Can Male Attractiveness and Good Husbandry Coexist?

black father and son

Does this guy automatically stop being attractive to his wife because he proves reliable and safe during their marriage? (Image/Breaking Brown)

When I was a kid, I liked big two-story houses with full basements better than other home designs.

Three stories of living space seemed better than just one. Having a basement seemed better than not having one.

Thirty years later, I’ve spent several thousands of dollars on waterproofing a basement, and walking up and down two flights of stairs to take laundry to and from my laundry room to the second-floor bedrooms. And I’ve also spent time in coastal Florida, witnessing the many benefits of one-story, ranch-style living.

Now I’m less certain which style of home I prefer.

I’ve long known that, with virtually every choice we make, we are sacrificing something to acquire another thing. There’s always a tradeoff.

But I didn’t always know how little true objectivity existed in the world. Even the most intelligent and skilled among us committed to the idea of measuring things objectively can’t really do it.

The closest we can come is to say that A is better than B when judged or measured by (insert metric of choice here). But that baseline metric? Even THAT was created by the subjective judgment of people along the way.

It can be a little headache-inducing if you travel too far down the rabbit hole, but I think this phenomenal (subjective!) answer on Quora does an amazing job of breaking it down.

What’s better?

Chocolate or vanilla?

Country or rap music?

Biggie or Pac?

Butter or margarine?

Winter or summer?

The color green or the color purple?

Some people like pulp in their orange juice while others do not. Some people like eating escargot while others do not. Some people like to be defecated on during sex. Neat. Sounds not-awesome to me. I can only assume most people prefer not being, um, dumped on.

In life and love, many things are subjective. Attractiveness—sexual or otherwise—is subjective.

We forget constantly that our personal experiences and worldviews are not Absolute Truth for everyone else, because to us, we have to use our imaginations (which are totally unreliable tools for predicting things) to try to put ourselves in the circumstances and mindset of others.

On the whole, humans are pretty shitty at doing that as demonstrated by the politics-related unrest happening today, and also by all 794 kajillion instances of human arguments/fights/wars/breakups/abuses/crimes/attacks that happened in the past five seconds.

All of that to say: Attraction is a subjective metric.

But despite its subjectivity, there’s evidence that some physical, behavioral and status-related traits in men are commonly considered more attractive to women than others.

A discussion took place yesterday in the comments of my last post and got me thinking about what I perceive to make a man more attractive to women in general, acknowledging there’s no accounting for individual tastes.

The Optimized Man

“I disagree with the premise that women go seeking other women because men don’t provide the things we need. The more sensitive, the more feminine a man becomes the less attractive he is,” insanitybytes said.

Human conversation, especially typewritten, can be funny. A single sentence can be interpreted several ways by different people.

I spend A LOT of time on this blog talking about how I believe men have to make MAJOR strides toward understanding why their wives are unhappy in their marriages, and then altering their behavior accordingly, if marriage is to ever return to a place where every wedding guest doesn’t secretly wonder: Are they going to be among the half who don’t make it?

Here’s something I’ve never felt, thought or said.

I’ve NEVER said that men should be more feminine. (Which—let’s be honest—is also a subjective qualification.)

From a personality standpoint, one might say that men and women should try their best to be most like whatever they were at the height of their mutual attraction.

I do not want men to change who they are. Every human has an equal amount of inherent value. I don’t have a lot of love for murderers, rapists, terrorists, hate groups, child molesters, etc., but—ideally—everyone who doesn’t present a clear and present danger to others would be recognized for their inherent value, and not put on a pedestal nor rejected based on each of our arbitrary standards.

But whatever. We’re all just a bunch of people with our own set of arbitrary standards, and when you line them all up next to each other, you can find patterns.

As a digital marketing professional, I know from very large data samples that certain people will behave on the internet in certain ways—whether that be responding to an email subject line, or clicking a link, or ordering a product.

As a random dude writing about relationship stuff, I THINK I know from personal and anecdotal evidence that most women commonly find certain male traits or behaviors attractive.

The Physically Attractive Man

  • is tall
  • has a symmetrical face
  • has a body-fat percentage around 12% (meaning you can be lean or stocky or somewhere in the middle, so long as your muscle-to-body fat ratio isn’t too far off whatever your 12% looks like)
  • wears clothes that fit (also a status cue)
  • has a deep voice

The Behaviorally Attractive Man

  • passionately pursues his personal goals
  • has a healthy and active social life where people are drawn to him
  • demonstrates confidence in the majority of life situations
  • showcases follow-through; his actions match his words
  • possesses leadership qualities
  • pursues physical health and fitness
  • has a sense of humor

The Status-Based Attractive Man

  • has the financial resources to acquire or experience the things people value, OR demonstrates the intellectual capacity to achieve it in the future
  • has a high-status position among friends, or at work, or in whatever groups or organizations he’s involved with

I’m sure I’m forgetting several. But really, it’s a silly exercise.

A sensitive, reliable, eager-beaver husband type may bore the hell out of many young, single women, but seem like a breath of fresh air to someone suffering at the hands of an aggressive and abusive dickhead.

But I don’t think we should confuse reliable, loyal or sensitive traits as feminine any more than we then we should consider promiscuity and betrayal as masculine ones.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In all things.

And I believe that many traits we generically and thoughtlessly label “masculine” are considered attractive by the general female population.

I think men (if appealing to women is a value they possess) should aspire to demonstrate as many of these attractive “masculine” traits as possible, and develop healthy self-acceptance and confidence surrounding any that his genetics prevent him from having.

But there’s a second component to all this, and I think it’s important.

Marriage.

The Attractive Married Man

I can only conclude that a married woman is attracted to the man she chooses to marry. However her personal ranking and value system works that out.

Our conversations about marriage here are not about people who marry for what I consider atypical reasons (money or young trophy wives or citizenship or cultural arrangements).

Our conversations here are about MOST people. The 80-90 percent who get married with the intention of having a committed partnership and/or family that lasts their lifetime.

How does THAT guy remain attractive to his wife in the face of her natural biological urges and the unfortunate realities of hedonic adaptation?

I think the baseline characteristics listed above should be pursued and maintained for life. Those things = attractiveness.

But a person can possess all of those things and become unattractive to someone if they represent any kind of threat to them, their children, or general wellbeing. It happens when a person brings harm to another.

People we consider beautiful literally STOP being attractive to us for many reasons, but I think Making Us Feel Shitty is probably No. 1 on that list.

And mislabeling behaviors like:

  • Listening to our spouse
  • Empathy for their pain
  • Respect for their thoughts and opinions
  • Helping with housework and parenting tasks even if our fathers and grandfathers didn’t
  • Occasionally choosing to invest time in our spouse’s interests over our own for the sake of togetherness…

Well. I guess I believe it perpetuates the Man Card problem that got us here in the first place.

A man should be strong. In all the ways.

A man should pursue “success.” However he defines it.

A man should be confident.

A man should lead.

A man should pursue good health.

A man SHOULD be “manly” in whatever ways his genetic makeup allows.

I have never, and will never, say that men should be more feminine in an effort to make their wives happy or succeed in their marriages. And I never will.

But most men simply do not know about the things they do thoughtlessly that cause significant emotional damage to their wives.

We can argue all day about whether women SHOULD be hurt by whatever those actions might be, and whether women should be equally responsible for adjusting their reactions to particular behaviors.

But the reality is that common male behaviors HURT wives.

Hurt wives become unattracted to their husbands. Unattracted wives’ behavior makes husbands unattracted to their wives.

And that’s when all the marriage-breaking shit happens. While everyone is all emotionally beat up and messy and volatile and imbalanced and without the support of the person they’ve long relied on and felt closest to.

Dudes acting “girly” won’t fix it. If this blog conveys emasculating men, then I’ve done a shitty job of writing it, or people have done a shitty job of interpreting it.

Perhaps a bit of both.

Men are men. Women are women. They often like one another and exchange I-Promise-To-Love-You-Forever Vows and make children together.

And so long as this human song and dance continues to happen, I think it’s in the world’s best interest that we make it as successful as possible.

A bunch of “Nancy-boy sissies” won’t help anything.

But a bunch of attractive men learning how to meet the emotional needs of their wives and avoiding the relationship spiral which results when men do not?

Like the people we’re attracted to, and the stuff that makes us attractive to them, I think that’s a world worth pursuing.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

68 thoughts on “Can Male Attractiveness and Good Husbandry Coexist?

  1. azureesoleil says:

    Reblogged this on BLUE SUN and commented:
    SNOW – Can Male Attractiveness and Good Husbandry Coexist? As always Must be This Tall to Ride makes multiple salient points in his post.
    This line summed it all up for me: “A sensitive, reliable, eager-beaver husband type may bore the hell out of many young, single women, but seem like breath of fresh air to someone suffering at the hands of an aggressive and abusive dickhead.”
    This line stood out to me because, truly, our perceptions of masculine and female roles and attractiveness of any would be or current partners are indeed arbitrary and relative to where we are in our journey and even more so on how the other person’s inherent personality traits (whatever they are) support what we believe they should support in us.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Matt, sorry if I somehow implied you were trying to make men more sensitive,more “feminized.” I realize there was great depth to your last post, but on the surface it read as if to say, “be more sensitive to your wife’s needs or she’ll find a woman who will.”

    Maybe you can help me to understand something? Why does a woman like Gannon hold so much public appeal? Why do we go looking for our marital advice from those who’s relationships are struggling so bad they don’t even know what sexual orientation they are anymore? It’s not just her, there are others too, “Eat, Pray Love” comes to mind.

    The theme is always, “the bible is wrong, submission doesn’t work, my marriage is a failure, Christ wants me to be happy, now I’m a lesbian.” Seriously Matt, it’s a script I watch play out over and over again.

    You know who we never listen too? People who have been doing marriage well for decades. People like me become the one whose “ideas don’t work for everybody,” who “just doesn’t get it,” who must be wrong.

    I’m seriously considering writing a novel that goes like this, “my husband is an insensitive jerk, I hate men, than I became a lesbian and now I live my life obsessing over my own brokenness.” It would be a total work of fiction, but it seems as if that is the only story line anyone ever wants to hear. She’s so brave! She’s so vulnerable! She’s so honest!

    Liked by 2 people

  3. “But the reality is that common male behaviors HURT wives.” This really struck home today. Yes, during 21 years of marriage it hurt when I didn’t feel like he respected me and that he took me for granted and that I felt like he didn’t listen to me at times. But, I had long ago reconciled the fact that that’s the way things were…I could actually live and accept these behaviors.

    What I couldn’t live with and what finally made me file for the divorce was the lying and betrayals throughout the marriage. He informed me today that just because he didn’t tell me certain things didn’t necessarily mean he was lying. Am I wrong for thinking lying by omission is still lying??

    My STBEH wanted to give me fair warning that perhaps I needed to lower my expectations of any future man I choose to have a relationship with because according to him, “All men lie to women. It’s what we do.” Someone please tell me this is not true.

    Like

    • Jeff Strand says:

      “Am I wrong for thinking lying by omission is still lying??”

      Quite possibly, yes. You don’t need to know all his business and he doesn’t need to know all yours.

      For me to agree with you, he would have to have withheld something from you that was absolutely your right to know, and that concerned a grave matter. (For example, he had an STI and didn’t tell you). So only you can answer that.

      Like

      • Maddy476 says:

        Oh my gosh Jeff, I agree. Did he omit that he stopped for a drink with his female coworker on the way home or did he hide the fact that he was taken to court and sued by a major bank and lost $60K. When I finally snapped and ended it, I bought him out of the house (because I was the breadwinner) and found out there was a lien on my house that I didn’t even know about.

        I’d say that’s a fatal error in a relationship. But that’s just me.

        Like

      • I am not so petty and controlling that I expected to know “all of his business” as you say. BIG business…yes.

        He told me October of last year he wanted a divorce. I had noticed about a month prior he had become friends on Facebook with an old girlfriend…the exact same old girlfriend that he had become involved with and announced that he wanted a divorce when I was pregnant with our son 19 years ago. Why he thought this was ok & that I wouldn’t notice is beyond me, but I never said a word about it until he brought up divorce. I asked him if she was the reason, he said no. Next day she blocked me on Facebook. I probably shouldn’t assume that he told her about our conversation the night before, but given the history, I’m pretty sure I’m spot on. For the next couple of months we keep going back & forth on divorcing or just separating. Fast forward to this past August. We are separated but trying to reconcile, and I really thought we were finally working through our problems. Long story cut very short, I find out that my husband & his ex-girlfriend were seen partying together in March. When confronted, he admits it, but tells me that he didn’t tell me then because we were getting along.

        As far as I’m concerned he did withhold something from me that was absolutely my right to know. Funny thing is, when I asked him if the roles were reversed & I had done him this way…guess what? He would have been long gone.

        Like

        • Matt says:

          While I suppose you kind of invited the feedback with the question, I’m sorry if you felt as if you had to explain yourself to anyone or justify anything. I feel that way sometimes when complete strangers think they know me because of one paragraph in one post and no context.

          I’m sorry you went through that. I’ve seen and heard about things exactly like that. And it must have felt terrible. When you’re guessing horrible things which turn out to be true without so much as the courtesy of the other person taking ownership of their choices.

          This stuff is hard. On everyone. And your kids, no matter how old they are. I’m glad you’re here sharing. But I’m also super-sorry you’re here because of how messy it all is.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Thanks, Matt. I certainly did invite the feedback with my question. I guess I should have clarified that what he was lying about by not disclosing were pretty big deals. It’s ok.

            Thank you for being so welcoming & understanding. I realize that I probably divulge too much information regarding what I’m going through…I’ll try to work on that. Nobody wants to read the details of my messed up life. I’m not sorry for finding this place though…It’s actually been a place of refuge, if that makes any sense whatsoever.

            Like

            • Matt says:

              You please share as much or little as you want. No rules. But we’ve had incidents in the past of people being driven away but what I perceive to be less-than-kind feedback.

              I’d like to avoid that happening again. We lost good people.

              Thank you for sharing here.

              Liked by 2 people

            • linds01 says:

              Starting over,
              “the place of refuge” makes a lot of sense..you aren’t alone in that :).
              Don’t worry about divulging too much.- I do that, too. I honestly think that is just something we tell ourselves because we are afraid of what other people think.

              I think here is a really good place to NOT worry about that.

              I think most of us need to be heard in some sense, so we come here to rattle off whatever is in our heads and hearts. …and there are other heads and hearts that are a little different than our own, sometimes…

              Over all, I think that’s a good thing. Matt has said that he started writing here for therapy…he is much better at that, than myself, for sure- but I think that is what it is for most of us.

              Anyway. I have enjoyed reading your comments and am glad you are here ..messed up life and all! Soo many times life doesn’t turn out to be what we thought it would be…but, there is still good in what it is. We just have to look for that, and hold on to that.

              Liked by 2 people

  4. Donkey says:

    I think for nature and nurture reasons, women can often be attracted to the tall and confident guy etc. But when the reality of sharing your life and heart and body and home and responsibilites and children with someone day after day, year after year, really sinks in? It matters more whether or not the man does his part to make her feel:

    Respected, loved, cared for or whatever it is she deeply needs for her wellbeing, to feel that she is valued. The height and abs and swagger begin to matter a lot less. But maybe the one who would have been a good match in the long run was initially less appealing sexually? I saw a movie once, and the loving step mom advied her step daughter to choose with the *thoughts* of her heart. That makes sense to me. :)

    As for the appeal of Glennon that Insanitybytes22 asked about (I have read some of her blog, none of her books)… I think she speaks to the deep inner pain many feel by not having been in contact with their inner self, or having betrayed their inner self to please others, with immense emotional and often physical pain as a result. That she is so honest about her deep pain (of which many people feel ashamed), and her desicion to never betray herself again, feels courageous and inspiring to many.

    But her’s isn’t the only story. I love hearing/reading about people who manage to work things out with their spouse. I personally was saddened to read about both Liz Gilbert and Glennon Doyle Melton’s divorce.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Donkey says:

      I’d think the same would be true for many men. They’d happily have their wife gain a few pounds or whatever, if it would mean she’d stop the behvaiour that makes him feel most disrespected, unloved, not valued etc. I don’t have any datas, so can’t say anything for sure.

      Like

      • zombiedrew2 says:

        Yeah, I think that’s accurate. When my second son was born my wife gained some weight and it really got to her. Honestly, I didn’t notice the weight at all – I didn’t care about it. She would look back on pictures of herself from then and talk about how “fat” she was.

        Personally, I hate the word fat. To me it refers to an extreme of weight, and although she was heavier then than she had been, she never seemed fat to me. But the weight never mattered at all. Truly, I didn’t see it.

        The past few years when everything went bad, she started working out seriously and got into really good shape. Guess what – she may have been more “physically attractive” then in the past. But as her demeanor changed, and became more negative and nasty I definitely found her less attractive and less beautiful.

        When I think of beauty, the physical side is only a part of it. How someone acts, and how they treat others has a HUGE impact on beauty for me.

