<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
When the elders told me that because I submissively followed my husband's decisions (even when I disagreed with them) that I was equally responsible for the the outcome. When they told me that my husband was immature so I would have to be the responsible one--but I still had to follow his headship. Still trying to figure out how that one works.
How about when I lost my "privilege" of commenting at meetings. When asked what I needed to do to get it back, the elders told me that I couldn't earn it back. In the same breath, they needed to see more from me before I got it back. WHAT? WHAT DO YOU NEED TO SEE FROM ME? "Nothing. Stop asking us. You're being unsubmissive by trying to find out."
Ooh, how about the fact that commenting isn't actually a privilege at all? Any Joe can come in off the street, raise his hand and comment. But field service, which is supposed to be such a privilege that only authorized members can partake in it, that I was still supposed to do regularly.
Do these count as cognitive dissonance or am I just listing catch-22s?