She’s in control, not Major Tom

I poached this link from Elspeth’s blog because it dovetails with my previous post. It is another source text for saying that women are the more controlling sex in marriage. I say another because there was already a most unlikely source that made the same observation.

Christian women and men especially do not want to imagine this as true. So, when the women at CF would cite the Gottman studies that highlighted, famously, the predictors of divorce, and those behavioral predictors were easily foist on men. They loved them some Gottman over there. But buried in Gottman’s research was the plainly stated observation that women were more prone to being controlling than men. One must actually read the literature to find it, not the titles of the studies and the media ready snippets. Those informed the women.

The linked article starts to reveal something important.

Convention has it that women are the gentler sex.

But when it comes to relationships they are more likely than men to be controlling and aggressive, a study claims.

They’d have been ahead to stop there. But we cannot have such things simply placed under the light of day for scrutiny. So, they dilute it.

Study leader Dr Elizabeth Bates said: ‘The stereotypical popular view is still one of dominant control by men. That does occur but research over the last ten to 15 years has highlighted the fact that women are controlling and aggressive in relationships too.’

Oh, ok, men do it too. Whew, for a minute there I thought there was some news here. I thought….I actually thought that someone was releasing data that could be used as cover for holding women accountable for something. Anything. Doc Elizabeth though states it quote differently than the opener. She says, and fails to challenge, that men are the stereotypical perpetrators of domination but that the study, gasp, says that women do it too.

The reason I parsed the article is not my normal MO, though I plied that by showing the spin. The reason was to show how it buttresses the claims I make about the behavior I’ve been describing as being absolutely typical. It is statistically the majority. It is in the woman’s nature. This is more than a simple statement of the collated study results. It is revelatory of why there is so much buy in to the present male dominant narrative. That too is a form of control, just on a macro basis. It is also succor for the men who experience this behavior to an extent far beyond my examples and those of some of the men who comment here and elsewhere about same. Finally, it contradicts the notion that the problem is that of men being permissive of it, meaning that men have within us the ability to change it.

We can choose our path. We can do so despite this. We get to respond rightly, or not. We needn’t BE controlled. But we may have to tolerate her attempts to do so. We can ignore them, we can allow ourselves to be controlled, or we can wrestle and fight over it. Most men respond essentially the right way as evidenced by the fact we are not the ones divorcing in droves.

Meanwhile, imagine the injustice, she terrorizes him for a couple of decades, then jettisons him because he deigned react.

 

Advertisements

46 thoughts on “She’s in control, not Major Tom

  1. re: “it contradicts the notion that the problem is that of men being permissive of it”

    Yes, you are right. The fallback to blame you, however, will ALWAYS be “You should have known that’s how she was going to be, and so you should have chosen a better woman.”

  2. The fallback to blame you, however, will ALWAYS be “You should have known that’s how she was going to be, and so you should have chosen a better woman.”

    AKA “Stinks To Be You”, often offered with a manUP card. Bonus points if it comes from someone who quotes the Bible in the process. More bonus points if the “Well, If You Were Just A Better Christian This Problem Would End” crew drops in to “help”.

  3. The man up card is really on my nerves lately. It is expressed in a slippery way. What I mean is on the one hand it is expressed as if there is linked cause and effect….you man up and she reduces or corrects the behavior. At that point sufficient blow-back occurs and with enough credibility that the goal post is moved to manning up not having anything to do with her response, you can only control yourself and you need do the right thing regardless. it can pivot back and forth.

    The problem with it is, it presupposes that the person describing their situation is somehow NOT doing the right thing. That too pivots. he isn’t doing the right thing because his wife is out of control, or, ok given that he cannot absolutely control her, he isn’t doing the right thing because if he was steadfastly loving her and walking the husband walk he……what……he wouldn’t be there whining

    This serves no purpose. If the man is whining, yes, it is a true statement that he should not be. Some are whiners. Some come on these boards just to whine or bitch and slam women period.. We know that when we see it. But if a guy describing something at home is necessarily whining and inappropriately complaining, then by that standard give me an hour with the man making the allegation and I will see that he too is a whiner. if he says “its very hot out”, or “traffic was a bear”…..he is whining, and not walking the long suffering path.

    I don’t understand why this is a wedge issue between men, specifically Christian men. .

  4. Empath, to an external observer there is probably always a solution to any relationship problem that is both simple and obvious. Especially if the external observer is either a confident man with a household under control or a confident and submissive woman who has her house in order. “If I/we can do it, anyone can”, in short.

