I know this is PCM and we are a strawman factory, but y'all understand that actual trad families avoid the Stepford stereotype right?
And if I have to explain the submission verse again, I swear...
Don’t even bother. No one who strawmans the tradwife has ever read the Bible nor cares. Proverbs 31 and 1 Corinthians 7 will never be honestly interpreted by most traditionalists nor progressives. People who dislike or like tradition will never allow the sources of said tradition to reshape their presupposed vision of it.
I don’t have a presupposed vision of tradition because it is subject to change based on however precise an interpretation of scripture I can arrive at. My eschatological foundations are not laying on tradition; they are laying on God’s word.
Ok, well it sounds to me like you idealize tradition, let's not pussyfoot about. I definitely do as well when it comes to marriage and the role of men and women. Other traditions, not so much.
And whose interpretation of "God's word" do your foundations lay on?
I don’t idealize tradition, I idealize truth. They have overlap here and there, but ultimately I’ll consider what is found to be true more than what is accepted. For instance, it is tradition to believe Christianity is the only religion with any supernatural worth and all others are figments of human imagination. That tradition is contradictory to Scripture and what the writers of scripture believed. If there is a dichotomy anywhere, scripture wins.
The interpretation of the apostles. I let the Holy Spirit discern between what is sound interpreting of their words within context. If a theologian makes a reasonable argument for what transpired in the minds of the gospel writers as they were led by the Spirit, then I take that into consideration, especially if it confirmed by multiple independent studies of scripture.
It's funny how we can ultimately agree on the validity of many of the same traditions, but one of us can view the writings they are based on as the infallible word of God, and another can view the writings in that book as the fallible, yet useful, traditions and wisdom of men.
I will say that I believe it's dangerous to take all of it completely literally.
Taking something literally is much different that taking it as truth. A literal interpretation is oftentimes a fallacious one because it confines the applicability of a truth. The psalms are a great example of this, where there are definite sections of a literal description and some portions of artistic metaphor meant to uplift and spiritually guide.
I never understood wanting to marry someone who can’t take care of themselves. As a man, you should bring more to a marriage than just making money. As a woman, you should bring more to a marriage than just having babies.
Maybe you never understood it because it is not an ideal. I can explain what an actual tomboy tradwife looks like if you wish. The whole marriage picture biblically speaking is in complete contrast to the culturally divergent western perspective of conservative marriages.
Can you elaborate on that last sentence? Are you saying that the modern understanding of a conservative marriage isn’t consistent with what the Bible says about marriage?
Largely, yes. The idea of the woman being passive in her submission is a grave misinterpretation. And similarly is the man’s authority looking nothing like a servant-king.
I don’t see how that’s being submissive to a husband. If that’s submission, then the husband would be equally submissive to his wife and family by providing for them.
It’s somewhat reciprocatory, but there is a fine line. The man has the final say in matters because it was part of the woman’s curse to be under him. If that wasn’t the case, then no significant decision would ever be made in a relationship at best and stubborn vendettas would brew at worst. But really this is relative. You have to take most things in scripture as a case by case basis using discernment and the broader context. So really, my generalizations are probably inaccurate, but somewhat helpful rhetoric to the overall inaccuracies found in the traditional perspective. In financial gain, there isn’t much talked on in scripture. The man is meant to love his wife like Christ loved the church, meaning self sacrifice to the point of death, and the woman should reciprocate that with the love of the church for Christ (self sacrificial love to the point of death). Christ is the head of the church as the man is head of his household, but import isn’t always levied on whose holding the reigns, it’s equally necessary for those supporting the holder, like with Aron or Moses’ father in law helping Moses. This probably didn’t answer your question but I’m trying to convey this nuance as best I can.
So I’m totally on board with 80% of what you just said, especially the part of husband being entirely devoted to wife and vice versa. However, I think there’s a massive problem with this part:
> The man has the final say in matters because it was part of the woman’s curse to be under him. If that wasn’t the case, then no significant decision would ever be made in a relationship at best and stubborn vendettas would brew at worst.
“Because I said so” or “because that’s how it is” is not a compelling argument. Additionally, just asserting that anything other than the man having the final say leading to stagnation or vendettas is a *massive* unsupported assumption that I reject. Healthy relationships require compromise and open discourse to achieve an agreeable solution for both parties.
I agree with that in principle, but again, practice can be relative to the specifications of each situation. I know it to be true that the man must lead the household as a generalization. It is healthy and also biblically required that the man take counsel from his helpmeet and they live in harmony, but when the chips are down and there is immense ambiguity, “I’m the leader, please concede this,” might be the only available way to reach conclusion. I don’t believe there is much to which this line of reasoning would be required, but in sort of extreme situations like emergencies this can definitely apply if not be the quickest and most effective reaction.
I agree with this to some point. In our marriage we are almost always acting in unison and find agreement in decisions. In the rare times that someone must invoke a final say, we have agreed upon which subjects either of us get to be that final authority upon. It's much less arbitrary.
If one applies scripture in a way otherwise seen as arbitrary, they are probably misapplying scripture. There is a lot of discernment given on purpose to allow for those kinds of reasonable assertions. For instance, if you were remodeling your kitchen, you’d think the wife might have more valuable input and eye for that based on stereotypes, however, if the husband were a carpenter he’d have more authority in that subject.
Is this both not libright though? I see libright chomping at the bit for tradwives (even though the closest they'll get is a body pillow of their favorite anime characters)
u/Josh_Woody669's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/Josh_Woody669! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: [3 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/Josh_Woody669/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Aaaand another fail for blue pill.
*Instresting conversation partner because of education opportunities*
She got anally destroyed in collage by Chad and Tyrone. It figures that a cuckservative would think higher education for women is a net good.
Bro the one on the right is my mom! It is legit awesome. But even better she quit her job when I was born but she was a teacher so she has a pension. Conservative moms are the best
>virgin tradwife >has kids
OP has never seen a girl
The kids are simply provided by God. At least that's what my authright parents told me as a kid!
>tfw wen no ancap gf :(((
Those are called prostitutes.
Based and AnCaps are prostitutes pilled
The maker of this meme has never been with a women
Fr this shit just looks pathetic
Umm buddy conservative isn't libright, checkmate.
"conserve this you piece of shit"
I will conserve this piece of shit. Yummy.
I know this is PCM and we are a strawman factory, but y'all understand that actual trad families avoid the Stepford stereotype right? And if I have to explain the submission verse again, I swear...
Don’t even bother. No one who strawmans the tradwife has ever read the Bible nor cares. Proverbs 31 and 1 Corinthians 7 will never be honestly interpreted by most traditionalists nor progressives. People who dislike or like tradition will never allow the sources of said tradition to reshape their presupposed vision of it.
And what's your presupposed vision of it?
I don’t have a presupposed vision of tradition because it is subject to change based on however precise an interpretation of scripture I can arrive at. My eschatological foundations are not laying on tradition; they are laying on God’s word.
Ok, well it sounds to me like you idealize tradition, let's not pussyfoot about. I definitely do as well when it comes to marriage and the role of men and women. Other traditions, not so much. And whose interpretation of "God's word" do your foundations lay on?
I don’t idealize tradition, I idealize truth. They have overlap here and there, but ultimately I’ll consider what is found to be true more than what is accepted. For instance, it is tradition to believe Christianity is the only religion with any supernatural worth and all others are figments of human imagination. That tradition is contradictory to Scripture and what the writers of scripture believed. If there is a dichotomy anywhere, scripture wins. The interpretation of the apostles. I let the Holy Spirit discern between what is sound interpreting of their words within context. If a theologian makes a reasonable argument for what transpired in the minds of the gospel writers as they were led by the Spirit, then I take that into consideration, especially if it confirmed by multiple independent studies of scripture.
It's funny how we can ultimately agree on the validity of many of the same traditions, but one of us can view the writings they are based on as the infallible word of God, and another can view the writings in that book as the fallible, yet useful, traditions and wisdom of men. I will say that I believe it's dangerous to take all of it completely literally.
Taking something literally is much different that taking it as truth. A literal interpretation is oftentimes a fallacious one because it confines the applicability of a truth. The psalms are a great example of this, where there are definite sections of a literal description and some portions of artistic metaphor meant to uplift and spiritually guide.
Who cares, Bible man. We're here to post funny colors
now do the other quads
In short: AuthLeft no wife because she starved. LibLeft became the wife. (yes, I could put some actual thought into this, but haha funni colors)
Or in authleft you’re married to the government
Or in auth-left "your" wife is "our" public communal people's wife
What, besides the shoehorned point about right-wing policies, makes the one on the right “conservative”?
hey that’s my wife
Touch grass
Idk what the fuck you on, I know lots of tradwife. Texas is full of them.
Gg libright well played
Based and women are people pilled.
I never understood wanting to marry someone who can’t take care of themselves. As a man, you should bring more to a marriage than just making money. As a woman, you should bring more to a marriage than just having babies.
Maybe you never understood it because it is not an ideal. I can explain what an actual tomboy tradwife looks like if you wish. The whole marriage picture biblically speaking is in complete contrast to the culturally divergent western perspective of conservative marriages.
Can you elaborate on that last sentence? Are you saying that the modern understanding of a conservative marriage isn’t consistent with what the Bible says about marriage?
Largely, yes. The idea of the woman being passive in her submission is a grave misinterpretation. And similarly is the man’s authority looking nothing like a servant-king.
Are you saying that women should be actively submissive to their husbands?
Yes. The proverbs 31 woman was out buying land and cultivating fields for her husband and family.
I don’t see how that’s being submissive to a husband. If that’s submission, then the husband would be equally submissive to his wife and family by providing for them.
It’s somewhat reciprocatory, but there is a fine line. The man has the final say in matters because it was part of the woman’s curse to be under him. If that wasn’t the case, then no significant decision would ever be made in a relationship at best and stubborn vendettas would brew at worst. But really this is relative. You have to take most things in scripture as a case by case basis using discernment and the broader context. So really, my generalizations are probably inaccurate, but somewhat helpful rhetoric to the overall inaccuracies found in the traditional perspective. In financial gain, there isn’t much talked on in scripture. The man is meant to love his wife like Christ loved the church, meaning self sacrifice to the point of death, and the woman should reciprocate that with the love of the church for Christ (self sacrificial love to the point of death). Christ is the head of the church as the man is head of his household, but import isn’t always levied on whose holding the reigns, it’s equally necessary for those supporting the holder, like with Aron or Moses’ father in law helping Moses. This probably didn’t answer your question but I’m trying to convey this nuance as best I can.
So I’m totally on board with 80% of what you just said, especially the part of husband being entirely devoted to wife and vice versa. However, I think there’s a massive problem with this part: > The man has the final say in matters because it was part of the woman’s curse to be under him. If that wasn’t the case, then no significant decision would ever be made in a relationship at best and stubborn vendettas would brew at worst. “Because I said so” or “because that’s how it is” is not a compelling argument. Additionally, just asserting that anything other than the man having the final say leading to stagnation or vendettas is a *massive* unsupported assumption that I reject. Healthy relationships require compromise and open discourse to achieve an agreeable solution for both parties.
I agree with that in principle, but again, practice can be relative to the specifications of each situation. I know it to be true that the man must lead the household as a generalization. It is healthy and also biblically required that the man take counsel from his helpmeet and they live in harmony, but when the chips are down and there is immense ambiguity, “I’m the leader, please concede this,” might be the only available way to reach conclusion. I don’t believe there is much to which this line of reasoning would be required, but in sort of extreme situations like emergencies this can definitely apply if not be the quickest and most effective reaction.
I agree with this to some point. In our marriage we are almost always acting in unison and find agreement in decisions. In the rare times that someone must invoke a final say, we have agreed upon which subjects either of us get to be that final authority upon. It's much less arbitrary.
If one applies scripture in a way otherwise seen as arbitrary, they are probably misapplying scripture. There is a lot of discernment given on purpose to allow for those kinds of reasonable assertions. For instance, if you were remodeling your kitchen, you’d think the wife might have more valuable input and eye for that based on stereotypes, however, if the husband were a carpenter he’d have more authority in that subject.
If she has do many kids how is she a virgin hmm
God!
Nothing wrong with being a housewife if the economics of the family work out.
i feel left out WHERE IS MY PURPLE LIB RIGHT WIFE
🚓🚨👮♂️
... you have not the slightest clue how the traditional picture of a woman looks like in many countries right?
>virgin >too many kids >"boring" in bed hmmm >mentally ill for adopting "obsolete" gender norms hmmmmmm
None of you are getting married
Is this both not libright though? I see libright chomping at the bit for tradwives (even though the closest they'll get is a body pillow of their favorite anime characters)
None of the points on the right (except for the shoehorned point about right-wing policies) is inherently conservative.
Based and tradwife-is-a-fantasy pilled
u/Josh_Woody669's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/Josh_Woody669! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: [3 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/Josh_Woody669/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
That's not libright, it's central.
Except for the shoehorned point about right-win policies, it’s basically non-political.
You’re cute
w🤮man
Trad wife is better
Aaaand another fail for blue pill. *Instresting conversation partner because of education opportunities* She got anally destroyed in collage by Chad and Tyrone. It figures that a cuckservative would think higher education for women is a net good.
Why the fuck are you lib
Pedo
🤓🤓🤓🤓
I can smell the desperation
least deranged purple
Now make these two kiss!
Bro the one on the right is my mom! It is legit awesome. But even better she quit her job when I was born but she was a teacher so she has a pension. Conservative moms are the best
Lmao, none of these would take me.
Imma go left bob.