« All Kinds Of Kinds | Main | I Think This Is What They Meant... »

January 23, 2014

Today's Moronic Tempest in a Teapot

Conservative man expresses opinion about what women should voluntarily do. You know, only if they choose to.

Which is pretty much what "voluntarily" means:

Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) believes that although a wife is supposed to "voluntarily submit" to her husband, she is not inferior to him, according to the Washington Post.

"The wife is to voluntarily submit, just as the husband is to lovingly lead and sacrifice," Pearce wrote in a December memoir "Just Fly The Plane, Stupid!" that discusses 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 also writes that while the wife is not inferior, she must nevertheless be obedient to her husband.

"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 said in the book.

In the book, Pearce criticizes men who "bully their wives and families" based on the Bible passage that says wives should submit to their husbands.

"Authoritarian control is not given to the husband," he wrote.

Question for the ages: why on earth should it be considered outrageous or offensive for one adult to express an opinion (especially one grounded in religious faith) about how another fully autonomous adult ought to behave?

Opinions have zero coercive power, and people express opinions about what other people ought to do all the time. Feminists are constantly expressing their very strong opinions about how men ought to behave (and in all fairness, men erupt in outrage over this sort of thing all the time as though somehow, simply voicing an opinion were actively endangering their autonomy). Still, if expressing opinions about how the other half of Humynity should behave or what they're allowed to say is somehow wrong/bad/offensive, why do feminists do it so often? Shouldn't they practice what they preach? Why would anyone voluntarily (there's that word again!) limit their own behavior without the expectation of reciprocity?

The Editorial Staff have seen conservative men say some mind-bogglingly idiotic things with respect to women. But they're hardly alone here. For that matter, the Editorial Staff (female, at least the last time we checked) have several times expressed the opinion that there's some value in women being gentle and - dare we say it? - yielding in relationships with men. We have also expressed many opinions on things both sexes can do to get along better with each other.

But none of us has the luxury of redesigning the other sex to our own specifications. They are what they are, just as we are what we were designed to (and decide to) be. Adults should be able to stand on their own two feet, and a stray opinion from the other half of humanity shouldn't be enough to rock anyone's world on its axis.

Sheesh. Everyone's a fragile snowflake these days.

Posted by Cassandra at January 23, 2014 08:41 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4955

Comments

Ho-kay. First, let me dump the truckload of sand from under my skin.


Hold on, almost done.....

K.
Now, while I readily admit that this is, indeed, one man's opinion and is his to keep to himself or blather out loud unsolicited, he probably should be taking the same courses in tighter language as Wendy Davis. For example, perhaps instead of saying "submit" he might have pulled out a thesaurus or even gone to a website such as Word Hippo to find another word or phrase.

""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."

Soooo, during the other times of non-*deep stress* we are left to believe that it's all on the woman -- until it's time to submit to his desires at any given time, that is. Where, exactly is the husband supposed to be during those non-*deep stress* times? Hiding in the barn?
And we are told to believe that this is supposed to be a self-imposed obedience to a loving God and husband? A loving God and husband does not want blind obedience - self-imposed or otherwise - he wants someone who willingly gives of themselves out of love and devotion. But these are apparently alien concepts to this guy's mind.
How in the Holy Hand Grenade did this guy ever get elected to a national office with a writing style so obtuse? Yes, it's his opinion, and he's entitled to deliver it in any ham-handed way he so desires. He's also entitled to the full score of ridicule he gets for choosing such nerve-grating, sand-in-a-wet-bikini words.
In the words of the inimitable Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon!"

Posted by: DL Sly at January 23, 2014 03:13 PM

Heh... thought that might get a rise out of you :p

My personal opinion is that what he said and the way he said it were pretty tone deaf. But some of the reactions to it just seem... I don't know, overdone? Especially for the "We're so tolerant of alternative lifestyles and cultures (except for Christians) crowd". Let's face it - if he were a Muslim, criticizing his religious beliefs would be intolerant and judgmental, no es verdad?