    “Just be like me, and everything will be OK”, is another way to look at it.

  5. AR that is true and is the why behind what I am saying. its the normalcy bias in limited scope….limited to one household. That they do that for that reason is an accurate observation.

    But…

    1.) Sometimes people are not honest
    2.) If they are honest and their house is in perfect order regarding the subject matter, again, give me a couple of hours with them and i will similarly lecture them on something I have quite well in hand and they do not.

    You cannot foist a relational stasis that exists in one couple onto another couple, especially via just one member of the couple. The attempt is already an example of something they do NOT have in hand….personally.

  6. “The fallback position is that you should have known that’s she was going to be and you should have chosen a better woman.”

    To which I would say: “Show me the tree the better ones grow on and I’ll go pick one.” LOL

  7. If they are honest and their house is in perfect order regarding the subject matter, again, give me a couple of hours with them and i will similarly lecture them on something I have quite well in hand and they do not.

    You cannot foist a relational stasis that exists in one couple onto another couple, especially via just one member of the couple. The attempt is already an example of something they do NOT have in hand…personally.

    You have a point, and one that I will remember going forward. One of the things I try to be straightforward about is my own lapses instances where I fall back into some of those old habits I have worked hard to overcome.

    I try to avoid being self-congratulatory mainly because I honestly believe that if I had married a different sort of man I would be a terror. So I give him his share of the credit, but I appreciate you (and jf12) revealing to me how that comes across.

  8. I married you; I was a different sort of man, and you were a terror. In fairness, had I been a different sort of man, you would have been a different sort of woman. It took me 22+ years and counseling from Empath and Dalrock to figure it out. Still figuring.

  9. I had an in depth conversation about this with SAM. But it’s relevant to my post so I am gonna get into it thete.

  10. You know how centuries/decades ago when bad kids were culturally liable to be taken out behind the woodshed and strapped until the extended difficulty of sitting down helped them remember not to be bad? Even then, many kids were obstinately bad. It wouldn’t have mattered if they had chosen a “different sort of parents”. Nowadays, it still doesn’t matter if the bad kids have a “different sort of parents”. Similarly, the cultural encouragement of badness in wives isn’t cured by a “different sort of husbands”.

  11. Pingback: The Chicken or The Egg: Eolution of Relationships | Loving in the Ruins

  12. @Elspeth, re: “Whether it is being cut by the two-edged sword of Scripture or corrected by a husband doing his job as her head, that a Christian wife wouldn’t have a deep desire to be more of a help meet and less of a hindrance to her husband baffles me.”

    It baffles me too, and the 30 million other married religious men in the U.S. who were dumbfounded to learn they had been sold a bill of goods in their marriage (60% religious marriages times 59 million total marriage). I do not know of ANY wife that is more of a help than a hindrance; some are merely worse than others.

    I continue, as does Empath still I think, to dispute even tbc’s characterization of what *typically* occurs in marriages when the wife is being an emotional terrorist. In my estimation the husband is almost always ALREADY doing what you suggest: ignoring or downplaying her outbursts, but it doesn’t work because *she* doesn’t want his downplaying to help her. She considers her negative emotions important, and she adds to her negative emotions her negative reaction to him downplaying them. It simply doesn’t work out neatly like you suggest.

  13. From the dailymail link “Viktoria Mileva said that others’ perception of men with broad faces could lead them to believe they are dominant. She said: ‘It is also possible that men with a higher width to height ratio act inherently more dominant, perhaps as a result of increased testosterone.’ ‘One potential mechanism which may explain why fWHR affects male self-perceptions of dominance is how others behave towards them.”

    One? Potential? May? Why is it so difficult to get even a grudging admission from a woman that what counts is *her* behavior towards *him*?

    BTW skull growth is completely controlled by hgh and not at all, not one bit, by testosterone.

  14. jf12
    In my estimation the husband is almost always ALREADY doing what you suggest: ignoring or downplaying her outbursts, but it doesn’t work because *she* doesn’t want his downplaying to help her.

    Of course, because her displays of temper have, for some time (possibly years) resulted in him doing what she wants him to do at that moment. Never mind that it may be exactly the opposite of what she wanted in the past or might want in the future, it’s what she wants right now and that is what matters.

    Continual displays of temper can cause everyone else around to continually “walk on eggshells” in order to keep the temper-junky placated. Thus the temper-junky exerts control on all people close to her, or in fact closest to her. She controls her environment by controlling the people within it.

    And one more thing – the adrenal glands shove out some gooood stuff during the bursts of temper. In the short term, in the moment, it can feel really good to just let fly and put people in their place. So much so that I wager it can become habitual, even addicting. I was not exaggerating in the use of the term “temper junky” above.

    There are couples who relate to each other through fighting; the whole “fight – make up – sex” cycle. Children of such couples are likely to only witness the “fight – make up” part of the process, and imprint on it. A woman from such a family might, for example, be very reasonable for years – until she becomes a mother, and starts acting like her own mother…

    Controlling people, especially men, is hugely important to women. Those who read the Bible are invited to open the book of Proverbs, and count the number of verses that refer to women. Divide them up into “positive” and “negative”. I believe that would be a surprising exercise for those who only have read Proverbs 31.

    Pay special attention to the context of “woman” and “tent”, I first learned of those quotes from Anonymous Age 72 back when he was Anonymous Age 70 or so, and those verses are very important to men.

  15. I do not know of ANY wife that is more of a help than a hindrance; some are merely worse than others.

    I don’t know how to respond to that, really. I don’t even know how I would. It makes me very sad, and I don’t know if I can bring myself to fully believe it.

  16. the cultural encouragement of badness in wives isn’t cured by a “different sort of husbands”.

    jf12, you just made my compilation of “quotable quotes” with that one.

  17. I don’t know how to respond to that, really. I don’t even know how I would. It makes me very sad, and I don’t know if I can bring myself to fully believe it.

    I have no way of knowing whether or not jf12 was using hyperbole in saying that he knows of absolutely NO wives who are more help to their husbands than hindrance, but I don’t think very many men here will argue that finding women who are real helpmeets to their husbands is about as common as verified sightings of a Sasquatch or the Loch Ness Monster.

    Really, this sad situation should come as ZE-RO surprise to any observant adult, “Christian” or otherwise. Given the fact that the FI permeates all of our institutions, sacred or secular, no woman has any reason to think that she needs to be any kind of helpmeet to any husband. In fact, the message women get every day and all day, in church or out in the wider world, is that they are in competition with men, rather than complements to them. To think that any woman will caste aside a lifetime of such conditioning to become a perfect biblical wife is just ridiculous.

  18. @Elspeth re: “fully believe”.

    Maybe this exacting analogy will aide your belief in what I’m saying: wives are about as much “help” to husbands as congregations are a “help” to their pastors. Take it anyway you want; like I said it’s an exact analogy.

  19. wives are about as much “help” to husbands as congregations are a “help” to their pastors.

    Wow. That analogy assumes a couple of things. The first is that congregations only take from their pastors. That they bring him their problems woes and concerns for him to help them work out with nary a thank you. Right? There may be a wee bit of merit to that argument.

    But the real thrust of what you are asserting is that wives only take from their husbands, offering nothing of value in return. That should be patently false. You must only know treacherous women.

    And you must only know men who are endowed with the gift of radical and perfected selflessness, LOL.

    Okay, I’m gonna leave now before Empath kicks me out.

  20. re: “That analogy assumes a couple of things.”

    No, it doesn’t. A congregations is indeed a burden, but there is a little appreciation; always, a little. That (little, late) appreciation certainly isn’t what makes the burden worthwhile, but the appreciation does have value in making the burden lighter.

    My wife gives a very small percentage of what she could give, both in exerting herself for me and in showing appreciation for me (which are two distinct things, although they could overlap). I don’t count 5¢ or 10¢ on the dollar as literally nothing, but it’s close enough to nothing to be called that. Especially in comparison to what I’m giving.

    What makes burden-bearing worthwhile is the knowledge of doing one’s duty. A pastor pastors *despite* the far too little appreciation, *because* he feels he must. A husband drags around his ball and chain because he feels he must. Yes, it would be nice for it to carry more of its own weight, but he’s probably only going to complain when it starts jerking him around instead of merely slowing him down.

  21. Okay, I’m gonna leave now before Empath kicks me out.

    I do not think he would do that. Can you say the same?

  22. Pingback: Random Musings And Links- #2 | Donal Graeme

  23. Feeriker:
    “To think that any woman will cast aside a lifetime of such conditioning to become a perfect Biblical wife is just ridiculous.”

    Exactly; and I would add to that observation that many—if not most—can’t overcome it even if becoming a perfect Biblical wife is their goal. That’s precisely because “the message women get is that they are in competition with men rather than complimenting them.” Most of them don’t even understand that that quote contains the basis of ‘submission’ most of them think that submission is something that has to be learned or enforced since they are trained to fight and compete with men instead.

  24. Elspeth:
    “The real thrust of what you are saying is that wives only take from their husbands, offering of nothing of value in return. That should be patently false.”

    No—it’s patently obviously true. I’m not married and not even dating now because women can’t even offer anything of value—as girlfriends!

    Think of it this way: can you name ONE way that I (or any other man) would benefit from having a wife?

    “You must only know treacherous women.”

    Actually, the only place I encounter ones who AREN’T are on Manosphere blogs, and they are all married. Consider this:

    1/4 women have an STD before the age of 25;
    1/4 women are taking prescription psychiatric drugs;
    2/3 women with children have had them by at least two different fathers;
    1/2 women have had at least one abortion;
    1/3 women are chronically obese;
    2/5 women grew up without their natural father;
    2/3 women have, or statistically will be, divorced at least once.

    Does these numbers suggest that ‘good women’ are plentiful?

  25. Congregations pay the salaries of the pastor. And they pay the most to pastors who fail to pastor/shepherd the flocks they amass. If wives are the congregation here, the analogy looks very, very different and doesn’t support a notion that wives give nothing or very little in their marriages.

  26. I continue, as does Empath still I think, to dispute even tbc’s characterization of what *typically* occurs in marriages when the wife is being an emotional terrorist. In my estimation the husband is almost always ALREADY doing what you suggest: ignoring or downplaying her outbursts, but it doesn’t work because *she* doesn’t want his downplaying to help her. She considers her negative emotions important, and she adds to her negative emotions her negative reaction to him downplaying them. It simply doesn’t work out neatly like you suggest.

    Regardless why I think she does it, she does, and yes despite all manner of CONSISTENT over time efforts to reduce it. It made a step change down only once, that was after reconciling from an 18 month split.

    It has crept back, not all the way, but back. Its less dramatic and occasional, rather a low subtle murmur that the therm passive aggressive is imperfect to describe. I still maintain that it is pure lying when she does this stuff. Its why I always say to women stuck on an integrity rant that give me an hour to observe them with their husband and I will show that they lie far more than he does.

    Its interesting, but its true that wives do not return but a fraction of whats given. Problem is to say that seems like complaining, so men dont admit it. It simply is a fact…period….and we are ok with it. But its this that too much pushing over time combines with to either ruin his attitude to her or more often make him withdraw

    Im at the end of vacation…..

  27. Its interesting, but its true that wives do not return but a fraction of whats given.

    What is the typical husband giving that is not being returned, exactly?

  28. @Anonymous IT semi savvy comment maker (Nonya)

    The problem with having the dialog is that a woman reading that comment looks at her own marriage as the barometer for its validity. Oh, and those of her fiends and sisters and someone she met it the playground. All ALL of those women are just hunkered down in giving mode and those women GET nothing from their husbands.

    The other issue is, no matter what men do that is in the culturally expected norm, protect, provide, etc……”giving” doesn’t include that. Giving is what he does after he has set up a safe and prosperous status quo. Why should he get credit for what is really just him showing up

  29. The problem with having the dialog is that a woman reading that comment looks at her own marriage as the barometer for its validity.

    This is what I don’t want to do, which is why I asked for your opinion on what typical husbands gave that isn’t being returned instead of brining up my own relationship or those of friends.

  30. re: typical husbands giving instead of receiving. Typical, mind you.
    1. Footrubs. (“Well, yeah, but his are gnarlier.”)
    2. Back-scratches. (“Well, yeah, but mine is itchier.”)
    3. Oral, especially to completion. (Dead silence. “Bu …, well wh …. Hmm.” Dead silence.)
    4. Manual, especially to completion. ( … frowns …)
    5. Five digits of dollars per annum. (“This is all about sex and money, isn’t it. Typical.”)
    6. Flowers.
    7. Candy.
    8. Jewelry.
    9. Perfume. (“Stop with the gifts already. I buy him, uh, shirts. So, there’s that.”)
    10. Spider stomping, jar opening, bad guy confronting, etc.

  31. Let’s keep a score on the five, count ’em five love languages.
    1. Gifts. ’nuff already said, right? What is this score this year alone? Men 23 to Women 2? 44 to 1? What?
    2. Quality time. Not just him listening to you. Take a guess, a wild swing, anything. What time do you spend doing what HE wants?
    3. Words of affirmation. Not counting ordering him around. Is any long term wife nonzero in this category? “You’re great, dear!”
    4. Acts of services. Sammiches count. But so do BBQs. And spiders, jars, oil changes. So this is about 587 to 2, right?
    5. Physical touch. And so our tale of woe gets a black ribbon and black balloons.

  32. Provision in most cases jumps the man way ahead from the get go. Then, in SAHM scenarios, its simply not the case that men don’t contribute. In fact, more and more, like most things considered conventional wisdom about marriage, men are doing more than half the domestic stuff too.

    Most husbands suffer some degree of , no term exists…..accepting sexual refusal and not whining about it, even men whose wives are mostly available to them.

    Men vary but most are willing to listen to bursts of prattling information that they cannot follow because of its non-linearity, and pay attention.

    The younger group 30 to 40 seem to be polarizing. I see some where the wives are jumping headfirst into running life cooperatively, others where men are exhausted as they come home and moms hand them the kids as if the men have been away at spa all day.

    The short answer is provision and protection, because men simply are assumed to be burden carriers, which gets them to zero comparatively, then all the stuff after that gets compared. How many stories have I read where not only does he not get credit…..he is endlessly shamed or bitched at….he travels….he puts in hours….etc.

    If you need to ask what men contribute my answers will make no sense. If you actually mean, what do men contribute relationally, (because after all women are the relationship ones who buy all the books and work at it), that answer is very easy and provable. men contribute steadfast commitment. men lower their heads and soldier on, in the main, while women file divorces.

    There is nothing close to balance.

  33. I meant to state earlier, the gifts reminds me, on the radio around Father’s Day newsreader read some survey/study that had data for the average amount of money spent on Moms vs. Dads on those respective days.

    I may be off $10 +/- but on Mom’s Day it was $150.00. The average for fathers day, national sample survey result, was less than $1. Clearly lots of zeros to drag that down like that.

  34. “This is all about sex and money, isn’t it. Typical.

    LOL. I was thinking that. Men earn more than women, and women tend to marry up, so the money thing probably won’t change anytime soon. In most marriages husband and wife are both working full time though so the unequal financial contributions.

    Let’s keep a score on the five, count ‘em five love languages.
    1. Gifts. ’nuff already said, right? What is this score this year alone? Men 23 to Women 2? 44 to 1? What?
    2. Quality time. Not just him listening to you. Take a guess, a wild swing, anything. What time do you spend doing what HE wants?
    3. Words of affirmation. Not counting ordering him around. Is any long term wife nonzero in this category? “You’re great, dear!”
    4. Acts of services. Sammiches count. But so do BBQs. And spiders, jars, oil changes. So this is about 587 to 2, right?
    5. Physical touch. And so our tale of woe gets a black ribbon and black balloons.

    I’m surprised that you think that these things are so uneven typically. I would have said that the average relationship was about even on 1 & 2 with women scoring higher in 3 & 4. Do cooking, cleaning up after each other and laundry count? If so women are way out in front. Men would win in 5 only if you count initiating sex. If you count affectionate touch in general then it is probably a tie.

  35. Provision in most cases jumps the man way ahead from the get go. Then, in SAHM scenarios, its simply not the case that men don’t contribute. In fact, more and more, like most things considered conventional wisdom about marriage, men are doing more than half the domestic stuff too.

    Is there a sign up sheet for the more than half of the housework husband? I’d like to add my name. LOL. I need proof that this is typical.

    Most husbands suffer some degree of , no term exists…..accepting sexual refusal and not whining about it, even men whose wives are mostly available to them.

    Is not whining really considered giving more?

    Men vary but most are willing to listen to bursts of prattling information that they cannot follow because of its non-linearity, and pay attention.

    LOL. Women listen to men talk about sports and Top Gear. It’s a draw.

    The younger group 30 to 40 seem to be polarizing. I see some where the wives are jumping headfirst into running life cooperatively, others where men are exhausted as they come home and moms hand them the kids as if the men have been away at spa all day.

    I’ve seen this too. However, in most marriages, both have been working all day. Taking care of kids all day as a SAHM is also exhausting. Things are rough all over.

    The short answer is provision and protection, because men simply are assumed to be burden carriers, which gets them to zero comparatively, then all the stuff after that gets compared. How many stories have I read where not only does he not get credit…..he is endlessly shamed or bitched at….he travels….he puts in hours….etc.

