Irresponsible men and nagging wives

[Dravin]

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.

Yep, to which I say:

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.

I think it's safe to say that I hang my hat on definition 1 of the ones you've supplied.

[annewandering]

Masculinity is not determined by a job. Or money. Or muscles. Femininity isnt determined by how good she is at managing a household. Or her lipstick. Or her sewing skills. Or her earning power. Or anything else for either. It is a quality within. A quality of being sure of who she or he is.

If you want a happy house dont debate who is the boss. Who is the nagger. Who is a lazy bum. Debate how to show the love for each other. Then there will be no nagging. No laziness.At least less. No one needs the constant belittling no matter who it comes from. Yes they both come from both sides. My husband used to wonder why the house was a mess when he came home. When he became disabled and unable to work he discovered very fast why. He never belittled but he did complain in his mind. And I am not a great housekeeper.

Thing is we arent going to be perfect. But we can certainly try to be especially when it regards the one we love. All the nitpicking over who is to blame and why gets no one anywhere. It is more important to define where you want to be as a couple and work to that goal. TOGETHER.

[prisonchaplain]

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.

This works both ways. Are we to assume that every demand of the wife is legitimate, and that it is only a lazy husband that forces a wife to repeat demands? Also, could it be that the line between "repeated requests" and "nagging" may be tone? Keep in mind that we have no specific case here. We're talking in generalities. So, unless you mean to suggest that wives never nag, why be upset?

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.

First, Solomon's Proverbs are indeed canon scripture in both LDS and evangelical circles. Second, if the wife is indeed nagging--NOT merely offering repeated reminders because of a lazy husband--then Solomon's words might be appropriate, no? Again, is there no such thing as a nagging wife? Never happened? Doesn't happen? Really? Is it true that only lazy husbands force wives to repeat requests because we men are so bad??? Edited April 26, 2013 by prisonchaplain

[prisonchaplain]

* 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.

Since I quoted Rev. Driscoll in the OP, I probably should state my own take on all this. First, I do believe there can be such a thing as a nagging wife. And yes, there are some husbands who fit the role as well. This is not someone who repeats request. It is a spouse who talks down to the partner, constantly criticizes what s/he doesn't do and how wrong s/he does what s/he does do. It is a negative, controlling, critical spirit--and such a one does deserve some admonishment.

Likewise, there are irresponsible men (and women too). They do not pull their fair share, they tend towards personal satisfaction, while often neglecting their families. They too need correction.

As for who runs the house, ultimately all marriages are partnerships. In LDS and most evangelical homes the ideal is for the man to be the priest of the household. He has primary responsibility to seek the face of God for important family decisions. Day to day, responsibilities fall where the couple agrees they should. We say:

1. Wives submit to the husbands

2. Husbands love their wives so much that they put them first--and are willing to die for them. There's no lording it over here. In fact...

3. Husbands and wives are to submit to one another!

So, I do not go for the hardline male-headship model that some insist upon. I believe Rev. Driscoll is more in line with that thinking.

I hope this clears the air somewhat.

Edited April 26, 2013 by prisonchaplain

[Vort]

A woman shouldn't be labelled as a 'nag' if she has to repeat requests for help from her partner

When is it acceptable to label a woman as a nag?

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.

Does this work the other way, too? For example, are you comfortable with the man who says, "If my wife would just act like she should, I wouldn't have to beat her"?

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?

Are you equally offended at his characterization of men as "irresponsible"? If not, why not? If so, I'd love to know why you didn't mention it.

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'.

While I don't pretend that my experience is representative of everyone else's, I have only rarely noticed the denigration of women as a problem in LDS homes or wards. I have more commonly seen harsh criticism and denigration of men by their wives and by women in general. It's not common, but in my experience it's a lot more common than the other. I wonder that you don't say anything on that account. Or is it that you don't perceive such anti-male denigration?

[lagarthaaz]

This works both ways. Are we to assume that every demand of the wife is legitimate, and that it is only a lazy husband that forces a wife to repeat demands? Also, could it be that the line between "repeated requests" and "nagging" may be tone? Keep in mind that we have no specific case here. We're talking in generalities. So, unless you mean to suggest that wives never nag, why be upset?