As a fellow Marine wife, I've often bristled at similar language. It sounds patronizing, and I've found myself thinking, "Jeez, if women are so weak and fragile, then how could you ever trust us with your homes, your finances, your children, and all your worldly goods for a year (or years!) at a time? How could we move across country all on our own? EEEK!!!

But then I come to my senses.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 23, 2014 03:22 PM

Well, I *did* dump the sand out first. Most of it anyway. Yanno, you can never get it all out until you shower, and that's already been done this morning.

I was thinking along the same lines as military wives, too. Show up in times of deep stress? You mean like when the dryer goes out, the car won't start, the bills are due, the kid has a fungal infection that none of the doctor's can figure out, you still need to hit the commissary and, oh, btw, hubby has just left for WAR, but, hey, just come on back for that "deep stress" period and take over why don'cha!
Get a rise out of me? I need more snow to shovel...

Posted by: DL Sly at January 23, 2014 03:37 PM

Get a rise out of me? I need more snow to shovel...

Ugh. Been there, done that. Three times, the other morning. With a wicked virus.

I've had enough snow for this year and it's only January!

Posted by: Cassandra at January 23, 2014 03:46 PM

I can understand how he draws that conclusion from the Bible, but it also says that a man should stay home from war to make his wife happy for the first year (Deut. 24:5). Likewise he is to stay home for a year after he builds a house for his family, and again after laying in a vinyard.

So it sounds to me like it's the good times when he's supposed to stay home. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. :)

Posted by: Grim at January 23, 2014 03:48 PM

Soooo, during the other times of non-*deep stress* we are left to believe that it's all on the woman

I'm interested in the assumption here.

I think the LG and I carry about the same amount of groceries into the house, but in times of buying a heavy-ass couch I think it's my part to move it about. But how does that statement imply that if I'm not moving the couch my part is to sit on it?

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 23, 2014 03:50 PM

Perhaps, taking a lesson from that last linked post about presenting things in a way more receptive to other's ears.

His statement isn't one of "taking over". He even says, explicitly, that it isn't to be authoritarian and takes those who do to task for it.

It's meant more more as an act of service. Kneeling, he says, "Put the load on me. I can take it on, please." One should be that type of man. It most certainly doesn't mean when the load is light to go sit on your ass.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 23, 2014 04:01 PM

In all fairness to whatever this guy's name is (honestly I really haven't paid all that close attention except to read his excerpted remarks and the reax thereuntoappertaining), it's very common to hear evangelical Christians and the more fundamentalist ones lecture HUSBANDS on the duty of submission!

They also do very well on the subject of male pride. I listen to Christian radio sometimes on the commute to/from work, especially when they talk about marriage and raising kids. And men are often told - by other men - that they need to be more humble, less prideful, less self centered if they want their marriages to succeed. And I agree with this 1000% - of all the marriage advice I've read or heard over the years, I think the Christian fundamentalists are the only ones who come close to getting marriage right.

The attitude they're talking about is one of service, as Yu-Ain points out. How that service is expressed... well, that tends to differ. Women are advised to be gentler, less aggressive with their mates, less critical. And I think this is generally good advice. I'm married to arguably the most stubborn man on the planet, and he is more receptive to what I'm trying to say if I go at it much more gently than my naturally forthright manner.

He bristles at the slightest hint of being told what to do, and my two sons reacted quite similarly. The thing I don't really understand is that I bristle when *anyone* tells me what to do. Doesn't matter whether it's a man or a woman - my first instinct is to think, "Well who died and made YOU king/queen?" But I sense that my husband and many men bristle *more* at female direction than male direction.

Again, we don't get to make over the other half of humanity in our own image. So I try to deal in the world that is, not the world I wish I lived in. If merely altering my manner somewhat makes it easier to get along with the person I love, OK.

But the same is true of him. He is naturally quite brusque and his manner can be cutting at times. Yet he's gentle with me, because he knows (just as I know) that when you love someone, they have more power to hurt you than others do. And so you need to take more care with their feelings.

