Neither do I. I’m a simple country boy and I just want to be treated as such.
My mother stayed home and minded the kids (me) and never held a paying job for the 50 years after she was married though she had had a career before.
She handled all the bills because Dad liked her to do that; he didn’t really want to deal with it. But she did not spend Dad’s money in a significant way (such as on a car) without Dad’s significant input.
This has nothing to do with worthlessness. Mom was not a wimp and was very assertive and raised me to be that way. But the bottom line is that when one person is making the money, then the other person doesn’t just get their way about spending it.
I didn’t work for a couple years because I was in school, on my own loan in my own name that I paid off myself and did not expect my husband to pay off in any way, shape or form because it would have been unfair and burdensome on him. Nor did he (or my parent) co-sign for my loan. During that time, my husband paid for my groceries and other necessities, and carried me on his medical insurance. I did not go out and buy cars, go on vacation, or pay my massive tuition bills on his dime. Once I was out, I assumed responsibility for my own debt, including structuring it so that if I died he would not have to pay it, and making sure he knew that.
I realize couples have different ways of working these things out, but I personally think that each half of a couple should make the effort to not burden the other with avoidable debt. If something unavoidable happens, like job loss or illness, then you have to pull together as a couple, but you don’t just expect the other person to go along with your own money wishes, and the more you can just take care of things yourself, the less worry it is for the other person.
Well, since I’m the expert, I’d act according to my intuition. Kissing up to the male ego is not as important as making prudent decisions in important matters. It would be irresponsible to let him lead me into a potentially bad situation just so I can say I submitted.
Of course! And in a healthy relationship, it will be mutual. The Church clearly teaches that. As my (married) priest likes to put it, marriage is a slow death (to self). I can give many more examples of my husband dying to himself for my good and the good of our family. This is how a healthy marriage looks. But mutual submission still does not change the reality that the Church teaches that the man is the head of the family. The Church does not define how this is going to look in any particular family, of course.
I think you got it right here:
I mean, if the man truly is the head of the family then this is what it means. You are the slave of the family. If you’re going to talk about submission then I think you need to take into context the specific things that Jesus said about marriage and leadership.
About marriage he says that the wife and the husband are to be one in mind and body. That doesn’t sound like “wife…do what man says”.
This goes to my earlier point. Modern women CHOOSE their husbands. You aren’t randomly assigned one.
Why would you marry someone you couldn’t trust to make decisions for you? Someone you can’t make decisions with?
You understand as next of kin your spouse makes decisions for you when you are unconscious or incapable? This is a person you are literally trusting with your life and your children’s lives. This is the person who will raise your children if you die.
In many ways your husband DOES have final say over a lot in your life. You agree to that when you get married.
I feel you. Pretending to be coy and cute is exhausting. Does a number on your dignity, too.
This applies equally to the wife making decisions for her unconscious or incapable husband, and raising his kids alone should he die. So in many ways the wife has the final say over a lot in the husband’s life too.
But neither should the person earning it have an absolute veto on what is bought.
This just makes it clear to me that you and I view money in a very different way.
Fair enough if that worked for you. But I don’t believe in splitting financial things like that. I didn’t bring any debt into marriage bar the small loan that I took out to pay for the wedding. But now that we’re married we don’t differentiate between the bills/obligations. It’s all one pot of money.
I intend to marry someone whose judgment I trust, but I can’t predict how they’ll act in every situation, especially when kids come into the picture. I’m perfectly capable of compromise - I just don’t want to be forced into the role of a subservient partner for fear of offending God. If that was what the Lord intended for me, then He probably would’ve have made me a lot less headstrong.
No, that’s how we work too sans the “make right”. I don’t really know what you mean by that. We make the decision and if it is a flop we deal with it. The person who forced the decision knows who they are, no need to beat a dead horse.
That’s what I mean by final say. If he insists, you have two choices work with him or undermind him.
Yes, she does!
The man being head of the family does not mean the wife is a child. She is the wife, she has her own power and authority.
Why does that burden have to fall on the wife? Aren’t men capable of undermining their spouses?
And this is why we need to choose spouses who see things our way on money matters.
I know for a fact that my husband would worry himself into an ulcer if he was forced to take on responsibility for a six figure loan for someone’s college. There are actually US states that would force a spouse to take on half the responsibility for that, and any other debt incurred by one person during the marriage, unless perhaps they could get out of it via a prenuptial agreement. Thank God we do not live in any of those states as neither one of us would be comfortable with that approach.
I love my husband. I do not want to worry him. And he loves me and doesn’t want to worry me. So we try to set things up to spare the other person worry. Now sometimes like I said, if somebody loses their job or gets sick, then that’s an unforeseen circumstance and we would be there for each other (has already happened a couple of times). But I did not marry a man in order to needlessly inflict money worries on him. I see it as my job to not do that. And I expect him to feel the same way towards me.
Well, I don’t have to pretend to be cute.
Seriously, wiles are not insincere.
Gosh, it seems this thread really has bad impressions of women.
What’s your definition of “wile,” and why does it trump direct communication?
devious or cunning stratagems employed in manipulating or persuading someone to do what one wants.
By it’s very definition a wile is a bad thing.
Why use a two-by-four when a nudge will do?
Wiles is flirting, being sweet and loving. Wiles encourages affection between spouses. It is a way of non-verbally boosting your man’s confidence. It is fun and playful. It adds depth to your marriage. It is boring to only communicate purely in “board room” fashion.
Do some women misuse their wiles? Yes. But that’s a problem with the woman not the method.
You might want to use a word other than “wiles”.
You are assuming manipulation is always bad. It is not.
Parents manipulate children. Teachers manipulate students. Friends manipulate each other as do spouses.
Some manipulate is so open, people are fully aware it exists. Such as the mom guilt-trip.
Manipulating a person to do what you want at cost of their or someone else’s good is evil.