|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Headship
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
In that weird alternate universe, yes, that part of the vow would lose any meaning.
In this universe, will you answer my question?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You seem to be premising your argument on the idea that most people can't judge their own misery and require some outside authority, like the government, to decide whether their particular misery is the right kind for them to be allowed to do something about. Why do you consider forcing people to remain in miserable relationships to be a legitimate use of state power?
I'm not forcing anyone to remain in anything - that would apply if I was against divorce, but I'm not.
Sure you are. You're suggesting that unless a couple can check off one of the JonnyS-approved boxes in the official list of reasons you consider legitimate for divorce they should stay in the cesspit of hate and loathing that their marriage has become.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Marriages (in the Western world at least) are currently public covenants sanctioned by the state. Historically the whole point of making public vows was to prevent people from being able to divorce privately without involving the state. A no fault divorce involves the state but only in a purely rubber-stamping exercise.
Rather like the way the state hands out marriage licenses in the first place, right? But I'm sure you consider that to be good "rubber-stamping".
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
(In the context of this thread it is interesting to note that this has mostly been for the protection of wives in the past.)
Well, making divorce difficult has always been marketed as being for the protection of wives, but the way the spousal murder rate usually drops in jurisdictions where no-fault divorce is enacted tells a different story.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Orfeo:
As soon as you allow 'grounds' then you are saying that it's not a case of 'no matter what'. 'No matter what' does not mean, for instance, 'I will be faithful to you until I discover that you were unfaithful to me first, and then I'm entitled to break it off'.
No, involving grounds means spelling out that the original vows have been broken. As you say there is nothing that entitles / requires you to break off, but only reasons that may make it a sad possibility.
I think you mean "a sad impossibility". After all, if you're still not entitled to a divorce after your spouse breaks their vows there's literally no circumstance under which you would be.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Correct, in the sense that it involves the state - see my response above. If a marriage is state sanctioned then surely only the state can be the final arbiter if it is to be dissolved? ISTM that a 'no fault divorce' is informing the state rather than involving it. It presupposes marriages as a private agreement between two people rather than a public one.
An interesting theory. Following your logic of the state being the final arbiter of marriage, does the same reasoning apply in other circumstances? Specifically, if the state can compel couples to stay together can it also issue divorces that neither spouse wants? Going further, can it compel unwilling parties to wed each other? I have to say that the amount of power you're willing to invest in the government to run people's lives is truly frightening.
I take the contrary position. Governments should exist for the benefit of their citizens, not the other way around.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sure you are. You're suggesting that unless a couple can check off one of the JonnyS-approved boxes in the official list of reasons you consider legitimate for divorce they should stay in the cesspit of hate and loathing that their marriage has become.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) Where have I said anything like that? I haven't even mentioned any reasons so how can I possibly be insisting that the official list needs to be approved by me? I would have thought that the whole point of marriage being sanctioned by the state is that any 'approved list' of mine is totally irrelevant.
The rest of your post comes down to the definition of a public marriage sanctioned by the state.
You are putting a whole lot of words in my mouth that I haven't said at all without addressing the issue that started this tangent in the first place - what difference does it make that marriage is a public contract sanctioned by the state? If I sign a contract with another person that we can dissolve without giving any reason for doing so, then surely it is, by definition, a private contract?
[ 09. January 2012, 08:10: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're suggesting that unless a couple can check off one of the JonnyS-approved boxes in the official list of reasons you consider legitimate for divorce they should stay in the cesspit of hate and loathing that their marriage has become.
If I understand JonnyS correctly, his point is more that the concept of ‘no fault' divorce is a fiction, because, by definition, if neither of the two people who had promised to stay married to one another were at all at fault, they wouldn't be getting a divorce. If the law is to permit divorce (as, I think, he fully supports) it would be better to do so in a way that does not endorse the untrue assertion that no one is ever to blame. His argument is not that cruelty, adultery or desertion are the only ways of being ‘at fault' - it is the opposite of that, that even in cases were none of the big reasons are present, it is still a nonsonse to say that nobody is at all in the wrong.
The reason why no-fault divorce is the way laws tend to go in various jurisdictions is practical, though, rather than meant as a moral comment on marital breakdowns. Once a couple get to the point of wanting to split up, there is very little of practical legal importance about whose fault it was, and it is often impossible to tell: how many years of emotional abuse is required to balance out one instance of drunken adultery? Is sexual selfishness more or less blameworthy than persistent sarcasm? Even without considering that people's perceptions are usually rather skewed, even when they aren't deliberately lying (as they often are), asking a Court to decide which of two people was more of a nightmare to live with is a dubious proposition. And usually quite pointless. It doesn't make reconciliation more likely, so while it may be, in some sense, truer to say that such and such a divorce is granted because, on balance, Mrs Smith failed in her obligations slightly more seriously than Mr Smith failed in his, if it makes no practical difference why spend several days and a hundred grand on a bitterly contested trial to find that out?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Correct, in the sense that it involves the state - see my response above. If a marriage is state sanctioned then surely only the state can be the final arbiter if it is to be dissolved? ISTM that a 'no fault divorce' is informing the state rather than involving it. It presupposes marriages as a private agreement between two people rather than a public one.
As Croesos has pointed out, the state doesn't seem to actually do a great deal of checking when it comes to sanctioning marriages to begin with (apart from making sure everyone's the right gender ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ), so I'm not sure why you seem to think that it's particularly important that the state does a great deal of checking when it comes to noting the end of marriages either. All people realistically do when getting married is 'inform' the state. They ask the state to register them and the state pretty much says 'okay' so long as it's a heterosexual couple and neither of them is previously on the register. Not terribly demanding.
Marriage vows are pretty much symbolic, and have been for quite a while now. Once upon a time a marriage contract was exactly that - a contract, and it was treated as such by the law. But certainly not in my lifetime, and quite possibly not in yours.
The faint suggestion that no-one would go into a marriage if the promises weren't binding, in the sense that they didn't have consequences, tells me more about you than it does about the institution of marriage. I don't campaign for my right to get married because I want there to be official sanctions and consequences if I stuff up - do you really think gays and lesbians are eager for that 'right' when they can just shack up as de factos now?
The consequences of breaking the vows aren't state-imposed or in the law. They're in the heart and soul. They're personal and internal. Maybe not all people have the same sense of integrity, but when I stand up in front of a gathering and say I'm intending to spend the rest of my life with someone, it'll be because I honestly mean that's my intention.
And if that doesn't end up happening for some reason (the future not being readily foreseen - you should learn a little about the realities of contract law and how contracts can't cover every future eventuality) then I'll be devastated and I'll probably spend the rest of my life trying to decide how much it was my fault and what I did wrong.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're suggesting that unless a couple can check off one of the JonnyS-approved boxes in the official list of reasons you consider legitimate for divorce they should stay in the cesspit of hate and loathing that their marriage has become.
If I understand JonnyS correctly, his point is more that the concept of ‘no fault' divorce is a fiction, because, by definition, if neither of the two people who had promised to stay married to one another were at all at fault, they wouldn't be getting a divorce. If the law is to permit divorce (as, I think, he fully supports) it would be better to do so in a way that does not endorse the untrue assertion that no one is ever to blame. His argument is not that cruelty, adultery or desertion are the only ways of being ‘at fault' - it is the opposite of that, that even in cases were none of the big reasons are present, it is still a nonsonse to say that nobody is at all in the wrong.
The reason why no-fault divorce is the way laws tend to go in various jurisdictions is practical, though, rather than meant as a moral comment on marital breakdowns. Once a couple get to the point of wanting to split up, there is very little of practical legal importance about whose fault it was, and it is often impossible to tell: how many years of emotional abuse is required to balance out one instance of drunken adultery? Is sexual selfishness more or less blameworthy than persistent sarcasm? Even without considering that people's perceptions are usually rather skewed, even when they aren't deliberately lying (as they often are), asking a Court to decide which of two people was more of a nightmare to live with is a dubious proposition. And usually quite pointless. It doesn't make reconciliation more likely, so while it may be, in some sense, truer to say that such and such a divorce is granted because, on balance, Mrs Smith failed in her obligations slightly more seriously than Mr Smith failed in his, if it makes no practical difference why spend several days and a hundred grand on a bitterly contested trial to find that out?
The entire problem here, I suspect, is a confusion as to what 'no fault' means. It doesn't mean there was no fault at all. It merely means that you don't have to identify which ONE out of two people was at fault.
If anything, that system of assigning blame to one party or the other was a great deal more fictional. A 'fault' system insists on having one party file for divorce as the 'victim' of the fault, so that they can label the other party as the perpetrator of the fault.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sure you are. You're suggesting that unless a couple can check off one of the JonnyS-approved boxes in the official list of reasons you consider legitimate for divorce they should stay in the cesspit of hate and loathing that their marriage has become.
Where have I said anything like that? I haven't even mentioned any reasons so how can I possibly be insisting that the official list needs to be approved by me? I would have thought that the whole point of marriage being sanctioned by the state is that any 'approved list' of mine is totally irrelevant.
As orfeo has pointed out, 'no-fault divorce' is a legal term of art with a very specific meaning. By claiming to be in favor of a system where divorce is only permitted on the basis of fault, you have endorsed a system where there is a specific list of faults considered grounds for divorce and such faults must be established in court, usually on a "preponderance of evidence" basis. Given that such procedings are, by definition, an adverserial process this seems like a position designed to increase the level of acrimony between any couple seeking divorce.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The rest of your post comes down to the definition of a public marriage sanctioned by the state.
You are putting a whole lot of words in my mouth that I haven't said at all without addressing the issue that started this tangent in the first place - what difference does it make that marriage is a public contract sanctioned by the state? If I sign a contract with another person that we can dissolve without giving any reason for doing so, then surely it is, by definition, a private contract?
It should be noted that "public contract" is also a legal term of art and posits that the state is one of the contracting parties in a marriage. Most jurisdictions, on the other hand, do indeed regard marriage as a private contract that's registered with the state, somewhat akin to selling a piece of real estate. Real estate transactions are registered with the state for much the same reason marriages are (taxes, preventing skullduggery, etc.).
So, if you regard the state as a contracting party within every marriage, what's the state's interest and what enforcement mechanisms do you consider legitimately at its disposal?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... When I lived in the UK Christmas presents from Marks & Spencer's were virtually a tradition. This was because the store would accept returns with no explanation (even no receipt I seem to remember). The store's return policy then had a direct impact on shoppers - people chose to buy presents from there precisely because it was easier to return. There is a causal relationship. I remember the queues at the end of December.
The problem with your example is that there are no queues -- as others have pointed out, fewer people are getting married, even with supposedly "easy" divorce. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I reflected on this further overnight, and I struggled to think of any reason why the state would have an interest on keeping a relationship 'on the books' as it were when the relationship has in practice broken down.
The only thing I could come up with was a 'for the sake of the children' type argument. But even that doesn't work. Even if the state refused a divorce (because there was no 'grounds'), it cannot compel a couple to live together. Physical separation is entirely in the hands of the couple. So why on earth would the state insist on them remaining married?
Morality? As I understand it, this is exactly what used to happen in Ireland where divorce was not possible. Men would abandon their wives anyway. And those wives would not be free to remarry if a decent man came along.
That was an absolute bar on divorce, but much the same result occurs if particular cases of divorce were to be refused by the State because the recognised 'grounds' hadn't been met.
It seems to me that the State is not in a very good position to assess a marriage and tell the participants in the marriage that it's not 'over' when the husband and wife are telling the State that yes, it is over.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If I understand JonnyS correctly...
Yes, pretty much. Thanks Eliab - your whole post sums up what I was trying to say.
My contention is that (I think I read it somewhere) technically speaking 'no fault divorce' still doesn't exist even now in the UK. As you said earlier, something to do with the legislation being there but never been used or something like that.
I don't know much about the British legal system and what I know is now out of date so I'd appreciate your comment on this.
This is significant because I think it implies a radically different definition of marriage in the UK to that described in the US and Australia.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Marriage vows are pretty much symbolic, and have been for quite a while now. Once upon a time a marriage contract was exactly that - a contract, and it was treated as such by the law. But certainly not in my lifetime, and quite possibly not in yours.
That may be true in Australia but I'm not convinced that it has changed as far as that in the UK - hence my question to Eliab.
My point is that across human cultures for centuries if not millennia the sine qua non of marriage has been its public nature.
You may be correct in saying that in the western world marriage is increasingly becoming a private contract but my point is that I'm not sure the public are generally aware of the significance of this. Human beings are often self-contradictory and I can see how the law is increasingly viewing marriages as private agreements but I don't think people are generally aware of this.
Perhaps if I spoke about weddings and marriages it might make the contrast more stark. Weddings are still (in Law AFAIK) public events but marriages are private. Unless it has changed in the past 5 years weddings in the UK must be public (e.g. during daylight hours and not behind locked doors) for them to be legally binding.
Hence the question I keep asking - why continue with public weddings if a marriage is private? It is a very misleading sham. You seem to misunderstand my argument. I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of where our society is at, but rather am arguing for more consistency.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I reflected on this further overnight, and I struggled to think of any reason why the state would have an interest on keeping a relationship 'on the books' as it were when the relationship has in practice broken down.
Again you misunderstand me. I'm not proposing that the state keeps any more relationships 'on the books' than it does already. You seem to think that I'm after more punitive divorce laws. I'm not. My issue is with the public nature of marriage.
If marriage is a public thing then, in some sense, it has to be dissolved publicly. (I'm not talking about airing dirty laundry here but some form of public acknowledgement.) And if marriage is no longer a public thing then our governments and state legislation needs to be clear and consistent about that - which, ISTM, would involve fundamentally changing the definition of marriage to one utterly unrecognisable to 99% of any cultures that have ever practiced any form of marriage.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
The problem with your example is that there are no queues -- as others have pointed out, fewer people are getting married, even with supposedly "easy" divorce. OliviaG
And when others pointed that out earlier I replied by saying that there may be more than one factor at work here. There always is with human beings.
Indeed that is exactly what happened with M&S. In the late 80s and early 90s (IIRC) they had a serious image problem - everybody viewed them as the shop where granny bought your Christmas jumper - and so their sales dropped dramatically. They were popular at Christmas but their overall sales were seriously hampered as their products dropped in perceived (and consequently actual) value.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should be noted that "public contract" is also a legal term of art and posits that the state is one of the contracting parties in a marriage. Most jurisdictions, on the other hand, do indeed regard marriage as a private contract that's registered with the state, somewhat akin to selling a piece of real estate. Real estate transactions are registered with the state for much the same reason marriages are (taxes, preventing skullduggery, etc.).
So, if you regard the state as a contracting party within every marriage, what's the state's interest and what enforcement mechanisms do you consider legitimately at its disposal?
See my reply to Orfeo.
Next wedding you go to please stand up at the front before the public ceremony and inform all those gathered that what is about to happen is really a legal fiction and should be regarded as such.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Perhaps if I spoke about weddings and marriages it might make the contrast more stark. Weddings are still (in Law AFAIK) public events but marriages are private. Unless it has changed in the past 5 years weddings in the UK must be public (e.g. during daylight hours and not behind locked doors) for them to be legally binding.
There is no such requirement on this side of the pond. A wedding is a private event here. There are no laws regarding where or when it happens.
Does that change anything about the point you're arguing?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
From your failure to answer my question after my last asking, despite having answered many other people since then, shall I assume that you admit you are unable to, Johnny S?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
There is no such requirement on this side of the pond. A wedding is a private event here. There are no laws regarding where or when it happens.
That's interesting. Thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Does that change anything about the point you're arguing?
Possibly, but only to the extent that an American definition of marriage is seen to be normative for the rest of the planet.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
From your failure to answer my question after my last asking, despite having answered many other people since then, shall I assume that you admit you are unable to, Johnny S?
No, take it that I tried three times and finally gave up.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Could you repeat your question to JohnnyS, mt? There has been so much discussion in the last page or so and having a brain like a sieve, I've lost track. Thanks. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Of course a marriage is public. If the existence of the marriage is not advertised in SOME way, then how is anyone to avoid unknowingly breaking up the marriage?
Public/private is not a useful dichotomy here. The decision to enter (or exit) a marriage is private. The existence of a marriage is public.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My contention is that (I think I read it somewhere) technically speaking 'no fault divorce' still doesn't exist even now in the UK. As you said earlier, something to do with the legislation being there but never been used or something like that.
I don't know much about the British legal system and what I know is now out of date so I'd appreciate your comment on this.
In essence: once a Bill (proposed law) is approved by both Houses of Parliament and rubber-stamped by the Queen (Royal Assent) it becomes an Act. It is on the statute books and (technically) part of UK law.
However Acts commonly have a provision which says when they 'come into force', and actually start applying to real life. Very often this provision says something like "the Secretary of State for Administrative Affairs may by order provide for this Act to come into force". The relevant minister can then issue a piece of secondary legislation, that doesn't need to go through Parliament, which activates some or all of the Act. Sometimes, that's all the Commencement Order will say: "Sections x,y and z of the Silly Walks Act 2010 come into force on the 1st of April 2012". Sometimes it happens as part of a much larger set of regulations (which can be much longer than the original Act) which details more precisely how the law will apply. And there can be multiple orders, for different parts of the Act in different parts of the UK. It might be several years after the passage of the Silly Walks Act 2010 that the Silly Walks (Licensed Gaits) Regulations and Commencement Order No.7 (Northern Ireland) 2016 appears.
The relevant parts of the Family Law Act 1996 are not in force, and may never be. So they have no formal influence on the resolution of divorces in the UK. That said, the way cases are actually decided these days is much more 'no fault' than it used to be. Bad behaviour is rarely if ever a factor in financial orders, which are based on need and contribution more than anything, and even in child custody disputes (which I know less about) conduct is only relevant as far as it affects the interests of the child, not as a reason to reward or punish a parent. So while there is still a Petitioner and a Respondent, and the Petitioner always and the Respondent sometimes alleges formal grounds for the divorce (adultery, unreasonable behaviour, separation of 2 years by consent or five years regardless), it very rarely makes any difference who says what about whom.
Personally, I suspect that if I am ever divorced I will feel rather aggrieved at the fact that my (no doubt) blameless conduct is not formally vindicated at my ex-wife's expense, but I do see the considerable pragmatic advantages of not litigating over every detail of domestic flaw of every marriage that ever fails.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Of course a marriage is public. If the existence of the marriage is not advertised in SOME way, then how is anyone to avoid unknowingly breaking up the marriage?
Public/private is not a useful dichotomy here. The decision to enter (or exit) a marriage is private. The existence of a marriage is public.
I don't think it is that simple.
I'm quite comfortable with the fact that often traditions linger on well after the time when they were meaningful. The public declaration of vows at a wedding is different though (ISTM). If you are correct about the way marriage is viewed n Australia (and I have no reason to doubt you) then it seems that our custom for weddings is not just redundant but deliberately misleading.
The question I keep asking is this - why bother including public vows in a wedding ceremony if there is zero intent for the vows to be public?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The relevant parts of the Family Law Act 1996 are not in force, and may never be. So they have no formal influence on the resolution of divorces in the UK. That said, the way cases are actually decided these days is much more 'no fault' than it used to be.
Thanks - that was what I was after.
So, is it fair to say that the legal position in the UK is currently very different to the US and Australia but heading in the same direction as them?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Bad behaviour is rarely if ever a factor in financial orders, which are based on need and contribution more than anything, and even in child custody disputes (which I know less about) conduct is only relevant as far as it affects the interests of the child, not as a reason to reward or punish a parent. So while there is still a Petitioner and a Respondent, and the Petitioner always and the Respondent sometimes alleges formal grounds for the divorce (adultery, unreasonable behaviour, separation of 2 years by consent or five years regardless), it very rarely makes any difference who says what about whom.
Personally, I suspect that if I am ever divorced I will feel rather aggrieved at the fact that my (no doubt) blameless conduct is not formally vindicated at my ex-wife's expense, but I do see the considerable pragmatic advantages of not litigating over every detail of domestic flaw of every marriage that ever fails.
I think that you've got where I'm coming from, but just to be sure - I'm not advocating the punitive use of divorce law or trying to encourage litigation.
I'm not discussing making it harder to get divorced but rather wondering what responsibility or role society should play when a marriage breaks down. What does it mean, in practice, that a marriage is public? I'm posing that question because I believe it strikes at the heart of the definition of marriage in the first place.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Of course a marriage is public. If the existence of the marriage is not advertised in SOME way, then how is anyone to avoid unknowingly breaking up the marriage?
Public/private is not a useful dichotomy here. The decision to enter (or exit) a marriage is private. The existence of a marriage is public.
But the existence of a marriage is more public than any other contract surely? That's what the debate about the other perennial deceased equine is about: there's something about marriage that is different from a normal contract, or else that debate could be solved by couples simply making a contract with a ceremony alongside it.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Hmmmm ...
We seem to have drifted rather a long way from our original subject - Headship.
While discussions about marriage and/or divorce are very interesting, they seem to have almost entirely occupied the last page or two, to the detriment of the thread.
Back to the subject please - but feel free to start a new thread on these new topics, though probably not in Dead Horses.
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Brief but interesting legal tangent: I'd forgotten that UK Acts can 'sit on the books' in this way. This used to be possible in Australia as well, but at some point someone (a Senator I think) got a bee in their bonnet about it.
Standard procedure here, now, is for an Act of Parliament to impose a 6-month limit on the delay: if a start date isn't proclaimed by the Executive within 6 months, then the legislation will just go ahead and start automatically. If a Bill introduced into Parliament proposes a longer limit (as happens very occasionally), it'll be questioned as a matter of course as to why and the Government better have a good answer ready.
Bills sometimes make commencement contingent on some other event, eg commencement of an international treaty. So there are a few cases where an Act might lie dormant for a long period, but this is definitely unusual and will have to be explained as the Bill is introduced.
I know that's a tangent off a tangent, but I thought it might be interesting. Well, interesting to me anyway... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Could you repeat your question to JohnnyS, mt? There has been so much discussion in the last page or so and having a brain like a sieve, I've lost track. Thanks.
Best not given the latest hostly injunction.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Of course a marriage is public. If the existence of the marriage is not advertised in SOME way, then how is anyone to avoid unknowingly breaking up the marriage?
Public/private is not a useful dichotomy here. The decision to enter (or exit) a marriage is private. The existence of a marriage is public.
The confusion comes from the way JonnyS has (deliberately?) conflated a couple different definitions of the term "public". Marriages are "public" in that they're recorded by the state for practical reasons similar to reasons the state holds records of the ownership of private property or the birth and death records of private citizens. This does not make it a "public contract" in the way the term is normally used (i.e. a contract where the state is one of the contracting parties, like hiring a contractor for road paving). Making the argument that the state is a contracting party in every marriage and can thus take legal actions on its own initiative seems relentlessly intrusive.
I notice JonnyS still hasn't addressed my question on the implications of such a position. If the state is a contracting party that can assert its interest in the continuation of a marriage contrary to the wishes of the other contracting parties (the couple seeking a divorce), does it not logically follow that the state can also assert its interest in the termination of a marriage contrary to the wishes of the other contracting parties? The level state intrusion possible by classifying marriage as a "public contract" (a contract with the state) instead of a "public record" (records maintained by the state and available to the general public) seems not just massively counterproductive but also contrary to the way most couples see their marriages.
[ 10. January 2012, 15:37: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But the existence of a marriage is more public than any other contract surely?
The most publically visible contract in England at the moment is Thierry Henry's two month loan back to Arsenal. We practically got blow-by-blow action replays of the agents and the lawyers negotiating it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Ahem!!!
Please note my recent post.
Thank you
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
So the way that the husband should express his ‘being head of his wife’ is by self-sacrificial servant headship, being prepared to do the lowliest job in the world for her, as Christ did when he washed the feet of his disciples.
Right, that's just the same bullshit line despots and tyrants have been peddling for centuries. ...
Do you have any evidence of despots and tyrants quoting: ‘Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her’ (Eph 5:25) in support of their despotic tyranny?
Even if there was evidence, it would be a logical fallacy to deduce that therefore anyone who quoted any part of Eph 5:22-33 in support of godly headship by a husband is a despot. That’s the same logical fallacy as saying ‘Swans are white, this bird is white, therefore this bird is a swan.’ when there are other white birds as well as swans. There are other people as well as despots and tyrants who quote the Bible. As I said: “If people distort Biblical teaching to achieve their own agendas, don’t blame the Bible.” and add: Not everyone who quotes the Bible does so to achieve their own evil agenda.
And also, there’s the rather more subtle possibility that despots and tyrants have quoted the Bible’s teaching (while failing to put it into practice) in order to discredit Biblical teaching in the eyes of people who fall for the logical fallacy which I have explained above.
As for: quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So God's direct commands for how you're supposed to live you life are totally optional? Good thing Christianity doesn't contain any severe warnings about what happens to those who disobey the commands of its deity.
My point was that the wife’s compliance with God’s command is up to her conscience before God, not up to the husband to enforce, as can be deduced by a careful reading of my words that you quoted. And supported by Josephine’s post quoting Chrysostom: “He says it's a good thing for a woman to choose to obey her husband, but it's shameful for a man to demand obedience from his wife.” (Thank you Josephine )
Another point which can be gleaned from this Biblical passage is that the husband is the head of the wife. It is a statement of fact, not dependent on the agreement of either the wife or the husband. Just as Christ being head of the church is a statement of fact, not dependant on the agreement of the church. So the husband and wife each have the choice to acknowledge this fact, or ignore it.
Now, what would be an interesting continuation of the discussion would be to look at the relationship between Christ and the church as described in the biblical account, in order to understand more about the example Christ sets for the godly headship of a husband, and how it would be put into practice.
I’ve only just had this as an idea, so I don’t have many examples yet. One possibility is God’s initiative-taking in showing love
– to the whole world John 3:16:17
and to the church 1John4:19.
So the example is for the husband to take the primary initiative in ensuring the marital relationship is a loving one. I have encountered many examples of wives who struggle with their marriages because they find that they are the ones who have to take all the responsibility for relationship maintenance – the husband just doesn’t show any inclination to do so. All that wifely dissatisfaction would be eliminated by a husband who modelled his headship on Christ’s. I wonder if there are other examples...
Angus
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Well (and forgive me if I posted this 5 years ago), my godmother when my godfather jokingly said, "hey, I'm the Head! You have to obey me!" would respond, "Die for me. Then we'll talk".
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Well (and forgive me if I posted this 5 years ago), my godmother when my godfather jokingly said, "hey, I'm the Head! You have to obey me!" would respond, "Die for me. Then we'll talk".
I'm intrigued how many of my "conservative" married friends interpret "die physically to save her life physically" as the sole obligation of husband to wife. Seems to be men who definitely would take a bullet to protect the wife, but until that breath-ending event believe it's the wife's job to serve the husband's life.
Seems to me if you want to read the Bible as imposing a "headship" structure, the husband's job is to "die daily" as Paul said elsewhere, give up pursuing his best life day by day, pursue instead the best life for his wife. Be her daily servant looking out for her best good no matter what it costs him and his plans for his life.
Which is what Jesus did. He didn't just physically die for us on the cross, his every day was a surrender of his life for our benefit, he taught for us, showed us by example how to live, healed physically and relationally.
We've had centuries of teaching that women give up their lives -- their interests, their careers, their friends and homes, even their names -- to follow the man in his choices he thinks best for his interests, instead of men giving up their lives for their wives.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Well (and forgive me if I posted this 5 years ago), my godmother when my godfather jokingly said, "hey, I'm the Head! You have to obey me!" would respond, "Die for me. Then we'll talk".
I'm intrigued how many of my "conservative" married friends interpret "die physically to save her life physically" as the sole obligation of husband to wife. Seems to be men who definitely would take a bullet to protect the wife, but until that breath-ending event believe it's the wife's job to serve the husband's life.
Seems to me if you want to read the Bible as imposing a "headship" structure, the husband's job is to "die daily" as Paul said elsewhere, give up pursuing his best life day by day, pursue instead the best life for his wife. Be her daily servant looking out for her best good no matter what it costs him and his plans for his life.
Which is what Jesus did. He didn't just physically die for us on the cross, his every day was a surrender of his life for our benefit, he taught for us, showed us by example how to live, healed physically and relationally.
We've had centuries of teaching that women give up their lives -- their interests, their careers, their friends and homes, even their names -- to follow the man in his choices he thinks best for his interests, instead of men giving up their lives for their wives.
I'm not sure your description of Jesus is accurate. According to standard Christian mythology on this matter, Jesus did one weekend of hard work, after which He expected everyone else to give a lifetime of obedience. Sounds like a traditional* Christian definition of marriage to me!
--------------------
* "Traditional" in this case meaning "how things actually worked", not "pleasant fictions about how things ought to be told to passify the oppressed".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I've been slowly reading through this, and am currently stuck on page 11.
But the idea of headship seems to be premised on the idea that ALL men are completely different from ALL women in every measurable way which is important for character, personality, and, perhaps if it can be measured, soul. Omitting such things as height, shoe size and so on which may not be relevant.
However, if those obvious, measurable and apparently irrelevant things are considered, it becomes obvious that there are considerable overlaps between the members of either set. Any random woman may well be taller than any random man, though as a whole, the average height of women is shorter than the average height of men.
Extended to measurable and perhaps relevant characteristics such as intelligence, strength, or speed in running, the same applies. There are a largish number, though less than half, of men, who are less clever, strong or fast than the average woman.
So, if all women were married, and had, as in the past, little choice as to their husband, a number would end up with husbands who were shorter, stupider, and weaker than they were, and they would be compelled to accept the headship of this person because of some unmeasurable and not particularly obvious spiritual difference which has no external sign and is only founded in a document written a long time ago.
But then, there are obvious but unmeasurable characteristics which might be indicators of a spiritual status which could be recognised in headship, and might outweigh the effects of differing intelligence. (I was once advised by a male colleague to hide my intelligence in order to attract a partner. I'm still single.) These would be shown by behaviour, perhaps.
In men I have known, the more different they are from me in outlook, the less they have seemed to be likely to be described as having spiritual values. This is obviously subjective, not to mention circular, but a tendency to regard large blobs of fat below the neck as more important than the blob above the neck was one such indicator. An inability to discuss anything serious in a sensible way was another. Laddish behaviour does not incline me to regard them as having headship potential. There seem to have been very few men who seemed to be real mensch - and they were already married. I'm not surprised at the women who target married men, though I wouldn't approve of them. I'm not surprised at the married women who regard the single as a threat.
Which set is responsible for most violence and abuse? Not to excuse women completely - there are some who can be pretty destructive, but to accept that men as a whole are somehow better than women as a whole and deserve to be regarded so without any behavioural indicator for the individual seems perverse.
I would expect God's expectations to be grounded in reality and the needs of his children and demonstrably true, and I don't think this particular idea measures up to that. Hs failure to provide me with anyone to be Petruchio to my Kate endorses this.
Penny
[ 20. January 2012, 11:40: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Another point which can be gleaned from this Biblical passage is that the husband is the head of the wife. It is a statement of fact, not dependent on the agreement of either the wife or the husband. Just as Christ being head of the church is a statement of fact, not dependant on the agreement of the church. So the husband and wife each have the choice to acknowledge this fact, or ignore it.
It was a fact when Paul was writing. That society exepcted men to be in charge, and that was that. In our culture, and in many others it is not a fact. Therefore the husband and wife each have the choice as they read Paul to decide whether he intended to impose this fact on society, or to reflect the facts of his society as he discussed the issue.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
But the idea of headship seems to be premised on the idea that ALL men are completely different from ALL women in every measurable way which is important for character, personality, and, perhaps if it can be measured, soul...
I would expect God's expectations to be grounded in reality and the needs of his children and demonstrably true, and I don't think this particular idea measures up to that. Hs failure to provide me with anyone to be Petruchio to my Kate endorses this.
Yes the idea is that women are by being female less valid human beings than males, spiritually weaker, various "church fathers" so called have said women are inherently defective. Many a "Christian" writer or theologian has insisted Adam was the innocent victim of Eve, that Eve caused the fall, all sin is caused by women.
We see this in cultures that blame a woman for being raped, any woman who is raped obviously must have enticed him by the way she was dressed, or by wearing nail polish, the 5 year girl flirted and asked for it, men are innocent victims of women, men sin only when women force or beguile them to sin. That is the attitude of fallen male.
But read books like Romans, Paul keeps blaming Adam! Adam sinned. From the first Adam, the fall, from the second Adam, the restoration. No mention of Eve causing the fall.
If you really want to distinguish between male and female you'd have to say Adam sinned by choice, Eve was deceived, neither will do one's soul good. NOT Adam was innocent victim of Eve's being deceived, but Adam voluntarily sinned. In my book, although in the extreme both can cause death, if you have to choose between the two, open rebellion is far worse than confusion. Confusion can be retaught truth, rebellion refuses truth.
Throughout the Bible both females and males know God, respond to God, lead others in God's ways, including the woman prophet in the OT you NEVER hear mentioned in church, Hulda, who saved her nation spiritually by verifying the lost scriptures they had found. Jeremiah was in the area, it wasn't reliance on a woman because "women are second rate but I guess it's all we've got," it was reliance on a known reliable spokesperson for God, this one just happened to be female.
Throughout the Bible both males and females ignore or reject God, lead others away from God's ways, far more men than women are portrayed as misleading others or turning away from God, perhaps because men were more often in the leadership positions from which they could lead others astray, but there is no reason from the OT to believe males spiritually superior to women.
Which raises a question why a tiny number of NT passages belittle women not for any moral fault but just for being female, a tiny number of passages disagreeing with all the OT and most of the NT. When in doubt go with the vast majority, especially go with what examples show, not with generalized theoretical wording. Paul never treated women, married or un, as spiritual inferiors.
Satan has silenced and beaten down half the church with centuries of male-aggrandizement interpretations of the Bible.
No you don't need a man to be complete. Nice to have around, they think differently, we need each other in our lives to broaden our viewpoints, but spiritually we are each, male and female, made in the image of God.
(I could playfully use the Bible to show that women are spiritually superior to males, but I won't, because even if it were true as opposed to both genders being spiritually equal in God's eyes, anyone looking to consider themselves spiritually superior has just proved themselves spiritually inferior, right? The men who claim spiritual superiority over women are proving themselves wrong.)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Yes the idea is that women are by being female less valid human beings than males, spiritually weaker, various "church fathers" so called have said women are inherently defective. Many a "Christian" writer or theologian has insisted Adam was the innocent victim of Eve, that Eve caused the fall, all sin is caused by women.
We see this in cultures that blame a woman for being raped, any woman who is raped obviously must have enticed him by the way she was dressed, or by wearing nail polish, the 5 year girl flirted and asked for it, men are innocent victims of women, men sin only when women force or beguile them to sin. That is the attitude of fallen male.
<snip>
Satan has silenced and beaten down half the church with centuries of male-aggrandizement interpretations of the Bible.
Yep, it's wrong to blame women for their own oppression or abuse at the hands of men. The real culprit is . . . SATAN!
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
a tendency to regard large blobs of fat below the neck as more important than the blob above the neck
Quotes file.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
We see this in cultures that blame a woman for being raped, any woman who is raped obviously must have enticed him by the way she was dressed, or by wearing nail polish, the 5 year girl flirted and asked for it, men are innocent victims of women, men sin only when women force or beguile them to sin. That is the attitude of fallen male...
Satan has silenced and beaten down half the church with centuries of male-aggrandizement interpretations of the Bible.
Yep, it's wrong to blame women for their own oppression or abuse at the hands of men. The real culprit is . . . SATAN!
Sorry, old language from back in my charismatic days.
Satan, satanic, evil, anti-God, I don't believe there is a character named Satan who runs around in a red suit with a pitchfork, but there is some sort of negative spiritualty, of which I use "satan" as a shorthand.
I guess there are some here who deny there is any negative spirtuality, or any spirituality of any kind. Nevertheless, half the church has been silenced by the bogus claim that males are superior to females, and that teaching is evil because of the negative effects on individuals, relationships, churches, and societies.
Better wording?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
But the idea of headship seems to be premised on the idea that ALL men are completely different from ALL women in every measurable way which is important for character, personality, and, perhaps if it can be measured, soul. Omitting such things as height, shoe size and so on which may not be relevant.
I'm not sure that's necessary, from a strictly logical point of view (disclosure: I do not subscribe to the headship idea). All that's necessary is that all men are completely superior from all women in some ineffable quality we can call headshiposity. The problem is that nobody can say exactly what that is, how it's measured, or even detected, and so on. It seems to boil down to, "God just said so," which in turn is based on a certain reading of certain passages of Holy Writ.
Needless to say not all of us read those certain passages the same way.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The interesting thing about this 'headshiposity' being that it has no particular correlation with traits such as good character or moral fibre. Which I think is the nub of Penny's argument.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The interesting thing about this 'headshiposity' being that it has no particular correlation with traits such as good character or moral fibre. Which I think is the nub of Penny's argument.
I could swear I answered this yesterday. Anyway, yes, I agree. One would at least think those things would be good to have in a "head," and lack of them might disqualify one from headship.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I could swear I answered this yesterday.
Sorry, didn't really mean to suggest that you hadn't!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I could swear I answered this yesterday.
Sorry, didn't really mean to suggest that you hadn't!
No, it's not you. The thing I thought I had posted isn't here. I'm just cracking up.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
a tendency to regard large blobs of fat below the neck as more important than the blob above the neck
Quotes file.
Thank you.
It has only just occurred to me the relevance of those men who made a point of ignoring a female skull and its contents to the concept of male headship. If a female is virtually headless, the male has to be the head.
Penny
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
those men who made a point of ignoring a female skull and its contents
I used to work with (young) men who had some (low level) security clearance I didn't. They would tell me all sorts of things they shouldn't, including passwords, because after all "girls" were too stupid to be able to remember or use the info. Good thing I was disinclined to mis-use the info! This was back in the 60s, when males were "men" but females were still "girls."
Recent new foundation, election of officers, what did they suggest I be? Secretary. Huh? I have experience at the duties of chair and vice chair, I can't read my own handwriting so no way can I take minutes. Result -- I'm not an officer at all. Fine with me, I get to do less work.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
So what does a male-headship concept look like, lived out in a modern Western marriage?
Soon as I accomplish it, I'll call y'all and invite you to come watch. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) Meanwhile, it's not too difficult to deal with the attempt, when you have a man suitable for the position.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Actually, I think "ignoring" was the wrong word. I'm not sure what the right one is. "Ignore", it seems to me, contains an element of deliberate behaviour, of having gone through a mental process of recognising something and then choosing not to take cognisance of it.
I had the impression, in retrospect, that a number of the young men simply had no idea that what was in women's heads was similar to what was in their heads. Then again, maybe that is wrong.
When I finally realised why I was attracting men who did not seem to see me, I was going to suggest that their minds resided somewhere very much smaller than the places they thought important in me. That was when they stopped, though, so I never got to make my cutting remark.
Penny
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