I guess that's how I take this guy's remarks - not as "SUBMIT, WOMAN!" but more as a natural recognition that men are more willing to be gentle when they don't feel challenged. And men feel challenged more often and more easily than women do.

Just my 2 cents.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 23, 2014 04:19 PM

Two more things:

1. Both my sons obeyed me and didn't talk back to me, even in their late teens. I never sensed any lack of respect for my authority as a parent. That said, there came a time when it just made sense for me to back away and let my husband step up. I can't explain it - I just know it worked.

Sometimes the male/female things gets in the way.

2. Being in charge seems to matter a LOT more to most men than it does to most women. I do things all the time - even spend large amounts of money - without asking my husband. And truth be told, I make most of the decisions on the home front. But he also knows that if he were ever to feel really strongly about anything, even if I disagreed with him, I would try his way. It hardly ever comes to that, frankly. But I think it does matter to him.

I will never really understand all of this - for so much of marriage you just sort of feel your way around in the dark and hope that thing isn't what you think it is :p

What I'm trying to say, badly, is that I took his remarks as advocating balance - not a balance of perfect sameness, but a balance where one person's strengths complement the other person's strengths.

I do understand the tone deafness angle completely. Like I said, similar remarks have rubbed me the wrong way just as it rubs guys the wrong way when women say certain things. I just thought there was a lot more nuance there (and genuine respect for women) than he's getting credit for.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 23, 2014 04:30 PM

But I sense that my husband and many men bristle *more* at female direction than male direction.

Don't know about others, but I bristle more at *my* female's direction than anyone else. The one woman, in all the world, who is supposed to trust and have faith in me, apparently thinks I'm an idiot who can manage. Gee, thanks.

I know that's not how women see it, and I try to keep that in mind. But, damn, that stings.


* I use the *my* here reservedly. I don't mean it as a possessive term, but rather as a way to identify the one woman who matters more than anything. The rest of ya'll can get bent. :-)

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 23, 2014 04:32 PM

*can't manage*

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 23, 2014 04:33 PM

"Perhaps, taking a lesson from that last linked post about presenting things in a way more receptive to other's ears.

His statement isn't one of "taking over". He even says, explicitly, that it isn't to be authoritarian and takes those who do to task for it.

It's meant more more as an act of service. Kneeling, he says, "Put the load on me. I can take it on, please." One should be that type of man. It most certainly doesn't mean when the load is light to go sit on your ass."

YAG, have I told you lately how much I love you?

"The rest of ya'll can get bent. :-)"

Well that is til now. I would *flounce* but no one *flounces* like the Princess. Besides, y'all already say I'm quite twisted, would this straighten me out?
0>;~}

"Two more things:"

You had to say it.

I get what he thought he wanted to say. I'm just not sure he thinks he's saying is what he actually thinks. Which is why I said I was pouring the sand out before I started commenting. However, YAG phrased it absofreakinlootely perfectly.
0>;~}
Therefore, thinking I understand what he really means when he says that word, that this guy (same as you, I only remember he's NM Rep, either that or that's all I care to remember), one whom should be reasonably competent with words given that he is *supposedly* writing the nations laws, can be this tone deaf and, quite frankly, demeaning in his semantics just blows the mind. What publishing company gave this material the ok to waste paper, ink and glue for the printing? What editor let those passages go by without at least a "Um, s'scuse me, but you might want to reword this part here."
I was always taught, and try to always keep in mind, that when writing, your first thought is to the reader. If they can't understand it, are disgusted by it, are offended by it, or are just plain bored by it - they aren't going to read it. Period. If they won't read it due to muddiness, semantics, et al - all of which lay solely at the writer's feet - what was the point?

Posted by: DL Sly at January 23, 2014 05:29 PM

Therefore, thinking I understand what he really means when he says that word, that this guy (same as you, I only remember he's NM Rep, either that or that's all I care to remember), one whom should be reasonably competent with words given that he is *supposedly* writing the nations laws, can be this tone deaf and, quite frankly, demeaning in his semantics just blows the mind.

