Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. QotD: All Men Would be Tyrants

 

Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of husbands. Remember all men would be tyrants if they could.

–Abigail Adams

Abigail Adams, the wife of John Adams, was a very bright woman, farmer and investor. She was a devoted partner to her husband, and showed her strength and independence at those times that he was required to leave her alone at their home farm called Peacefield in Massachusetts.

During her lifetime, she very much supported women’s rights and spoke to her husband about them, including the right to vote. Yet in the years of his governance, only limited rights were extended to women.

Since Abigail Adams’ relationship with her husband was just as much a partnership as a marriage, her quotation is puzzling at first. But I think I know her reasons for saying it.

She was telling women in those times that they must own their own power and not give all of it to their husbands. Men, the testosterone gender, felt powerful, and the culture gave most powers to them in marriage. It wouldn’t have occurred to most of those men that the power in a marriage was meant to be shared.

Women have come a long way. And yet there are cultural leftovers from a time when women had little to say about their choices, preferences or family decisions. I think Abigail may have been prescient in her statement since, to this day, I think many women still are inclined, whether they’ll admit it or not, to defer to their husbands in some ways. At the same time, our culture has browbeaten men so badly that I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that they harbor dreams of being tyrants in their marriages.

What do you think?

 

Published in Culture
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 70 comments.

  1. Guruforhire Member

    I was listening to the radio one day in the middle of nowhere and there was some religious themed marriage advice seminar or show going on, and the only thing that got said that ever stuck with me was “There is no such thing as a democracy of 2”

    • #1
    • February 5, 2020, at 6:08 AM PST
    • 7 likes
  2. Stad Thatcher

    Susan Quinn: What do you think?

    I’ll ask my wife and get back to you . . .

    • #2
    • February 5, 2020, at 6:14 AM PST
    • 22 likes
  3. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Guruforhire (View Comment):

    I was listening to the radio one day in the middle of nowhere and there was some religious themed marriage advice seminar or show going on, and the only thing that got said that ever stuck with me was “There is no such thing as a democracy of 2”

    So does that mean someone has to be the tyrant?. . . ummm…in charge?

    • #3
    • February 5, 2020, at 6:15 AM PST
    • Like
  4. Guruforhire Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Guruforhire (View Comment):

    I was listening to the radio one day in the middle of nowhere and there was some religious themed marriage advice seminar or show going on, and the only thing that got said that ever stuck with me was “There is no such thing as a democracy of 2”

    So does that mean someone has to be the tyrant?. . . ummm…in charge?

    It means that in cases of disagreement someones will has to prevail. In traditional marriages that is the husband.

    • #4
    • February 5, 2020, at 6:24 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  5. Lilly B Coolidge

    I’ve often thought that the existence of Abigail Adams is evidence that women in the past weren’t so passive and lacking in power as modern feminists would have us believe. There are plenty of other examples, too. I don’t think having the ability to vote is only way to exercise power, influence or independence in life. She was married to a forceful and opinionated man, and it seems unlikely that he would have been pleased with a meek and subjugated wife. 

    • #5
    • February 5, 2020, at 6:24 AM PST
    • 16 likes
  6. Spin Coolidge
    Spin Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Susan Quinn: I think Abigail may have been prescient in her statement since, to this day, I think many women still are inclined, whether they’ll admit it or not, to defer to their husbands in some ways.

    So? Wait…I shouldn’t say “So?” That’s childish. Let me start over.

    I don’t see why this is a problem. Wives should submit (aka defer) to their husband in “some ways.” And they do. Men likewise should submit to their wives in “some ways.” This isn’t indicative of men being tyrants. It’s a recognition that anything with two heads is a freak. In any partnership, someone has to make a decision when there is disagreement. That means that one party has to submit to the other and accept the decision.

    What are the “some ways”? You decide for yourself.

    • #6
    • February 5, 2020, at 6:26 AM PST
    • 8 likes
  7. Kevin Schulte Member

    Yes, men can be tyrants. 
    However, our feminized culture is now tyrannical to all things masculine. This proves it is a human nature thing not isolated to masculinity. 

