In the past few years, stay-at-home moms have come under fire from some of feminism’s most hard-line mouthpieces. These mothers have been told that they’re letting down the sisterhood, endangering the economy and — most important — undermining their own position. By failing to bring in at least half the family income, it is claimed, they have rendered themselves powerless in their own homes.
“Incomes give women power in their marriages,” says Leslie Bennetts, a Vanity Fair writer and frequent “Today Show” guest. She has called the recent increase in mothers choosing to stay home a national tragedy. Linda Hirshman, the author of “Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World,” has made her own rounds of female-targeted programming, appearing on “The View” and “Good Morning America” to recommend that young women “marry down.” Why? Because money “usually accompanies power,” she says, “and it enables the bearer to wield power, including within the family.”
But as it turns out, wives don’t need income to wield power in their marriages. And mothers don’t have much reason to fear losing power if they’re not bringing home an equal share of the bacon. A Pew Research Center study released a couple of weeks ago found that when it comes to decision making in the home, wives in a majority of cases either rule the roost or share power equally with their husbands, regardless of how much money the women earn.
You just don’t understand, Kendall. Gender feminists didn’t kick open these doors so women would have a choice, they kicked them open so women would do what they were bloody well told by said gender feminists.
Do you notice that all the discussion and desire is for power?
But Jesus came to be a servant. The best home is where both the man and wife are the servants of God first, of each other second, and of the children third.
I want my granddaughters to understand and long to fulfill their highest and greatest of callings and responsibilities of God and be willing to serve in their homes and in their churches. If they do so, they will die loved and valued. I know. I am wealthy beyond my ability to comprehend and give adequate thanks.
Don
“But as it turns out, wives don’t need income to wield power in their marriages.” Heh. They had to do a survey to find this out?
I was told occasionally that I was “wasting my education” by raising children instead of bringing in a paycheck. The gender feminists couldn’t tell me, though, how I could replace my education and values in my children’s lives if I hired somebody else to do it. It’s our choice, and we made it together. This project does require a husband who is committed to staying the course, and God blessed me greatly in giving me one.
The issue was never “power”. Once divorce became acceptable (which was shortly after WWII but before the sexual revolution) then women who were homemakers became destitute when their husbands traded up for a newer model.
The Protestant church did not have a problem with divorce.
Because divorce is now acceptable, and no longer means that folks are excommunicated at church and shunned as cads at work and in the neighborhood, women need to have an income in order to be able to care for themselves and their children if a man decides to be “true to himself” like Gene as well as a large number of other TEC bishops.
The best cure for gender feminism (as well as a number of other ills) is for marriage to regain its stature. That will require people refusing to hire folks who have divorced on the basis of “bad character”.
#4, I agree that no-fault divorce and general social acceptance of easy divorce and remarriage have been devastating for women. A married woman used to have status and position from which she could not be dislodged without scandal and major financial consequences for the man wanting to “trade up.” Today, either partner can just walk out at will. My daughters may not have the choice that I made available to them.
Clueless is 100% right. Throughout history the marriage contract was basically that the woman provided the man with a home and with children and in exchange the man supported the woman and the children. Even if the man dumped the woman, he was expected (in most cases legally required) to continue to support her given that she gave up or compromised her own ability to support herself by becoming a full time wife and mother.
Now a woman can spend 25 years raising children, get dumped, and never see another dime from her husband. The husband goes on to pick up wife #2, continues merrily along in the same social and professional circles (these things happen) and the wife suddenly finds herself working a minimum wage job and living in a one-bedroom walk up.
Fortunately I don’t have daughters so I don’t have to give them the incredibly cynical advice that they should never totally trust that their husbands will be there for them “until death do them part.” On the other hand, I DO tell my sons that the marriage vow is the most sacred and important promise they will ever make in their lives and the one they must never break.
And, if I may say so, to me the Christians who are concerned that gay marriage is going to undermine the institution of marriage but accept, for all intents and purposes, divorce, are swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat.
Kahterine,
To me marriage is a partnership. For many years now my wife and I have always sat down and talked over any major purchases. We both like to shop for groceries together. Unless there is something I really dislike, (only liver and hominy) I let her select the food and necessities – after all she does most of the cooking.
Let’s dispense here with the obvious: Gender feminists have nothing credible to say about the marriages of real men and women who neither have use for a Women Studies department nor seek its blessing.
Let us also stipulate that marriage is essential for the healthy raising of children and social stability. Marriage is a good thing. It is the intended context for mature and intimate love between a man and a women.
Unfortunately, for a host of cultural reasons of recent origin, there has been a substantial breakdown. Even more unfortunately, the account given by too many ordinary women is as deluded and self-serving as that of the Gender Feminists.
[i]Fortunately I don’t have daughters so I don’t have to give them the incredibly cynical advice that they should never totally trust that their husbands will be there for them “until death do them part.†On the other hand, I DO tell my sons that the marriage vow is the most sacred and important promise they will ever make in their lives and the one they must never break. [/i]
Another part of that vow, often avoided but absolutely essential, is “to have and to hold from this day forward.” If there was as much genuine commitment to that vow as the “until death do us part” part there might be a whole lot less “trading up.” As a matter of fact, I find that an offensive stereotype hardly ever deserved and in the service of a female self-serving denial.
At best 10% of married men fall into this narcissistic category — about the same percentage as women who bring equally pernicious moral and mental defect to a marriage. No, what’s more going on is not long-suffering women dealing with childish, selfish men but rather a breakdown in the basic commitment to honor and cherish, and mostly to have and to hold.
