Examples of Christian husbands leading their wives

Several Christian men on this board have recently told me that they, as Christian husbands, assume a leadership role in their marriage.I would like to know what this leadership looks like; how this leadership position is manifested.Some Christian men have said that their leadership role enables them to avoid "bickering" between a husband and wife, which implies to me that a Christian husband simply uses his leadership position to "pull rank" and shut down any dissenting opinions in order to get his own way.Others have described an equal partnership-type relationship in which all issues are discussed as adults, mutual respect is the norm, and both partners get an equal say, yet these Christian men maintain that they are still the leaders in their marriage.I would like to explore the following questions and issues:1) In what ways do you lead your wife in your marriage? Specific examples, please.2) Do all Christian wives need leading in similar areas of life?3) What are the practical negative consequences, in your view, of having an equal parnership rather than a leader/follower marriage? What would your wife say the negative consequences are?4) What are the benefits of being the leader in a marriage? What are the benefits of being the one who is led in a marriage?5) What are the negative consequences of being a leader in a marriage? What are the negative consequences of being the one who is led in a marriage?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.Ha, one minute!This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 08-10-2004 09:51 PM

I thankfully don't know anyone off hand who I know leads a relationship like being described on this forum, but I think I can guess pretty well most of the reasons etc.A lot of conservative Christians do things simply because 'that's the way it was always done'. TWIWAD, pronounced "Twih-wahd" is a good enough reason for some people to do things without thinking. I'll be surprised if the practice in question is an exception.When reminded that such and such is a tradition, people(a lot of women that I've seen) will be content only cooking meals and stuff when really they could be doing so much more if they'd just grow a spine and do what they want.In turn, there are men who, despite their 'clinging to tradition', are in reality fully aware of the one-sided TWIWAD and use it as a device to push his wife around.Example: A girl I know will NOT call a boy on the phone, because the male is supposed to initiate all courting. She won't call guys even if it's just a friendly conversation. They have to call her, no exception. I asked her why she does this. "TWIWAD." She doesn't know that acronym, she used the long version.In all seriousness, it's more a case of TWIWAD than "That's how God wants it" in this case.I know that didn't answer the questions you listed, but it's a possible reason that some of these women are submitting to this kind of idea.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)

Thanks for the reply, B2P.What do you think a good Christian marriage looks like?

I am not a christian but live in an extremely conservative German state (I am not a German either) where the local government is the Christian Social Union (CSU). Though not actually directly a man leading a woman issue..an odd phenomenon I have observed is that although lip service is paid to women being equal and that women should have careers etc., women who do not stay home with their children are called "Rabbenmutter" which basicall means that they are selfish lowlifes. The social pressure against women working and having kids comes not only from men but from many women. The consequence is a really boneheaded anti-women political system where you are more likely to get hit by any remaining peices of Skylab that may eventually crash to earth than find a kindergarden place for your kids. As a substitute, they force companies by law that have ten or more employees to keep the position of any woman who stays home for up to 3 years. The end effect is that companies descriminate fiercly against hiring women in the first place if they are anywhere near reproducing age....since the families cannot find a kindergarden place for the kids and the only one with a chance at finding a job is the father...many women stay home (if they can they leave Germany) to persue a career...so the deeply held conservative christian "woman belongs at home" mentality has a huge economic and socio political effect on German women.

Wow, I was not aware of that situation in Germany.Maybe sooner or later they will firgure out that they are discouraging over half of their population from contributing to the advancement of their economy.

quote:

---

Maybe sooner or later ...

---

My guess is later....in the current debate, those recognizing that that the consequence of women (and their partners) deciding against having children at all or only having one child for economic reasons is causing such a massive demographic shift that the actual state could be undermined are trying to rectify the situation. However, it is too little and too late. While some call for a massive increase in subsidizing daycare, there are the conservatives who want to "make it easier for women to stay home". The religion based background of this sentiment aside, it is completely unrealistic economically as most families in order to survive or stay out of poverty need dual incomes. I read recently that by 2050 Germany will shrink from a country of about 88 million to under 60 million with a higher percentage of those remaining being old. In a "pay as you go" pension system country, it means every person of working age would spend their entire income financing retirees with nothing left over for themselves...I don't know..somehow I don't see this massive wave of altruism working out...

What, no response from any married male Christians in this thread?Buz, jasonb?

It's doesn't have to be a religously based statement, and it doesn't have to be unrealistic. The major reason that people need dual incomes now is because of a shift in the expectations of work and the nature of taxation. It used to be that in a single income family raising kids the main earner paid virtually no tax, and the expectation was for a pay level that allowed one to support a family.As to religious motivations. I find it rather disgusting when people have children only to pass them off to strangers to raise as soon as their maternity leave runs out. In seems to me that there is something very wrong with a society that does that. Raising children is important and it's a job best done by the children's parents, doing otherwise will destroy what little concept of community we still have.

quote:

---

As to religious motivations. I find it rather disgusting when people have children only to pass them off to strangers to raise as soon as their maternity leave runs out.

---

How many men do you know who would take a hit to their careers to stay at home to raise their children while their wife immediately returns to work? I think the common "religious" concept of women as inherently second class citizens who should subordinate their lives to the whims and expectations of male driven society is more harmful to any concept of community that may or may not exist.

quote:

---

it's a job best done by the children's parents

---

I agree, especially if both parents shoulder the responsibility.

I've known a couple. Fuck yeah! However, I'm not really sure that women raising children is a result of a male dominated society but rather a result of biology and evolution.

Good point. Whether one's an evo or a creo fundie, the fact remains that throughout the history of mankind, as well as the animal kingdom the female who is equipped physically to feed the infant cares for the home/nest/den for the young. All kinds of social and domestic problems are emerging with this looser frenzy to change what is biologically and historically established.It is also true that throughout most of history the man worked the ground at or near the home and had a greater role in interaction, discipline and rearing of the children than since the industrial revolution when men moved into the industrial arena and away from the home.

quote:

---

I've known a couple.

---

I am sure such couples exist but are mostly anecdotal.

quote:

---

However, I'm not really sure that women raising children is a result of a male dominated society but rather a result of biology and evolution.

---

I am not sure I agree with this. There are cultures in which the females are dominant. Also, in hunter gatherer societies it is the females who provide the most calories for the group as opposed to the men who bring in far less (and also with less predictability). There are other social mammals for which clear male dominance is not apparent. Elephant males are forced out of the female dominated groups when they reach reproductive age...they tend to wander alone or in male bachelor groups but the females are the leaders and defenders of the herds. I think the "dominance" of males in human society is a cultural artifact which will fade over time as being bigger and stronger gives way to more intellect based employment...

Great line. What I meant by I've known a couple is that a small number do, compared to the large number where the man works and the woman raises the kids. I don't think the rest of what you wrote is an answer to what I wrote. You deal with whether male domination is a biological/evolutionary inevitability, but that's not what I said - I said I thought females being the primary child-rearers was a result of biology/evolution more than male domination.

I don't think that's true - men took virtually no part in the raising of their children throughout most of the last thousand years. What has been lost is the involvement of other adults in the raising of children - children used to be raised by their grandparents, aunts, and the other mothers and women of the community.