Yep, I watched part of the Royal Wedding. I woke up at 6:30am and caught the end of the sermon, lots of choral singing, and the recessional parade thingy, which probably has a more official name than that...
I missed the live broadcast of the vows, but when I heard comments referring to the absence of the word "obey" from Kate's version, I decided to YouTube it. Sure enough, with a little research, I discovered this isn't the first time a royal bride omitted this word, and it has caused quite a stir in the past. This time around, however, several observers praised Kate for following in the footsteps of independent, strong women like Diana and Fergie, claiming it shows a concentration on equality in relationships.
First of all, I'd like to point out that both Diana and Fergie wound up divorced. That's mildly interesting.
But what I really want to ask is: what about the word "obey" terrifies modern women so much?
So many times, I've heard self-titled "progressive" women ("strong," "independent" women) remark about how they would DIE before promising to obey their husbands, but it always makes me wonder: What is so horrible about your significant other that you don't trust him? If you're worried he would ask you to do something which is morally WRONG, why are you marrying him at all? And if not--if your only concern is having to do things you don't always want to do--are you so selfish you can't give up your own desires in his favor now and then?
----
A friend of mine complained about all the wedding hooplah, because, as she pointed out, the world is celebrating a ceremony that otherwise doesn't hold much significance to our culture anymore. Most of the tradition and pageantry has been handed down from a time when marriage really did mean forever. Now, despite the politically correct talk about the "beautiful couple" and how "happy they are," it seems perfectly appropriate to wonder secretly when it will end in a split. (Or to wonder the same thing, not-so-secretly on your blog, I suppose.)
I realize this is a touchy subject because so many people are affected by divorce. But I can't help noticing that wedding vows mean very little in our world, and that's another reason I wonder why women fight so fiercely over the word "obey." Frequently they say "love, honor, and cherish until death do us part," then turn around and part before death. So, why can't we mutter an insincere "I'll obey ya, too" ???
And, what's with the "richer or poorer" thing? I know the royals don't have much to worry about in that department, but statistics show the rest of us fight about money above anything else... Why would any self-respecting woman promise to attach herself to a poor guy?!
If we REALLY want to brag about our progressive marriage ceremonies and keep our vows more practical for a modern society, I think mine probably should have read something like this:
I, Amanda, take you, Luke, to be my lawfully wedded husband. I promise to love you as long as I feel you are providing for our family, and I will treat you as an equal, unless I wake up one morning and realize I'm not happy and should look out for myself first. Life is short, afterall. But, it's not so short that I can promise---for sure--to be your wife the whole time. So, I promise to be faithful as long as our relationship still feels as good as dating. If I like the things you say to me, I'll consider your opinions. (But, let's be clear. That's not the same as "obeying!") I suppose I will cherish you, if you deserve it. And I will sacrifice for you, unless it hurts TOO much. And, finally my love, I promise to enjoy the congratulations and the taxbreak associated with our new "committment," until it's time to dissolve the contract and try again with the next guy.
Oh, Amanda, you are so judgmental.
It's true, I see the carelessness being thrown upon the beautiful institution of marriage, and--in my judgment--it is a disgrace. But if we thought seriously about our promises, maybe fewer people would jump into marriage so readily? Maybe we wouldn't be so quick to congratulate, but would caution each other that life-long relationships aren't for the selfishly-minded (unless you want to change the vows to resemble mine above)...
I actually don't have a problem with women who KNOW they have an issue with "obeying." At least they're thinking about the words of their vows! But, again, I wonder why you would go through with the marriage anyway--just removing the parts you don't like. If you can't be sure you're standing beside a man who only will exercise his authority as a last resort and for your good, if you wonder whether it will turn into an "abuse" situation, or if you don't know for sure if he could handle leadership, why are you pledging your life to him?
----
Luke hasn't yet used his headship to end an argument. Most of the time, we go back and forth in discussion when our wills clash, and there hasn't been an instance when he felt so strongly his way was better for both of us that he trumped me on the spot...
But I remember a time my dad stepped in and took charge, despite protests. My grandpa, Mom's dad, passed away somewhat unexpectedly, and the entire family left church early to drive nearly three hours and be with Grandma. We may have thrown some clothes in bags first, but we weren't totally prepared for a long visit. Besides that, Mom's extended family was arriving in droves, and Grandma's little house was getting crowded.
So, my dad made the executive decision to take my three siblings and me back home to our house, and let my mom spend time mourning with her family. She didn't like the idea--wanting to keep everyone together, unsure about the cost of driving back and forth repeatedly, worried about whether we'd make it for the funeral, etc. And, ordinarily, Dad tries to accomodate Mom's wishes the best he can.
But, he recognized that she wasn't thinking with her usual clarity. She was distraught, and she needed the leadership of my father to take care of details while she dealt with her pain. I'm not sure whether she held a grudge against him at first, but I did hear her remark later that she was glad he stepped in and overruled her. After the fact, she could recognize he did it for her good.
----
There is no reason for me to suspect Kate and William will crash and burn in the matrimony department, other than the truly sad divorce statistics being collected. For this reason, along with the rest of the world, I'll stare breathless at the pomp, admire the beauty, and wish my best for the couple.
But I will not celebrate their focus on "equality," when I believe strongly true love elevates the other person. I cannot praise anybody for their "modern" or "progressive" marriage, because I don't see progress in the institution at all.
I loved this I know the extreme of divorce my mom split in 2008 because my father is a narsicist and fed her to the dogs. She waited until my brother and I where in our 20s. If it wasnt for my mom you would of never met me. She introduced me to my faith growing up and inspired me to go to a christian school. She basically raised us on our own. because my quite frankly "was i believe i control my own destiny. Yep thats what he believed. I pray for my dad. I know the pain of divorce my best friend lucas's wife cheated on him. and I know the sting of what happens when 2 people dont promise to be faithful. i wrote this in my status
ReplyDeletesomething i was reading about and talking about with my england friends As a kid who didnt see divorce in his life until he was 24 (parents split in 2008) I know the sting of abandonment and how Charles treated Diana they barely knew each other and he didnt care about her. Charles fed Diana to the dogs as a princess. William and Harry are better than there father William married somebody he loved and focused on her THE ENTIRE 4 hours 40 minutes. Looking at her and waited 8 years to marry her to prepare her for power. If thats not love I suggest you go read Pride and Prejudice all over again.I love england 2nd favorite country.
ReplyDeleteI believe that each marriage/ relationship is very different. I know that in my family I am usually the one to make major decisions. And I am definitely not a man. I don't expect him to "obey" me and he doesn't expect me to "obey" him. We always said that there wasn't a leader and a follower we would walk hand in hand right beside each other to make the best decisions possible for us and our children. For so long women were just expect to do as they were told because they were inferior. We are no longer inferior, and even in relationships, should be looked at as equals. Just because man is man doesn't mean he is right. If more relationships contained mutual respect I believe that they would last much longer than what they do!
ReplyDeleteI agree about mutual respect. But I don't see much respect being given men, whem women won't give them the benefit of the doubt. Why can't we be respectful enough of our husbands not to assume they are bigotted jerks who would rule over us with iron fists? I believe we've moved from a crisis of oppressed women into an equally tragic situation: overbearing and self-entitled women. Neither shows respect.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, if you have to worry your man will demand obedience regarding something dangerous or wrong, that's not the kind of person you should marry in the first place. But, when it comes to smaller things, is it so bad agreeing to do it his way when stuck at an impasse? While Luke respects me enough to ask my opinion and not abuse his authority, I also respect him enough to recognize my potential to walk over HIM. And I still argue that fear of the word "obey" actually is a simple fear of sacrifice.
In the case of gridlock between two wills, there has to be a tie-breaking vote. God happened to give this "priviledge" to males, but it comes with great responsibility, too. In fact, with the stress and blame that comes from doing the leading, I don't envy Luke's position at all. Instead, I've said to him, "Lead me the way Christ leads His church, and I will continue learning to how to LET you." Thankfully, God designed this to be fulfilling rather than oppressing, and--when we get our roles right--I feel loved and cared for while Luke feels trusted and capable. Men tend to rise to the occassion when they know their wives are strong and free-thinking yet are willing to let them lead.
And, yes, it takes a lot of mutual trust and respect.
My respect for my father dramatically increased the day he put his foot down with my mother. Obviously he didn't lord himself over her all the time, otherwise I wouldn't remember the day he executed his authority as well as I do. But on that day it became clear to me that my mother was allowed free reign to be herself completely and to make decisions within healthy boundaries—but once she started abusing that privilege he gave her (that trust), my father would remind her that he was still the leader of our family.
ReplyDeleteWomen often hate the word "submission" because of how it's been twisted in history. But in a healthy marriage, a man will love his wife and the wife will respect her husband. That means he will take her opinions seriously and make her feel of worth, and she submits to his will without complaint if he decides to choose differently than what she suggests/recommends. In other words, you're equal and discuss all items of discussion together, but if you can't come to an agreement or compromise, the wife respectfully chooses to only own 49% of the vote instead of an equal 50%.
Because of gender issues people strongly stress equality as ALWAYS 50-50. But no organization can run that way. There always needs to be a leader to make the final, executive decision. In a country, a business, a school, a family... they all have someone who is the leader, even if many people contribute to the organization and the decisions made. Otherwise there will be no peace/harmony when a decision can't be made unanimously.
But that's why it's important to be very careful in choosing your marriage partner, like you said, Amanda. Marriage was/is meant for life—that's why the traditional vows say "until death" (it's not in there just to sound cool or romantic). Love is a daily choice, and if (as a woman) you're in a relationship where you feel you can't willingly submit to this man, you probably shouldn't marry him (and if you're not going to marry him, why continue the relationship? It'll only hurt more when it inevitably ends if you drag it out).
Exactly, April.
ReplyDeleteThe abuse of submission is the number one thing women claim to fear. But, the way I see it, the opposite problem now exists--maybe we could call it male abuse--and I blame us women!
We fought so hard for "liberation" in the 60's and 70's, it was practically illegal for anybody to SUGGEST a woman was out of place about something, even if she was. Instead of just promoting strength and courage among ladies, the feminist movement started PRAISING us when we became demanding and rude. Then, the sitcoms began portraying men as bumbling fools, and MAMA always "wore the pants." Dad was lucky to have her, because she was smart and intelligent, and if she hadn't trained him, he would have been just another chauvinist jerk. SO, Dads began living up to the label given them: USELESS. And they retreated to the couch. Now we have boys remaining boys into their 30's and 40's, buying electronic toys and checking out of their family's lives emotionally and physically....
Luke and I were talking last night, and we agree Satan attacks the role of the husband and father for strategic reasons. If the men won't lead, it won't matter whether wives are willing to follow. Sadly, there ARE fewer and fewer good men in the world, who know how to bring out the best in their women and children without stepping over that line of dominance. (It's not easy modeling Christ!)
BUT, I blame women who forcibly TAKE that role from their men for a good portion of the problem.
Exactly. I completely agree.
ReplyDelete