Yesterday I began cleaning out my cube, since Friday is my last day at work here (more about that later). In the bottom of one of my desk drawers, I found a printout of the first 8 pages of some kind of Christian treatise entitled The Fruit of Her Hands; the first chapter is called “A Woman’s Orientation to Marriage.” I have no idea how it got there. If I printed it out, I don’t remember doing so - or why I would.
Anyway, it’s pretty entertaining stuff. Here’s an excerpt:
What are some of the lies [the American woman] has been told? Fruitfulness is bad; children wreck the budget and the figure. Marriage is a partnership; submission is for imbeciles. Being a homemaker is for airheads who can’t make it in the business world. Women are not designed with a unique purpose, but should and can compete with men on any level. The most important thing is to have a healthy self-image and to have your deepest needs met. If they are not being met by your husband, find someone else. The old femininity is outdated.
O, woe is me! I have been misled into thinking a healthy self-image is something to strive for!
READ ME: Disclaimer
25 Responses to "“Marriage is a partnership” - Lies, All Lies!"
I’m taking this home to the missus.
Hahaha, I found this PDF of it. How awesome!
Wow, these people sound like they’d be a lot of fun to hang out with!
Yeah, I almost posted that quote as well, but I didn’t want to get out of hand (like we misguided modern American women are wont to do). I don’t understand the “pitting her husband against mine” part. What, is it going to come to fisticuffs? Why? I don’t understand. These are probably the same kind of husbands as the ones mentioned in Every Young Woman’s Battle who feel too emasculated when their wives tell them what they like sexually.
In Douglas Wilson’s case, I don’t think that’s so.
Actually, Amber et. al, the “lie” that Nancy is referring to is the entire sentence “Marriage is a partnership; submission is for imbeciles.” The second independent clause explains and contextualizes the first. I don’t think that the Wilsons (since they both write family-living books) would deny that marriage is a “partnership” in a certain sense. Their obvious (and well-noted by everyone who has ever met them) mutual affection for one another, I’m sure, would lead both of them to think of their relationship as a ‘partnership’ of some kind. But the point is that marriage is not an egalitarian partnership where both spouses have exactly the same role and responsibilities before God. In the modern world, when people say something like “we have a partnership,” they often mean something like “we’re total equals in every way.” (especially when talking about marriage) This is not the Christian view. Men and women have different roles within the marital relationship (though you might be somewhat surprised at what the woman’s role is, acc. to the Wilsons; hint: it’s not simply “barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen”). I trust this fact–traditional (orthodox) Christianity and secular modernity have different notions of what a good marriage should look like–comes as no surprise to anyone here.
I *heart* secular modernity.
Yeah, me too, Nikki.
No one who has any amount of intelligence would argue that all partnerships were supposed to be (or even could be) egalitarian.
And, really, I disagree that anyone could intelligently argue that their marital relationship is truly egalitarian. Different people simply have different functions and strengths. What Nancy, Amber, myself, et al mean by this is that we accept the idea unequivocally that people have the right to different notions of what marriage should be and even more importantly, what a GOOD marriage should be.
Basically, my creed is that a good marriage is what you make of it and everyone, regardless of sex or gender, should be able to enter in the relationship of their choosing and end it at their choosing. The problems that I have with ideological radicals is that they want to take their rules for a good marriage and apply them to everyone, which is entirely unacceptable to me.
Preach it.
Actually, Xon, why do you bother to interpret the writer’s semicolon? If it was meant as a conjunction, how hard would it have been to write the word “and”? Don’t forget Socrates’ point that writers should communicate clearly and we shouldn’t have to necessarily struggle to interpret their works. I agree that a conjunction was intended, but it isn’t clear. Such an important point should be written clearly and with force (despite Amber’s misgivings about possible redundancies). Perhaps we shouldn’t look so closely at poor writing. I assume you claim an understanding of the writer’s underlying ideas because only then can you so confidently interpret a semicolon.
I’ve read several of Doug Wilson’s books (including three of his books related to the Christian family), as well as most of the articles that he and his wife Nancy (the author of the book currently being lampooned) have written for Credenda/Agenda. I link to both Credenda as well as to Doug Wilson’s blog at my own blog. Furthermore, Douglas Wilson is the founder of the Association of Classical Christian Schools, of which the school in Lexington, KY where I taught Bible and Logic for two years is a member. Finally, Douglas Wilson is an important (though controversial) part of the Reformed (Calvinistic) theological universe that I inhabit as a conservative Presbyterian.
So, in short, unlike with that cheesy book written by well-meaning evangellyfish that Amber was making fun of almost a year ago, this is actually “my turf.”
And there is nothing unclear about the semicolon; the phrase that comes after is clearly meant to modify or explain the sentence that comes before. See? If the only critique that can be made of Nancy’s writing is that she should have used “and” in order to be “absolutely” clear, then the critics need to find something better to do with their time. (Would we apply such nit-picky, and simply incorrect, critiques to our own favorite authors?)
Finally, epon and others, what makes you think that Nancy Wilson is trying to push her idea of a good marriage on everyone else. This book was written for conservative Christians, all of whom share a belief that God has some opinions about what a good marriage is supposed to be and who share a desire to obey God in this area. This is what Christians do. Is this blowing your mind?
(I’m rushing because I have to go to class; excuse any “crusty edges” that might have be in this comment)
Uh, I didn’t misunderstand the semi-colon. What exactly are we arguing here?
Amber, Adrian and I are discussing something different than what you an I are discussing. Technically, you and I aren’t discussing much of anything yet, but I did offer a comment yesterday about why I think you are misunderstanding the “lie” that Nancy Wilson is trying to ‘expose.’ Basically, her entire sentence (”Marriage is a partnership; submission is for imbeciles”)is what describes the lie she is attacking. But you only quoted the first part of the sentence (”Marriage is a partnership”) as the lie, which was highly misleading (though I don’t think this was necessarily intentional on your part). If you would like to respond to this, then I would appreciate it.
Adrian, meanwhile, has already jumped in and claimed that, while my interpretation of the semi-colon makes sense, really Mrs. Wilson should have used “and” to join the two independent clauses in order to be asbolutely clear. I am disagreeing with Adrian about that.
But with you, Amber, I am only waiting to hear your response (if you care to offer one) to my comment that you have (unintentionally?) misrepresented the “lie” Mrs. Wilson is describing.
Oh, and a little more logic chopping in response to you, Adrian, if you will permit me.
You say that “and” would have been more clear to Mrs. Wilson’s intention than using a semicolon. I disagree that it would have been more clear, as I have already said.
But, what’s more, I disagree that “and” even would have been logically correct to convey her meaning.
If either conjunct is false, then the entire conjunction is false. So, if I say that the statement “x AND y” is a lie (or is a mistake, or is false), then I could think that x is false but y is true, I could think that x is true but y is false, or I could think that both x and y is false. In any of these three cases, the statement “x AND y” would be false.
Mrs. Wilson didn’t describe the lie as “x and y”, but instead used a semicolon to say something more like “x in the sense of not y” or perhaps “x as opposed to y”. “Marriage is a partnership in such a way that it is wrong to say that the wife should be submissive.” That seems to be the claim that Wilson thinks is a ‘lie.’ And putting the way she put it makes it much easier to understand what she thinks is wrong with it when she calls it a ‘lie’. As opposed to a conjunction, where calling it a lie would leave her with three logically-possible interpretations as to what she actually thought the false part was (just x, just y, or both x and y).
With the statement she actually wrote it’s fairly clear what she means. By calling the “semicolon sentence” a lie she means that she believes that marriage is not a partnership in the kind of way that would preclude the wife from being seen as submissive. She may see it as a partnership in some other way, but not in an egalitarian way.
One more note, just because: While I greatly appreciate the libertarian epon gives to his progressivism and his feminism, he is not the only kind of progressive or feminist that is out there. There are “do it our way” progressives who think that wives in traditional marriages are actually in some kind of “bad” situation, that husband-led marriages and institutions which encourage them are inherently oppressive, etc. There are radical egalitarians out there, and also less radical ones who still think that traditional Christians are doing something wrong in their own marriages. So I can understand why a Christian might write a book calling that view out as a lie (especially as it has influence on other well-meaning but ‘mislead’ Christians) and attempting to refute it. Wilson might not be addressing someone like epon, but she’s not tilting at windmills, either.
that last paragraph should read: “While I greatly appreciate the libertarian bent epon gives to his progressivism…”
I don’t think I misrepresented what she said. Yes, the clause “submission is for imbeciles” contextualizes the first clause “marriage is a partnership” - but it doesn’t negate it. It adds clarification and further specificity. She’s still disagreeing that marriage is a partnership in the commonly understood sense of the word. If I’m making assumptions there then so be it. The point of her paragraph that I quoted is clearly to refute (and exaggerate) many “modern” ideas.
Like David already mentioned, I do not think all partnerships can or should be completely egalitarian. I don’t like that I even have to make a point of saying that - but whenever you make a statement like that, it seems like there’s always some neo-con there to take it to the extreme and try to “catch” you in a mistake. Men can’t give birth, so is that non-egalitarian? And so on and so forth. That kind of argument is just ridiculous.
But for someone to dictate to me that my primary concern and occupation should be with “the home and the children,” and that I shouldn’t aspire to other things that I feel are right for me (or that by pursuing other things I automatically cannot concern myself at all with the home and children) - fuck that. I’m not going to tell anyone they can’t be a stay-at-home parent if that’s what they want to do. It’s their choice. Likewise, my choices are my own - and, as such, the partner I choose must respect and understand those choices.
Xon - does that answer your question?
Not quite, Amber. If you’ll please take me at my word that I’m not trying to “catch” you in any kind of mistake, I am genuinely puzzled about what you just said.
On the one hand, you said that you think you represented Wilson fairly by omitting the second part of the sentence, and you think this because she is still “disagreeing that marriage is a partnership in the commonly understood sense of the word.” (your emphasis) You want to make fun (as is your right) of anyone who disagrees with marriage as a partnership in this “commonly understood” sense.
But what is this “commonly understood” sense of partnership that you want to uphold. I claimed that Wilson is rejecting the word “partnership” when it is laden with egalitarian assumptions about what a marriage should be. That’s the sense in which Wilson is rejecting the word “partnership.” But look at your second paragraph, Amber. There you say that you yourself reject radical egalitarian notions of what a marriage is. So, you and Wilson are both rejecting marraige as a partnership in the same way, it looks like to me. You both reject the idea that marriage is a partnership if partnership means that the two spouses can’t be seen as having different roles, abilities, responsibilities, etc.
So, what’s the problem with Wilson’s comment then? And what does it have to do with her saying that “marriage is a partnership” is a lie, given the sense in which she is saying that?
(By the way, I have both read and personally talked to feminists who would insist that the fact that men cannot give birth is indeed a natural injustice that must be corrected through legislation.)
Perhaps what you are saying (and I’m guessing here, not projecting or assuming) is that you like the entire sentence that Wilson thinks is a lie. You think that marriage is a partnership, and you think that submission is for imbeciles, and you think that Wilson is ridiculous for calling either of those sentiments a lie. You are not a radical egalitarian, but you still hate the idea of “submission.” And so you find Wilson ridiculable (neologism, but proper?).
If this is your view, okay, but you didn’t make it clear in your original post, since the only thing you made fun of Wilson for there was that she seems to be denying that “marriage is a partnership.” If you are actually mocking her for advocating some kind of submission on the part of the godly wife, then you might have said so (you weren’t obligated to, since this is your blog, but it would have saved much of this discussion from happening).
Although, I really wonder why you feel the need to mock this view, anyway (if it is your view). But that can be left for another day (or never).
Reading what you’ve written, though, it looks like your real problem with Wilson (unless my previous speculative interpretation was correct) actually has nothing to do with the statement about “partnership.” It actually has to do with the fact that you resent people telling you how to live your life. As you say, you say “fuck that” to anyone who would “dictate to me that my primary concern and occupation should be with “the home and the children,” and that I shouldn’t aspire to other things that I feel are right for me (or that by pursuing other things I automatically cannot concern myself at all with the home and children).”
But is Wilson really trespassing into territory that requires this harsh rebuke? If someone knocked on your door and stuck their foot in and proceeded to tell you how you should live your life, I could see you being upset. If someone tried to get the government to pass a law that said it would be illegal for a woman to ever leave her house without some reason connecting to her children (this isn’t Wilson’s position anyway), then I could see you being upset. I would join you.
What did Wilson really do, Amber? She wrote a book. A book for Christians who all believe (yes, horrific as it sounds) that the Creator of the universe cares about the kind of marriages we have and who want to obey Him in that regard. It might offend you that anyone can even think this way (that God wants marriages to be a certain way), but nobody is forcing you to go to Church or to read the book.
Are you really offended by the very fact that someone believes that there is a way people should live? Even though they only propagate it by writing for/teaching other Christians who believe the same thing?
So, summing up, I’m really confused about two different things.
1) I’m still confused as to what your objection is to Wilson’s claim that “Marriage is a partnership; submission is for imbeciles” is a lie. And
2) I’m confused as to how you feel that Wilson has tried to interfere with your life in any way that is worth protesting which such disdain.
What we have in conflict here are the claims of two absolutist impositions of control upon women: Wilson’s biblically based regime and Amber’s vision of the independent “emancipated” woman (I use quotes because of my oft restated position that her vision of consensus sexuality is as rigid as the sexuality of any Victorian). Neither makes the claim that only their particular circle of adherents can be satisfied by allegiance to doctrine, but universalize their claim to include all American women. In fact, both would go so far as to claim that those clinging to other viewpoint can find only heartbreak and emptiness in the other. Although Amber may pay lip service “to each her own,” what she is really making is an assertion that Wilson’s position is a lie based on her own subjective experience, hence the hostility toward Wilson’s claim to universality.
Well, Toadvine, I’m glad you know so well what I’m really doing. Yes, I am one of those elusive “radical feminists” that doesn’t want any woman to get married (even though I have been married myself - but I digress) or ever cook meals again or do laundry or have children. And I am such the (anti-?)Victorian in my views of sexuality. I’m just ordering people to go out and fuck, fuck, fuck, and completely eschew monogamous relationships (because, sure, that’s what I do, I do everything in the extreme!) and if they don’t then there’s something fundamentally wrong with them and they need to punish themselves!
Jesus H. Crack-Smoking Christ. At least Xon actually asked questions (which I will answer ASAP) in an attempt to come to some kind of understanding, and wasn’t quite as condescending. And if you want to call me out on my sarcasm, then knock yourself out. But come here and post a comment like that, you’re not going to get a serious response from me; you’re going to get a little bit of piss and vinegar.
Is this “you’re going to get a little bit of piss and vinegar” a requirement of “her vision of consensus sexuality?”
HA! People piss on each other sometimes. That’s funny.
No, Amber, you’re not a radical femenist, which is my point. You consider the Christian viewpoint laughably quaint for its position on what makes a woman happy, when the radical femenist could as easily make the point that your acquiesence to a “partership” in a paternalistic society is just as ridicolous and ultimately subserviet and your taking joy in the act of sex is a socially conditioned construct you have not escaped.
What I’m critiquing is you and ep’s (”Basically, my creed is that a good marriage is what you make of it and everyone, regardless of sex or gender, should be able to enter in the relationship of their choosing and end it at their choosing.”) attempt to disquise your absolutism behind a guise of open-minded tolerance for all forms of relationships.
But since, I’m not asking enough questions, would your tolerance cover a person who choose to be with another by whom the person was physically abused?
One is allowed, yes, to have an absolutist view of what is good for one’s self? Excellent. I absolutely think that the type of marrige I’ve made for myself (which is quite egalitarian, thank you) tickles me pink.
Obviously, so other women are going to have other opinions about what makes a good marriage for them. I may find their choices personally repugnant, but I’m not about to get on television and berate them for being morons. I may, however, tell my friends that I can’t imagine living my life in that manner, and that it seems irredeemably stupid to me.
I don’t see a problem here.
Xon’s right.
Mrs. Wilson is not proposing legislation, nor invading your home, nor even beginning to tell you what to do, Amber. Her message is very clearly one for those who wish to serve God in their marriages.
Nikki’s also right.
Xon, just as Wilson et al are not attempting to get Amber to submit to their marital paradigm, Amber isn’t exactly calling the authors at home and bitching about their attempts at wresting control of her life away. It’s Amber’s blog, where she is prone to calling things out that she thinks are ridiculous, in a very passive way. (Unless, unbeknownst to us, Amber mails a copy of her blog postings to everyone she talks about, etc.)
Toadvine’s also right.
Either your tolerance for “To each his own” in marriage extends to Christians willing to model theirs after a biblical model, or it is not as universal a tolerance as you’d proclaim.
Garrett, yup, Amber can ridicule whatever she thinks is worthy. But, initially, what she was ridiciuling seemed to be the very idea that Mrs. Wilson said that a claim such as “Marriage is a partnership” is a lie. If that’s what Amber found ridiculous, then I thought she was being unfair. So I pointed that out.
As the conversation developed, though, Amber seemed to be saying that she was ridiculing Wilson’s writings because she (Amber) resents other people telling her that she isn’t living her life/viewing marriage properly. But on that charge, Wilson is again not guilty, except in the general sense that she is a Christian and Christians are dogmatic in areas that Amber is not (but likewise, Amber is probably dogmatic in areas where most traditional Christians are not).
So I was just never clear (and still am unclear) on just what exactly Amber was ridiculing Wilson for.
But she can ridicule away, which I acknowledged earlier. Although, as an aside (or a direct hit?), it’s hard to do that and say you are in favor of a world where “everyone makes their own good marriage for themselves” rhetoric seriously. It’s not very charitable to ridiculing someone for choosing to live their life differently than you do, when you also say that’s all you want people to be able to do. (i.e. Toadvine’s right, as Garrett already said).
Nikki pretty much summed up my feelings on the matter, but I will say a little more to answer your question, Xon. Actually it can be compared to the way many Christians view and live their faith. I have many Christian friends/acquaintances who believe very strongly in their faith. They know that I don’t share their beliefs, but it’s not an issue. They can accept that not everyone on the planet is going to live their lives in the same way. However, on a certain level they definitely believe that their way is the right way - otherwise why would they be living it? (I know that that’s an overly simplified way of phrasing it, but bear with me here.) If I were to ask them, “Why should I be a Christian?” they would be happy to answer me with a litany of reasons why it’s such a good lifestyle. However, we have mutual tolerance for and appreciation of each other’s differences.
Mrs. Wilson, and anyone else for that matter, has every right to live her life in the manner she describes if that’s what makes her happy. I am not going to try to stop her. But I can certainly write about why I disagree with her and choose to live my life differently.
And just a quick tangent - notice I used the word choose in the above paragraph. I have no idea why anyone would think this, but just in case they do for some odd reason, let me add this as damage control: I have no problem with women (or men) being stay-at-home moms (or dads) or “housewives” (or “househusbands” - though that’s redundant since the hus- in husband comes from the Germanic root meaning “house” - but I digress). But what it comes down to is choice. They have options, and that is the one they chose - no problem there. But when people try to insist that women don’t have the option to work outside the home (I never cease to be amazed that there are still people who believe this - but whatever, clearly there are), that their only route (their “unique purpose,” if you want to spin the oppression of women in a religious light) is to stay at home and take care of the house and the children, while the man goes out and makes all the money - well, that I have a problem with. Nobody’s going to tell me what I can and can’t do because “God says so.” I said it before and I’ll say it again: fuck that. I want to get a Master’s degree and be a web developer? I want to wait ’til later in life before having children? That’s what I’m going to do. And just one more thing, I don’t think of myself on a day to day basis as “a woman, with a unique purpose” - just as a person with goals, ambitions, interests, and desires.
I got a Master’s degree and became a programmer because God says so. Your purpose is between you and God, even when others believe they can see it more clearly than you.