Making It Worth The Investment

TempestTcup, who helps run the Red Pill Women Reddit, posted a comment some woman left there not too long ago. It is short, but I will post only the central paragraph:

I am a very lazy person, and that makes it hard for me when it comes to most things feminine, because being traditionally feminine requires so much effort: I don’t cook anything from a recipe, I never bake, I don’t wear make-up, I don’t decorate, I don’t knit or sew or do crafts, I put minimal effort into my outfits, and I dislike shopping with a passion. However, I don’t really have any traditionally masculine interests, either – I can’t be bothered about sports, I don’t play videogames, I don’t read comic books, I don’t hunt/shoot etc etc.
I am interested in some of these things, I have a passing knowledge of many of them, but I don’t really care very much. Because of this I sometimes find it hard to converse with women on either end of the spectrum (and with men, sometimes) because I am rarely passionate about the things they are passionate about.

This doesn’t exactly paint a flattering picture of this (young?) woman now, does it? But her response is only the catalyst here. What interested me more than her indulgence of the sin of sloth were a couple of the comments made in response to the post. Commenter Cadders left this:

Ummm…..craving leadership…..male leadership perhaps?

Tempest followed up with a comment of her own:

True, but what male leader wants to put up with someone that catatonic? I bet it’d take a crowbar to wrench her out of her chair

And here Tempest gets to something very, very important. Few, if any, men would be interested in trying to lead that woman to a better state of life. It would be a major investment of time, and probably money. And for what gain? What kind of personality do you think that this woman possesses? I imagine it isn’t particularly endearing. What we are talking about here is a total make-over for this woman- nothing else will do.  Essentially, she has to become someone else entirely for any man worth his salt to want to be with her for the long term.

I’ve covered the subject of “training” a woman to be wife material before, in my post Some Assembly Required. In it I discussed what I could, and could not “train” in a woman to make her wife material. I also explained that I would, in fact, be willing to do that kind of “training”, and invest in a woman who shows potential. The thing is, I’m only going to invest in a woman if she makes it relatively easy and inviting for me to do so. [Edit: And I would only do so in areas where I am really just helping her change herself- like losing weight, for example] Dalrock’s metaphor of the Two Beaches is appropriate here, I think. A woman who makes it easy for me to “train” her, who doesn’t put up obstacles and fights me along the way? I’m willing to chance that. But a woman who turns this from a chore into a battle? Pass. [Edit: Not only would I not want to endure that kind of battle, but it would show she is beyond my ability to help/influence anyways.]

I mention all of this because the comment that Tempest highlighted reminded me of a young woman I  worked with a few months back. For a while I considered whether I could, and should, “train” her towards being wife material.  I knew she and I shared some similar views on life, and that she was a Christian.  She did give off some Christo-Feminist warning signs, however, and that gave me pause. On the other hand I thought I  could probably correct her in a relatively short time frame, and if that didn’t work out then I could always leave before having invested too much time and effort. I also had reason to believe she was a virgin. Of course, much of the reason for that is that she was quite overweight. Enough so to easily push her out of the acceptable category, at least as she was. What she had going for her was the fact that she still had something of a pretty face, which hinted at good genes. I suspected she would actually be quite attractive if she lose the excess weight.

Given all of this, I was tempted to “train” her up. I didn’t though, because she presented me with (to keep the previous metaphor going) an Omaha Beach like environment. Her personality was atrocious. She was extraordinarily difficult to work with, as she was flighty and controlling at the same time. She couldn’t take orders or follow them, and yet couldn’t lead at the same time. All in all, she thoroughly disabused me of the notion of trying to “train” her to be wife material. [Edit: Not only did I not want to “train” her, I knew that I couldn’t.]

As Tempest alluded to before, I didn’t [Edit: and don’t] want to put up with someone like her. There were simply too many barriers in my ways to make it worthwhile. “Training” her was a long-term project that I rationally concluded was a bad bet- I had no assurance of success, while at the same time I was assured of a high cost. A woman has to want to change, and be willing to change, in order for a man, or me at least, to consider “training” her to be wife material. That young woman showed neither inclination. In short, she didn’t make it worth the investment.