Look, the guy's a Baptist and he said these things in a personal memoir, not a political speech. The things he was saying are mainstream doctrine for that church. It's not my church (I'm a Godless 'Piskie and as far as I can tell, we don't believe anything [joke]) but he's using the exact language used by his church.

Mike Huckabee also signed some sort of accord saying exactly the same thing. The whole concept of servant leadership in marriage has been around for ages and it's never as bad as it's made to sound. It has actually been used by churches to argue to men that they need to shape up and be better husbands and fathers. That's why the reaction surprises me a bit.

I guess I don't see why he can't write a memoir that voices the tenets of his religion and talks about his struggles to understand what they mean (in the process, completely rejecting the idea that women are less than men)? I get that it's not smart politically, but we defend all sorts of conservatives saying things that aren't smart politically (but that they really believe).

This guy didn't do what has bothered me so often in conservative rhetoric - talk down to the other side or display contempt for people who think differently. He just gave voice to a completely mainstream tenet of his religion.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 23, 2014 06:47 PM

You had to say it.

Well, what did you *expect*? :p

Posted by: The Spanish Inquisition at January 23, 2014 06:49 PM

Not the Comfy Chair!
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 23, 2014 07:15 PM

O Dark One:

Let me concede something. Well, several things.

First, I have often criticized Rethug pols for sounding condescending to women because this is something they do with astounding regularity (and seemingly very little situational awareness). For instance, they stand up in front of a microphone and start pontificating about rape and how women's bodies magically ward off pregnancies when the sex was non-consensual. I'm sorry, but.... SERIOUSLY????

That's not just massively callous and insensitive to women who have been raped (some people like to call them "crime victims"). It's just plain ignorant from a factual perspective. And it's not a mainstream church doctrine in any church I'm aware of. It's not a religious belief.

Then there's Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a slut and later a prostitute (!) who should post her sex tapes online (ha ha ha, wink wink nudge nudge). Wow. Just wow.

Fluke is (I think) a moron whose "testimony" should have been ridiculously easy to debunk on the merits using facts. But no - he has to resort to childish personal insults with no objective basis in fact? He managed to offend ME with that. I'm still pissed about it.

Finally, I was very critical of Rick Santorum for giving speeches in which he was talking about how, as President he was going to try and preach his religious values. Now again, I thought that both unwise and inappropriate. Imagine a Muslim doing the same thing. Or Mitt Romney. He gave political speeches (as opposed to writing a personal memoir), so in my mind, Santorum clearly put his personal beliefs out there as a legitimate debate topic.

I just don't see this poor guy's comments in the same light.

Posted by: The Spanish Inquisition at January 23, 2014 07:34 PM

Don't know about others, but I bristle more at *my* female's direction than anyone else. The one woman, in all the world, who is supposed to trust and have faith in me, apparently thinks I'm an idiot who can't manage. Gee, thanks. I know that's not how women see it, and I try to keep that in mind. But, damn, that stings.

Thank you for this, Yu-Ain. This is exactly the reaction I sense in the Unit sometimes.

And you're right, that's not how we see it at all. We love you big lugs so much - I wish we were better at talking to each other in ways that were easier to understand. I have often wondered if the whole tower of Babel story in the bible isn't a metaphor for the miscues between men and women (and if it isn't at least partly by design?)

Posted by: The Spanish Inquisition at January 23, 2014 07:48 PM

Observations:

- that link to your 3/6/09 post is by itself worth charging a subscription to visit your blog.

- a local (ex?) congressman Dan Webster made the news a few years ago for a homily he delivered in his rather conservative Christian church on the topic of scriptural guidance for a wife to submit to her husband. Turns out the theme of the talk was the exact opposite; he forthrightly suggested that husbands should pay less attention to those passages, and more to those that required devotion to their wives.

- the 2008 link is also brilliant!

