I remembered this quote the other day from an old book I read from when I was a Christian:
If a couple has been married for more than five years, any persistent disharmony in their marriage relationship is usually attributable to the husband’s lack of understanding and applying genuine love. (Gary Smalley, If He Only Knew, 73)
It seems that stems from the perspective that the husband is the “leader.” In fact, Smalley acknowledges that the husband is biblically “responsible for the disharmony in [their] home.”
Do you agree or disagree that it’s usually the husband’s fault when there’s persistent disharmony after 5 years?
It’s very hard to place blame in relationships. Usually I’d say that both are at fault to an extent, depending on the problem. If you have to blame something as a “usual” problem, I’d blame it on a lack of effective communication.
That is actually something I learned by going through Pre Cana – the Catholic pre-marital counseling. Our priest really stressed open communication as the key to solving problems. It’s hard at first, but eventually we kind of let loose and communicated openly about all of the uncomfortable topics that were covered in our sessions. It causes some confrontations while you work things out, but those would happen anyway once the issue came up, and if you wait too long to discuss the issues your marriage might be doomed. Our relationship has been solid ever since. For this I do thank the Catholic Church. I don’t think that all churches do it the same way though – we were lucky to have a great counselor.
I’m not sure it’s really possible to put people’s relationships into boxes that way. For example, I know a man who’s a 6’6″, 300lb army boxing champion who got divorced because his wife was beating him. Sure, you can speak in general terms about women being more sensitive to changes in the mood and yadayadayada, but it’s all pretty meaningless if you try to apply it to individual cases, really.
The idea is ludicrous, if only for its blatant prejudice.
Of course this stems from a patriarchal worldview, which I think most UF readers (including myself) feel justified in rejecting.
That said, most of the disharmony in my marriage comes from me being insensitive and impatient.
Most of the disharmony in my marriage comes from my wife not wanting to have sex as often as I do.
Ironic that this should be posted on my 5th anniversary. I guess from here out, it’ll all be my fault…
Wasn’t it always your fault before?
My girlfriend has a humorous 1950s advertising style cup which bears the legend “Women! Even when they’re wrong, they’re right!”
She’s allowed to have ironic sexist objects, though, because she was Women’s Officer for the Oxford University Union.
Some ideas are so galactically stupid that they should simply be ignored. This is one of them.
The majority of Christian advice I have seen places blame on the wife for not being properly submissive. This is a change.
That’s interesting. I have been involved in Christian circles my entire life and have never heard that. My experiences have been more similar to DCtourists…there’s probably blame on both sides, and harmony needs to be achieved rather than one partner over-compensating or not trying.
I’m backing up Microbiologychick – I’m more familiar with the blame being placed on the wife’s lack of submission to the husband as head of the family. My personal experience with that kind of attitude was in an isolationist church, but I’ve seen it elsewhere in more mainstream Christian books and so on.
I think the blame being placed on the husband was because of the author’s belief that the wife should be submissive and the husband should be the head, in charge, blah etc. BS blah.
Didn’t there used to be a phrase for being responsible when you’re the superior gender/race/ whatever? “Benign rulership” or something like that. This husband is the superior one, he is in charge, and so if he’s responsible, then a superior person can afford to take blame, and should, because it’s his world! The author is charging him to be the best ruler he can be! Get it?
lol – can’t wait to tell my girlfriend she’s not being “properly submissive”
I don’t think it’s anyone’s fault, necessarily. It could be either person’s fault, but as a former future counselor (haha) I think the most common presentation is that it’s both their faults.
“Do you agree or disagree that it’s usually the husband’s fault when there’s persistent disharmony after 5 years?”
My ten imaginary ex-wives would agree with that statement.
Every situation is different, of course; but I do think that the man’s likelier to go wrong. And it need not have anything to do with his supposed leadership position within the marriage.