        Liked by 4 people

        • Matt says:

          Seconded, sir.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Donkey says:

          Thanks for the feedback Drew and Matt. Based on what you both say and what I have heard a couple of other guys say, it seems like this is something that crosses gender lines (although I’m sure there can be exceptions): how beautiful/attractive someone seems to us depends a whole lot upon how we feel about their behaviour.

          I had this discussion with a female friend about female friends too. If we meet someone and get to know them better and we hit it off with them, they just start to look prettier to us.

          Not too mention the way people feel about their pets and whether or not they have the cutest and prettiest pooch in the world.

          Liked by 3 people

    • Maddy476 says:

      First two paragraphs were said perfectly. Thank you.

      Like

  5. Jeff Strand says:

    IB: “You know who we never listen too? People who have been doing marriage well for decades. People like me become the one whose “ideas don’t work for everybody,” who “just doesn’t get it,” who must be wrong.”

    I guess I’m in that boat too. As a matter of fact, my wife and I laugh every time we hear someone say “marriage is hard work”. Because for us it’s been so much fun and such a joy and a wonderful journey – after 15 years we both feel like we’re still on our honeymoon. I don’t say that to brag, I just mean you have to appreciate the irony when I’m lectured on how the way I view marriage is so wrong. If it’s so wrong, why does it work so well? While meantime, the feminists who got married obsessing about “equality” end up miserable and make their husbands miserable? And usually divorced?

    (To be fair, it’s certain commenters I’m referring to – not Matt himself. He himself has said that he appreciates that my marriage works so well for me and my wife, and he says he’s happy for us…and I believe he’s sincere. But the thing is, he then goes on to say that it’s “not normal” and that it would be “dangerous” for other people to use my marriage as a model! Why?)

    On the topic of this blog post, I think women are hard wired to be attracted to masculinity. I know I certainly am attracted to feminine women. It’s that yin and yang. It’s my belief that men need to work on this, because I think only about 10% get it right. And I would include myself in that ten percent..again, not to brag, it’s just that I have the experience here and it comes second nature to me at this point. It’s all about having balls, standing up for what you believe in and stand for without apology…but (and this key) without being an a$$hole.

    I would say that about 70% of the men today are so feminized by our culture to be “nice guys”, that they fail this test by coming across as little metrosexual wusses. Too afraid to go after what they want (like a particular woman) without apology. Total turnoff to women. Another 20% of men see this, and determined not to fall into this trap, go too far the other way and act like a raging, aggressive, a$$hole. Again, big turnoff. Only about ten percent of guys know how to walk that fine line and find that happy medium. Be firm and stand up and be masculine, but don’t be a dick about it…and know when to show your woman that caring side of yourself too.

    Trust me, this is like catnip to women. Not only is my wifey very happy and satisfied, but back in my single days when I had already learned to model this behavior, I LITERALLY had women fighting over me. Like literally threatening each other to back off because I was “hers”. This is the power of projecting towards women the behavior and attitudes they ACTUALLY REACT TO, instead of paying attention to what they CLAIM they want in a man. Because that will lead you astray every time.

    Dating couch Evan Marc Katz puts it this way, “What a woman wants IS a nice guy…but a nice guy with balls, not a nice guy who’s a pushover.”

    Learning to model that balance, coming across as an alpha male but showing just the right amount of beta to your woman to build levels of intimacy, well….let’s just say you men will be shocked with your level of success with the fairer sex.

    Liked by 2 people

    • jeff: Whereas there is much unintended-yet-comes-across-as-nothing-but-intended bragging… You fail to explain exactly what steps you and your “wifey” take to maintain this utopia in your cookie cutter perspective.
      There is much in the way of dominance display, but, personally I like the more sensitive male.
      Great that you are “in that boat” but unless you have some insightful and perhaps helpful critique meaning not just saying “well my life with my wife is awesome” then please stop simply stating so-and-so has an obvious issue of “insert here” because you and your spouse don’t.
      Whereas I am truly happy for you it does not benefit anyone else one iota in their search for marital / life rejuvenation.

      Liked by 1 person

    • chubaoyolu says:

      Jeff. This is brilliant. I totally agree. Thanks for your contribution.

      Like

  6. Maddy476 says:

    Jeffy, how many times are we going to have to listen to you brag about your wonderful married life. Seriously !!! Dude – you have no idea how you come across and if you do, you just don’t care. Also, those of us on here are into self-examination and self-awareness as we struggle to find the answer to broken, dysfunctional relationships. Why are you on this blog commenting all the time when clearly you have a life of perfection and you marriage is amazing, so why are you here? You seem to have a lot of time to dedicate to this blog. Although I can see why – Matt is a great writer and raises a lot of thought provoking questions.
    Do you not have any friends or hobbies other than belittling other people who do not follow your concept of marriage. Keep preaching. I am sure we will get it at some point.
    Jeff, you are wonderful, so strong, so brave, so attractive, so smart, so great in bed, so sensitive, a financial genius. You are are just the best man on earth. How can I clone you? Oh ya….I know….I am terrible marriage material. Why would any man want me because I am not submissive. Maybe because I have a brain and I play sports and I am extremely feminine. Just not enough. LOL.

    Like

    • Jeff Strand says:

      Maddy,

      There are none so blind as they who will not see.

      I’m here because I find the topics Matt covers interesting, esp as they will relate to my kids when they are old enough to be in the dating and marriage marketplace. As far as myself, l never said I was perfect – who is? But I’m not gonna lie and say there are problems in my marriage that don’t exist, just to make you feel better about yourself. Sorry, but I have a great marriage. That’s not bragging, it’s just the bare truth. If that offends you or makes you feel bad, I can only say that it seems like that’s an issue for you to work on.

      But it perfectly illustrates what I said earlier – how my wife says that when she’s out with other women, they will actually pressure her to badmouth her husband and complain about her marriage. Because I guess it makes them feel better – how immature is that? But she refuses to do so. And so do I.

      You shouldn’t have to tear others down to feel better about yourself. You have a wonderful day.

      Like

    • OKRickety says:

      “… those of us on here are into self-examination and self-awareness as we struggle to find the answer to broken, dysfunctional relationships.
      […]
      Why would any man want me because I am not submissive. Maybe because I have a brain and I play sports and I am extremely feminine.”

      Based on the above, I presume you have or did have a “broken, dysfunctional relationship”. Apparently your attributes were inadequate to prevent this scenario. Although these traits likely are initially attractive to men, your experience suggests they are not as important to a successful relationship as you seem to think. Perhaps other attributes are more important. Maybe even submissiveness.

      Of course, if the problem was all because he was a “shitty” husband or boyfriend, then you already have the answer. You do not need to change who you are. You just need to learn how to find a man who isn’t “shitty”.

      Like

      • linds01 says:

        Maddy,
        There are a band of folks who believe that the fact that women want to exercise their rights and liberties as fully functional human beings are, at the best, wrong and, at worst, responsible for the decline of modern civilization.
        They are really good at telling others what to do and where they are wrong, but do very little to actually contribute to the betterment of a situation, except to tell women to be submissive.

        It seems like they just want a platform to push their arcane ideas on others- in the guise of being helpful.

        Just so you know- of course there is nothing wrong with you. You have every right to live and breath and be exactly who you are.You have every right to choose what you want in your life and what you don’t.

        I have every respect for Matt, and several others here. But it seems like that is the sort of feedback that you’ll be getting.
        Not helpful or fun.

        Like

        • Jeff Strand says:

          “…and, at worst, responsible for the decline of modern civilization.”

          Actually, a lot worse than that. Eve, anyone?

          The sin of Eve was pride and disobedience. Another word for disobedience is un-submissiveness, if you think about it. God asked Adam and Eve for their submission, and Eve refused.

          Contrast this with the perfect submission and obedience of the Blessed Virgin – “Behold the handmaiden of the Lord, be it done onto me according to Thy Word.”

          So one woman’a pride and disobedience (i.e., refusal to submit) was the direct cause of the greatest catastrophe in the history of the universe – the Fall of Man. But another woman’s complete submission and obedience was the direct cause of the bringing of salvation into the world…and also resulted in said woman being crowned Queen of Heaven and being placed above all other created beings, whether human or angelic.

          Quite a contrast no? That why I don’t think it’s overstating things to conclude that feminism is – quite literally – Satanic. It’s at war with God and the order He has decreed. When you factor in how it has led directly to massive increases in fornication, divorce, illegitimacy, broken families, the abomination known as abortion on demand, lesbianism, etc….the case would seem almost airtight.

          P.S. The sin of Adam was different. He didn’t want to disobey God, but his wife talked him into it. He felt sorry for her, and didn’t want to turn his back on her like he should have. Truly, this was the original case of “white knighting” leading to disaster. There’s would be many more to follow, right down to our present day.

          P.P.S. This is not to say that women must be nothing but servants, so please don’t spin my words that way. Look at some of the saints – St. Catherine of Sienna in the Middle Ages had a whole band of disciples and she would write letters to the pope (possibly the most important man in the world at that time) basically telling him to get off his duff and move the papacy from France back to Rome! And the pope listened to her.

          There have also been very holy women with a lot of political power, even to the point of being head of state! Right off the bat, that brings to mind Helena (mother of Constantine the Great), Empress Theodora, Queen Blanche (mother to St Louis IX of France), Queen Isabella of Spain, St. Joan of Arc (who as a teenager was advising the Dauphin of France on conducting the Hundred Year’s War against England), Queen Catherine of Aragon, her daughter Queen Mary I, and so on.

          Like

        • Jeff Strand says:

          Oh by the way, I’m waiting to hear about a happy, successful marriage that is based on feminist principles.

          I haven’t seen one yet.

          Like

          • Donkey says:

            “Oh by the way, I’m waiting to hear about a happy, successful marriage that is based on feminist principles.

            I haven’t seen one yet.”

            Are you honestly willing to hear about it though? Becuase I and others have told you about such marriages before, and yet you say you’re waiting to hear about them. So the issue seems more to be that you just don’t believe people who tell you about it, and then you just forget about it/discount it in some way.

            If you are willing though – look no further than the Gottman research – the key to a successful marriage is the man accepting his wife’s influence (wives already accept influence on a large scale). And, I have happy marriages in my circles based on feminist/egalitarian principles.

            So if you’re honestly willing/able to hear it, you know have proof of happy successful marriages based on feminist principles (or what I’d call egalitarian principles) – both from my personal experience and from research.

            As for not seeing it yourself in your social circle, that’s neither here nor there. People’s social circles can be very different in terms of values etc. And there’s of course the confirmation bias which we can all be guilty of. Some of what you have said is common in your social circle is something I have never experienced in mine. Doesn’t mean you’re lying or that I think you are lying, just means our social circles are different.

            “That why I don’t think it’s overstating things to conclude that feminism is – quite literally – Satanic. It’s at war with God and the order He has decreed.”

            That’s certainly your right to believe. However, other people will be convinced that God’s order is something different than you believe it is. And I don’t think any of us mere mortals can be sure that we know the absolute Truth. So you just stating what you believe what God’s order is will do little to convince me (not that I think it’s a priority for you to convince me of anything). Other people state with what looks to me to be the same kind of conviction that you have that they believe in egalitarianism, or that Allah is the only god, that reincarnation is real, or that there is no God or whatever else.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Jeff Strand says:

              “So if you’re honestly willing/able to hear it, you know have proof of happy successful marriages based on feminist principles (or what I’d call egalitarian principles) – both from my personal experience and from research.”

              Well then, there you go. So just marry a feminist man and you should be good to go then. I’m sure it will work out just peachy.

              Like

        • OKRickety says:

          linds01,

          I believe that women are as equally fully functional human beings as men are. Both sexes have rights and liberties that are approximately equal (I really don’t want to get into the possible exceptions — one, for example, is extremely emotive and seldom, I think, important in most long-term, man-woman relationships).

          However, the success of relationships depends on how the parties choose to exercise their individual rights and liberties. In most marriages, for example, both parties would agree that the liberty to have sex with whomever you want is no longer available. I think that mutual agreement on the exercise of rights and liberties is important to relationship success. If one party insists on a specific right against the will of the other, I expect dysfunction.

          I strongly suspect we have a different understanding of submissive.

          It is my belief that the New Testament model of marriage includes a wife being submissive to her husband [and, just as importantly, the husband loving his wife like Christ did the church], hence I am a proponent of this model.

          Many today, perhaps most, reject the idea that a wife be submissive to her husband. It does not appear that this results in better marriages — the number of marriages is declining and the rate of divorce is steady. Insanity is continuing the same behavior and expecting better results?

          Like

          • linds01 says:

            “I believe that women are as equally fully functional human beings as men are. Both sexes have rights and liberties that are approximately equal (I really don’t want to get into the possible exceptions — one, for example, is extremely emotive and seldom, I think, important in most long-term, man-woman relationships). ”

            I have no idea what you are referring to, and it would be helpful to me if you were more clear about this emotive “possible exception.”

            “However, the success of relationships depends on how the parties choose to exercise their individual rights and liberties. In most marriages, for example, both parties would agree that the liberty to have sex with whomever you want is no longer available. I think that mutual agreement on the exercise of rights and liberties is important to relationship success. If one party insists on a specific right against the will of the other, I expect dysfunction.”

            I am not talking about liberties to just go do whatever they want. Liberty doesn’t mean lawlessness. I have liberties and I am a law abiding citizen.
            I don’t want to get too far into semantics, but it in most free societies no one can have rights over another’s will.
            If you are talking about affair , such as someone having the right to sleep with someone else against the spouses will- that could be a granted. And, yes- it would likely cause dysfunction.
            But if you are talking about somebodies “rights” applied over someone else’s will, that is typically illegal- physical contact, loud booming music, stealing property.
            All of those are examples of someone normal rights being imposed on other peoples rights…that is where anyone’s rights end, when they infringe on anothers.

            “I strongly suspect we have a different understanding of submissive.”

            I sincerely hope so.

            “It is my belief that the New Testament model of marriage includes a wife being submissive to her husband [and, just as importantly, the husband loving his wife like Christ did the church], hence I am a proponent of this model. ”

            Honestly, I have absolutely no problem with letting someone take over the reigns, or make decisions if I CAN TRUST THEM…And I have no problem with talking to and deferring to my partner, again- IF I CANT TRUST THEM. I do that with most of my relationships. MOST women already bend to others in their relationship spheres.

            Carol Gilligan is a research psychologist that developed a moral development theory that differentiated between men and women. She noticed there was a difference in their moral development, and believed it was likely due to socialization, but.. men tend to view morals through a punitive justice sort of way. ..Morals are acted on autonomously and they don’t take into account the wider community. While women tend to be socially inclined when it comes to morality. An example that was used was 4 moles lived in a burrow, and then a porcupine comes in to take residency.
            Men would (typically) would say – get rid of the porcupine! Problem solved.
            But women would (typically) devise a plan where the porcupine would have one area of the burrow and they would have another.
            For women, it would be unjust to throw the porcupine out in the winter, homeless (did I mention it was winter?…lets just say, I did, ok ? :),,
            For men it would be unjust for the porcupine to stay…

            This is just another example of women already being very, very attuned to the needs of others. In several relationship spheres.

            In fact the moral stages for her where (which aligned with her mentor Kohlberg’s moral developmental stages) :

            Pre-conventional- I love myself (egotistical child)

            Conventional- I love you

            I love you more than me (often for women is felt as)

            Post conventional – I love you and me.

            The thing is, many, many women not only get stuck in the conventional phase of moral development, they fell it as ” I love you more that me”…

            Hence everyone else’s needs come before their own. This caretaking is something that mothers do for their children, but it became her main role in society, and the expectation of women.

            Most women, and most people in general want the “I love you and I love me.”…
            they get to take care of themselves. They get recognized for the work they do. They get to do what is necessary to feel good. And they deserve to be have good, mutual, caring relationships.

            I think you’re right we need to be clear on what is meant as submissive, and we need to be clear on what is meant as feminist.

            Feminism is not a dirty word. It does not mean women want to rule the world, or be overbearing to their significant others. It means we want the right to have the full expression of ourselves (you may not understand the effects that for so, so long women were not allowed to vote, it was unseemly to work, we weren’t allowed to be educated, we had no voice. Yet we have fully functioning brains and wants and desires and ambitions and abilities the same as men- because we are both human beings and those things are what human beings were made to do…so many housewives were alcoholics just to numb themselves from all the limitations)
            … And along with women having the right to the full expression on themselves, I want that same right for men. It really is a human right that we have been working towards for I don’t even know how long.

            That doesn’t mean that we put ourselves at the center of the universe. It means that we live our, and our presence in the world is the full expression of the person he thought up.

            What right does one man have over another to suppress his existence?

            This is the same fundamental issue over slavery, and even class distinctions at present.

            To be submissive means to be under something. I don’t need to be the one in charge, but at the same time- I don’t feel like I should just assume a subordinate role…

            A while back there was mention of hierarchy as the only way to have peace in a family.

            I personally don’t think that is accurate.
            Hierarchies came about in the bible when the people begged for a King because every other kingdom had one, and God didn’t want to do that, because he said a King would lead them to war, and not be good for them. Before Kind Saul , there were judges over the tribes. (And might I mention Deborah? A woman who was a Judge.)
            There are proverbs that specifically talk about ants and locust that have armies with no leaders.
            And, to bring back to the 21 century- there is a really good business book called “The starfish and the spider: the unstoppable power of a leaderless organization”.
            It’s predicated on the same idea that every individual should be allowed to grow into their potential.
            But that is business, what about family- what about the need to make decisions…

            I think you are right that there needs to be compromise, but it needs to go both ways.
            And John Gottman’s work states that over and over again.
            Men need to accept womens influence. ..because as already stated women already accept male influence (And everyone elses, to boot…)

            “Many today, perhaps most, reject the idea that a wife be submissive to her husband. It does not appear that this results in better marriages — the number of marriages is declining and the rate of divorce is steady. Insanity is continuing the same behavior and expecting better results?”

            You have to show me some cold, hard facts that marriages were happier in the 50’s and the 60’s. I could only assume they weren’t since the divorce rate started going up in the late 60’s, when it became easier to get out of bad marriages. Legal obligation does not make a good marriage.

            Meaning- submissiveness wasn’t the answer then, and it isn’t the COMPLETE answer now… though being cooperative, and learning relationship skills might be.

            Below is a link to recent marriage/divorce statistics.

            http://time.com/4575495/divorce-rate-nearly-40-year-low/

            Liked by 1 person

            • linds01 says:

              P.S.- Deborah lead Israel and was also married.. just sayin’, ya know…

              Like

            • linds01 says:

              And, I have to say I think I need glasses or a different screen color because I make the worst typing errors-
              I meant “If I CAN trust them” in both instances.
              And there are a few other typos, and I dropped a few words…sorry if it makes it difficult to read!
              I have trouble proof reading after looking at the screen for a while!

              Like

            • Jeff Strand says:

              “so many housewives were alcoholics just to numb themselves from all the limitations”

              You would need to have statistics to back this up. Especially given that every survey of women’s general happiness shows it declining as society gets more feminist. So that now, for the first time, women are generally more unhappy than men.

              Society has never been more feminist. Women have never been more unhappy. I think that tells you something, if you’re willing to learn.

              Also, keep in mind there was no grassroots groundswell of unhappy housewives in the 50’s and 60’s. As I’ve said before, the feminist movement was launched and promoted almost entirely by atheistic, Jewish, Communists like Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, etc. It was part of the cultural Marxist attempt to weaken traditional Christian society by attacking and undermining the family, and esp the husband/father’s role. It was all quite deliberate. This is why I’ve said that feminism is quite literally evil, even Satanic. (Then add in the fact that feminism has pushed every form of sexual immorality and perversion, including the atrocity of abortion. How many souls have been damned forever because of feminism?)

              Further, anecdotally, my wife is a housewife who hasn’t worked outside the home in over a dozen years (and never will again) and she’s happy as a clam. The girlfriends she has who do work are miserable about it, but it’s their husbands insisting they keep at it because they want the extra income coming in. I know one couple in particular – 2 kids, and the wife works full time in a high paying, somewhat prestigious job. So she’s living the feminist dream of “having it all”. Yet she told my wife that she can’t keep it up much longer, and is on the verge of a nervous breakdown!

              Who would want such a life? That’s crazy. My daughters are being raised to be housewives – they take sewing and cooking classes, learn budgeting and couponing, learn to keep a house clean and neat and running smoothly, are used to the example of the wife submitting to her husband and take that as expected, are polite, sweet, feminine, soft-spoken and ladylike and have good manners, for sports/exercise they play tennis, they take piano lessons, etc – they will thank us later. And they will make excellent housewives for the right young men. Sad that more parents aren’t doing this, but just means less competition in the marriage market for my daughters, from their clueless peers!

              Like

              • Donkey says:

                “Society has never been more feminist. Women have never been more unhappy. I think that tells you something, if you’re willing to learn.”

                Yes, society is more egalitarian now. But it’s not truly equal. So women now have expectations of egalitarianism, which they are not getting. Unmet expectations = decline in happiness. They are doing more than fifty percent of the combined work, which causes stress and exhaustion = decline in happiness. They are dealing with the hurt and disappointment they feel when their husbands are not doing their fair share at home and not accepting their influence = decline in happiness. And they are dealing with the hurt and siappointment caused by a society where they aren’t truly treated as equals (and yes, I know there is such a thing as female privilige).

                Your solution to this would be to have a less feminist/egalitarian society. My solution would be to get an even more egalitarian/partnership oriented society.

                We are of course both entitled to our own opinions and interpretations.

                Liked by 2 people

              • Jeff Strand says:

                “Your solution to this would be to have a less feminist/egalitarian society. My solution would be to get an even more egalitarian/partnership oriented society.”

                So double down on what hasn’t worked and make things even worse? You must be joking.

                And pray tell, what specifically do you have in mind to make society MORE feminist? More than it is already? Let me guess, in your ideal society the husband will be immediately arrested and lose everything if he even raises his voice to his wife, or looks at her sideways. Because in today’s society, a man can be arrested if she merely says “I’m in fear” – and apparently that isn’t “feminist” enough for you! Keep it up and you’ll completely turn all men away from getting married.

                Well regardless, that won’t happen. We’re going the other way – the backlash has begun. The election of Trump and the marriage strike that men have begun are only the start of it. And many of the men who would consider marriage will only do so if the potential wife is anti-feminist. Word is getting out, as the “manosphere” on the Net continues to grow like kudzu. Stay tuned!

                Like

                • Donkey says:

                  “So double down on what hasn’t worked and make things even worse? You must be joking.”

                  Implying that someone’s opinion is a joke is not civil. I would like you to be more civil when you discuss with me, though I of course realize that I have no control over what you say.

                  Getting back to your concerns:

                  I see this differently than you. Some things are working well, in my strong opinion. Women having more opportunities for education and employment. Men being more involved fathers. Women’s intellectual abilities being more respected, Women having economic opportunities to get out of abusive relationships (as men also should be able to of course). More egalitarian relationships, which I think is generally a good thing (though I respect that others desire other structures for their relationships and are happy with that).

                  And some of what I think hasn’t worked but would work (in my opinion) with more egalitarianism is what I layed out in my other comment.

                  There’s a gap between expectations/what many people desire, and reality. Like I said, if women want and expect egalitarian relations but aren’t getting it, even though husbands are generally more egalitarian than they used to be, that causes exhaustion and hurt and unhappiness. And yes, my opinion is that this would be greatly helped with a more egalitarian society and more egalitarian relationship.

                  The Gottman research shows that most men *aren’t* accepting enough influence from their wives. Meaning, they are not egalitarian even if they are more egalitarian then husbands of the past. And if their wives expect them to accept influence, they obviously won’t be happy with that. And again, like the Gottman research show, when men do accept influence, marriages generally tend to work out. So I’d say my views on more egalitarianism would improve the situation is supported in this.

                  I think you’re right that homosexuality will be more accepted in an egalitarian society. So I’d agree with you, an even more feminist/egalitarian sexuality would probably allow more people to explore the fluidness of their sexuality, to live openly as gay people etc. You think that would make for a worse society, and I strongly disagree with you.

                  Liked by 2 people

                  • Donkey says:

                    “”Let me guess, in your ideal society the husband will be immediately arrested and lose everything if he even raises his voice to his wife, or looks at her sideways.”

                    Certainly not! I absolutely do not believe this, so you can safely stop assuming that I do.

                    “Because in today’s society, a man can be arrested if she merely says “I’m in fear” – and apparently that isn’t “feminist” enough for you!”

                    I’m sure there are things in our society that you and I both can agree on aren’t good. False accusations = not good. Domestic violence = not good. I certainly wouldn’t want more of what I consider not good! I want an egalitarian and just society (recognizing that people will have different opinions on what just and maybe even egalitarian is)

                    “Keep it up and you’ll completely turn all men away from getting married.”

                    Please stop implying that I think or say things I have never said. That’s not behaving honestly or civilly. Yes, I want a more egalitarian society. That doesn’t mean I am pro men not being treated fairly by the justice system! Quite the opposite. Everywhere men are not being treated fairly, I want that to stop. Custody cases, divorce cases, domestic violence cases, you name it. I recognize that there are areas where men are being treated unjustly, and I think that is wrong.

                    Where I live, there was a big article in a major news paper about fathers who murder their children being treated much more harshly than women who murder their children. And that is taking into account extenuating circumstances etc. I was truly quite escited about that article, though of course the subject is tragic. I think it’s GREAT that any sort of injustice is brought to the light and dealt with, no matter which gender is on the loosing end.

                    Liked by 1 person

                • Jeff Strand says:

                  Donkey,

                  It seems there’s no point in continuing this. As you say, you see things as the complete opposite to how I see them. According to you, after decades of feminism the end result that women are unhappier than ever is the fault of men. (I’m shocked that this is your conclusion, just shocked). Because those darn men just aren’t feminist enough, lol. I guess you believe that as society gets more feminist, we can expect women to get more and more miserable…until on some glorious day we hit “peak feminism”, at which point all that misery will suddenly be changed to a boundless joy.

                  I’m sorry, and not trying to be offensive, but I just cannot take such an opinion seriously. So I will bow out here. Though I wonder how that viewpoint is playing out in the “real world” for you. Have you found a husband who is completely feminist, through and through? And are you two living a dream marriage, happily spending your days together in your little feminist utopia? Personally, I can’t imagine that…but if it works for you, hey…

                  Maybe those of us who believe in God and a final judgment one day, where feminist treasures like fornication, homosexuality, abortion, etc will be harshly punished, are the ones who are wrong. Maybe we are delusional, and there is no God (or at least, not one you’ll have to answer to one day regarding these sins). Anyway, so you’d better hope, right?

                  Like

                  • Donkey says:

                    “According to you, after decades of feminism the end result that women are unhappier than ever is the fault of men. (I’m shocked that this is your conclusion, just shocked). Because those darn men just aren’t feminist enough, lol.”

                    Society shapes us a lot you know, so I know it can be hard to internalize egalitarian behaviours when you’ve grown up with something else, or the other way around. So saying that the problem is just that men aren’t feminist enough and not looking at how society is set up would be an oversimplification.

                    But yes, it’s a problem for egalitarian women that men aren’t egalitarian enough. I’m rather shocked that you are shocked? When the Gottman research, which I have mentioned so many times now, show that when men don’t accept influence marriages do poorly, and when they do accept influence, marriages do well?I think it is rather very logical to place the responsibility on the men who aren’t accepting influence and say that, yes the problem is that they aren’t egalitarian enough (I prefer using egalitarian over feminist)? (Please remember that according to that research women already accept influence to a large degree, so that’s more rarely the problem.)

                    “I guess you believe that as society gets more feminist, we can expect women to get more and more miserable…until on some glorious day we hit “peak feminism”, at which point all that misery will suddenly be changed to a boundless joy.”

                    No. I don’t think things will happen as neat and tidy as that. And there are plenty of other factors that influence women’s happiness other than feminism/egalitarianism. So many factors at play.

                    I certainly do not think that should we ever get to a truly egalitarian society (again, more comfortable with egalitarianism rather than feminism), all problems will be solved and there will be boundless joy all around. But the problems caused by inequities in gender relations will be solved.

                    Liked by 1 person

            • Jeff Strand says:

              “Honestly, I have absolutely no problem with letting someone take over the reigns, or make decisions if I CAN TRUST THEM…And I have no problem with talking to and deferring to my partner, again- IF I CAN TRUST THEM.”

              Interesting, Linds. I don’t not know that I recall you saying this before. Are you saying you’d be open to a traditional, husband as head of the household marriage…provided you have enough trust in the husband?

              Really curious on this. Just intuitively, it seems to make sense.

              Like

              • linds01 says:

                Jeff, I actually have said as much before. However, the words you use to reflect “leadership” such as “demand”,”Let her”, “tell her”, and other phrases that I can’t look up at the moment are the exact reason why I would be hesitant to allow myself to be dependent on someone, and are in part some of the things I would strongly distrust….your words demonstrate that your wife has no agency, no will of her own except what you will for her. Even the people I know who are happy in paternalistic marriages (and I know both paternalistic and egalitarian marriages that are doing well) don’t veiw the leadership role to this extreme.
                Again, as I mentioned to Rickety, you forfeit your right to lead if you can’t or don’t sincerely love the PERSON, and if she has no will and no agency then it can’t be that you love the PERSON (you would have eliminated that with submission).
                I appreciate that both of you are happy with your set up.
                I would not be inclined to mimic such.

                Liked by 2 people

              • Jeff Strand says:

                Linds,

                I appreciate the reply. Maybe we’re not so far apart, this might be partly a matter of semantics. And of course I love my wife as a person. And of course she has will and agency. If you have ever been an employee, your boss has the final decision on projects, deadlines, etc, Does that mean you have no agency or will at any job you’ve worked at? Does that mean you’re nothing but your boss’s slave, and never can take any pride in the work you do?

                The way my wife puts it, is that I’m basically her boss. And she says “Why wouldn’t I rather my boss be the man who loves me, who had children with me, who provides for me and takes care of me, who pledged a lifetime to me…rather than my boss be some guy who only sees me as an employee, an economic unit, who cares nothing about me over the long term, and can replace me at anytime?”

                Maybe you’ve never thought of it that way?

                Like

                • linds01 says:

                  Jeff,
                  I think you’re right- maybe we aren’t ao far apart. The issue that I have is that you present leadership in a very domineering, and to some people an abusive sort of way. That is how people perceive it.
                  Maybe you are attempting to present your side in a very absolute way that demonstrates confidence? I was just listening to a book about Eisenhower and I believe he did the same things. Presented himself with absolute confidence, even when he wasn’t. Presented a stone facade, or a congenial facade for whatever was needed. I think that has value when you are running a country, or a military unit.
                  I just think here, on this blog, we aren’t trying to win anything. There is no take home prize.
                  Trying to convince someone of an argument doesn’t typically work just because that is one or a few people’s experience.
                  That is sort of like having a consumer endorsement or even a celebrity endorsement for a product, no?
                  Those may work a little bit- but if people aren’t already looking for the type of product those commercials are selling , then most people just tune the message out.
                  I can appreciate that you have strong beliefs that have worked for you, but I have to express to you that doesn’t mean your beliefs are right for everyone. And insisting on it, calling people names, presenting it as if it has no flaws whatsoever (which would be a complete anomaly, …shoot, it would be such a major anomaly that the government may want to round you two up for a few lab experiments..:) ). …These things don’t strengthen your argument, they make it less appealing and less palatable- and very much less believable.
                  If you really want to help people, you have to start by asking questions.
                  You have to open yourself up to understanding their world- without injecting what you think is right.
                  I,too, see life a certain way, have strong beliefs and opinions- and in large part, those things work for me. It would be very upsetting to even my best friend if I insisted that she subscribe to my exact understanding and beleifs. Not only would that not happen, I would be less one friend.
                  Respecting other people’s experience and intelligence is a good way “to win friends and influence people”. ..

                  But telling people they are wrong- stinking your nose into people’s open wounds does not reflect the behaviors of someone who is wise , and whose wisdom we should follow.

                  Liked by 1 person

                • Jeff Strand says:

                  Linds,

                  I’m not “insisting you subscribe to my exact beliefs” Just having a conversation.

                  Have a nice day.

                  Like

                  • linds01 says:

                    While I have to note your assertion that every religion except your own is wrong, and any marriage that isnt patriarchal is satanic, is a way of insisting that others beliefs are wrong, and can only be right if they agree with your beliefs…this has the same effect as insisting one subscribe to your beliefs.

                    But, anyway- I dont want to fight, Jeff.

                    You and Rickety and IB are voices that having a patriarchal marriage and wifely submission is the right answer.

                    Noone is saying you cant have those beliefs, but it is hurtful (And not effective) when you dont care to hear anyone elses answers to those assertions.

                    Thank you for wishing me a nice day, I hope you do the same.

                    Like

          • linds01 says:

            Rickety, also you say that the wife’s submission should be under a loving husband, yet you yourself have said that you are not willing to grow or change for a better relationship…leaving it the woman’s responsibility to limit herself in order to accommodate you. I responded back to the conversation about expectations in which I pointed out the lack of responsibility in some of the things you presented.
            Not trying to be snarky- but you can’t have it both both ways. If men want to be leaders, and we know biblical leadership revolves around loving the partner, then you guys have to take some responsibility to move,change, and grow. Love is an active thing, it is not passive.
            Not doing something bad does not equal doing something good.
            Not intentionally harming your wife does not mean you are actively loving her.
            If your view is that she wants too much, or that she (or women) are unreasonable, then you are forfeiting your right to lead, because you are not fulfilling your call to love.
            Loving doesn’t mean you have to somehow fill all her expectations, but it does mean taking responsibility to understand what she needs and understand there is a why to needing those things.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Jeff Strand says:

              “Rickety, also you say that the wife’s submission should be under a loving husband, yet you yourself have said that you are not willing to grow or change for a better relationship…leaving it the woman’s responsibility to limit herself in order to accommodate you.”

              Well, I’m not rickety but I am wondering about the meaning of your quote. Don’t we all grow? Don’t we all change with time, to some extent?

              As far the wife “limiting herself”, I also wonder what this means. I don’t expect my wife to limit her personal and spiritual growth. Yes, I expect/demand her submission and complete and unquestioning obedience to me as the head of the household, but this does not limit her personal growth. And don’t forget, she has a lot of responsibilities herself.

              Guess I would need you to elaborate more here on what you are trying to say.

              Like

  7. Dating behaviours are attractive – attention, kindness, presence, interest and whatever other words we attach to those things that make this person stand out among the crowd. Interest in our interests and desire to do them with us. My experience is that the man I married expected those behaviours to continue even though he had no obligation or desire to do so once “he got the girl” as his sister says. He was not being himself completely while dating and we married. I take responsibility for not knowing that. Having kids made me grow up and see that.
    My husband became unattractive when I learned he hid things about himself and had a private life I was not welcomed into. My husband became unattractive when he was short and irritable with our children and “nice” to everyone else. When he didn’t tell me he was unhappy with his life and accomplishments and so resented me and our kids for being happy despite him. He surrounded himself with superficial relationships where he seemed attractive but they had no expectations of him. Their needs were all social.
    I have compassion for his struggles and wish he felt the joy we do. I wish he laughed as easily and loved as selflessly. All I can do is keep walking the walk of my truth. Connecting with our kids, helping them grow and learn, supporting them with their challenges and keeping a home that is comfortable and nice to be in is attractive – dare I even say sexy. When you marry a woman who says outright she wants a family it is attractive to her to really want one too. Especially when she supports you and you say you WANT to be the stay at home parent.
    What’s attractive is situational. I don’t need a suit with a paycheque. Doesn’t attract me and never has. Didn’t date one and didn’t marry one. So what’s attractive is knowing who you are and what you want and being happy and content BEFORE you commit. Sounds simple, but I feel often overlooked.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jeff Strand says:

      Still Trying,

      Your entire post, but esp the last paragraph, reminds me a lot of Lori Gottleib in her book “Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good-Enough”. She comes to agree with a lot of what you say here…esp in regards to knowing what’s really important in a potential spouse and what isn’t. Check out her book, I think you’ll relate to what she says. It’s available on Amazon, and in Kindle format if you like.

      Not only did I like the book, but when I had my wife read it she couldn’t put it down. And it also gave her a few good laughs.

      All the best.

      Like

      • Jeff – thank you for the book suggestion. I am pretty solid on my situation and comfortable with my decision making history – not sure if I need a reinforcing read at this point. Too many new ideas to explore.

        I come here to hear Matt’s perspective as I only have my own wrt marriage and how the wheels get shaky. I like his honest and compassionate stance and willingness to take responsibility for self. Something we all work at. His sincere belief that he had no clue echoes my experiences and is truly helping me communicate so that my husband and I can get on the same playing field and if we can’t there will be no surprises or anger. Just acceptance.

        I can accept if he can’t give me what I need in our parnership, but wouldn’t be right if I didn’t give him the opportunity.

        Like

  8. “But most men simply do not know about the things they do thoughtlessly that cause significant emotional damage to their wives.”

    This continues to puzzle me, Matt, the way you insist that men don’t know, that they are accidentally being thoughtless or simply unaware of their actions. It just doesn’t resonate.

    I used to be pretty violent, bounced a few cups off of hubby’s head. Never once was I unaware of my actions. I actually despised the man, perhaps I despised all men. I may not have fully understood the depth of misery I was causing, but there was no doubt I was hoping to cause some. That is what lead to healing, confronting and acknowledging my own hatred.

    I can’t recall my husband ever accidentally or thoughtlessly hurting my feelings. Nope, anytime something like that has happened he’s meant it and it was totally deliberate.There’s a kind of honestly there that I can really appreciate, that somehow makes marriage work.

    Like

    • Jeff Strand says:

      “I used to be pretty violent, bounced a few cups off of hubby’s head. Never once was I unaware of my actions”

      And that’s a great example of “female privilege”. If a man does that, he goes to jail, probably loses his job and career, is humiliated publicly (in my state, all mugshots and police reports are immediately put on the Internet for the world to see), loses his house and his kids, is taken to the cleaners financially, etc. But if a woman does it, it’s laughed off.

      This is another big reason why more and more young men (and older divorced men) are refusing to marry. The laws are too one-sided, so the only way to win is not to play. And it’s not like a man has to get married to get sex nowadays…at the most it may cost him a dinner, thanks to how “empowered” modern women have become as a result of feminism, lol.

      Like

      • Sad, isn’t it? A grave injustice towards many men today. I come from a time and a culture where “we don’t ever call the cops.” So even if some man were abusing his wife, the families, the church, the good old boys, would handle it and it would end. Not a good formula for the culture at large because a lot of women were left unprotected and had nowhere to turn. Flash forward a few decades and we now call the cops about absolutely everything and everything has become “abuse” and there are laws and mandates and someone must be arrested. Then the entire system became weaponized, this form of intimidation and control used to abuse mostly men,although I do know a few women arrested for silly things too,like throwing an orange people at someone.

        So yes, I hear you, it’s become a trainwreck of assorted injustices, but I’m from another time and another place, where it never occurred to us to use the system against one another at all.

        Like

        • Jeff Strand says:

          IB, you are right on the money here.

          Even when we went to the culture of calling the cops, men still thought they were safe as long as they didn’t use physical violence…or even threaten to use physical violence. But now we find out that this is not enough to keep you out of jail – now, all that is required for her to tell the cops that she’s “in fear”. And that’s enough to get the husband or boyfriend arrested.

          I know that sounds crazy, but research it yourself and you’ll see it’s true. Now, how can the man be responsible for how the woman feels? He can only take responsibility for his own actions and words, not her feelings.

          These laws need to change. Until they do, more and more men will wise up and choose to avoid marriage.

          Like

      • kara Brits! says:

        Good for them, don’t date nor marry, what I read on the internet 60% of men can’t handle the complexity of it, poor men!

        Like

  9. Donkey says:

    Jeff, you said;
    “Maybe those of us who believe in God and a final judgment one day, where feminist treasures like fornication, homosexuality, abortion, etc will be harshly punished, are the ones who are wrong. Maybe we are delusional, and there is no God (or at least, not one you’ll have to answer to one day regarding these sins). Anyway, so you’d better hope, right?”

    This is very interesting to me and something I’ve thought a lot about. I am rather a sensitive soul, so a fear of going to hell is not foreign to me. Though it was never very pronounced. The problem is though, you seem to beleive that not being a christian, AND believing the things I do about homosexuality etc is bound to send me to hell. Someone else thinks that believing in Jesus is enough, they think God actually does desire an egalitarian society. Someone else thinks that believing in Jesus will send me to hell, because only Allah is the one true God. Someone else thinks that what’s really going to screwing me over is that I’m not vegetarian/vegan, so I’ll be punished in my next life. I have heard people of different religions claiming who all claim to have a personal relationship with God. I’ve heard about people changing faiths, in different directions (ie a muslim coming to believe in Jesus, a christian becoming muslim etc).

    So what am I to do? When people have such different opinions about what will send me to hell/ a bad reincarnation? What if I beleive in Jesus, but then I’m wrong and after I’m dead, Allah will send me to hell (same could be true for you). Or the other way around of course. So there’s just no way to safe guard myself in that area. And I don’t think a god will be very impressed if I decided to believe in him/her just because I don’t want to go to hell. Though of course, I could be wrong about that too.

    So I am left trying to figure out what my own conscience is telling me, and to follow that as best I can. And I’m left trying to figure out my own relationship to the divine, to Life, the mystery that I take part in that surrounds me. And *my* conscience tells me that an egalitarian/just society is what I should strive for, and it tells me that homosexuality isn’t wrong at all. It tells me that when women aren’t being treated fairly, that should be rectified. And it tells me that when men aren’t being treated fairly that should be rectified. See one of my other comments I made to you for some “proof” that I really am quite sincere in wanting both genders to be treated fairly in all areas of society, though I know I have my blind spots. It tells me that I should strive to practice full respect living, even though it can be SO hard.

    Would be interested in hearing your thoughts, or others’ thoughts.

    Like

    • Jeff Strand says:

      An interesting topic, but not really the point of Matt’s blog. However, though at present I have only a few minutes to reply, I’ll throw this out there.

      Pretending all faiths/religions are equally true is not credible. Because when you do the research and study, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that the Roman Catholic Faith (before the Chruch was infiltrated by her enemies at Vatican Council II, so say up through Pope Pius XII) is the True Religion. In other words, the divinely revealed religion. Therefore, all men are bound to submit themselves to it. What Muslims or Protestants or Hindus teach is irrelevant – they are in error.

