Submissiveness

[I Am Blessed 24]

Excellent post Elnora!

It is showing the love of Christ to be considerate of women who may not have what you have in a husband.

I think a lot of posters are forgetting this...

I wonder how many women, without loving husbands, have wept over this thread; thinking it was somehow their fault?

 

[KeithS]

Look folks. I really doubt we are that far removed from one another. We all bring our own backgrounds into this. I hope no one looking in on this thread thinks that anyone advocates abuse nor expects a wife to "submit" to abuse (physical, emotional, or spiritual). There may be some who have because they believe God led them to do so, but I doubt this is the norm. Other have out of ignorance or fear and I believe they should reconsider their actions. I do not believe God expects you to be abused and I certainly do not advocate a wife staying in this situation.

However, the post started with a question regarding voting (not slapping). I responded to the question of voting (not slapping). To vote or not to vote, that is the question. Since voting is not a requirment in our society, it is not a sin to either vote or not vote. For a husband to require his wife to either vote or not vote is really rather petty IMHO. Where do requests/demands like this cross the line to abuse (emotional)? I don't know unless I am in the situation and can see it from all sides. But, if it has not crossed that line - it should be followed. This does not mean the couple cannot discuss it. Doesn't mean they won't argue about it. But it does mean the final authority is the husband, who answers to God for this decision since he required it of his wife. Perhaps my understanding on this is skewed.

For what it is worth, I cannot remember a time where I have ever used this type of ultimate authority over my wife. So, am I sinning by not exercising my God-given responsibility of headship when I allow her to do something (not a sin) I disagree with? I am curious what others think on that question.

 

[TC]

Actually, voting is required in our society. If people quit voting then we no longer have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We would then spiral down into a dictatorship - in which voting will not be allowed.

 

[TC]

Also, even if the husband doesn't like the presidential candidates, what about the local elections? Does he not care about who is on the local school board or who is mayor or who is local judge ect. ect. ect. Much more is at stake than just the major race. We need Godly leaders at all levels. Why would some not want to help make that happen? If you dislike the candidate, then run for the position yourself.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Rooster:
... a husband loving his wife is not in short supply, but a wife submitting to her husband is, thats why this thread "Submisivness" is hot, and "husbands loving your wife" is not.

I disagree that submitting wives are in short supply. Rather, I think that men having a different expectation of submission that scripture is in too ample supply. Too many husbands who think that a wife who doesn't vote according to how he says isn't submitting. There's only one word for that, and it can be found in the fertilizer aisle of the Home Depot.

 

[Timtoolman]

[ Too many husbands who think that a wife who doesn't vote according to how he says isn't submitting. There's only one word for that, and it can be found in the fertilizer aisle of the Home Depot. [/QB][/QUOTE]

John why so combative. Those that disagree with you are what? I see only one husband on here who is abusing the Bible, that is you. You have resulted to slandering those who disagree with you and that is a sure sign your argument isn’t holding the water. John, I agree it is easier to take your stance, though not biblical, it is an easyism that some so called men will take. You have tried to make this personal with me. You don't know me but you claim to judge me on the fact I am posting my opinion in this board and that I not go off subject and talk about the husband’s responsibility. I am willing to do that but let’s start another thread. I agree submitting is voluntary. But the Bible is the Bible and you can skip rope with some of the other ladies around it but that don't make it so. Women have come along ways since bible days, and submitting is a whole lot less now then then. I tell you I don't have a problem with it. That I don't have to order my wife around. And all that I say is right here for her to see and dispute. I am hiding nothing just proclaiming my convictions about what God is saying in his word. I have refrained from attacking you but when on the losing end of the debate you resort to calling people....fertilizer?!!! You are very weak boy, and that is boy, and I have to refer to you as "boy" because I am not addressing a man, or someone who is mature, by the looks of your posts!

 

[Johnv]

John why so combantive. Those that disagree with you are what? I see only one husband on here who is abusing the Bible, that be you.

I don't think I'm being combative at all. I'm attempting to be very straight and to the point.

I also want to know what I've said that is an abuse of scripture. BTW, I'm not a husband, at least not until January.

You have result to slandering those who disagree with you and that is a sure sign your argument ain't holding the water.

