Quote From: wildwood Nothing was said about anyone being subordinate, in order to conduct a marriage or to raise a family by biblical principals. I am not a holy roller, but I do see that a workable plan of PARTNERSHIP was laid out according to that which is in the bible. Please don't put your own words into what wasn't said. One cannot assume that a man assumming "leadership" means that he is ABOVE the woman or exeempt to his part of the partnership (on the home front or anywhere) or that his doing so makes her a subordinate. You and your husband may have an ideal partnership that works for you and him. Many do not, and quite a few married people falsely think making money is the ONLY objective or equalizer of marriage. Many men use this as the power over the woman or to discount her input, choices or role in the marriage as the stay at home mom supporting his goals or children. This doesn't make the woman less of the partnership or inferior.
I see many posters making the assumptions/judgements that she is somehow inferior in the marriage based on the fact that she has no income of her own. I suspect that is why Dr. Phil did not want her getting a job at this point, that only encourages the "wrong" idea that money is what gives "partners" equal power in the relationship.
Where was Micheal's end of the childrearing partnership? What kind of partner, uses his working all the time excuses neglect everything else or to cover/justify his cheating? His providing funds for his family isn't his only responsibility of the "partnership", the marriage or the parenting. He who makes the money doesn't rule, and I feel sorry that so many women have felt that they MUST earn an income to be "equal" when all they have done is become as money/self oriented as some men.
We are born "equal" or a marriage makes us "equal" by the partnership. That doesnt mean that both must bring in an income to be and to treat each other as equals. It is not intended to be a parent child thing based on who makes the money. True she is now acting childish and irresponsible.......but isn't he hiding behind his earnings to be just as childish and irresponsible to the marriage/family?
I am talking about "interpetations", and choices here. You have an imbalance in his earning power to hers, perhaps he became an MD due to her support on the homefront? Maybe she took on all the OTHER tasks of the marriage and family while he studied, interned, and then worked long hours to support HIS goals for them, and she was repayed by his infidelities and ego trip workalcoholism? One he arrived he "forgot" the partnership entirely. This is only spectulation, but highly predicitible and possible. Guess we will need to see more to unravel how it got where it is now.
Think taxes, child care, the long hours he had to put into his job, and other things and it might not have been wise (in the early years or in the beginning of this marriage, for her to work, and her working or not shouldn't be a criteria for her "equality") . Believe me raising children and keep up a home without the benefit of a husbands help 24/7 is work. Ask any military wife or police wife or someone who has a husband that travels etc. There are many women out there that "do it all" except working outside the home and they highly resent being treated as "inferior" immature or childish based solely on whether of not they get a paycheck for their contributions to the partnership.
Isn't that rather sexist?
A woman can only be equal if she earns money equal to her husband? Does the power in the marriage come from money only? Is who makes the most money the "equalizer"? I find this VERY sad and clearly sexists.
I am well aware that a woman can be goal oriented and capable of working and making money. COUGH, COUGH. I totally disagree with making money being the only criteria for power/control equality in a marriage. In reality MONEY should have nothing to do with who is equal to whom. She has taken his "power over her money stick" and whopped him with it. It may have been the only way to get through to him, I don't think the money is all she wants out of her marriage, no matter how it looks NOW.
I think we will see it is " money is the equalizer in marriage" faulty thinking that is at the ROOT of this couples problems. She feels rejected and powerless because he makes that the rules they live by. He makes money and all else is "excused" in his pursuit of the POWER in the relationship he thinks the money was going to give him. She takes some of the POWER away from him by foolishly spending. Clearly both have dysfunctional thinking, brought on by money becoming the GOD in the marriage and the only driving force.
Maybe some would never fall in the common and obvious trap of the power struggle using money as leverage, but many do, and this is a COMMON problem in many marriages. The amounts spent seem unbelievable to many of us, but some marriage have similiar money/power struggles, just with less money involved.
Would you have married a man that said I am going to earn the money PERIOD!!!!! Where is the partnership in that? Where was his partnership with his wife in the day to day teaching of their children, companionship with his wife (not his mistress cause he felt sorry for himself and needed an ego feed) , and sharing of their lives and children? Where is the partnership in spending their money together? Where is he giving any TIME to the partnership? It is a chicken/egg first problem that I have faith that Dr. Phil will unravel.
Remember we are seeing what it has become, not what occurred in what order for it to get there. I don't think he is any more mature than her, and if "having a degree and a job" makes someone mature it's news to me. REAL maturity is not putting your own needs or ego first. Real maturity is not using your work to avoid OTHER responsibilities. Real maturity isn't cheating or overworking or over spending instead of talking and fixing problems.
Perhaps DUE to his long hours she had no options but to stay with their children, at least when they were small. Was her end of the deal to become as callous as he, and dump her kids and become a workalcoholic like him? Should she let her children be alone, so that she can have a job? To each his own. Some women feel their end of the partnership differently. I don't see a partnership at work if strangers are raising children, while both parents go off to "succeede" or feed their own needs and egos at their jobs in the pursuit of money. If necessary for survival it's one thing and some chose this or have no choices here, others do not have to work for survival and it is always a mistake to make money the GOD or the the ruling or controlling "equalizer" in a marriage.
The dynamics going on between this couple is more than what we saw on TV. And, I was really disappointed that Dr. Phil didn't address the underlying problems that lead up to this situation. I didn't agree with Dr. Phil when he said Bridget didn't have an addiction. She is no different using shopping to dull the pain than her husband was when he used drugs, drank or had a mistress. The husband even though he admitted he was a terrible father and husband should not be let off the hook for his role in how things have turn out. I hope they both have the courage to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their own actions.