Queen of Swords

Originally posted by yguy
Of course not. Has anyone said it does?

Not on this thread, but I've heard it from fundamentalist Christians before : the answer to fatherphil's question, "when partners disagree who makes the final decision and takes resposibility for the outcome of that decision?" is "the husband". Regardless of any other characteristics of the husband in question. Hence my question to fatherphil.

I would like to know the factor (if any) which differentiates every husband from every wife, thereby qualifying the husband to make the final decision. If it is not anatomy, what is it?

yguy

The wife's respect, earned by the husband by the way he treats her.

Ideally, a woman marries a man because he's respectable, and he becomes more so as the marriage progresses. Of course, most people get married for the wrong reasons, and the husband earns the wife's contempt because he's a pig who wants mothering. She then becomes the boss whether she wants to or not.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by yguy
The wife's respect, earned by the husband by the way he treats her.

This qualifies the husband to make the final decision about anything?

What happens if the woman happens to be more intelligent than the man, or if they have to make a decision regarding finances and she has a degree in the subject whereas he can't balance a checkbook? Should he still get to make the final decision?

Moreover, what about the husband's respect, earned by the wife by the way she treats him? Why does this not qualify her to make the final decision, if it works the other way around according to your statement?

Jinto

Stupidity.

yguy

If the wife lets him, yes.

If she doesn't, something's wrong. Either he hasn't earned her respect, or she's trying to usurp his natural authority.

I would suggest that women marry men who are more intelligent that they are. Scigirl, for instance, should marry a Nobel laureate rather than a garbage truck driver - unless she sees something in him she can respect and follow.

Again, it's rather like the President signing off on an idea presented by his cabinet members. No one is smart enough to know everything. The question is one of where the buck stops.

Doing it the other way around will make her his mommy. Besides the fact that she will soon get disgusted with having that kind of power, it inspires contempt for the dad in the children, who know intuitively who ought to bear the burden of responsibility. Husbands saying "Yes dear" has become a running joke; but like jokes about death, it covers up something ugly.

cheetah

How about the husband's respect, earned by the wife by the way she treats him? All I know is that my partner and I have gained a lot of respect for each other of the years. Should we attempt to measure who gained more respect for the other in order to show who should be in charge? Or does the simple fact that he has a penis trump our mutual respect?

But, then again, yguy, I can see from other threads that you are just posting your opinions, so we can just agree to disagree if you like...

cheetah

For fatherphil, and others, regarding the benefits of marriage over non-marriage. I still disagree that marriage offers stability non-marriage cannot have. As non-marriage has grown exponentially over the last decade or so, we are only beginning to see what couples in non-marriages are like. But here are some questions to show you why I think that piece of paper is not going to make anything more stable:

1. If marriage is better than non-marriage, what about the couple who has a ceremony and holds themselves out to be husband and wife, but never actually got a marriage license? Do they count as the more stable "married" couple, even though they legally aren't, or do they not count as stable, because they aren't technically married?
2. What about the couple that has legally binding documents such as wills, trusts, powers of attorney for healt and financial decision making and own investments and property together? Is this still not stable enough because they chose not to have a party where the woman wore a white dress and everyone danced the Electric Slide?
3. What about the couple that doesn't get married because one member of the couple would lose certain benefits (i.e. the person is a widow(er) and would lose Social Security benefits/pensions if they were to marry again and cannot financially afford to lsoe this)? Does that make their relationship less stable?

I am just trying to point out that a piece of paper and a party do not a stable relationship make. IN our times, many couples with very stable relationships choose not to do those things and stay together for decades. Many marriages, as we know, do not last past the 5 year mark. I think as we find non-marriage to become more prevalent and as research on it takes form, we will find that those who self-identify as "non-married" or whatever you want to call couples that choose not to get married, are no more flaky than a married couple.

I am not campaigning for abolishing marriage here, and in fact, the Ontario decision to allow gay marriage has made me personally feel a little more favorable toward the institution, but I AM campaigning against non-marriage discrimination! I am looking forward to the day when women won't look at me in pity because they think I can't get my partner to marry me, or stop asking me when we'll get married, or in general act like we must not matter much to each other. But, really we have a deep and abiding love, trust and respect for each other which could not be enhanced by any registration with City Hall. And while a party is always fun, getting a party is hardly a reason to enter into a legally binding contract.

yguy

Did you read anything I wrote?

alek0

What natural authority?

Jinto

If a wife lets her husband make the final decision on everything, then there are one of several possibilities:

1. The wife is literally too stupid to make decisions about her own life on her own.
2. The husband has coerced his wife into submission through intimidation, or by invoking tradition.
3. The wife is engaging in passive-agressive behavior towards her husband.
4. Any or all of the above.

Clearly, if a woman (or anyone) is in a marital relationship where one person has final authority over the other, something is definately wrong.

What natural authority? I don't see any reason why having a penis grants you any more "natural" authority than having a vagina. Recommend that you join the rest of us in the 21st century.

Scigirl should marry whomever she damn well pleases, whenever she damn well pleases, and for any reason that she damn well pleases (assuming of course, that the man concurs with the idea: I hardly recommend marrying someone who doesn't want to marry you.) You are not the arbiter of who scigirl should and should not marry.

And in any healthy relationship, it stops at mutual consensus of the involved parties. It does not stop because one member or the other has been arbitrarily chosen on the basis of gender to be the "head" of the household. Similarly, in the United States of America, the buck does not stop with the president of the united states. The buck stops at the junction of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government, and beyond that, the will of the people. Equality in household authority is not just a good idea, but when children are involved, it is an absolute necessity. As parenthood is nessecarily undemocratic, it becomes all the more vital to ensure that there are checks and balances in the household to prevent one dominant member from abusing his authority. A household where the buck stops with one person is like a government where the buck really DID stop with the president - it would be Iraq.

Yes dear.