Huh???? It sound to me like it is you who is being combative here.

JOhn, I agree it is easier to take your stance, though not biblical, it is an easyism that some so called men will take.

Actually, I would disagree. Abusing the headship role and sumbission role are very easy. It's difficult to keep one's spousal role in line with scripture.

You have tried to make this personal with me. You don't know me but you claim to judge me on the fact I am posting my opinion in this board and that I not go off subject and talk about the husbands responsibility.

Sounds like I struck a nerve...

But the Bible is the Bible and you can skip rope with some of the other ladies around it but that don't make it so.

Interesting. You consider my view, which is scripturel, to be a case of "skipping around with the other ladies", as though the ladies on the board are somehow by virtue of their gender incapable of determining what their scriptural role of subnmission entails.

I have refrained from attacking you but when on the losing end of the debate you resort to calling people....fertilzer?!!!

Never called anyone fertilizer. I was referring to the view that a woman who doesn't vote in a manner that her husband says she must is fertilizer.

You are very weak boy, and that is boy, and I have to refer to you as "boy" because I am not addressing a man, or someone who is mature, by the looks of your posts!

If me adhereing to the scriptural view of submission makes me weak, then may I be so weakend in service of the Lord.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TC:
Actually, voting is required in our society. If people quit voting then we no longer have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We would then spiral down into a dictatorship - in which voting will not be allowed.

Good point. Yes, voting is requirement. However, citizens are not required to vote. Alas, I think that too few people take the time to vote (and often make the stupidest excuses to not vote). You see, the government is us. We excercise our governmental duties by voting.

 

[KeithS]

Originally posted by TC:
Actually, voting is required in our society. If people quit voting then we no longer have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We would then spiral down into a dictatorship - in which voting will not be allowed.

Voting might be a right, it might be encouraged, it might be wanted, it might be needed, and failure to do it might result in anarchy - but it is not required. Never saw or heard of a law on the books to this effect. Never heard of someone being ticketed or hauled to jail for failing to do it.

I feel we should exercise our right to vote. I see it as a responsibility. Others may not. They may feel that keeping themselves from the things of the world is more important. To each his own - as long as it is not sin.

 

[KeithS]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TC:
Actually, voting is required in our society. If people quit voting then we no longer have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We would then spiral down into a dictatorship - in which voting will not be allowed.

Good point. Yes, voting is requirement. However, citizens are not required to vote. Alas, I think that too few people take the time to vote (and often make the stupidest excuses to not vote). You see, the government is us. We excercise our governmental duties by voting. </font>[/QUOTE]Johnv - good distinction. I was working on my reply and did not read yours until after mine posted. Voting is a requirement for the system to work most efficiently. However, with the electoral college and then the input of congress in presidential elections (and now the courts) one must wonder.

 

[Timtoolman]

JrV: I don't think I'm being combative at all. I'm attempting to be very straight and to the point.

Then either you are ignorant of what you have typed or you are playing silly little games. Here are your remarks:

JrV: Again, I'm concerned that you, a husband, are spending copious amounts of time being concerned with the wife's role, yet you have hardly said squat about the husband's role. You have a specific duty to love your wife, and that's what you as a husband should be focusing in on. If you did that, the submission issue would be, well, not an issue at all, since loving husbands don't make such expectations upon their wives.

And again: Too many husbands who think that a wife who doesn't vote according to how he says isn't submitting. There's only one word for that, and it can be found in the fertilizer aisle of the Home Depot.


JrV: I also want to know what I've said that is an abuse of scripture. BTW, I'm not a husband, at least not until January.

You have watered down the word to submit to mean litterly nothing! What does it mean to submit? You have no def. I could use your argument to disobey any authority.
And you not being a husband does explain a lot of the naive thought process.

By the way, I see you have managed to post over 10800 posts on here over a period of three days. Figure that out per day! Am I too supposing you have much time to spread your wisdom on here rather then live it?!

JrV: Huh???? It sound to me like it is you who is being combative here.

Where is that John, I have allowed people to disagree and not resorted demeaning them.

JrV: Actually, I would disagree. Abusing the headship role and ignoring the submission roles are very easy. It's difficult to keep one's spousal role in line with scripture.

