CTNAHM: Michael the Manly Man

A Guest Post by Aletha

Originally posted on Yllom Mormon

Blogger Aletha of Yllom Mormom, a frequent reader on Love, Joy, Feminism, has taken a page out of my book and has begun a series reviewing Michael Pearl’s, Created To Need A Help Meet. Michael wrote this book for men after the phenomenal success of Debi Pearl’s Created To Be A Help Meet. I’ve been wanting to read and review it myself, but I already have my hands full in the review department, so I’m thrilled with Aletha’s project. With her permission, I’m going to crosspost each installment. Make sure to click through and take a look at Aletha’s other writings.

—————

Ok. I’m just going to jump right in. “Created to Need a Help Meet” by Michael Pearl. The companion marriage-help book to his wife, Debi’s, “Created to Be a Help Meet”.

The first thing in the book are 2 scripture passages.  Ecc 4:9-11—”Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.  For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is not alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.  Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?” The second is Proverbs 18:22—”Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtains favour in the LORD.” I, personally, hate the phrase “find a wife”.  It sounds a bit too much like luck or providence.  You find pennies on the ground.  You can find a good hairstylist.  But finding a wife should involve a bit more effort, shouldn’t it?

Moving on to the acknowledgements section.

I dedicate this book to the hundreds of thousands of ladies who read Created to Be His Help Meet and unilaterally decided to assume the full burden of making your marriage heavenly.  You allowed your husbands to dump on you while you developed a Christ-like spirit.  Many of you stood alone and forgave wrongs and carried the burden for two.  You are my heroines and my inspiration.

This is very much what CTBHHM teaches.  That women can, by themselves, make their marriage heavenly by simply submitting to whatever the man does.  By obeying their husband, they are obeying God.  In everything from hairstyles to dinner preferences to sex on demand. So it was kind of nice of Michael to give them a shout out.

As I read the thousands of letters and heard the glowing testimonies, you made me ashamed that you stood alone while men sucked up the befit of an obedient help meet.

Wow.  I totally agree with Michael here.  Men should be ashamed of that behaviour!

Then when I asked for suggestions for the content of a book addressed to men, you wrote almost more than I could read.  But the letters did get read and they formed the basis of my developing ideas.  So I acknowledge you as my coworkers in this long overdue project that I trust will lighten your load and make you the recipients of great blessings.

I’m almost kind of impressed with how nice he sounds.  “Ladies, you did good.  Let me try to make life easier by talking to your husbands.”

Next paragraph.

I would acknowledge my wife, but that would be like acknowledging myself.  We are so one that when either of us does something, it’s the product of both.

Eh, what?  I understand the concept of two becoming one, but really?  Isn’t that a bit much?  Do Debi and Michael have no autonomy in their marriage?  I think it’s interesting because in Debi’s book, Michael placed his stamp that “he approved every word”, but in this book, acknowledging his wife is just another pat on the back for himself. I hope this isn’t the tone for the whole book.

Her wisdom is extraordinary and her judgement most holy.  I lean on her wisdom heavily.

OK. That sounds nice. Just reading the acknowledgements, I’m cautiously optimistic for this book.  So far he’s thanked the ladies, acknowledge their struggles, and admits his wife has wisdom and that he depends on her.  Of course, it sounds like depending on her is like depending on himself because they are so unified, so I don’t know how much that means . . .

One final section for today: the Introduction.

When I first decided to write Created to NEED a Help Meet, I asked my happy wife what one thing I had done correctly and should pass along to other husbands.

Side note…read her book and see if she sounds happy.  Or just read some reviews of it.  But, I suppose, part of being a submissive wife is never letting your feelings show, so maybe in his view, she really IS happy because that’s all he sees.

Her answer was immediate and straight to the point: “You let me be your help meet.  You pulled me alongside you in everything you did.  You stretched me.  Participation made me grow as a person–made my life rich and rewarding and caused me to be a better mama.”

Wow.  When asked what he did right in his marriage, his wife’s answer was ‘you let me be submissive.’  Says a lot about both husband and wife, doesn’t it?

You say “What is your qualification to teach us to be good husbands?”  I’ve made one of the most happiest, most cheerful, thankful, joyful ladies on the earth who thinks I’m the greatest thing in all the world.  That gives me the confidence to believe I have something to offer.

O.o  He MADE her?  That sentence is typed exactly how it’s written.  He made her into a joyful and thankful wife who thinks he’s great.  And that’s why he’s confident he can help other men.  Because he made his wife cheerful.  Oh dear.

The next few paragraphs are basically how Michael has studied the Word of God for the past 54 years, several hours every day. He’s received tons of letters and helped counsel countless couples.

It can almost be viewed as science: the laws of sowing and reaping are extremely reliable.  A marriage grows till it soars or it deteriorates till it’s damned.  My, how people like to throw around the word “Science” like it’s magic.

Why does this sound familiar?  Oh yeah.  Debi did it, too, in her book.

My conclusions can be said to be scientifically correct. That is, the “evidence” that leads to my conclusion is reproducible: Anyone can test it and get the same results. The Creator knows best, and His way does work. His Word is meant to be taken at face value. And, when any woman does as I have done, the blessings are incredible!

There we go.  Science and evidence proving to us that the Pearls are correct.

This post has gone far too long already, and I’m sorry, but I want to finish this up.

Marriage is God’s laboratory for the perfecting of the human race.  It is a recapitulation of the entire human experience, distilling the conflict and triumph of the ages down to a very personal, individualized experience-a test of all that makes us human . . . Marriage is both the mount of temptation-where we have the opportunity to feed our self-centered natures-and the pinnacle of paradise restored, where we become heirs together of the grace of life and develop the nature of a savior and priest.  Marriage is heaven’s bootcamp, the terminal of our future destiny, the place where we grow small and inward or become large with mercy and sacrifice.

Holy cow, can this guy wax poetic about marriage.  Bootcamp!  Pinnacle of paradise!  Somehow these don’t really seem accurate comparisons to me . . .

And finally, like his wife does in her book, Michael ends with a letter. But is it a letter from a man who has done as Michael said and become a great husband?  Pffft. Don’t be silly.

Mr Pearl,

A funny thing happened on my way to send you my comments about my husband for your new book!I woke up in the middle of the night and could not sleep, so I got up to take the opportunity to write all I had to say.  This was my big moment!

As I sat down and began writing every complaint that came to mind about my husband and men in general, the conviction of the Holy Spirit came upon me and the Lord turned the whole thing around.  I began sobbing and wailing before the Lord as I was brought into repentance and He had me write 30 specific items I needed to repent to my husband for.  I  was transformed, literally, from a woman looking forward to unloading a truckload of scathing comments about my husband, to a sinner broken and contrite before my God.

This was humbling, painful, cleansing, and refreshing at the same time!  I wrote the whole letter of repentance to my husband, getting up a new creature in Christ and going back to bed.  I gave my husband the letter the next morning and we have never been the same since.

It was the start of a brand new marriage with a brand new life!  I am now becoming the help meet I was created to be and my husband is changing, too!  After repenting and having to take such a long, hard look at my own sin, I no longer look at my husband the way I used to.  I see him as another child of God who is “working out his own salvation with fear and trembling,” rather than the lazy bum who won’t get off the couch and do anything (he’s not like that, but that’s how I viewed him!)

Just wanted you to know how the Lord used your plans for a new book to change our lives!

-A Happy Wife

Slow the ponies-this is a book from a man to men, and yet his first letter is from a wife?  I’m a bit confused.  Perhaps the point was see how amazing Michael’s book is?  The mere thought of it caused a woman to change her ways and beg her husband for repentance!  This slouch got a new wife, a help meet, all because of this book!  This and more can be yours for the small fee of $12…but wait, there’s more!  Act now and you can get all this, plus a brand new marriage, at NO EXTRA CHARGE!  Don’t wait-call now!

In (finally) conclusion, Michael gives us something to look forward to in the rest of the book.

In contrast to my introduction, this book is not philosophical.  It is so practical you will squirm with embarrassment and hope your wife doesn’t read that line.  My approach is much more masculine and in your face [than his wife's book].  You will discover that by nature you come to marriage, as well as life, with certain strengths and weaknesses.  You will come to know yourself, and you will learn to temper your natural excesses and strengthen your natural weaknesses.  Most of all, you will learn the part your wife plays in this maturing process.  You will learn how to make her your most suitable helper.

