Irresponsible men and nagging wives

[prisonchaplain]

Two huge problems in American society today are irreresponsible men and nagging wives. The former is born out in so many statistics. The majority of babies born today are out of wedlock. The majority of college students is on the verge of being female. How about the simple reality that 30 years ago we never heard the term "man-child?" While I'm sure there are some, who's ever heard of a "woman-child?"

Then there are the nagging wives. They treat their husbands like children, offer constant disrespect, and insist that these men "get it right" (i.e. do it the way wifey wants it done). Again, examples of men who micro-manage their wives can be found...but it's unusual.

So, what's happened with men, and how can a detail-driven wife be encouraged to--dare I say it--submit to her husband's leadership?

Or, is all this just gender stereotyping?

For those interested, here's an on-topic article about a sermon offered by Rev. Marc Driscoll (Mars Hill Church, Seattle):

Mark Driscoll Criticizes Nagging Wives in Sermon on Marriage

[Just_A_Guy]

Not to get too self-congratulatory, but I think the LDS Church has a bit of a leg-up in these types of situations by having a lay, but male-only priesthood. It gives males an ideal to aspire to; and it gives our leadership an excuse to give us a verbal kick in the pants every six months to remind us to quit being--as former Church president Gordon Hinckley put it--"scrubs".

I've lost count of the number of males I've represented in divorce cases who take one look at the part of the decree that mentions alimony and immediately say "I'm never getting married again". And really, why should they? It's what Grandma always said--why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free? Modern society--both through the normalization of sexual promiscuity, and through the government's willingness to assume the burden of supporting women and children--has allowed males to get away with shirking their traditional domestic and professional responsibilities. And so they do.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

There is much in modern society that makes it easy for men to shirk their duties. I'd even argue that easy access to abortion is more a pro-boy (again with the man-child idea) than a pro-feminist cause. Likewise with no-fault divorces, that can lead to frustrated women getting less support because they would rather cut ties than fight with their leaving men.

Still the question...why are men increasingly irresponsible?

I note the other issue remains untouched. :-)

[Just_A_Guy]

PC, barring the Gospel of Jesus Christ (regardless of the differences we may see in its application which, for the purposes of this discussion, are probably relatively minor), is it in anyone's nature to voluntarily subject themselves to family responsibilities if they don't absolutely have to?

Even with my faith, I struggle to suppress the idea that if I don't get something done, Just_A_Girl is there to pick up the slack. Just_A_Girl, through biology and--unfortunately--through some degree of experience-knows that she doesn't have that luxury. If she doesn't do it, it very well might not get done at all. Hence, the innate need to either closely supervise me, or do it herself.

I have found that the more proactive I tend to be in domestic responsibilities, the less Just_A_Girl feels she needs to follow up with me.

[Dravin]

Then there are the nagging wives. They treat their husbands like children, offer constant disrespect, and insist that these men "get it right" (i.e. do it the way wifey wants it done). Again, examples of men who micro-manage their wives can be found...but it's unusual.

So, what's happened with men, and how can a detail-driven wife be encouraged to--dare I say it--submit to her husband's leadership?

Is it an issue of the husband's leadership? A man who isn't taking out the trash or who folds the towels a certain way isn't doing, or not doing, it as an act of leadership. I suppose if the husband is being proactive in accomplishing familial goals then there may be an issue of submitting or accepting leadership, but if we're talking about your typical sitcom style types of things that bring out being nagged, those kinds of things aren't within the domain of leadership. This is not to say that micromanaging is a good thing, nor that nagging is such, but rather I find that tying it into leadership is not something I'm sure I understand. Or am I getting thrown off track by the connotative imagery that the word nagging throws up for me?

[prisonchaplain]

PC, barring the Gospel of Jesus Christ (regardless of the differences we may see in its application which, for the purposes of this discussion, are probably relatively minor), is it in anyone's nature to voluntarily subject themselves to family responsibilities if they don't absolutely have to?

Why be responsible? LOVE.