Too often men are reduced to drone bill-payers held in artery-clogging economic stress with emotionally unhappy women who were unfilled by exactly what they thought they wanted — marriage and family — and turn on their husbands as if it were their fault by turning off the sex-tap and other misbehaviors and abuse. If there were more ownership of the fact that sexual intimacy can not be played with and willy-nilly denied due to amorphous resentments there would be a whole lot less divorce.
I have yet to speak to a divorced man who did not describe complete sexual breakdown LONG before any action were taken to divorce of illicit unions occurred. [i]It is not an excuse, but it is an explanation. [/i] And for the sake of marriage itself, women who want to stay married in today’s culture need to avoid false refuge in the caddish man stereotype and look harder at their honoring of “to have and to hold.”
Well, there we have it folks. The modern view of marriage: If you don’t get enough sex at home, you’re justified in commiting adultery. Not only that you can dump your spouse, cancel your vows, and start over with somebody more promising. Interesting view for a Christian.
Catholic Mom:
What you describe as my view is not my view. It is, in fact, an another example the evasion of my point about the nature of the marriage vows taken in full. By the way, St. Paul actually has an opinion on this matter:
1 Corinthians 7: 5
I think we would all be better off if we took his understanding of marriage and basic human anthropology seriously.
Please reread what actually said. After you cool down.
Catholic Mom:
What you describe as my view is not my view. It is, in fact, another example of the evasion of my point about the nature of the marriage vows taken in full. By the way, St. Paul actually has an opinion on this matter:
1 Corinthians 7: 5
I think we would all be better off if we took his understanding of marriage and basic human anthropology seriously.
Please reread what I actually said. After you cool down.
Much of this feminist whackafrazz is from people who live in cities and suburbs and who have never had a rally vital role in working beside their husband for a common good. It’s this common good that counts, isn’t it. In the boondocks here in Maine, the older system still is operative in many rural households: there is so MUCh work to do that no one person can do it all, and the family common good is a case of hanging together or hanging separately. Notice that I place an emphasis on work, real work, not just working out the shopping list together. There is in the rural economy a measure of common sense, matched with necessity, that makes for healtheir marriages – not happier necessarily – healthier. To be sure, the suburban view of women – the kaffeeklatch and all that – and its feminist counterfoil, has made its way here too; but its still true that when there is real work to do, husband and wife work together, and the kids work too, for all the whining and groaning (and they get all the sex education they will ever need in the process). The ability to divorce is like abortion: Sometimes it is necessary, but it should be rare and its causes utterly compelling.
cheap divorce, like cheap abortion, is the abandonment of self-disclipline, and when this is abandoned, there is no possibility of real religion or real responsibility. Larry
Well, perhaps I couldn’t make sense of it, like I can’t parse the second sentence above. Please clarify.
Catholic Mom,
I am sorry for the typos which are corrected in #11.
Let’s begin here. I wrote:
[i]Let us also stipulate that marriage is essential for the healthy raising of children and social stability. Marriage is a good thing. It is the intended context for mature and intimate love between a man and a women.[/i]
I do NOT believe divorce is a good thing, but rather an awful thing, and that one should take the marriage vows as seriously as you say in your post. What I find, however, is that marriages breakdown on the other vows — especially “to love and to cherish” and “to have and to hold.”
It is easy to look at the man walking out the door. The “until death do us part” is visible and public. But that focus can be an avoidance of facing the female breakdown around “to love and to cherish” and “to have and to hold.” There is so much denial and self-justification around those two failures and the “cad” man stereotype can be a part of the avoidance of looking at what the women are up to or not up to with respect to [i]the entire package of the vows.[/i]
St. Paul sees this problem clearly. “It is better to marry than to burn” — which also means, you can’t leave your spouse “burning” and expect no trouble. Again, see 1 Corinthians 7:5. I truly believe that there has never been more foolishness around this basic counsel on what use to be called “the goods of marriage” because of feminist nonsense and silly romanticism about what marriage ought to “feel” like before intimacy is stable and consistently present.
For the sake of marriage, I think women who want healthy and sustained marriages must ask themselves — not just their husbands — have they been true to their vows? And by that, I mean [i]all [/i] of them and not just the ones that the neighbors see.
PS. I agree with Larry about the value of real work. It is related to what I am saying, because persecuting husbands over fanciful notions of romance is one of the great marriage killers in suburban contexts.
“You can’t leave your spouse ‘burning’ and expect no trouble”.
Unfortunately part of the problem is that many men (and women) have unrealistic expectations of their partners. I attribute this to the extensive use of premarital sex, as well as the various forms of pornography. A problem now is that many men come to marriage so heavily experienced in various exotic aspects of sex (however “virtual” this might be) that it ruins them for normal sex. Once you have been used to being aroused by (pick something) it is hard to be aroused by your naked wife, and erection failure is pretty common. The usual male explanation is that “my wife is cold” that’s why I can’t get it up. After a few weeks of such failure, “performance anxiety” is pretty common. Thus, such men continue to “burn” in marriage, and the sexual lives of both partners can be pretty dreadful.
I agree with the Catholic church which insists that folks contemplating marriage (who have previously been intimate) not sleep with each other for six months prior to marriage. This tends to resensitize both partners. Then their “burning” can be healed once their marriage has taken place. I also think that it would be helpful if pastors would take marriage counselling a little more seriously. Most pastors seem to relegate marriage counselling to a discussion of what hymns might be appropriate in the ceremony
Part of the problem is
Clueless,
You make many good points. I do think that premarital sex deadens folks. Yet this explanation too can be a dodge of what is actually happening or not happening sexually in any given marriage in terms of the core vows.
Erotic overload, burnout, and porn problems are much less common than simple routine sexual neglect and avoidance, usually for silly and self-indulgent reasons of punishment, manipulation, contempt, or petty resentment. This needs to be discussed more candidly as you suggest. Catholic Mom’s advice about pre-marital abstinence is certainly right thinking.
I might also add that I agree with the Catholic church who forbids masturbation (and disagree with Clinton nominee Dr. Elders who recommended that children be taught it).
Masturbation will not “make you blind” but it will make you less sensitive. It is tough for vaginal and pelvic muscles to compete with the human hand.
Another reason why the greatest freedom and pleasure lies in obedience.
The other part of the equation is that men and women are simply different. At the same time that we have trumpeted every other aspect of sex we have minimized this most obvious factor.
When my sister and I decided that we would simply commit to live together for the rest of our lives, and adopt children we discussed in detail what “marriage” meant.
As my sister put it: Marriage gives you three things:
1. A life’s companion.
2. Children
3. The security of a second income
4. Sex.
We decided that “three out of four ain’t bad”. Every woman I have ever discussed this with agrees with this, and orders the “marriage goods” as above. However every man I have ever discussed this with puts #4 first.
Thus a woman “witholding sex” sees this as a negotiating tactic. A man sees this as a betrayal.
It really would be helpful if pastors would explain all this before people got hitched. It used to be that mothers explained this sort of thing, but family breakdown is so great and the static about sex so loud that nobody dares explain basic truths anymore, lest they be laughed at as a simpleton, “trying to teach me about sex”.
And that’s why the vows cover [i]all[/i]the bases.
You can’t talk seriously or effectively about any given marriage gone awry without looking hard at each and every one of them.
#19 Agreed. All the vows are important. However the fact remains that the woman gives up long term goods (financial and otherwise) in a marriage, and this societal contract is broken with divorce. Much of the ills of society stems from the breach of this very fundamental contract, and the fear and distrust it therefore engenders in prospective participants.
Thus, it is in the best interest of society to penalize divorce. Frankly if I were a pastor I would deny communion to divorcees who remarry (as does the Catholic church). If I were a politician, I would deny the social benefits of marriage (tax benefits, health benefits, social security benefits) to remarriages also.
We get what we tolerate. We think it is more tolerable that wives and children be abandoned, than that husbands have to deal with insufficient sex. I think that’s wrong.
Alal this talk about sex reminds me once again why I favor an older rural environment, wherein sex and reproduction were integral to everything one did. Males want sex at anytime it is available; women restrict it, control access because it is necessary for them to do so. In the agrarian world, there is no mystery here. SEx is good, as Garrison K says, even better than sweet corn, which shows he knows something. But love is work, not getting it on, frequently or infrequently. Love is work, and working cooperatively is better than working alone. Having children and raising them is work, essential work, cooperative work, and mother nature in this matter is always right and never superseded. Larry
Sorry, I still find this a very very strange conversation for Christians to be having and I think it is exactly an example of how secularized supposedly “religious” thinking has become.
First of all, there has been so far in this discussion ZIP evidence that most divorces have anything whatsoever to do with “manipulative” “cold” withholding of sex by woman. Please bring one single piece of documented evidence (or even evidence pointing strongly in this direction) before making this totally unsupported anecdotal statement. In fact, we haven’t even heard a piece of evidence yet that sex problems between spouses are the primary motivation for divorce PERIOD — much less that these sex problems are the fault of the woman, much less that what deficiencies the woman may have are the result of “manipulation.” So this whole converstion has been diverted to discuss as fact the unsupported assertion of one poster. (“Blog topic for the day: People cling to guns and religion because they are bitter: Discuss the reasons this is so.”)
Secondly, what I really think we are talking about here is not sex, but ANGER. And I definitely agree that anger is undoubtedly a huge factor in divorce. And in justifying divorce.
Thirdly, we are (I’m assuming) talking about CHRISTIAN marriage. In Christian marriage you promise to remain faithful until death to your spouse NO MATTER what the spouse does. This is because 1) you have made a sacred vow to do so and 2) it always leaves room open for repentence and return. You may remember that marriage is compared in the Bible not only to the love between Christ and his Church, but between God and the covenanted people of Israel. The Church screws up, the people of Israel screw up, God does not dump them and found a new Church or a new people. He patiently waits for them to turn to him and accepts them back when they do. This occurs over and over in the OT. This is why the Catholic Church does not allow remarriage even when the person’s spouse has abandoned them and remarried under secular law. And yes, if the spouse is abusive, it is possible — even necessary — to separate from them. But you must leave open the possibility of a change of heart.
There is a column in New York Magazine (part of the New York Times Sunday paper) called “The Ethicist.” People write in with various ethical dilemmas and this guy writes answers, generally couched in an amusing style. About three years ago (I have remembered it ever since because I found the answer so mind-boggling) a woman wrote in that her husband had had surgery for prostate cancer (I think it was) and was not only suffering from erectile dysfunction, but had lost just about all libido in general. Therefore he was totally uninterested in any form of sexual contact with her. Consequently she had started a very discrete affair with an unmarried man at work. Her question was — “as long as my husband doesn’t find out (which would hurt him) and I’m not screwing up anybody else’s marriage, and the guy I’m having the affair with understands this is just a fun thing and I’m never going to leave my husband — is this ethical?” And the answer was….YES!!! Basically the answer said that it would be inhuman to condemn her to a life without sex (can’t be “burning” ya know) so of course she would HAVE to have some kind of sexual outlet, and as long as she wasn’t doing any harm to anybody else blah blah then that was fine. What I here hear is “well, that’s not an excuse for her adultery (which is NOT actually ethical) but it’s an explanation.”