    If you need to ask what men contribute my answers will make no sense. If you actually mean, what do men contribute relationally, (because after all women are the relationship ones who buy all the books and work at it), that answer is very easy and provable. men contribute steadfast commitment. men lower their heads and soldier on, in the main, while women file divorces.

    There is nothing close to balance.

    Protection is rarely necessary. We live in fairly safe times. Provision is usually a joint effort. Commitment- if women file 70% of divorces then men file 30. Women file more, but they also tend to be wronged more. Women are also more likely to stick around when cheated on than men. Men are also more likely to divorce a sick spouse than women. And 30% isn’t exactly a small number. I’m not sure that I would agree that men are more committed.

    A large part of this “men contribute more,” seems to be men not valuing what women contribute domestically and feeling as if their own contributions are unappreciated.

  36. Nonya:
    What do husbands give that isn’t returned?

    Love, respect, time, money, fidelity, devotion, commitment to the relationship, considerable self-sacrifice—you know, all the things the BITCHES say they want in a man, but return none of those things; but dump good men for bad-boys and thugs instead.

  37. Nonya:
    “A large part of this ‘men contribute more’ seems to be not valuing what women do domestically”

    LOL! Women don’t do a damn thing domestically in most marriages, except for doing thugs in husband’s bed. What is there to value? Pain, shame, and blame…that’s all women offer a man in a relationship today.

  38. @Nonya, re: “Researchers suggest that may be partly because women are less attracted to their baby-daddies”

    BTW the cause and effect are reversed, but I’m here to correct that for you (and any lurkers, but I don’t think empath gets all that many lurkers). Men’s testosterone levels drop if they don’t get sex; more frequent sex causes higher testosterone. The desire for sex, however, is totally uncorrelated with testosterone levels, provided those levels don’t drop below normal, and in general men’s behaviors in all areas is *extremely independent of testoterone levels, provided those levels don’t drop below normal.

  39. Protection seems necessary……because of men.

    Your beliefs about divorce statistics are simply incorrect, empirically provably wrong. I will not expend much effort to convince you because the success rate of convincing women (and most men because most men agree with you) is low. Conventional wisdom is too comfy of a chair to give up. I know, I was fully on board with what you describe and it was painful when the scales came off.
    Incidentally, I am not a butt hurt divorcee, bitter and disillusioned. I am however an engineer well versed in statistics, and therefore could not refute what the numbers say.

    By the numbers, according to a three state study of 10’s of thousands of divorces, 67% of the divorces filed under no fault were filed by women. Of that 67% , 6% had what would be called “grounds” ….defined as physical abuse, infidelity, physical abandonment, substance addiction….that they chose not to use in the filing. The rest, (.67x.06=.04), so 96% of the no fault divorces filed by women were frivolous in reason.

    Men are undeniably more committed. When you take the divorces that actually had grounds and were filed based on grounds….fault divorces….some of those were filed by men because the woman was the perpetrator of the grounds. When you add that back to the 63% frivolous female filed no fault divorces you end up well over 70% that women are responsible for.

    Divorce attorneys know this. For years it was down played because its a source of income. Suddenly a new practice area is flourishing, divorce lawyers for men. Look up “Cordell and Cordell”….they are regional if not national and exist expressly because of what I am asserting….men getting jettisoned and made to “visit” their kids for no worthwhile reason.

    Unless and until you get your mind around this, as well as the fact that the church is aligned with this because of evangelical feminism and pastors pandering to the ladies, you will never be able to do more than abject to whats said here and elsewhere with any kind of original objections.

    All of your have been expressed myriad times and dispatched easily. But the powers of rationalization are strong in that one Luke!

  40. Is there a sign up sheet for the more than half of the housework husband?

    LOL. Mine either, but I’m okay with it. He works hard in other areas.

  41. Can you say the same?

    Yes, unequivocally. Since you asked.

    That claim does not match with my experience on certain comment threads.
    Perhaps you closed comments but neglected to announce it?

  42. That claim does not match with my experience on certain comment threads. Perhaps you closed comments but neglected to announce it?

    Your experienced that at LITR? Huh. It is entirely possible that I closed comments on a thread or two that was particularly contentious while being nothing more than circular, but I don’t recall ever doing it. We used to do it at TC sometimes though because it was often wild and it was warranted.

    That said, isn’t that a different thing from banishing someone solely because they disagree?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s