Advertisements

43 Comments

Filed under Femininity, Feminism, Fitness Test, Marriage, Moral Agency, Red Pill, Women

43 responses to “Making It Worth The Investment

  1. Marrying someone in the hope that they would change is a temptation that (I thought) primarily plagued women.

    It is also a terrible trap to fall into. People do not permanently change for the sake of a significant other. Unless the desire for change comes from within a person (and one just needs help on figuring out the “how to”, or one needs either a cheerleader or a rival to encourage one), that person will fall back on former habits as soon as he is comfortable in the relationship.

    Or so my mother has told me on the subject of choosing a man. Available evidence suggests it is the same with women.

  2. @ Feather Blade

    The post where I originally discussed this subject made it clearer, but what I’m talking about here is not marrying someone hoping they change. Rather, you work to change them in the hope that they become marriageable.

  3. Sadly Donal trying to polish a “diamond in the rough”is a mistake I have made on more then one occasion. There is no real payout.

    It’s one thing of the girl is generally submissive, of sound body and domestically inclined but needs more practice but even girls like that are lottery odds

  4. Donal, you truly cannot change someone; and why would you want to? It’s as though you’re saying, “hey, I could see myself married to her as long as she was a different person.” Or rather, I can’t see myself married to that person – the packaging, maybe, but not the person housed within the body. I would never recommend this as a strategy for securing a spouse – it just can’t end well.

  5. @ Maeve

    Was I giving the impression that I was recommending “a total personality make-over?” I hope that I wasn’t, because that wasn’t the point of this post. My goal was to show that issues like weight or certain errors of belief cannot be corrected when personality is an issue.

  6. @ Donal,
    I suppose that fundamentally I believe that it is not possible to change another person. You may encourage change, you may have some influence, but the actual desire for change must be there within the person to begin with. It’s like faith – you cannot force someone to actually believe something, which is why one should never extract a promise of conversion from another.

    Am of the mindset that one establish a limited number (say, NTE 5) drop-dead requirements/characteristics of a potential spouse – anything else is “nice to have, but not expected” – and I extend this way of thinking to women also, BTW.

  7. @ Maeve

    I don’t think we are in disagreement at all. Perhaps I just explained all of this really poorly? The reason I didn’t pursue this is because she didn’t want to change. She had no desire to change. And even if she did, her personality was such that I wouldn’t want to endure helping/guiding/encouraging her.

    I used train in quotes for a reason, because it wasn’t really training at all.

    Is this post just that confusing? If so, maybe I should just trash it.

  8. @Donal,
    I don’t think the post is confusing. I think my fundamental disagreement lies in the idea of “training someone to become a spouse”. It’s really not the same thing as the newlywed experiences new couples have in learning about what each other likes and what they don’t – those funny memorable things like, he hates the smell of snuggle fabric softener and she pretty much drinks coffee-flavored-milk. Those things that you do together that actually forge your marital relationship. They’re awful (like a couple of my early meals) and wonderful (the flowers he used to bring me on Fridays after work). And these things stay with you. If you focus on “training” how are you to ever have these moments? You don’t really grow a couple by one part “training” the other. I guess that’s what’s nagging at me.

  9. Maeve, the idea nagged me as well when Margery first suggested it. Honestly, I’m not at all convinced it is a good idea.

    But Margery was right when she pointed out that very, very few women are reared correctly by their parents these days. All of which means that some men who want a good wife might have no option but to “train” a woman in order to have a chance at a good wife.

  10. I’m going to concede that I don’t really know what you mean by “train”. It’s entirely possible that you’re using it one way and I’m thinking something else and I really don’t want to read into you words with my own preconceptions.

    To me, training is teaching a skill set. And I guess if you find a really sweet girl who meets all the 5 must-have’s but can’t cook or clean or something, then yes, you might need to teach her how to do those things, but those are often things one learns as a young married woman – because even when you know how to do a lot of these things, you do learn your spouse’s preferences and that’s more of growing together as a couple – just as you will learn how to accommodate your spouse’s personal preferences. I think it would be a shame to miss that part of being a newlywed – all the discovery that comes with it. OK – I’m done with the silly nostalgia now.

  11. Maeve
    I think that this is simply a fundamental difference between men and women. Many men that I talk to are attracted to both what a woman is now, but even more attracted to the person they man and woman will become when they are married. It is a drug, an intoxicating fantasy of romance and love.

    The problem is that, often, it is only based in romance and not in love.

    The romance shatters, and each is left standing there.

    There’s a place for possibilities, and I, for one, am not against the word ‘train’ when it comes to potential wives. I am dead set against ‘projects’ though. Skill sets are fine to train – personalities and virtues are not. Those are developed by a relationship with God. The man is there to lead in that situation, yes, but he is not the one that is responsible for her growth.

    A man is a bucket of water, drawn from a well.

    God is the living water which will always sate.

    Donal, the way you responded and felt about the woman in your post reminds me of my experience with Rose.

  12. femininebutnotfeminist

    @ Maeve,

    When I read the word “train” in this post, the idea of him being a “mentor” comes to mind. Like when you mentor someone, you simply guide them, encourage them when they get overwhelmed or frustrated, point them in the direction they need to go, give them advice, that sortof thing. Then they have to choose of their own accord to do the work needed to grow. They have to be humble enough to know that they need to grow, and are willing to accept the help and be grateful for it, otherwise it just doesn’t work. Hopefully I interpreted and explained it right. (If not, please correct me Donal.)

  13. The correct term is to disciple. As in Jesus’ disciples are the Church, and Jesus commands us to make disciples of all nations.

    A wife is the disciple of her husband. She is his helpmeet just as Jesus delegated/commanded us to be His helpmeet here on earth.

    Like the Scriptures are for teaching, training, correcting, and rebuking so the same is to be applied to hierarchical relationships.

  14. @ Maeve, FBNF

    I’m going to concede that I don’t really know what you mean by “train”.

    I will be honest with you: I don’t entirely know what I mean by “train.” What Margery proposed and what I have talked about is, as far as I know, an entirely novel affair without precedent in Christendom.

    The explanation offered by FBNF is just as good as, if not better than, anything I have come up with.

  15. @ Chad

    There’s a place for possibilities, and I, for one, am not against the word ‘train’ when it comes to potential wives. I am dead set against ‘projects’ though.

    Seconded.

    Donal, the way you responded and felt about the woman in your post reminds me of my experience with Rose.

    I suspect that Rose had more potential (probably a lot more) than this woman. It never got anywhere- I was repulsed by her personality before I could even really start some serious one-on-one interaction with her.

  16. @ Deep Strength

    I don’t disagree, at least at first, with anything you’ve said. But all of that is within the context of marriage. What I am discussing comes before that, which raises some interesting and problematic questions.

  17. @ Donal

    The same thing really applies before marriage in theory.

    Jesus essentially “takes dominion” and teaches with authority, miracles, etc. and tells His disciples to come follow Him.

    With men it’s up to men to do the same with women they’re interested in, and respond properly if the women choose to follow or not.

    It’s a really accurate analogy when you understand Eph 5. Remember, Jesus doesn’t “unite” with the Church until He comes again.

  18. @ Donal

    If you want to make the analogy complete you could say that the seal of the Holy Spirit within us as Christians (Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 1:22) is akin to an engagement or engagement ring.

    Proof that we are His until we are united with Him. See: parable of the ten virgins and other references to the bridegroom coming.

    This is why I say that Jesus interaction with the disciples gives a pretty clear example of how unmarried men should act if they desire a wife.

  19. @ DS
    I’m unsure if the disciples anf Christ works for what Donal is describing.

    The disciples had alread acknowledged through words and actions that they were Christ’s, following his word, and becoming the men he desired them to be.

    Single women haven’t done any of that. The closest you get before marriage is a very involved traditional courtship or engagement.

    Otherwise I think you’d have to fall back to the non-jewish believers who were healed by faith. They were not chosen, but 5heir devotion compelled Christ to act.

    How often do men feel compelled to act, not from their own desires, but from the objective actions, faith, and desire of the women they meet?

  20. Hmmm – this conversation has me very very conflicted – particularly from the perspective of one who was married for a long time. A wife is not a disciple or a pupil or even a minion. She’s your ally and lover and partner and sounding board and greatest defender (and a whole lot of other things, of course). There seems to be a great desire to finitely describe exactly what a “marriage” is, what a “wife” is and then to go looking for someone one can hew into the right shape to fit in the box – women do this with men too and I think it’s a terrible mistake for all. You take who the person is, and you will forge your marriage together – I guess that’s it, right there – the dearth of “together”; the lack of “us” in these discussions sometimes, but you’re pronounced “husband and wife”, not “husband” alone, as though there were only one of you in the marriage. I may not be explaining myself very well (or I’ve no traveled to outer Mongolia, and my apologies for any derailment).

  21. @ Chad

    I think you’re getting hung up over it because it’s an ideal. However, when we examine our current world from the lens of the Scriptures it’s already pretty warped far away from the ideal.

    Maybe a results oriented view will help you better. If you want to be married, you have to prepare yourself for the roles and responsibilities of marriage. For a man this means developing himself into the head, who weilds his authority in love, not embittered, honor as co-heirs, etc. For a woman this means molding herself into a helpmeet, is willing to be submissive to her husband, respect, etc. Everything flows out of the hierarchical relationship.

    While a single woman may not be under a man’s authority before marriage, it she wants to be married she needs to be able to cultivate the role and responsibility that it entails. The same with the man.

    Alternatively, think of it this way. The hierarchical relationship between Christians and God. (or God/Jesus > Christians).

    The reason we are drawn to God is because of His love for us. We are attracted to the light. We know He is able to love because he weilds authority. I would even go as far to as that love can only be given from a position of power. Christians are able to give love because of the Holy Spirit working within us. Apart from Him we can do nothing that is good.

    Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

    Thus, we accept that we can do nothing of ourselves, and submit ourselves to Him by obeying His commands.

    This is the nature of the same love that Christians are supposed to display toward other Christians and non-Christians. Once you pull back the blinders and examine the Scriptures from the hierarchical/authoritative position you will see that it all fits.

  22. @ Maeve

    I don’t disagree with any of these:

    “She’s your ally and lover and partner and sounding board and greatest defender (and a whole lot of other things, of course).”

    But you’re missing the aspect that ties together the marriage relationship which is the nature of authority. Authority is good.

    It is a man’s dominion/authority which initially attracts a woman to him — and makes her want to be his helpmeet and put herself under his authority — and in marriage this attraction helps to drive the lynchpin of marriage which is sex. Sex results in unity.

    In this we understand the hierarchical nature of God (Father> Jesus>Spirit) even though He is unified in Himself, the trinity.

    When a woman rebels against the authority of her husband she will lose attraction for him and avoid sex like the plague.

    http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/a-christian-understanding-of-attraction/
    http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/authority-is-good/

  23. Pingback: Dominion | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  24. Siminov

    Maeve, sentiments & notions aside, there’s only ever one Captain of a ship. 😉

  25. For point of reference, so everyone doesn’t have to keep looking at my old post, here is the comment that Margery left:

    I was just reading your ‘about’ and saw that you are very, for lack of a better term, picky about your prospective mates (no judgement! I completely understand why!). You then listed some things you wish to see in a woman. This brought to mind the idea of “training” a woman. What I am asking is- do you have to have the woman already “as is” or are you open to having a woman that wishes to be those things and would like to be trained up in it? What would the process look like do you think?

    This isn’t a proposition and my question isn’t just for you but in general I have to wonder if it wouldn’t be more prudent for men to be open to “good wives” in the making and be educated in how to aid in their training as our society is not the place currently that automatically puts out these sorts of women. Certainly this could be an option?

  26. @ Maeve

    A wife is not a disciple or a pupil or even a minion.

    I agree with the last contention here, perhaps even the second, but the third? I’m not so sure about that. Scripture seems to indicate otherwise:

    25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.

    (Ephesians 5:25-28)

    That to me suggests some kind of leadership role by a husband which seems to emulate that of Christ to the Church, which is composed of the disciples of Jesus. I might be wrong here, this is all relatively new territory to me, I will admit. However, I recall that some of the early Church Fathers agreed with me on this. In fact, I believe that Saint John Chrysostom, in his homily on Ephesians 5, suggested such a thing. I will look into it.

    She’s your ally and lover and partner and sounding board and greatest defender (and a whole lot of other things, of course).

    Here is the thing- while on the surface that sounds good and true, when you dig down it also seems a heck of a lot like an Egalitarian marriage.

    But even if that is true, remember, we aren’t talking about marriage. We are talking about what goes on before marriage. Fundamentally, the idea suggested by Margery is for a man looking to marry to help a potential wife become what her parents should have trained her to be, but never did.

    You take who the person is, and you will forge your marriage together

    And once again, I reiterate the point that Margery made- very, very few women these days are worth taking as they are.

    I guess that’s it, right there – the dearth of “together”; the lack of “us” in these discussions sometimes, but you’re pronounced “husband and wife”, not “husband” alone, as though there were only one of you in the marriage.

    Maeve, I will give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume you are having trouble explaining yourself, because this sounds an awful lot like a feminist rant here. What I just quoted has no connection to this post at all, and instead seems to be a general indictment of the men in these parts.

    Here is the thing- this subject is new territory. As I have mentioned before, it has no precedent as far as I can tell. What is being suggested used to be the provenance of a woman’s parents. But they are no longer doing their jobs anymore, and young women are being sent into the world unfit for marriage. This proposal sounds odd because it is odd. But the old way of doing things doesn’t work anymore, at least, not like it used to. The past few generations have crashed the marriage market, and those of us who are forced to work with it now have to adapt. If that makes you uncomfortable, guess what? It makes us uncomfortable. But we may not have any other choice.

  27. A feminist rant?
    well, OK. I wouldn’t have thought so.

  28. Maeve,

    Perhaps I am just overly sensitive to these things. Hopefully someone else will chip in and confirm what I picked up or knock some sense into me.

    But what you said reminded me of such rants. First is the general indictment part- “the lack of ‘us’ in these discussions sometimes”. That makes it seems like some great, systemic problem which, naturally enough, happens to be the fault of men. Then you have the bit about “not ‘husband’ alone”, which bears semblance to an accusation of men tyrannically thinking only of themselves. [Again, this is what I was picking up. Doesn’t mean I’m right.]

  29. Donal,
    I’ll try and explain myself better. I grew up with a front row seat to an amazing marriage. my parents were absolutely devoted to each other and while they each had very clearly delineated roles in their marriage, they always spoke in united terms – us, our, we. The presented a united front before everyone – including and especially their family members (children included).
    They delighted in each other and it was evident in so many ways, I could fill up this space for pages and pages. Was my father the head of our family, absolutely. Did my mother run the household – you bet she did; it was her job and she ran a tight ship because, as she once put it to me, her greatest delight was creating a home her husband wanted to come home to. With all that – with their very traditional roles, what everyone – EVERYONE noticed was the great love and respect they each afforded the other.
    My mother held up my father to everyone – and he did the same with respect to her. They never tolerated so much as one word spoken against the other and there was more than one family member who found herself no longer welcome in our home.
    And you know, they married somewhat late for the 1960’s – (they were in their 30’s) and would tell about the things they went through in the early days of their marriage, learning to be a husband and wife to each other – and they’d laugh about the silly squabbles and the mountains-made-from-molehills. But neither of them had any specific training when it came to marriage and they both came from families that were less than totally functional.
    They sacrificed and loved and rejoiced and grieved together. Maybe what I’m describing is too egalitarian – but nobody will ever convince me that what they had is not worth trying to emulate.

    (OK – I’ll grant that this was probably somewhat ranty 🙂 )

  30. Maeve
    we’re trying, with great effort, to emulate exactly that.

    And it requires training women to achieve. If you want to call it ‘raising the girl into a woman,’ go ahead. We men simply look at our options and are presented with 18-28 year old women whom either act like men, act like spoiled brats, or have no real grasp of the world beyond their day to day living.

    We feel that the first child we raise will, most likely, be our wife. Simply because her own mother and father didn’t do the job themselves. It falls to us, and we’re ok with that in some ways, not in others, but we wont beat around the bush or lie about reality as we do it

  31. Guest

    John 13:3-17 AMP
    “[3] That Jesus, knowing (fully aware) that the Father had put everything into His hands, and that He had come from God and was now returning to God, [4] Got up from supper, took off His garments, and taking a servant’s towel, He fastened it around His waist. [5] Then He poured water into the washbasin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the servant’s towel with which He was girded. [6] When He came to Simon Peter, Peter said to Him, Lord, are my feet to be washed by You? Is it for You to wash my feet? [7] Jesus said to him, You do not understand now what I am doing, but you will understand later on. [8] Peter said to Him, You shall never wash my feet! Jesus answered him, Unless I wash you, you have no part with (in) Me you have no share in companionship with Me. [9] Simon Peter said to Him, Lord, wash not only my feet, but my hands and my head too! [10] Jesus said to him, Anyone who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is clean all over. And you My disciples are clean, but not all of you. [11] For He knew who was going to betray Him; that was the reason He said, Not all of you are clean. [12] So when He had finished washing their feet and had put on His garments and had sat down again, He said to them, Do you understand what I have done to you? [13] You call Me the Teacher (Master) and the Lord, and you are right in doing so, for that is what I am. [14] If I then, your Lord and Teacher (Master), have washed your feet, you ought it is your duty, you are under obligation, you owe it to wash one another’s feet. [15] For I have given you this as an example, so that you should do in your turn what I have done to you. [16] I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, A servant is not greater than his master, and no one who is sent is superior to the one who sent him. [17] If you know these things, blessed and happy and to be envied are you if you practice them if you act accordingly and really do them.”

    This is very similar to Ephesians 5, as stated in another comment earlier.
    Peter, a disciple of Christ, the foundation of His church, therefore the body and bride of Christ, had a similar struggle as do wives.

    If God holds men accountable to “wash” and “train” their wives, so that they might become more pleasing (and “spotless”) wives, then He will also hold wives accountable to surrender and submit to the “washing” and “training” leadership of their husbands – even when they “don’t understand” or want to resist the leadership of their husbands, as Peter resisted being washed by his Teacher, Master, and Lord, Jesus.

    Pastors ruin things by holding men responsible and accountable to “wash” their wives, but then contradict that very command by giving wives permission to decide when and how they want to “submit” – especially when they “don’t understand,” “don’t feel like it,” and would rather just ignore what their husbands tell them to do – but that is not their call. A woman is not being submissive and respectful when she decides to disregard her husband’s directions everytime she disagrees with them. Pastors need to hold women responsible and accountable for their God-given commands to submit to and respect their husbands.

    After all, It’s only “fair” and “equal,” right?

    A wife is obligated to submit to this “washing” and “training,” (like Peter) because she has already promised an oath and vow before God to submit to her husband’s leadership. That is not her choice anymore! Resisting this process – even when she doesn’t understand or want to submit – is rebellion – trying to usurp her husband’s authority, and become her own captain of her own ship (which reminds me of these words by Gilbert K Chesterton) – thus breaking her own promises and vows.

    If women are going to demand that men become “strong leaders” before marriage, then men have every right to demand women become “submissive and respectful followers” before marriage as well.

    Any woman who is unwilling to surrender to her boyfriend’s godly leadership (as defined by the bible, not by her), automatically disqualifies herself from the potential future relationship with that man.

  32. Guest

    @Donal

    Please correct my comment so that the last words that appear bold end after this statement:

    even when they “don’t understand” or want to resist the leadership of their husbands, as Peter resisted being washed by his Teacher, Master, and Lord, Jesus.

    Thanks.

    [DG: Done.]

  33. @ Maeve

    1. I think we all agree with you. The goal of marriage is to represent unity just as Jesus and the Church are to be unified. This is what it should look like to other people.

    The viewpoint that you may not be considering is that you didn’t see the innerworkings of the marriage. There’s going to be conflicts between two people regardless of how well they get along, and that’s where authority comes into play. Even Jesus did not want to go along with what the Father had for Him in the garden but He came to a place where He could say “not my will by yours be done.”

    Not allowing any of those conflicts to seep out to the children or relatives or the public is indeed Christ-like, and it doesn’t take away from that which is behind the scenes.

    2. I also don’t t think you understand how much the current society and church is screwed up given what we are saying in this post,… but that’s a whole other topic.

  34. @Deep Strength: “While a single woman may not be under a man’s authority before marriage,”

    But she is–her father.

    You can tell if a young woman will be a submissive wife if she is respectful to her father. Young women today are taught to rebel against their fathers. This is where the problem starts.

    If she does not honor her parents; she will not submit to her husband.

  35. Before marriage I do not think a man has the right to “train” her. That is not his responsibility.

  36. @ LLB7

    “But she is–her father.”

    Good catch. You are correct.

    “Before marriage I do not think a man has the right to “train” her. That is not his responsibility.”

    Yes and no.

    The father, generally by nature of letting a man court his daughter, delegates authority — typically with stipulations — in that situation. Obviously, the man should not lead her into any situations where she would sin, but baking/cooking for him, doing other nice things that you would normally associate with traditional courtship, teaching and telling her about himself and what a helpmeet to him entails, etc. fall along the lines of seeing if a marriage relationship would work.

    However, the baton is truly passed at the wedding ceremony and becoming one flesh.

  37. Guest

    I agree with DS.

    Most single Christian women don’t honor or submit to their own fathers anyway, so it really is ridiculous for them to claim that “You are not my authority; my father is,” when that is just a biblical-sounding excuse to avoid submitting to any men in authority over them. They would never say “You are my authority” to thier fathers, because they don’t want to submit to thier fathers. If fact, most Christian women believe they are their own authority – even when they claim otherwise.

    If most single Christian women were honest, they would admit that they don’t want to submit to anyone, because “reasons” (mostly pride and irrational fears), and they are just hoping to ignore and skip past all the uncomfortable, sacrificial parts of dating men to get to their end game goal at the altar, where men make all those sacrificial vows to them.

    Women don’t mind “submitting” and “making sacrifices” as long as those are all things that they already wanted to do anyway to acheive their own goals. (That is why they think we own them something really significant if they do happen to make us a sandwich. It is just a way to make men “owe” them something that they want.) They are just “submitting to” and “sacrificing for” themselves, but claiming it is for their men for “spiritual” reasons.

    And, that all shows that women have no idea what it means to “submit to” or “respect” men. They think it is all optional and conditional upon thier own approval, or thier own goals – as if marriage were a democracy, and they cast the deciding (veto) vote.

    But, “headship” authority cannot be debated or appealed; it cannot be vetoed or voted upon, because it already IS and cannot be undone. And God made it that way!

    If a single Christian woman is going to hold her boyfriend to all her standards of a “biblical husband” before marriage, then she better also hold herself to all his standards of a “biblical wife” before marriage as well (minus the sex, of course.)

    (And this shows how messed-up dating has become: trying to secure all the benefits of marriage before and without making any lifelong vows to each other. Women receive all the courting, emotional, romantic, financial, and spiritual benefits of marriage before they ever become married, and those are all standard, baseline expectations of Christian men before marriage. Women seldomly give much. But, Christian men have to give and invest, and expend all those things to their Christian girlfriends without any – or very few – benefits in return until after marriage – at most, maybe a few home-cooked meals, a few kisses, and a few prayers, if we’re lucky. (Remember, we don’t receive any respect, and while women receive emotional intimacy during courting, men don’t receive our own equivalent of physical intimacy until after marriage.) Usually dating/courting, from a man’s perspective, lacks “Thank You” or genuine appreciation, lots of gossiping and complaining, and then women thinking that we owe them the world now – and so must do things their way – just because they made us a sandwich that one afternoon three weeks ago (for which we did say “Thank you!”) It’s a system designed to give women whatever they want from marriage without requiring anything from them in return, and they’ve enjoyed this system for the last 60+ years. Men are guilted, shamed, and obligated in Church to submit to women in courtship under the guise of “Servant Leadership,” and women are only all too happy to receive.)

    @Maeve

    I don’t think you realize how much men are required to give and sacrifice selflessly for thier girlfriends – even during early phases of dating/courting, and even much more as time progresses. It is very difficult to describe how much men sacrifice daily for thier girlfriends/wives. And, until you see it for yourself – until you look at if from our perspective alone – you will only see how those sacrifices satisfy your own needs and wants. They won’t even appear as “sacrifices” to you; just as expectations and desires fulfilled.

    So, you see, you can’t expect a boyfriend to be your “Strong Leader” without also adapting, conforming, and molding yourself to his leadership. That is what followers do. That is what disciples and “trainees” do. They want to do the things that make their leaders happy.

    We weren’t designed to become “Strong Leaders” for our women just because that is an emotionally/physically attractive trait for them to enjoy. Why bother leading women at all if women aren’t going to match that sacrifice and investment with their own equally attractive submission and respect. The point isn’t to FEEL attraction, but to fulfill our unique, God-given roles in His picture of Christ and His Church. The attraction we feel when we do that is just the pleasant side-effect of our obedience, not our primary motive.