      This is proven by such miracles and prodigies as to be beyond question. Research the Shroud of Turin, the miraculous healings at Lourdes in France, the “miracle of the sun” at Fatima, the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin at Zeitoun, Egypt that were witnessed and filmed by many thousands, the various Eucharist miracles, saints who healed the sick and even raised the dead (St. Patrick of Ireland raised at least 33 dead people back to life, including some who had been buried for many days), the miracles and stigmata even in the modern era of Padre Pio of Italy, the prodigies following the death and burial of St. Charbel Maklouf of Lebanon that are very well attested, etc.

      Check out the pioneering research done by Mike Willesee and Ron Teserario (Willesee is “the Mike Wallace of Australia” – a very famous and well-respected, impartial reporter and journalist from Down Under). Get their book “Reaon to Believe”, where they document how the science has confirmed miracles they have studied, such as Communion hosts changing into human heart tissue, a holy woman receiving the Stigmata while they watched…and then the wounds miraculously healing the next day leaving hardly a scar, a statue of a Christ crying tears of human blood that they placed even under an MRI machine to look for signs of fraud (found none), and many more. Check out their YouTube video “Science Tests Faith”.

      And it bears repeating, the Shroud of Turin is such a miracle that the image formation process of the “man on the shroud” cannot be duplicated, even with our technology today!

      So the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that not only God exists, but that the (pre-Vatican II) Catholic religion is the True Faith. And when I say overwhelming, I mean it isn’t even close. 70,000 eyewitnesses, both believers and secular, Communist-leaning newspaper reporters, saw the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, Portugal on Oct 13, 1917. This marked the final apparition of the Mother of God to the 3 shepherd children. 70,000 eyewitnesses! What more could you want?

      So men are without excuse.

      Liked by 1 person

    • linds01 says:

      Hi Donkey,
      I can totally appreciate your perspective. I dont and cant claim to know the whole truth of God, or ourselves, …
      But, from what I do know through my own experience, the religious texts I have been exposed to and the questions I have asked, I have been able to rest on the conclusions that I have been able to draw, so far.
      I am ok with that, because the texts that I rely tell me that’s ok. (Even if that is a bit of a circular argument.)…

      First I want to make a point that following God , in whatever form, is the important part- and not the getting out of hell.
      Punishment- of hell, of returning as a dung beetle, of missing out on your 14 virgins, or whatever, is alot about control.

      I think that is a warp in mans attempt to follow God.

      I think the whole issue of faith, gets mixed up with “I have to believe in Jesus in order to not go to hell.” (The bible says that even the demons believed in Jesus..that didnt “save” them..) Faith to me is more of the belief that there is something greater than myself, and there is something greater than society or natural creation.
      I do happen to believe the story of Jesus being God in human flesh who gave his life to reconcile us to himself.
      There are alot of nuances in the story that have alot of great meaning, and incredible wisdom- if we can get passed how fantastic it all sounds.
      But, that is exactly the kind of God I believe we have. I believe that there is a being before all beings, who makes all being come into being! ..
      Sorry, that is left over from my Philosophy classes :)

      For me, the most important part of Jesus’ life was to express who God’s character was. To let us know we have freedom to be who we are, that we are loved, that there is more to life than what we seem to experience day to day.

      I dont believe that God needed to punish Jesus on the cross to reconcile us to him. I dont believe it is Gods character that he needed someone to die for all of our bad behavior.
      I believe that Jesus gave himself on the cross so that we could see the extent of our sin. So we could see the amount of hate that lived in us. Because- according to the story, here was a literally perfect man, a man without sin- who harmed no one, who often gave of himself and healed people- and he was received with hate and mockery, torture and death.
      God didnt kill him- we did.
      His death was a reflection of our sin, and yes- when we can realize the depth of that we can admit a little more easily that we need help. We ARE that ugly on our own.
      I do believe in mysticism and mystery- that something beyond our human comprehension transpired at that moment that Jesus died (just as it did at the moment of his conception) .
      I believe in the Holy Spirit.
      I believe that coming to a place of our own need of him is something that he is working on in ways that we dont always see.
      I believe that the whole reason why belief is so important is so that we can be more aware and participate in the things that he is doing.
      I also believe it is important so that we move on from things that we question, to find a deeper understanding in the story, and know him better. …What I mean is, if I hung out at a movie theater all day looking at the posters outside, but disagreed with something about them- I would never go in and enjoy the movie, or at least see it for myself.

      This is the same reason I tend to think echo chambers are not all bad (though we do need to get information, and see the world in different ways, to understand the wider world, and even understand our own beliefs more fully)..believing in what you are receiving helps you to move forward to either make deeper meaning in your life, or to understand deeper meaning about life.
      And, belief is really just about trust.

      I know this really is just one additional option in the plethora of options that you cited at the beginning.

      But, again- my whole point is that faith doesnt mean you have to believe in the right set of answers. What the heck do any of us really know? I feel like most churches have kidnapped Jesus and are holding him for ransom in the back. Everyone says you have to follow the rules as they know it, else you dont belong- you are going to hell. They wont let us get to know who he really was because he was too much of a radical. He gave too much freedom and loved too often. His first miracle was making wine for a bunch of wedding goers. Not the most politically correct, or up-right miracle- but a miracle (from God) none the less.

      I am convinced it is what you believe in your heart-about how you treat others, about who you are in the world that is the bigger indicator of if you know God or not. Do you love others? Do you allow him the opportunity to speak to you? Do you follow when he nudges you? Can you not help but say Thank you and praise?
      Whatever culture you come from, God can reach you.

      There are 3 monotheistic religions in the world. Two are directly related,and the third acknowledges Jesus’ wisdom as a prophet.

      If I woke up one day after I die (And if I dont, it wont really matter), and I discover that it really was the Hebrew God, or (maybe the Muslim God..I havent really devoted a lot of time studying the Koran, unfortunately) then I dont think me following Jesus as acknowledgement of his existence will earn me eternal punishment and death. And, I dare say the opposite is true as well. Heretic, though, I may be.
      My defense is that I believe that acknowledging God can come literally in the 11th hour-in the time between life and death. And perhaps even at the moment of death.

      Anyway, that is it for my rambling at the moment. :)

      Like

  10. OKRickety says:

    “I spend A LOT of time on this blog talking about how I believe men have to make MAJOR strides toward understanding why their wives are unhappy in their marriages, and then altering their behavior accordingly, ….”

    Yes, you do spend a lot of time writing about how men should change their behavior. That is valuable if there are a lot of men readers, however I strongly doubt that it is the case. If you do go to a multi-author blog, perhaps there will be a change in focus, and then a change in readership.

    “We can argue all day about whether women SHOULD be hurt by whatever those actions might be, and whether women should be equally responsible for adjusting their reactions to particular behaviors.

    But the reality is that common male behaviors HURT wives.

    Hurt wives become unattracted to their husbands. Unattracted wives’ behavior makes husbands unattracted to their wives.”

    Let’s look at responsibility and emotion. It took me a long time to accept this truth, but we are responsible for our own emotions. Should women adjust their reactions? I think so.

    I think it is also reality that common female behaviors HURT husbands. This is not well-known because most men don’t express this, at least in words. If you flip the sexes in the text I quoted, you also have truth. Should men adjust their reactions? I think so.

    Like

  11. Its a shame you get so much drama on your posts, you only talk sense, and are figuring out real solutions to real problems which aren’t abusive mentally physically sexually and entrapping a woman to get sex. full stop.
    You talk sense, the world isn’t ready for it yet, and of course you get trolls like Jeff Strand clinging so tightly to their out of touch with reality ideals and dreams

    Like

    • Jeff Strand says:

      The only way you can express yourself is by name-calling others and trying to tear them down, huh? Therefore, you try to label me a “troll” because you don’t agree with me?

      Just pathetic. And a violation of Matt’s requirement that commenters “be nice” and avoid name-calling other commenters (or “verbally assaulting” them, for you Leftists). Matt, please delete “bisexualdisabled’s” comment.

      Like

  12. lesbiantrash says:

    Point is, this is why I’m considering going full lesbian, red pill, rad trad, whatever trash Jeff Strand is posting, that makes me more gayer, so much more gay, woman don’t do this!

    Like

  13. Laura says:

    IF they follow red pill, rad trad, pua, or any of those cultures or related cultures, probably not, if you’re going to be a bad boy nasty man abusive idiot you will be nothing more then a hit it and quit it conquest to woman, don’t be surprised, dont be offended, attractive idiots aren’t marriage material, end of

    Like

Join the Conversation!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: