Invisapeeps 2.0

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Invisapeeps 2.0 -> Chattin' Peeps -> And now.... women should submit to their husbands by a member of the GOP
Post Info TOPIC: And now.... women should submit to their husbands by a member of the GOP
Aurora


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 122
Date:
And now.... women should submit to their husbands by a member of the GOP
Permalink  
 

A Republican member of Congress says in a recently released book that a wife is to "voluntarily submit" to her husband, but that it doesn't make her inferior to him.

Rep. Steve Pearce's (R-N.M.) memoir, "Just Fly the Plane, Stupid!" was released last month. Its publication -- and his acknowledgment in the book of the controversial nature of the submission debate -- come as the Republican Party reevaluates how it talks to and about women.

In the book, Pearce recounts his rise to owning an oil-field service company and winning election to Congress. In the book, the Vietnam War veteran says that both the military chain of command and the family unit need a structure in which everyone plays his or her role.

He said that, in his family's experience, this meant that his wife, Cynthia, would submit to him and he would lead.

"The wife is to voluntarily submit, just as the husband is to lovingly lead and sacrifice," he writes, citing the Bible. "The husband’s part is to show up during the times of deep stress, take the leadership role and be accountable for the outcome, blaming no one else."

Pearce, who is Baptist, emphasizes repeatedly in the chapter that submission doesn't mean inferiority but rather that husbands and wives play different roles. He also says it doesn't mean his wife doesn't have a say in major decisions.

"The wife’s submission is not a matter of superior versus inferior; rather, it is self-imposed as a matter of obedience to the Lord and of love for her husband," he writes.

Pearce recognizes in the book that he's delving into controversial territory. He recounts the time his wife broached the subject of submission with him, saying he cringed at the conversation.

"The principle is among the most controversial of all directives coming from the Bible. Critics abound, both Christian and non-Christian," he writes, adding: "Many of my friends dealt with the directive by ignoring it..."

In the Bible, the book of Ephesians says wives should "submit to their husbands in everything" (according to the New International Version). Pearce's book doesn't quote this verse, but it does criticize men who use this passage in order to "bully their wives and families." He says that "authoritarian control is not given to the husband."

Democrats in recent years have repeatedly attacked Republicans for their views on and comments about women's issues, particularly when it comes controversial comments made by GOP candidates. Mitt Romney suffered from one of the biggest so-called "gender gaps" in recent history in the 2012 election -- an election in which two GOP Senate candidates might have cost their party a seat because of comments about rape and pregnancy.

Since that election, GOP leaders have sought to coach their members on how to be more sensitive when talking about women's issues.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, the political left attacked a statement similar to Pearce's from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R). It was revealed at the time that Huckabee had signed on to a 1998 Southern Baptist Convention statement that a wife should "submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband."

Pearce is a back-bench member of Congress from southern New Mexico's 2nd congressional district, but he formerly served as an assistant GOP whip.

He has served two separate stints in Congress since he was first elected in 2002. He also ran for Senate in both 2002 and 2008, losing the latter race to now-Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.).

In recent years, Pearce has distanced himself from GOP leadership, becoming one of the few GOP House members to vote against John Boehner for speaker. He has since said it was his most popular vote ever.

Update 5:25 p.m.: A Pearce spokesman is out with a statement accusing the Post of "falsely and inaccurately" mischaracterizing Pearce's book.

"This was a piece of either sloppy journalism or wilful intent to deceive," the spokesman said. "The words clearly written show that Pearce believes the phrase 'submission' is widely misunderstood in society and criticizes those who distort the bible to justify male dominance."

The statement does not make clear what Pearce's office believes is inaccurate.

The spokesman also accuses the post of "refusing" to use a number of quotes that add context to the congressman's words. One of the supposedly refused passages -- "But a close study of the Bible shows that authoritarian control is not given to the husband" -- is, in fact, quoted above.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/01/22/gop-congressmans-book-the-wife-is-to-voluntarily-submit-to-her-husband/

And this is why the GOP needed to give classes on how to relate to women.  confuse



__________________
Desdenova


Motherhood: Sleep is for the weak!!

Status: Offline
Posts: 1207
Date:
Permalink  
 

doh



__________________
RichardInTN


I believe in I.D.I.C.

Status: Offline
Posts: 1642
Date:
Permalink  
 

A: I disagree with the idea of "wives must submit to their Husbands" because...
B: I'm not Christian.


This "submit to your husband" stuff is only applicable for/to believers in the infallibility of "The word of God" (aka the Bible).

__________________
"Yabba Dabba Doo" - Frederick J. Flintstone... So what?
(Judd Nelson as Atty. Robin 'Stormy' Weathers in "From the Hip")
 
My board (everyone welcome): Great Escape
Riding in the WY Wind


~Ride Free~ ~ Live Free~ (M)

Status: Offline
Posts: 968
Date:
Permalink  
 



__________________

~ 4 Wheels Move the Body~  ~2 Wheels Move the Soul~

 

 
ladyloonatic


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 168
Date:
Permalink  
 

I guess I don't get all up in arms about it.

I mean, it doesn't mean that women should just shut up and do as they are told.

And men are supposed to respect, be loving, be accountable, be supportive, etc.

But at the end of the day, someone has to have the final say. Not that I think it should always be the man (obviously, since I'm divorced), but I think in any agreement, someone has to be "the boss" so to speak. Yes, there should be discussion, and a solution worked out that is agreeable to everyone, but that's not always possible.

So, I don't get all worked up about it.

__________________

Reality is just an illusion.
Aurora


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 122
Date:
Permalink  
 

ladyloonatic wrote:

I guess I don't get all up in arms about it.

I mean, it doesn't mean that women should just shut up and do as they are told.

And men are supposed to respect, be loving, be accountable, be supportive, etc.

But at the end of the day, someone has to have the final say. Not that I think it should always be the man (obviously, since I'm divorced), but I think in any agreement, someone has to be "the boss" so to speak. Yes, there should be discussion, and a solution worked out that is agreeable to everyone, but that's not always possible.

So, I don't get all worked up about it.

 Not in my family, someone does not have to have the final say.  We go with discussing it and coming to an agreement.  In the two times that could not work, we went with the person who felt more strongly about the issue.   Ironically, one time it was me and the other was my DH.  

And, in the groups that say what this politican, it is PC speak for obeying your husband.  



__________________
EmmDee


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1933
Date:
Permalink  
 

I can't really get worked up by it unless it is said this is how marriages should be. I know couples my age who go according to this. I question one male coworker about this once when it came up. He put it as it is his responsibility to do what it is best for his wife and for his family. At the end of the day it about the wife trusting the man does have their best interest in mind and if there is a difference in opinion, the man will not make a decision that will put the family in bad position. Exbf who is Muslim felt the same way. For myself, I don't think I could ever trust someone that much. DH and I will differ to who it matters the most to and weigh that into the discussion.

__________________

MGS Arts-Engraved stones and more
ladyloonatic


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 168
Date:
Permalink  
 

Aurora wrote:
ladyloonatic wrote:

I guess I don't get all up in arms about it.

I mean, it doesn't mean that women should just shut up and do as they are told.

And men are supposed to respect, be loving, be accountable, be supportive, etc.

But at the end of the day, someone has to have the final say. Not that I think it should always be the man (obviously, since I'm divorced), but I think in any agreement, someone has to be "the boss" so to speak. Yes, there should be discussion, and a solution worked out that is agreeable to everyone, but that's not always possible.

So, I don't get all worked up about it.

 Not in my family, someone does not have to have the final say.  We go with discussing it and coming to an agreement.  In the two times that could not work, we went with the person who felt more strongly about the issue.   Ironically, one time it was me and the other was my DH.  

And, in the groups that say what this politican, it is PC speak for obeying your husband.  

 Like I said, at the end of the day, someone has to decide.

I know what you are saying, but I don't necessarily think it means shut up and obey your husband, although I'm sure in some instances that's exactly what is meant.

But this guy says it's not an excuse to bully your wife, and that it does not mean the husband should be given authoritarian control. But that there needs to be some give and take, and their needs to be some sort of structure for resolving issues and making decisions.

And sometimes, you "voluntarily submit" to your husband's wished because you love him, and sometimes he "voluntarily submits" to you, because he loves you, (presumably).

 



__________________

Reality is just an illusion.
RichardInTN


I believe in I.D.I.C.

Status: Offline
Posts: 1642
Date:
Permalink  
 

Aurora wrote:
ladyloonatic wrote:

I guess I don't get all up in arms about it.

I mean, it doesn't mean that women should just shut up and do as they are told.

And men are supposed to respect, be loving, be accountable, be supportive, etc.

But at the end of the day, someone has to have the final say. Not that I think it should always be the man (obviously, since I'm divorced), but I think in any agreement, someone has to be "the boss" so to speak. Yes, there should be discussion, and a solution worked out that is agreeable to everyone, but that's not always possible.

So, I don't get all worked up about it.

 Not in my family, someone does not have to have the final say.  We go with discussing it and coming to an agreement.  In the two times that could not work, we went with the person who felt more strongly about the issue.   Ironically, one time it was me and the other was my DH.  

And, in the groups that say what this politican, it is PC speak for obeying your husband.  

So... in those two instances, you had the "final say" once, and your DH had it the other time.

"Final say" doesn't necessarily mean someone says "I have decided and if you don't like it, tough nouggies." It means that the decision is made (however it's arrived at) and someone finally gets their way (whatever that "way" may be).



__________________
"Yabba Dabba Doo" - Frederick J. Flintstone... So what?
(Judd Nelson as Atty. Robin 'Stormy' Weathers in "From the Hip")
 
My board (everyone welcome): Great Escape
Marie


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 73
Date:
Permalink  
 

ladyloonatic wrote:
Aurora wrote:
ladyloonatic wrote:

I guess I don't get all up in arms about it.

I mean, it doesn't mean that women should just shut up and do as they are told.

And men are supposed to respect, be loving, be accountable, be supportive, etc.

But at the end of the day, someone has to have the final say. Not that I think it should always be the man (obviously, since I'm divorced), but I think in any agreement, someone has to be "the boss" so to speak. Yes, there should be discussion, and a solution worked out that is agreeable to everyone, but that's not always possible.

So, I don't get all worked up about it.

 Not in my family, someone does not have to have the final say.  We go with discussing it and coming to an agreement.  In the two times that could not work, we went with the person who felt more strongly about the issue.   Ironically, one time it was me and the other was my DH.  

And, in the groups that say what this politican, it is PC speak for obeying your husband.  

 Like I said, at the end of the day, someone has to decide.

I know what you are saying, but I don't necessarily think it means shut up and obey your husband, although I'm sure in some instances that's exactly what is meant.

But this guy says it's not an excuse to bully your wife, and that it does not mean the husband should be given authoritarian control. But that there needs to be some give and take, and their needs to be some sort of structure for resolving issues and making decisions.

And sometimes, you "voluntarily submit" to your husband's wished because you love him, and sometimes he "voluntarily submits" to you, because he loves you, (presumably).

 

 I agree lady.  I think this is how our marriage works for the most part.  



__________________
Cactus


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 396
Date:
Permalink  
 

RichardInTN wrote:
Aurora wrote:
ladyloonatic wrote:

I guess I don't get all up in arms about it.

I mean, it doesn't mean that women should just shut up and do as they are told.

And men are supposed to respect, be loving, be accountable, be supportive, etc.

But at the end of the day, someone has to have the final say. Not that I think it should always be the man (obviously, since I'm divorced), but I think in any agreement, someone has to be "the boss" so to speak. Yes, there should be discussion, and a solution worked out that is agreeable to everyone, but that's not always possible.

So, I don't get all worked up about it.

 Not in my family, someone does not have to have the final say.  We go with discussing it and coming to an agreement.  In the two times that could not work, we went with the person who felt more strongly about the issue.   Ironically, one time it was me and the other was my DH.  

And, in the groups that say what this politican, it is PC speak for obeying your husband.  

So... in those two instances, you had the "final say" once, and your DH had it the other time.

"Final say" doesn't necessarily mean someone says "I have decided and if you don't like it, tough nouggies." It means that the decision is made (however it's arrived at) and someone finally gets their way (whatever that "way" may be).

 I think there's a difference between getting your way and having final say. It sounds like Aurora got her way once and her husband got his way once but it wasn't because either had more say than the other.



__________________
Aurora


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 122
Date:
Permalink  
 

Cactus wrote:
RichardInTN wrote:
Aurora wrote:
ladyloonatic wrote:

I guess I don't get all up in arms about it.

I mean, it doesn't mean that women should just shut up and do as they are told.

And men are supposed to respect, be loving, be accountable, be supportive, etc.

But at the end of the day, someone has to have the final say. Not that I think it should always be the man (obviously, since I'm divorced), but I think in any agreement, someone has to be "the boss" so to speak. Yes, there should be discussion, and a solution worked out that is agreeable to everyone, but that's not always possible.

So, I don't get all worked up about it.

 Not in my family, someone does not have to have the final say.  We go with discussing it and coming to an agreement.  In the two times that could not work, we went with the person who felt more strongly about the issue.   Ironically, one time it was me and the other was my DH.  

And, in the groups that say what this politican, it is PC speak for obeying your husband.  

So... in those two instances, you had the "final say" once, and your DH had it the other time.

"Final say" doesn't necessarily mean someone says "I have decided and if you don't like it, tough nouggies." It means that the decision is made (however it's arrived at) and someone finally gets their way (whatever that "way" may be).

 I think there's a difference between getting your way and having final say. It sounds like Aurora got her way once and her husband got his way once but it wasn't because either had more say than the other.

 Yep, and that is majorly different than one GENDER gets their way each time. 

 

impression.php?i=%7B53984A46-AE1A-445C-8A7A-207FE87F2020%7D&c=footer&lm=1393952908346



__________________
RichardInTN


I believe in I.D.I.C.

Status: Offline
Posts: 1642
Date:
Permalink  
 

Aurora wrote:
Cactus wrote:
RichardInTN wrote:
Aurora wrote:
ladyloonatic wrote:

I guess I don't get all up in arms about it.

I mean, it doesn't mean that women should just shut up and do as they are told.

And men are supposed to respect, be loving, be accountable, be supportive, etc.

But at the end of the day, someone has to have the final say. Not that I think it should always be the man (obviously, since I'm divorced), but I think in any agreement, someone has to be "the boss" so to speak. Yes, there should be discussion, and a solution worked out that is agreeable to everyone, but that's not always possible.

So, I don't get all worked up about it.

 Not in my family, someone does not have to have the final say.  We go with discussing it and coming to an agreement.  In the two times that could not work, we went with the person who felt more strongly about the issue.   Ironically, one time it was me and the other was my DH.  

And, in the groups that say what this politican, it is PC speak for obeying your husband.  

So... in those two instances, you had the "final say" once, and your DH had it the other time.

"Final say" doesn't necessarily mean someone says "I have decided and if you don't like it, tough nouggies." It means that the decision is made (however it's arrived at) and someone finally gets their way (whatever that "way" may be).

 I think there's a difference between getting your way and having final say. It sounds like Aurora got her way once and her husband got his way once but it wasn't because either had more say than the other.

Yep, and that is majorly different than one GENDER gets their way each time.

I think semantics are confusing the issue. If one person gets their way... no matter HOW the decision was arrived at, "their say" was the option chosen, ergo, they got "the final say" on the choice... even if they didn't actually say the last word on the issue.

Even in a compromise, someone has to yield with some variation of: "yeah, I can live with that" to the other person's compromise. The person that says "yeah, I can live with that" is giving the other person "final say" even though it's a "final say" over a compromise.

The only exception to that would be if both parties make the exact same concession and come to the exact same middle ground, at the exact same time.

 

And I definitely agree that gender should play no part in who gets "final say".



__________________
"Yabba Dabba Doo" - Frederick J. Flintstone... So what?
(Judd Nelson as Atty. Robin 'Stormy' Weathers in "From the Hip")
 
My board (everyone welcome): Great Escape
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Invisapeeps 2.0 -> Chattin' Peeps -> And now.... women should submit to their husbands by a member of the GOP


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard