Could the rose-colored glasses effect be masking marital unhappiness?
Last month, one of our podcasts worked through some of the issues with claims that complementarian, conservative women had the best marital outcomes. We also wrote a long opinion piece detailing these issues.
In those pieces, one of the points we were making was about how the rose-colored glasses effect can skew survey data–and of all the things we brought up, that’s what people resonated with the most. A lot of you had never heard of the rose-colored glasses effect.
So rather than letting this point get lost in those bigger pieces, I wanted to devote a post to it alone so I can point to it again in the future.
Let me explain: When we’re trying to measure marital outcomes, researchers often use what we would call, “global marital satisfaction outcomes” or “global sexual satisfaction outcomes.” You ask people something like, “How happy are you with your marriage? How close do you feel in your marriage?”
Typically, we’ll find that when we ask those kinds of questions, more conservative people tend to rate their marriages the highest.
That suggests that conservatives have happier marriages, right?
Well, here’s where the rose-colored glasses effect comes in: we discovered that things changed when very specific questions were asked. Some of the direct questions we asked participants were:
“When you’re arguing, do you feel heard?” and
“Do you feel like your needs are as important as your husband’s needs?”
And many others like this that focus on specific things.
When we asked those specific questions, we found that couples who have complementarian beliefs have 35% higher odds of having below average specific marital satisfaction. While they do better when you ask the big picture questions, when you actually hone down and ask the individual questions, the people who say they believe in complementarianism actually do worse.
Why do those who believe in marital hierarchy have the rose-colored glasses effect?
Here’s my theory: I wonder how much of that is because when you’re in these circles you’re told so often, “You have to respect your husband. Make him look good. Don’t badmouth him. Your marriage is great. Marriage just takes work.”
So when marriage feels hard, you’re taught to think about things in terms of, “Okay. This is just me becoming holy, not happy. This is just a way that I’m supposed to grow together.” Women are often told, “Your main purpose and role in life is to be a wife and a mother.” If that is your main role and purpose, then it’s really difficult to admit to yourself, “I may not be as happy as I want to be.”
That’s what this commenter chimed in with too:
I think this is also a huge issue when comps are ‘courting’ or dating. I have a dear friend who has experienced horrible treatment from her prospective husbands (fortunately, none of them have ended up proposing to her as I dread to think how bad the resulting marriage would be), but because she has been taught to believe that marriage to an authoritarian man is the be-all-and-end-all of a Christian woman’s life, and because she also believes she shouldn’t expect much, she doesn’t see it. I’ve lost track of the number of times when she’s enthused about some ‘amazing, wonderful’ behaviour from a man, which has been basic, common politeness.
(Of course we should still be grateful for these things, but being grateful is very different from being convinced that your man is the most wonderful one on the planet because he does the kind of everyday stuff that any decent citizen should do!
And if you are choosing a life partner on the basis of these things…).”
She makes such a good point. We’re teaching women to ignore red flags and to not actually expect relationships to be good.
Even other researchers are noting this issue. The IFS study that’s been used by megachurch pastors like Josh Howerton to claim that complementarians do best actually discuss the possibility of this “rose-colored glasses” phenomenon. The report’s authors posit:
“It is possible that simply being married is more important to highly religious women, which may raise their satisfaction ratings. They may be more likely to look at their relationship through a rose-colored lens.”
In our study of 20,000 women, we attempted to overcome the “rose-colored glasses” effect by using both objective and subjective measures when possible and by looking not just at global measures of satisfaction but also specific ones, such as those questions we mentioned above.
And our data showed that the IFS report writers were correct: there is something fishy going on.
"A groundbreaking look into what true, sacred biblical sexuality is intended to be. A must-read." - Rachael Denhollander
What if you're NOT the problem with your sex life?
What if the messages that you've been taught have messed things up--and what if there's a way to escape these toxic teachings?
It's time for a Great Sex Rescue.
What does the data say about the rose-colored glasses effect?
Here’s how we explained it in our op ed:
We contrasted those who strongly agreed that marriage should not have a hierarchy (egalitarian) and those who strongly disagreed (complementarian). Complementarian beliefs were correlated with 33% higher odds of having above average global marital satisfaction but also correlated with 35% higher odds of having below average specific marital satisfaction. While complementarian women were more likely to rate their overall satisfaction highly, when you asked them about individual markers of satisfaction, things didn’t look as rosy.
Those rose-colored glasses are present in the bedroom too. When we look only at women who never reach orgasm, for instance, they are 22% more likely to say they’re satisfied with their orgasm frequency if they also believe in hierarchy in marriage compared with women who believe marriage should be equal.
The more one believes in hierarchy, the larger the “rose-colored glasses” effect — which is fine if you want couples to have a cheery outlook regardless, but rather problematic if you want to claim women who put themselves under a husband’s authority have objectively better marriages and sex lives.
Many of our readers totally got it!
[referring to the rose-colored glasses effect in the bedroom]
Option 1: get men to understand that their wives should be reaching climax. (I am assuming for the sake of argument that women actually have orgasms – LOL I wouldn’t know.)
Option 2: relentlessly brainwash women into believing that they don’t deserve more out of life and marriage.
Let’s try the same thing with a dislocated shoulder. Fix and rehab the shoulder… or spend inordinate amounts of time and energy convincing patients that dislocated shoulders are normal, healthy, and better than fully-working shoulders
I loved how you broke down the statistics and noted that even if someone says they have satisfying sex you asked how is that being gauged! Like if women are told they shouldn’t like sex or it’s for men, then their gauge for good sex is not the same as a woman who is told sex is for her too.
Can the rose-colored glasses effect be a good thing?
As we noted in our op ed, even John Gottman has said there’s a positive role for rose-colored glasses, because they help people not jump to bad conclusions about their spouses, and make it more likely that people work through marriage issues.
Download Our Marriage Survey
Join 40,00 others and let's change the evangelical conversation about sex
And that can be a good thing.
But overall, I think the fact that conservative, complementarian women are less likely to think they deserve to be treated that well, or to think they deserve great sex, is really sad.
And I hope that we can raise our voices so women in these spaces can hear: You do deserve better.
What do you think causes the rose-colored glasses effect? Have you seen it? Let’s talk!
For myself, I often felt I didn’t really belong since I didn’t grow up in an SBC church. When I started going to one, they just seemed so much more holy and “better” than the church people I had been around before. Once I was fully immersed, I felt like the outcast, like I had to get on board with having the happy marriage, the happy child-rearing, the happy life. I felt like if I could just achieve that, I could have the beautiful, authentic community of other women believers they talked about. So I tried to go all in because I was desperate for community. And it looked like they had happy lives. They said they did, and Christians don’t lie, right? In the off-seasons of unhappiness, they proudly said that they were in a season of becoming holier. (I suppose one cannot be happy while growing closer to Christ’s likeness, huh?) 🙄🤦🏽
Spoiler: it didn’t work.
We tend to make judgements based on our own experience. I know someone who was raised by a physically abusive ‘Christian’ father who regularly beat his wife and children. For her, a ‘good marriage’ is one where you don’t get beaten up.
If you don’t know what criteria someone is using to rate their marriage, how can you tell if it is truly good (or bad)? So many people rate an unhealthy relationship as ‘good’ based on the fact that it’s not as bad as the marriages they see around them.
Right! And consider that if Comp theology is true, then the wife must be an underling to her husband or she’s living in sin. So a benevolent master seems like a real catch.
When I was married to my ex, I didn’t think the marriage was abusive because he never hit me. Yet he was verbally abusive, controlling, and later sexually abusive. At the time, I thought I needed to be a better person and if I did everything right then he would treat me better. I thought I was just unlucky and had to accept this because at that time I didn’t think I could find anyone better.
I got tired of living this way and I knew he wouldn’t change for the better so I left him. Of course, years later, some women in Bible study would say that leaving should not have been the answer. I guess they did not understand that what I went through was abuse and I needed to get to safety. It’s that whole mindset that marriage is supposed to make you holy, not happy. That’s the rose colored glasses effect.
“I didn’t think he was abusive because he never hit me.” So many people leave the bar that low. And you know he would NEVER have *thought* he was an abuser!
I remarked in a marital counseling session that my husband was emotionally abusive to me. He did the ‘poor little me’ routine of “I never thought I was abusive…” blah blah blah.
The thing is, a covert emotional abuser isn’t *really* an abuser because he’s not screaming and yelling.
A screamer and yeller isn’t abusive because he’s not pushing and shoving.
The pusher and shover isn’t abusive because he’s not hitting and breaking bones.
And the one who is hitting and breaking bones isn’t an abuser because… well, she asked for it.
When do we finally get to the point where we get to call a spade a spade?!
I think you are admitting to what your critics say of you. You are interpreting the data based on your own biases and values. And not the values of those giving the answer.
To put it another way in American terms you are asking Republicans if they are happy living under what Democrats would consider good. I can tell you that will never be the case. Your answer seems to be reeducation camps!
You have to face the fact that what you believe is far different that what most Christians throughout the world believe, all the more so when considering history.
What is important and crucial to you is simply not as important or crucial to other women. They have other things that they consider important and crucial. Aspects you find distasteful, abhorrent and even sinful. As hard as that is for you to believe we find your values distasteful, abhorrent and even sinful. Why is this so hard to understand? And why not be honest about it. You act like all of us other women don’t have access to the outside world. We’ve seen it. Found it wanting (and far worse) and chosen values that you find bad. And we call Christ Lord!
So, to be clear, you think that it doesn’t matter that when we break down the elements of what makes marriages feel close, conservative women do far worse, because we’re merely measuring things that are “of the world”?
So which of the specific questions do you think don’t matter and are merely “of the world”? Feeling seen by your husband? Knowing that in conflict your husband will hear you? Having fun with your husband and spending time with him? Feeling like he’s an engaged parent and partner? Which of those are “of the world” and don’t matter? (and we had a ton of others too).
And are you saying it doesn’t actually matter that women don’t reach orgasm, too? These elements that we measured have been shown to be what leads to a healthy, happy, satisfying marriage. I’m wondering why you think that doesn’t matter to conservative women? And that they don’t deserve that?
No, what I’m saying is the questions you ask that you give importance to aren’t as important to others. We might not be listened to quite as much (but we are listened to) but we are better provided and protected (just as your husband does provide some provision and protection). We might not orgasm at as high of a rate but we actually have more sex (feel closer to our husbands and have happier husbands). I’ll use this as my example because it’s highly personal. Sex to me is ho-hum much of the time. And my husband is a stud. Yes, I can orgasm. But really only during ovulation to a “want” sex. But my husband is a 3-4 times a week minimum. Can I love him because he’s awesome and provide what he needs even though it’s not a need of mine? Most certainly. Not just because I love him but because it’s the right thing to do. I don’t hold this against him. Just as he doesn’t hold it against me that when I’m “in the mood” I can have multiples. It’s called love. And 1 Cor 13 doesn’t just apply to men!
This example is another of question bias. The way you ask the question makes it impossible. There will ALWAYS be a decent orgasm gap. Our plumbing and hormones are FAR different. I may not get as regular of orgasms. But I get more intense ones and multiples. Is he envious (it’s one of those deadly sins) of me? No and I am not of him.
Simply put what we value (and I would say believe!) is far different. My husband is the finest man in the world. But you rail against him (his type) every day. You can’t understand that I don’t want what you want. I want a big, strong MAN! Yes one that loves me and loves the Lord but not what you want or would call a good man. I personally could not find a man like Keith attractive for anything (no offense).
Oh Mandy, Mandy, Mandy. Do you think Keith is unhappy? Do you think all of your “sacrifice” gives you a happier husband? He likes a woman who lays there and “lets him”? (Or gives an Oscar worthy performance that she enjoys it?) More important question: Do you think God is happy with this arrangement? You are making God happy by “taking it” when you would rather be sleeping? What did Jesus say about knowing false teachers by their fruit?
Yes, most definitely my husband is happier! 100% without a shadow of a doubt. But I’m not laying there “taking it”. I love my husband. Love is an action word. I hear a lot of self control here but only towards males. Doesn’t self control (of my feelings in general and towards my husband also), joyful giving, being kind, compassionate and just about every verse of scripture teach me to love my husband. He loves me! I will certainly return it!
Your husband sounds like a child who is happier when his parents give him unlimited candy.
My two cents: the stats don’t say you personally have a bad marriage, or you shouldn’t value what you value. Stats aren’t capable of that. By definition they are generalizations, not judgements against individuals.
When people value different things, they make different choices. They will be happy with different outcomes. That is normal and good!
What’s not good is a culture pushing everyone to value the same things, make the same choices, and want the same flavor of happiness, “because God says so.” What the stats can say is, hierarchy in marriage doesn’t work as advertised for the majority of people. Is it possible to critique cultural expectations that are hurting many, without judging the minority for whom those expectations may really be a good fit? I think so, but it’s challenging.
You said,” What’s not good is a culture pushing everyone to value the same things, make the same choices, and want the same flavor of happiness, “because God says so.”
Is that not exactly what is being done here?
Mandy, it’s great that you are happy in your marriage – but anecdotal evidence of one marriage (or even a handful) does not outweigh the evidence of statistics.
Neither does the fact that you are attracted to your husband and would not be attracted to someone like Keith. I’m not attracted to anyone other than my husband, but that doesn’t mean all the other men are bad husbands or that their marriages are bad!
And I’m not sure what you mean by your being ‘better protected and provided’ for than Sheila is…unless you know a LOT of personal information about Sheila & Keith’s marriage, you have absolutely no idea how ‘protected and provided for’ she is.
If you have a complementarian marriage and you and your husband are both happy with that – wonderful! But you can’t use your individual marriage to disprove research. That’s like me saying that plane travel is zero risk because I’VE never been in a plane crash and neither have any of my friends…
Mandy how you can claim that 100% your husband is happier than other husbands, what tool do you use to measure that? Women who believe, as you seem to, that they owe their husbands their bodies don’t always fare as well as you claim to. They feel used, they don’t see it as an act of love because sex isn’t about being used like a masturbatory tool for your husbands pleasure alone. Sex is ho-hum yet somehow you still claim your husband is a stud, things are not adding up.
I think you want to believe that your marriage is awesome because your husband is “fine”, “a stud”, a “big strong man”. Well my husband is all of those things but we ACTUALLY have a great sex life, its not “ho-hum”, he cares about my pleasure more than he cares about his own, and we are equal in all things, so none of those descriptive qualities are things only comp men have.
I feel so sorry for you, truly. Not because I believe your beliefs are horrible, or because I disagree with you, but because I used to have this exact attitude. I believed this way of thinking was right, and I fought people about it constantly. All I was doing was hurting myself, and now that I can see what it looks like on this end, you sound harsh and hurt. I can see how I came across, and it’s painful to witness. I hope you find truth in all of the stuff Shelia provides, there is truth here, and there is some truth in the stuff you believe. You really have to let go of your strongholds and current beliefs to even see (ironic for the rose coloured glasses blog isn’t it). Once you let go, you’ll realize you can have a physically strong AND emotionally stable man (one who recognizes it is safe to use his emotions and allow his wife/partner to use hers too). Best of both worlds. Just as Jesus was.
I love how someone will make a really unkind personal remark that was completely unnecessary and then say “no offense”. It’s even better when that person claims to be a Christian and insinuates that she’s a better one than the other people reading.
If your husband ‘needs’ this 3-4 times a week, and you just go along with it, you need to ask if he wants *you* or just wants s*x. Big difference.
I’d be curious if your husband knows you see sex as “ho-hum.” If more mutual pleasure was going on, he would likely be more satisfied. If you found it equally as pleasurable, you’d both be surprised at how much goodness that brings into your marriage. (But this starts by healing wounds, many conversations about sex, and becoming deeply intimate on an emotional level first…hard work!)
I’m not saying it’s like this if you, but many times we settle for good enough because it seems to be working and we think that’s just “how it is,” when truly there is something more that God intends. It’s definitely worth considering!
There are some women in those circles who are not listened to at all. There are some who are not protected and provided for. There are some who never orgasm, or do, but are still sex objects to their men.
For the church to tell these women that these things are not as important as submission is to send the message to these women that the selfishness of those who do those things to them is of more value than their personhood.
To say that these are “worldly concerns” highlights the fact that in some facets, “the world” actually has more Christlike vision than some Christians do. (My Christian mother would say, “It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t love you, you still have to submit.” My non-Christian father (not married to my mother) would say, “I’m sorry he doesn’t love you, but I love you, and I’ll always be here for you.”)
These questions may not be important to you if you have a truly loving complementarian marriage. But they are vitally important to someone whose soul is being crushed by the person who claims to love them or the church who blames the wife for her husband’s selfishness.
For the church to tell a woman, “No, he loves you, he’s just…” when his behaviors are unloving and unrepentant is lying and denial. The church is deciding what her values are for her. She wants to be part of this community, and be accepted by this community, and fit in (because she loves God!), so she has to pretend these things are true even if they are not so that she will not be shunned, or blamed, or accused of having worldly concern. That makes a liar out of both parties.
She has to conform to that lie and say, “This is great! I’m growing in holiness!” or else simply lie by her silence when really it may be terrible and she’s just not being allowed to see it that way or not being allowed to call it what it is.
I know because I hide in one of those circles. I have for over 20 years. Maybe everyone’s lives are great. Or maybe some feel like they just have to say those things because they wholeheartedly want to be a good Christian woman, or maybe they can’t see the truth of their situation because of those rose colored glasses (I used to be one of these). All of these things are possible. How many of the women who need to hear this are hiding in groups like this? It is hard to know because will any of them speak up from within the group? Not likely.
Is my mom wearing rose-colored glasses? Probably. Her situation is all jacked up.
This. ALL of this.
And the biggest weapon used against a woman who doesn’t go along, who questions this state of affairs, who is ungrateful for the suffering she’s enduring, is that she’s told she’s being disobedient to GOD, that she has that good ol’ Jezebel spirit, that she might not actually BE A CHRISTIAN AT ALL.
Spiritual abuse much?????
One Conservative woman does not speak for all of us, so I am grateful you asked this question, Sheila, to one commenter who made sweeping claims.
“I’m wondering why you think that doesn’t matter to conservative women? ”
Mandy, I am a Conservative woman. And an Egalitarian. Who believe Comp theology is against the will of God.
And to conserve means to keep what is good. It does not mean doing things the old fashioned way, regardless of whether those ways are good or bad.
Your call to history is an appeal to tradition fallacy. Historically, women were often seen as literal property of men, which is what Paul is reacting to in his statements on marriage. To suggest it’s correct to see women as beneath men (or that they need to be “lead” by men) because that’s the way it’s been done historically does not prove your point, hence the designation of fallacy. Years of doing something does not make that something match the Gospel.
Jesus gives us a message of relinquishing our desire for power over others. We are to serve, be last, give up our lives for others, etc. To practice a theology which suggests you’re only following God if you take power over someone else does not work with what Jesus taught. I know – men are supposed to be servant leaders, but if they have ultimate authority to make others do their will, how is that servant hood ?
Jesus didn’t make anybody do anything. He gave agency to the people around Him. He did not take agency away from anyone.
I lived in a complimentarian community for decades. My husband was given power in our family and community simply because he was male. He was also a highly traumatized dysfunctional hidden sex addict. He is healing and says giving him authority over me, his family, etc. was like allowing a toddler to fly a jet airplane. Obviously, all men are not as broken as my husband was. But therein lies the danger of power being divided based on gender instead of capability. But who gets to decide who is capable enough for power? It makes sense, then, that we must all be responsible for ourselves. (The Bible calls this self control).
What I hear Sheila often suggest is that each individual believer is subject to Christ and, when we are married, we are still subject to Christ first, then both spouses are subject to each other (the Bible calls this submitting to one another). We are a team that works together to support each other in the process of sanctification (iron sharpening iron).
Please consider doing a Bible study on power, and please consider practicing good scholarship, which requires the study of materials beyond those which simple restate our own current opinion.
To be clear, I’m reply to Mandy
I said what Christian’s believed. Your appealing to culture. Two different things. One influences the other but they stand independent of each other.
Did you know there is a huge push, pendulum swing, back towards traditional gender roles even in the culture right now? HUGE. Sheila even alluded to this the other day. My female friends both believers (complementarian and egalitarian) and non believers are about up to 20% of repealing the 19th amendment. The men I know are even higher. The damage is becoming evident in the church and society at large.
That is actually an extremely frightening regression for society. Egads.
So just to be clear–you think it’s a good thing that women lose the right to vote? And you think egalitarians believe that? Please show me any peer reviewed study that says that 20% of people believe we should repeal female suffrage.
Also, thank you for leaving that here, because it helps show people reading this that those arguing for strict complementarianism really are the fringe. Sometimes people think I’m exaggerating, and it’s useful to have this to point them to.
Also, let me say: when I started blogging in 2008, the majority of other “mom bloggers” (the equivalent of biblical womanhood IG influencers) were very complementarian. Almost all of them that I knew personally are now divorced, some from affairs and some from abuse. Natalie Hoffman and Alyssa Wakefield were two such women who would have been arguing for all the things you’re arguing for, insisting that they were happy, until something finally broke. I interviewed both of them on the Bare Marriage podcast, but I also knew both when they were blogging from a very different viewpoint.
The point? Many, many women in complementarianism insist they’re happy, but when there are real power dynamics involved, that can only be sustained for so long.
I truly wish you the best, and I hope you learn what true intimacy is, where you’re real partners who follow Jesus together.
I personally do believe it’s a good thing if we returned to a head of household vote just for landowners and tax payers. To be more nuisanced than your question asked.
But I’m not speaking about me. I think you’re in a very big bubble Sheila. An echo chamber. There has been a big shift these last few years and yes just as you admitted in your post the other day there is a huge resurgence of not just trad con wives but even repealing the 19th amendment. And it’s not just among complementarians. That is my point. Folks are looking around the church and society and not liking the results. Many are putting their finger on women voting as one of the causes. Not the only cause. But definitely part of it.
Actually, Mandy, I’ve looked at the data. And what’s happening is that a huge, huge number of people are leaving the church because people like you are making these arguments. You are pushing people out.
So some churches are becoming more and more hierarchical and chauvinist, but Christianity as a whole is not. In fact, evangelical churches are now shrinking, while for the first time in a long time mainline churches are seeing a small uptick. What is happening is a great “reshuffling”, where churches are becoming more and more echo chambers. So you likely live in a place where more and more women are agreeing with you. However, because of that, those who don’t are LEAVING your church and either leaving the faith altogether (and that should trouble you) or going to more mainline churches.
When you survey evangelicals as a whole, though, you see more and more support for women in leadership, and less for male-only leadership. It’s just that individual churches are becoming more hard lined on things, so it can look like there’s a huge movement towards more conservativism. There actually isn’t. There’s just a huge movement to squeeze out those who don’t agree, and you’re succeeding in that, resulting in a much more conservative wing of the church that is smaller, while the mainstream grows and many, many more people feel spiritually homeless.
Sheila, well google seems to disagree with you on both trends. They aren’t exactly friendly to my point of view so I can’t see them cooking the algorithm books.