Catholic Mom:
And now we find another essential vow: “In sickness and in health.” You see, they ALL matter. So does, “to love and to cherish” and “to have and to hold.” Men do not enter marriage to be mistreated in this way. You can call it anecdotal all you want. If it is true men are “trading up” as you say then it is true sex in marriage is a problem. You can’t have it both ways.
Clueless:
You again make many good points. Let’s unpack them:
[i]We think it is more tolerable that wives and children be abandoned, than that husbands have to deal with insufficient sex. I think that’s wrong. [/i]
Who could object to this statement as presented? Yet there is a false set of alternatives here. It does not have to be “insufficient sex” vs. “abandonment.†The woman [i]can[/i] keep her promises, promises central to the man’s consent to marry. This is about deception and, as you rightly point out, perceived betrayal. Sexual withholding as a chronic pattern [i]is abandonment. [/i]
We also need to unpack the martyr myth of the sacrificial mother. Single women in their late thirties and early forties are lined up a mile deep at therapist’s doors because they desperately want marriage and children. They want male presence, support, and commitment. Rightly so. Now what is it that they tell the man they will provide? Well, again and again the implication — later appearing in the vows – is sexual intimacy in a committed and reasonable way.
I’ve spoken with too many divorced men about this matter. They did their end of the bargain, and gradually, bit by bit, the sex became more withheld or difficult to negotiate. It just wasn’t, as clueless points out, high on the agenda of the woman anymore.
[i]If we truly care about sustaining Christian marriage,[/i] we need an honest look at this matter. In today’s culture, you simply cannot fail to keep your promises in those vows. It is a matter of fairness. It is a matter of honesty — what you promised and implied from dating on, and it is matter of loving and cherishing the man that you say you love.
Trivializing men and their needs within committed marriages is wrong. It is killing marriages, and woman need to own their part if they truly do care about their spouses and children. Catholic Mom, Christians don’t engage in “bait and switch.”
Other than “speaking with too many divorced men” (trying to justify their conduct?) you still present no actual evidence supporting your contention that one of the major causes of divorce is women “manipulatively” withholding sex.
However, assuming that to be true, why do the men who divorce and remarry assume they’re going to be able to avoid the exact same problem they got into with the first wife by swapping out for a second? Or are they prepared to just keep on going endlessly from wife to wife as each one successively gives out on the sex promise? I would say something is either seriously flawed in the very institution of marriage (and you might have thought Jesus would have noticed this before he prohibited divorce) or these men need to look more closely at themselves and at their marriages. As the saying goes, the secret to marriage is not finding the right person but of being the right person.
Speaking as an animal behaviorist, I can tell you that the “novelty” effect in male mating behavior is well known. A rat will mate with a female until he is too tired to continue, but when presented with a new female in estrus he will suddenly “come back to life” and resume mating. In many social species, males prefer to mate with females they know, but not know too well. At my sister’s wedding, the Monseigneur pointed out that for non-Christians, the concept of a man and a woman loving and remaining faithful for life is laughable because “everybody knows” that such a thing is impossible. But with God, all things are possible.
Look, I do not mean to be provocative here. I am assuming that we all need and want a serious discussion about marriage and the crisis of divorce. It appears we always run into a double standard in this discussion. It is always – -without a shred of evidence — accepted that the problem is with “the men” who just “can’t commit” or “grow up.” Women say this endlessly and it has been said/implied here in the posts of the women. Heaven forbid a man suggest the problem might be located in any female behavior! He will have to conduct a double-blind study.
Let’s get real. If we want results — namely stable marriages — the principal gripes of both sexes need address. Men will simply no longer accept that the woman is in charge of unilaterally defining the terms of marriage — namely, she can pick and choose what vows matter and she will accept and act accordingly. If the man revolts, well, he’s a pig. For marriage to work, it must be both agendas which are amply covered in the traditional vows.
I know that she is a controversial figure, but I’m really not saying anything more than Dr. Laura in “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands.” Her fundamental thesis is that there is a generation of woman who don’t have a clue how to stay married or treat men. If marriage doesn’t get a better rap soon, man to man, it’s only going to get worse.
The vows – -all of them — not just the one woman like most — matter.
“Men do not enter marriage to be mistreated in this way. You can call it anecdotal all you want. If it is true men are “trading up†as you say then it is true sex in marriage is a problem. You can’t have it both ways.”
Let’s unpack that one also. If men divorced before the children arrived, and before all the work of the marriage was done, then one could make a case that the divorce was about some failure on the part of the woman. But no. They usually divorce once marriage becomes costly. When there are children to raise, and when therefore the fun life of a batchelor or couple is threatened. Then it is that men walk out, leaving their wives to raise the children or to deal with the adolescent whose child support will run out just when college bills loom. The trading up is not (in my humble opinion) for better or more sex. It is in order to renege on the commitment to raise the children of the first marriage, not just to age 18, but through life. It is in order to renege on the commitment to a wife who is no longer young. The main reason for divorce is economic and the sin involved is theft, not simply adultery or coveting of a neighbor’s goods.
“The woman can keep her promises, promises central to the man’s consent to marry. This is about deception and, as you rightly point out, perceived betrayal. Sexual withholding as a chronic pattern is abandonment.”
Again, we come to a difference between men and women. Men can have sex even when they are angry, (and some men are more aroused when they are angry and therefore provoke themselves to anger prior to having sex). Thus, since men turn on quickly, and do not need to feel “in love” to do so, and since they can rape their wives in anger as easily as they can cherish their wives in love, they believe that women should be able to do so as well. Thus, the male perception that witholding of sex is abandonment or deception.
But it is not. Women are different. Sex when angry, fearful etc is painful not rewarding to women. It feels like rape. And therefore women do withhold when there are strains in a marriage. That this increases those strains is without a doubt. However again, one needs to look further into the marriage to determine why such withholding became present. The solution is not divorce (with all the blessings of Protestant pastors such as Albany!) The solution is that women “submit to their husbands (even in sex) as to Christ, and that men cherish their wives as Christ cherishes His church”. And how did Christ cherish His church? He died for her.
Please, how many times do I need to say that divorce is a disaster, socially and for children, not something I or any pastor I know “blesses.” And where on earth does this alleged male “angry sex” turn-on diatribe come from? I certainly do not have any such view and no man I know does either. Talk about out of left field.
This discussion has deteriorated to the point of “temporary separation.” As I do not support divorce, I will always be open to conversational reconciliation. I suspect, however, the personal investment in lopsided and even off-the-wall male indictment will make that unlikely at best.
One last time, we need to look at why marriages fail. It isn’t because men are pigs.
Nobody said that men can’t commit or grow up. What we have said is that divorce allows a man to finish up all his cake at one table and then move on to the next.
From a strictly biological perspective, what a woman gives a man is known as “confidence of paternity.” In other words, he can get sex anywhere, but he can’t know that the children of those women are his. By forming an exclusive bond with one female, he gets offspring that he knows are his. And he gets the female to raise the offspring. What she gets is a guarantee that she’ll be taken care of for the rest of her life. Even in a polygamous society, she gets this guarantee.
But by the time a woman is 45-50 she is no longer reproductively useful. In a polygamous society, she is set aside sexually, but still supported. In Western society, the man might or might not go out and get a mistress, but he would still support the wife. If he didn’t he would face stiff legal and social sanctions. What we have been saying here is that a complete change in law and social mores has created a situation where a man can now simply move on to a younger more desirable wife and pay….nothing. “Thanks for the last 25 years of your life (sucker)…your pay off is…nothing.” And the law of the U.S. and the social mores of modern Protestantism seem to feel this is acceptable.
Please note I am NOT saying that this is the pattern in all divorces, or even in most divorces! But if you’ll look at the actual original topic of this thread it was — “do women need to be breadwinners or at least to have the capability to be breadwinners in order to prevent themselves from being taken advantage of marriage.” THAT is what the topic is, not “what is the cause of modern divorce.” And THAT is what the women on this thread were commenting on. And the answer is: “Yes, given the situation today, women had better be sure they can take care of themselves because there is absolutely zip guarnatee that they won’t need to.”
The funny thing is – and it is funny in a way – that as Laura says, men are terribly easy to please and keep happy. I know that this is too broad a generalization, but it has a strong and persistent core of truth. Sufficient sex is like sufficient food, after all. We CAN all fast regularly, but most are unwilling because it is so unpleasant. Give a man sufficient sex and such “babying” as keeps him comfortable, serve a decent meal, keep the house clean and make him feel important – these aren’t hard to do. Men will change a diaper without grumbling or cook a meal or do the dishes when the rewards (by his standards) are high. In return, women will get their feet rubbed – which, I believe, correct me if I am wrong , is near the top of their ambitions for a comfortable happy life. Larry
Catholic Mom:
Men shouldn’t abandon women. Period. Not for the despicable reason you suggest or any other. I respect what you say here. It has not been my point to suggest otherwise.
“Please, how many times do I need to say that divorce is a disaster, socially and for children, not something I or any pastor I know “blesses.â€
Then why do protestant pastors give divorcees Christian marriages? Catholic pastors refuse to bless to somebody else a man or woman who has already been bound in Christian marriage to someone else.
If you marry those previously married and divorced then you are blessing divorce however you parse the matter.
The Catholic and Orthodox churches refuse to do so. Those who are divorced are expected to remain celibate. (That’s a good thing. It gives them more time and money to help raise their children). If Protestant pastors did the same, we would not have the epidemic of divorce, and absent fathers, and all the ills of children that we currently have
“Men shouldn’t abandon women. Period.”
So Albany+ do you marry divorcees?
I marry sinners. Never met one yet who wasn’t.
Not all divorce is abandonment. Adults know that.
No doubt all people who enter marriage are sinners, but all are not commiting clerical-sanctioned adultery.
So Albany+
Do you think there is no difference between a sinner who repents and who wishes to return to a faithful life and one who does not repent.
For example, since we are all sinners, do you also marry same gender couples? After all they too are sinners who persist in their sin, rather than repenting and ordering their lives in the fashion that Christ and Scripture calls them to. Why is Christian marriage after divorce okay and gay marriage not?
How do you verify that divorce that YOU personally are participating in blessing is not abandonment? The Catholic church interviews former spouses, and verifies that there are no children before considering whether or not an annulment can be granted. What do you do, Albany+ to ensure that the divorce you sanction with your blessing on the remarriage is not abandonment?
