RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Life] >> Marriage



Message

Exegetist -> RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread (9/2/2007 11:55:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TammyIsBlessed

I heard of a stat that showed that children in a home where only the father was a dedicated Christian were more likely to become Christians than those where only the mother was a dedicated Christian. Assuming this is true (I do not have a link to back me up on this), does this show, in part, why the husband is to be the spiritual leader? That the children are more easily "swayed" by the father's beliefs?



I would like to see how they did the research on that. they would have to do a consensus over many years and many thousands in various social levels as well as various cultures. They would also have to determine that the children actually became Christians and were not just forced to attend church and church activities. And probably a few more variables too.

I'm pretty suspect of so called studies these days. Somebody takes a couple hundred people of all the same ethnic and social level and makes some conclusion that really cannot be verified and calls it a consensus. That and most of them are done with an agenda to support a predetermined result which influences everything they do on it.



TammyIsBlessed -> RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread (9/5/2007 12:36:55 PM)

I agree. I found it to be an interesting statement.

I totally believe that if both parents are committed Christians that the child is more likely to become a Christian than if neither of them are, or even if only one of them are.

One of the reasons I could understand if that statement is true is the fact that both boys and girls (especially boys) respect the opinion of their fathers. And if their father things Christianity is just a crutch for weak women or that it's a bunch of baloney - I could definitely see them hesitating to then become a Christian - because they would equate that with becoming "weak" or falling for a con.



suzanned -> RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread (9/8/2007 11:57:07 AM)

I think that the love and devotion of either parent to God is a good example, however the ideal is for both parents to be devoted followers. The character and heart are the main principles, because both parents can be believers and bad examples to their children if they are not living out their faith walks.

Timothy's mother Eunice and grandmother Lois, Augustines mother (Monica), John Wesley's mother to name a few mothers who greatly influenced their children.

I know there were fathers who had influence as well, so again it seems the character and heart are the key in influence.



Covaan_Meshuga -> RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread (9/24/2007 8:52:38 PM)

We took off camping, and as is my habit, while camping, I do a lot of Bible study and read one novel. I don't read modern novels often, but for the last trips, I did, this time reading one that was highly acclaimed.

First of all, it was one of the most sophomoric novels I have read since I was a high school sophomore. It was very difficult to hang in the and read to the end.

Second, this highly-acclaimed modern book's writer made many errors in telling her story.

Third, the novel would have sold better in the '60s and '70s, because it fits better in that era. In fact, then, I would have appreciated some of its ideas.

Fourth, it reopened my eyes to why some men are very afraid. This little novel, while it allowed one romantic encounter between a man and a woman by minor characters, mainly denounced men and was a deliberate and laughable proponent of living without men -- I mean creating one's own maleless society.

I had forgotten about these ideas, but while struggling to finish the last few pages, this thread was on my mind.



Keabird -> RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread (10/9/2007 2:18:16 AM)

Hi, this is a carry on from the other recent thread that was closed ... just a response to szaftoo (sp?)

quote:


Eliana, I agree and must also respectfully disagree with Keabird. Submitting is simply taking the divinely ordered place in a relationship. It can never be required but is given on the basis of trust. As a couple, we are to discuss situations, pray about them if necessary and then act on them based on what we feel is the Lord's will. Both the husband and the wife will be responsible and held accountable for decisions made as a couple.


I am in complete agreement with the divine order as mentioned above. I also uphold the scriptures about submission quoted by Eliana. Not one of those Scriptures is contrary to what I said, and they support my "argument". The question was whether husbands get the final say because they are the head, and I maintain that no, Scripture does not say this. Where you have Godly submission to the Lord, to one another, and the wife to husband, there is no need for a husband to "pull rank" and that is what this is about (in the thread I just crossed over from because it was closed.) Jesus said we are not to lord it over one another - that goes for husband over wife as well. The husband is to submit to Christ. It seems that many people can't seem to separate these two issues - the one of submission, and the one of husband having the final say.

When there is conflict about decision-making what is the Godly response from BOTH people? Surely it would be for both to take the humble approach, the unselfish approach, whether that be husband or wife. It should NEVER be the husband saying, "well I am the head because the Bible says so, so even if you aren't happy about this decision, I am going to do it anyway." That is "lording it over" one's wife and is the opposite of humility and reverence to Christ.

If my husband asks me to lie for him, I will say no. Even if he gets really annoyed, even if he thinks it's justified (believe it or not - many Christians justify what they think are harmless lies). I will not submit to an unGodly request like that, because my first commitment is to God. Am I a rebellious wife then? No. I am standing for righteousness and if that means my husband doesn't get to lord it over me, that is between him and the Lord to work out. I still love him, I will still support him. I just won't sin for him. He would need to find a Godly way for me to support him, and I would gladly submit to that, as would any truly Christian wife.



Covaan_Meshuga -> RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread (10/9/2007 8:28:33 AM)

Well-said, Kea.



terryjohn -> RE: Women's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (10/18/2007 1:41:42 PM)

Hopefully neither spouse is forced to do that which they do not want to do and hopefully leadership is never in love defined in business terms. What we want is not, "I make the decisions", but, "we are of one mind" as compromise is the language of love where as, "I decide", is the language of a master.

In all things love must define the process for those who are in love.

Should I allow my wife to return to a full time job? I don't know, I will have to ask her if she wants to first. If she does, that is great, if she doesn't , that is great too for it is not the decision making role we men should seek but the love.



jwwells -> RE: Women's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (10/21/2007 5:41:05 AM)

and then there's the cultural viewpoint.

St. Paul said what he said about husbands and wives because for the culture of THAT TIME and THAT PLACE his instructions were the best advice. He said these things knowing FULL WELL that there are minority cases in which the opposite applies (a normal thing for the very intelligent. The very smart expect others to be able to extrapolate the minority case from the majority.)

Thus, from this point of view, the instructions were to do what works best! To think it through using the experience and thoughtful advice of the best elders.

Hmmm? A different point of view and one equally Biblical.

Here's part of my problem with the current Christian thinking on gender-roles:

- while classic gender roles work well for the majority, they fall apart in the minority. Following classic gender-roles means about 1 in 4 times having an unfit mother at home who, if in the sole provider role, would be quite fit: While at the same time having a sole provider who is incompetent but who would be a very good stay at home father! Christ did not come to increase our child abuse rate! Nor did Christ comes to increase our poverty rate!

- using classic gender roles means increasing our cost of education: We're paying to educate females, but not getting our money's worth out of that education. (Most universities and colleges are partially funded by tax dollars!)

- using classic gender roles puts dangerous restrictions on males at a time when we need to free males of dangerous restrictions.

- using classic gender roles means putting gender restrictions on our females AND putting too much choice into female hands at a time when we need to look deeply at female choices due to the danger of the restrictions we've put on the males.

- using classic gender roles leaves out the matriarchal societies and they very much have the right to be exposed to Christ.

Plus, and this is tough thinking for modern North Americans, the classic gender roles you are thinking of did not apply to most of our ancestors. Other gender roles applied and there are MANY gender roles known to have been in common usage.

For one example of this look at the word "wife." It's trace meaning is 'seller,' or a little more accurately "the person who sells what the family produces and buys what the family needs." The word wife has been used as a verb, to buy-and-sell, as late as the early 1700's.

This particular gender role was still in rare usage in Britain at the time of WW2! Ernie Pyle complained of sitting on the train among 'smelly old farmer's wives and their baskets of onions!' This gender role is still in common usage in many places in South America and Africa.



jwwells -> RE: Men/Women roles in the home - One Stop Thread (10/21/2007 6:05:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga

Cheshire and Suzanned:
As a widowed mother with two young children, I actually had people telling me that i was sinning to choose not to remarry, that I was sinning to seek an education so that I could support them, and that I was sinning to not have a man in the house. To me, that was completely ludicrous then, and it still is now. And now, with the children grown and having their own homes, there are still those who tell me i am sinning to work outside my home.

