by Captain Schmideo2 2 Replies latest jw friends
Anyone besides my mom ever use this term for describing their husband, especially one that was not a “spiritual lead” in the family?
This sounds like a term to use instead of the more truthful “I don’t really love him anymore, he is a disappointment to me, but as long as he brings in the money to pay the bills and puts food on the table for my children, I guess I will put up with it.”
Thoughts?
I knew of two witness women who kept living with their adulterous husbands because he put a roof over their heads. At least one of the was really stuck in a bad situation and needed the roof. She ended up with cancer, and while keeping his other woman, he did look after her some--and she wasn't going easy on him! The other may have been able to provide for herself but she said, he picked the bloom off of this rose and now he can have the thorns! Then there was the Mom of a girl who said of the girl's fiance, at least he will work.
Having a good provider in a family is a good thing. So many men want the woman to take care of them! A lot of women will KEEP a man, just to have a man around. So there are those who want sugar mommas and those who want sugar daddies. Then there are couples who both have to work just to keep a home for themselves and their kids. There are so called Spiritual brothers who expect their wives to work and provide for themselves. They couldn't take care of their spiritual obligations if the wife wasn't working as well. How many "brothers" can take off work and work construction for the org if their wives weren't working paying the bills while he got in his brownie points?
The need for a hierarchal authority structure and deference to said authority are so deeply hardwired into some folks that it’s all but impossible to get them out of it.