After all, +Gene himself pointed out that he wasn’t getting a sufficiently stimulating sexual experience in his previous marriage with a woman, and that is why he needed to have sex with his same gender partner (whom he later married).
If what is important is to keep men from “burning”, why is the Anglican communion in flames over such a minor question?
How much is an annulment these days in the RC Church?
I think you might exert your energies on your own tradition. It seems more than morally challenged enough around sex issues.
An annulment (I’m told) costs about 200 dollars. It is all but impossible to obtain if there have been children born to a marriage between a Catholic man and woman married in the Catholic church.
It can be obtained if the marriage was never consumated.
It is often given if the marriage was in a Protestant church but of a baptised Catholic. This is because a baptised Catholic would be engaging in sin by being married in a Protestant church, and therefore could not have a sacramental marriage.
However it is quite difficult to obtain, even if you are wealthy and priviledged (as as Henry VIII learned).
And yes, the RC church has had moral challenges on sex. It has also repented of these sins and does not bless them.
So Albany+ why is blessing marriage after divorce okay while blessing gay marriage not okay? Actually I always thought the former was worse than the latter, as usually there are no children involved in gay marriages, and as therefore one partner does not give up anything when they marry.
Let’s hear the theological explanation for why the latter is worse than the former.
I regret that I know your account of the limits on annulment to be untrue. Your present the public posture, the particulars often differ. Divorce and remarriage is in fact handled with great care in my Diocese. There is mercy and there is law. Even St. Paul recognized such cases and Matthew the ground of unchastity.
All the questionable cases of divorce in the entire Anglican Communion wouldn’t hold a candle to the damaged children in your own by Bishops who transfered sick priest from church to church and covered for them — some to this day. Some hiding in Rome to avoid scandal. Again, I suggest that you focus on your own tradition. We usually are best at dealing with our own messes.
What any of this has to do with our prior discussion is beyond me. I thought we were talking about how to avoid divorce.
78% of worldwide Catholic annulments are American…. 58,000 per year according to the “National Catholic Reporter”
Again, why only the “law” for gay marriage, but “mercy” as well as “law” for remarriage after divorce? What is the theology of this discrepancy?
But yes, we have gotten off topic. The topic, was described well by Catholic Mom in post 28:
“If you’ll look at the actual original topic of this thread it was – ‘do women need to be breadwinners or at least to have the capability to be breadwinners in order to prevent themselves from being taken advantage of marriage.” THAT is what the topic is, not “what is the cause of modern divorce.” And THAT is what the women on this thread were commenting on. And the answer is: “yes, given the situation today, women had better be sure they can take care of themselves because there is absolutely zip guarnatee that they won’t need to.”
And we can thank Protestant pastors for the fact that there is “zip guarantee”. The Protestant church sold women down the river in order to keep the higher income mate in their denominations. Why Protestants cavil at gay marriage is beyond me. Maybe gays aren’t rich enough to be worth pandering to.
The conversation has deteriorated badly. I apologize for my part. Let’s end this thing for everyone’s sake.
I think we all can find at least something in what the other has said worth pondering with cooler heads.
I too apologize for my part. However the points made remain. There is no theological distinction between Christian same sex marriage and Christian remarriage of an individual whom God has already bound eternally in Christian marriage. Both are shams.
Without the possibility of remarriage we would never have had the divorce epidemic.
Without the divorce epidemic, we would not have the abortion epidemic as women would not be tempted to kill their children in order to avoid penury. They would simply have relied on their mates as women had previously done for thousands of years.
Without the possibility of abortion and birthcontrol to prevent unwanted pregnancy in a now destabilized marriage, we would not have the promiscuity epidemic.
Without the promiscuity epidemic we would not have the HIV or STD epidemics.
And without the promiscuity epidemic we would not be talking about why Gay folk shouldn’t have their “burnings” healed by same sex weddings, and there would be no split in the Anglican communion, with all the loss of friendship, income, community and respect that this has brought to all concerned.
So there have been consequences to the failure of Protestant pastors to keep faith with the “widow” (by divorce) and the “orphan” (by abortion or abandonment).
Perhaps, as the Anglican Communion goes through this cleansing, these root problems will be addressed as well. Otherwise, the problem will simply resurface in another form.
People go to lawyers and judges to get legally divorced. Nothing you say here changes that fundamental fact. In secular society these things will continue and the Church will have to respond. The sheer number of RC annulments and their disproportionate presence in America suggests strongly that the RC Church has already made its accommodations to the culture. You are rather smug and in denial about that. We are all dealing with the same set of facts.
Energy is much better spent in shoring up marriages by promoting proper behavior by both spouses within them. You seek eternal control, which is a RC obsession that they almost can never live out on the ground.
I agree with your core analysis about the basic pattern. The problem is fornication. The cure for that is marriage. Then we have to teach folks how to stay that way. It takes more than a club and a threat. I truly do not want to be provocative in this statement, but honestly, Dr. Laura’s Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands will save more marriages than sanctimonious finger-wagging. The frustrated women can come up with their own book outlining what men ought to do.
Truly, you seem more concerned with coercion than love, accusation than healing marriages. Marriage reduced to a set of external threats is not the love God has in mind. It is not giving oneself up for the other. [i]Both[i/] doing so.
As a general observation and concession, I rather think this conversation would not be generating so many sparks if there wasn’t a good bit of truth we each would rather not deal with in the other’s argument — yes?
“You seek eternal control, which is a RC obsession that they almost can never live out on the ground.” A typo there — I meant “external control.” Maybe Freudian.
