I was under the impression that the most controversial thing about the recent royal wedding was Princess Beatrice’s vagina hat (later apparently adopted as the official headgear of the Obama White House*). Not to Petra Gajdosikova, a guest commenter on The Spearhead who has worked herself into a snit over Kate Middleton’s refusal to pledge to “obey” her Prince. “Now, this may seem a silly little issue to pick on,” she says, at the start of what turns into an 1800 word rant,
but, would it have been too intolerably oppressive for Kate Middleton to have kept to the traditional vows including promising to ‘obey’ her husband? Yes, I know such a thing is not just hopelessly out of fashion but considered almost a crime against their human rights by feminists and millions of brainwashed modern women. But if the Royals won’t preserve the last remnants of tradition, who will? And what’s the point of Monarchy if not tradition?
Petra acknowledges that Lady Di also refused to say the word “obey” when she married Prince Charles, snidely remarking, “[a]nd we know just how well suited she proved to be for her role and responsibilities.” (Yeah, that was the problem with that famously troubled marriage.) She continues:
Undoubtedly the decision to modernize the vows was taken to show the Monarchy being in step with contemporary culture and to present the new Duchess of Cambridge as a thoroughly modern woman and role model for millions of young women throughout Britain. And that’s the biggest tragedy of it all… The country doesn’t need any more progressive ‘role models’ infected with feminist ideology. What we do need, if this society is ever to reverse the present degeneration, are those who stand up for traditional values and mores.
Yeah, because there’s nothing even remotely traditional about celebrating a gigantic, extravagant, broadcast-live-to-billions wedding involving about 8 hours of hymns and AN ACTUAL MOTHERFUCKING PRINCE. I mean, they might as well have had a “commitment ceremony” on a commune, or something.
But apparently making a big deal out of a wedding doesn’t mean that today’s degenerate women actually take marriage itself with any seriousness:
Marriage today is, to many women, just an extravagant social occasion and party, their very own ‘princess’ fantasy. It doesn’t seem to include any consideration on what marriage really means, much less on how to be a good wife. Undoubtedly the mere concept of a ‘good wife’ would be deemed oppressive these days. (Are you saying women should have responsibilities and not just rights?!) After all, millions of women feel entitled to ditch their marriages and perfectly decent husbands for no better reason than feeling bored or ‘unfulfilled’. The princesses deserve to be happy – and if they harm their husbands and children in their insatiable quest for fulfillment, so be it!
Damn those women and their infernal desire to not be miserable!
So why on earth could any decent woman possibly have a problem with pledging to obey her husband? Petra assures us, in all seriousness, that
promising to ‘obey’ one’s husband has nothing to do with being oppressed, a second class citizen with no power or say in a relationship, or a servant to a man. It’s a statement of trust and respect, acknowledging the authority of the man as head of family, responsible for and dedicated to his wife’s and their children’s welfare. Despite us wanting to pretend otherwise, a woman’s natural role is to be loving, nurturing and supportive in a relationship. When women usurp the masculine role (power and leadership) and emasculate men it doesn’t bode well for marriage.
Dudes, if you feel “emasculated” because your wife doesn’t unquestioningly follow your every dictate, you must have an awfully fragile sense of self – and an extreme sense of entitlement. Learning that other people have their own needs and desires, and that the world does not bend to our every whim, is one of the most basic developmental lessons we all learn in our lives. Most of us do it when we are babies.
But to Petra, the insistence of most contemporary western women that their marriages be partnerships of equals means that they’re the narcissists:
Women are deluded in thinking they have been ‘liberated’ from some imaginary shackles, when in fact they’ve only sabotaged themselves and contributed a great deal to the rotten state of our society. The anti-male bias is ever present in the West today; we are ‘empowering’ females at the expense of males and conditioning women to disparage men.
The self-absorption and sense of entitlement of today’s women make it nearly impossible to form healthy, sustainable marriages and relationships.
What follows is a by-the-numbers rant about “sky-high divorce rates,” degenerate single mothers, “welfare dependency … sexual depravity,” human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together.
Sorry, I got carried away; those last bits were from Ghostbusters.(Not the bit about “sexual depravity” – she actually did said that.)