Further, when I did marry, and my husband did not choose to hold me under his thumb, some are still telling me I am sinning for this. When I remind them that this is my husband's choice, they then say he is sinning not to hold me under.

I don't know. So we all work out our marriages as suits the couple, and if our choices don't meet with other's standards, if we are in agreement, well then it doesn't matter.


I've had the same thing for the opposite reasons. I 'sinned' because I raised my kids alone as a lone father or in modern Christian terms "It is better to abuse children by forcing them to live with an unfit mother than to have them raised by a fit father."

I can't count the number of times I've had people accuse me of sinning because I am now a stay-at-home-husband. I won't even get onto the "I refuse to lead" problem! (I've had ENOUGH of being the responsible one while the women around me get a free ride! I simply and plainly WILL NOT TAKE ON MORE DUTY and thus will not lead! Of course, I am, in modern "Christian" thinking going to hell for that too. Which is just more reason to believe that modern "Christians" know nothing of Christ.)

Let's be clear on this, many modern "Christians" are about as far away from knowing Christ as my cat is from understanding particle physics. This is especially common and true in gender roles.

When it comes to gender and gender roles, the thinking of the "Christian" people seems to be so far away from Christ that my cats' understanding of particle physics appears to be excellent in comparison.

While typing this I took a small break and spoke to my Siamese about Walcheski Cubes (part of time theory), he listened. Is it possible to get modern Christians to listen? I rather doubt it.



jwwells -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (10/21/2007 6:18:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PDChaplain

Kevin, the Christian influence in women's right to vote is a FAR cry from the radical behaviors we see today as feminism has evolved. How can light exist within darkness, brother? The error of the egalitarian platform is the fruit of trying to co-exist within a platform of unrighteousness. It can't be done, Kevin, without the Christian having to sacrifice foundational belief. Basic, Biblical Christianity clearly shows the pattern of complementarianism. There IS a ladder of authority established within the Word ..... God, Jesus, man, woman, child. The fact that a minority of pro-fems reject this truth is neither here nor there. There are very valid reasons, Kevin, why NO evangelical leader of merit teaches or preaches the egalitarian way. I have provided us with factual evidence .... from CBMW .... that shows otherwise.

Kevin, are you purporting to say that ALL these men and women of God ..... their ministries established for decades, in the case of most of em' .... are WRONG and that this "new revelation" of pro-fem thought is correct .... and that only within it's uprising in the last 40 years????



I'm not Kevin but ...

Egalitarianism has been around for millenia. It is hardly new!

In the 1400's we had egalitarianism in Britain. Look at who the King's armorers were! WOMEN! Who had important roles in government? Men and women!

Or, look at the matriarchies. The absolute matriarchies are dying, but the classic matriarchies are growing. Before the rising of the first kingdoms almost all of our distant ancestors lived in absolute matriarchies: That was the paleolithic culture! Males couldn't own property or be buried in hallowed ground. Only the women could sit in the tribal council. All the garbage that goes with absolute matriarchy.

The problem we see in today's Christianity is one of demanding that old roles be enforced as if they were the ONLY roles. There have been MANY MANY gender roles used over the centuries and all of them have benefits and drawbacks.

The only hope we have of creating the best-possible-system is in increasing people's ability to make choices for themselves and their loved ones. This cannot happen while restrictionists go on demanding that untruth be treated as truth.



Keabird -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (10/21/2007 5:56:07 PM)

quote:

...many modern "Christians" are about as far away from knowing Christ as my cat is from understanding particle physics....


I'm sure that if your cat wanted to enrol in a good university, they would not be able to refuse it entry ... otherwise the cat could claim discrimination!!! Especially if it's a female cat ...

[;)]



jwwells -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (10/22/2007 5:00:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keabird

quote:

...many modern "Christians" are about as far away from knowing Christ as my cat is from understanding particle physics....


I'm sure that if your cat wanted to enrol in a good university, they would not be able to refuse it entry ... otherwise the cat could claim discrimination!!! Especially if it's a female cat ...

[;)]



LOL! Maybe.

