Is there a double standard in Baptist Marriages ?

Ps 123:1 A song of degrees. Blessed is every one that feareth the lord; that walketh in his ways. Ps 128:2 For thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands: happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee. Ps 128:3 Thy WIFE shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table. Ps 128:4 Behold, that thus shall the man be blessed that feareth the lord. Ps 37:23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his ways.

 

I'm certain that a joyful wife could be an encouragement to the husband. I don't believe a mature Christian husband would take this as end all be all proof that he is leading Biblically. She might just be pretending to be happy!

Hmm, this sounds like a judgemental attitude on the part of the husband. What part of Christ's love judges us?

My poor husband had little idea of just how much I hate the kitchen. I told him, he chose not to believe me. Cooking really holds very little appeal for me. (meaning I detest even being in the kitchen!)

Now he could have fussed and told me I was being unsubmissive (well he could have tried. ), but it wouldn't have made my cooking any better! Instead, he learned how to cook! He is quite good at it. To bad he can't seem to figure out how the kitchen is arranged, but we have child labor for figuring out where I've hidden the baking soda. (baking soda is a pool chemical and he wants to put in my food? )

Sometimes what we get to deep into dividing up chores into men's jobs and women's jobs. Usually we are stuck on however OUR parents did things. Instead we should divide 'duties' according to talent and ability.

In our case that means, he cooks and I cut the grass (rather cut grass any day than cook. <shudder>). My DH is highly allergic to grass and can get quite ill just from being outside while I am cutting grass.

Now, he does stay away from my sewing machine and I stay away from the insides of the computer. That also works for us. As does working on the cars together when they need repairing (I'm quite handy with a wrench).

Don't get caught up with choosing duties. If one party is very unhappy with what they are doing, then perhaps it is simply a matter of personal taste rather than being unsubmissive or not leading properly. ( WARNING: Personal taste should not cross the line into lazyness)

 

... not reading them!

 

Are you so foolish as to believe one cannot function in either a subordinate or superior role and not love the other person simultaneously? From many of the angry responses by many of the women here my guess is we have a large case of discontented, angry and reluctantly submissive wives. Tsk tsk. So much anger.

 

The women sound angry? Perhaps it is the medium, because it is not the women from whom I sense anger.

 

His role does not involve doing "whatever he chooses" as well as prohibiting you from asking about it unless he asks me. You have far exceeded any suggestion or intimation that could be drawn from anything I have stated.

Secondly, I didn't say the questions gave off the tone of anger, it was many of the responses (notice I didn't say ALL and I hope every single word and sentence I post isn't going to require detailed qualifying).

Frankly, the concept of the husband as the Administrator or Administrative Head in the marriage should be appealing. It makes clear HIS duties and the extent of his boundaries. As well, marriage is quite a bit of an organization. It obviously has a very clear structure regarding authority and roles. Add to that children and the organization grows.

The problem with people of course is that they get trapped by their own mentality at times and are unable to understand certain words outside of elementary contexts. An organization is NOT always a business (I am not saying YOU believe that but apparently some are only able to associate such words as administrative and organization with a business) and remember even the word business is not always referring to just commercial business. However, I am going to go further and hopefully you are open to at least attempting to understand my illustration whether you agree or not.

In the military you have people with rank. When a Sergeant salutes a Capt., did you know he or she is not saluting Capt. personally? The Sergeant is saluting the rank. Regardless of the Sergeant's opinion about whether he or she likes the Captain because is a a jerk or she is a witch, that is irrelevant. One is recognizing their subordination and saluting the rank. That is why anyone who is required to salute anyone in the military at anytime can because it isn't personal, it is a matter or organizational respect and the observance of protocol.

God has established some specific protocols for the divine institution of marriage and one of them is an organizational protocol; that being that the man is the head or in effect the Administrator. That means that in the end, after all considerations from all relevant parties what decision that is made for the organization...the marriage...lies on his shoulders and he is accountable to God. And of course while the marriage and the military are not the same, the point of organization structure IS. We all recognize that a marriage is the joining of two people and the military is merely an organization, but nevertheless though two people are joined as one it is clear God does have an organizational protocol for marriage with a head and a subordinate.

This also relieves the wife from the responsibility of being Administrative Head. And in fact it frees her up to fulfill her role which is the Bible teaches she was made to be help "appropriate" for him (the King James translates it "help meet" which is erroneously turned by some into helpmate which actually fails to properly represent the word "meet").

Hence she is able to focus her energies and concentration on exactly how she can best fulfill her role as his assistant. The trick of course is that a woman learn what it means to be "appropriate" help. Constantly secondly guessing, constantly criticizing, complaining, attempting to manipulate, being a high drama queen, being a gossip, refusing intimacy because of some childish mood and so on, are all NOT ways, but I need not state the obvious so forgive me.

However, studying the husband and understanding his mentality, moods and what helps him the most is a the right start. And a clever woman who loves her husband and genuinely seeks to be appropriate help is going to be smarter than him in some areas. Her challenge is to, instead of being a manipulator, learn to be one that influences and accepts that she won't always get her way though she might see something he does not because she respects his role as Administrator. But a good woman will learn that over time and through consistency and devotion without pandering to a man's selfish side yet not berating him like some lecturing old biddy, a woman can wield tremendous influence without succumbing to being a manipulator.

Being the Administrator doesn't make a man by default the smartest, it simply makes him the one responsible for answering to the decisions made regarding the marriage. But a woman as appropriate help is also responsible to seek to influence her husband for the good without being a manipulator. A good Administrator will let his wife be free to exercise all her gifts and skills and recognize where she is superior in talent or intellect all the while keeping in tact his responsibility as Administrator. Only a foolish man uses his wife for selfish ends such as satisfying his narcissistic need to compensate for some inadequacy and mistreat her or keep her from excelling.

However, a foolish woman constantly contends with her husband, second guesses him and is never satisfied. A woman must accept that sometimes it won't go her way and her talent isn't going to be recognized instantly every time or be allowed to fly. He won't be perfect and neither will she and I am sure no one is suggesting that either is expect of the other.

 

I understand your examples Mr. M and then you go spoiling it all with this:

I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but it sure sounds as though you believe a woman shouldn't have moods herself, but she should fully understand her husband's!

This one bit out of the whole shows clearly what the OP means by double standard.

 

I suggest instead of investing time interpreting simply read plainly what is said and NOT what isn't said and assume what isn't said is meant.

Here is your great error. A husband is not dependent upon a woman, whether she is or is not properly fulfilling the role of the martial subordinate to do his. And secondly, it is NOT a spiritual matter. Marriage isn't just for believers and unsaved people, if they adhere to the divine design of marriage, do quite well.

Regardless of the solution that a superior finds that pertains to the misbehavior of a subordinate, it neither justifies the misbehavior or relieves the subordinate or the responsibility to NOT misbehave in such a juvenile manner. Simply because the burden of what should be the subordinate's is now the superiors does not make it all okay and in fact still fails to address the proper role of the subordinate.

I see your point, nevertheless you remain contentious and that is rather telling about your genuine affections regarding the topic.

I am not debating that and that isn't the issue. The issue was how a woman is to properly fulfill her role as the appropriate help, not how her misbehavior should be justified and suddenly it is the man's fault she is moody and rebellious. Yes, he can be patient with her but again, that is an attempt to minimize her responsibility for her OWN behavior. This is called a double standard. Doesn't work.

Your point is agreed with by me but it is not different than the heartbreak a woman puts in a man when she fails to fulfill her role and attempts to manipulate, acts selfishly, pouts and so on when she DOESN'T get her way.

I am not arguing the element of love. And I can say to you "please stop categorizing men...blah blah blah" but all that is is an attempt to manipulate someone to say what YOU demand or want them to say. If you want that, find someone else. If you want discussion, debate and challenge then be a big girl and realize not everyone agrees with you and is going to speak their opinion. Telling them to stop categorizing Christian women (I never used the word ALL in reference to them but you seem to have magically found a way to insert that idea in your head) is only an attempt to manipulate what is being said.

The fact is, however, regardless of the personality differences in the end both the role as Administrative Head and Administrative Assistant in the marriage have some principles that ALL MEN and ALL WOMEN had better adhere to or they are both out of bounds with God...so in some cases I feel quite comfortable implying in the least, ALL .... but so far until just then I haven't implied as much though you charge me with this.

 

Spoken like a champ.

 

I think I will borrow a quote from you on this matter. "I see your point, nevertheless you remain contentious and that is rather telling about your genuine affections regarding the topic." The "misbehavior" of the woman? If the woman is "misbehaving" I can pretty much guarantee the man is as well....

 

I am sorry in this case you have succumbed to the temptation for over generalizations, but alas I suppose you all do that from time to time.

If the husband runs around I guess that makes the wife a harlot, right or we can pretty much bet on that, eh? Of course not and how silly to bet on that if a woman is misbehaving the husband must be. Good grief. You usually aren't so gender prejudiced.

 

Okay, now you are guilty of over generalizations. I was speaking directly to the misbehaving you have mentioned in your posts. As "emotional" as some women might seem to be, there is ALWAYS, rightly or wrongly, a root cause of that emotion. In the examples you gave I can pretty much guarantee that the husband played a part in the misbehaving. No gender predjudice about it, just pretty much human nature.

 

Be specific, what example are you talking about? The fact is each adult is responsible for THEIR OWN behavior and using a husband or wife as a scapegoat or blame is not supported in Scripture. Trying to assume a root cause is the husband in any example I gave (which you referred to in general but not specifically) is only a further move away from personal accountability and responsibility. And I contend you can find no such example I gave. However, I am not interested in an argument, rather an enlightening discussion without overreactions, generalizations or mischaracterizations of what I have said. I had a very good dialogue and debate with another poster with ample challenges on both sides without getting into a needless quarrel. For now I don't find the direction constructive at all. I expect challenges but frankly I believe you are reacting and not responding.

 

Mr. M. it is quite apparant that you are also reacting based on your characterizations of anyone who attempts to question or disagree with your statements. Personally I do not find this topic constructive, nor do I wish to quarrel with anyone deadset in their opinions. Frankly, I have little time for such things. If you have not noticed, the participants in this thread have never implied that personal accountability flies out the window if one acts in retribution to perceived injustices in their marriage. That my friend is my point in this seemingly aimless dialogue. While the woman in your examples may be "misbehaving" when she refuses intimacy, complains, whines, or manipulates; she certainly is not doing such without being provoked, mainly by her spouse. Now, what can we logically infer from such a situation? Both parties are at fault, and each are accountable for their own actions. With that being said 4b4j, gave a perfect, and I believe godly, example of what a husband should do if he finds his wife "behaving" in such a manner you described, and you were not concerned with even attempting to discuss it with her. You were more content to continue on your rant of personable accountbility, which none of us have ever denied. Of course you will not find the discussion constructive at all.