Escalating an argument either by yelling back or by hitting is a bad thing from a practical standpoint, (the moral or ethical view is another thing entirely) mainly because they don't work.
Think about all the times that someone has been yelling, screaming or ranting at you. Has it ever helped to start yelling back? A person who tries to "make their point" by raising their voice is either frustrated due to the perception of not being listened to or just doesn't have a good argument on their side. Even telling somene to calm down or listen generally has no effect, if it did they wouldn't be yelling in the first place.
Then there's hitting. Think about it. Someone is yelling at you. You pop them in the mouth. Unless they cower in fear that you are going to continue to beat them and injure them seriously, violence is not going to win the argument for you and it will only win you at best a temporary respite from the yelling.
The idea that one possible acceptable way to respond to a domestic argument is violence is ludicrous, even if it is admitted to be an option in a vanishingly small percentage of cases. Take that to the extreme. You're a manager at your place of business. An employee gets out of line and mouths off to you. You clip him across the teeth with a right hook. Argument over. So now you've set the precedent that you can settle arguments with your fists. Where does that end?
Should people defend themselves? In my opinion, yes. No one should stand idly by and let themselves get beaten. If a woman hits a man, he is under no obligation to turn the other cheek, but to offer violence as a response to words? One who does such a thing is immature, small minded, a bully.
quote: In my experience many times the man initiates a fight by what he does or does not do and then the woman starts verbalizing, eventually she has to yell to get the mans attention. It escalates. Now of course this is not always what happens...but in a majority of cases when traced back to the actual beginning...
Is it possible that what the man "does not do" to "initiate the fight" is agree with his wife? Is it possible that she doesn't yell to get his attention, rather she yells to bully him into submission?
quote: It is possible that these women that "start" the fights are asking for or expecting something unreasonable from the man. And then the man gets frustrated because of this and verbally "strikes" back at the woman. Physical abuse almost always starts with verbal abuse.
Some women have a warped sense of entitlement. Just like the stereotypical male chauvenist who expects sex on demand 24/7 regardless of headache, menstruation, pregnancy, fatigue, etc., these women expect to be heard 24/7 no matter how inconvenient it may be for the man. If there's a time sensitive situation, that's one thing, but sometimes we all just need our space.
quote: Certainly a woman may confront a man because he just came home drunk at 2 am and has nothing left of his paycheck...and she "starts" a fight. Or a woman may ask the man if he will watch the children while she goes shopping and he refuses because they will interrupt the game and she "starts" a fight.
This is preventable. In the 2 above examples the man is the unreasonable one. Sounds like things the man was accustomed to when single; just needs to make the adjustment. For the record, yes, if a man marries a woman, then she has the reasonable expectation that he will spend time with her much more than with his old friends.
I give--
johniam, it is clear you will always have some reason that physical violence toward a wife is justifiable. Sad, very sad, I'm sadder for jeaniam--sad because she has to live with a man that holds these views and even sadder because she defends those views.
Been there, done, that, relegated the t-shirts to the rag bag. Praying
Should people defend themselves? In my opinion, yes. No one should stand idly by and let themselves get beaten. If a woman hits a man, he is under no obligation to turn the other cheek, but to offer violence as a response to words? One who does such a thing is immature, small minded, a bully.
I wouldn't advocate merely letting someone beat another either.
But exiting USUALLY solves that problem. Especially if you have the luxury to see the situation escalating to that point. I know, some people can snap on a moment's notice.. that's gotta be tough.
Relationships - real, honest relationships are born out of mutual respect, compromise, and lots of discussion. Both parties have to be willing to be wrong and be vulnerable.
Regarding a "woman who wants to be heard 24/7" (paraphrased); there is something worst than being yelled at and treated disrespectfully - that is being ignored. At least if you are being yelled at an emotion is evoked. I have seen it time and time again: a woman has been kicked to the curb emotionally for months, perhaps years, and so she begins to start arguments regularly - just to evoke any emotion at all. Sometimes negative attention is better than no attention at all.
I'm NOT saying this is a healthy response. Nor am I saying it is an excuse. I'm just saying that this happens.
IF a woman is never acknowleged, never asked for input, never given the respect of being "necessary," that woman WILL find a way to be heard.
Granted, this is not the usual case - but I saw it way too often in TWI.
AND - I want to emphasize that I in no way, shape or form believe that this is a healthy response. I would advise that couple to seek NON-TWI counseling. Somehow some form of mutual respect and honest communication would need to be restored for that relationship to take a healthy turn. If the relationship could not be healed, I would advise walking away - for the emotional health of both parties.
Sorry folks, I'm just now catching up on this thread:
I never had any problem with my hubby making the final decision until he dicided I had no input at all!
Let's face it folks, when the washer breaks down and can't be repaired, who uses it more??? who knows what to look for according to the family's needs? If the wife said I want this, and this, and so on....these items add up. Perhaps there isn't that amount of money for that....so the husband and wife discuss what's important to stay in the budget. NO PROBLEM.
But when the men walked all over us, many of us lost our enthusiasm for lots of things...not just twi.
I remember hearing all the time how a woman had to be strong in the Lord, and able to make decisions. I can't tell you how many dang Womens' Fellowships I attended as a single woman where Proverbs 31 was discussed. "Be good with money. Be able to make decisions on your own. Blah, blah, blah...." (After you hear anything that many times it all becomes a dull drone.)
Then of course there were the infamous words of vpw: "Women, You have to be an angel in the kitchen and a whore in the bedroom."
What a set-up! There was a bait-and-switch that went on there.
IF you were strong - well you were "HEADstrong." (AKA- possessed.)
IF you were good with money - you were usurping your husband's authority as the head of the household (AKA - possessed.)
IF you were able to make decisions on your own -well you weren't meek - you guessed it folks - Possessed.
Angels in the kitchen were appreciated....as were the whores. The only trouble is that the angel frequently became just another short order cook and a whore is never treated well or respected - she's a object. (Oh - and she's probably possessed....)
I realize that a lot of men treated their wives with respect and dignity. But one has to take note how that teaching strained many a relationship.
Good GOD I remember every darned womens advance that I went to in over ten years of involvement in numerous states....the ONLY theme was how to serve your man....the body of Christ, to be pleasing to God...that was to get yourself a man and help him be his best for God.
There were classes on finding your spiritual equal, How to submit, how to serve, how to anticipate their desire....omg..
At the GUYS advances....THEY got to go fishing, got to watch the ball games, grill out ...etc. I never once in all of my years heard that anything was taught about being a better husband, or what would be a blessing to their wives and children....etc
Thank you for reminding us that there is a child's POV to this whole subject.
Sometimes we can get so wrapped up in our own lives, we neglect to see the effects we are having on the impressionable minds that see us as role models.
Ya know, I do remember one LC up in Alaska who was my good friend, and one whom many Alaskans loved. But I also remember a conflict that arose many a time due to the way he viewed women. I have always loved to hunt and fish. My wife, whose nickname is "Shotgun Shannon" (not only because she is a formidable opponent in an argument, but is also very good at trap and skeet with a shotgun), also loves to hunt and fish. Well now, this LC would want to get together with me and a few other "territory coordinators" and want us to go fishing or hunting. But, my wife was never invited, and it always ticked her off. And it ticked me off too. Finally I asked why it was that Shannon was never invited, and the response was given in an incredulous manner. "Well, she 's a girl!" And I told him sarcastically that; "Glad you pointed that out to me. If you hadn't told me, I wouldn't have known. Glad to know that I have been having sex with a woman and not a man. Now, why isn't my wife ever invited on these things?" I wasn't afraid of his "authority" or "his reverend-hood", and he knew it. We were friends first and foremost. And so he says; "Well you know, guys are guys, and when we do stuff, we can talk about guy things without worrying about offending the girls. Don't you ever just hang out with "the guys" Jonny?" And this took me by surprise, for whenever I used to go to the big meetings, and even when my wife and I get together these days with various "married couples get togethers", I always end up sitting with the gals, and talking with them. I like women. And on the other hand, my wife always likes to hang out with the boys, drink beer with them, and talk with them about hunting, fishing, and things the boys like. And the guys love that about her. She's "salty". Now, when I hang with the girls, I don't talk about "chick stuff", but I do like the conversation, and the lack of "macho competition" commonly found amongst the guys so many times. I have always been this way. I love women. My wife loves men and thinks they are cool.
And so, when my LC asked me that question long ago, I told him that I rarely have just hung out "with the guys", and in this case, "my wife likes to hunt and fish as much or more maybe even than you do. And, she gets resentful at being left out". But he'd tell me that it was a guy thing in that particular case, but "maybe next time". But the next time it was the same. And I'd bring it up again then too, with the same results. And so, I just made time for me to take my wife rabbit, grouse, or moose hunting or fishing, and turned down a number of "guy outings" which surprised my LC. At one point I told him that "I actually enjoy being with my wife and having her with me in the Outdoors, don't you?" And he said; Well no, not really. Not when it's with we boys. And yet, this guy was not a poontang hound, and even told Howard Allen to his face one time that "I am not a skirt chaser like you". Shoot, this LC didn't even like dirty jokes. But he never really wanted to include the women on these outdoor kinds of things. Weird, to me. And so, I stuck up for her (my wife) most of the time, but, not all of the time. I was an obedient Wayfer ya know. But, that was always something that ticked me off. And to this day my wife, my little "Shotgun", tells me how she always appreciated that I stuck up for her. I guess though, that probably painted me as a "woosie" or something, even though it was never said to my face.
quote: johniam, it is clear you will always have some reason that physical violence toward a wife is justifiable. Sad, very sad, I'm sadder for jeaniam--sad because she has to live with a man that holds these views and even sadder because she defends those views.
It is clear to me that some of you are just going to see whatever you want to see. Like LCM used to say, there's no place like numb.
Being subject to your husband does not mean that you are to put your brain and emotions in neutral for the rest of your life!! A quick look at the Bible shows intelligent woman who made dynamic decisions.
Being subject to your husband means that he is the head of the house IN SO FAR AS he is subject to Heavenly Fathers will.
Once the husband steps away from God and what His will is and/or interprets the Bible to say other than what it says etc., God expects the wife to step up to the plate so as to make sure her life and the lives of her children are in keeping with "the word".
Husbands who commit adultry, are abusive to spouse and children, don't work, are addicts etc. have exercised their freedom of choice and elected to stop walking in Christ's footsteps. Nowhere in the Bible are women exhorted to follow a husband who walks in the paths of sin.
There are Old Testament passages that exhort a wife to stay with a non-believer so that through her example he may be converted. But there are NO passages that tell a woman what her response is to be toward a believing spouse who chooses to follow a life of sin. Since these passages do not exist we are left with what does exist.
The New Testament is a guidebook for our lives which repeatedly stresses that we are responsible for eschewing evil and following Christ, no exceptions no excuses. There is validity to the idea that a wife and husband stay married through the hard times--but staying married DOES NOT mean always living at the same address.( Another topic not addressed directly in the Scriptures.)
If anything, the New Testament, and the Bible as a whole, is clear that a woman is to follow after Christ and bring her children up to do likewise--subjecting herself and children to the dictates of a husband who preaches sin as a lifetyle violates this most fundamental of commandments IMO.
Mo says it very very well in this post and in her other posts.
In our curent culture, when a wife walks away from a marriage, it is a sin. It does not matter why....no one even ever asks....she is wrong, possessed, tricked by the devil, wanting too much, using the man, over-dramatic....whatever.
Folks will believe what they want to believe...and nine times out of ten, it is the man who wails to the high heavens about the "injustice" done to him, how he is a "victim", etc...
Yet how many times do we see the woman's side of the story? If she speaks up....whether wife, failed relationship, girlfriend, whatever....if she speaks up she is a "b*tch" an opportunist", a "user", "poisioning others minds".
This is not just relegated to twi and it's rather dizzying circles...it is evident in every single walk of life, every forum, and any where where humans interact.
Yes, there are very bad stories on both sides, Galen has mentioned quite a few over the years that he knows of first hand. Where guys who serve in our military come home to divorces, just cause they were gone for a while to serve their country.
TWI does not have the corner on this market.....they were absolutely prime contributors (I was told when I called my area whateverthehelltheywere in Tallahassee, in 1999....after telling them I was leaving my husband due to abuse to me....and quite recently to one of our kids....that God did not believe in divorce. That was all I had to hear, I answered, "Well, God probably isn't too thrilled with me and my kids getting abused, either.") That was the last I have or will ever speak to them. They are clueless.
The world in general contributes to the attitude that women are inferior. My daughters hear it alla time. They come to me saying that so and so called them a "bit*h".
My answer to them???
I tell them to reply in the following manner: "You say I'm a b*tch like it's a BAD thing!" :-)
Even on GS we've seen it.....men will b*tch and moan about a woman in their lives and GS posters will respond like she is the lowest thing since rat turds....while NEVER hearing the other side.
My point????
Human nature.
TWI appealed to people who really needed a clear set of procedures for getting in good with God....not a bad thing in and of itself....but detrimental when coupled with some of the narcissistic, toxic, and rather rude m.o's of some of the "leadership".
I think Mo said it beautifully when she stated that a man who loves his wife like Christ loves the church is a man who has a wife that KNOWS she is cared about, loved, and respected. No ifs ands or buts.
I'm lucky....I have that kind of husband.
But I did not know such a man existed until Steve!.
Stating that every marriage and relationship in TWI was based on wrong doctrine is the easy way out. What is hard is acknowledging and then really "getting" that the problem with TWI was NOT the bible....it was the "spin" put on the bible to achieve ends that were in NO WAY godly or even approaching the beginning of the recognition of godliness.
Yes...each marriage is unique. A arena unto itself as to what works, what doesn't work, and all that jazz.
However, the fundamental truth endures....you get out of a relationship EXACTLY what you put into it.
Even I, who was in an abusive marriage for 13 years can testify to that.
Abuse is wrong....end of sentence.
Enduring abuse is so much more than it sounds.....the "victims" go wayyyyy beyond a simple black and white approach of: STAY or LEAVE. As anyone who has studied this subject knows.....it is a myriad of perceptions that have no SIMPLE solution.
Being a perpetrator of abuse is also a myriad of perceptions and experiences.
I guess what I am saying is that as I get deeper into my masters degree studies of human psychology, I see more and more that those who perpetrate and those who are victims are more to be pited than sensored (to quote the old poem). I have been studying abusers, narcissists, and bi-polars....the more I study the more I see TWI and it's people in a clearer and less emotional light.
Don't get me wrong....it is still horribly emotional to deal with...but I am starting to see beyond the emotionalism.....and, bit by bit, into the psychology behind it that explains (but does NOT excuse) it.
If one freely consented to their situation back then, I think it's pretty hard to complain about it now and make much sense.
HOLY SHI-ITE BATMAN!! 'Nother words (Oldies) --- NONESENSE!!!
SORRY --- (I'm on page one and not the last) -- I just now started reading this thread,
BUT, your statement is fraught with error.
Who the heck hasn't been involved in a situation (freely consented to) in their past, that they might now have regretted being involved with given the *wisdom of years*??? Skeletons in a closet come to mind, and politicians seem to have an abundance of them, but they aren't the only folks on the planet who did something in their youth that is (regretfully) a part of their past.
Cripes. If a person committed a youthful indiscretion, and repents, reneges, disavowes, or whatever the things they committed/ thought in the past because they NOW KNOW BETTER THAN THEY DID BACK THEN, it is EASY to complain about the past (as you put it), and it makes a helluva-lotta-sense to own up to past mistakes, because that fact in itself makes MUCH MORE SENSE than does your premise of *I-was-involved-by-my-free-will-at-one-time-so-I-will-shut-the-F-up-about-it*.
FYI -- I know some ex-Ku Kluxers who have done some heinous deeds by their *free will*,
while involved in the group of their choosing.
They are repentant today, and have tried to repay society,
while decrying the beliefs of their former group.
(Sound familiar???????)
Would you consider their *complaining* about their past actions as *whining* -- as you do ours???
Good Lord -- I can't wait to read the rest of this thread.
What might I learn???
Hopefully (in true GSC fashion), it will have gone off to another topic entirely, because this one has been hashed over before WAYYYY too many times, and is beginning to be repugnant.
Please face reality, Oldies. It forever beckons the willing.
quote: In our curent culture, when a wife walks away from a marriage, it is a sin. It does not matter why....no one even ever asks....she is wrong, possessed, tricked by the devil, wanting too much, using the man, over-dramatic....whatever.
Folks will believe what they want to believe...and nine times out of ten, it is the man who wails to the high heavens about the "injustice" done to him, how he is a "victim", etc...
Yet how many times do we see the woman's side of the story? If she speaks up....whether wife, failed relationship, girlfriend, whatever....if she speaks up she is a "b*tch" an opportunist", a "user", "poisioning others minds".
This is not just relegated to twi and it's rather dizzying circles...it is evident in every single walk of life, every forum, and any where where humans interact.
---*---
I don't know where you are getting your information from, but I heard on the radio not terribly long ago that 75% of divorces in this country are initiated by the woman. One of the so called experts who commented on this was Dr. Joyce Brothers; she said the reason for the lop sided percent was that men in general are stupid and can't see reality if it bit them and so women have to take the lead.
Every job now shows a video called 'Respect in the work place'. Who do you think is deemed worthy of this respect? The men? Nope! I see no evidence that men are actually catching a break anywhere. If there's a conflict it's always spun by the media as the man's fault until proven otherwise.
Every job now shows a video called 'Respect in the work place'. Who do you think is deemed worthy of this respect? The men? Nope! I see no evidence that men are actually catching a break anywhere. If there's a conflict it's always spun by the media as the man's fault until proven otherwise.
You're joking...right?
No, I don't think you are joking and that's very sad.
Look...The history and traditions of our society and culture have always favored the men in the workplace. To this day, there are women who do equal work for less pay (the employer simply gives her a different "job title")...Are you oblivious to the history of "women's sufferage" and the women's rights movement?...Do you not realize that women have always held the subservient role in the work place (go make the coffee), and have very often been viewed as sex objects in the workplace?
..and you are looking for evidence of men "catching a break"?...You consistantly display an underlying chauvinistic attitude in your posts and I assume that you believe what you say.
Women have made some strides in our society (even as some minorities have), but there's a long way to go.
All people should be treated with respect in the workplace but when one group (in this context, women), have a long history of being treated disrespectfully and unequally, some compensation is due. I don't see where the male gender needs any special provisions to gain respect and equal footing in the workplace...women do.
Your selfish attitude is a part of the problem and you offer nothing towards the solution of gaining equality and respect in the work place.
I agree with Oak...to use the term "tie breaker" implies that that the two people refused to compromise and come to a mutual agreement...I think it works better when two people can negotiate and agree than it does when one person rules over the other...
Right now, I'm wondering what the difference between TWI and GSC is. We had problems with TWI because they wanted to stick their noses in our marriage, and decide that there was something wrong with it because I knew what size tires went on the car and John was capable of changing a poopy diaper and watching his own children. Some of you in GSC take it upon yourself to decide there must be something wrong with our marriage (and I need people to feel sorry for me) because I use the term 'tiebreaker'. As one poster pointed out, since John and I don't think our marriage is broken, why are y'all trying to fix it. In the situation I described (which was the most serious that has confronted us), there really wasn't a compromise position possible (other than the one John decided on); either his mother came to live with us, or she didn't.
Right now, I'm wondering what the difference between TWI and GSC is. We had problems with TWI because they wanted to stick their noses in our marriage, and decide that there was something wrong with it because I knew what size tires went on the car and John was capable of changing a poopy diaper and watching his own children. Some of you in GSC take it upon yourself to decide there must be something wrong with our marriage (and I need people to feel sorry for me) because I use the term 'tiebreaker'. As one poster pointed out, since John and I don't think our marriage is broken, why are y'all trying to fix it. In the situation I described (which was the most serious that has confronted us), there really wasn't a compromise position possible (other than the one John decided on); either his mother came to live with us, or she didn't.
??? Wasn't the 'trial' period a compromise? Sure looked like it to me. Both of you had to give a little, right? To do the trial period? What's not a compromise about that?
Brothers, not Meyers. You seem to be in stooge mode.
quote: Women have made some strides in our society (even as some minorities have), but there's a long way to go.
Yes they have, and there was definitely a need for reform, but it's all too clear that minorities can be just as bigotted as white people and women can be just as chauvenistic as men. This isn't 1920 or 1947! Yeah, right, let's build monuments to Jackie Robinson and Susan B. Anthony and anyone who does not bow down when they hear the sound of the sackbut, psaltery trumpets, etc. shall be cast into a burning fiery furnace. You nailed it.
Right now, I'm wondering what the difference between TWI and GSC is. We had problems with TWI because they wanted to stick their noses in our marriage, and decide that there was something wrong with it because I knew what size tires went on the car and John was capable of changing a poopy diaper and watching his own children. Some of you in GSC take it upon yourself to decide there must be something wrong with our marriage (and I need people to feel sorry for me) because I use the term 'tiebreaker'. As one poster pointed out, since John and I don't think our marriage is broken, why are y'all trying to fix it. In the situation I described (which was the most serious that has confronted us), there really wasn't a compromise position possible (other than the one John decided on); either his mother came to live with us, or she didn't.
Obviously, you are taking my words PERSONALLY...I never mentioned your names in my post (that you quoted)...I responded in a generic way with principles that apply to ALL marriages...the subject was dealing with the idea of the man being the "head" of the household versus equal authority...First you state your opinion and use yourself as an example...and then you get upset when someone disagrees with you...I have no interest in sticking my nose in your marriage and I would suggest that in the future, if you do not want opposing views, then refrain from stating your own.
I don't know where you are getting your information from, but I heard on the radio not terribly long ago that 75% of divorces in this country are initiated by the woman. One of the so called experts who commented on this was Dr. Joyce Brothers; she said the reason for the lop sided percent was that men in general are stupid and can't see reality if it bit them and so women have to take the lead.
I actually heard something to this effect twenty years ago. BUT, it was followed by saying that by the time most women initiated the divorce, the problems in the marriage had gone on for so long that for the most part the women felt that divorce was the only solution.
I have to question the words in bold type. It really is not how Dr. Brothers spoke, though it may be a bad paraphrase of what she really did say.
Then Jean quoted Groucho and then wrote:
I agree with Oak...to use the term "tie breaker" implies that that the two people refused to compromise and come to a mutual agreement...I think it works better when two people can negotiate and agree than it does when one person rules over the other...
Right now, I'm wondering what the difference between TWI and GSC is. We had problems with TWI because they wanted to stick their noses in our marriage, and decide that there was something wrong with it because I knew what size tires went on the car and John was capable of changing a poopy diaper and watching his own children. Some of you in GSC take it upon yourself to decide there must be something wrong with our marriage (and I need people to feel sorry for me) because I use the term 'tiebreaker'. As one poster pointed out, since John and I don't think our marriage is broken, why are y'all trying to fix it. In the situation I described (which was the most serious that has confronted us), there really wasn't a compromise position possible (other than the one John decided on); either his mother came to live with us, or she didn't.
Honestly, I didn't see Groucho sticking his nose in your marriage. I DID see him giving his opinion regarding the phrase "tie-breaker." Perhaps its just a matter of semantics, perhaps it's that Groucho and Oakspear are the rare type of men that actually LIKE to talk things out. (This is a place where folks give their opinion and perspective. If you don't want something discussed, don't post it.)
Jean, for the record, I think that the situation you described with John's mother is possibly the most emotional situation that a couple can face. From my perpective, YOU DID COMPROMISE - BUT you did it so that the reality of the situation would make itself known to John. There is nothing wrong with that, from my point of view. (Not that you need my approval here.) John didn't really "win" an argument, he simply "won" an opportunity to see that what he thought he wanted wasn't best for either his family or his mother. I'm glad that he wasn't prideful in the situation. He could have forced the issue - it seems that he saw things for what they were and made the appropriate changes to the benefit of all involved.
Could it have been done another way? Well, in an emotionally charged situation like the one you and John described, I doubt it.
Brothers, not Meyers. You seem to be in stooge mode.
quote: Women have made some strides in our society (even as some minorities have), but there's a long way to go.
Yes they have, and there was definitely a need for reform, but it's all too clear that minorities can be just as bigotted as white people and women can be just as chauvenistic as men. This isn't 1920 or 1947! Yeah, right, let's build monuments to Jackie Robinson and Susan B. Anthony and anyone who does not bow down when they hear the sound of the sackbut, psaltery trumpets, etc. shall be cast into a burning fiery furnace. You nailed it.
There's a huge difference between bowing down to Susan B. Anthony and seeking to "catch a break" for men in the workplace.
I am aware that there are some women who are full of hate, bitterness and are "militant" in their views...but they are a minority and for you to point out the "chauvenism of women" to justify your position is faulty at best...you are rationalizing your position.
The fact remains, men do not need to "catch a break" in the workplace.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
16
40
32
Popular Days
Jul 5
32
Jul 11
29
Jul 9
26
Jul 7
25
Top Posters In This Topic
GrouchoMarxJr 13 posts
oldiesman 16 posts
Ham 40 posts
Jeaniam 32 posts
Popular Days
Jul 5 2007
32 posts
Jul 11 2007
29 posts
Jul 9 2007
26 posts
Jul 7 2007
25 posts
Oakspear
Escalating an argument either by yelling back or by hitting is a bad thing from a practical standpoint, (the moral or ethical view is another thing entirely) mainly because they don't work.
Think about all the times that someone has been yelling, screaming or ranting at you. Has it ever helped to start yelling back? A person who tries to "make their point" by raising their voice is either frustrated due to the perception of not being listened to or just doesn't have a good argument on their side. Even telling somene to calm down or listen generally has no effect, if it did they wouldn't be yelling in the first place.
Then there's hitting. Think about it. Someone is yelling at you. You pop them in the mouth. Unless they cower in fear that you are going to continue to beat them and injure them seriously, violence is not going to win the argument for you and it will only win you at best a temporary respite from the yelling.
The idea that one possible acceptable way to respond to a domestic argument is violence is ludicrous, even if it is admitted to be an option in a vanishingly small percentage of cases. Take that to the extreme. You're a manager at your place of business. An employee gets out of line and mouths off to you. You clip him across the teeth with a right hook. Argument over. So now you've set the precedent that you can settle arguments with your fists. Where does that end?
Should people defend themselves? In my opinion, yes. No one should stand idly by and let themselves get beaten. If a woman hits a man, he is under no obligation to turn the other cheek, but to offer violence as a response to words? One who does such a thing is immature, small minded, a bully.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
I give--
johniam, it is clear you will always have some reason that physical violence toward a wife is justifiable. Sad, very sad, I'm sadder for jeaniam--sad because she has to live with a man that holds these views and even sadder because she defends those views.
Been there, done, that, relegated the t-shirts to the rag bag. Praying
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I wouldn't advocate merely letting someone beat another either.
But exiting USUALLY solves that problem. Especially if you have the luxury to see the situation escalating to that point. I know, some people can snap on a moment's notice.. that's gotta be tough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I'm chiming in here - cautiously...
Relationships - real, honest relationships are born out of mutual respect, compromise, and lots of discussion. Both parties have to be willing to be wrong and be vulnerable.
Regarding a "woman who wants to be heard 24/7" (paraphrased); there is something worst than being yelled at and treated disrespectfully - that is being ignored. At least if you are being yelled at an emotion is evoked. I have seen it time and time again: a woman has been kicked to the curb emotionally for months, perhaps years, and so she begins to start arguments regularly - just to evoke any emotion at all. Sometimes negative attention is better than no attention at all.
I'm NOT saying this is a healthy response. Nor am I saying it is an excuse. I'm just saying that this happens.
IF a woman is never acknowleged, never asked for input, never given the respect of being "necessary," that woman WILL find a way to be heard.
Granted, this is not the usual case - but I saw it way too often in TWI.
AND - I want to emphasize that I in no way, shape or form believe that this is a healthy response. I would advise that couple to seek NON-TWI counseling. Somehow some form of mutual respect and honest communication would need to be restored for that relationship to take a healthy turn. If the relationship could not be healed, I would advise walking away - for the emotional health of both parties.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
Sorry folks, I'm just now catching up on this thread:
Hear, hear!!!!
Edited by TheHighWayLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
No joke.
I wouldn't seek counsel from ex-way's either. The "counsellors" are generally using the same bag of tricks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Something occured to me today...
I remember hearing all the time how a woman had to be strong in the Lord, and able to make decisions. I can't tell you how many dang Womens' Fellowships I attended as a single woman where Proverbs 31 was discussed. "Be good with money. Be able to make decisions on your own. Blah, blah, blah...." (After you hear anything that many times it all becomes a dull drone.)
Then of course there were the infamous words of vpw: "Women, You have to be an angel in the kitchen and a whore in the bedroom."
What a set-up! There was a bait-and-switch that went on there.
IF you were strong - well you were "HEADstrong." (AKA- possessed.)
IF you were good with money - you were usurping your husband's authority as the head of the household (AKA - possessed.)
IF you were able to make decisions on your own -well you weren't meek - you guessed it folks - Possessed.
Angels in the kitchen were appreciated....as were the whores. The only trouble is that the angel frequently became just another short order cook and a whore is never treated well or respected - she's a object. (Oh - and she's probably possessed....)
I realize that a lot of men treated their wives with respect and dignity. But one has to take note how that teaching strained many a relationship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Oh amen amen and AMEN Dooj!!
Good GOD I remember every darned womens advance that I went to in over ten years of involvement in numerous states....the ONLY theme was how to serve your man....the body of Christ, to be pleasing to God...that was to get yourself a man and help him be his best for God.
There were classes on finding your spiritual equal, How to submit, how to serve, how to anticipate their desire....omg..
At the GUYS advances....THEY got to go fishing, got to watch the ball games, grill out ...etc. I never once in all of my years heard that anything was taught about being a better husband, or what would be a blessing to their wives and children....etc
It was so unfair.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mini--c.
Thank you for reminding us that there is a child's POV to this whole subject.
Sometimes we can get so wrapped up in our own lives, we neglect to see the effects we are having on the impressionable minds that see us as role models.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Ya know, I do remember one LC up in Alaska who was my good friend, and one whom many Alaskans loved. But I also remember a conflict that arose many a time due to the way he viewed women. I have always loved to hunt and fish. My wife, whose nickname is "Shotgun Shannon" (not only because she is a formidable opponent in an argument, but is also very good at trap and skeet with a shotgun), also loves to hunt and fish. Well now, this LC would want to get together with me and a few other "territory coordinators" and want us to go fishing or hunting. But, my wife was never invited, and it always ticked her off. And it ticked me off too. Finally I asked why it was that Shannon was never invited, and the response was given in an incredulous manner. "Well, she 's a girl!" And I told him sarcastically that; "Glad you pointed that out to me. If you hadn't told me, I wouldn't have known. Glad to know that I have been having sex with a woman and not a man. Now, why isn't my wife ever invited on these things?" I wasn't afraid of his "authority" or "his reverend-hood", and he knew it. We were friends first and foremost. And so he says; "Well you know, guys are guys, and when we do stuff, we can talk about guy things without worrying about offending the girls. Don't you ever just hang out with "the guys" Jonny?" And this took me by surprise, for whenever I used to go to the big meetings, and even when my wife and I get together these days with various "married couples get togethers", I always end up sitting with the gals, and talking with them. I like women. And on the other hand, my wife always likes to hang out with the boys, drink beer with them, and talk with them about hunting, fishing, and things the boys like. And the guys love that about her. She's "salty". Now, when I hang with the girls, I don't talk about "chick stuff", but I do like the conversation, and the lack of "macho competition" commonly found amongst the guys so many times. I have always been this way. I love women. My wife loves men and thinks they are cool.
And so, when my LC asked me that question long ago, I told him that I rarely have just hung out "with the guys", and in this case, "my wife likes to hunt and fish as much or more maybe even than you do. And, she gets resentful at being left out". But he'd tell me that it was a guy thing in that particular case, but "maybe next time". But the next time it was the same. And I'd bring it up again then too, with the same results. And so, I just made time for me to take my wife rabbit, grouse, or moose hunting or fishing, and turned down a number of "guy outings" which surprised my LC. At one point I told him that "I actually enjoy being with my wife and having her with me in the Outdoors, don't you?" And he said; Well no, not really. Not when it's with we boys. And yet, this guy was not a poontang hound, and even told Howard Allen to his face one time that "I am not a skirt chaser like you". Shoot, this LC didn't even like dirty jokes. But he never really wanted to include the women on these outdoor kinds of things. Weird, to me. And so, I stuck up for her (my wife) most of the time, but, not all of the time. I was an obedient Wayfer ya know. But, that was always something that ticked me off. And to this day my wife, my little "Shotgun", tells me how she always appreciated that I stuck up for her. I guess though, that probably painted me as a "woosie" or something, even though it was never said to my face.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
Johnny
If I put in type would you hit me in the nose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Danny, I don't understand that. Could you explain?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: johniam, it is clear you will always have some reason that physical violence toward a wife is justifiable. Sad, very sad, I'm sadder for jeaniam--sad because she has to live with a man that holds these views and even sadder because she defends those views.
It is clear to me that some of you are just going to see whatever you want to see. Like LCM used to say, there's no place like numb.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cindy!
Mo says it very very well in this post and in her other posts.
In our curent culture, when a wife walks away from a marriage, it is a sin. It does not matter why....no one even ever asks....she is wrong, possessed, tricked by the devil, wanting too much, using the man, over-dramatic....whatever.
Folks will believe what they want to believe...and nine times out of ten, it is the man who wails to the high heavens about the "injustice" done to him, how he is a "victim", etc...
Yet how many times do we see the woman's side of the story? If she speaks up....whether wife, failed relationship, girlfriend, whatever....if she speaks up she is a "b*tch" an opportunist", a "user", "poisioning others minds".
This is not just relegated to twi and it's rather dizzying circles...it is evident in every single walk of life, every forum, and any where where humans interact.
Yes, there are very bad stories on both sides, Galen has mentioned quite a few over the years that he knows of first hand. Where guys who serve in our military come home to divorces, just cause they were gone for a while to serve their country.
TWI does not have the corner on this market.....they were absolutely prime contributors (I was told when I called my area whateverthehelltheywere in Tallahassee, in 1999....after telling them I was leaving my husband due to abuse to me....and quite recently to one of our kids....that God did not believe in divorce. That was all I had to hear, I answered, "Well, God probably isn't too thrilled with me and my kids getting abused, either.") That was the last I have or will ever speak to them. They are clueless.
The world in general contributes to the attitude that women are inferior. My daughters hear it alla time. They come to me saying that so and so called them a "bit*h".
My answer to them???
I tell them to reply in the following manner: "You say I'm a b*tch like it's a BAD thing!" :-)
Even on GS we've seen it.....men will b*tch and moan about a woman in their lives and GS posters will respond like she is the lowest thing since rat turds....while NEVER hearing the other side.
My point????
Human nature.
TWI appealed to people who really needed a clear set of procedures for getting in good with God....not a bad thing in and of itself....but detrimental when coupled with some of the narcissistic, toxic, and rather rude m.o's of some of the "leadership".
I think Mo said it beautifully when she stated that a man who loves his wife like Christ loves the church is a man who has a wife that KNOWS she is cared about, loved, and respected. No ifs ands or buts.
I'm lucky....I have that kind of husband.
But I did not know such a man existed until Steve!.
Stating that every marriage and relationship in TWI was based on wrong doctrine is the easy way out. What is hard is acknowledging and then really "getting" that the problem with TWI was NOT the bible....it was the "spin" put on the bible to achieve ends that were in NO WAY godly or even approaching the beginning of the recognition of godliness.
Yes...each marriage is unique. A arena unto itself as to what works, what doesn't work, and all that jazz.
However, the fundamental truth endures....you get out of a relationship EXACTLY what you put into it.
Even I, who was in an abusive marriage for 13 years can testify to that.
Abuse is wrong....end of sentence.
Enduring abuse is so much more than it sounds.....the "victims" go wayyyyy beyond a simple black and white approach of: STAY or LEAVE. As anyone who has studied this subject knows.....it is a myriad of perceptions that have no SIMPLE solution.
Being a perpetrator of abuse is also a myriad of perceptions and experiences.
I guess what I am saying is that as I get deeper into my masters degree studies of human psychology, I see more and more that those who perpetrate and those who are victims are more to be pited than sensored (to quote the old poem). I have been studying abusers, narcissists, and bi-polars....the more I study the more I see TWI and it's people in a clearer and less emotional light.
Don't get me wrong....it is still horribly emotional to deal with...but I am starting to see beyond the emotionalism.....and, bit by bit, into the psychology behind it that explains (but does NOT excuse) it.
Dunno if I'm being clear here....hope so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
HOLY SHI-ITE BATMAN!! 'Nother words (Oldies) --- NONESENSE!!!
SORRY --- (I'm on page one and not the last) -- I just now started reading this thread,
BUT, your statement is fraught with error.
Who the heck hasn't been involved in a situation (freely consented to) in their past, that they might now have regretted being involved with given the *wisdom of years*??? Skeletons in a closet come to mind, and politicians seem to have an abundance of them, but they aren't the only folks on the planet who did something in their youth that is (regretfully) a part of their past.
Cripes. If a person committed a youthful indiscretion, and repents, reneges, disavowes, or whatever the things they committed/ thought in the past because they NOW KNOW BETTER THAN THEY DID BACK THEN, it is EASY to complain about the past (as you put it), and it makes a helluva-lotta-sense to own up to past mistakes, because that fact in itself makes MUCH MORE SENSE than does your premise of *I-was-involved-by-my-free-will-at-one-time-so-I-will-shut-the-F-up-about-it*.
FYI -- I know some ex-Ku Kluxers who have done some heinous deeds by their *free will*,
while involved in the group of their choosing.
They are repentant today, and have tried to repay society,
while decrying the beliefs of their former group.
(Sound familiar???????)
Would you consider their *complaining* about their past actions as *whining* -- as you do ours???
Good Lord -- I can't wait to read the rest of this thread.
What might I learn???
Hopefully (in true GSC fashion), it will have gone off to another topic entirely, because this one has been hashed over before WAYYYY too many times, and is beginning to be repugnant.
Please face reality, Oldies. It forever beckons the willing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: In our curent culture, when a wife walks away from a marriage, it is a sin. It does not matter why....no one even ever asks....she is wrong, possessed, tricked by the devil, wanting too much, using the man, over-dramatic....whatever.
Folks will believe what they want to believe...and nine times out of ten, it is the man who wails to the high heavens about the "injustice" done to him, how he is a "victim", etc...
Yet how many times do we see the woman's side of the story? If she speaks up....whether wife, failed relationship, girlfriend, whatever....if she speaks up she is a "b*tch" an opportunist", a "user", "poisioning others minds".
This is not just relegated to twi and it's rather dizzying circles...it is evident in every single walk of life, every forum, and any where where humans interact.
---*---
I don't know where you are getting your information from, but I heard on the radio not terribly long ago that 75% of divorces in this country are initiated by the woman. One of the so called experts who commented on this was Dr. Joyce Brothers; she said the reason for the lop sided percent was that men in general are stupid and can't see reality if it bit them and so women have to take the lead.
Every job now shows a video called 'Respect in the work place'. Who do you think is deemed worthy of this respect? The men? Nope! I see no evidence that men are actually catching a break anywhere. If there's a conflict it's always spun by the media as the man's fault until proven otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Ahhh.. the "wailers".
I knew a "man".. couldn't understand much. All he could understand though:
1. He lost his house.
2. He lost all of the possessions in his house.
3. His wife "hated" him.
4. The whole world hated him..
5. I don't deserve it
and lastly
6. Life is so unfair, I wish I would die..
The "reality" of the matter?
1. He toked enough cocaine to sink a ship.
2. He couldn't stay out of any other woman's pants if his life depended on it.
3. He physically and verbally abused his wife.
4. God only knows what else, more than what he chose to reveal publically, despite himself.. people do tend to tell the best thing about themselves..
Oh yes, the woman initiated the divorce. Wonder why?
This guy still can't figure it out.. no kidding.
Maybe Brothers has a point..
I've seen the same kind of cluelessness in many others..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
You're joking...right?
No, I don't think you are joking and that's very sad.
Look...The history and traditions of our society and culture have always favored the men in the workplace. To this day, there are women who do equal work for less pay (the employer simply gives her a different "job title")...Are you oblivious to the history of "women's sufferage" and the women's rights movement?...Do you not realize that women have always held the subservient role in the work place (go make the coffee), and have very often been viewed as sex objects in the workplace?
..and you are looking for evidence of men "catching a break"?...You consistantly display an underlying chauvinistic attitude in your posts and I assume that you believe what you say.
Women have made some strides in our society (even as some minorities have), but there's a long way to go.
All people should be treated with respect in the workplace but when one group (in this context, women), have a long history of being treated disrespectfully and unequally, some compensation is due. I don't see where the male gender needs any special provisions to gain respect and equal footing in the workplace...women do.
Your selfish attitude is a part of the problem and you offer nothing towards the solution of gaining equality and respect in the work place.
...and this post is from a man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Right now, I'm wondering what the difference between TWI and GSC is. We had problems with TWI because they wanted to stick their noses in our marriage, and decide that there was something wrong with it because I knew what size tires went on the car and John was capable of changing a poopy diaper and watching his own children. Some of you in GSC take it upon yourself to decide there must be something wrong with our marriage (and I need people to feel sorry for me) because I use the term 'tiebreaker'. As one poster pointed out, since John and I don't think our marriage is broken, why are y'all trying to fix it. In the situation I described (which was the most serious that has confronted us), there really wasn't a compromise position possible (other than the one John decided on); either his mother came to live with us, or she didn't.
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
??? Wasn't the 'trial' period a compromise? Sure looked like it to me. Both of you had to give a little, right? To do the trial period? What's not a compromise about that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Maybe Meyers has a point..
Brothers, not Meyers. You seem to be in stooge mode.
quote: Women have made some strides in our society (even as some minorities have), but there's a long way to go.
Yes they have, and there was definitely a need for reform, but it's all too clear that minorities can be just as bigotted as white people and women can be just as chauvenistic as men. This isn't 1920 or 1947! Yeah, right, let's build monuments to Jackie Robinson and Susan B. Anthony and anyone who does not bow down when they hear the sound of the sackbut, psaltery trumpets, etc. shall be cast into a burning fiery furnace. You nailed it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Obviously, you are taking my words PERSONALLY...I never mentioned your names in my post (that you quoted)...I responded in a generic way with principles that apply to ALL marriages...the subject was dealing with the idea of the man being the "head" of the household versus equal authority...First you state your opinion and use yourself as an example...and then you get upset when someone disagrees with you...I have no interest in sticking my nose in your marriage and I would suggest that in the future, if you do not want opposing views, then refrain from stating your own.
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
John wrote:
I actually heard something to this effect twenty years ago. BUT, it was followed by saying that by the time most women initiated the divorce, the problems in the marriage had gone on for so long that for the most part the women felt that divorce was the only solution.
I have to question the words in bold type. It really is not how Dr. Brothers spoke, though it may be a bad paraphrase of what she really did say.
Then Jean quoted Groucho and then wrote:
Honestly, I didn't see Groucho sticking his nose in your marriage. I DID see him giving his opinion regarding the phrase "tie-breaker." Perhaps its just a matter of semantics, perhaps it's that Groucho and Oakspear are the rare type of men that actually LIKE to talk things out. (This is a place where folks give their opinion and perspective. If you don't want something discussed, don't post it.)
Jean, for the record, I think that the situation you described with John's mother is possibly the most emotional situation that a couple can face. From my perpective, YOU DID COMPROMISE - BUT you did it so that the reality of the situation would make itself known to John. There is nothing wrong with that, from my point of view. (Not that you need my approval here.) John didn't really "win" an argument, he simply "won" an opportunity to see that what he thought he wanted wasn't best for either his family or his mother. I'm glad that he wasn't prideful in the situation. He could have forced the issue - it seems that he saw things for what they were and made the appropriate changes to the benefit of all involved.
Could it have been done another way? Well, in an emotionally charged situation like the one you and John described, I doubt it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
There's a huge difference between bowing down to Susan B. Anthony and seeking to "catch a break" for men in the workplace.
I am aware that there are some women who are full of hate, bitterness and are "militant" in their views...but they are a minority and for you to point out the "chauvenism of women" to justify your position is faulty at best...you are rationalizing your position.
The fact remains, men do not need to "catch a break" in the workplace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.