    Society tells women that “following” and “submitting” are bad, and that “women should make thier own rules.” But, our human rules are the opposite of what Christ commanded us to do, and as stated earler, if you love Jesus, then you will obey his commands – even when you don’t want to.

    A woman’s submission, obedience, and respect is every bit as attractive emotionally/physically to men as our human submission, obedience, and respect for Jesus is to Him.

    Rather than arguing about not submitting to a boyfriend’s “training,” because you don’t like the idea of women being “trained” by their men, you should see it as an opportunity to “practice” to become more like your feminine role in the image of Christ and His Church. Where else are you going to learn that, but in marriage itself?

    [edit: if you were married before, but no longer are, then I don’t imagine much of this applies to you personally.]

  38. @ Guest

    I’m impressed by your knowledge of the Scriptures and human nature.

    On a bit of a side note, I have an egalitarian on my hands. I’m not interested in further discussion, but if any of you wants to hone their Scriptural discussion skills feel free.

    http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/a-christian-understanding-of-attraction/

  39. mdavid

    Guest, If most single Christian *women* were honest, they would admit that they don’t want to submit to *anyone*, because reasons (mostly pride and irrational fears), and they are just hoping to ignore and skip past all the uncomfortable, sacrificial parts of *dating men* to get to their end game goal at the altar, where *men* make all those sacrificial vows to them.

    If we were to replace “women” with “person”, “anyone” with “Church”, and “dating men” with “following the Church”, and “men” with “Jesus”, I think we have a good view into how the modern Christian operates, and how women are merely a subset of this. Man rebels against Church, and his woman rebels against him. One big happy family.

  40. feeriker

    I am a very lazy person, and that makes it hard for me when it comes to most things feminine, because being traditionally feminine requires so much effort: I don’t cook anything from a recipe, I never bake, I don’t wear make-up, I don’t decorate, I don’t knit or sew or do crafts, I put minimal effort into my outfits, and I dislike shopping with a passion. However, I don’t really have any traditionally masculine interests, either – I can’t be bothered about sports, I don’t play videogames, I don’t read comic books, I don’t hunt/shoot etc etc.I am interested in some of these things, I have a passing knowledge of many of them, but I don’t really care very much. Because of this I sometimes find it hard to converse with women on either end of the spectrum (and with men, sometimes) because I am rarely passionate about the things they are passionate about.

    This generally sums up the attitude of most young western women when it comes relationships. They cannot fathom the notion that they have to put forth any effort into it, or even into themselves. A perfect man is supposed to just drop into her lap out of the stratosphere as soon as she rises up out of her inertia and torpor just enough to feel some lukewarm desire for a beta provider (on her own terms, of course). It’s just supposed to “happen” when she wants it to happen – ’cause, you know, she’s, like, entitled. I will give this girl props for at least being honest enough to admit that she’s a slug. Rarely ever are such women aware enough to be so forthright.

    Having encountered a few of these types in my long ago past, they were PAINFUL and emotionally draining to be around. Blow-up dolls have more personality and sex appeal.

  41. @ Feeriker

    Yes, I know women like this. And more than a few claim(ed) to be Christian. It is a pity that they couldn’t raise themselves from their stupor, because for all their faults many hadn’t made the affirmative errors that some of their sisters have made. As such, they could theoretically turn their lives around in a way that other women couldn’t. Oh well.

  42. Veritas vos liberabit

    Donalgraeme,

    Off topic but I was wondering if you ever read this awful dating/courting site written by a “traditional Catholic” for traditional Catholic women:

    http://seraphicsinglescummings.blogspot.com/

    Some red flags:

    Author is an over-educated (she has a useless MA) annulled woman going on her second marriage in her forties. She will likely never have children.

    She has joked in the past about dating a lot of men while young including foreign men.

    She tells women that they should never under any circumstance reveal whether they are virgin or not. She then simultaneously tells women to inquire on whether the man masturbates, if he does that is grounds for rejecting him.

    She shames men for demanding women dress modestly.

    She’s is basically a feminist in every way but demands men still full fill all the old duties (men must take the initiative be able to provide ect ect).

    You wonder why traditional women are just as bad, well look further to people like this.

  43. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/07/02 | Free Northerner

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s