And there we have it!  The real point of the book (at least how it seems to me).  How to make your wife into what you want, because you, my good sir, deserve it.  I can’t wait to read how he plans to accomplish this.

About Libby Anne

Libby Anne grew up in a large evangelical homeschool family highly involved in the Christian Right. College turned her world upside down, and she is today an atheist, a feminist, and a progressive. She blogs about leaving religion, her experience with the Christian Patriarchy and Quiverfull movements, the detrimental effects of the "purity culture," the contradictions of conservative politics, and the importance of feminism.

  • Whirlwitch

    Bleah. What I get out of this is “Ladies, I’m so sorry you had the burden of whipping yourself into shape for your loutish husbands! Let my awesome self teach your husbands how to whip you into shape themselves!”

    • http://lanahobbs.wordpress.com/ lana hobbs

      me too and I feel nauseaus.

  • Kit

    The things that Michael Pearl sees as “manly” are very different than what I see as manly. And by very different, I mean “pretty much the opposite.”

  • AAAtheist

    Debi Pearl to Michael: “… You let me be your help meet. You pulled me alongside you in everything you did. You stretched me. …” [emphasis mine]

    Ooohhh, Debi!!

    “… If you’re kinky and you know it, clap your hands! (clap, clap)
    If you’re kinky and you know it, clap your hands! (clap, clap)
    If you’re kinky and you know it, your subtext will surely show it!
    If you’re kinky and you know it, clap your hands! (clap, clap) …”

    That’s quite a subconscious little jewel you’ve let slip out of your grasp, isn’t it? Now, if you join a local BDSM chapter, get deprogrammed, hire a good divorce attorney, and issue both public and private apologies to the women you’ve harmed, you’ve got a shot at being a decent human being.

    Michael Pearl has no shot at being a decent human being.

  • Machintelligence

    You will discover that by nature you come to marriage, as well as life, with certain strengths and weaknesses. You will come to know yourself, and you will learn to temper your natural excesses and strengthen your natural weaknesses. Most of all, you will learn the part your wife plays in this maturing process. You will learn how to make her your most suitable helper.

    I am sorely tempted to tell him to “know himself” in the biblical sense.

    • Jolie

      Virtual cupcakes to you, I never laughed so hard in a loooooong while

  • Composer 99

    I don’t think it’s going out on any sort of limb to suggest that social scientists would very quickly rip Michael Pearl’s suppositions about his self-styled “scientific” programme for husbands to shreds (quotation marks used for sarcasm).

  • Lisa

    Yes, the Pearl’s methods are VERY scientific. Like chemistry, really! You pour X and Y together, and you get Z! Because people are LIKE chemical substances. That’s what God says, after all, right? All men are the exact same person, and the same is true for women. You better believe what Michael tells you, he’s a real chemistry genius. After all, he developed a formula to make gold from pure shit.

    • AAAtheist

      I was drinking milk when I read this and it squirted through my nose!

  • ako

    So this is the brainwashing manual, then? How to make the wife do whatever you want, buried under a hefty layer of religious justification and pretending “I tell you want to do and you do it” is a balanced and healthy relationship?

  • Mel

    As a scientist, Michael Pearl’s definition of science is appallingly wrong.

    • sunnyside

      As a non-scientist, I find the definition appallingly wrong. I wonder how anyone reads these books and takes them seriously. They actually buy them and recommend them to friends. Are there really so many people who haven’t read the Bible or a science-related textbook?

    • Hilary

      As a scientist with girly parts, I’m glad I’m far enough away from him that I can laugh at him. I do protein purification/biochemistry, and I’m intimately familiar with the Harvard Law of Biology:

      “Under the most rigorously controlled conditions of pressure,
      temperature, volume, humidity, and other variables the organism
      will do as it damn well pleases.”

      http://dna-protein.blogspot.com/2012/03/harvard-law-of-biology.html

      My company just got a new CEO. I think is making a lot of good changes, but he’s a physical materials science and we’ve had to give him a crash course in the realities of biological materials science and labs.
      If you don’t mind me asking, what type of science are you involved in?

      • Mel

        My training is in botany/ecological restoration. Since my marriage, I’ve received a crash course in large herd dairy management. I’m currently a teacher. All three of them fit within the Harvard Law of Biology.

        We have a law when it comes to cows since they seem to be able to break laws of physics.

        “Cattle do not believe in the laws of physics therefore the laws of physics do not apply to them.”

        This comes up when a cow is doing something that shouldn’t really be possible – watching a 2500lb cow in the last stages of pregnancy jump vertically several feet in the air from a stand-still comes to mind.

  • mpanchuk

    Yes, well, real scientists recognize the presence of confounding variables, the theory laden-ness of all data, underdetermination, and community bias–all things I am sure Michael has never thought of, and which show that the evidence doesn’t point so strongly in the direction he thinks.

    • http://yllommormon.blogspot.com/ aletha

      Pfft. If he can twist the Bible to say what he wants, I’m sure he’s AMAAAAAZING enough to twist that silly data stuff, too.

  • Jayn

    The idea of applying any sort of formula to human relationships is just wrong to begin with. For one, people are different. For another, while you can encourage a person to change, there’s nothing you can do to guarantee they’ll change–they have to be the ones to do that. And that’s before getting into whether or not his advice is even any good!

  • BobaFuct

    “The next few paragraphs are basically how Michael has studied the Word of God for the past 54 years, several hours every day.”

    That’s like saying reading “Moby Dick” every day makes you qualified to be a marine biologist…

    • Hilary

      That’s a good one!

    • lollardheretic

      Well, there is all that stuff about the classification of the whales… :)

  • Trollface McGee

    Michael Pearl has studied the Bible for 54 years… it’s not the smallest of books, and all he’s gotten out of it is “wives submit.” Like seriously, he didn’t even get to the next few paragraphs of Ephesians about husbands being loving and mutually submitting to each other.. and he’s giving marital advice?
    It’s like getting tutoring in calculus from someone who’s failed pre-algebra five times.

    • Lunch Meat

      I think the pages of 1 Corinthians 7 must have gotten stuck together in his Bible. That’s the only reason for him missing that Paul thought marriage makes you a worse Christian.

    • Hilary

      I hate to think what he would get out of 54 years of studying Talmud.

  • Liz

    Something tells me the “Happy Wife” ain’t real. Just sayin.

    • http://yllommormon.blogspot.com/ aletha

      I agree. I thought the writing style was very, very similar to many of the letters in Debi’s book. I should have put that in there.

    • NeaDods

      How could she be? She just had a divine inspiration before he even wrote the book what it was going to be?

  • NeaDods

    $5 says the “natural excesses” all mean “be a self-centered dictatorial jerk.”

  • http://lanahobbs.wordpress.com/ lana hobbs

    the simple fact that the title of this book is more about what the wife is supposed to be instead of the husband bothers me. it’s for men, but about what women *need* to be like for their husbands. what the husband NEEDS, instead of what he needs to do. recipe for disaster at the title.

  • sylvia_rachel

    It’s interesting that he says

    Marriage is both the mount of temptation-where we have the opportunity
    to feed our self-centered natures
    -and the pinnacle of paradise restored,
    where we become heirs together of the grace of life and develop the
    nature of a savior and priest.

    as though being self-centred were a bad thing, and then basically turns around and says he’s going to explain to you how to turn your wife into a being who exists only to serve you and your ego…

    I’m feeling another one of those cognitive-dissonance headaches coming on.

    • Fledgeling Feminist

      This reminds me of a very bad sales pitch in The Office (US version). “This will either be the best decision you have ever made, or the absolute worst!”

  • Mira

    Referencing the bible or no, I’m still shaking my head in bewilderment as I try to understand where on earth they get the concept of women being animals–or even less–to be trained to do as they are told. The issue with their view of women is that the women they portray or demand are women with no agency, no individuality, no expression, no anything. For people who insist that everyone is special to their god and everyone has a “soul,” they’re treating women like soulless, inanimate objects who move as dictated and only with the reaction of an automaton. It’s repulsive, to say the least.

    • Helix Luco

      i keep thinking that they’d probably be a lot happier married to robots. perhaps if somebody were to hotglue a fleshlight to a roomba…

      • Liz

        …..I have no words. The mental image is **awesome**

  • http://oddestnotions.blogspot.com/ Ginger

    Does this book have anything about husband self-improvement, or is it going to be How to Train Up a Wife?

    • j.lup

      Yeah, it seems to me that the title should really be, ‘Created to MAKE a Helpmeet.’

    • stacey

      Dontcha know a man improves himself by training a wife to be his servant?

  • lollardheretic

    Okay, we all know that the book is going to head into “be submissive to your hubby” territory really quickly BUT this:

    Her answer was immediate and straight to the point: “You let me be your
    help meet. You pulled me alongside you in everything you did. You
    stretched me. Participation made me grow as a person–made my life rich
    and rewarding and caused me to be a better mama.”

    Doesn’t actually SAY “he let me be submissive.” No, really, read it. Carefully. (Unless by definition “help meet” = “submissive” in which case, sure). What it said is “you took me with you in life.” Now, like I said, we all know where this is going. But if you’re going to read this and analyze it, then really do so. His “I made … her” later is creepy as hell. But this is actually, like so much of the stuff earlier, a semi good foundation. What’s cool about my spouse? He wanted me to be a part of his life. He wanted me to be an active participant. He helped me grow as a person and challenged me.

    I want that with my spouse. I want to take him with me (so to speak). I want to grow as a person from the experiences we share (and btw. the kinky comment–priceless ’cause my mind went to the kinky place, too).

    I’m not defending these folks, but I am defending really looking at the text. There’s lots to dislike here–you can already see the hints of submission. “He made me…” language that will be echoed in the creepy ways later. But here, it sounds like something that a lot of people could want: coalition, cooperation, etc.

    He, like Debbi, is going to take these lovely things and kill them. THAT, to my mind, is a much bigger problem than if she’d said “you helped me be submissive to you, and that’s what a wife is supposed to do.” That’s got 100% Stepford written all over it. Most people would run screaming. But no, they’ve got to use lovely journey metaphors and twist them into awful things.

    • Hilary

      Good call on the analysis.

    • http://yllommormon.blogspot.com/ aletha

      You make an excellent point. I was drawing more from what I got from her book (which almost literally equates help meet with submissive). I will try to be more careful in the future to read things as they are written!
      Thanks. :)

      • Mary C

        Aletha I think you were right to take her definition of help meet into consideration in your analysis. Because she basically equates that to submission – it is the dominant theme of her book and therefore can’t be ignored. I don’t think you can accurately interpret Debi’s quote without knowing what she’s written in CTBHHM.

        In other words, I think lollardheretic’s interpretation above would be entirely accurate for if the quote wasn’t attributed to Debi Pearl.

  • Hilary

    More riffing off of his claim about “My conclusions can be said to be scientifically correct.” Somebody actually did a peer-reviews paper on manly manness and female attractions in homo sapiens:

    http://dna-protein.blogspot.com/2013/07/mustaches-make-you-creepier.html
    Also, he gives a whole new meaning to getting a BS, MS and PhD meaning Bull Shit, More Shit, Piled higher and Deeper.

  • Hilary

    Another thought on Michael and science, not quite so funny. I earn my paycheck, pay the mortgage and bills wearing a white lab coat, safety glasses and blue nitrile latex-free gloves, so his messing with scientific metaphors kind of hits a nerve. He talks about science as though it is nothing but control – I control the variables, I control the outcome. Maybe that is somewhat true of chemistry and physics, but not biology.

    The Harvard Law of Biology that I mentioned here is so funny because it is so *true*. Even though I don’t work with living organisms, I’m still dealing with biologically active material – cytokines, proteins. Each one is different and responds to it’s own biology, and doesn’t care what I think, if there is a customer bulk order, or if my boss’s boss is getting impatient for results. I have to pay close attention to each protein’s specific needs, chemistry and overall biology to get a pure, non-contaminated, biologically active sample to send to Quality Control.

    Sometimes it’s easy, sometimes a batch is weird, and sometimes following the directions doesn’t work at all and I have to work out via trial and error a better purification method. When that happens I can’t force the specific protein to follow the SOP that came with it. I can’t hit it, bribe it, threaten, plead, cry, or withhold the nutrients it needs – I have to work with it’s own unique science.

    This whole process doesn’t start in my hands. First the molecular bio dept. has to develop a cell line, then Cell Culture dept. has to grow and harvest the media, then I get the media to purify my protein out of. At each step the unique attributes of each protein has to be taken into account.

    The point I’m trying to make is that even with as small a biological subunit as just protein, not even cells, tissue, or bacteria, I have to respect the unique nature and variability of what I’m working with. So for Michael to say ‘follow the rules, results guaranteed – because it’s as good as science’ places human beings beyond even being biologically active – more like physics or chemistry. Maybe he isn’t trying to go that far, maybe he’s thinking more along the lines of the social sciences. Even if that is the case, I think real social scientists would have even more contempt for “control the variables, control the outcome.”

    • Things1to3

      Michael’s view of “science” is grossly oversimplified. It’s like one of those spherical horse jokes except he really believes his simplifications are reality. I’m almost morbidly curious what he would consider a manipulatable variable in a relationship.

      • Composer 99

        “All right, to make the math easier, assume a spherical marriage.”

    • ZeldasCrown

      I generally agree, except for the parts about physics and chemistry. As a person with a bachelor’s degree in both physics and chemistry, I do not control the results/outcome. Just as a biologist does, I control the variables as best I can, but the end result isn’t always what I expected to happen. As an example, look a the Michelson-Morely experiment-many scientists believed that the earth traveled through an “ether”. The experiment was preformed over and over again in a variety of different ways by several researchers, but never once resulted in the outcome commonly thought that it “should” have.

      Once a particular process has been run over and over again, and the results are well understood and controllable, in a certain sense (as in, you now know what is going to happen every time, and can use whatever it is in, perhaps, some kind of industrial process)-it’s true of a known synthesis that is perhaps used as a first step to new research, but not true of investigatory research. Your protein research reminds me very strongly of some inorganic research I did in my undergrad days with ionic liquids-we’d do the same steps many times, but wouldn’t always get the same solids at the end (it took probably at least 6 years to make enough of a new compound created in the lab due to the efforts of a series of students working on this problem in order for it to be publishable).

      • Hilary

        Thanks for the added perspective. I passed my chem minor via divine intervention, but I did ok in organic chem when I treated the whole subject as a language puzzle with diagrams. For me the most inorganic chemistry I do is making buffers and solutions.

        I’ve another thought, deconstructing MP and science, I’d be interested in your opinion on as a fellow lab rat. Michael Pearl isn’t appealing to the scientific process out of understanding and appreciation for it, but instead is making an appeal to science as a form of cultural authority. Real science has a way of humbling you when you learn how much you can’t force or control everything you’re working with, whether it’s cows, ionic fluids, or cytokines.

        But there is the cultural reference of The Scientist in the White Lab Coat who can control and manipulate everything to his desired outcome, has all the answers that can’t be challenged because science. And obviously this scientist is a White Man, never mind the top scientist in my company is a Chinese woman. I think this is why he even bothered to compare what he’s advocating to science, because it adds to his authority as a man who is right and who cannot be questioned, because bible and science.

      • ZeldasCrown

        Ugh, organic chemistry was never my favorite. Guess what-we’re making yet another clear liquid or white solid this week! Big surprise!

        I agree. I think he’s trying to do this appeal to authority, and to suck in people who don’t really understand science, but have this idea that’s it’s completely infallible. It seems like an appeal to get a wider audience-if “it’s in the Bible!” didn’t do it, perhaps “this is scientifically proven!” will do the trick. Rather than “God said we should do x, so don’t even consider questioning it”, it’s “scientists say x, so don’t question it.” It’s the same old trick we’ve all heard over and over again.

        As a side note, I also think that this idea of scientists controlling every thing to get the desired outcome is where some people get this idea of of “we can’t trust science” (well, that and, “science inherently goes against the Bible, so we should disregard it”). They’ve also gotten the mistaken idea of The Scientist in the White Lab Coat, but have recognized that as an academically dishonest idea (if I want a certain result, I just fix it so that the data points that way, either by fabrication, or selective elimination of data, etc), and since they’ve gotten this wrong impression, they just assume that’s actually what science is.

  • TLC

    As a person who’s been divorced for 14 years and a born-again Christian for the last 10 years, I’m finally able today to put my finger on a new creepiness factor in these books/attitudes:

    “Marriage is God’s laboratory for the perfecting of the human race.”

    Oh. So since I’m not married now, God isn’t going to perfect me? He isn’t going to perfect anyone who’s decided not to get married? Or someone who’s been widowed?

    This is helping me understand why we single people were treated so poorly in these churches — a main reason I’ll never step foot in one again. We’re less than. God isn’t paying any attention to us, and He won’t until we have a mate — according to them.

    Here’s my secret: In spite of my singleness, God is taking VERY good care of me and my son. I can point to sooooooo many things He’s done to keep us whole, help us prosper, protect us, etc. So many prayers answered. And so many people to love and support us.

    I wonder how horrified the Pearls would be to find out how I’ve been blessed, in spite of my lack of submission. (I am 51 years old and have NO intentions of submitting to my father anymore!)

    • Hilary

      But you aren’t really blessed, don’t you know that, you are just letting silly emotions get the better of you, to *think* you are blessed when deep in your heart you are truly miserable // full frontal sarcasm //

      Because to acknowledge any goodness in the lives of the rest of us would mean that there are other ways then theirs. Even within Christianity that isn’t a possibility, let alone the rest of us atheists, Jews, Pagans, and whatnot.

      I’m glad that you are prospering, loved and supported. // full sincerity //

      • TLC

        Yes, Hilary, you’re right! Just think HOW MUCH my “happiness” would increase if I had the opportunity to have a WONDERFUL husband like Michael Pearl! That would certainly relieve me of the “misery” of being single, wouldn’t it? ;-) Or, that’s would Michael and Debi would like to think. . . .

        We really need to put our heads together and come up with a sarcasm font. Would make life so much easier and so much more fun!

  • lauraleemoss

    Absolutely Michael thinks he deserves it. He is the ruler of his home. The kids need to shut up or be beat, and his wife needs to keep it all in line. He needs to play golf, or I mean, study the bible and think of ways to better lead his family.

    I’m excited to read these posts.

  • Maury

    Why does a man need helpmeet anyway?

    • stacey

      Well, someone has to fetch his drinks, rub his feet and suck his cock on demand, right?

      This stuff makes me sick, the way they think of women like they are pleasure and obedience robots or something. Like you train them as if they were a dog learning to fetch. All this because of different body parts- no penis, no life for you!

  • kraut2

    “I’ve made one of the most happiest, most cheerful, thankful, joyful
    ladies on the earth who thinks I’m the greatest thing in all the world.”

    Smacks of idolatry, doesn’t it?

    “You will learn how to make her your most suitable helper.”

    Come on Fida…give paw…

  • Rachel Heston-Davis

    Oh, this doesn’t bode well. The first book was to wives, and put all the responsibility on them. So the book that’s supposed to be for husbands starts by….putting all the responsibility on the wives again? (as per that letter)

    Srsly, I don’t know why I even bother being surprised by the Pearls anymore. I should know that everything that CAN go wrong in their advice-giving, will.

    • Don Gwinn

      That’s exactly what hit me as soon as I started the “letter”from the “happy wife.” Yeah, it’s probably as fake as any letter in Cosmo or Penthouse, but it’s worse than that. It’s a fake letter that shows the Pearls’ crazy insistence that a married woman can/should/must take the entire burden of her marriage on herself and expect nothing of her husband (’cause having low or no expectations is how you get to see the best people have to offer?) It’s supposed to be a self-help book for married men, so what’s the advice implied in that passage? Doesn’t it boil down to, “Hope your wife gets so sick of complaining about you that she snaps one night and writes a list of all the ways she’s terrible, then you accept the list and things get better from there . . . “?

  • Saraquill

    I fully object to his statement that his methods are “reproducible.” I had an ex who treated me a lot like Mr. Pearl does his wife, and the whole affair left me with a bad taste in my mouth, and him very single.

  • stacey

    “You will learn how to make her your most suitable helper.”
    Wow. Just. Wow.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X