“The frustrated women can come up with their own book outlining what men ought to do.”
But men need not do anything, thanks to the fact that the Protestant church blesses Caesar’s granting of divorce.
Men can simply walk out after 25 years and pay nothing. For this reason, women protect themselves. Most with jobs, some with abortion and birth control.
Albany+ “Truly, you seem more concerned with coercion than love, accusation than healing marriages. Marriage reduced to a set of external threats is not the love God has in mind. It is not giving oneself up for the other. Both[i/] doing so. ”
Healing marriages begins by preventing one side from making differences irreconcilable. That is what divorce does. That is what pastors are supposed to prevent.
“You seek external control, an RC obsession”.
The absense of an external authority has certainly worked well for the Anglican Communion hasn’t it? Perhaps you could write a book for +Duncan on the “Proper Care and Feeding of Presiding Bishops” Then the breach in the Anglican Communion would be healed.
After all the theology behind Gay marriage is no different than that behind remarriage after divorce. So presumably a little love and charity and Duncan “giving himself (and his diocese) up for another) would make everything hunky dory.
It is a pity that priests spend so much time talking about Freud, and so little time talking about Genesis. The world would be a happier place if they left Freud out of Christian marriage.
You really are impossible. Do woman seek divorce, or only men? Do they “trade up” — financially? Where do you think those “trophy wives” come from. Do woman ever walk from marriage because they are just “unfulfilled” or some other vague feeling? Do they “innocently” develop little daytime internet “friendships” with “understanding” “sensitive” men. You really don’t like men very much, think they exist only to fulfill women’s desires and agendas for them, and it shows. You are the kind of woman that thinks only female regulation and control turns men into what “they are meant to be.” I’m sure your reading of Genesis is that the man is the “helpmate” and the woman lord. You really give that impression, anyway.
You also continue to dodge the number of annulments granted by the RC Church — especially the disproportionate number in America. Coincidence? I don’t think so. It’s loophole theology and it’s catering to the present culture.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Talk about letting all those repressed emotions out!
Let us go back and review one more time the topic of this thread. It is not “relative contributions of men and women to divorce in the 21st century” it is “money, power, and marriage.” Do women need money to keep from being screwed (pardon my French) in marriage? The simple, answer, statistically, is yes. The following is from a recent study of the subject (which I don’t believe is saying anything new.)
Protestant ministers who marry divorced people (still have not heard one single theological or scriptural justification for this — even the proponents of gay marriage can put forth a better effort) do much to perpetuate this.
As for the 58,000 Catholic annullments, that is indeed a tragedy. And it may even be, in some cases, an injustice. But considering that there are close to 77 million Catholics in the U.S. I would say it represents a tiny trickle in the bucket compared to the Protestant divorce rate.
So, yes, if you live in a society in which divorce is acceptable both in the culture and in mainstream religion, and you are a woman, you need to think long and hard about giving up your earning potential when you get married. If you marry a Catholic, your marriage may still not last, but at least you won’t see your spouse kneeling before a priest receiving a solemn blessing of his/her new “marriage.”
By all means let’s stay on topic. Is the original topic “How Protestant Ministers Contribute To Divorce”? If so, I missed that. Or is it, “The State of Authority In The Anglican Communion”? If so, I missed that also. Or maybe it is, “How ‘Gay Marriage’ And Divorce Intertwine”? Missed that one too. Or maybe, “+Gene Robinson, Unfilled Desires, And The Divorce Problem” Guess I missed that on too. Of finally, maybe it is “Gay Burning Passions And The Theological Justification For Divorce In The Dreaded Anglican Communion”? Nope.
Well, guess there’s plenty of emotion to go round.
I guess when Clueless chimed in at only #4 post, she was “on topic” and offering no gratuitous bagage:
[i]”Because divorce is now acceptable, and no longer means that folks are excommunicated at church and shunned as cads at work and in the neighborhood, women need to have an income in order to be able to care for themselves and their children if a man decides to be “true to himself†like Gene as well as a large number of other TEC bishops.” [/i]
Or maybe, you, when you chimed in were offering nothing inflammatory in describing both men when you said :
[i]”Now a woman can spend 25 years raising children, get dumped, and never see another dime from her husband. The husband goes on to pick up wife #2, continues merrily along in the same social and professional circles (these things happen) and the wife suddenly finds herself working a minimum wage job and living in a one-bedroom walk up.”[/i]
I defy you to find a State in the Union that has such liberal divorce laws on the books. I realize there’s a justice problem here, but let’s not make things up.
Right, I am way off track in suggesting that if the topic is protecting women they might actually want to look at how they and their husband’s interact? That was resisted because the real function of the thread was to take shots at men and someone called you on it. Then, you turned on the poster and wanted to attack “protestants” and completely change the subject. That’s what actually happened.
The emotion, I’m afraid, is all on the other side.
In so far as it discussed the need for women to have money to protect themselves in cases of divorce, it was on topic.
In so far as it discussed the need for women to have money to protect themselves in cases of divorce, it was on topic.
The only ad hominem remarks on the whole thread. And fairly nasty ones.