The point at hand is that we have people who know almost nothing about gender DEMANDING that THEY and THEY ALONE know everything which can be known. It drives me NUTS! The same can be said for Biblical interpretation.

The cultural interpretation of the Bible has immense value over the literalist. The cultural gives so much more information and so much better information. Yet, the literalists go on screaming and screeching their unknowing into the every-day-Christian's ear.

Why would we as Christians accept a higher than needed child abuse rate so that we could keep a way of seeing the Bible that we know is full of errors? It does not make sense to me!

Or look at my problem with 'leadership.' Why would we demand a man be in charge even though is incompetent to lead? or does not want to lead? or, as in my case, has a VERY valid complaint against society and Christian-culture?

Picture a couple I know. She's a university professor, politics, and so is he, history. She's active and outgoing, he's a retiring expert on the middle ages. She has immense leadership skills, he couldn't lead himself out of a paper bag. Let's face it, the man is a classic absent minded professor, very good at what he does and really very kind. No sane person would put him in charge: She is simply too good at leadership.

They are in many ways like the Thatchers. She was Prime Minister: He was an expert on archeology. She forceful, he retiring.

These sort of couples account for about a quarter of all couples, most to a lesser degree than the examples I've given above. What nit-wit would put the man in charge when faced with such a couple? CERTAINLY not St. Paul! Certainly not Jesus! Both of those men could THINK!



Harvie -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (10/22/2007 9:49:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwwells

Why would we as Christians accept a higher than needed child abuse rate so that we could keep a way of seeing the Bible that we know is full of errors? It does not make sense to me!


The bible that I know is not full of errors.

[sm=funny.gif]



SaintPaul -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (10/23/2007 2:21:24 AM)

Even though the bible doesn't specifically say the husband should make all the final decisions in the home. It is implied by the husbands position and the order of authority Jesus put in place in the home and marriage. Now, this does not mean, that every decision a husband makes, will be his. (The husband can decide to do what his wife says too.) But, he is still the one making the final decision. I believe the husband should make the final decisions in the marriage and for the family. (Husbands can not make their wives or demand them to go with their decision. That is Jesus' job. I had to learn this myself.)

I'm not saying that husbands will make every decision on his own either. There will be times, when he will have to ask his wife's opinion or expertise about things or even make the decision to go with what his wife say's. For example: My wife is very good at buying healthy food for our family. I trust her judgment in this area, since I know this is not a strong point for me. On the other hand. My wife trust my judgment, when it comes to the upkeep of our vehicles and home. (We both can question things we don't understand or even give our opinion.) Now, let me be clear here on something. Not every decision requires input from both the husband and wife. Like the little stuff. Kids want to go outside. Kitchen needs to be cleaned. Grass needs to be cut. What you want to watch on TV. You go out for lunch and see something you want to buy for under $10.00 for yourself. He want's to get a hair cut. She wants to get her hair done, etc.

I have learned to ask my wife her opinion about certain things before making a final decision. This allows her to give her input/opinion and feel that she is being included in the decision. (Even if I don't go with what she has said.)

Here is a very insightful article about submission in marriage.

http://www.bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=155



Sideways -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (10/25/2007 8:22:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harvie

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwwells

Why would we as Christians accept a higher than needed child abuse rate so that we could keep a way of seeing the Bible that we know is full of errors? It does not make sense to me!


The bible that I know is not full of errors.

[sm=funny.gif]


Perhaps he means translational errors (many people believe that it was not the Red Sea that Moses crossed, rather the Sea of Reeds)? There are those, but as far as I know, nothing that would change the basic message or doctrine.



hnt -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (10/26/2007 10:40:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harvie

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwwells

Why would we as Christians accept a higher than needed child abuse rate so that we could keep a way of seeing the Bible that we know is full of errors? It does not make sense to me!


The bible that I know is not full of errors.

[sm=funny.gif]


LOL I agree, but the way people use scripture at times IS full of errors!



jwwells -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (10/28/2007 4:56:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harvie

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwwells

Why would we as Christians accept a higher than needed child abuse rate so that we could keep a way of seeing the Bible that we know is full of errors? It does not make sense to me!


The bible that I know is not full of errors.

[sm=funny.gif]


The Bible may not have errors: The way people translate it to daily life is PACKED with errors.

You've also not answered the question!

Why would you accept a higher than needed child abuse rate?



salsadip -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (10/28/2007 6:48:10 AM)

quote:

The question was whether husbands get the final say because they are the head, and I maintain that no, Scripture does not say this. Where you have Godly submission to the Lord, to one another, and the wife to husband, there is no need for a husband to "pull rank" and that is what this is about (in the thread I just crossed over from because it was closed.) Jesus said we are not to lord it over one another - that goes for husband over wife as well.


I have heard this recently in a conversation with a friend. Sure you paint an ideal picture of how things should be but all to often polarities occur where either the husband is selfish, and 'pulls rank' as you quoted it and backs this up scripturally... or... women become controling and disrespectful to their husbands. You can't make a person submit to you, so i don't see passivity as a solution; what is the solution?

I come from an extremely traditional background where my mum and dad knew their roles within marriage and as far as i was aware, didn't cross boundaries out of respect for each other. I never heard my mum critisize my dad, complain about the chores he never did (he worked outside the home, she work as a mum and homemaker). She accepted that he didn't want her working outside the home and he certainly expected her to keep house to a certain standard, which she did, unless she was unwell. When she was unwell, my dad used to either call an aunt in to help or leave it to my older sisters. He never cooked a thing in his life (haha) he did nothing ever that took him into a (what he would view as) female role (eg: cooking, cleaning etc).
I'm sure there were things my mum did that annoyed or upset him to do with her work at home but he would always back her up, as far as i saw. She, in turn, jumped on one of my sisters for beginning a sentence that critisized my dad being late for dinner and was sent straight to bed without anything to eat that evening. I could tell my mum was furious although she was quiet about it. (unlike me, lol)

They aren't Christians and didn't raise us with any overt affiliations either (i think my dad's an atheist).

My point is, that i know why my mum would not have upset the way things were at home because she values the strength there is in unity and peace in a home. I believe when both men and women polarise in the way we observe commomnly in society (controling, nagging, non submissive wives or abusive, ego driven men both Christians and non-Christians), it is because they have allowed their partner to get away with treating them badly without taking action and therefore forfeiting respect from their spouse and for the most part, self respect too.



salsadip -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (10/29/2007 9:01:46 AM)

[sm=bigears.gif]



dkgnew -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (10/29/2007 6:02:57 PM)

I'm in TOTAL agreement with Salsa, and my growing up with my parents in the Caribbean, I had very similar growing up experience.

Note:
It has been said [Ephesians chapters 5 and 6] (not in this order):
a. children obey your parents: we are very clear what that means.
b. husbands love your wives : we are extremely clear what that means.
c. Wives (obey/be in subjection/submission) to your husband: Not many people are clear what that means.
* my point is on C. wives /women want a husband to protect and provide and be a buddy, but not someone to reverence and obey (at least in this culture). The boss, the Pastor, the police, the Judge, Usher, the Choir director, the bus driver, the store clerk is obeyed, and submitted to more often than the husband.
If she does not “feel” okay about IT, whatever IT is. She does not think she has to do IT.
The above mentioned people can make the same REQUEST as the Husband and get a less resistance…



hnt -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (10/29/2007 8:09:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dkgnew

I'm in TOTAL agreement with Salsa, and my growing up with my parents in the Caribbean, I had very similar growing up experience.

Note:
It has been said [Ephesians chapters 5 and 6] (not in this order):
a. children obey your parents: we are very clear what that means.
b. husbands love your wives : we are extremely clear what that means.
c. Wives (obey/be in subjection/submission) to your husband: Not many people are clear what that means.
* my point is on C. wives /women want a husband to protect and provide and be a buddy, but not someone to reverence and obey (at least in this culture). The boss, the Pastor, the police, the Judge, Usher, the Choir director, the bus driver, the store clerk is obeyed, and submitted to more often than the husband.
If she does not “feel” okay about IT, whatever IT is. She does not think she has to do IT.
The above mentioned people can make the same REQUEST as the Husband and get a less resistance…


We may be clear on point B, but I don't see that pushed as often personally. I don't have an issue with saying that women have issues with their roles, but saying point B is clear...lol does make me giggle when you read some of the posts here on this forumn. Its quite clear to me that men have a real issue throwing away pride, ego and dying to themselves so they may love their wifes as Christ loved the church!

Your last statement - could apply to either.



Keabird -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (10/30/2007 1:48:52 AM)

quote:

If she does not “feel” okay about IT, whatever IT is. She does not think she has to do IT.


The above is a generalized statement and not necessarily true for all women. I know personally that there have been many times I have done "IT" even if I didn't want to, or didn't have peace about it, becasue ultimately it wasn't a life and death matter - it wasn't going to matter in the big scheme of things. I would guess that many, many other women do exactly the same thing. It may be hard to believe, but some of us DO try to take the unselfish approach! [;)]

But where a spouse demands their spouse to sin, using the "you have to do what I say because I am the head" that is another matter altogether.



salsadip -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (10/30/2007 8:31:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keabird

quote:

If she does not “feel” okay about IT, whatever IT is. She does not think she has to do IT.


The above is a generalized statement and not necessarily true for all women. I know personally that there have been many times I have done "IT" even if I didn't want to, or didn't have peace about it, becasue ultimately it wasn't a life and death matter - it wasn't going to matter in the big scheme of things. I would guess that many, many other women do exactly the same thing. It may be hard to believe, but some of us DO try to take the unselfish approach! [;)]

But where a spouse demands their spouse to sin, using the "you have to do what I say because I am the head" that is another matter altogether.


So, if it was a life or death matter (and it wasn't sinful) and you disagreed, you mean you would not submit?



hnt -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (10/30/2007 9:02:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: salsadip

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keabird

quote:

If she does not “feel” okay about IT, whatever IT is. She does not think she has to do IT.


The above is a generalized statement and not necessarily true for all women. I know personally that there have been many times I have done "IT" even if I didn't want to, or didn't have peace about it, becasue ultimately it wasn't a life and death matter - it wasn't going to matter in the big scheme of things. I would guess that many, many other women do exactly the same thing. It may be hard to believe, but some of us DO try to take the unselfish approach! [;)]

But where a spouse demands their spouse to sin, using the "you have to do what I say because I am the head" that is another matter altogether.


So, if it was a life or death matter (and it wasn't sinful) and you disagreed, you mean you would not submit?


I think that is opened ended question. It could go either way. I mean would you allow someone to die so you could submit? [8D]

I know for myself when my young daugther was a baby she got VERY sick! My H doesn't do well in those circumstances. I am the one that tends to keep my cool. In the emergency room the doctor's were pushing for a spinal tap, and he agreed with this. I personally had questions, and YES he was very upset with me! He felt I shouldn't be questioning this decision becaue it could effect her life. I went ahead and questioned anyway, because of the tramatic procedure that our child would have to endure. Come to find out she didn't need it after all - the intial guess was completely WRONG!

To this day I still don't think I shouldn't have submitted or obeyed. My H tends to go with whatever people say in those situations, because that is JUST how he is! When he is calmed down he will admit it also. He looks back and is glad we didn't put our child thur that.

Like a said - its to open of a question to answer YES or NO!



salsadip -> RE: Men's role in the Home - One Stop Thread (10/30/2007 1:52:01 PM)

Ok i see what you're saying. Maybe there are ways and ways of making suggestions at times like that. For instance, i don't think it would be undermining a husband to ask the doctor what other options there were available, to try and make all the info available to the guy i was with and anyway, i don't see anything wrong with objections and discussions, only if they go on after he has had enough.

The only things i find obnoxious are naggy nit-pickiness, critisism towards the hub, put downs etc ... Which is a different thing i think. Someone who continually overrides his decision because they think they know best or that speaks over her husband etc. You know the thing, where its kinda made into a joke at his expense but it's really not funny.



Page: <<   < prev  75 76 [77] 78 79   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI