Replies to '11/04 A Shopping Intervention'

I am quoting your original post because there is a disconnect in what you are saying now and the post that I responded to.  I never commented on you or your marriage.  I just disagreed with your sexist statements.  

   * There is no disconnect. Perhaps you are not reading the entire posts nor getting the "gist" of my comments or are  focusing only on  what you personally find offensive, or  that which is not "in sync with the choices you and you husband have made" regarding you marriage.  

 Lets be real, most women look for certain qualities in a mate and a physical or emotional attraction is only one  or two of the things we consider. We also want a mate that is successfully employed or at the least able to support us and a family.   

I did not choose my lifepartner based on his status as a meal ticket and I find the comment that most women do offensive.  

* Note I wrote "physical and emotional attraction is only one or two of the things we consider", (the use of we or most is not intended to be inclusive of all women,  as I would NEVER presume to be so bold, but rather those WOMEN that DO consider financial stability in a spouse or potential spouse to be of some importance)  

 I do think there are MANY women who DO  pick a life partner or spouse  in part , or with some consideration on his ability to be responsible towards his wife and family, and that includes financialy and EMOTIONALLy  responsible IN addition to personally responsible. I do NOT think Micheal is being responsible. Being an emotionally void,  or cheating spouse,  becomming a workalcoholic, absent spouse and father is NOT being responsible to Bridgette or his children, irregardless of HOW much money he makes or how else HE justifies this. He holds responsibility with Bridigette for their problems, why they continue, and the solution.  

I am sorry if you see something offensive here, and you are entitled to your opinions, but  please do not base them on  your faulty interpretation my POSTS, or quote things I am posting out of CONTEXT. . or with a spin you put on it.  

Perhaps you assume  I was referring to finanical support only. When I think of support, I think of BOTH  financial support and emotional support. Many women chose not to  or cannot WORK during  their ENTIRE pregnancy,  or unexpected illnesses, and  some chose NOT to for the benefit of their children during early childhood raising years, and some feel children still need DAILY support in their teen years. NOT everyone gets paid maternity leave,  many have husbands whose jobs and the demands on them negate the woman working or chose to have a DIFFERENT kind of partnership  than YOURS, and many women DO wish to extend that time not working, FOR their childrens sake.  

Many women,  simply do not see a beneficial  partnership based on the idea that the WAGE earner is the only spouse with equality or power in the relationship. I  and many women find it JUST as offensive to be seen as  of "no value" , not equal, or stupid and worthless if we CHOSE not to work based on our personal values and needs or look to our spouses to provide emotional AND financial support at times we cannot, or chose not to for our FAMILIES sake. Many women do rely on their spouse to "lead" the family in the RIGHT direction and be responsible for his family and its VALUES. This simply does not mean the woman has "no value or role" if her husband does this.  

It does not make one less in the partner ship, nor a "non contributor" simply because they do not get a paycheck for their contributions TO the partnership. I have fully explained my views on this and if you continue to misconstrue and see offense where none was intended towards any woman or man  that is your choice and right. However I feel VERY strongly you have not read these POSTS entirely and and  personally feel so strongly negative about a PORTION of my statements that you cannot muster any understanding or compassion for this couple.   

This goes to the core of our primal instinces as men (goal chasers) and women (hunters/gathers) in addition to societies current  attitudes towards worship of the almighty dollar.   

I found your characterizations based solely on gender offensive. Also you are wrong.  The theory is that prehistoric men were hunters and the women were gatherers. Both were pursuing a goal (feeding themselves and their family).  

*  Whether or not I am  WRONG on this is simply a matter of opinion, and many highly educated people suscribe to this theory of our "primal" instincts, or "programming" of male and female tendencies. I believe that the man is entrusted with the leadership in the family as God would dictate  

Although, I do understand the submissive/subordinate role is what some women prefer, it is not universal.  I don't think it works well because choosing one leader when there are two that can function as a team, nor do I agree with a choice of leader based soley on gender.  

* I find it offensive that you see submissive and subordinate -lack of  importance and equality  for the woman  the ONLY  possible outcome if a man leads his family according to fair and just biblical theology. IN no way does a man assumming his role of leadership of his family dictate the inequality of the woman in the partnership. AGAIN I find it equally offensive that MONEY is  seen by some as the ONLY equalizer in a marriage.  If you feel "equal to your husband" but only if you too have a paycheck, and that that paycheck entitles you to "equality" I find that a very sad modern day distortion of the idea of  the  maritial partnership.  

  Again, I personally believe He leads WITH the woman, this does not disconnect the biblical plan from this outcome, anymore than if a general failed to lead his troops and the outcome was the troop was wiped out. By that I mean if a man fails in his responsibility to take some responsibility in the direction he LEADS his family he has broken the partnership HIMSELf and is equally guilty in the outcomes.  I have stated this in many posts.  

Since this is a biblical theory  that MANY women do chose to interpret correctly and , (and in no way does the biblical submission refer to TODAYS connotations of submission in a NEGATIVE way as you have assummed) it matters not if you personally chose NOT to follow this "guideline" for a successful and equal parntership and relationship between men and women.  

What it is saying is if the man does da and da and da as charged with this responsibility by God, the the woman would WANT to submit to the man and his choices of leadership. If he leads as GOD as directed clearly he will be leading in the RIGHT direction and she will want to join him. This does NOT make her submissive to the man. This does not require her to submit or follow a man going in the WRONG direction . Again I have explained MY interpretations of this passage many times and only referred to it to illustrate that contrary to "appearences" only Micheal is NOT leading this family down the right path if it is ALL about money and HIS personal acts and attitudes are not responsible and in that Bridgette is NOT entirely responsible for the negative impact this has had on the marriage.  

Many women find the concept that a mans earning EXEMPT him from any other responsibilites towards the marriage OFFENSIVE. 

Finally, if you watched the show, Bridget stated that she didn't love Micheal and only married him because her mother encouraged her to marry "a rich doctor".  And they BOTH admitted to having an affair.  

* Perhaps Bridget statements NOW have lots to do with her disappointments in Micheal, and  herself, and she is questionning how this got where it is, including her and her mothers attitudes  and influence "in the beginning". Perhaps she is in HEALTHY examination of her feelings, actions, and it is dawninng on her that SHE is an adult and  is responsible  for her choices, and that Micheals actions make it impossible to find love or obtain love at present. I think it is ALSO very COMMON that marriages in stress or crisis often makes people feel as if there was "never any real love" or they question if they did or can love their spouse.