- In reading the exchange you had w/ AFE in 2008, I am reminded of the most insightful statement I ever heard in a church. My wife and I were attending a Methodist church at the time, and they had a workshop for couples. The lady conducting the workshop was a near saintly head of the Sunday School for kids.
. . . she noted that women give sex for Love, while men give Love for sex.
> the obvious corollary is that successful couples try to understand each other's priorities, and both give in for their spouse's priorities.

- in the previous posts much was made of men having sexual needs like an animal. This is obviously an unpleasant statement, but it is also a plain fact that sex is a more urgent issue for most men than for most women.

- MikeD made an interesting point about fidelity. I'll volunteer that while I'm possessive and want my wife/women to be loyal to me, it's easy for me to accept the idea that I owe her fidelity as well.

- vows matter, a lot.

- character (honorable behavior) matters, a lot.

- towards the end of the 2008 post was a brief allusion to 'Greek' style sex. I've never understood the attraction. God (or Darwinian evolution, if you prefer) provided a man's greatest possible thrill ride in a woman's 'home plate.' The 'Waste Elimination Center' may be just a few inches away, but it's a very sad sorry substitute.

- my own marriage of 31 years will be dissolved shortly.

Very Best Regards,

Posted by: CAPT Mike at January 23, 2014 08:32 PM

"my own marriage of 31 years will be dissolved shortly."

CAPT, I'm so very sad to hear this. Your words and insight here lead me to believe you an honorable man. I hope you find happiness and peace soon.

DL Sly

Posted by: DL Sly at January 23, 2014 08:58 PM

What editor let those passages go by without at least a "Um, s'scuse me, but you might want to reword this part here."

The issue is that, in context, that statement is not "demeaning in his semantics". Those words and phrases have very specific meanings and connotations and are understood by the audiences being addressed to mean exactly as I translated.

The problem comes when people outside that audience who are not familiar with those specific usages interpret them without that knowledge.

In an less charged example, I don't expect non-sports people to understand baseball lingo and jargon. When speaking to or writing for baseball people I'll use that language. It doesn't make it sloppy communication when a non-sports person picks it up and misunderstands because Baseballese isn't their native language.

If however, I was speaking to, or writing for, non-sports people, *then* the use of that lingo and jargon *would* be sloppy as I should know that my words would not be understood as intended: "Shagging fly balls" sounds quite dirty if you've never heard the phrase before.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 23, 2014 09:31 PM

YAG, have I told you lately how much I love you?

Aw shucks. *blushes*

Besides, y'all already say I'm quite twisted, would this straighten me out?

My God Woman! Why in the blazes would we want to do *that*! :-)

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 23, 2014 09:37 PM

"Let me concede something. Well, several things.
[snip]
I just don't see this poor guy's comments in the same light."

It's not my intent to seem testy...as you'll see.

"If however, I was speaking to, or writing for, non-sports people, *then* the use of that lingo and jargon *would* be sloppy as I should know that my words would not be understood as intended: 'Shagging fly balls' sounds quite dirty if you've never heard the phrase before."

That's my point. This book is the published memoir of a United States Representative. It's being published as such. It's not written with those of his particular religious persuasion in mind as the Reader. This book was written with the intent to record the life and times of a public servant. It therefore falls that the Reader is one of his constituants, or any one of various and assundry political/history geeks and other everyday Americans. That is why I question the editor's pass. Having been raised in a Southern Baptist family, I know well the verbiage. This, and the wisdom that comes with time and distance, was what allowed me to "pour the sand out" before taking the Princess' bait this morning.
0>;~}


"Don't know about others, but I bristle more at *my* female's direction than anyone else. The one woman, in all the world, who is supposed to trust and have faith in me, apparently thinks I'm an idiot who can't manage. Gee, thanks. I know that's not how women see it, and I try to keep that in mind. But, damn, that stings."

It works both ways, and it stings just as much.