    It is also a Biblical precept that men lead. The proper understanding of this precept is not tyranny but loving service. Even giving ones life for your partner. 

    Now, what has women leadership brought to our nation and culture. Well, here is one unpopular fact. If women still could not vote there would be no such thing as Democrats in power. Now I am not in favor of removing voter rights from Women. Just making an unpopular point.

    Also men not leading inevitably brings us women leaders. Vacuums will be filled. Deborah is an example of this in the Old Testament.
    We have this malady in today’s society.

    • #7
    • February 5, 2020, at 6:27 AM PST
    • 11 likes
  8. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Lilly B (View Comment):

    I’ve often thought that the existence of Abigail Adams is evidence that women in the past weren’t so passive and lacking in power as modern feminists would have us believe. There are plenty of other examples, too. I don’t think having the ability to vote is only way to exercise power, influence or independence in life. She was married to a forceful and opinionated man, and it seems unlikely that he would have been pleased with a meek and subjugated wife.

    I completely agree, @lilybart. Today’s supposed feminists should read her biography. She and John made a great team!

    • #8
    • February 5, 2020, at 6:31 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  9. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    If women still could not vote there would be no such thing as Democrats in power.

    Now this is an interesting premise, @kevinschulte. And I can see where that could be true. H.m.m.m… Who started the modern Democrat party?

    • #9
    • February 5, 2020, at 6:34 AM PST
    • 1 like
  10. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Spin (View Comment):
    What are the “some ways”? You decide for yourself.

    I agree, @spin. But in a world where people are confused about their gender, morals and values, exacerbated by the screaming rhetoric, I think younger marrieds must have a very difficult time deciding who is the better person to make a decision when there’s disagreement. Someone has to be the adult in the room.

    • #10
    • February 5, 2020, at 6:38 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  11. Ralphie Member

    Spin (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: I think Abigail may have been prescient in her statement since, to this day, I think many women still are inclined, whether they’ll admit it or not, to defer to their husbands in some ways.

    So? Wait…I shouldn’t say “So?” That’s childish. Let me start over.

    I don’t see why this is a problem. Wives should submit (aka defer) to their husband in “some ways.” And they do. Men likewise should submit to their wives in “some ways.” This isn’t indicative of men being tyrants. It’s a recognition that anything with two heads is a freak. In any partnership, someone has to make a decision when there is disagreement. That means that one party has to submit to the other and accept the decision.

    What are the “some ways”? You decide for yourself.

    There is also an accountablity aspect to decision making. It seems we live in times were people avoid it at all costs. If you have the authority to make a decision, you have the responsibility to be accountable for the results of that decision. Marriage means what your spouse decides to do with money, etc. has a great effect on your life as well. When one gives in to a decision that they disagree with, they actually are agreeing to it, and need to make sure it is successful once it is decided. There is no such thing as my money and his money in a marriage, or shouldn’t be.

    • #11
    • February 5, 2020, at 6:39 AM PST
    • 7 likes
  12. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Ralphie (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: I think Abigail may have been prescient in her statement since, to this day, I think many women still are inclined, whether they’ll admit it or not, to defer to their husbands in some ways.

    So? Wait…I shouldn’t say “So?” That’s childish. Let me start over.

    I don’t see why this is a problem. Wives should submit (aka defer) to their husband in “some ways.” And they do. Men likewise should submit to their wives in “some ways.” This isn’t indicative of men being tyrants. It’s a recognition that anything with two heads is a freak. In any partnership, someone has to make a decision when there is disagreement. That means that one party has to submit to the other and accept the decision.

    What are the “some ways”? You decide for yourself.

    There is also an accountablity aspect to decision making. It seems we live in times were people avoid it at all costs. If you have the authority to make a decision, you have the responsibility to be accountable for the results of that decision. Marriage means what your spouse decides to do with money, etc. has a great effect on your life as well. When one gives in to a decision that they disagree with, they actually are agreeing to it, and need to make sure it is successful once it is decided. There is no such thing as my money and his money in a marriage, or shouldn’t be.

    I sometimes listen to the Dave Ramsey show in the car, and I am amazed at the number of people who simply do not feel they need to be accountable. I remember a woman who called up whose husband was an accountant, and she couldn’t figure out how to convince them that they shouldn’t deepen their already high debt by buying a new home. Excuse me?! It is sad. Thanks, @ralphie.

    • #12
    • February 5, 2020, at 6:43 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  13. Kevin Schulte Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    If women still could not vote there would be no such thing as Democrats in power.

    Now this is an interesting premise, @kevinschulte. And I can see where that could be true. H.m.m.m… Who started the modern Democrat party?

    Keep in mind the Democrat party looks nothing like it’s origin. It is just the current vessel that houses the majority of the women vote. 

    • #13
    • February 5, 2020, at 6:48 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  14. Old Bathos Moderator

    “It was all Mrs. Bumble. She would do it,” urged Mr. Bumble; first looking round, to ascertain that his partner had left the room.

    That is no excuse,” returned Mr. Brownlow. “You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and, indeed, are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.”

    If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass — a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.”

    ― Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist

    Most of my life I have felt like the beadle. Listening to feminist tirades about the patriarchy and wondering why I never got to share in this unfettered power. I feel like a Norsemen left behind as the other fellows paddled the longboat out to sea on a quest to rape and pillage while I have to go to a boring workplace all day and listen to wifely recitations about marketplace gossip and household budget concerns each night.

    Feminism has exposed but never really come to grips with contradictory female goals. On the one hand, in relationships, women spend a great deal of time and effort to influence and broadly control male behavior but often seem vaguely surprised and disappointed if they achieve it. (Male ambitions with respect to female behavior tend to be more specifically focused.) On the other hand, women reserve an absolute right to step back at any time and defer to rely on patriarchal competence to kill mice and spiders, deal with noises in the dark and do things about money. There is no apparent awareness that delegated authority is qualitatively different from the real thing. 

    The “sexual revolution” has made things even less rational. Women are to have equal rights, roles and access except when they think special treatment is required. Sexual irresponsibility can be equal even with inherently unequal consequences if politicized in some magical way.

    I don’t think I ever wanted to a tyrant. I mostly just want things to make sense ( I have four daughters so you can imagine how extensively that expectation remained unfulfilled.) My wife is the most rational woman I have ever known. I think she is delightfully aberrant in that tendency and I revel her company. Looking back, I am glad I didn’t make the trip with those other guys in the longboat.

     

     

    • #14
    • February 5, 2020, at 6:49 AM PST
    • 10 likes
  15. RyanFalcone Member

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):
    If women still could not vote there would be no such thing as Democrats in power.

    Now this is an interesting premise, @kevinschulte. And I can see where that could be true. H.m.m.m… Who started the modern Democrat party?

    Keep in mind the Democrat party looks nothing like it’s origin. It is just the current vessel that houses the majority of the women vote.

    The Democrats fought against women’s suffrage. It was Republicans at the State and Fed levels that rammed it through the opposition.

    • #15
    • February 5, 2020, at 6:58 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  16. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    “It was all Mrs. Bumble. She would do it,” urged Mr. Bumble; first looking round, to ascertain that his partner had left the room.

    That is no excuse,” returned Mr. Brownlow. “You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and, indeed, are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.”

    If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass — a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.”

    ― Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist

    Most of my life I have felt like the beadle. Listening to feminist tirades about the patriarchy and wondering why I never got to share in this unfettered power. I feel like a Norsemen left behind as the other fellows paddled the longboat out to sea on a quest to rape and pillage while I have to go to a boring workplace all day and listen to wifely recitations about marketplace gossip and household budget concerns each night.

    Feminism has exposed but never really come to grips with contradictory female goals. On the one hand, in relationships, women spend a great deal of time and effort to influence and broadly control male behavior but often seem vaguely surprised and disappointed if they achieve it. (Male ambitions with respect to female behavior tend to be more specifically focused.) On the other hand, women reserve an absolute right to step back at any time and defer to rely on patriarchal competence to kill mice and spiders, deal with noises in the dark and do things about money. There is no apparent awareness that delegated authority is qualitatively different from the real thing.

    The “sexual revolution” has made things even less rational. Women are to have equal rights, roles and access except when they think special treatment is required. Sexual irresponsibility can be equal even with inherently unequal consequences if politicized in some magical way.

    I don’t think I ever wanted to a tyrant. I mostly just want things to make sense ( I have four daughters so you can imagine how extensively that expectation remained unfulfilled.) My wife is the most rational woman I have ever known. I think she is delightfully aberrant in that tendency and I revel her company. Looking back, I am glad I didn’t make the trip with those other guys in the longboat.

     

     

    Brilliant comment, @oldbathos. I bolded my favorite parts. I think I have become more rational with age, and yet a bit more compassionate. Given the nature of women, that contradiction probably makes sense! One of the conflicts women create is when they say they want sensitive men, but when the men lose it, they call them weak. It makes me nuts!

    • #16
    • February 5, 2020, at 7:00 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  17. Guruforhire Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):
    What are the “some ways”? You decide for yourself.

    I agree, @spin. But in a world where people are confused about their gender, morals and values, exacerbated by the screaming rhetoric, I think younger marrieds must have a very difficult time deciding who is the better person to make a decision when there’s disagreement. Someone has to be the adult in the room.

    I think we should consider the 2nd term in home economics is economics. When we teach home economics at schools we teach cooking. Which is dumb.

    I reminded my wife who has recently made the transition to home maker that poor sanitation has killed more soldiers than combat. When we lose sight of this sort of stuff because of our unmatched prosperity, we forget the stalking terrors of things like cholera.

    • #17
    • February 5, 2020, at 7:04 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  18. Doug Kimball Thatcher

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):
    What are the “some ways”? You decide for yourself.

    I agree, @spin. But in a world where people are confused about their gender, morals and values, exacerbated by the screaming rhetoric, I think younger marrieds must have a very difficult time deciding who is the better person to make a decision when there’s disagreement. Someone has to be the adult in the room.

    Power, in marriage, is shared and when there is a disagreement and compromise is impossible, especially in important decisions of the heart, the nod should go to the parter to whom the outcome means the most. There is no room for rhetorical or tepid stands on principle in a marriage. Who cares the most? If you love your spouse you must defer to their deepest convictions where yours are really not all that.

    • #18
    • February 5, 2020, at 7:07 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  19. Guruforhire Member

    Hell hath no fury like a feminist finding out that bicycles have no use for fish or their opinions about bicycles or things bicycle related.

    • #19
    • February 5, 2020, at 7:16 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  20. KentForrester Moderator

    Never mind.

    • #20
    • February 5, 2020, at 7:34 AM PST
    • Like
  21. Ralphie Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Ralphie (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: I think Abigail may have been prescient in her statement since, to this day, I think many women still are inclined, whether they’ll admit it or not, to defer to their husbands in some ways.

    So? Wait…I shouldn’t say “So?” That’s childish. Let me start over.

    I don’t see why this is a problem. Wives should submit (aka defer) to their husband in “some ways.” And they do. Men likewise should submit to their wives in “some ways.” This isn’t indicative of men being tyrants. It’s a recognition that anything with two heads is a freak. In any partnership, someone has to make a decision when there is disagreement. That means that one party has to submit to the other and accept the decision.

    What are the “some ways”? You decide for yourself.

    There is also an accountablity aspect to decision making. It seems we live in times were people avoid it at all costs. If you have the authority to make a decision, you have the responsibility to be accountable for the results of that decision. Marriage means what your spouse decides to do with money, etc. has a great effect on your life as well. When one gives in to a decision that they disagree with, they actually are agreeing to it, and need to make sure it is successful once it is decided. There is no such thing as my money and his money in a marriage, or shouldn’t be.

    I sometimes listen to the Dave Ramsey show in the car, and I am amazed at the number of people who simply do not feel they need to be accountable. I remember a woman who called up whose husband was an accountant, and she couldn’t figure out how to convince them that they shouldn’t deepen their already high debt by buying a new home. Excuse me?! It is sad. Thanks, @ralphie.

    Before Dave Ramsey, there was Larry Burkett. He said money was the most frequent topic in the Bible, and important to understand how to be good stewards. He also believed that husbands and wives needed to make financial decisions together. The compatability with money seems to be a big issue in marriage, and one that seems central to a lot of divorces.

    • #21
    • February 5, 2020, at 7:45 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  22. Kevin Schulte Member

    Ralphie (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Ralphie (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: I think Abigail may have been prescient in her statement since, to this day, I think many women still are inclined, whether they’ll admit it or not, to defer to their husbands in some ways.

    So? Wait…I shouldn’t say “So?” That’s childish. Let me start over.

    I don’t see why this is a problem. Wives should submit (aka defer) to their husband in “some ways.” And they do. Men likewise should submit to their wives in “some ways.” This isn’t indicative of men being tyrants. It’s a recognition that anything with two heads is a freak. In any partnership, someone has to make a decision when there is disagreement. That means that one party has to submit to the other and accept the decision.

    What are the “some ways”? You decide for yourself.

    There is also an accountablity aspect to decision making. It seems we live in times were people avoid it at all costs. If you have the authority to make a decision, you have the responsibility to be accountable for the results of that decision. Marriage means what your spouse decides to do with money, etc. has a great effect on your life as well. When one gives in to a decision that they disagree with, they actually are agreeing to it, and need to make sure it is successful once it is decided. There is no such thing as my money and his money in a marriage, or shouldn’t be.

    I sometimes listen to the Dave Ramsey show in the car, and I am amazed at the number of people who simply do not feel they need to be accountable. I remember a woman who called up whose husband was an accountant, and she couldn’t figure out how to convince them that they shouldn’t deepen their already high debt by buying a new home. Excuse me?! It is sad. Thanks, @ralphie.

    Before Dave Ramsey, there was Larry Burkett. He said money was the most frequent topic in the Bible, and important to understand how to be good stewards. He also believed that husbands and wives needed to make financial decisions together. The compatability with money seems to be a big issue in marriage, and one that seems central to a lot of divorces.

    I just loved Larry Burkett. 
    Miss him dearly. 

    • #22
    • February 5, 2020, at 8:04 AM PST
    • 1 like
  23. Vectorman Thatcher

    Ralphie (View Comment):
    Before Dave Ramsey, there was Larry Burkett. He said money was the most frequent topic in the Bible, and important to understand how to be good stewards. He also believed that husbands and wives needed to make financial decisions together. The compatability with money seems to be a big issue in marriage, and one that seems central to a lot of divorces.

    I’ve told others that I was Dave Ramsey before he was cool. When I married in 1979, I don’t remember anything from Larry Burkett, but he started Christian Financial Concepts (CFC) in 1976, so he has me beat by a couple of years.


    Join other Ricochet members by submitting a Quote of the Day post, the easiest way to start a fun conversation. There are only 5 days left on the February Signup Sheet. We even include tips for finding great quotes, so choose your favorite quote and sign up today!

    • #23
    • February 5, 2020, at 8:11 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  24. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):
    Power, in marriage, is shared and when there is a disagreement and compromise is impossible, especially in important decisions of the heart, the nod should go to the partner to whom the outcome means the most.

    @dougkimball, I’ve been chewing on your comment and I have one big reservation. An immature and selfish person in a marriage should be enabled. This is from my comment #12:

    I sometimes listen to the Dave Ramsey show in the car, and I am amazed at the number of people who simply do not feel they need to be accountable. I remember a woman who called up whose husband was an accountant, and she couldn’t figure out how to convince them that they shouldn’t deepen their already high debt by buying a new home. Excuse me?! It is sad.

    • #24
    • February 5, 2020, at 9:52 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  25. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member

    All women would be tyrants, too, if they could.

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):
    What are the “some ways”? You decide for yourself.

    I agree, @spin. But in a world where people are confused about their gender, morals and values, exacerbated by the screaming rhetoric, I think younger marrieds must have a very difficult time deciding who is the better person to make a decision when there’s disagreement. Someone has to be the adult in the room.

    Power, in marriage, is shared and when there is a disagreement and compromise is impossible, especially in important decisions of the heart, the nod should go to the parter to whom the outcome means the most. There is no room for rhetorical or tepid stands on principle in a marriage. Who cares the most? If you love your spouse you must defer to their deepest convictions where yours are really not all that.

    My friends, I think that your intentions are good, but you’re not actually offering a solution. You’re evading the problem.

    The result is the breakdown of marriage. I know, I know, divorce rates have dropped, but that’s only because so many people don’t bother to get married at all.

    If you have a perfect 50-50 partnership, and the partners disagree, there is no solution. Saying “decide for yourself” is an evasion, leading to deadlock and a split. Saying “defer to the one you love” is an evasion, as it obviously applies to both parties. I know that Doug’s suggestion is a bit more sophisticated than this — it’s more “defer to the one to whom the outcome means the most.” But that’s another evasion, because someone has to decide the identity of the partner to whom the outcome means the most.

    We all know the facts, though they are generalities with occasional exceptions. Men are generally bigger, stronger, have higher earning capacity, and are less emotionally unstable than women. If we’re going to have a general tie-breaker rule, it’s got to be the man.

    Try it the other way. Imagine that the husband is supposed to obey the wife. Even the woman is not going to be happy with this arrangement. If she’s the protector, provider, and leader, then he’s just an overgrown kid. She’s going to despise him and he’s going to resent her. Oh, and she has absolutely no way to control him, by the way, if he gets fed up. Which he will.

    Once again, the facts of life are conservative.

     

    • #25
    • February 5, 2020, at 10:21 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  26. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    All women would be tyrants, too, if they could.

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):
    What are the “some ways”? You decide for yourself.

    I agree, @spin. But in a world where people are confused about their gender, morals and values, exacerbated by the screaming rhetoric, I think younger marrieds must have a very difficult time deciding who is the better person to make a decision when there’s disagreement. Someone has to be the adult in the room.

    Power, in marriage, is shared and when there is a disagreement and compromise is impossible, especially in important decisions of the heart, the nod should go to the parter to whom the outcome means the most. There is no room for rhetorical or tepid stands on principle in a marriage. Who cares the most? If you love your spouse you must defer to their deepest convictions where yours are really not all that.

    My friends, I think that your intentions are good, but you’re not actually offering a solution. You’re evading the problem.

    The result is the breakdown of marriage. I know, I know, divorce rates have dropped, but that’s only because so many people don’t bother to get married at all.

    If you have a perfect 50-50 partnership, and the partners disagree, there is no solution. Saying “decide for yourself” is an evasion, leading to deadlock and a split. Saying “defer to the one you love” is an evasion, as it obviously applies to both parties. I know that Doug’s suggestion is a bit more sophisticated than this — it’s more “defer to the one to whom the outcome means the most.” But that’s another evasion, because someone has to decide the identity of the partner to whom the outcome means the most.

    We all know the facts, though they are generalities with occasional exceptions. Men are generally bigger, stronger, have higher earning capacity, and are less emotionally unstable than women. If we’re going to have a general tie-breaker rule, it’s got to be the man.

    Try it the other way. Imagine that the husband is supposed to obey the wife. Even the woman is not going to be happy with this arrangement. If she’s the protector, provider, and leader, then he’s just an overgrown kid. She’s going to despise him and he’s going to resent her. Oh, and she has absolutely no way to control him, by the way, if he gets fed up. Which he will.

    Once again, the facts of life are conservative.

     

    Gosh, Jerry, I was just about to agree with you and then you stepped in it! ;-) Women are not necessarily more emotionally unstable; it’s just that men are often more reluctant to express their emotions (unless it’s anger) or they act passive aggressively. I would agree that women are often more sensitive, but that doesn’t equate to instability. Also see my comment #24. And when it comes to getting fed up, I think both sexes are equally able for innumerable reasons. So there!

    • #26
    • February 5, 2020, at 10:28 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  27. Spin Coolidge
    Spin Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    All women would be tyrants, too, if they could.

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):
    What are the “some ways”? You decide for yourself.

    I agree, @spin. But in a world where people are confused about their gender, morals and values, exacerbated by the screaming rhetoric, I think younger marrieds must have a very difficult time deciding who is the better person to make a decision when there’s disagreement. Someone has to be the adult in the room.

    Power, in marriage, is shared and when there is a disagreement and compromise is impossible, especially in important decisions of the heart, the nod should go to the parter to whom the outcome means the most. There is no room for rhetorical or tepid stands on principle in a marriage. Who cares the most? If you love your spouse you must defer to their deepest convictions where yours are really not all that.

    My friends, I think that your intentions are good, but you’re not actually offering a solution. You’re evading the problem.

    The result is the breakdown of marriage. I know, I know, divorce rates have dropped, but that’s only because so many people don’t bother to get married at all.

    If you have a perfect 50-50 partnership, and the partners disagree, there is no solution. Saying “decide for yourself” is an evasion, leading to deadlock and a split. Saying “defer to the one you love” is an evasion, as it obviously applies to both parties. I know that Doug’s suggestion is a bit more sophisticated than this — it’s more “defer to the one to whom the outcome means the most.” But that’s another evasion, because someone has to decide the identity of the partner to whom the outcome means the most.

    We all know the facts, though they are generalities with occasional exceptions. Men are generally bigger, stronger, have higher earning capacity, and are less emotionally unstable than women. If we’re going to have a general tie-breaker rule, it’s got to be the man.

    Try it the other way. Imagine that the husband is supposed to obey the wife. Even the woman is not going to be happy with this arrangement. If she’s the protector, provider, and leader, then he’s just an overgrown kid. She’s going to despise him and he’s going to resent her. Oh, and she has absolutely no way to control him, by the way, if he gets fed up. Which he will.

    Once again, the facts of life are conservative.

     

    To summarize your position: “Men are bigger, stronger, tougher, and better able to make rational decision and thus are the defacto decision makers. If you don’t agree, or won’t state that opinion, then you are evading the question.”

    I call BS on that.

    • #27
    • February 5, 2020, at 10:40 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  28. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Spin (View Comment):

    To summarize your position: “Men are bigger, stronger, tougher, and better able to make rational decision and thus are the defacto decision makers. If you don’t agree, or won’t state that opinion, then you are evading the question.”

    I call BS on that.

    Would you like to elaborate, @spin?

    • #28
    • February 5, 2020, at 10:45 AM PST
    • Like
  29. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I have a take on responsibility. I want power because I feel I have more responsibility for the family. If it’s on my shoulders I need the power to make things happen. 

    Since becoming an adult and certainly since marrying, I have never felt fully at ease. Modern feminists seem to want power but do not want the responsibility that goes with it. I don’t put you into that category Susan. You fully embrace responsibility. 

     

     

     

     

    • #29
    • February 5, 2020, at 10:46 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  30. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    I have a take on responsibility. I want power because I feel I have more responsibility for the family. If it’s on my shoulders I need the power to make things happen. 

    I don’t disagree, @bryangstephens. I think many good men feel responsible for their families. But women do also, in different ways. In that respect, I think power is shared. Wouldn’t you agree?

    • #30
    • February 5, 2020, at 10:48 AM PST
    • 2 likes