I definitely run in alternative circles- both secular and Christian- in real life and news. but I don’t think it gets more mainstream than google.
Mandy, Google actually runs by algorithms. It shows you things it thinks you will want to see, and orders search things by what it thinks you will want to see. If you are constantly seeing things about repealing the 19th amendment and getting back to some bygone era that was “safer” for women, that’s likely because that’s what you’ve been interacting with.
I’m glad you’re here; I hope one day, if your marriage is no longer happy, you will remember back to my blog, and remember that God didn’t let you down, because God never wanted you to live with your husband as your authority in the first place. I hope you’re able to still cling to God, even if complementarianism doesn’t work.
Sheila, I’m not glad to hear that those marriages broke up, but I am glad that my intuition is right.
From what I can see, a lot of the culture creates unnecessary suffering and disunity between the spouses. People either become so miserable they can’t take it anymore (what can’t go on forever, won’t), or they hit an actual challenge in their lives and have no foundation to work through it.
Imagine farmers who are blessed with great weather for many years. But they know that farming is supposed to be tough! They don’t plant early enough; they don’t reap enough; they don’t store extra grain or rotate their crops. Farming should be hard and done the old fashioned way! Then a drought hits. All of their bad habits crush them and they don’t have anything stored up to get through it. They starve and their farm goes under. Suddenly, they understand that flourishing during the good times isn’t decadent; it’s necessary.
I’m not sure if I should respond or not (“feed the troll or not”), but what the heck:
Before repealing the 19th amendment, I really think that those who support that idea should go on a fact-finding mission to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, live there for a few years (outside the compounds for westerners), and make sure that model is going to work for them.
In fact, if you want to be truly “biblical,” you should do away with voting altogether, and set up a monarchy, because democracy is never mentioned in the Bible, but monarchy is.
I don’t live in your country, but I’m aware of the new wave of traditional conservativism. I noticed you haven’t answered this question about women losing the right to vote. Can you offer any official stats or any evidence that this is true? Do you think it would be a good thing if women couldn’t vote and if so, why? And when you say “The damage is becoming evident in the church and society at large” can you explain in further detail what you mean by this? I am really confused about why someone would support the regression of women’s rights and would like to try to understand this better.
Ditto to Lucie09’s questions. I am also not American, and am confused by what damage is evident in the church and society at large. And how is this damage linked to women voting (? I think that was the context). Women in most countries vote, is this damage applicable to everywhere that women have the right to vote? Or just the US?
Repealing the 19th amendment?!! How sad!
From your marriage confessions (sounds like you are newly married with no children) & voting stance, it sounds like you are word-for-word following the dangerous teachings of the TTWife. Be careful!! It may all sound ‘good’, but it’s not Biblical.
They want to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment because it beats the pants off doing the hard work of valuing women and earning their votes. It is purely outcome-based, and has nothing to do with women not being capable of exercising the franchise.
I am politically conservative, very politically aware and involved, and I’m so sick of the sexist garbage that I no longer support these people (with my time, money, or vote). Their power is crumbling because they tear women like garbage in the political arena and we vote accordingly.
Ironic how your opinion is that you should have no opinion lol
Just an observation: Mandy may be listening to the same people who say that society was better both economically and socially when children worked and their moms didn’t. (What? Oh yes, I read an article on this not too long ago.) I don’t remember which Washington conservative made the statement, but the article I read was applauding him for being “not wrong.” If I can find it, I’ll share a link.
Mandy, where is the evidence for your statement about 20% of women not wanting the vote? I ask because I know you can’t back it up with genuine evidence because you are talking rubbish. Don’t like women having the vote? Don’t vote! I get the impression the kind of people you’d vote for I certainly wouldn’t want in power so it’s a win win.
…aaand those of us who have lived under the rose-colored glasses effect for a few decades (before finally waking up) are now dismissed and can go home.
(Responding to Mandy’s first comment.)
You know when I stopped reading Mandy? When you said your husband is 100% happier than Keith. How the *6#0 would you know? LOL. Haha. Thanks for the good laugh today Mandy. I dont know if I am happier than your husband but I sure am happy and satisfied with my marriage. Not sure what your purpose is here but Thanks for sharing – I always like a good laugh. What a joke. Good luck. Peace.
Out of genuine curiosity, how long have you been married, Mandy?
Totally get what you are saying here. I also see why some people would be offended by this idea! I noticed some pro-hierarchy folks commenting here recently saying, well, I’m actually very satisfied with my husband as my authority, you don’t know my marriage, your stats ignore the complementarian people I know who are happy, etc. I wonder if people may perceive citing a rose colored glasses effect as saying “people who don’t agree with me can’t see reality accurately.” Trying to convince people their perception of their own experience isn’t reliable is always dicey. You could even say people should be suspicious of an argument like that, because it seems perilously close to gaslighting! Not saying that’s what this is. More wondering, how to be sensitive to people’s perspectives if they feel personally challenged by something like this?
7 years ago, if I had taken the survey, I would have undoubtedly rated my marriage as highly satisfactory on a global scale, while also rating satisfaction specifics as low. And I would have been furious if anyone pointed out the contrast.
I told myself I was satisfied over, and my community supported this by viewing me positively because I gave my ex-husband such a good face. It was the equivalent of putting a bunch of garbage in the basement and closets, while spraying air freshener profusely, and calling my house clean.
Beliefs and self-labels are not the same thing as truth.
You do have to be really careful!
I think Sheila has evidence of rose-colored glasses being in play, because she compares global indicators of happiness vs specific ones.
Suggesting the possibility of rose-colored glasses, in this case, isn’t, “You disagree with me, therefor, colored glasses.” (Not that you are saying Sheila said that.)
It’s more like, “You point to an object and claim that it’s pink. But when we hold up a yellow piece of paper and one that’s pink, you say that the object in question looks more like the yellow piece of paper.”
Mandy, I didn’t get a chance to “see the world.” My parents converted to Fundamentalist Evangelicalism in the days of Billy Graham. I was raised in a Focus on the Family bubble and my formative years were in the height of 90’s purity culture. I don’t have any trauma from “the world” but I have 💩-loads of trauma from Christianity. I followed all of the purity culture rules to a T. You would be hard pressed to find a good-er goody-two-shoes than I was. I didn’t date. I married my first boyfriend, and we didn’t kiss until the wedding. We were both virgins. And guess what? My marriage is on the verge of divorce. All of those promises of purity culture? 💩
I wish I had woken up before I had 3 kids. I feel really bad for them. The two options I have to give them are: (1) grow up in an unhappy 2 parent house or (2) grow up in a broken home. Right now we’re in option 1. Mandy, I get the sense you would have me stay here and put on a happy mask and pretend that everything’s fine, and teach my kids that (your version of) Christianity is just the bees knees. “Don’t worry kids. The world has nothing for you except trauma.”
But I don’t like lying to children.
I’m sorry for all your pain. I really am. But God doesn’t promise us any outcome in this life other than eternal life. Almost everyone who served Him was given large amount of turmoil, pain and suffering. He even promised it while He was here. The rules you speak of no one followed them more closely than the men of scripture and they all faced similar betrayal and hurt. You are in good company. I think you might be placing the blame at the wrong source. I pray things improve for you and you find peace and happiness in Him.
“Complementarians are the happiest people with the best marriages, except that God doesn’t promise us any specific outcome, and if it doesn’t turn out like all the complementarians promised – meaning you are miserable and have the worst marriages – well there’s always heaven.”
I’ve heard that one before.
I call it the evangelical two-step.
Step 1: Everything is fine and perfect and you are a Jezebel/mentally ill/feminazi if you think otherwise!
(Person brings receipts, as the kids would say)
Step 2: You are wrong for expecting more!
That isn’t Truth. If there are problems in the marriage, there are problems in the marriage. Address them. Acknowledge them. Fix them to the extent that you can.
“The rules you speak of no one followed them more closely then the men of scripture…”??? ROFL over here! Let’s see… there was Abraham (lied), Isaac (lied and refused to listen to his wife), Jacob lied a million times), Judah (whoring with Tamar, having already broken his promise to her), Jacob’s 10 older sons (beat their brother up and sold him for a slave), Moses (killed a guy), David (coerced Bathsheba and had her husband killed), Amnon (raped his sister), Absalom (took his vengeance and led an uprising against his father), Saul (how danged many wives and concubines did that man have??), and the list goes on. Which men of scripture ya talkin about?
Good point Lisa!
The ‘trad-wife’/’biblical wife’ movement missing the point – cherry-picking twisted Bible verses is not the same as following Christ.
If they were actually following Christ and His example, their marriages and lives would look a whole lot different.
Stefanie, I don’t know what 💩 you are going through, but it’s still 💩and you and your kids deserve better.
Your comment reminded me of my mom and my childhood. I’m the oldest of 3 kids, and my dad abused us and my mom. I grew up in a Christian home. It broke my heart to see my mom suffer the abuse. My mom didn’t want us to grow up in a “broken home” so she stayed, but my dad’s abuse made the home broken.
I truly wish things were better for you because your Option 1 is a broken home for you and the kids if things don’t improve. So if you ever need to use Option 2 and leave, please know that you’re not giving your kids a broken home. You’re getting them out of a broken home.
Thanks. ❤️
Stefanie, I would posit that your children are already living in a broken home. Divorce would just mean you start telling the truth about the state of your relationship. It might be a relief to you kids. One of mine, when they heard about the divorce, said, “Finally!”
Thanks. I’m working on it. My kids are 6, 4 and 2. The oldest is a daddy’s girl. She cries, “Why does Daddy have to go to work! I never get to see him! Why can’t you work and he stay home?!”
I was homeschooling, but just this week I put my oldest in public school and it’s not an easy transition for her. My kids don’t take change well and I’m trying to think how I would justify to them why I have to leave, without opening myself to charges of parental alienation. Can I say “Mommy and Daddy want to give you a happy home, and we can do that better if we’re in different homes”?
Stefanie, I’m so, so sorry you and your children are going through such a terrible situation. Hugs if you want ’em.
I stumbled across this FB post a couple days ago and thought it might help (both the post, the comments there, the Substack article that’s linked, and its comments). ***MAJOR LANGUAGE WARNING*** on her FB and Substack. She does not mince words in calling a spade a spade.
Oops, forgot the link. Again, MAJOR language warning.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02DFyKWkGFNio7YuBP2kt8P2ZyQnKPkaC9z5Smzg7UdRWzfsKL7QS89mJYthDvvCSyl&id=100046928407018
At my bridal shower the married women were giving advice. My married friend told me the way to build a happy marriage is to “never say no.” So I started my marriage following that rule. I remember the first time I wanted to say no, but instead said yes: I was under the weather. I felt a cold coming on, and my body just wanted to sleep. Anyway, I let him. I pretended to enjoy it. The next day, I told a friend how I was angry and she said, “You’re angry about a half hour of your life?” Basically invalidating my experience. That was just a hint of how hard it was gonna be to keep up the mask. I kept it up for 10 years. Until I heard Sheila say the words, “1 Cor 7 is mutual. That means you matter. That means your experience in the sexual encounter matters.” Totally blew my mind. Hers was the first voice in Christianity that I had ever heard say something like that. Thanks Sheila for setting me free.
Sheila is a refreshing voice in the chaos, isn’t she!
How can the ‘church’ preach what a ‘good’ wife should/should not do and never focus on the husband’s reciprocal role.
Always focusing on their own interpretation of ‘submit’, and never ‘love your wife’.
If a husband is to ‘love his wife as Christ loves the church’, and ‘love others as he loves himself’, that love would NEVER force his will upon his wife nor give the wife no option except ‘YES’. He would care for his wife, as he cares for himself. He would never ever allow himself to be forced to do something he didn’t have a choice in, and would never see himself as ‘lesser than’ another.
To be a ‘Christ follower’ is someone who follows Christ, not some Phariseeical-rules to place extra unnecessary burdens on people.
These are still those who say ‘men and women are equal’, yet preach that women/wives need ‘leading’.
In spite of the Bible showing so much unity in marriage, they make it all a ‘husband show’.
We have always been equal in God’s eyes….from the day of creation!
If men and women were not equal in the Lord’s eyes, if parents in the family ‘heirachy’ were not equal, the Bible would read very differently:
* ‘Children, Obey only your father’ Eph 6:1-4 (not your mother)
* ‘Honor only your father’ Ex 20:12 (not your mother)
* ‘Hear, my son, only your father’s instruction’ Prov 1:8-9 (not your mother’s)
* ‘Children, obey your father in everything’ Col 3:20
The theme of equality in marriage and equality in parenting can’t be ignored.
One thought I haven’t seen reflected in the comments yet is the scripture about “making the Gospel attractive” to outsiders. We were under constant pressure to save souls, and part of that was convincing people that we were better and happier. So even if the list of rules you were living by was killing you and making you depressed, you had gaslit yourself that you were happy. And the scripture “you will reap a harvest if you don’t give up.” So basically, keep persevering in “the truth” and you will be rewarded. And “God cannot be mocked. You will reap what you sow.” So there was a promise that all of this would work out.
Yes there was! And that promise was repeated in a myriad of ways, both overt and covert! I heard it too!
I have been thinking about the “God cares if you’re holy, he doesn’t care if you’re happy” message a lot recently. It is in multiple marriage books I’ve read. I feels really insidious because there’s this element of truth in it – there will be hard things in our lives and God can use those hard things to shape us into his image. But does that have to mean that God doesn’t care if we’re unhappy? Is he delighted by our suffering as long as we’re super holy while we suffer? Or does he mourn with us because he came to give us abundant life.
Maybe he’s waiting for me to figure out that all of me matters to him – not just how “holy” I am.
“Just because she carries it well doesn’t mean it’s not heavy”
“Maybe he’s waiting for me to figure out that all of me matters to him – not just how “holy” I am.”
Wow Anne, that’s hitting me hard today. Thanks for sharing. I’m in a similar boat and it feels good to know I’m not alone.
Christ’s work makes us holy.
Suffering in an abusive marriage doesn’t make anyone holy.
The Bible has a whole lot to say about feelings – and that God does care about them…all of them! (even our ‘tears in a bottle’ Ps 56:8); a lot about joy and happiness!
And also what the opposite of joy does to us:
“A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.” (Prov 17:22)
I think the books I read were talking about sanctification as opposed to salvation when speaking about holiness. But there were sure ignoring an awful lot of what the Bible says about feelings!
Bravo Mandy, Bravo. Your biblically based, kind hearted love and spirit of partnership with your husband is a breath of fresh air and a much needed jolt of truth. God Bless you and your husband and your family.
Do you think it’s biblically based to repeal women’s suffrage? Because Mandy is also calling for that. Do you think women voting is bad, and arguing against women voting is a “much needed jolt of truth” and a “breath of fresh air”?
Uh Mandy not I nor anyone in this thread ever said that women should not be allowed to vote. Is gaslighting so natural to your normal vernacular that you don’t even notice it anymore? 😆. Mandy if you are opposed to women’s suffrage please clarify. Again, love and kindness to you and your family.
Actually, in the thread Mandy has said that she supports going back to a heads of household vote, so that most women would lose the right to vote. So the person that you called biblical, and a breath of fresh air, does think women should lose the right to vote.
Again, do you agree with women voting? I hope you do!
Southern wrangler, just clarifying- on October 4, 2023 at 12:15 pm, Mandy left a comment stating that she and “20% of her female friends” are in favor of repealing the 19th amendment (which gave American women the right to vote). If you search on the page for the timestamp, you’ll find it.
(Which does raise the question of whether Mandy is a troll, in my mind.)
You’re right, I stand corrected. That’s surprising. To answer Sheila, yes I fully support the 19th amendment. Just wish there wasn’t so much vitriol and hate directed towards women who choose to live with their husbands in a manner they feel is consistent with Scripture. And both husband and wife are happy with that. Which makes the kids much happier. So why all the “rose colored” glasses drama? As the wise poet Kenny Chesney says “Laugh and Live with a half full cup, Happy Is as Happy Does”
Southern Wrangler, I hope you are happy, and I wish you all the best!
The problem is that when couples act out complementarianism (not merely believe it, but act it out) terrible things happen in the marriage. Divorce chance increases 7.4 times. Abuse is far more likely.
When we teach complementarianism like it is THE biblical way, then we subject people to far less happy marriages, and, for some, even dangerous ones. That’s why it’s important to teach what actually is healthy, and point to how Jesus never told women that they should follow their husbands, but told women to follow Him, just as he told men that.
Mandy is promoting complementarian marriage, NOT a partnership like you are giving her a bravo for.
Exactly! I actually thought Southern Wrangler was being sarcastic, because she praised the opposite of what Mandy said.
Funny how you cut my comment when I was complimenting one of your readers, Mandy. Guess points of view that are biblically supported and differ from yours are censored don’t make it huh 😉
First comments are always in moderation. I was out doing a fundraiser for our local children’s aid and didn’t see it until now. So no need to celebrate about how awful I am become I censor! I only just got home.
It’s an extremely interesting question- what is satisfaction/happiness? Is it subjective or objective?
I think the specific questions being asked in the survey are valuable as a source of provoking thought and discussion (ie, make people reevaluate- am I really as satisfied as I think I am?) but also perhaps giving insight into what values people use to evaluate happiness. And what shapes those values?
A close friend grew up in a country that is a monarchy- where the king had the real political power, not just a ceremonial role. My friend prefers the democracy and religious freedom that he has found in the west, but he also points out that most people in his country of origin lived pretty normal, contented lives. No, they didn’t have an electoral voice, or the option of political dissent. Maybe a lot of people could be genuinely happy without it- or maybe they didn’t think about it that much because it could be “hazardous to your health” (his words) to think about those kinds of things too deeply. Or maybe a little bit of both?
Why do some people value personal freedom so much that they will sacrifice their lives and liberty to try to obtain it for themselves and others?
Why do some people feel so dissatisfied with their personal freedom in a free society that they’ll leave life the west and run off to join ISIS?
People are so varied- sensitive and insensitive, emotional and unemotional, rule followers and rule breakers… it seems impossible that any one human system would work for everyone.
Just rambling today…
It’s a good ramble! What leads to human flourishing? It’s a good question.
For some reason, I can’t comment directly to the post but… Mandy, are you actually saying that women’s votes are the main reason for all the trouble in society/political system in the US today???!
Holy cow.
The comments section of the post today is reminding me of a quote by Blaise Pascal I recently came across.
“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”
This is showing itself in the comments today. Let’s return women and children to nothing more than the property of men based on “scripture” and tradition…evil to the core and not the heart of God!
You’re right, I stand corrected. To answer Sheila’s question, yes I fully support the 19th amendment and women’s right to vote. I just don’t understand all the drama with “rose colored glasses”. Why the vitriol and hate directed toward Mandy and folks like her that live their marriage out based on their interpretation of Scripture (just as Sheila and y’all ladies have your own individual interpretations of Scripture). If husband and wife are both happy with what they have and wife feels good about being a supportive unselfish partner (and husband reciprocates) in the bedroom, then great. Dad and Mom are happy. Kiddos are happy. As the great poet Kenny Chesney said “Laugh and Live with a half full cup, Happy is as Happy Does”. And it does seem pretty sexist for Melissa to call men as a gender evil.
I actually agree with you. If Mandy is happy and wants to live her life that way then more power to her. Unfortunately, though, most people like Mandy (maybe not Mandy herself) live with a hero self image and make their personal choices into moral choices in order to be the hero in their own story and so anyone who makes a choice different then theirs is now morally wrong in order for their own choices to be morally right. That is the issue. They want to take away the power of choice from everyone else and call it Biblical when it is not. And a lot of evil has been done in the name of “religious conviction” throughout history including slavery, witch trials, the inquisition, etc. Don’t really think that fact is up for debate.
Also, I didn’t call men evil. I quoted Blaise Pascal, a 17th century philosopher, mathematician, scientist, inventor, and theologian. When he says men he means mankind/humankind, kind of like the Bible does when it says that man is created in the image of God and it means all humans. I did say that it is evil to try and return women and children to nothing more than property and I would say it again. However, it is both men and women who are trying to do that in the name of tradition and that is evil. No human being should ever be property but no, I did not call men as a gender evil, nor do I believe that. I am surrounded by nothing by Godly, mature, emotionally intelligent, safe men on a daily basis.
Southern Wrangler did you read Mandy’s post, like really read it? Her husband doesn’t reciprocate, she finds sex to be ho-hum, those were her words. She doesn’t say no because she thinks its her duty to be used for her husbands pleasure. That is not being unselfish that is being used, and it comes with a whole host of problems for women. It’s telling when men think women expecting to have a mutually loving and passionate sex life are selfish if she doesn’t always allow her body to be used.
You should also re-read Melissa’s post. No where did she say men as a gender are evil.
Southern Wrangler, I find it pretty disturbing and depressing that you are full of praise for a woman who made nasty comments about Keith, seemingly is all for the regression of women’s rights, has left vague comments about how her inner circle of Christian friends are in support of this, but when I and others respectfully asked her to explain her perspective a little more, she has completely ignored our attempts to engage with her. I know you said that you support women’s right to vote, but even the things I have mentioned here haven’t been enough for you to dampen your praise for her
entirely.
Let’s get one thing straight: I am not in any way ‘full of hate and vitriol’ for her simply because she believes in different things from me, and I don’t think anyone else is either. I am, however, very concerned how a Christian woman, who has based her marriage on ‘biblical principles’ could ever reach such a conclusion that women voters in the US are the sole cause behind the trouble in society in the first place. (I’m not going to comment on her marriage in this post).
Here’s the thing: what I have observed from women in favour of complementarianism and who model their marriages on it, is that talking to them can sometimes feel like talking to someone who has spent their whole lives in a box, or a cage, and can’t fathom life outside it. And when you try to tell them that they don’t have to live in a cage, and that there’s an alternative, and a world exists outside their cage, this is what they say: “How dare you tell me not to live my life in a cage! I love my cage! My cage has been blessed by God! My cage is beautiful to live in! I love and serve my husband and children in this cage! I pity everyone who doesn’t like in such a glorious and holy cage as mine!”
I’m not trying to say that comp marriages are bad, btw. But it’s like the women in them are constantly trying to prove how happy and loved they are, and that their marriages and choices are the only biblically correct ones, and when questioned, they either become extremely defensive, or they refuse to answer or engage with you. That for me is a big red flag that something is off.
I’m just going to reply in one post. First, I’m offended that you don’t think I know what true intimacy is or am “safe”. I grew up in an egalitarian home. Was in an egalitarian church denomination the first 21 years of my life. My husband pastored in that denomination. My beliefs are what they are not just because I finally studied the Bible but because I have seen the fruit of egalitarianism. It’s an absolute train wreck. Divorce through the roof. Messed up, unhappy families. If anyone knows egalitarianism it’s me. I’ve tried it and found it greatly lacking.
Second, some of you all need to learn to read. Saying “100% without a shadow of a doubt my husband is happier” in a response to someone who says do you think your husband is happier why you lie there and take it…geez, reading comprehension anyone?!
Lastly, my husband is more than willing to please me. I’m the one turning down the favors you ladies in the comment section say men aren’t giving. Saying sex is ho-hum for me except during ovulation means I don’t have a high libido, not that my husband is selfish. But I would be being selfish if because of my own libido I didn’t meet his legitimate needs.
This has got to be the most bitter, envious, spirit crushing website in Christian blogging. You can all encourage one another in your selfishness while calling it generous Christlikeness all you want. It simply doesn’t make it so.
Mandy, I’ll just post here what commenter Hannah said in another post:
“Stats by definition look at a population. You are referring to your marriage which is one data point only and by definition cannot nullify statistics from surveys of thousands of marriages. Sheila and colleagues are very careful to use precise numbers (noting Joanna does the stats because of her expertise but Sheila and Rebecca are careful to use them accurately).
Also, stats are rarely all or nothing. Take the example of marriages being more likely to divorce where the husband does not share power. This does not mean that all marriages where the husband refuses to share power will end in divorce – just that a much higher number of non-power sharing husbands will get divorced than power sharing husbands. But there will be people who do and don’t get divorced among the power sharers and the non-power sharers. So a marriage like yours would simply fit into the ‘atypical’ bracket.
However when there is such clear data as is outlined in the podcast, it is dangerous to tell people they can just ignore the statistics. Your husband treats you with respect. Many complementarian men don’t. Sheila and her team see the fallout from the large numbers of complementarian men like this. In my view complementarians should spend their energy telling others to be really careful about who they give this kind of power to, and raising awareness of the problem of abuse. Explaining how to avoid ‘bad’ complementarianism (which is horrific and frighteningly prevalent) is better than downplaying it to boost one’s own team. It’s great that you’re happy in your marriage.
That one marriage is not the general population.”
Also, I’m so sorry that you don’t want or like to reach orgasm. I’d just warn you that having sex with no pleasure for years on end is highly, highly linked to marriages eventually becoming sexless. Women who have sex with no pleasure can often sustain that for a time, but eventually they can’t. Not wanting to reach orgasm is actually a sign that there is something going on that should likely be paid attention to. Sex is a gift, and if you don’t want to enjoy it, it is worth wondering why. Of course you don’t have to; but it is concerning. You’re telling us that your marriage is actually lacking a pretty important part for you, and I am sorry for that.
I’m starting to wonder if you read comments that differ or just spit out your talking points. No one said I don’t orgasm or don’t want to orgasm- it’s just at certain times of the month that I do. And that’s okay. That’s valid. There is nothing wrong with that. You people that want everything to be perfect before you have sex with your husband blow my mind. I’ll let you in on a secret- it’s almost never perfect. Tiredness, hormones, kids, pregnancy, body changes,
Pre menopause, menopause. Add when you’re first married and you don’t know how your own body works and birth control and so many dozens of issues. If you wait around until you feel it ladies you’ll wake up lonely, having missed some of the most, best, awesome moments of your life. Do you want your husband to wait till everything is perfect to love you? Till your perfect? Please…
And as far as stats and antidotes apparently they only work when they are YOURS or someone you know. And studies and surveys found by google don’t count unless they are YOUR studies. It’s a joke.
My husband lays down his life for me and I’ll respond to that and can do it JOYFULLY. In bed or out.
Mandy, actually, quite a few women orgasm almost always/always. And people who do tend to want sex more often. It’s not that people wait for things to be perfect; it’s that people in good marriages with great sex want sex more.
And as someone who has gone through the death of a child, and menopause–let me tell you. Treating sex like it’s something FOR ME as well is so healing and energizing.
I just want you to know that this is actually quite normal, and most women in secular marriages do reach orgasm (the orgasm gap is lower in secular relationships, it seems), and that’s largely because they see sex fundamentally as mutual.
I just want you to know that’s possible, that’s all. You matter, Mandy.
As for studies, I hope you understand what the term “peer reviewed” means, and what it means to do studies to academic standards.
Mandy, Sheila explained to you in a previous comment how algorithms work. If you search for a particular thing, you get loads more of that back because Google ‘thinks’ that’s what you want to see.
The first time you Google, as long as your search query is reasonably unbiased (e.g. ‘which marriage type is better, complementarian or egalitarian’ rather than ‘why are complementarian marriages the best kind’) you’ll probably get results with a wide range of views. But as soon as you start to click on results that favour one view, the algorithm starts giving you more and more stuff that supports that view. You actually have to work quite hard to make sure you get a balanced view of what is out there.
You have claimed to be ‘better provided and protected’ and to have ‘more sex (feel closer to our husbands and have happier husbands)’ than those in egalitarian marriages. Do you have any EVIDENCE for these claims? Because there are plenty of egalitarian couples who would say the same about their marriages. ‘I and my friends think…’ is not evidence.
As for your comment about unchristian attitudes on this site – you are the one who has made a totally unnecessary and offensive direct attack on another woman’s husband by your comments about Keith. Do you really believe your remarks are reflecting the way a Christian should speak about another?
My divorce happened after I became egalitarian, but egalitarianism didn’t cause it. It happened because he was unwilling to do the hard work of unraveling his trauma, healing from his sex addiction and giving up his entitlement. From where I stand, comp teachings ruined my marriage. Egal saved me. He’s as bad as ever, but I’m really good now.
Also, Mandy, you might be confusing egalitarian belief with matriarchy. Matriarchy is the true opposite of patriarchy, and it is also bad. Egalitarian is the middle ground. Abuse and entitlement can’t exist when you see others as equal to you.
Bravo again, Mandy. Bravo 😎.
So you’re saying “Bravo” AFTER you know that she is pro-repealing the 19th amendment? And that her version of marriage and society is one that would erase a woman’s say altogether?
Ya Know? I dont go to complementarian biased blogs to fight with the people there. That makes me happier than you are – BRAVO. LOL.
Don’t you mean “brava”?
Mandy, if that’s how you feel about egalitarianism, then…WHY are you here?!? Is someone holding a gun to your head making you look at this blog post?
Also, if you are genuinely happy and secure in your marriage, and your husband and marriage is amazing and wonderful and the two of you are so in love, then this shouldn’t be a threat to you. You’re acting like everyone here is ganging up on you, and you’re being personally attacked. But you were the one who came here in the first place and started this whole conversation. It would be the equivalent of me going to a patriarchal blog and yelling at all the people there. I mean, did you come here just to fight with someone, or what??
I noticed that you still haven’t explained why you think women shouldn’t have the right to vote. I genuinely want to understand your point of view.
Just a note about rose-colored glasses: they always crack sooner or later. And no matter how hard you polish them and squint through them, you’ll just never see the world the same again. It’s painful. But it’s very freeing to take them off.
Many a Complementarian woman insists she is happy because she is following God’s will. But has no good answer when asked why she is so certain that she is accurately discerning the will of God.
Gotta love people who claim to be following the Bible and not the culture around us when they say complementarian marriages are God’s will, when these people are instead, actually, and merely following the legal and societal requirement of the *culture* of first-century Roman Empire, which itself had incorporated loads of Greek Platonism. 🤷🤦
One thing I have always been baffled by with the idea that women are obligated to give men sex even if she isn’t aroused, is that God designed a woman’s body to become aroused just like a designed a man’s body to become aroused. By saying that a woman’s arousal is secondary or irrelevant is saying the God’s design is flawed. It’s the same with an orgasm. God designed a woman’s body with an organ that has the sole purpose of producing pleasure, by God doing that isn’t he say that a woman’s pleasure is just as important or even more so than a man’s? Are the women who willingly subject themselves to unaroused sex and forgoing an orgasm just to please a man subverting God will and design for the natural order of sexual intercourse?
Yes. Yes they are!
Mandy, just some thoughts–
First, welcome to the blog. I hope you encounter some interesting topics here that you find worth exploring.
Next, if you have a great relationship with your husband with a complementarian model, and you’re truly satisfied with that, and you have other friends who also experience this, that’s great. Thriving marriages are good things.
Also, it looks like you’ve spent alot of time and energy on this blog post. Your comments sound like this is a topic that you are passionate about.
May I offer some thoughts and suggestions?
First, on this blog, or any blog, if you’re bringing up a significantly different point of view and saying that your viewpoint is supported by research, be specific about your sources and where your information can be located. Just like if you were writing a paper for a class. Websites, authors, article names, book titles, page numbers, etc. This gives people who are taking the time to read your comments a chance to see the research for themselves. Also, if you don’t like the way someone else is doing/using research and feel the need to comment on it, post specifically what your concerns are, and again, cite your sources for where you’re coming from.
Second, it looks like from some of your responses that you’re feeling attacked by people in the comments. Feeling or being attacked feels terrible. And not liking that is valid. On the other side, much of the way your comments are written look very much like attack on other people. Maybe that’s not how you intended it, but that’s what it looks like. You don’t want to feel attacked, and that’s valid. No one else here wants to feel attacked either.
If it wasn’t your intention to attack anyone and you believe that your tone and motives are misunderstood, and if you want others to extend you some grace, that’s OK. But then it’s important to offer the same grace to others–grace that maybe in this context it would be easy to misunderstand their tones and motivations.
One point for clarification–most people on here would likely not argue with the fact that there is gendered hierarchy in the Bible, and it’s historically been like that in most cultures for thousands of years. The prevalence of hierarchy is verifiable. But what many here have been questioning is this: “Is the hierarchy that’s in the Bible a description of, or a consession to, cultural norms at the time? Or is it God-ordained to be permanent for all time in all cultures?”
It sounds like you believe hierarchy is God-ordained and permanent. And it sounds like you’re passionate about this. If you’re looking to persuade others along these lines about a subject that matters so much to you, that’s understandable. But cite your Scripture references. Book, chapter, verse. Not just one other two. Cite as many passages you can find, with references.
And as you would understandably like the freedom to speak contrary views on a public blog, be prepared in grace to be challenged by others exercising freedom to express counter viewpoints, and Scripture that may indicate something different.
And, as the apostle says, “put on love.” “Love is patient. Love is kind. It does not envy. It does not boast. It is not proud. It is not rude. It is not self-seeking. It is not easily angered. It keeps no record of wrongs.” Love not just to your husband and friends, but also love to people who believe differently. Jesus commanded us to love even our enemies. And He said, that “by this they will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
May you be blessed in His love today, Mandy. You matter to Him very much.
I’ve been coming back to the original thoughts in the post, and I’m still mulling over a bunch of questions. It would be interesting to try to figure out how people decide to rate themselves as happy or not happy. Because it seems like there could be so many possibilities: do people who are naturally happy gravitate towards certain categories? (Ie, are women who orgasm frequently happier BECAUSE they have more orgasms? Or do they have more orgasms because they are naturally happier, more relaxed people?) how much importance do people attach to certain “objective” measures, and can certain objective measures offset others? (Like pet owners reporting being happier than non pet owners, even though objectively, pet owners also report more excretions on the floor, chewed furniture, and vet bills than people who don’t have pets). As some of the other commenters alluded to, there is also a predisposition to rate one’s self highly if you have been consistently given a message of superiority (“I live in the greatest country in the world, of course I am happy!”)
I guess I have a little bit of a problem with the term “rose colored glasses,” because it oversimplifies the apparent disconnect between subjective global ratings and more objective information. It makes it sound like the subjective rating is just the result of delusional thinking, prejudice, or weak mindedness, when it can be much more complex than that. I guess my objection is more to the terminology than to the idea of exploring more details of the happiness experience. I definitely agree it’s also important to challenge the oversimplification on the other side of: “Look how highly we rated ourselves! Proves our way is the best after all!” That’s not informative, IMO. Happiness/Satisfaction is just really hard to objectively define.
JoB, I think you bring up a great point.
I would term much of the behavior discussed not as “rose-colored glasses,” but as “confirmation bias.”
Confirmation bias is when someone is so convinced of a certain point of view that everything they perceive goes through that filter, reinforcing their belief. For example, someone who is anti-immigrant interprets every story of an immigrant as showing how harmful, lazy, etc immigrants are; someone who is pro-immigrant interprets every story of an immigrant as showing how hard-working and helpful they are. Confirmation bias is a common human pitfall that affects people across the ideological spectrum.
In this context, a complementarian person showing confirmation bias interprets every marriage they encounter as reinforcing why complementarian marriages are best; an egalitarian or mutualist showing confirmation bias does the opposite.
The best way to recognize and counter confirmation bias is to constantly ask yourself, what evidence is there that counteracts my belief?, to seek out such evidence, to thoughtfully process it, and to be willing to modify your beliefs in response to such evidence. You might still believe that complementarian or egalitarian marriages are best, for example, but you can then see nuances, such as understanding that some people are happier in one or the other for various reasons, or that people call their marriage one thing but live out another, or that two people may live out one balance of power in one season of life and shift to another at another time.
I think we would all be wise to examine ourselves for evidence of confirmation bias and seek the discernment and grace to question and counter such bias.
When I’m searching for information online, if it’s something where confirmation bias matters, I often deliberately search for information that contradicts my viewpoint. So for example, an egalitarian searching for information on complementarian marriages should google something like ‘why complementarian marriages are the best’ and a complementarian wanting to learn more about egalitarian marriages should google the opposite.
The algorithm is so strong that you often have to work really hard to dig up information on the opposite viewpoint. I recently wanted to examine a particular topic from opposite viewpoints, and once I’d read a couple of articles supporting one viewpoint, it took a lot of hard work to find anything on the opposite viewpoint.
I agree that confirmation bias is a very good descriptor (I was also thinking of a term along the lines of “lens” or “filter”, which you used, Willow)
I become very disheartened the more I seem to observe how many people not only seem to refuse the idea of examining their own beliefs, but are actually incapable of it. It’s like their brains don’t work that way. Probably it becomes worse the older we get? And I am troubled that some of those who seem least capable of examining their own beliefs are Christians, who by all other measures seem sincere in their desire to follow God. Angharad, I think you alluded to this in something you wrote recently- as Christians, we often believe that we are in danger of offending God or being snared in a deception that we can’t get out of if we even consider an alternative point of view, just as a thought experiment 😟
It’s hard enough to work through our own confirmation biases, let alone identify them in other people (or people in aggregate, like in a study). I wonder if religiosity is correlated with more persistent confirmation bias, or if it just takes a different form in non religious people?
Yes, I think Christians may be especially prone to confirmation bias because of not wanting to ‘fall into error’ by considering other views. The Bible warns about people falling away from the truth, and also that many people will be deceived and we can expect persecution for our faith. Sadly, a number of Christians flip these statements upside down, and believe that if they are in a minority and if other people criticise or challenge their views, then this MUST mean that those views are correct.
In the past couple of years, I’ve witnessed several Christian friends plunge down the conspiracy theory rabbit-hole, and very quickly, they reach a point where it’s impossible to get through to them. The fact that I question their views mean I am ‘worldly’. The fact that few people agree with them mean they are one of the ‘few who haven’t fallen away’ and who are ‘wise enough to see the truth’. Any attempt to query ‘The Truth’ or to suggest alternative viewpoints only proves that I am siding with the devil…It’s very sad, but I can see how a misuse/misunderstanding of Scripture can encourage these behaviours. And of course, the more conspiracy theory videos they watch, the more they are shown by Google, which only reinforces their beliefs. It’s all fed by a mixture of pride in their own cleverness at being right and fear of questioning in case God casts them off – no coincidence that the Bible warns us so often to be humble and not fear!
“We’re teaching women to ignore red flags and to not actually expect relationships to be good.”
!!!!! This is so real.