"O Dark One:"

Yanno, I've been given many knicknames in life, but I do believe I like that one the best.
heh
I'm sure that says something Freudian and dark about me...and I like that, too.
Double Heh


"My God Woman! Why in the blazes would we want to do *that*! :-)"

Hey, you started it with "The rest of ya'll can get bent. :-)"
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 23, 2014 11:23 PM

In Russia, fly ball shags YOU!

Now, that's dirty.

When I was a child
I thought as a child and acted as a child
When I became a man, I put away childish things


The greatest lesson of manhood (which my late father tried to teach me by example, which decades later finally made an impact), is that as a man, husband and father, you live to serve your family.

My life is now like the salmon who spends his last life's energy to return to that pool where he was spawned to fertilize that bunch of eggs, and die. That may sound too grim, but my life energy is to work to support my family and my kids, to get the boys to the place where they can fully stand on their own. THAT'S MY DUTY, I brought them into the world, my seed made them. That is the duty of any man who fathers children and nothing less.

Like Yu Ain said, put the burden on me, I can shoulder it.

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at January 23, 2014 11:32 PM

This book is the published memoir of a United States Representative. It's being published as such. It's not written with those of his particular religious persuasion in mind as the Reader. This book was written with the intent to record the life and times of a public servant. It therefore falls that the Reader is one of his constituants, or any one of various and assundry political/history geeks and other everyday Americans. That is why I question the editor's pass. Having been raised in a Southern Baptist family, I know well the verbiage. This, and the wisdom that comes with time and distance, was what allowed me to "pour the sand out" before taking the Princess' bait this morning.

I have no particular problem with your reasoning, so long as it is applied to other public figures (politicians) who say things that are easier to defend.

To this day, I really don't understand why any politician feels the need to talk or write about how other people (especially people who are unlike them for one reason or another) should live their lives. But to be fair, everyone does this! We do it when we say that there would be fewer poor folks if people would finish school and wait to have kids until they were married.

People who have not made these choices object to being lectured by some politician for all the same reasons that a lot of women (and some men) have objected to this guy's assertion that women "should* submit to and obey their husbands.

As long as that point has been made, I'm content :)

Posted by: The Spanish Inquisition at January 24, 2014 07:53 AM

- a local (ex?) congressman Dan Webster made the news a few years ago for a homily he delivered in his rather conservative Christian church on the topic of scriptural guidance for a wife to submit to her husband. Turns out the theme of the talk was the exact opposite; he forthrightly suggested that husbands should pay less attention to those passages, and more to those that required devotion to their wives.

This is why I say that fundamentalist Christians are the ones who come closest to getting marriage right, Mike :)

They are the only ones I hear telling BOTH husbands and wives they need to fix themselves first and worry about their spouse's supposed flaws less. It has kind of amused me to see several conservative bloggers railing against supposedly "feminized" churches - the ones that openly talk about women submitting to and obeying their husbands, and about men leading families :p The "feminization" seems to consist of churches telling men they can't just do whatever they feel like (or what comes "naturally"), which hardly seems feminized to me. Or strange, coming from a church :p

"Feminized" has become a dirty word on the right. In some cases (the military for instance) traditionally feminine values really are all wrong for the institution. But the term is overused to the point of inanity, often as a sort of lazy, catch-all "argument without argument" (as Thos. Sowell likes to call such tactics), as in "I don't like X, therefore I blame feminized Y".

in the previous posts much was made of men having sexual needs like an animal. This is obviously an unpleasant statement, but it is also a plain fact that sex is a more urgent issue for most men than for most women.

Agreed, and I like that phrasing. I do actually believe it's harder in some ways for men to be sexually faithful than it is for women. But I also believe it's harder for women to be emotionally faithful to their husbands than it is for men to remain so. Sexuality isn't all physical - a lot of it goes on in the mind, and the different ways men and women express their sexuality are why I like to say that comparing male and female sexuality is sort of like comparing apples and oranges. Is an orange stronger than an apple? Hard to tell, because it's so different that comparisons are not easy.

... my own marriage of 31 years will be dissolved shortly.

I am so sorry to hear that. You alluded to this a while back and I was so hoping that things would work out.

We married so young (I was 19, he was 20). We'll have been married 35 years this March and we dated for 2 years before that. When the kids moved out and I went to work full time, that was a difficult adjustment for both of us. I think that was the first time I ever felt our marriage was in danger, and fortunately my husband recognized that too and helped to work through it all.

I know I sometimes make it sound as though everything has been smooth sailing, but I believe every marriage has very rough patches and there are so many ways things can go wrong. If it doesn't offend you, I will keep you and your family in my [admittedly infrequent] prayers.

We live so long now, and that has to have implications for marriages. I hope that however things turn out for you, you will be happy and loved.

Posted by: Cass at January 24, 2014 08:12 AM

My life is now like the salmon who spends his last life's energy to return to that pool where he was spawned to fertilize that bunch of eggs, and die. That may sound too grim, but my life energy is to work to support my family and my kids, to get the boys to the place where they can fully stand on their own. THAT'S MY DUTY, I brought them into the world, my seed made them. That is the duty of any man who fathers children and nothing less. Like Yu Ain said, put the burden on me, I can shoulder it.

Don, that brought tears to my eyes. Mrs. Brouhaha and the Brouhaha offspring are very lucky.

I remember feeling very worn down during the years when our two boys were teens, and then again during the college years when we were scraping to get by and pay all those (*&^ tuition bills. But suddenly, one day (almost without you noticing) they stretch their wings and fly and it's beautiful.

You still worry about them, always, even when they have wives and homes and children of their own. But it's so worth all the hard work and worry.

I continue to believe that good parenting is the best gift any child can have. Even with the mistakes we all make (God knows I did), it gives children a solid foundation upon which to build their own families. Just as your Dad taught you, your life passing those lessons on to your children.

Posted by: Cass at January 24, 2014 08:22 AM

Ready to move on to Huckabee now? :)

Posted by: Grim at January 24, 2014 11:10 AM

If you're referring to the "libido" comment, I haven't read the full story but based on the headlines alone, I think it's pretty funny :)

I've often said that conservatives talk as though men can't control their libidos, so Huckabee's comment seems fair to me.

Posted by: Cass at January 24, 2014 01:17 PM

Men can control their libido, boy's can't.

Posted by: CAPT Mike at January 24, 2014 02:21 PM

"I have no particular problem with your reasoning, so long as it is applied to other public figures (politicians) who say things that are easier to defend."

My sense of right and wrong, moral and immoral, WTF and Very Kewl has no color, no political affiliation and certainly no groupthink associations. You've known me long enough to know that I apply my standards with equal harshness across the board.
Which should probably make y'all feel more than a little sorry for the VES.
heh
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 24, 2014 02:55 PM

The "libido" uproar was interesting. I think a lot of people heard it as some kind of standard nonsense about the fearful desire to exert a rigid control over women's sexuality. That admittedly is a time-honored preoccupation and an extremely tiresome one. But what I heard in Huckabee's remarks was exasperation over the idea that women couldn't be expected to control their own sexual behavior and therefore needed the government to bail them out with free birth control. I'm not a big Huckabee fan, but I couldn't agree with him more about this.

Nevertheless, there's almost nothing a conservative can say on this topic lately that won't start people screeching over words that weren't even there.

Because I am a Christian, I do worry about the fairly clear Biblical injunctions concerning the role of women, especially in their families. But worry is as far as it goes, because I simply don't see things that way. My husband and I work out the different areas in our lives in which we each are inclined to take a leading role, and then try to treat each other with love and respect. In over 30 years, it's never yet come down to a question of "who's the boss." If something is tremendously important, we know we have to keep looking until we find a solution that we both can accept. If something is less important, I hope we're both sensible and generous enough to give in to whoever feels most strongly about it, or is most willing and able to take responsibility for it. Obedience, however, is alien to the way we do things. Trust in each other's judgment and goodwill is closer to the mark.

Capt. Mike, I'm awfully sorry to hear your news.

Posted by: Texan99 at January 25, 2014 01:00 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)