Edited April 26, 2013 by prisonchaplain

[Guest]

What of the wives who have husbands who tend toward the irresponsible in big things, like being on time for work and getting to bed before 2 or 3 in the morning? Where is there a balance between being a long-suffering, submissive wife, and encouraging the husband to rise up to his responsibilities and take care of himself? Let's say the husband is attentive and wonderful in other areas, but the bad habits he grew up with are badly affecting the family's well-being. What should a wife do then? Especially when she gets to the point of being so tired, and the stuffing it down is eating away at her.

Hypothetically, of course.

[prisonchaplain]

Is it an issue of the husband's leadership? A man who isn't taking out the trash or who folds the towels a certain way isn't doing, or not doing, it as an act of leadership. I suppose if the husband is being proactive in accomplishing familial goals then there may be an issue of submitting or accepting leadership, but if we're talking about your typical sitcom style types of things that bring out being nagged, those kinds of things aren't within the domain of leadership. This is not to say that micromanaging is a good thing, nor that nagging is such, but rather I find that tying it into leadership is not something I'm sure I understand. Or am I getting thrown off track by the connotative imagery that the word nagging throws up for me?

Would a secretary tell his boss to place his coffee mug on a coaster? Would a hotel maid carry on about a towel being left on a wet bathroom floor? Why not? The boss or hotel patron is either in direct or indirect authority.

OK...so a husband is different than a boss or a guest. Nevertheless, if he is the priest of his home, and in a position of headship, there is a certain amount of respect he should receive.

Early in a marriage these issues are hard. When to teach the spouse the right way to do things (the way momma taught me, for example)? When to relax and let it go? "Choosing battles?"

And yes, sometimes nagging comes because the man-child is not stepping up and doing the basics. Sometimes he's doing tasks poorly, and needs to not be so sensitive when his wife is showing him the right way.

In my house I often say that I am the head and my wife is the manager. She knows how to clean and how to organize and how the girls should groom and dress. So often I tell them, "Ask your mother." However, especially when I see she is tired, I do laundry, dishes, and I put things away. I don't do these as well as she does, but I do them much better than I used to. And, JAG is right--when I am proactive, wifey smiles and says thanks, rather than offering irritated reminders.

These balancing acts are not, imho, what Solomon had in mind when he spoke of the nagging wife as a constant dripping. Could it be that she simply learned from her mother and is passing on disfunction?

[Dravin]

Would a secretary tell his boss to place his coffee mug on a coaster? Would a hotel maid carry on about a towel being left on a wet bathroom floor? Why not? The boss or hotel patron is either in direct or indirect authority.

Authority isn't the same as leadership. One can exercise leadership without authority and one can exercise authority without leadership. The boss putting the mug on the desk without a coaster is not exercising leadership in his decision to do so. I'm thinking it is an issue of terminology and not concept based on what you say next.

OK...so a husband is different than a boss or a guest. Nevertheless, if he is the priest of his home, and in a position of headship, there is a certain amount of respect he should receive.

Having respect for someone is of course important. And we need to make sure the A-type/perfectionist corners of our personality don't disrespect people for not doing things the way we would. I know I've found myself having to suppress the impulse to go A-type/perfectionist because Beefche was doing something differently than how I would. And because of how I cherish her, and our roles in our family it provides a powerful incentive to bridle those impulses. Sometimes correction may be necessary but it shouldn't be out of a perfectionist impulse, and it should be done with the utmost of love and respect.

Early in a marriage these issues are hard. When to teach the spouse the right way to do things (the way momma taught me, for example)? When to relax and let it go? "Choosing battles?"

Yes, it is hard. It requires discernment and introspection to decide:

A) If the way it is being done needs correction, or if it is just a case of personal preference.

B) If, even if there could be a benefit from correction, it is worth it to try to correct in some sort of insistent fashion.

C) If it is worth trying to correct with some sort of insistence, if so just how much?

How we answer those questions can sometimes say more about how we see the other person than the importance of what is under consideration.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Dravin

[Leah]

Why is nagging only used in reference to women? I know some men who are true nags.

[Just_A_Guy]

A man who isn't taking out the trash or who folds the towels a certain way isn't doing, or not doing, it as an act of leadership. I suppose if the husband is being proactive in accomplishing familial goals then there may be an issue of submitting or accepting leadership, but if we're talking about your typical sitcom style types of things that bring out being nagged, those kinds of things aren't within the domain of leadership.

I would respectfully disagree (unless, of course, I'm misinterpreting you). Leadership is a character trait and (IMHO) can't be switched on or off depending on the circumstance. Pitching in with common housework, rather than considering oneself above menial tasks, is one of the hallmarks of true leadership.

Why be responsible? LOVE.

Our secularized society doesn't know what love is anymore. We've let performers, scriptwriters, and lyricists define it for us--and if you look at the serial relationships of many of these jokers, it becomes painfully clear that they don't know what love is either. So we turn to professional therapists, and they give us more or less the same basic relationship concepts that Judeo-Christianity has been offering for centuries--and for free.

When it comes to family relationships in our society, the blind are in far too many cases leading the blind.

[Praetorian_Brow]

Expectations. Anticipation is the greater emotion, especially when it comes to marriage. The irony though, is that no one can possibly meet our anticipation and given today's culture of women increasingly viewing men as a disposable accessory and men not being allowed to be men, then its no surprise when the divorce disease is an epidemic; which of course leads to loss of identity for the children and a hesitation to commit, therefore, snowballing the divorce disease.

At work, women I work with, in the same job, expect to be treated differently and manipulate the situation such that they rarely perform simple tasks such as moving an empty skid. My ex-fiancee, constantly compared me to her father, who was a former drug addict and was mentally absent for most of her growing years. My sister grew up during my parents divorce and much like my ex-fiancee is constantly looking for a father figure to replace what they didn't have, but the terror is that they can never replace their idea of what a man is, with a real alive man, because they will never match her mental image of what she believes she has missed and therefore, they are both convinced its all the men in their lives are the ones failing them.

I play a lot of video games, procrastinate life and have had nagging exes who infer I am not a man, despite being in the infantry for nearly four years, holding down a good job and living on my own. Why? Its because what they expect is more than what they can get. Or, if they get the dominant male that they are looking for, they resent and divorce him, because he is a jerk.

A marriage quickly spirals out of control when we define the other person as wanting, or convince ourselves that the other person is the problem. Of course, someone will mention the abuse clauses and etc, etc. Although, I have learned that women talk incessantly for some weird competitive desire to be acknowledged. Women, don't talk to your man like he is a woman and men, don't assume that she will quell her own fears.

The solution, focus on the positives.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Praetorian_Brow

[Dravin]

I would respectfully disagree (unless, of course, I'm misinterpreting you). Leadership is a character trait and (IMHO) can't be switched on or off depending on the circumstance. Pitching in with common housework, rather than considering oneself above menial tasks, is one of the hallmarks of true leadership.

I'm not talking about pitching in which housework, I'm talking about which way one folds the towels. It's like saying that if I salt the water first or salt the potatoes after is a familial leadership decision. As if the man is thinking, "I'm folding the towels X way because that is the direction I want to take the family in how it folds its towels." and when the wife tells him the he's doing it wrong she's thinking, "I don't like the direction he's taking the family in folding towels X way, the family should go the direction of folding towels in Y way." The decision to fold towels may be an act of leadership, in demonstrating a need for everyone to contribute to the family, but I think it's a rare situation where how he's folding towels is some sort of leadership decision.

That is to say the scenario I envisioned when reading PC's post was not a woman objecting to a man demonstrating the common need for everyone to be willing to contribute to the success of the family, but rather a women objecting that he's folding the towels wrong. I suspect there is more cross-talk going on than genuine disagreement.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Dravin

[BadWolf]

Two huge problems in American society today are irreresponsible men and nagging wives. The former is born out in so many statistics. The majority of babies born today are out of wedlock. The majority of college students is on the verge of being female. How about the simple reality that 30 years ago we never heard the term "man-child?" While I'm sure there are some, who's ever heard of a "woman-child?"

Then there are the nagging wives. They treat their husbands like children, offer constant disrespect, and insist that these men "get it right" (i.e. do it the way wifey wants it done). Again, examples of men who micro-manage their wives can be found...but it's unusual.

So, what's happened with men, and how can a detail-driven wife be encouraged to--dare I say it--submit to her husband's leadership?

Or, is all this just gender stereotyping?

For those interested, here's an on-topic article about a sermon offered by Rev. Marc Driscoll (Mars Hill Church, Seattle):

Mark Driscoll Criticizes Nagging Wives in Sermon on Marriage

Considering that the Mars Hill Church in Seattle is perhaps the most HATEFUL (sexist to condoning brutal rape, racist like I havent seen outside of neonazi groups, anti-everything aka anti-Semitic = Jews are better of dead, homophobic to sponsoring beating up gay kids in schools, cheering during the gay teen suicide spree (Literal. Parties. Held. At. Members. Homes.), Antiabortion to killing moms & doctors, etc. ... All set to electric guitars with backflips) HATEFUL church Ive ever come across. Marc Driscoll may actually BE the adversary... While I agree with you in many degrees... I am disinclined to read anything twisted into words by that person/thing. I swear by all that's holy that THING takes everything good and twists it into ugliness, and makes everything evil sound totally reasonable.

You know he recommends parents with hold all affection to their children? As loving your children leads to pedophilia. So WATCHOUT! Today you're kissing your kid goodnight, tommorrow, you're raping them. :vomit:

I have a great deal of respect for most religions that are not my own. Marc Driscols cult of personality is not one of them.

Beware.

[applepansy]

I only made it through 3 paragraphs of the article. I have not read through this thread.

My viewpoint on the subject of nagging wives is: A wife will have no need to nag if a husband doesn't ignore her requests. :)

There are women who nag but judging all women because some women nag is just as bad as judging all men as irresponsible because some are. I felt the sermon was inappropriate based on the little bit I read... which wasn't much.

I probably should have just closed this thread and read it tomorrow. I was definitely NOT in the mood to read someone bashing women.

[prisonchaplain]

What of the wives who have husbands who tend toward the irresponsible in big things, like being on time for work and getting to bed before 2 or 3 in the morning? Where is there a balance between being a long-suffering, submissive wife, and encouraging the husband to rise up to his responsibilities and take care of himself? Let's say the husband is attentive and wonderful in other areas, but the bad habits he grew up with are badly affecting the family's well-being. What should a wife do then? Especially when she gets to the point of being so tired, and the stuffing it down is eating away at her.

Hypothetically, of course.

Respect what can be respected, encourage what can be encouraged, and, of course, offer a loving plea for support and protection when the man does not step up to his responsibilities.

"Honey, you've got to work. We've got to eat." is not nagging.

[prisonchaplain]

Why is nagging only used in reference to women? I know some men who are true nags.

At the risk of sounding a bit sexist, my guess is that King Solomon was speaking to the majority of cases. Then again, it could have just been the the old-fashioned use of the male gender pronoun that confuses us.

[prisonchaplain]

I only made it through 3 paragraphs of the article. I have not read through this thread.

My viewpoint on the subject of nagging wives is: A wife will have no need to nag if a husband doesn't ignore her requests. :)

There are women who nag but judging all women because some women nag is just as bad as judging all men as irresponsible because some are. I felt the sermon was inappropriate based on the little bit I read... which wasn't much.

I probably should have just closed this thread and read it tomorrow. I was definitely NOT in the mood to read someone bashing women.

Even though I read it quickly, it was clearly chastising those women who do nag, not suggesting that all--or even most--do. Likewise for the men. If anything, he was stronger against the men, suggesting our society is largely made up of such. Driscoll is known for sermons that are blunt. However, I think it hit America's problem areas pretty well.

[mikbone]

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation

Required reading for my sons - http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0911094237

There is also a female version Marriage, the Fascinating Way, By Helen Andelin

[lagarthaaz]

I'm sorry, but I almost can't believe what I'm reading here.

A woman shouldn't be labelled as a 'nag' if she has to repeat requests for help from her partner - if anything her husband should respect her enough not to force her into a situation of either repeating her requests or doing it herself out of frustration.

I find your comments denigrating to the sacred partnership of marriage, and quite insulting to women. "Dripping, nagging women"? Passing on the "mother's disfunction [sic]" Seriously? If anyone ever spoke to me like that in real life I would be shocked, and even more so if they tried to use scripture to support their views. A six thousand year old complaint in a record of Solomon's does not a sacred scripture make.

It doesn't take much imagination to consider what would happen if a man said to his wife: "Now I know what Solomon meant - your nagging is as annoying as dripping rain!" or "didn't your dysfunctional mother teach you how to treat your man?"...

I'm grateful for inspired church leaders who provide wise counsel on the subject of marriage relationships. The wisdom and insight of our church leaders on the subject always promotes equality, patience and respect in marriage, and the condemnation of 'unrighteous dominion' in the home - they never denigrate women or try to 'put us in our place'.

This month's Ensign magazine has some excellent quotes from church leaders on this subject. You can read the whole article here should you feel inclined: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/04/equal-partnership-in-marriage?lang=eng

Some examples of church leaders views on marriage below:

As Elder Earl C. Tingey, formerly of the Presidency of the Seventy, has said: “You must not misunderstand what the Lord meant when Adam was told he was to have a helpmeet. A helpmeet is a companion suited to or equal to [the other]. [They] walk side by side … not one before or behind the other. A helpmeet results in an absolute equal partnership between a husband and a wife. Eve was to be equal to Adam as a husband and wife are to be equal to each other.”

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, formerly of the Seventy, and his wife, Marie, explained:

“Genesis 3:16 states that Adam is to ‘rule over’ Eve, but this doesn’t make Adam a dictator. … Over in ‘rule over’ uses the Hebrew bet, which means ruling ‘with,’ not ruling ‘over.’ … The concept of interdependent, equal partners is well-grounded in the doctrine of the restored gospel. Eve was Adam’s ‘help meet’ (Genesis 2:18). The original Hebrew for meet means that Eve was adequate for, or equal to, Adam. She wasn’t his servant or his subordinate.”

Elder Richard G. Scott of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said:

“In some cultures, tradition places a man in a role to dominate, control, and regulate all family affairs. That is not the way of the Lord. In some places the wife is almost owned by her husband, as if she were another of his personal possessions. That is a cruel, mistaken vision of marriage encouraged by Lucifer that every priesthood holder must reject. It is founded on the false premise that a man is somehow superior to a woman. Nothing could be farther from the truth.”

Moreover, contrary to scripture and the teachings of latter-day prophets, some men and women have interpreted presiding to mean that after equal counsel, equal consent is not necessary because the presider (or husband) has the right of final say. But President Boyd K. Packer, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, explained: “In the Church there is a distinct line of authority. We serve where called by those who preside over us. In the home it is a partnership with husband and wife equally yoked together, sharing in decisions, always working together.”

In considering the equal partnership, Elder L. Tom Perry of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles eloquently said: “There is not a president or a vice president in a family. The couple works together eternally for the good of the family. … They are on equal footing. They plan and organize the affairs of the family jointly and unanimously as they move forward.” Both husband and wife have a sacred obligation to refrain from thoughts and actions that might undermine that equal partnership.

[MarginOfError]

There's a lot of gender stereotyping and gender blaming going on in these ideas.

For instance:

the nagging wife is a gendered stereotype

the irresponsible man is a gendered stereotype

the man as the head of the household but the woman as the manager is a classic gendered stereotype*

the man-child is a gendered stereotype.

At the same time, I'll admit that stereotypes often have a basis in reality. Stereotypes really only become a problem when a) we judge people's worth based on their conformity to the stereotype or b) we excuse our own actions because they conform to the stereotype.

The man-child stereotype is a more recent one that is gaining strength. The common explanation I've heard is that men aren't working as hard because women are entering education in unprecedented numbers and then proceeding to enter the work force. Now that women are in a position to support themselves without dependence on a man, the men aren't working as hard. Things that men used to compete for to attract a woman--salary, status, etc (remember, women were dependent on their husbands for these things)--no longer have the 'buying power' they used to have. Some have used this effect to say that feminism is ruining masculinity. And voila, we're hating men and blaming women for it all at once.

I think at some point in the discussion, we need to start to distinguish between authority, leadership, and influence. Both men and women can exhibit these traits in degrees that very on their individual personalities, not on their gender. What we need to be better about it teaching people strategies to identify personalities that are compatible with their own and how to communicate and collaborate with different personalities. Sweeping these issues into the tent of sexisms (in either direction) will never do anything to improve the world.

* I don't mean to say that it isn't that way in prisonchaplain's home. I believe him that it is. It's like that in my home too. But it's like that because it happens to work for our families. In other families, the woman may be the head of the home while the man is the manager. And if that fits the personalities of the people involved, that's fine. The stereotype only becomes a problem when we evaluate the quality or value of a relationship that doesn't fit the stereotype.

[Dravin]

A woman shouldn't be labelled as a 'nag' if she has to repeat requests for help from her partner - if anything her husband should respect her enough not to force her into a situation of either repeating her requests or doing it herself out of frustration.

Making the argument, "If he'd just do what I requested I'd have no need to nag." strikes me as being similar in vein to, "If she'd just do what I requested I'd have no need to yell." Both are abrogating the responsibility of the person to control their own behavior and places it upon their partner to prevent the desire in them. Of course I'm operating under the assumption that repeating a request does not nagging make, and that nagging is not acceptable behavior (from either spouse). I do recognize however that some people will take any repeated request regardless of respect and tenor to be nagging. I'm of a mind that such people are wrong to do so.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Dravin

[Anddenex]

A woman shouldn't be labelled as a 'nag' if she has to repeat requests for help from her partner - if anything her husband should respect her enough not to force her into a situation of either repeating her requests or doing it herself out of frustration.

Nagging is nagging, whether we label ourselves or someone labels us. I agree, a spouse (male or female) shouldn't have to ask more than once, however let us look at nagging form a different perspective then you have shared:

"I began to strive to become more compassionate and loving and understanding. And do you know what happened? As I started to change, my husband started to change. Instead of my nagging him about going to church, he gradually decided to come with me on his own initiative." (source, emphasis added)

It appears, both parties have something to learn -- the slothful and the nagger.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Anddenex

[applepansy]

Even though I read it quickly, it was clearly chastising those women who do nag, not suggesting that all--or even most--do. Likewise for the men. If anything, he was stronger against the men, suggesting our society is largely made up of such. Driscoll is known for sermons that are blunt. However, I think it hit America's problem areas pretty well.

Act responsibly always? Treat others as you would like to be treated?

[applepansy]

Making the argument, "If he'd just do what I requested I'd no need to nag." strikes me as being similar in vein to, "If she'd just do what I requested I'd no need to yell." Both are abrogating the responsibility of the person to control their own behavior and places it upon their partner to prevent the desire in them. Of course I'm operating under the assumption that repeating a request does not nagging make, and that nagging is not acceptable behavior (from either spouse). I do recognize however that some people will take any repeated request regardless of respect and tenor to be nagging. I'm of a mind that such people are wrong to do so.

Maybe we need a common definition of "nag" and "nagging".

Years ago my oldest son, then a teenager, told me to quit nagging him. My response was do what I ask the first time and I won't ask again. To him insisting he clean his room was nagging. Needless to say we had a Discussion. He left the discussion feeling nagged and he cleaned his room.

So... is asking more than once or twice nagging? I would say to some men it is. I'll go a step further and say to some men a woman asking anything is nagging.

Obviously my mood about this subject has changed with a good nights sleep.

Edit:

nag [nag] Show IPA verb, nagged, nag·ging, noun

verb (used with object)

1.

to annoy by persistent faultfinding, complaints, or demands.

2.

to keep in a state of troubled awareness or anxiety, as a recurrent pain or problem: She had certain misgivings that nagged her.

verb (used without object)

3.

to find fault or complain in an irritating, wearisome, or relentless manner (often followed by at ): If they start nagging at each other, I'm going home.

4.

to cause pain, discomfort, distress, depression, etc. (often followed by at ): This headache has been nagging at me all day.

Since irritating, wearisome or relentless are all subjective feelings for the one feeling nagged. This issue still comes down to asking more than once can be considered nagging.

Edited April 26, 2013 by applepansy