I’m going to continue on with the rest of a girl’s comment from Dalrock’s…
After reading the comments here (that a wife should submit to her husband even unto housework) I am going to ask [her prospective husband] how he feels about housework because I can’t see myself married to someone who has issues with it. I don’t want to be the only person who scrubs the toilet for the rest of my life.
which will, rightly, set off alarms for any man who is not a confessed feminist. It’s easy to see that before she’s even married she’s already rebelling against being a wife…not because she doesn’t want to clean toilets (no one does), but because she is both setting arbitrary rules against an imagined offense (which makes her the de facto ruler, and therefore against submitting to her husband) and because she is manipulative and deceptive. Though, feminist or not, most men would only feel the manipulation and deception. Many men couldn’t pinpoint it, but I’m here to help.
Check out the framing of her statement. “I’m going to ask him…” It’s a test, plain and simple. It’s a test that she knows she cannot possibly grade him fairly upon because she has already stated that he doesn’t know what he expects from a wife; particularly about submission. She’s counting on him being rattled by the question, and just backing off from the whole concept. She, however, does know the answer to the submission question test: It means she cleans a toilet if he says “Clean the toilet.”
“…[H]ow he feels about housework…” is so untrue it’s not even wrong. Feel has nothing to do with it. By moving the rational decision from the questions of
- What should a wife do?
- What does submission mean?
- Who’s going to clean the toilets?
This way, if they argue, it happens in the arena of feelings and “he-said/she-said” instead of “Let’s look at the Bible.” This is necessary for her because she doesn’t want to admit that–way deep-down in her gut–that she hates what God has said. By he-sad/she-said she can’t really lose, because if she loses that means he’s a big meanie picking on a girl. Therefore he isn’t worthy anyway. When she really thinks about it, the way he doesn’t let her have her way is emotional abuse. So she will tell herself.
And let us not overlook the fact that this isn’t about housework. It’s about submission overall. She knows that, but he may not. She knows that if she gets her way about housework, she has precedent to get her way about everything. Sometime later, she’ll give-in to something that she feels is just his want (not her duty), and pat herself on the back for her maturity and willingness to compromise. If he ever brings up that it was her duty then she’ll regret it, and think of the whole incident as the time that he took advantage of her mature generosity. It’s like clockwork.
“I can’t see myself married to someone” has the subtext of “I’m considering others.” If it was a PUA’s statement some would call it Dread Game. She’s communicating that she is ready to replace him if he doesn’t let her have her way. Again, this will set a precedent for all future disagreements.
“I don’t want to be the only person who scrubs the toilet for the rest of my life.”
Classic ugly feminism for her to focus in on what she hates instead of what she loves.
Things that We have Heard and Known 
I appreciate your female analyses.
How about envy.
http://www.garynorth.com/public/13633.cfm
Once, following a sermon where the pastor made bold statements about women and sexual refusal, over lunch I heard a neighbor woman say to my wife and I that she “isnt going to open her legs any ole time Phil here wants’em opened.
Phil* [here] dutifully offered, “we’ll definitely not be going back to that church”
*see Florestan, Phil [here] was tied to the wall
@jsr
Thanks. However; I’m not sure what you’re asking in regards to envy. “How about envy _______?”
I read the linked essay, and I couldn’t understand how it related to a girl; with the exception of the idea of the necessity of community standards to tamp down bad actions and promote good ones.
Though the author is right about the confusion of envy and jealousy, in my opinion, he goes wrong straightaway with his definitions; particularly in a Biblical context.
These are loose definitions, but: Envy is desire for some particular thing for yourself that belongs to someone else. Jealousy is the desire to keep what is yours. Jealous and zealous are closely related; sort of opposite ends of the same emotional staircase. Zealous being the desire to belong to what is yours, or keep together what belongs together.
As an example: God is not envious of us. He doesn’t want what we have, and we have nothing that is not His except sin; which He does not want. God is, however, jealous of (over) us, and we are to be zealous for (under) him. A husband is to be jealous of (over) his wife, and a wife is to be zealous for (under) her husband. You can see that interchanging jealous and zealous doesn’t alter the emotion much. As one “staircase” they share the same emotional space.
So while the Philistines were most certainly envious of Isaac’s wells, and while that envy certainly led to filling Isaac’s wells with dirt, it seems to me that it was hate which directly drove the vandalism. Hate overtook them because envy had tripped them up.
I’m doing some serious hair-splitting there, but it seems appropriate considering the essay.
Envy, per the author, is the desire to destroy/hurt those who have something desirable the envious person does not have. That insidious desire appears to be something stronger in women than in men. Per your definitions, hate seeded by envy.
The other thing I saw in the article was how the destructive act springing from envy had much wider devastation/cost than the perpetrator likely imagined. Much like women’s impact on marriage/love/family/society.
One further subtext. Most men have no trouble going on trips into the woods where there are no toilets. Their bathroom might get dirty, but the OC-must-clean threshold is usually on the high side unless some important guest is coming. Women tend to want things clean – it may be some kind of nesting instinct – they want the home “just so”. So to remove another bit of frame: “I want a sparkling, sanitized bathroom every day, but have no idea who is going to do it”. If she never gets married, who is going to clean her toilets? Is she going to hire a maid service?
Most men don’t have issues with housework, they just don’t see having a perpetually pristine house as something worth a lot of effort. Women can be picky, but don’t want to achieve ultraclean themselves. So it is worse: “I want my husband to help me achieve MY idea of clean”.
Every times someone like Mr. Caldo points out some nonsense like this, my desire to talk to women drops ever so slightly.
@jsr
It’s an interesting question. I definitely think instances of envy occur more in women, but are those more numerous instances stronger than the fewer in men? I don’t think so. Women will burn this mutha down over many pittances, but for some particular things men will raze the world.
@tz
Usually men knock it out better and faster than women. Granted: Men will tend to be ruthless in their cleaning, and the result therefore more spartan.
Most women I know don’t care for clean as much as pretty. They’ll rearrange and reorganize ’til their arms fall off, and then cry at the end of the day because they’re still not happy with the way it looks. This is because no amount of rearranging sweeps the Cheerios out of the corners or throws away the granola wrappers. But she has an aversion to the broom, you see. And pillows really pull a room together!
It’s really about glamour. Lots of shows and YouTube videos on throw pillows and drawer organizers. Zero on grabbing the mop.
But are those razing incidents for men seeded more by envy and other immoral attitudes or justified anger that is allowed to grow to sinful action?
“This way, if they argue, it happens in the arena of feelings and “he-said/she-said” instead of “Let’s look at the Bible.” This is necessary for her because she doesn’t want to admit that–way deep-down in her gut–that she hates what God has said. By he-sad/she-said she can’t really lose, because if she loses that means he’s a big meanie picking on a girl. Therefore he isn’t worthy anyway. When she really thinks about it, the way he doesn’t let her have her way is emotional abuse. So she will tell herself.
And let us not overlook the fact that this isn’t about housework. It’s about submission overall. She knows that, but he may not. She knows that if she gets her way about housework, she has precedent to get her way about everything. Sometime later, she’ll give-in to something that she feels is just his want (not her duty), and pat herself on the back for her maturity and willingness to compromise. If he ever brings up that it was her duty then she’ll regret it, and think of the whole incident as the time that he took advantage of her mature generosity. It’s like clockwork.”
Cane, you’ve just described my 29-year marriage, which she blew up then because (with no knowledge of the Christian manosphere, but with the support of two male Christian counselors, one for me and one for the marriage), I called a halt to the rebellion, manipulation, and deception. She decided that if she couldn’t have her way, she’d rather blow it up and try to find someone else who would let her continue it (which she did, a whopping 3 weeks after the divorce was final, and married him a year later). I would say I pity the fool, but he too deserves whatever he gets. If there is a next time for me, the same result is either not going to happen again or it’s going to happen a lot sooner, because I won’t be putting up with it like I did last time. I’ll be who I am. Thanks for your counsel.
Cane you nailed of course. This isn’t about being stuck with the housework or cleaning toilets. This is about a man having authority over her. This is about her having to be the “little woman” at home in the eyes of her piers. And this is about having control over her husband and her marriage.
She has been indoctrinated with the feminist virus. For women with this infection, submission is a bad word and trust in God has no real meaning. As it stands right now, she is NOT wife material.
Man: “Go to work every day for the rest of my life to support you, care for you, and nurture you? Sure. I thought that’s what it meant to be a husband.”
Woman: “Be the only person that scrubs the toilet for the rest of my life? I’m speechless with outrage. Our marriage counselor is gonna here about this!”
Anybody else struck by the irony here?
@jsr says:
April 16, 2015 at 5:07 pm
“Envy, per the author, is the desire to destroy/hurt those who have something desirable the envious person does not have. That insidious desire appears to be something stronger in women than in men.”
That would explain why women are more likely to vote Democrat.
Perpetually pristine may mean something different to various people. What I see anecdotally is wives with forms of fetish for certain things to be clean, while able to live with and through more generalized disorder. My wife could come home and find sparkling bathrooms, clean floors, dishes, no dust on furniture, and grab some cleaner and soft cloth the get the finger prints off the fridge handle. She would do this if there was not a spec of clutter about. She would also do this if you couldn’t easily even get close to the fridge for junk on the floor.
A friend at work suffers similar things. His wife like mine is distracted to useless projects while attempting to clean, and clutter is off the radar. It takes less then 15 minutes to completely de-clutter our lower floor, which because my 9 yr old girl has her room down there can be overwhelmingly messy. Our table, where we take meals, stays cluttered with crafts and papers and 6 placemats that are skewed all angles and either beneath or on top of piles of paper. When I de-clutter the table Ive gone to hiding those mats as they are nice if they alone are on the table. They are never alone. And we do eat there as a family 3 or 4 times a week, amongst the detritus. Its the “squirrel” urge dogs have that seems to reign in the cleaning process, eschewing the old 80/20 rule as a guide to how to attack a task when time is limited.
My work friend will often nearly miss a flight with his wife as they travel to see grandkids because his wife will , while packing last minute, start rehanging drapery or something.
Cane mentioned in a recent post about managing the wife’s time. Ive gone to setting goals for her….gently, maybe with humor involved, yet serious. Ive read countless men writing that all they want is an environment with no clutter when they are home. What I see are homes with unbelievable clutter and pristine mirrors and toilets.
@David J.
It’s a repeatable phenomenon. In addition to the fundamentally common problem of sin and the human condition, we live in a standardized, automated, and broadcast society from cradle to grave. It makes it even more likely that the rebellion manifests in the the same way from one family to the next. Coast to coast in the US there is such little difference in culture from place to place; same curriculum, same textbooks, same shows, same pop music…the instruction is identical.
Men who marry divorced women are the worst, and the root of the problem. Divorce laws and child support laws and the attitudes of cops and judges are sometimes deeply destructive, but the man who marries another man’s wife (divorced or not) strikes at the root. That man destroys everything. Societies can survive all kinds of deviancy, but it cannot survive men who take other men’s wives as their own.
I’m sure that includes some of my readers. The point isn’t to insult them, but to let them know they must not ever do it again.
@jsr
Short answer: I don’t know.
Long answer: I’m not committed to an answer on this, but I don’t really see a useful distinction. Justified anger is justified anger. If it turns to sinful action it has become about something else. Likewise, a woman’s desire for a justifiable need, if it turns to envy, ceases to be about the need.
@Empath
Yes, this is it. That’s why I mentioned the drawer organizers. I’ve seen a whole day spent on one drawer.
The struggle is real, y’all.
Yessir.
Looking at the trees instead of the forest. All because of that dirty little tree called ‘submission’. But men are called to be in submission. Jesus was submitted to the Father. And guess what? He did it voluntarily. All submission is voluntary. If it were not then it would be called coercion and oppression. Jesus also was submitted to Herod, but He did not do everything that Herod wanted. He was submitted to the Chief Priests, but He did not do everything that they desired of Him. He was submitted to Pilate and the Roman Empire who had Him killed, and not because they were pleased with Him. Men submit every day to numerous authorities; at work, government, Church, etc. So how does a man’s submission differ in kind to a woman’s submission? Not at all. It looks exactly the same. It is the same. So the problem is only, ‘submitted to whom?’. A marriage is not simply a tree, it is a forest. It is a contract and a covenant. If it is Christian then man and wife must voluntarily submit to God, to desire to love God, to desire to be in agreement with God so that as much as it is possible His will is done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Remember, they do His will in Heaven because His will is also their will. Husband and wife must be in agreement as to why and what their marriage is. Lots of people do what they are told to do,but they are not submitted.
@Bobbye
I don’t understand your comment. Can you say it a different way?
@ Cane
Are you still tracking the discussion at Dalrock’s? Some of the gents have made some good points, but mostly they’re shooting off target. It devolved into pointlessness a while ago.
Bobbye – Is the following a fair summary of your statement above?
1 – Men are called to be in submission.
2 – All submission is voluntary.
3 – Men’s submission is the same in kind as woman’s submission.
4 – The only problem with submission is who is being submitted to.
5 – A Christian man and woman must voluntarily submit to, desire to love, and desire to be in agreement with God.
6 – God’s will is the Christian man’s and Christian woman’s will.
7 – Husband and wife must be in agreement as to marriage perimeters.
For the sake of discussion, my thoughts:
1 – agree
2 – disagree (unless complying to coercion is regarded as voluntary).
3 – yes and no (submission is submission but men and women are different).
4 – disagree (in the Christian context the problem is with those who rebel).
5 – Without further clarification I would change “must” to “should”.
6 – Without further clarification I would change “is” to “should be”.
7 – Only in a marriage 2.0 society.
@JDG: “How can two walk together, except they be agreed” Submission requires agreement. Obedience does not. A man can do what he is ordered to do at work and not be submitted to his boss. When Paul instructed slaves to submit to their masters, he was not instructing them to do what they were told to do, They already did that. He was instructing them to walk in agreement with their earthly masters as they would submit to God. God does not coerce you and therefore you should not coerce others. God seeks those who desire to please Him because they love Him.
@Cane: I don’t understand what you don’t understand. Can you elaborate?
Bobbye – Then perhaps you meant to say something like:
1 – Men are called to be in submission.
2 – In Christ all submission is voluntary.
3 – Christian men and women both should submit to those whom God has put in authority over them (men to their masters, emperor, governors and women to their own husbands).
4 – There really is no problem with submission for those in Christ.
5 – A Christian man and woman should voluntarily submit to, desire to love, and desire to be in agreement with God (ie: Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the Church, wives submit to your husbands in all things).
6 – God’s will should be the Christian man’s and Christian woman’s will (ie: Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the Church, wives submit to your husbands in all things)..
7 – Husband and wife should be in agreement that a Christian marriage exemplify the relationship between Christ and His Church (ie: Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the Church, wives submit to your husbands in all things).
@JDG: Agreed.
@Bobbye
I didn’t understand the tree/forest metaphor, or who you said was “Looking at the trees instead of the forest”, but thanks to you and JDG I get it now.
Of course, I have one piece of pedantry. You said:
You are right about this. However; with those who are to be in submission to me (wife, kids, coworkers, etc.) I take their obedience as if it was full submission, and do my best to forgive them the difference. I used to hold it against them when I could tell they weren’t really onboard, but I remind myself that I would not want to be judged according to that standard because I can’t always meet it.
“Men who marry divorced women are the worst, and the root of the problem. Divorce laws and child support laws and the attitudes of cops and judges are sometimes deeply destructive, but the man who marries another man’s wife (divorced or not) strikes at the root. That man destroys everything. Societies can survive all kinds of deviancy, but it cannot survive men who take other men’s wives as their own.”
Amen. In this case, my ex-wife is the second divorced woman this man has married, after committing adultery with the woman who became his second wife while he was still married to his first wife and she was still married to her first husband. it beggars belief, but my ex regards him as a more godly man than I (because he is an ex-lay pastor and “he prays with her”); the previous adultery, the two previous divorces, and the physical abuse of his second wife somehow don’t exist for my ex. I suspect those things will matter a great deal to her one of these days.
Pingback: Permission | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere