women like you all the more who are willing to **encourage** the younger wives that what they’re doing is right, is something to aspire to, and is beneficial for our kids

      I should have stated that I disagreed with Violet on it being unnatural or unhealthy for women to be at home taking care of children. I suppose I figured anyone reading my blog would already know I don’t agree with that! 🙂

      What I was focused on is how unnatural and unhealthy our modern conception of the atomized family is compared to the kin-based networks of the past. For it can be dreary at home alone with a small baby and a sink full of dirty dishes and no female relative nearby to hold Baby for a spell. But the Christian discipline of self-sacrifice inspires a woman in such a phase of life to persevere, not to make things even worse by chasing after things she thinks might make her happy but probably won’t (i.e. careerism). Babies *need* their mamas…but they need their grandparents and aunties and uncles and cousins too.

      Part of my encouragement to her was to not worry so much about the housework all the time, it’s not the most important thing (and she does a great job, she’s not lazy). She also expressed interest to get organized, so I offered to help her tackle whatever she wanted to do – and it was her pantry.

      LOL, you and my MIL both. She literally JUST talked to me about this. As you know, I’m working full-time now that my children are getting older and I was so stressed yesterday with all the running around and how far behind I am on laundry and general housework. She really encouraged me to focus on being with the kids and not worrying so much about keeping the house perfect. And THEN SHE ORGANIZED MY PANTRY! lol, And I was so grateful because I’d just been stuffing things in as I bought them and everything was everywhere on every shelf and even stacked on the floor. The woman has a gift for organizing. It’s been a real blessing having her living so close to us now.

      Liked by 3 people

  3. https://thesunshinethiryblog.com/2015/01/19/christian-women-should-be-helpers-not-careerists/

    Your post^ from last year also is good for this topic. Even if a woman is working outside the home, if she’s a Christian, she’s also considered (or should be considered) a “keeper of the home,” and should find value and fulfillment in taking care of her husband and children in that way because in everything, we do we should do it to glorify God. We should be trying to give our best to our families, because they are who are truly important in our lives (much more than our jobs, even though we can minister to others while we work outside the home as well of course).

    And of course, what you wrote is perfect for this:

    “Feminists with their bloated egos tell women that their paid work is their path to personal fulfillment. This is a lie. Personal fulfillment is found in God and family – nothing more and nothing less. Chasing the elusive and incredibly selfish dream of “personal fulfillment” will leave you empty for the simple reason that – unlike God and your family – your job does not love you.

    My advice to young women: prioritize family formation over education and career. Prepare yourself to earn money as a means of serving your family but don’t get wrapped up in worrying about your personal fulfillment at work because that isn’t why you are there.”

    Liked by 2 people

  4. There is a bear equivilent.

    While this is fun to watch, where are all the Mama Bears? They can’t be at work.

    Dragonfly,
    You’re all right. I am reminded of Simone de Beauvior who suggested that staying home should not be an option for women. To her feminist amind, too many would take it.
    The mindset promoted by feminism is not going to go away easily or gently.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. If this hypothesis is correct, we are probably doomed as a society.

    How many of us would give up the autonomy of transplantism to move back into our patrilineal family of origins circle of influence?

    I don’t know how I would do it anyway.

    My oldest brother is occupying what would be the “family patriarch” position now.

    For many reasons, it wouldn’t make any sense for me to call him up and declare “I am moving my family close to you. Let’s all live together as an extended family. You are in charge.”

    He would think I had gone crazy.

    DSK

    Liked by 2 people

    • Sure, I completely understand what you’re saying. As Alla noted above, it may not even be possible for many people to live in larger kin groups these days because all members have to be willing to do it, and many aren’t, even if we ourselves might be.

      So really, more than saying anything about any individual person’s situation, what we are really looking at here is more how this plays out at the society wide level. And I do think as a society that we are sort of doomed if we continue on this path. The reason for that is because the atomization of the gens depresses nataliam.

      Like

    • it wouldn’t make any sense for me to call him up and declare “I am moving my family close to you. Let’s all live together as an extended family. You are in charge.”

      This in particular I think really isn’t easy (or sometimes even possible) in modern times. For this to work, you have to grow up in a patriarchal society, which none of us has. Because we do live in a transplant society, we move apart from each other and may develop radically different views – sometimes even different religious beliefs – from our extended families. That wouldn’t have happened in days gone by.

      But what we cando is be aware of what motivates transplantism and why we should avoid it. Also, transplantism doesn’t refer to every instance of moving away from one’s family. For example, my sister lives in Texas. This is so because her husband was stationed at Fort Sill in Oklahoma, so she had to move to live with him. After he got out of the military, his job requires for him to live in Texas. They live there because it’s important to him to be able to support his family without my sister having to work in a paid job, whereas transplantism refers to moving for status, excessive materialism, or persona-striving.

      The fix may be as simple as just choosing to stay in the same city as one’s parents and siblings (if possible) and making sure to have regular, face-to-face contact with them.

      Liked by 2 people

      • My family has had a little success avoiding transplantism simply by some of us choosing not to move away from the same region as the rest of the family, and trying to get together once a week for a meal. (Interestingly my sister-in-law’s family is starting to get pulled into our orbit a little as well)

        In Scott’s situation where the family has already moved apart it’s somewhat harder, but simply encouraging family to move closer together if they do move rather than further apart could have some success. (Encouraging Grandma to retire to somewhere near some other family members, if you’re looking for work consider jobs near other family, etc) It actually sounds like Sunshine has had a little bit of luck with that herself.

        The other thing of course is family get-togethers; obviously if you’re living all over America you wouldn’t be able to get together every week, but maybe you could get it up from once a year, most years, to a couple of times a year, or four or five times a year, or maybe even more.

        (And of course you can encourage the next generation to avoid transplantism, so that even if you don’t end up being particularly involved in the lives of your siblings and nieces and nephews, at least you’ll get to be part of the lives of your kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids)

        Liked by 1 person

    • Some of us never moved away from the ancestral compound. It was a little rough during my twenties, but now, in my thirties, I appreciate everything: my daughter growing up in the same neighborhood I did, tripping on down to grandma’s a few houses away, selling girl scout cookies to neighbors who’ve known me since I was a kid. And, now it is my turn in preparing for the next generation. If all goes well, I’ll be buying my daughter a small home before summer, so she too will have her first place in the family compound when she finishes high school. For all the times I didn’t get to do something fun and exciting in a big city, I will have this legacy for her now.
      “…land is the only thing in the world worth workin’ for, worth fightin’… … worth fightin’ for, worth dyin’ for, because it’s the only thing that lasts.”
      -Kate

      Liked by 1 person

  6. And I do want to make sure that everyone understands that the only part of Violet’s essay I agree with is the part I quoted above about the family atomization problem. So, for example, in the rest of her essay when she writes things like this:

    One parent staying at home with young children is not natural, it’s often not pleasant, and it’s certainly not approaching the range of social contact and interaction that all human beings need on a daily basis. Of course, in some family situations there are no other options and everyone just had to get on with it. But to sell this isolated and limiting set up like it’s beneficial to anyone, like it’s something to aspire to, is to sell everyone short: women are limited in their scope and all too often reduced to the proverbial doormat; children are deprived of the necessary range of adult input and child socialisation; men have a tendency to become pampered queens prancing about like the ‘important’ person in the house.

    I think I have established quite well both here and on my other blog that I think the whole “doormat” thing is, well, horseshit, to put it plainly. Nor do I think most husbands are on the order of prancing pampered queens. For example, when my husband got home this evening from ski patrolling at Mount Brighton, my mother-in-law, his aunt, and I had a nice dinner all ready. The family sat down and ate, but he didn’t act like an entitled princess. He praised the food, was appreciative, and helped out by doing things like carrying a heavy box out to my mother-in-law’s car when she was ready to go home. He helped the old ladies get their cars turned around and out the driveway, which is a little bit of a difficult feat given our crazy driveway. He did not prance even once, lol.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. I agree with you Sunshine, on this part, “But even though her conclusion is wrong, her analysis of the problem is correct.” Geographical changes, the loss of extended families, the economy, feminism, all these things played a role in creating the situation we have today.

    However, since I’m already so popular, I might as well go for broke. Violet is correct here too, when she says, “men have a tendency to become pampered queens prancing about like the ‘important’ person in the house.” In this modern caricature of what it means to be a man, we do have a whole lot of men demanding all of this respect without ever picking up the accompanying responsibility. Many want to lead because of what they perceive will the opportunity to hold power over others and they feel entitled just because they are men. There are men who refuse to work, men who expect their wives to work and homeschool, men who feel entitled to have affairs. No amount of submission can fix that. Men themselves have to learn what it truly means to be men.

    I married someone from another time, another dimension, he is more horrified by what he sees in the world than I am and over an over again he tells me it’s the men who have forgotten how to be men. He does not think women have to learn how to submit, he thinks women submit naturally when good men lead. I think there’s some truth to that.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. women submit naturally when good men lead…

    Yes, many of us are aware of what women submit naturally to. Generally fornication, licentiousness, hair dye and tattooes, eventually ending in spinsterdom and cat ownership.

    Meanwhile, the good men don’t have that many good women to lead. Them good women’s apparently too dang busy being led about by cads, smooth talkers and hucksters to bother with the likes of honest young men.

    Sunshine, Deepstrenth deep sixed ib recently. Just sayin’.

    Anyway, gotta be gorn’. Lotta’ prancin’ an’ oppressin’ ter do.

    Liked by 2 people

    • “Meanwhile, the good men don’t have that many good women to lead. Them good women’s apparently too dang busy being led about by cads, smooth talkers and hucksters to bother with the likes of honest young men.”

      You know, I just don’t buy the idea that good women only go for cads, smooth talkers and hucksters. I like to think that true masculinity has the ability to turn a good woman on, and at the same time, be reliable, a good provider, trustworthy, etc.

      It’s basically… women want a man who doesn’t make her the focal point of his life, but has his best interest at heart, this doesn’t mean that he also isn’t a “good man.” She wants someone who leads from that point of view, but sadly, a lot of the “good men” that are reliable, good provider types, also (when they find a quality woman) suddenly make her the focal point of his life. It’s very hard for them not to, men are seriously more romantic in this aspect, they *want* to have a dream life almost more than girls are said to. Her happiness and bending over backward to do everything he can for her romantically, etc. becomes his goal… and this (although most women will NEVER say this) turns them off. They do not feel comfortable being the focal point of a man’s life, they want to attach themselves to someone who has his own life going on, his own admirable goals, his own ideas that fascinate her… etc. We’re designed to be the helper, not the goddess that he worships or his “greatest accomplishment.”

      So I think it’s a little more complicated than just saying that we women only want the bad boys. Yes, we are ridiculously turned on by the confident, self-assured man, but if he goes too far to become an arrogant asshole to her, quality women will assess that he’s not worth it. We want the best of both alpha traits and provider, faithful, trustworthy traits, and I know that sounds unfair, but subconsciously I think most women are filtering for the “best deal.”

      I’ve known my husband for coming up on 11 years now, married 8 1/2 years, and part of the reason I love reading about all this manosphere stuff is because it makes sense – we live it day in and day out. He is a good man, a Police Officer (how far away from cad or criminal can you get?), so wonderful, and a better father than even my dad was (and that’s saying a lot, my dad was great). But he’s also a badass that has a delicious rebellious streak. My husband is someone I look up to, admire, and greatly respect, but he’s also fun, teases the heck out of me everyday, and the chemistry between us is even stronger than when we were first dating. I think with a lot of women who marry provider types, the chemistry goes away – not because he’s a genuine “good man,” but because there’s no more teasing playfulness, amused mastery on his part, and flirtatious seduction on her part. And yes, I believe women can draw out those characteristics in her man by being flirtatious, meeting his sexual needs, and respecting him. I’ve seen this bring out a more “alpha” side of a man before, so it works both ways.

      Hope that helps explain why I think it’s a lot more complicated than that. :/

      Liked by 1 person

    • “women submit naturally when good men lead…”

      But you’re right about this, an observer, that yes, women may feel more like they want to submit, but overtime they will “shit test” and see how far they can rebel or control him.

      Even if a woman marries a man she can “naturally submit to” (which I think is false, I think women are born rebellious as part of our innate sin natures), but for the sake of the argument, even if she marries someone it’s EASIER to submit to because he IS good, faithful, makes good decisions, etc. She will STILL have times where it’s a struggle, when she wants to just control him, and he’ll have to combat those ploys at times, and as time goes on, if she matures, she shouldn’t do that as much because she learns that he can’t be controlled. But that urge is very strong, especially in how women are raised today to want to be in control, to be type A personalities to get through college and chase a career. We are raised drastically different than even 100 years ago, so that factors in.

      But IB’s idea that women will just naturally submit if the man is good enough is like Pastors saying that it’s all on the husband’s role to “lead right” so that his wife will follow him. And if she’s rebelling, it can NEVER just be her fault, it must be because he’s leading wrong. It’s false… it’s more complicated than what she’s saying.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. IB writes:

    In this modern caricature of what it means to be a man, we do have a whole lot of men demanding all of this respect without ever picking up the accompanying responsibility. Many want to lead because of what they perceive will the opportunity to hold power over others and they feel entitled just because they are men. There are men who refuse to work, men who expect their wives to work and homeschool, men who feel entitled to have affairs. No amount of submission can fix that. Men themselves have to learn what it truly means to be men.

    What in the Sam Hill does this have to do with the topic?

    Sunshine, at one time, would have taken a scalpel and dissected such nonsense as you’ve written here, and then topped it off with a pipe bomb, just to show you how gangsta she is.

    I’m convinced, at this moment, that you – dear sister – serve the sole purpose of throwing rocks at men, for whom you claim to love and have empathy.

    You’re actually getting worse as time goes on.

    I know I’ve had challenges and issues as I’ve navigated through my anger phase, but by all that’s Holy…you’re tripping – hard.

    Like

    • Peday,
      Maybe she was expecting IB to be mauled by a bear? Frankly, I don’t know wat to do about her other than to not feed her. There is a good side to her comment. She is demonstrating how feminism works on the fear of women for men to foster hate.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. “Human society is not likely to return to the natural community model any time soon. There are too many disadvantages in terms of privacy, wasted time and general comfort.”

    Wrong wrong wrong. Traditional society was far more private, and if you don’t believe me ask the NSA. Wasted time? How could you class the day-to-day lives of Traditional women as wasting time? They were bringing up the next generation, that which is so vital to society! General comfort? If you have chosen comfort over God, you will end up with neither, and the miserable state of Modern woman proves this. How can so-called Christians write this stuff. It baffles me.

    Like

  11. it’s EASIER to submit to because he IS good, faithful, makes good decisions, etc. She will STILL have times where it’s a struggle, when she wants to just control him, and he’ll have to combat those ploys at times, and as time goes on, if she matures, she shouldn’t do that as much because she learns that he can’t be controlled.

    No question. I have long said that the more rebellion a woman is manifesting, the more game is required to manage her behaviour.

    But that urge is very strong, especially in how women are raised today to want to be in control, to be type A personalities to get through college and chase a career. We are raised drastically different than even 100 years ago, so that factors in.

    In some ways this is providing an excuse for women behaving badly. Cultural norms have devolved so that rebellion is now virtue, cheek and attitude are considered good, and so on.

    In relation to men’s supposed ‘lack of leadership’, I could say we are socialised from birth to be deferential, to seek consensus, be polite and supportive of women’s preferences and choices, etc etc. Work and jobs are feminised and forced by regulation to be clean, sterile and politically correct in speech, rules and behaviours.

    Your own DH’s line of work simply isn’t like that. It demands a bunch of profile of characteristics somewhat unusual and suppressed in the male population. Most men simply aren’t like that and are actively discouraged from being so when they show such behaviours.

    Like

    • Not trying to make it an excuse for women behaving badly, but to show that submission doesn’t usually just come naturally, even if the husband is a great man that she desires to submit to.

      Like

    • It is easier to submit because he is good, faithful, and makes good decisions. That is what draws women towards submission, that is what motivates us respond to men’s leadership. Now, when men are incompetent, that is when submission gets challenging. That is when it is hard. You have to be willing to let go and praise him or at least comfort him in the midst of failure. And you have to be willing to suffer the consequences of his poor decisions, too.

      So this idea that if women just submit, men will just magically lead well is a false one. Men must lead well and than women will naturally submit. Submission comes naturally, leadership does not.

      Like

      • IB,
        You are trying to weasel out of this. To begin, how did this husband become incompetent? Had he been that way from the outset, she never would have married him. Gee, something must have run down his confidence.
        Secondly, that submission is withheld until leadership is demonstrated gives default dominance to the woman by allowing her to submit at her judgemnent and discretion.
        If this is the Churchian-Feminist model for marriage, any thinking man will turn it down.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Fuzzie, just saw something in the ads yesterday that speaks to this–a few pages about the wedding season coming up. It strikes me that there are a certain portion of women who get married because the wedding sounds so cool–you go to the spa, get a wonderful vacation, wear the most beautiful dress of your life, etc.. There would then be a certain portion who are signing up for the wedding and honeymoon, but not marriage. Our “churchian” culture does a lousy job of preparing men and women for not just a wedding, but marriage.

        And really, if either a man or a woman can be prepared for a wedding, but not marriage, should it surprise us that many of both sexes find their roles difficult when they learn the hard way that their spouse is a sinner? It’s really about as surprising as the sun rising in the morning.

        Like

      • Bike Bubba,
        What IB is telling us makes women impossible to live with. Divorce would be inevitable. What worries me is that most women subscribe to what she is saying.

        Like

  12. It is easier to submit because he is good, faithful, and makes good decisions.

    If it was always easy, it wouldn’t be called submission.

    That is what draws women towards submission, that is what motivates us respond to men’s leadership.

    Horse feathers. Either she finds him attractive to follow, or not.

    Now, when men are incompetent, that is when submission gets challenging.

    Incompetent by her standards. Rebelling against leadership is also a negative feedback loop. Not recommended.

    Like

    • Yes, an observer, I believe you’re right. I remember Elisabeth Elliot saying that this headship position that husbands have to bear is something that she thought many men probably didn’t want. I would imagine it IS hard, especially with what you said before, boys being raised to NOT be prepared to lead or have those characteristics. So being raised that way, it would be like having to learn a different way of relating completely.

      It does bother me since we have 2 boys… but we’ve both tried to instill in, at least our oldest since he’s old enough to understand, a confidence that we know they are capable. My husband grew up in a family that was all basically led by controlling women, the message he constantly received from people in the family was that he wasn’t good enough and could never be. So even though he did lead, because I, by default, just wouldn’t make some decisions (and expected him to just make them for us), there were many times in the beginning where I could tell that I could have crushed it and demanded my own way. He’s grown a ton since then, and he leads with very little hesitation now.

      And as far as his qualities that make him great for his job, he had some of them naturally, but others he did have to foster. He didn’t make it into the training academy the first time he tried, http://girlwithadragonflytattoo.com/2015/09/02/blessing-in-the-wilderness/
      and those first months when he started officially working (after his training), he had some difficulty as well. We got pregnant and then lost the baby when he was in the middle of going through his on the job testing, and it affected him more than I even knew. But even those characteristics of policemen didn’t come to him completely naturally, they had a lot of training and then trial and error while on the job.

      Like

  13. Men must lead well and than women will naturally submit. Submission comes naturally, leadership does not.

    In other words, if it’s not working, it’s always his fault because he must be leading badly.

    Like

    • I’d agree that statement in italics is overly broad; I’m reminded of how many read Proverbs and such as “put this in get this out” promises and not general principles of life. We ought to rephrase it as

      If a man leads well, his wife will be more likely to submit than she otherwise would have been, since she will see his leadership as a benefit to her life. But this does not override the sin nature that both husband and wife share.

      Like

      • Here’s the thing, Gentlemen, I have been married some 30 years now and my husband appears to be reasonably happy. Now I can tell you that my marriage is good because I am such an awesome submissive, because I have learned and mastered the skills there, but is it really true? Well, as much as I would like to take full credit and brag about my own awesomeness here, it is actually not true at all. My marriage is good because my husband is good, because my husband can lead, because my husband has taught me how to follow.

        It is not unlike my relationship with Jesus Christ. I submit to Him, not because I am so good at submitting, but because He is so good at leading. It is not about who I am at all, it is about who He is.

        We need to eject the toxic language of blame and shame. Men who point fingers at women and insist, she must submit, she must submit, are in fact handing their power away. Who you point the finger at, is the one who holds the power.

        Like

  14. My marriage is good because my husband is good, because my husband can lead, because my husband has taught me how to follow.

    It is not unlike my relationship with Jesus Christ. I submit to Him, not because I am so good at submitting, but because He is so good at leading. It is not about who I am at all, it is about who He is.

    IB just contradicted her husband’s word by arguing that she is/was NOT naturally good at submission and had to be taught. Because even though he is so good at leading, she still had to learn.

    Q.E.D. – Submission doesn’t “just come naturally” – although having a good man may make it easier. (Subject to circumstances)

    I would add, as I think no one would too much contest, that male leadership also doesn’t just come naturally. Leadership and submission are both qualities that must be practiced together, and both partners must try to give one another grace in their failings, just as they hope for grace in return. The captain/first mate analogy works well here. I remember when my dad first got a small boat. He had to take command when it came to things like getting the boat in and out of the water and to the dock, etc., and my mom needed to follow directions to succeed. Trouble was, he was still learning too. Nevertheless, if she had tried to take control and fought him about how to handle the boat, we’d never get anywhere. They had to learn together – he directing and she following. We can’t pin blame on men for being poor leaders if they are never given opportunity to learn.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. A decades long marriage is not necessarily a success. I have seen a few commenters attest to this from their own expperience. To the point where the predicted life expectancy for men being shorter is looked upon with relief.
    IB,
    Keep it up. You should have your own MGTOW blog.

    While Sunshine has called me a “terrified” bear, I am not so much today.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s