Topic : 11/04 A Shopping Intervention

I would hope that there are some changes in that household where she no longer has the ability to spend money foolishly.  Without some family treatment and financial control, you are right -that family may as well just talk to the trustee in bankrupcy now. 

I don't feel too sorry for the stores. Stores have return policies because it encourages sales.  They expect some late returns and that was already factored into the purchase price. I would expect that these busnesses have made more than enough money off this family to be able to afford to accept back the items that are still unused. 

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.   

**cough** speak for yourself!  I can chase goals and I am not an anomaly.  I and many other women are capable of supporting ourselves just fine.  I chose my husband because I loved him and he shared my values and principles.  

 Apparently I am confused, I assummed by your use of the termology "supporting ourselves" you were referring to your or any womens ability to make MONEY and somehow suggesting I wasn't aware that such is possible in this day and age. I really am getting curious about the defensive tone of your posts. I really did not intend to insult anyone or put down  women that make "other choices'. Please lets not make this about working women vs non working, nor about religious theology.  

This couple is having problems that really have nothing to do with money or who makes it , what they do with it or or why, unless you want to consider  their current  mode of faulty thinking that money is an equalizer in marriage. Intelligent people can reason that one out.  I do however, see that Micheal, in my opinion, is HIDING his "sins" on his marriage and family  behind his ability to earn lots of money, as if that exempts him from his other responsibilities and he has this "faulty thinking in common with lots of men. And his wife, is as guilty as he, or is following his lead and hiding her sins on the marriage,  with her now totally irresponsible use of this SAME money to "talk" to Micheal,  and she has lots of female company with falling into that "trap" and that neither one wants to admit that  "  behind the money tree "is where they are both hiding their irresponsibility and sins on the marriage and family unit. 

Clearly Micheal and Bridgette DO NOT at this point share the same values and principals, or if they do it has gotten lost in the pursuit of, power of and in the spending of  MONEY.  

I am stating my opinions about my  personal beliefs and interpretation of the bibilical plan for marriage. I assume that is what message boards are there for.   

The passage in the bible that spells out what I consider a "workable" plan for the marriage partnership has been debated for centuries, and each generation has put their spin on it according to the "times".  I do personally think, that the "wives submit to husbands" part has been taken out of its context, much to the determent of  ALL women, in a way that leaves it open to much  negative debate.  I am still not totally at ease with the sins that has led many men and  women who do not read any futher than that one sentenence to perpetrate on women kind.  

You simply cannot focus on that part, and "get it". Unfortunatly   individuals, and many churches and their teachings have done just that, and caused many "abused" women to suffer even more, while men get totally off the hook as to what they were "commanded" by God to do to EARN the submission of their wives. It simply DOES NOT say that women must submit irregardless of the false, ungodlike or fautly leadership on the part of their husbands.  

If a woman is being treated according to the principals laid out in this passage, she would WANT to submit to the GODLY leadership of her husband.  This plan for "teamwork"  would be good marriage advice, irregardless of anyone's religion. To each his own however and I totally respect that many women, including myself, chose to see  this as laying out a plan of a partnership of equality, cooperation and loving spirits ie "two people acting as one". Far too often, MONEY, enters the picture and all that "cooperation, mutuality, and equality is cast aside. Perhaps that is where the "money is the root of all evil" quotes come into being.  

This biblical passage, if interpeted correctly, DEMANDS cooperation and respect, mutual equality as as "one"  or as one would like or needs to be treated and it encourages loving treatment of each other. Far too many do not read, study, or understand the ENTIRE passage.  This is where the problems come from. I have gotten that a man leads his wife in a loving, respectful, equal, and fair way, as God should his people. His leadership, is contingent on his compliance with GODS way, and his deciding  "vote" only in the extremly rare cases (if the plan is followed) where he and his wife cannot  achieve mutuality, as a "tie breaker". Too many people do not see this is subject to his leadership as HE is instructed by God. This does not give him power over the women but power WITH the woman.   

Whether you know it or not, I would suspect you and your husband are following the principals laid out, correctly, and that is why you make such a good "team". Lucky you!  Many couples are not, and therefore problems develop where resistance of "power over", and superiority of  take precedence over TEAMWORK and JOINT mutual, and considerate problem solving.  

I want to add to my post that much of this is my personal speculation, as to the problems, cause, and so on. None of us KNOW what lurks in the hearts of this couple, in reality, once you get past the symptoms. I only hope they can work it out, and get back on the "same page" of loving respect and mutuality that so many of us have a hard time finding. 

I was responding to her statement that women choose their husbands based on their income earning potential. That is an offensive concept to me. As is the idea that the MAN must be the leader of the household which is what I was answering before. 

I think it is fine to say that SHE was hunting for a meal ticket when she was seeking a life partner.  Generalizing it to most women is offensive. 

 Judyblue, I guess I will agree to disagree and that you will keep finding "offensive" statement s where there were none intended (note the word some women) , there was no intent to offend Bridgette, or any woman in my posts. Again, you took the words that said one thing and changed them into "meal ticket" or chose to see offensive generalizations, not commonalities.   

That is the bad connotations assessments that sounds like the "gripes" I have heard from men on a one way pity party, mind you they are saying this while they sit in a bar regularly ,  are known to be cheating on their wives, or using work to avoid their families, or are on a  resentment toot towards their wives, and are refusing to look at their own behavior, cause it is much easier to lable the wife at home a "meal ticket" hunting  money grubbing/hunting b word.   No matter their wife  is doing it all, many including earning an income, to their husbands  "poor me" attitudes.  

While, I would agree, Bridgettes spending is way out of hand for most peoples thinking based on THEIR incomes or available spending money, many of these men doing the "one way gripe" fest  have NO idea, nor do they care to inform themselves, how much it takes nowdays to run a house and to raise children. They are just looking to "justify" their own bad choices. Mind you I am talking generally or commonly or some men in society, it happens lots if not in YOUR marriage. Many of these men are the very ones that would "stare at a decked out woman"  walking down the street but  would chastize, or gripe if their own wife has her hair done. There is lots more to this than the awfuls we are seeing in Micheal and Bridgette.  

  However if, following your  personal assessments about Bridgette  that she was only chosing a spouse for his "meal ticket" potential , then going with that "assumption" what was Micheal looking for in his spouse? A brood mare to give him children to ignore, free housecleaning, free household management? Someone to hold down the fort, while he went out to "play" around with other women and do drugs. Someone to give him a nicely furnished hotel to flop in?  Sex, when no one else was available?  A mommy to his manchild? Someone to encourage bad habits in, in order  to justify his own emotional voids and marriage busting bad attitudes and habits HE won't own himself? Someone he could BLAME for his deficiencies and indescretions? Some one to "allow" him the victimhood status?  Someone to torture with his emotional unavailability?  A convient scapegoat for his own ego needs? Some sap of a woman, to support his ego and his belly while he got through med school?  Obviously he wasn't looking for a partner in life, as clearly he left his wife and family in the dust and dirt of his bad choices and habits. (obviously he likes being a "shift whore" cause he has done nothing till Dr. Phil to change this) Guess that makes them both guilty? HMMMMMMMMMMMMM.  

I still contend that this took a long time to get to where it is, both parties share some guilt, but to "fix" it you have to unravel whom started what, so they can own it, change it and put it behind them. That is if there is any hope for this marriage, and these two people who have let it get totally out of hand.  

Call me a romantic, but I really think deep down at one point they did love each other, or hoped to and their worst "insecurities" and bad habits unintentionally came to haunt them, and jeapordize their finances and love for each other. I think in that they have lots of company in society. I am pretty sure the "normality" of their problems is why they were chosen for this show.  

And by the way, I have held many jobs, both before and after my marriage. I have also been a stay at home to four children with no support system while my husband served his community and his country abroad. There were times when his work made it next to impossible for me to be working, that is if someone was going to be there for our children, or to avoid being pushed into a higher tax bracket. While I agree, SOME women do look for a meal ticket only, MOST do not marry solely to have a meal ticket earned for them. I agree if you love someone it doesn't matter "how much money" they make, at least in theory, however NO woman wants a total bum with no potential for a husband. Few want a workalcoholic, drug addict and cheat either.  

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. 

 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. 

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). 

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.  

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. 

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.  

I pointed out where your comments were sexist because those attitudes offend me.  I didn't comment on the rest of your posts because they have nothing to do with what I said and seem to be coming from your own insecurities.  I am sorry if my posts triggered any of that.  The emotional content of your responses and the many things that you are reading into a short TV segment about a couple you don't know, suggest to me that you have some thinking of your own to do.  I hope you find the answers you need and I really do wish you good luck with it.   

I think I can remember that.  350 degrees for 25 minutes.   I've done a lot of roasts-Good Ones and the kids ignore the veggies.  They do like those breakfast casseroles though.  I have a picky child who will not eat hot dogs.  He doesn't like them.  The rest of us do.  Lots of hot dogs are not good for any family.  We definitely can't be accused of eating too many though because we hardly ever eat them here because of the one child.  That is an easy meal though when one is about to collapse.  I just got a neat cookbook from a local lady.  There are lots of easy delcicious meal in it.  Heres to the simple life.      

What type ham do you use?