While Petra is perfectly comfortable preaching special treatment for men – having someone literally pledge obedience to you; how much more special does it get than that? – she’s incensed at the notion that “women have long been enjoying – and often abusing – a privileged and protected status (as the ‘oppressed sex’).”
To Petra, the fact that some women choose not to pledge obedience to their husbands means that men are the real oppressed class, facing pervasive “anti-male bias” and the “emasculating” power of women … demanding to be treated the same as men. In other words:
The explicit subordination of women in marriage = not oppression.
Equality in marriage = oppression of men.
I’m sorry, but Petra’s argument here is even sillier than Princess Beatrice’s hat.
And since when do the guys on The Spearhead give a shit about marriage? I was under the impression they all thought it was some sort of evil feminist plot. .
—
*Note to literal-minded Obama-haters: I was making a little joke there. That picture is not real. Also, Obama was not born in Kenya.
UPDATE: Fixed the link to that not-real photo of Obama and pals in Princess Beatrice hats. Which I’ll just link to here as well.
Nobby, don’t ask NWO questions. He doesn’t answer questions, he DEMANDS answers from the rest of us. 🙂
Nobby: and it’s (to go back to the actual post) not a word in the CofE’s standard vows, so she’s being asked to add it; to make a specific point, out of the ordinary, to obey.
Which is a different thing altogether.
The problem you have, NWOslave, is that you assume every marriage is the same, and that we can give you one pat answer. Unfortunately, life is far more nuanced than that. There is no solution that we can give you, whether the money is spent or not, that will apply to all marriages and partnerships across the planet.
In the getting beef jerky scenario – one assumes the other partner has the freedom to decline. That’s the difference between accommodation and obedience. In a partnership marriage, as well, either partner is free to make, accede or decline requests. If my boyfriend asks me to do something for him, and I decline, then while he might be a little sad, especially if he knew it was something easy for me, he won’t feel like I’ve failed my role as the female partner.
It says quite a lot about your own philosophy of relationships that you think it is impossible for one parter to avoid obeying the other.
Pecunium – no problem!
NWO – plenty of marriages that treat it as an equal partnership thrive, as do plenty of business partnerships. Maybe you are just bad at playing with others.
@NWOSlave
Yeah, basically what Pecunium said. You’ve presented a false dilemma expecting a single universal answer. The only honest answer to this question is “It depends.” I’ve given two possibilities (note that it doesn’t include “use shared funds to buy it at B’s expense”). Oi.
Have I answered your question now, or are you unhappy that I don’t either universally want spouses to buy something against the other’s will, or want them to keep their money?
That is kind of stupid NWOslave-adults, not you obviously, can come to a compromise that allows for both to have a say and get what they want.
They both make the final decision.
If my husband says “while you’re out shopping pick up some beef jerky” I answer him the same way I do my niece and nephew. The leading question of…and what do you say? “Oh, sorry, please could you do that for me?” He’ll reply, and I’ll buy his damn beef jerky, gross as it is.
Big purchases? Well, we had a months long conversation about buying a new vacuum cleaner. He desperately wanted a new one, because my old one was crapping out and he has pet allergies, but it was a big expensive purchase, so we talked about it extensively, researched different models, found a sale and a coupon and each paid half. It’s like we’re human people who can talk to each other and discuss things. Yes, it did take him two months to convince me that we should spend some of our wedding gift money on a Wii, but we just kept talking about it.
It’s like MRAs don’t just think women have some bizarre hive brain, but they also think they’re incapable of speech. I mean, I know they never personally listen to women, but surely they’ve noticed we’re capable of talking.
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth…Divorce rates haven’t gone down. The only reason there less divorce is because marriage, as a partnership has failed. Nobodys getting married anymore, besides royalty.
@David: Seems a lot of my comments have been caught up in moderation, or lost. If you do find these, use your own judgement on what to bring back, perhaps none. Plenty of people have said what needed to be said already.
NWOSlave – Even CEOs are answerable to their shareholders and their board. And our government has three branches with a system of checks and balances so there really is no one top dude with power over everything.
Plenty of equal partnership businesses function successfully. Some of them also fail. But businesses with one guy in charge ALSO fail. You’re trying to make black and white out of the broad and variable rainbow of reality.
Might want to look at those stats again NWOslave. I know, I know, how dare a woman or anyone be right other then you but gosh darn it, this time (as like all other times) you are wrong.
@amandajane5…Oh we know you can talk. And if thats how you respond to your husband I doubt you’ll make the average 7 year mark. I give it 4 years with that attitude.
@Pecunium true, that’s why I opted for the quotes for ‘traditional’, since it’s not really.
Well gosh and golly PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth, I guess I’m wrong there were fewer divorces 50 years ago then today. I guess we do need more feminism to keep the family together, cause thats what feminisms all about. Family.
Amanda, you expect your husband to have manners? Oh my gosh! The horror! /sarcasm
NWOslave, he should have the common courtesy to say “please pick up some beef jerky if you are going to the store?” It is the magic word that prevents Manhattan from having all those ghosties come out of their containment unit.
Nobody is getting married anymore? Then why the hell am I packing for a wedding trip this weekend and sending in my RSVP for another wedding at the end of summer? Not to mention having a cousin or three get married every summer.
One would hope that the fictional husband isn’t DEMANDING beef jerky. One would hope he’s saying, “Honey, could you pop by the store and get me some beef jerky on the way home?” And if she agrees to that, she’s not “obeying” because no command was given. She’d have just as much right to say, “Sorry, I need to go to the dry cleaners and that’s on the opposite side of town.”
If fictional husband had said, “Get some damn beef jerky, woman!” and then hung up … I would say that whether or not “obey” was in their wedding vows is really the least of their troubles.
The thing is, if “obey” was really meant in that nicest most benign possible way of “agree to the other person’s reasonable requests” then we’d have BOTH men AND women agreeing to “honor and obey” their future spouses. That the obeying only goes one way is pretty indicative of it NOT being meant that way.
By your conclusion what must have happened is negotiating and compromising skills have fallen. Is this your conclusion?
No, my conclusion is that no-fault divorce laws have allowed people to escape unhappy marriages, therefore people are escaping unhappy marriages. That’s called freedom. The divorce rate has remained relatively steady for several years now, in any event.
*laughs at NWOslave* Is that your baseline? The late fifties-early sixties? You do know that the marriage rates of those years were not typical right?
@NWO Yup it is, as @Mish_Mash’s article shows that feminists make longer and more satisfying relationships. Funny how your accusations have no basis.
I guess NWOSlave has never heard of The Religious Society of Friends, who have had a functioning organisation, for about 350 years have had no leaders, and required consensus of the entire Meeting to conduct business.
They practice the same beliefs in their home lives, and have divorce rates no worse than the public at large. Based on my personal observations, they have a lower divorce rate, but that’s not dispositive. They also seem to marry after longer “courtships” and the means by which interpersonal differences are worked out have been resolved before they make a petition to a meeting to be married, which probably helps.
Actually that “Marxist” relationship you described earlier, NWO, bears a striking relationship to my marriage. We both work, we make similar amounts of money, and we share the child care and the housework. 8 years and still going strong, too.
Those atypical marriage rates also were responsible for the explosion of the divorce rate of the 1970s when no fault came through because otherwise the two people who were miserable were able to stop being so miserable.
NWO, if my husband asked me to buy beef jerkey for him at the store, I would do it. You can call it obedience, but I would call it doing him a favor. If I go in the kitchen to get a soda, he asks me to bring one back for him. Sometimes if I don’t feel well, I ask my husband to get me chicken noodle soup, or if he is grilling burgers, I’ll ask him to put cheese on mine. We do favors for each other all the time. Neither of us is obedient; we’re just thoughtful of each other most of the time.
In your hypothetical situation, if I wanted to buy something but my husband didn’t want me to, I would discuss why he doesn’t want me to buy it. Hopefully during the discussion, one of us would be persuaded to either go ahead and buy it or to hold off on buying it. I wanted a newer car, but we had to wait until we could save enough money for it. Not every thing in a marriage has to be some power struggle. Hopefully, you are partners and you want what’s best for each other.