I agree, not living up to the headship is not so easy either John, reason why kids are the way they are today. Its easier to Lethem run and not be bothered with it. Just like it’s easier to ignore some scriptures that put pressure on us during our lives here on earth. To lead, or submit. Both require obedience!

Me:

You have tried to make this personal with me. You don't know me but you claim to judge me on the fact I am posting my opinion in this board and that I not go off subject and talk about the husbands responsibility.

JrV: Sounds like I struck a nerve...

Me: Yeah it is a nerve of dishonesty and disrespect. As a person who quotes so strongly that we should submit to one another and the context you take it shows that no, I am just talking. I will accuse a brother, one I don't know of harboring feelings or actions that are not true. Your argument was that I must have a problem because I am posting on this board on this subject. However there is a topic and I was discussing it. You reasoning was because I disagree with you that I have a problem and am a bag of "fertilizer"!
]

JrV: Interesting. You consider my view, which is scriptural, to be a case of "skipping around with the other ladies", as though the ladies on the board are somehow by virtue of their gender incapable of determining what their scriptural role of submission entails.
NO I consider you view as one who is weak, not grown up, running away from responsibility, but I refrained from saying it till you started with what you call being straight to the pt.

You are very weak boy, and that is boy, and I have to refer to you as "boy" because I am not addressing a man, or someone who is mature, by the looks of your posts!

I apologize for this, written in the flesh.

If me adhering to the scriptural view of submission makes me weak, then may I be so weakened in service of the Lord. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Well that is another abuse of scripture...we are told in scripture to "be strong in the Lord" Living the Christian life will bring strife to you life, even from so called brothers. It will require you to be strong in the Lord to live the life a Christian ought. It will be a constant battle against those that Hate God and His authority, rebel against His word!

There are godly women on here who do agree with the bible and submission, and men also. I have appreciated all comments that were done in the right spirit. Some are just flesh...no I ain't gonna do and you can't make me" Maybe we ought to start a thread on husbands responsibility. I would like to see some of the comments by those on this thread. However I would like it done in a fashion that is becoming to those who claim Christ as their Lord.

John I don't know you, cept by the words you type here. And I don't belong to any boards but someone told me about this and my wife and I jumped on here with the question. I was interested in others view. I did not mean for this topic to get so heated.

Tim

 

[Elnora]

Diane,

That is a startling admission, about the fear. It brings to my mind the scripture that perfect love casts out all fear. That is so true and I am pretty much fearless. (Unless it's a bear) I have some faith, but I ain't perfect yet either.

The spirit of fear, and it is a spirit, wants nothing more than to paralyze our faith. Fear can be a cruel, hard taskmaster. Wanting to make us ineffective to the cause for Christ.

Observing fear as it cripples people from being free to love. Love takes risk, it makes you vulnerable to rejection. Fear uses that vulnerability to try to stop us from showing that love that Christ wants us to show. We can be critized and hated, no one wants to be hated naturally so it is easy to succumb to what others think is right. Fear of rejection, or ridicule. It can make us jealous and controlling.

We can't will faith, saying I have faith, it isn't enough. What will build our faith is to trust Jesus. First by realizing that even in the worst circumstances we have experienced, He was with us.

Our parents could abandon us. We aren't so secure that our spouse won't divorce us. Our kids hate us. It could scare us to be ostracized by the ones we thought love us. Our family or our friends. Our peers. I see it happen. We can get so fearful that in order to shelter ourselves from that fear we will belittle others and put a wall up, divorce ourself from their pain so to speak thinking it will protect us from that dreaded fear.

But Jesus can set us free. Take the worst experience we could go through, think about how Christ was there all that time. Remember how he pulled us through the long painful experiences. Hard to hear that still small voice when the storm rages, screaming for and demanding your attention. Every time fear raises it's ugly head and the storm rages. Let Jesus pull our thoughts back to him.

It isn't enough to believe we have to act on our faith, stand for righteousness no matter what others think. But we have to exercise that faith to help it grow. No matter if we are accepted or not. Little by little. One step at a time. I pray that we all grow in faith. Building one another up in faith. We cannot do it by tearing one another down.

We as mere man (human) cannot demand obedience from anyone but we can lift one another up and help build faith and let God heal and restore what the devil tries to kill, steal and destroy.

So although I personally have lived through and watched the evil that the devil delights in I don't base my views by those experiences. But rather, try to use them to learn and apply God's word. He took those evil experiences and did turn it to good. So I can even thank him, not for the evil but rather that he used those evils to teach me, that in fact I can trust Him to carry me through. That is what He means to give thanks in all things.

I want to thank you for telling of your fears, that step in faith alone, and it did take faith, will help you to see that fear isn't as big as it boasts. That it was a step in faith to even admit you view things by fear. Fear is a tool of the enemy wanting to devour us. Love is faith in action and it is powerful.

Jesus said in Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all the things whatsoever I have commanded you: and Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

Amen

 

[Timtoolman]

Originally posted by KeithS:
Voting might be a right, it might be encouraged, it might be wanted, it might be needed, and failure to do it might result in anarchy - but it is not required. Never saw or heard of a law on the books to this effect. Never heard of someone being ticketed or hauled to jail for failing to do it.

I feel we should exercise our right to vote. I see it as a responsibility. Others may not. They may feel that keeping themselves from the things of the world is more important. To each his own - as long as it is not sin. [/QB]

Yep said that, we have many rights here in america does that mean we should exercise them all? Not if it is a sin according to God's word. Example, abortion, drinking etc.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
Then either you are ignorant of what you have typed or you are playing silly little games. Here are your remarks:

It bear repeating: I appear to have struck a nerve with you on this issue, and I'm underatnably curious as to why.

You have watered down the word to submit to mean litterly nothing!

Actually the opposite. I am endeavoring to stave off attempts by people (mostly men) to add to the scriptural intent of "submit", thus adding to scripture. This is dangerous, but common. In most cases, it is unintended.

What does it mean to submit? You have no def. I could use your argument to disobey any authority.

Here's a good like which generally sums up my view:
http://www.rightgrrl.com/98grrls/november/lara/submission.html

And you not being a husband does explain a lot of the naive thought process.

Actually, I was merried before, for 10 years.

By the way, I see you have managed to post over 10800 posts on here over a period of three days. Figure that out per day! Am I too supposing you have much time to spread your wisdom on here rather then live it?!

Boy, talk about making judgements about people? I hold down a full-time job and children. I type fast, and keep my comments brief. I think my ample typos is evidence of that . There are several BB members that have surpassed me in the "number of posts" department.

Where is that John, I have allowed people to disagree and not resorted demeaning them.

I'm sorry if you feel I've demeaned you. I don't feel I have in the slightest. Again, I appear to have struck a nerve here.

I agree, not living up to the headship is not so easy either John, reason why kids are the way they are today. Its easier to Lethem run and not be bothered with it. Just like it’s easier to ignore some scriptures that put pressure on us during our lives here on earth. To lead, or submit. Both require obedience!

I don't think there's any disagreement here.

Yeah it is a nerve of dishonesty and disrespect.

No disrespect intended. But, if you feel that your wife must do what you say in regards to voting, then I must express some concern to the possibility that you're abusing your scriptural role of headship. It's a sincere concern.

You reasoning was because I disagree with you that I have a problem and am a bag of "fertilizer"!

I guess I need to repeat myself again: I was not referring to a person. I was referring to a view (that a woman who does not follow her husband's demands in regards to voting is not being scripturally submissive). And yes, that view, imo, is akin to fertilizer. It is not scriptural, and is an abuse of the scriptuiral role of headship.

NO I consider you view as one who is weak, not grown up, running away from responsibility, but I refrained from saying it till you started with what you call being straight to the pt.

Interesting, since refraining from abuse of the scriptural roles of headship and submission is ANYTHING BUT weak or running away from responsibility.

Well that is another abuse of scripture...we are told in scripture to "be strong in the Lord" Living the Christian life will bring strife to you life, even from so called brothers.

Well, then living the Christian life includes not abusing the scriptural role of headship, doesn't it. Sure, that will be seen by some in the world as being "weak", but that's why we're to be strong in the Lord, regardless of the world.

It will be a constant battle against those that Hate God and His authority, rebel against His word!

Indeed, the abuse of the scriptural roles of headship and submission are a rebellion against the Word. IMO, that includes a husband requiring a wife to vote in a certain manner.

There are godly women on here who do agree with the bible and submission, and men also.

Certainly, I hope you can discern between godly women disagreeing with the Bible and sumbission, and godly women disagreeing with your view of the Bible and sumbission.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
... we have many rights here in america does that mean we should exercise them all? Not if it is a sin according to God's word. Example, abortion, drinking etc.

perhaps something on a more common and every day scale: taking the Lord's name in vain, gluttony, etc. They're freedoms, but they're not Godly. Still, I prefer the freedom to sin (so long as it does nto interfere with the liberties of others) over being forced into righteous behavior at the point of duress. It means that we must bear responsibility that comes with the preservation of freedoms.

 

[Timtoolman]

You: Actually the opposite. I am endeavoring to stave off attempts by people (mostly men) to add to the scriptural intent of "submit", thus adding to scripture. This is dangerous, but common. In most cases, it is unintended.

Where have I added to what submit has, show me from my post?

You: Actually, I was merried before, for 10 years.

Hmmmm


You: Boy, talk about making judgements about people? I hold down a full-time job and children. I type fast, and keep my comments brief. I think my ample typos is evidence of that . There are several BB members that have surpassed me in the "number of posts" department.

John, well you caught that one dead on. How can I judge you by just the number of post you put up. Refering to your comment earlier about how much time or how many post I have posted on here.
LOL, John again you have read past the pt. It was in ref. to your remark earlier about the time I have to post on here. I really don't care how much you post on here.


I'm sorry if you feel I've demeaned you. I don't feel I have in the slightest. Again, I appear to have struck a nerve here.

Okay I see that you were talking about the view not the person. I retract my statements about you being a boy and a whimpy christian. I meant those ideas were.

Me:

I agree, not living up to the headship is not so easy either John, reason why kids are the way they are today. Its easier to Lethem run and not be bothered with it. Just like it’s easier to ignore some scriptures that put pressure on us during our lives here on earth. To lead, or submit. Both require obedience!

You: I don't think there's any disagreement here.

No disrespect intended. But, if you feel that your wife must do what you say in regards to voting, then I must express some concern to the possibility that you're abusing your scriptural role of headship. It's a sincere concern.

And if I feel that you are weak and whimpy head of household (if)and afraid to take a literal stand for the gospel should I say it? Does that make you want to converse with me more on the topic? I think that a line like "I disagree with that" might be more of a submitting attitude towards one another then throwing up those walls. (Preaching to myself at times too.)


You: I guess I need to repeat myself again: I was not referring to a person. I was referring to a view (that a woman who does not follow her husband's demands in regards to voting is not being scripturally submissive). And yes, that view, imo, is akin to fertilizer.

Okay, Okay I finally got it...same as above on this.

Me: NO I consider you view as one who is weak, not grown up, running away from responsibility, but I refrained from saying it till you started with what you call being straight to the pt.

YOu: Interesting, since refraining from abuse of the scriptural roles of headship and submission is ANYTHING BUT weak or running away from responsibility.

LOL, well it conforms to the world. You will win the popularity contest with your stand. NO doubt. With saved and unsaved. IMHO, not much of a stand.

You:

Well that is another abuse of scripture...we are told in scripture to "be strong in the Lord" Living the Christian life will bring strife to you life, even from so called brothers.

Well, then living the Christian life includes not abusing the scriptural role of headship, doesn't it. Sure, that will be seen by some in the world as being "weak", but that's why we're to be strong in the Lord, regardless of the world.

Me: Well if the world agrees with you, (even given that you ARE right)your stand will hardly give you much grief except from the extreme biblisist around. And there are far fewer of them then the world. Not saying that because the world agrees that that is a showing that it is wrong just addressing you Pt that your stand really requires little.

Me:

It will be a constant battle against those that Hate God and His authority, rebel against His word!

You: Indeed, the abuse of the scriptural roles of headship and submission are a rebellion against the Word. IMO, that includes a husband requiring a wife to vote in a certain manner.

Me: Exercising the role seems to be non scriptural too you. Again, we are to obey God even if the world and other christain do not fulfill thier roll in authority as given by the bible. Example slaves are too obey even if it seems unfair or harsh. Again the focus is not us, our fleshly screams of " that is not fair" but rest with God and His purpose.

Me:

There are godly women on here who do agree with the bible and submission, and men also.

You: Certainly, I hope you can discern between godly women disagreeing with the Bible and sumbission, and godly women disagreeing with your view of the Bible and sumbission. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Yep, and alot has to do with the spirit in which they answer! I will take diane's and Keith's humble aproach to the subject anyday to the arguements of those who just say it isn't fair, we don't have to obey God only if we think its fair etc.


Tim

 

[Timtoolman]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Still, I prefer the freedom to sin (so long as it does nto interfere with the liberties of others) over being forced into righteous behavior at the point of duress. It means that we must bear responsibility that comes with the preservation of freedoms. [/QB]

Yes, and no, I have agreed all along that you can't force a woman to submit. I am just stating that according to the Word a woman is too submit! I do not condone beating a wife into submission or forcing her. That has ALWAYS been myh stance (if you read all of my many post) you will see that. I am just stating that it is her role to submit as it is mine to love and give myself for her. But I also have that option not to follow God's word. But I can use your logic and say because my wife is not submissive I can say that part of the bible is negated. Wife didn't fulfill her responsability so why should I?! Easy, because God makes no assertions in His word for me not to love my wife regardless of what she does. Easy to understand?

tim

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Timtoolman:
Where have I added to what submit has, show me from my post?

Well, this is where I owe you an apology, because I had concluded incorrectly that you believed the role of headship allowed a husband to forbid his wife from voting. It was actually Scrapper, in the OP, who posed the question.

You and I agree that submission and love are scripturally assigned roles for spouses. What we appear to disagree on is what constitutes a violation of the submission command.

You appear to say that, if a husband says "you can't vote", he's not acting out of love. However, since it's not a sin to vote or not vote, she should comply.

OTOH, my stance is the following: If a husband makes a non-headship demand of his wife and invokes the headship role in the process, he is abusing the role of headship, and is sinning. A woman who complies in this case runs the danger of being a party to the sin, and also gives her husband permission to sin (in a way, it's as though the woman is deceived by the husband who says "well, this is what God meant", bites the apple, and then gives the apple back to her husband to take a bite out of all over again). Since the wife is not required to submit in this case in the first place, the best course of action is to not comply with his demand. Another example is, if a husband commits adultery, and the wife allows it, the wife ends up becoming a party to the adultery. No one would say that this is okay. Replace "adultery" with "abuse of headship" and it's easy to understand why the same scenario exists.

It's clear we agree with the scriptural roles, but we don't see eye to eye on how to deal with abuse of those scriptural roles.

And if I feel that you are weak and whimpy head of household (if)and afraid to take a literal stand for the gospel should I say it?

Fear not. If I were weak and wimpy in the headship department, I wouldn't have taken a solid stand against my ex-wife's adultery. I'd have stayed married to her while she was sharing a bed with someone else. Believe it or not, there was a small handful of people who suggested that, too.

... it (my comment on refraining from abuse of the scriptural roles of headship)conforms to the world. You will win the popularity contest with your stand. NO doubt. With saved and unsaved. IMHO, not much of a stand... if the world agrees with you, (even given that you ARE right)your stand will hardly give you much grief except from the extreme biblisist around. And there are far fewer of them then the world. Not saying that because the world agrees that that is a showing that it is wrong just addressing you Pt that your stand really requires little.

I've always held the notion that we should take a scriptural stand regardless of whether it conforms to the world or not, or whether it's popular or not. "Thou shalt not kill (murder)" is a worldly view, and a popular view, but it is also a scriptural view, and we should not back away from it just because the world subscribes to it as well. Certainly, no disagreement between us here.

 

[Rooster]

Originally posted by I Am Blessed 16:
"Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God."

Ephesians 5:21

Submitting yourselves one to another is saying: wife submit to your husband, child submitt to your parents, slaves submit to your master, believers submit to the Lord. It is expressing a divine order, that we all must submitt to.

 

[Rooster]

You have to understand that men that order their wives around, up to beating them isn't a submission issue but a control issue. They obviously can't even control themselves.

I am in total agreement with you on that

I can not stand being around those kind of men my self. Those are the type that truly abuse the "Head of the house" issue.