From Glenn Sacks:
Him: Hey you remember Linda, the woman who was here a few weeks back?
Me: Yeah.
Him: She's in jail!
Me: No way, really? What happened?
Him: She got into a fight with her husband and she hit him and he called the cops.
Me: Good for him!
Him: No, he's a real jerk.
Me: Oh, did he hit her first?
Him: Well, no.
Me: Did he push her or something?
Him: No, but he's a real scumbag, and has probably hit her in the past.
Me: He has?
Him: I don't know, but he's a real jerk so probably.
Me: Did she ever say he did? Call the cops?
Him: No, but that doesn't mean anything.
Subtle message...it's always the man's fault.
From Barack Obama:
"My daughters and all your daughters will know there's no barrier to who they are. ... They will take for granted women can do anything that the boys can do, and do it better, and do it in heels. I still don't know how she does it in heels."
Subtle message...girls are better than boys. Even in heels.
From Scotland:
Ten police officers had been involved in the case at a substantial cost to the taxpayer, so Lindsay was charged with wasting police time.(...)
Sheriff Veal said she had shown little sympathy for Graeme and didn't care about the impact of false allegations on genuine rape victims.
But last week judges at the Justiciary Appeal Court in Edinburgh overturned the sentence, after her defence counsel argued that the Sheriff should have taken into consideration the fact that Lindsay could be viewed as "vulnerable".
Subtle message: false accusations are a "waste of police time", not destruction of a reputation. False accusers DO NOT CARE about the falsely accused. False accusers get off.
False accusations hurt. Just say no.
Sue
Ellen,
I think this first sequence is a great illustration. It is not the victim's fault, male or female. Its so sad that Christian women can here this unsanctioned from the pulpit about women. I think women of all persuasions would want it stopped. It is not alright to blame men or women for suffering from abuse.
Ellen
Sue, everybody knows that abuse is wrong. In my state and most states, if the police are called, the man goes to jail.
Did you get that? the man goes to jail and female on male abuse is largely swept under the rug.
And whether you like it or not, Obama's words are the reality.
There is a war against men and false accusations of "abuse" (see the third illustration) hurt the cause.
That is why I get irritated with (name edited) (although stay quiet) when she cried "abuse"!. When you go to a place where you know such things are going to be discussed, you can most likely plan on getting upset and angry (and rightfully so. You have to take a "breather" or go have a cry. I know, sometimes I do too. But it's not abuse.
If abuse is in the heart, mind and actions of the abuser - and not how a particular person receives a comment based on their past (and you all keep telling us that abuse has NOTHING to do with the "victim" - in quotes because I don't believe that there is a victim where I writing about just now), then when a comment gets made that upsets you, that is not abuse.
(name edited)'s vitriolic defense of you makes you look helpless and a little child-like - which you are not. If you are that unable to take a simple question or comment and need (name edited)'s to rescue you, it doesn't say much about your level of maturity. This is not a reflection on you (since I understand how memories hurt). It is a comment on the "abuse" cry, where none exists. That also should be stopped, but when you are the recipient of the "defense", it becomes harder, doesn't it.
Charity
Hello Ellen
I hope you had a good holiday.
I must admit that I am puzzled by your latest comment addressed to Sue - it no doubt makes reference to conversations that did not take place "here"?
I'm not sure that everybody does know that abuse is wrong - or at least to re-word that, I'm not sure that everybody is agreed on what "abuse" means. For example you seem to equate abuse with violence (either physical or verbal), whereas abuse is not necessarily violent and there are instances of violence that are not necessarily "abuse".
Does that make sense to you?
Ellen
Charity, I understand that there are many kinds of abuse. False accusations are a form of abuse all unto themselves. (see the third example).
I’m not sure that everybody is agreed on what “abuse” means.
That much is true. I know a man who works for a company in which it is up to the woman to define whether or not she "feels" abused (whether or not abuse was intended to even wanted) by the man (and yes, it's always in that direction.
A man can have not a clue that he's stepping in it until he gets fired and has his life ruined.
That same man says, "every man is only one false accusation away from having his life ruined).
For example you seem to equate abuse with violence (either physical or verbal), whereas abuse is not necessarily violent and there are instances of violence that are not necessarily “abuse”.
Is there a line between "abuse" and "unkindness"? I think so. They are both wrong, but there is a difference.
If we cannot define abuse (or if all abuse is in the eyes of the alleged victim), then anything and everything can be labeled "abuse". And feminists will have won their war and we will all be the losers.
Charity
And feminists will have won their war and we will all be the losers.
I don't understand this allusion...
Now to the rest of your reply.
Where I live, the difference between "abuse" and other forms of "unkindness" or violence or whatever, is that abuse occurs in a relationship where there is an imbalance of power or where there is a hierarchy of authority.
So parents can abuse children, but children cannot abuse their parents (except of course adult children who can abuse their elderly, dependent parents). Children can be unkind/violent or whatever to their parents, but by definition they cannot abuse them, because the parents are in the position of strength and authority.
In a business setting, subordinates can be abused by their superiors but not vice versa.
In a marriage where the husband is perceived to have the authority, the husband can abuse his wife.
In a church, church leaders or people in positions of authority can spiritually abuse church members.
This is the definition of abuse I am working with.
Does that make things any clearer for you?
I totally agree with you that false accusations and slander are very wrong. But they are not necessarily abuse - it depends what the power structure is like.
Ellen
Charity, I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with your definition of "abuse". The law makes no distinction of "authority" when it defines "abuse" (except for the case of "neglect", where necessary things are withheld).
For instance, "Verbal abuse is the use of words to cause harm to the person being spoken to. It is difficult to define and may take many forms. Similarly, the harm caused is often difficult to measure. The most commonly understood form is name-calling. Verbal abuse may consist of shouting, insulting, intimidating, threatening, shaming, demeaning, or derogatory language, among other forms of communication." - there is no distinction in authority.
Here is a case of "subtle discrimination". It is a generally good article, BUT I see no indication that the writer has even a little bit of a clue that men can (and are) abused. Every example given is of an abused woman or child.
The state of Pennsylvania defines "abuse":
(i) The infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish.
(ii) The willful deprivation by a caretaker of goods or services, which are necessary to maintain physical or mental health.
(iii) Sexual harassment, rape or abuse as it is defined in the Protection From Abuse Act (35 P. S. § § 10181—10190).
Except for ii, there is no reason to read "authority" into it.
Charity
So apparently there is a different definition of abuse in US law than elsewhere in the world. That is possible. However I find it difficult to see how (i) as quoted by you in the state of Pennsylvania's definition of abuse, does not imply a power/authority structure in the relationship as it speaks of punishment and intimidation.
Does each state have its own definition over there?
However the page you linked to on the legal definition of "verbal abuse", specifically says :
"Perpetrators of verbal abuse often misuse their authority and prey on those in a subordinate position".
So the pages you have linked to seem to be in line with what I was saying.
Ellen
When they have authority, yes. Abusers abuse.
I still maintain that abuse can be a wife "henpecking" her husband, using sex as a weapon and making threats of false accusations.
Whether or not a person "has authority", they are in a "position of power" when they are in a position to ruin another person's life.
Charity
I agree about the "henpecking" - in that case the woman is definitely the one with the power. The same would be true of any matriarchy.
I'm not sure how women can use sex as a weapon.
Ellen
I’m not sure how women can use sex as a weapon.
"not tonight, dear. I have a hangnail" (only partially kidding - some excuses are not far off of this)
"Don't touch. They're not yours any more...they're to feed the baby."
(if a man wants his wife): I won't be your slut.
(if a man wants his wife): You haven't been romantic enough...
(if he's romantic enough): You're only being romantic because you want sex...
Withholding can be a weapon, ridicule can be a weapon.
Marriages are ruined by a wife's refusal to enjoy her husband's body.
Sue
Ellen,
I am not great reconstructing conversations without citing what actually happened, so I really regret that you feel you have to talk about (name edited) behind her back in this way.
I know how much it hurts to be misrepresented even in little things. I really try to cite every person I critique. I make an attempt to be careful.
Charity
What's a hangnail?
I don't see any of the examples you give as being weapons. Unless you believe that it is harmful for a guy not to have sex.
I don't see it being ridicule for a woman who feels that she's being treated as an object to have objections to that.
Hopefully a mature couple, should be able to talk these issues through and find a mutually acceptable way for the guy to woo the woman or vice versa.
Ellen
Sue, to have spoken up in that forum was to invite her abuse. I did speak up at the time and was ridiculed for it.
Charity, I used to think as you do. Is it "harmful" for a woman to refuse sex? For how long before it's destructive to a marriage? a year? year and a half?
weapon: (as a figure if speech, of course) Any tool used for fighting.
"I believe in the doctrine of non-violence as a weapon of the strongest." — Gandhi (1869-1948).
If it can be used to hurt another person, it can be used as a weapon.
Ellen
Sue, by the way...my desire is to be known as somebody who can hear a confrontation (as your about talking behind a person's back) and truly consider it (rather than going on the attack as some do).
I have taken your words under consideration and have edited all comments to remove the name involved. I have left the circumstances, since I believe that it is a good example of false accusations of abuse. (It actually happened twice, with two different people being accused of abuse).
Ellen
Charity...sorry I didn't answer your "hangnail" question. I'm sure that there is a different term for it.
A hangnail or agnail (per wiki) is a small, loose strip of torn skin near a fingernail or toenail. It interferes with intercourse about as much as a pimple.
Sue
Thanks, Ellen.
Charity
Charity, I used to think as you do. Is it “harmful” for a woman to refuse sex? For how long before it’s destructive to a marriage? a year? year and a half?
I think it depends what we're talking about here. I think, in many cases - and many that are known to be personally - that if a women is in a position where making love does not feel like "love is being made" if you see what I mean, something has been happening to destroy the marriage, way before she got to the point of not wanting to make love, and finding herself able to say so.
Does that make sense to you? Or do you think that husbands have an inviolable right to sex and a "when you want it" basis?
Charity
Charity, I used to think as you do. Is it “harmful” for a woman to refuse sex? For how long before it’s destructive to a marriage? a year? year and a half?
I think it depends what we're talking about here. I think, in many cases - and many that are known to be personally - that if a women is in a position where making love does not feel like "love is being made" if you see what I mean, something has been happening to destroy the marriage, way before she got to the point of not wanting to make love, and finding herself able to say so.
Does that make sense to you? Or do you think that husbands have an inviolable right to sex and a "when you want it" basis?
Charity
Oops - sorry I didn't mean to post the same thing twice!
Ellen
Charity, do you see what you are subtly doing? You are assuming that if the wife is refusing sex, it is the husband's fault. The first time we wrote of sex as a weapon, you assumed it was the man's fault. Subtle discrimination.
I used the think that "sex as a reward" or "withholding as punishment" was an oddball thing. But it is not.
Why is it not okay for a husband to want his wife physically? A very wise woman - a pastor's wife - once told a group of us: sex is the glue that holds a marriage together. Enjoy it.
Or do you think that husbands have an inviolable right to sex and a “when you want it” basis?
inviolable? as in "never" to be violated? No.
Do I believe that a wife's body is not her own - it belongs to her husband? Yes. Do I believe that a husband's body is not her own - it belongs to his wife? Yes.
As a general rule, yes. I absolutely believe that sex should not be withheld. By either party.
Let me ask you this: what does a man have to do in order to earn sex from his wife?
Charity
Charity, do you see what you are subtly doing? You are assuming that if the wife is refusing sex, it is the husband’s fault.
No, what I'm saying is that if a woman doesn't want to have sex, the marriage is already in a very place - and that may be with wife's fault, the husbands fault, due to ill-health, mental health problems, or any number of other reasons. For the people I know and have known who have found themselves in this situation, it was a result of problems in their marriage rather than the source of problems in their marriage - and that is not allocating blame or fault.
Of course it's OK for a husband to want his wife physically (or for a wife to want her husband physically), but it's also OK for a wife to say that the way it's happening is not a pleasurable experience for her. The problem arises when there is a lack of dialogue and people get into passive aggressive behaviour, rather than being able to talk about things.
In answer to your last question my first reaction is that I find the idea that sex is something to be earned demeaning both for men and women. Sex is a God-given expression of love and so it cannot be earned. It must be given and received freely.
Ellen
I would respectfully ask you to look at your first response to my thoughts about sex as a weapon: I don’t see it being ridicule for a woman who feels that she’s being treated as an object to have objections to that.
Maybe it's different where you are. Where I am, it's about control and power and the woman wants it and uses sex to get it.
Ellen
I would respectfully ask you to look at your first response to my thoughts about sex as a weapon: I don’t see it being ridicule for a woman who feels that she’s being treated as an object to have objections to that.
Maybe it's different where you are. Where I am, sex can be abused and when it is abused, it's about control and power and the woman wants it and uses sex to get it. OR...she has some warped idea about sex within marriage and refuses to please him.
Charity
And what am I supposed to conclude from the sentence you have quoted? I'm sure sex can be abused by men and women alike. I don't agree though that if a woman doesn't want to have sex, the destruction of her marriage is necessarily her fault - as I said before I think the marriage is already destroyed when it gets to that point. And yes a husband who still expects to be able to have sex in that situation is treating his wife as an object.
I wouldn't call that a weapon. I can see how you might though. Different perspectives.
Ellen
I go back to what is socially acceptable. We see that a wife denying her husband is socially acceptable because it is assumed that the marriage is already in trouble. I disagree.
What of the woman I know of who denied her husband on the wedding night?
I know far too many woman who use sex to gain power in a marriage and that is socially acceptable.
Charity
I don't know Ellen, you must move amongst different types of women than me. I could say to you: What of the woman I know whose husband raped her on the wedding night? How do you expect them to be able to make love after that?
Ellen
I would ask what kind of woman would go into a marriage not expecting to make love on her wedding night? That does not justify rape, but my daughter and I were talking about a woman who denied her husband on her wedding night (this was a while ago) and Manda said, "geeze. who doesn't know that's a part of being married?"
That said...people are sinners. Men and woman.
I see a subtle discrimination against men and I ask that presuppositions end; that we don't automatically assume that if a woman is denying sex that it's because she "feels like an object" - why not assume that she's using sex as a reward and punishment as a means to control?
Why not? Because to make an assumption either way is subtle discrimination.
Ellen
Charity, I used to think that I was the "norm". My boyfriend keep telling me that I live in a very special place that teaches wives to enjoy their husbands (and vice versa). Ladies groups at church that talk openly about sex and love.
Then I got out into the "real world" and the more I see, the less I like.
I see companies with moratoriums on hiring white males in favor of women. I see jokes made about "guess he's not going to get any tonight".
I see lines like Obama's above "They will take for granted women can do anything that the boys can do, and do it better"
For the political feminist - it's not about equality.
Sue
"That said…people are sinners. Men and woman.
I see a subtle discrimination against men"
If men and women are both sinners, how does it help to put men in authority over women? Is this not discrimination against women?
I have found recently that there are many studies in the US that show that traditional marriages, and demographics with conservative values, have a much higher divorce rate.
Ellen
I don't intend to hash out the entire comp v. egal thing here. Suffice it to say (as you well know) that I believe that it is a good, right and Biblical thing to have male leadership in the home and church and that the entire counsel of Scripture gives us a pattern of exactly that.
Sue
You do not support any situation where woman have the advantage, but you do support giving men the advantage. I just want to understand your post better.
I would not support either.
Ellen
It shouldn't be all that hard to understand.
Godly male leadership is a pattern shown in Scripture.
Abuse is sin. Godly male leadership is not sin.
Sue
Godly male leadership is not sin.
Godly female leadership is not sin either.
Ungodly male leadership is harmful.
Ungodly female leadership is harmful.
Can we reduce harm by putting "men" in authority over women?
- women dying of AIDS in Africa,
- women and girls violently abused and killed in their own homes at a higher rate than men and boys in all countries,
- more female foetuses being aborted than male,
- traditional marriages more prone to divorce.
Is promoting male authority over women worldwide going to solve these problems?
Charity
I would ask what kind of woman would go into a marriage not expecting to make love on her wedding night?
Who is saying that either the women known to your daughter or my friend were not expecting to make love on their wedding night? My friend certainly was expecting to, but she was not expecting to get raped. Both she and her husband were virgins; they hadn't even touched each other before.
Unless you were there in the bedroom, you don't actually know why it didn't actually happen. Neither do I. All I'm saying is that there may be more to it that the bride flat out refusing.
Ellen
Sue: last chance. I'm not going to rehash the comp vs. egal thing in this thread. Period.
Ellen
Charity: the post was about subtle discrimination against men.
Charity
I'm not sure I understand your last comment, Ellen. In fact I'm pretty sure I don't. Yes, your post was about what you perceive to be subtle discrimination against men. But a lot of what you have written actually turns into what I perceive as pretty unsubtle discirmination against women. That's what made me comment
Ellen
I actually turn out to have a VERY unsubtle discrimination against false accusers and those who want to "put males down" through misuse of God's gift of sex.
I don't plan on being subtle about it.
Charity
Hey I agree that false accusation and slander is a serious thing. I said so upthread somewhere. Don't you feel you also run the risk of making false accusations though, by saying that a woman who doesn't "give her husband sex" is necessarily trying to "put him down"?
Do you really think that there could never be anything else going on?
Ellen
by saying that a woman who doesn’t “give her husband sex” is necessarily trying to “put him down”?
That's not what I said. "Misuse" is the word I use and I stand by that.
Charity
I was just going on what I've been "hearing" you saying throughout this discussion.
Ellen
I've also been hearing you "say" that if a woman denies her husband it's not her fault, there's something else going on.
That (in today's world) is unrealistic.
Charity
No - I've been saying that it isn't necessarily her fault, that it isn't necessarily her husband's fault, that it could be due to any number of reasons, cf. very specifically my comment made at 12 Jul 2008 at 7:48 am.
I also never mentioned a woman "denying" her husband. I don't find that kind of vocabulary is very helpful in trying to help couples to work through this kind of problem.
Ellen
Would "deprive" or "defraud" be better words than "deny"?
Charity
How can you "deprive" or "defraud" someone of an expression of love that is freely given and freely received?
Ellen
Because Paul understands that it happens and he said not to do it (ether spouse).
i Corinthians 1:5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
In my marriage I was the one that had sex used against me in that way. Generally it's the other way around and in US churches it's a joke. If a husband is depriving his wife, it's an oddity. If a woman deprives her husband, it's a joke.
I've heard a pastor joke from the pulpit about maybe having to sleep on the couch for making a joke involving his wife (and he was the brunt of it, not her)
Another one joked that he might have to sleep in the "dog house" because the sermon topic involved the submission of a wive.
(Here in the States, "sleeping" in a place other than bed is a euphemism for "not getting any")
On the "submission" topic...one pastor was preaching through Ephesians verse by verse (in order) but changed the order when he got to the "wives and husbands" part. His reason (a joke)...to give the Lord one more week to return before he had to preach to the women.
I had written a bunch more...but this is enough to explain why I use the words "deprive", "deny" and "defraud"
1) it's Biblical
2) it happens too often.
Itis the why that the deprivation is handled in churches that is the subtle discrimination.
Charity
I'm sorry to hear of the way you were treated by your husband.
Itis the why that the deprivation is handled in churches that is the subtle discrimination.
I'm sorry I don't understand this sentence.
The way I understand the 1 Corinthians passage it does of course include sexual intercourse but it is more than that. In my understanding the "not refusing one another" or "not depriving one another of each other" is emotional as well as physical. To me the physical connection is an outworking and a demonstration of the emotional connection.
I honestly do not understand pastors who can joke about this at all, let alone stoop as low as saying they'll ahve to sleep in the dog house. I really don't. I don't understand how they think this is not depriving their wife of the emotional connection that will naturally lead to the physical connection of sexual intercourse.
That's one point.
Also this passage is a one another thing. It shows me that sexual intercourse is intended by God to be pleasurable for both husband and wife. If intercourse is happening but is not pleasurable for the wife - is she not being "denied" or "deprived". I don't think I've ever heard that joked about, or preached about.
Don't you think that's a form of discrimination?
Ellen
I don’t think I’ve ever heard that joked about, or preached about.
Rarely is the actual matter of sex taught from the pulpit...it is jokes like the ones that I described.
Or...Mark Driscoll preached on the Song of Solomon...and was chastised for being too graphic. Stuff like that doesn't belong in the pulpit, you know. Most places, the videos that speak of a husband pleasing his wife has been removed.
If intercourse is happening but is not pleasurable for the wife - is she not being “denied” or “deprived”.
If it's a matter of a husband being selfish...discrimination? No. Selfishness, boorishness? yes.
If it's a matter it's a matter of a clumsy virgin on a wedding night who doesn't know how to provide pleasure...not so much.
If it's a matter of a wife refusing to have sex (let alone enjoy it) because it's "icky"...not at all.
Do you realize that your comments tend to focus on what the man is doing wrong?
I’m sorry I don’t understand this sentence.
The way that the deprivation is handled. If a husband is depriving his wife...he should do what he needs to do in order to make her happy because it's his fault.
If a wife is depriving her husband, it's because she feels like she's not being treated right and it's his fault.
(not saying that this is what you're doing, but it's the way that this is handled too many times in churches and otherwise.)
Charity
Do you realize that your comments tend to focus on what the man is doing wrong?
That's because your comments are focussing on what you perceive the woman to be doing wrong. I'm just saying that things are not always what they appear to be. I prefer to reserve judgement, if I haven't heard both sides of the story, whichever side I have heard or not heard.
Ellen
Charity, I think I got off on that tangent because you didn't understand how a wife could use sex as a weapon. I gave a lot of examples.
Do I think it's this way exclusively? No.
Nor should it be a joke. (sleeping on the couch).