What many folks in the new "patriarchy" movement don't seem to realise, is that the husband's authority doesn't exist in a vacuum. That's why I called them Old Testament larpers in my previous post, they tend to think that the answer for all of our society problems is to go live in the desert like Abraham. I should add that it's especially typical for Americans of a more libertarian bent and probably, to some degree among the more extreme homeschoolers.
Well, guys, I'm going to ask you all a question: how did "rugged individualism" and this tactic of constantly ceding ground to "liberals" work for you? You aren't really in a much better position on any social issue than we in "godless" Europe, are you? Running away is not a solution, and it never will be. We can't go back to the Bronze Age, we live in a society which institutions are corrupted to a degree, but we are still part of it and we should strive to take it back, though it's the topic for another discussion.
What does it all have to do with the family, you will ask. Well, for starters, "family" isn't just nuclear family. Second, a family isn't a law unto themselves, there is still civil law and, for Christians, religious institutions. There are men on the internet who will complain that their wives are disobedient who will then spend their whole time online undermining church authority. Yes, churches are far from ideal. Some are cucked to an unbelievable degree, but there are still those which are quite solid. Again, instead of withdrawing why not try to improve things in your local church? Of course, that would mean taking action as opposed to *itching on the internet.
So for a Christian wife, her first authority in her life is her God. Your faith should come before everything else: He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me... and whosoever shall deny me before men him will I also deny before my Father which is in Heaven come to mind.
You don't deny your God because of your marriage partner, it's downright pathetic, and it goes for both men and women.
Really, where does this all or nothing approach come from? And what happened to the common sense? Your husband being a leader doesn't mean that you can't have ideas of your own, or that you always have to agree with his opinions. A wise woman will find a balanced way of following her conscience while acknowledging her husband's wishes, it's not really that difficult. It helps if she isn't arrogant and thinks that she always knows better than him.
Personally I think that many of these problems would simply not exist if the husband were the only breadwinner of the family. In this situation both usually know who's the dependent party, that's why feminists want all the women to work. There is also this strange woman worship so typical for Evangelicals. For Pete's sake, your wife isn't a goddess who did you an honour by marrying you and she'd be probably much worse off without you than vice versa. If your parents or your pastor forgot to inform you about it, then I'm doing it now:)
Seriously, folks, both men and women should grow up, stop this silly elite sponsored "gender war" and go back to the common sense arrangement the West used to have for the greatest part of our history. We owe it to the future generations.
I actually think being financially dependent is not the key issue. In the past, very few women came to marriage empty-handed. They had their dowry -even the poorest ones tried to make something. And those who came from wealthier families, well, they had their own possessions and were about to inherit more. Of course their hubby was the one to control the property, but I am sure they never forgot who actually brought the property to the marriage.
ReplyDeleteAnother thought about authority: sometimes I feel some american (male) bloggers are really obsessive with authority, and I have seen that same very unpleasant attitude on youtube channels and even documentaries in tv. One father actually made his kids to kneel before him to receive their evening blessings. It is creepy. Dear men, if you feel you need to think about your authority all the time, prove it, prop it up -well, then you do not have authority in the first place. People who actually DO have authority never seem to think about it: it is as natural to them as breathing. They do not need to say to their kids: "You are being disrespectful". They assume they will be treated respectfully at all times, not really thinking about it, and voilá: so it happens.
Actually a man marrying a woman for her dowry is more of a recent (19th century) phenomenon. In the times past dowry was the bride price, like by Muslims, i.e. the man had to pay money to get married. One part to the girl's family, one to her before the wedding took place, and the rest after the wedding night, depending on how much she pleased him. What the girl got from her family was hers and hers alone and would later go to her children, not to the husband.
ReplyDeleteBut even in the 19th century, most women were still financially dependent on their menfolk, like Jane Austen who was supported by her brothers after she refused to marry.
Wealthy heiress were rather scarce, and they mostly married an equal in money and status. It's true that even poor women brought some money and/or goods into marriage, but consider this: in the 1930s Holland, a male factory worker earned about 10 times the salary of the woman of his own class who was in domestic service. Women had a direct interest to marry. Also, where did this dowry came from since most women didn't work or were in trade? They got it from their menfolks, so they knew perfectly well they were dependents, BUT, having a (well-to-do) family behind your back made you less dependent on your husband, that's what I was trying to point out, that the husband's authority was never absolute as long as the wife had her male folks to support her.
BTW, men of upper classes weren't expected to marry a woman until they could offer her a house at least equal to her father's.
And yes, these bloggers are creepy.
I actually did not think that if woman is dependent on her father's money, that is dependence, too.
ReplyDeleteHere in Finlandeven in medieval times dowry was something wife brought to the marriage, in wealthier families it could be really lot.
And husband did not "pay" for her to her parents: he gave to her "morning gift" after the marriage had it's fullfillment, it was like a pay for her virginity. And that gift was hers if she widowed and went to her children when she died. I think it was so in all nordic countries, it is some sort of german/viking tradition.
Yes, it's true that it was the pay for the virginity, but originally, the bride's family was paid, too, and yes, it was a Germanic custom (and Germanic tribes used to be polygamous to a degree). I think it disappeared later on.
ReplyDeleteI know that in England wealthy families usually married with a contract which regulated the use of the dowry, it was mostly for the benefit of the wife and her children.
It was like a leverage she got from her family to protect her from her husband getting too uppity:)
Lol. Well said.
ReplyDelete