It was not my suggestion that "wives never nag" or that men are "lazy husbands" - I'm not into stereotyping human beings that way. Relationships are complex and cannot be defined simply. My suggestion, no, indeed my assertion was, that your comments about women were denigrating. If you want to use comments that put down and stereotype women - you can expect to offend at least a few of the people who may read here. You stated your viewpoint, and as a woman who read your comments, I'm letting you know that some of the comments you made are offensive to women.

First, Solomon's Proverbs are indeed canon scripture in both LDS and evangelical circles.

I am well aware of what constitutes holy scripture. There are plenty of scriptures that were added and left out of the 'canon' depending on the whims of writers, priests and interpreters - any student of scripture knows that there are also many records in the Bible that reflect the social context or views of the author or interpreter and were not necessarily meant to be taken literally. You only need to look at the Catholic vs Anglican canon to see that even on its most superficial level. Every word in the Bible is not meant to be taken literally - do you also believe that women should be considered 'unclean' as they are so often in Leviticus, even after giving birth? Jesus Christ spoke in metaphors often, and clearly disputed the literal beliefs of many. For example in John 3 he explains to Nicodemous that being "born again" is not literally about growing old and being born once more from a mother's womb, but about being spiritually born anew. We can all take isolated verses from the Bible and use it to point fingers at others - but that is a limited interpretation of scriptural meaning, in my view.

Second, if the wife is indeed nagging--NOT merely offering repeated reminders because of a lazy husband--then Solomon's words might be appropriate, no? Again, is there no such thing as a nagging wife? Never happened? Doesn't happen? Really? Is it true that only lazy husbands force wives to repeat requests because we men are so bad???

Please point to anything I said about men being "bad" or "lazy" or where I said "women (or men) never nag". My comments are directed towards the denigrating language you are using to describe the actions of some women. Is the word "nag" something you only use in relation to women or can it be applied to men too? Do you somehow feel more justified in calling women 'dysfunctional' and 'dripping nags' because you can point to a line in the Bible?

Relationship issues between men and women cannot be simply defined as "nagging women" and "lazy husbands" - they could be just as much about "nagging husbands" and "lazy wives". The point is - negatively stereotyping either sex is ridiculous - it is certainly not something that improves relationships between the sexes anymore than racial stereotyping improves the cause of cultural harmony.

[lagarthaaz]

When is it acceptable to label a woman as a nag?

I actually don't think it's acceptable to label anyone that way, whether male or female. We can be annoyed with each other over certain issues but I think the word "nag" implies that "nagging" (the dictionary definitions were great) is only a "woman's problem".

Does this work the other way, too? For example, are you comfortable with the man who says, "If my wife would just act like she should, I wouldn't have to beat her"?

I'm not sure how a man beating his wife into submission is comparable to being verbally berated...though both are forms of abuse for sure. I don't advocate either action.

Are you equally offended at his characterization of men as "irresponsible"? If not, why not? If so, I'd love to know why you didn't mention it.

Yes, I was offended with the stereotyping of both women as "nags" and men as "irresponsible", but it seemed to me the comments were more aimed at women in general being the cause of problems. I chose only to respond to the comments about women - since we received the additional insults of being "dripping nags" who must have "dysfunctional" mothers.

While I don't pretend that my experience is representative of everyone else's, I have only rarely noticed the denigration of women as a problem in LDS homes or wards. I have more commonly seen harsh criticism and denigration of men by their wives and by women in general. It's not common, but in my experience it's a lot more common than the other. I wonder that you don't say anything on that account. Or is it that you don't perceive such anti-male denigration?

Ditto as far as experience goes. But that's not to say it doesn't happen. Quite honestly, apart from rare instances, I haven't seen too much anti-male denigration in my own circles, and I've been in the church for close to 30 years - and most of my associations have been with women in various callings and friendships. I personally have the greatest respect for men and women who go out to work every day to support their families, and for those who for various reasons have to take on roles at home while their partners go into the paid workforce. As a woman who has had to take on that role in recent years (due to husband's illness), I have even more understanding of just what a sacrifice it really is to be the one who takes on the responsibility of providing for the family financially as well as spiritually and emotionally. I have respect for both men and women, and I suppose that's why I took offense at some of the comments in this thread.

[Praetorian_Brow]

Sounds like a few in this thread are naggers. I am also amazed that no matter the topic, the mention of women brings out femnazies and rarely, if ever, do I see a case of men retorting in a similar fashion.

Women nag, hence the man cave. Women don't see it as nagging, because that seems to be part of their communication style and its frustrating to be on the receiving end and usually irritates more than it solves problems. Saying that is a generalization, but since time began, its been a common theme, which is funny that the Bible mentions it. If it makes the femnazis feel better about themselves, I am sure they could wear pants to church if they chose.

All relationships could benefit more from the carrot, rather than the stick approach.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Praetorian_Brow

[Tough Grits]

My husband and I are friends, not combatants. Neither one of us bullies the other...not that it would work...as we are both strong-willed and don't respond well to certain forms of communication.

If my husband asks me to do something, I know that it is because he needs my help. Likewise, he knows that if I ask him for something it is because I need his help.

We respect each other greatly. My husband is very smart. He can fix or build anything. I am a work-horse. He knows that I can, and I do, work hard inside the house and outside in the yard. Maybe that is why we do not feel disturbed or annoyed to assist each other when the other needs it. It helps too, that we also like and love one another. :)

[Guest]

Sounds like a few in this thread are naggers. I am also amazed that no matter the topic, the mention of women brings out femnazies and rarely, if ever, do I see a case of men retorting in a similar fashion.

Women nag, hence the man cave. Women don't see it as nagging, because that seems to be part of their communication style and its frustrating to be on the receiving end and usually irritates more than it solves problems. Saying that is a generalization, but since time began, its been a common theme, which is funny that the Bible mentions it. If it makes the femnazis feel better about themselves, I am sure they could wear pants to church if they chose.

All relationships could benefit more from the carrot, rather than the stick approach.

Would you say your wife is a nag?

[prisonchaplain]

I'm going to try to tailor the on-going discussion of the thread by highlighting the criticisms I see being raised.

1. It's not right to stereotype men or women. Saying that women tend towards nagging and men towards being irresponsible is unfair.

A: There's a fine line between stereotyping and highlighting trends. I would agree with some posters that the larger problem is that many men have failed to step up as honorable fathers, husbands, and priests of their household and church. In the larger Christian world the Promise Keepers movement, and similar male-oriented Christian efforts are indicators of the problem and efforts to work at it.

B. Forgive me, but when "nagging" is a problem, usually it's women who commit it. In fairness, when men track they way we call it "verbal abuse." Ironically, the female victim often gets more sympathy. "My wife was a nag," judge." vs. "My husband verbally abused me, your honor."

2. Not all scripture is literal or relevant or true authoritative.

A. This is a whole new thread. Suffice to say I am a strong proponent that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and again, that Solomon's writings have made the canons of all major Christian and Jewish religions.

3. Rev. Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church may have been a poor choice to cite here.

A. I concede this. He can be blunt. If I were to start the thread over again, I might have stuck with Promise Keepers. I'll defend scripture, but feel no compulsion to stick up for each jot and tittle of his sermons.

[annewandering]

Sounds like a few in this thread are naggers. I am also amazed that no matter the topic, the mention of women brings out femnazies and rarely, if ever, do I see a case of men retorting in a similar fashion.

Women nag, hence the man cave. Women don't see it as nagging, because that seems to be part of their communication style and its frustrating to be on the receiving end and usually irritates more than it solves problems. Saying that is a generalization, but since time began, its been a common theme, which is funny that the Bible mentions it. If it makes the femnazis feel better about themselves, I am sure they could wear pants to church if they chose.

All relationships could benefit more from the carrot, rather than the stick approach.

Call women feminazis and it is amazing how fast you lose your readers. Speaking of carrots, honey works a lot better than vinegar.