“You really don’t like men very much, think they exist only to fulfill women’s desires and agendas for them, and it shows. You are the kind of woman that thinks only female regulation and control turns men into what “they are meant to be.†I’m sure your reading of Genesis is that the man is the “helpmate†and the woman lord. You really give that impression, anyway”
My my. Such passion. Actually I am quite fond of men. They are collegues, buddies, brothers and earlier a father. However, as it happens I am divorced (while an Anglican) and since I crossed the Tiber I am not permitted to remarry. However, I have long come to terms with that. I wish my former husband well. He was a good friend for 10 years before we married, and our marriage lasted 3 months and did not produce children. I regret ruining an outstanding friendship with a marriage, and I am grateful that he has happily remarried and now has children also. I too have been fortunate. I live with my twin sister, and we have two adopted children, one who is now 18 and in college, the other who is 11 and in 5th grade. My life is full, and if it lacks sex, I find that a hot shower and vigorous exercise sufficeth. I think I’m lucky. I am in what amounts to a “nunnery of 2” and I have a job that pleases me and children as well as neighbors, friends and a medical and church community.
As to Genesis, I see men and women as like the proton and neutron of the atom. They are like in mass. All the charge of the atomic nucleus rests on the proton. It does all the work. Take the proton away and the atom is sterile can bind to nothing, and therefore does no useful “work”. The neutron has no charge. But take the neutron away, and the atom explodes. The two are complimentary. Without one there would be no useful work or generativity. Without the other, there would be no atom or world.
So with man and wife. The work used in Genesis for man’s “work” in the Garden is “abad” (if I recall my very limited Hebrew aright, alas I gave away my theological library some time ago). This does not mean harsh labor (as the Hebrews did for the Egyptians, nor does it mean slavery. It is used only in work done for divinity.
The word used for the woman as “helper” is (sp) eser. It does not mean flunky or gopher or apprentice. Elsewhere it is used to refer to the Holy Spirit. The helper.
So to be “lord” or “helpmeet” means a little more than simply fulfilling each others agendas. The point is to fulfill God’s agenda, and this can only be done together. Therefore it is a dreadful thing to divorce. (Mea culpa).
Thus, I agree with St. Paul. Wives should submit to their husbands as to Christ. And Husbands should cherish their wives as Christ cherishes His church. And how did Christ cherish His church? He died for Her.
I actually think I am the luckiest woman to walk the earth since Eve. I have spent the last 23 years of my life with my idential twin sister, 15 of them with children, and I hope to spend the next 23 years doing likewise.
I must be the only woman since Adam who can truthfully say as I look at my genetically identical twin and the mother of my children, “Here is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesth”.
We are one soul, split in half and reunited. As man and wife were meant to be. Bound together for eternity. What God has joined, let no man separate.
[i]The word used for the woman as “helper†is (sp) eser. It does not mean flunky or gopher or apprentice. Elsewhere it is used to refer to the Holy Spirit. The helper.
So to be “lord†or “helpmeet†means a little more than simply fulfilling each others agendas. The point is to fulfill God’s agenda, and this can only be done together. Therefore it is a dreadful thing to divorce. (Mea culpa).[/i]
I heartily agree and thank you for your otherwise gracious post. My apology.
Catholic Mom:
I find it unfair in the extreme to characterize my response after over 40 post deriding Anglicanism or some other generic “Protestantism” to focus on my reaction to all that provocation. In fact, we were only at post #4 before potshots began at TEC. Once I joined in to try to balance the “tone” on men, then those TEC attacks became personalized ( thinly veiled at best [i]ad hominem[/i]).
None of that TEC stuff had anything to do with the original topic. It only escalated because you were otherwise unhappy with any interjection that the marriage vows might actually have something to say about female misbehavior, and not men’s only.
In any case, if the discussion were at all logically directed it would be about how to prevent and not simply “protect.” If fact, “protective” behaviors by both parties interject a cynicism from the very start that is erosive. We move to “contract”, not “covenant.”
We want marriage, don’t we? The real reason they are falling apart is as much internal as external. We go nowhere productive until all parties own their internal bit. I really believe that we have at least two generations of woman and men who don’t have a clue how to treat one another and sustain mutual marriage.
We go on until Kendall quite rightly shuts this down. I’d be happy to end it myself. There’s plenty to ponder here once the dust settles.
I apologize for not proofing my posts better. I did not mean there were “40” negative posts on TEC, but only that 40 elapsed before things got truly touchy on my end.
I will agree that we now have at least two generations of women and men who don’t have a clue how to treat one another and sustain mutual marriage.
I thought the purpose of this blog was to talk about religion — potshots and all. Didn’t realize it was taken as personal provocation on the basis of which someone could respond “you obviously hate men and it shows.”
I believe I said almost the exact same thing in my first post.
Well, as I always tell my kids, if you can’t control your own behavior you better hope somebody else does.
It’s true that this thread has veered from point to point — most of the threads here do. Sometimes they go on for a hundred points with people making strong arguements. If you have arguments to make — make them. Defend your position vigorously. But why get nasty?
Your sense of the “nastiness” is quite one-sided and rather shows the problem with the thread in my view. In any case, it has begun chasing its own tail at this point. I’m done. Apologies to all.
To Catholic Mom:
To be fair, I must confess that I was baiting poor +Albany. I was just doing so in a relatively subtle fashion that he did not know how to counter, and it was driving him bonkers. My apologies Albany+.
But I note that there has in fact been no theological rebuttal to the matter at hand. Why is remarriage after divorce different from same sex marriage in God’s eyes?
Should the Protestant church return to her roots in forbidding divorce, given the obvious and negative effect on both culture, children, and people and given the fact that the Protestant acceptance of divorce has spawned so many ills?
I think if a church is going to split a second time since Henry VIII, it ought to come up with a theology that might work a little longer than 500 years.