*shrugs* the statement is only sexist in that it starts from assumption that both parties should have stereotyped traditional gender roles and personalities. If that’s true, then it’s probably a fair statement, and is appropriate for communities where heteronormativity is something everyone aspires to. It can’t be generalised to a wider population, but was it ever really meant to? It’s the assumption that “everyone’s life should be like this” that’s sexist.
I have to say I’m more curious about what this says about women. Is he saying that disharmony caused by the female party always goes away or can always be solved by “understanding and applying genuine love”? Feels a bit like that trivialises the opinions and concerns of the female party, although I suppose it depends on how you approach the problem.
I can’t think of a single reason to listen to someone who takes something as complex as a marriage relationship, considers the millions of marriages within their country / culture, and then makes a blanket statement of who/what is “usually at fault”. All they’re doing is inventing their own scenario or story and applying it to everyone else.
Microbiologychick, my experience in Christian circles has been the opposite. They quickly blame the husband. I suspect it’s because they know their belief system regarding family structure and gender roles is grossly antiquated and misogynist, so they over-compensate. I can’t count how many times I heard “If the man was doing his proper job as leader the woman would be only too glad to submit.” It’s as if those preachers had never met a woman, ever.
First time commenter, short time reader.
I’ve been married 10+ years and my wife and I have a pretty good marriage. I would say that the result of the disharmony that DOES exist in our marriage is 50% my fault and 50% hers. Just like others have pointed out, the “its the husband’s fault” is due to the sexist misconception that the man has to be the head of the household. What is the woman less capable, intelligent, moral, spiritual, disciplined than the husband?
takes two to tango. Kinda hard to argue with someone who don’t argue back :P
I, as a girl, think that’s bullshit.
Methinks if a marriage has constant disharmony, whether or not after 5 years, it’s possibly a) lack of communication, b) lack of compatibility, c) something else entirely. People are people, as beautifully complex as that is, whether male, female or both, doesn’t really matter.
I wonder how this would apply (or not) in a gay relationship/marriage? That would be the ultimate way to disprove the statement… since a person may not always be the husband or wife.
You beat me to it.
Of course, this also assumes marriage is monogamous, but I guess that’s a fairly safe assumption, at least for the U.S.
When I was a fundie, it was quite evident that ALL marital problems were the result of the wife not being obedient to the truly wise counsel that was given to her by her husband per the lord’s revelations to him, for as sin came into the world through woman, salvation can come only through man.
Excuse me while I vomit.
But since I am no longer a fungelical, it is not at all evident to me now.
Which is fantastic! I just can’t believe that people believe this stuff. It would take a lot of “faith” for me to believe that people are inherently subservient based on their gender. Same goes for race, sexual preference, etc. It just shows you that people can be convinced of just about anything ridiculous. How about that flying spaghetti monster?
That is a TOTALLY case by case basis sort of question. Sometimes problems are his fault, sometimes they’re her fault, sometimes they’re both two peas in a pod and simply don’t know how to get along.
I just find it remarkable that a christian book would actually suggest it was the man’s fault. That’s amazing! I would have figured they’d always find ways to blame the woman, since they are lesser human beings, of course…
I disagree. It’s the husband’s fault from day one.
Of course it’s the husband’s fault. The jerk.
The secret to a long and mostly happy marriage?
I my case, we talk about stuff, then we do what my wife wants…;-)
It’s interesting to me that the comment is funny that way, but in reverse, it feels sexist. Like if my wife were to say, “we talk about stuff, then we do what my husband wants” it wouldn’t be funny. Or would it be and I just don’t feel it?
Oh, I’m sure you’d get in trouble for it. I think frankly that western society is pretty solidly positioned to care more about inequality against women than against men.
… and you can’t think of any reason that it may seem like that? I mean, poor old men and the day to day discrimination they have to put up with whether it’s in the home or the work place. Women don’t know how lucky they are, especially the ones who live in Italy …
In the UK it has deffinitely swung too far the other way now. It’s perfectly legal to discriminate against me on the grounds of my gender, race and sexuality – because I’m a white, heterosexual man. They call it “positive discrimination”, but frankly I have to wonder if it’s so positive, why does it leave so many people feeling extremely bitter? I personally believe that redressing the balance of power and employment status that way is hugely unfair and ultimately leads to anger and bad feeling on all sides.
For example, I worked in an office where, of 22 management level staff, 19 were women – and it was widely acknowledged that some of those women had been promoted to fulfill gender role targets at the expense of men who were far better at the job. This led to a general lack of respect from all staff for some of the female managers, because they were frankly crap at it and we all knew that they weren’t promoted because they’d earned it or deserved it.
So positive discrimination: A great way to employ people who can’t do the job and leave them feeling undermined and paranoid while also making a lot of people very angry and bitter.
Cheers.
Talking as a handicapped, latin-american woman.
I’d love it a lot more if there was a “no discrimination”. Really. Like, y’know. Treating everyone the same. The same, not better, not worse, not differently…
Alas.
Totally with you. Humans are humans, there’s no need to pigeonhole us beyond that.
I’m relieved I’m not the only person who thinks this…
I was wondering if I’d get yelled at.
This is not true. The relevant legislation is the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975, the Race Relations Act of 1976, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations of 2006, and the Equality Act of 2006. Feel free to look them up. All of these say that positive discrimination is illegal, and that refusing to hire or promote someone capable of performing the job purely because of their sex, race, age, religion or sexual orientation is illegal, regardless of whether they’re a Maori lesbian wiccan octogenarian or a white heterosexual male Anglican in their thirties.
If your employer is really doing what you claim and this is not simply a case of men believing that the only way a woman could get promoted above them is because they’re getting special treatment, then you have an excellent case against the company, and you’d do well to sue them.
Oh, really?
So Harriet “Harlot” Harmen never made this speach then?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7474801.stm
And that speach never materialised as the Single Equality Bill?
And gender / ethnicity targets in UK employment law for hiring and promotions don’t effectively institutionalise positive discrimination, then?
And the UK government never signed up to this European accord, then?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk-backs-positive-discrimination-1183055.html
Sorry Wintermute, but I think you’re wrong on this. You have to remember especially that UK law is not allowed to contradict EU law – EU law always takes precedence.
If your employers are promoting women when there are men of greater ability, then this is against both the spirit and the letter of the law.
As for the second article, despite the attention-grabbing headline, the primary change (apart from defining “sexual harassment”) is to change the way discrimination cases are handled; instead of it being up to the employee to prove they were refused employment / fired / not promoted because of their age, sex or skin colour, it will now be the employer’s responsibility to prove that their practices are fair. The Amsterdam Treaty has been in force in most of Europe for a decade, without requiring or even encouraging “positive discrimination”. There are absolutely no penalties for a company deciding to hire a white Christian male who just happens to be the most qualified candidate.
“There are absolutely no penalties for a company deciding to hire a white Christian male who just happens to be the most qualified candidate.”
Yes, ‘positive discrimination’ is rarely mandated by law (although it has been so mandated in the past, and continues to be in some areas), but I’m pretty sure that isn’t what I am talking about (not familiar enough with EU/UK law to know for sure about what Custador’s saying). I do know that many kinds of ‘positive discrimination’ are “against both the spirit and the letter of the law” in the US, and that this discrimination nevertheless happens.
Unfortunately, it isn’t a crime that most people are willing to acknowledge as such. I wouldn’t bother pursuing a legal case at this point, because men who have tried to argue that they were vastly more qualified than a woman who was given a job they were applying for have, for the most part, been shot down. Typically, they will then be called sexist; I have heard someone ask men involved in these lawsuits why they thought it was “their” job, and didn’t that mean that they are unjustly assuming a patriarchal framework for the business world?
Basically, the difference right now is that when a woman is discriminated against in some way she occasionally has some recourse. Not always, and I don’t mean to say that inequality against anyone is a good thing, or that women have it easier than men, or anything like that. All I mean is that right now, a woman is more likely to get acts of discrimination addressed by society than, say, me: a young, middle-class white preacher’s kid going to a good school. Or a white male divorced day-laborer. Society acknowledges injustice against some groups less often than it addresses injustice against others, because society at the moment cares more about some groups than about others.
Frankly, this has always been the case.
@Custador
Wintermute is correct, it’s against the law to discriminate against someone and the grounds of their sex, race or religion and you would have a good case to sue the company. Just becuase the Daily Mail says it’s true it doesn’t mean it is … :-)
p.s. If you want to look for opt out clauses Churches and faith schools spring to mind …
@JonJon
“All I mean is that right now, a woman is more likely to get acts of discrimination addressed by society than, say, me: a young, middle-class white preacher’s kid going to a good school.”
I presume you have some facts and figures to back that statement up?
I have to agree that positive discrimination happens even though it is against the law. I have two anecdotes.
I went to a job fair in Miami, and was flat out told by one of the people “recruiting” that I would not be hired because I’m not hispanic. They were there solely to recruit minorities and meet targets. I told them that I write and speak spanish better than many people in the city, but she just laughed.
Second, I have a friend in dental school who is a white male. He has taken out tons of loans to go to UPenn, and is now first in his class at the end of the program. Do you think he can get any scholarships or get into the residency programs he wants? No, and he’s pissed. They are all going to people who are either from other countries (who got scholarships from UPenn or their own country governments to attend) with lower GPAs than he. He’s number 1, and he can’t get into programs that should be begging him to attend. The worst part is that when it’s all over, he’ll be practicing here in the US and those other students will leave and go back home. So basically, the US is funding great dental care in foreign countries while sacrificing our own.
Well, I’ll concede the point on UK law, but like DC I can tell you for a plain fact that I’ve seen it happen first hand on dozens of occasions.
I think that all job applications, promotion considerations, and college/scholarship applications should be done blindly. Each person gets a number and that is it – no name, age, sex, race, anything that distinguishes that person from the rest. That way everyone will be judged based on their true abilities and resume/proven track record. I really hate filling in that “optional” part of the job application.
My ancestors were persecuted out of their homeland based on their race and religion, but there is no checkbox for that because I’m just white. (Except in the UK, I did see a check box for Irish, which I thought was hilarious and awesome – maybe I should apply!)
It’s interesting to me that the comment is funny that way, but in reverse, it feels sexist.
That’s because it IS sexist, Daniel – and it’s sexist in both its forms. It just doesn’t SEEM sexist, at first, because it’s about the subjugation of men rather than the subjugation of women.
Honestly, I think marriages that *don’t* have consensus-based decision-making are doomed from the get-go (although not all of them actually implode). But if your marriage is full of one partner or the other saying “Well, I didn’t want to do X, but my spouse made me…” then the relationship is dysfunctional. I see this ALL THE TIME with social events. Me, I attend weddings/etc without my husband, because he’s an introvert who hates being in large groups of people he doesn’t know and will never see again.
Hahaha. Of course it’s always the man’s fault!! : D Good to see you guys getting a clue. Just kidding!!
Since you can’t tell by my name, I am a woman. I grew up in fundy circles, and still watch the “submissive wife” dynamic in my sister’s marriage. Her husband is a complete, pious a**hat, and in their marriage, about 99% of everything is his fault. He’s arrogant, and he only really loves himself.
I happen to be married to an incredible man who would do just about anything for me. When you have a guy like that, you want to make him happy, because you share mutual adoration.
My almost 18 yo daughter has a boyfriend like that. Maybe it’s because I have told her for most of her life to look for someone a lot like her dad. The kid obviously adores her, and the way they care for each other bodes well for their futures, whether they end up together or with others.
My theory is that there are certainly jerks out there, but there are many, many wonderful men who love their women and deserve to be appreciated!!!
How demeaning of that author to make such a statement. He obviously sees the woman as the “weaker vessel.” Psh. Women are equally responsible, and I’ve met a lot of bitchy princess types over the years.
What really amuses me is Christian marriages where women practice selective submission. It usually shows up whenever they need an excuse to say no or get out of doing something they don’t want to do. They can just conveniently blame their husbands. LOLOL.
What it really comes down to is trust and respect. If both people have mutual trust and respect, it seems they’d both be willing to try their best to communicate, and the relationship will be wonderful. Without trust and respect, forget it. At least that’s what I tell my kids. I hope my boys won’t put up with a woman who won’t fully own her part in the relationship, and I hope my girls will look for mutual formula. Simple, mutual kindness in ALL relationships goes a long, long way.
“Insufficient data for meaningful answer.”
-”The Last Question” by Isaac Asimov
Without knowing a specific couple and their actions.
The author Gary Smalley’s conclusion is based on his insulting sexist premise. There must be some racism-based corollaries in recent history. But I think the sexist-based ones will take longer to rout out as bigoted and unacceptable.
Two reasons his conclusion is meaningless for anyone but christians who have to keep shoring up their crumbling, fragile faith against the incessant assault of facts by reading only stuff that agrees with them.
Can’t tell you from personal experience, which would only be anecdotal anyway, as I’ve been smart enough to be ever-single. That’s what they used to call “never-married”. Sexism and singlism (credit for this term, and the term “matirimania” goes to author Bella DePaulo, Ph.D.) are rampant, even aside from discriminatory tax laws: everyone starts out life as single, is single a goodly portion of their lives whether they marry or not, and why don’t they call married people “unsingle”?
It’s both of their faults in the case of my parents. They both tend to be childish and stubborn. My dad is the biblically-ordained “head of the household,” but you can tell that the hat doesn’t fit. Likewise, my mother is completely unsuited to be a submissive housewife.
It usually works like this: If my dad decides he wants to do something, he’ll do it (unless it will impact the whole household, in which case he will discuss it with my mother to figure out the best way to go about it). If my mum wants to do something, she has to beg and cajole and wheedle my dad into letting her do it – and if he doesn’t, she starts complaining about how much her life sucks and how she needs whatever it is she wants.
Now, I’m not saying she doesn’t need some of the stuff she’s asked for – because she definitely does. But the problem is, the stuff she wants is basically salve on a deadly wound. It keeps her occupied so she doesn’t have to think about the bigger problems that she can’t talk him into fixing. Since he has the final say in everything, her needs only matter if she can whine and plead and make herself look completely pathetic.
I told my mum that they need counseling, but she refuses. Honestly, they need either that or a divorce. My mum likes to go on about the success of their wonderful Christian marriage – and for the most part, they do get along, but on another level they’re completely dysfunctional. The secret to their success isn’t that they haven’t divorced, it’s that their religious beliefs mean that they can’t – which also means that they don’t have to go to a lot of effort to keep their marriage together. So even though they love each other and do what they can to make the marriage decent, that’s it. Everything else is a matter of whatever my dad feels like doing – which means my mother’s basically subject to his whims. You can imagine how miserable that makes her.
This is exactly why my spouse and I have separate bank accounts. We have a joint for the joint expenses and put a portion of our income there, but the rest is ours to do with whatever we want. As long as the big stuff is covered, no begging or pleading is needed.
Yeah, it’s really important for people getting married to figure out a financial system that works for THEM. We just put all our money into a joint checking account, and I pay all the bills (because I’m the one that’s good with money), but I always tell my husband everything I plan to do in terms of savings/etc. And for the big things, we discuss it/hash it out beforehand.
But the most important thing is to find a system that works for YOU. If you’re better with separate checking accounts, or if one of you is really bad about credit cards, then adjust your plans accordingly.