omorka: (Marriage Terrorists)
[personal profile] omorka
See, it's because of crap like this fundamentalist advice column that, once a year, my mother had to ask my father's permission to run the finances of the household. And it hurt her to have to ask, because it was stepping out of her "Christian" place to take the initiative - but she also knew that he was never going to remember to delegate it to her on his own, because he didn't care about the stupid gender roles in Corinthians and Timothy. He let her do the finances for the household because he tried it for three months, back before I was born, and the results were absolutely disastrous.

Key quote:

It is the greatest honor on earth to know your husband is thrilled that you are his woman. It passes all of earth’s blessings to feel his gaze upon you and know that you are his greatest gift, his most prized possession, his best friend, his favorite pastime, his only chum, and his delight as a lover. It is a great joy to know that he is actually proud you are his.

(emphasis added by me)

Because of course women are objects to be owned, to be possessed by a man. Because of course a marriage is a transfer of property from a father to a husband. *incoherent rage*

Date: 2007-07-26 09:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] princejvstin.livejournal.com
It was illuminating to work at the Hennepin County Government center.

What I, amongst others, did there was to translate old property documents into an online Torrens database. We worked backwards. Once we got back early enough, the inscriptions we saw started referring to married men as singular owners "with property", that is, the wife herself was part of that property, too.

Date: 2007-07-26 11:24 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] brezhnev.livejournal.com
No offense, but I think your folks are silly. That sort of thing should have gone out with feudalism at least.

Date: 2007-07-26 12:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] omorka.livejournal.com
Of course it's incredibly stupid! The terrible thing is, my father knew it was stupid and went along with it anyway (goes along? I imagine they're still doing it) because my mother is a fundamentalist and believes that the man really does have "headship" in a marriage and thus that it was wrong for her to be in charge of things unless they'd been delegated to her. Fortunately, she only took this for big things in the relationship, like finances and the house, and not with small things, but there were people in her church who thought she was "brazen" and pushy for maintaining even that much autonomy.

Date: 2007-07-26 12:57 pm (UTC)
cifarelli: (DE Mask)
From: [personal profile] cifarelli
And I can't help mentally snickering at the comparisions of similarities with various sub cultures they would be horrified to knowingly be in the same room with.

At least the sub cultures are more honest about what and why they are doing the same thing.

Date: 2007-07-26 01:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] greeneyes-rpi.livejournal.com
Good for you for escaping that mentality!

Date: 2007-07-26 01:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] northwall.livejournal.com
that column is basically insane. good points made by several people... i was, by turns, giggling and very angry. the assumptions the author makes are the fundamental problem, i think. it's hard to argue (and win) against someone who believes we were created a certain way by god and thinking or behaving in a different way is sinful and creates strife...

Date: 2007-07-26 02:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tenthz.livejournal.com
I find it ironic that a line in that passage also makes me very angry... but it's this line:

It is the greatest honor on earth to know your husband is thrilled that you are his woman.

It is the greatest honor on the earth to know that you are saved in the name of Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior. What they are saying is that you should basically put the 7th commandment before the 1st, 2nd, and 5th and that just makes me ill.

The thing about fundamentalists is that they tend to make a mountain out of a mole hill and completely miss the point.

Date: 2007-07-26 02:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cheshirebast.livejournal.com
I'm pretty used to submissives (both male and female) who are into being possessed because they want to be so, but the notion of having that attitude because some deity told you to is kinda creepin' me out...

Always ask: "Have you accepted yourself as your personal lord and saviour?"

Date: 2007-07-26 03:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] greeneyes-rpi.livejournal.com
More like: "Have you accepted your husband as your personal lord and saviour?"


;)

Date: 2007-07-26 09:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fynarra.livejournal.com
One of the many reasons fundamentalists and literalists piss me off.

Date: 2007-07-26 10:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] omorka.livejournal.com
Subcultures and Domcultures? ;-)

Oddly enough, I don't think either of my parents would be horrified to be in a room with BDSM'ers; Daddy probably wouldn't care very much, just be somewhat uncomfortable, and Mom would be more sad about their "sinful" lifestyle than shocked.

But . . . yeah. It's one thing to negotiate a power exchange because that's how you're kinked. It's quite another to be guilted into doing it on the authority of a 1,950-year-old book. Especially since Mom would totally be the Domme in that relationship.

Date: 2007-07-26 10:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] omorka.livejournal.com
Wasn't that hard, considering that Daddy never was a fundamentalist, and was barely Catholic in any but the pseudo-ethnic sense for most of my developmental years. And that Mom was so vibrantly a strong, powerful professional woman that her insistence on formal "submission" to Dad's "authority" in the household was so clearly just weird, and totally against the flow of their normal relationship.

Date: 2007-07-26 10:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] quantumduck.livejournal.com
Couldn't he permanently delegate? Couldn't he assign her the task in perpetuity, until such time as he saw fit to reconsider?

Date: 2007-07-26 10:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] omorka.livejournal.com
Of course, my first thought on reading this is "Wait, what do theft and murder have to do with this?"

I was brought up with the Augustinian division of the commandments (obviously) - are you using the Talmudic or the Orthodox one? (They have the 1st and 2nd divided in different places.)

Date: 2007-07-26 10:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] omorka.livejournal.com
I don't know. I imagine he would have if she'd have accepted it. Maybe she has by now - I haven't been witness to this yearly rite since the early '90s.

Date: 2007-07-26 11:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tenthz.livejournal.com
I grew up with the Lutheran version (http://www.oldlutheran.com/confirmation/10commandments.shtml), but I mistyped and should have said 1st, 2nd, and 4th. Pretty much you don't even get to anything relating to spouses until "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Not that the 10 commandments are the end-all-and-be-all, but it's a nice place to start.

Profile

omorka: (Default)
omorka

July 2019

S M T W T F S
 1234 56
78910111213
14151617 1819 20
212223242526 27
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 31st, 2026 05:09 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios