Marriage doesn't have to be....

[Joleneakamama]

Actually, Saul of Tarsus had dedicated his life to being obedient to God. He had almost achieved it even. God didn’t choose Saul randomly. He was consumed with zeal for his religion and would do anything to live up to it. God could fix Saul’s theological mistakes, but He wanted that obedience and dedication.

There is a huge difference between someone that is sincerely wrong while trying to do right, and someone who selfishly doesn't care about what is right who just wants to be seen by others (believed to be) as righteous.

Those that Jesus got into it with in the temple were double minded at best, because their real hearts got expressed at the end when they said "Well have we said this man is a Samaritan and hath a devil."

 

[paterfamilias]

Very crudely, a shekel is about half an ounce, or 10 Roman denarii (pennies). A denarius was a days wage for a labourer. So 50 shekels would be 500 days wages for a minimum wage employee.

On the other hand, as silver is much cheaper today than ever before in history, 50 shekels or 25 oz of silver is only a few hundred dollars. That is misleading. But if you follow the letter and pay in silver

Sorry; it's just a matter of failure to recognize the trends that would justify a bride price as high as $30K, much less $80K for anyone this side of Jennifer Anniston. The marriage/sexual marketplace has such an overabundance of women that, if anything, women in general need to start coughing up some significant husband prices.

Beginning to feel a little marked down.
First bid over $3.50 has a decent shot

 

[Keith Martin]

Beginning to feel a little marked down.
First bid over $3.50 has a decent shot

Keep in mind that I'm (a) primarily talking about the monogamy-only market, and (b) asserting what should already be the case but hasn't yet come to fruition. In my opinion, @paterfamilias, there should be women out there who would be willing to plant down a sum equal to a year's salary for the privilege of being part of your household.

 

[Bartato]

Keep in mind that I'm (a) primarily talking about the monogamy-only market, and (b) asserting what should already be the case but hasn't yet come to fruition. In my opinion, @paterfamilias, there should be women out there who would be willing to plant down a sum equal to a year's salary for the privilege of being part of your household.

I think I've heard from follownYahsua on YouTube about requiring a woman to basically sign over her bank accounts, and other assets as a condition of entering his household. We do that with Christ right? Lord means Lord.

This is a little different than what you are talking about, but does seem somewhat related.

 

[steve]

there should be women out there who would be willing to plant down a sum equal to a year's salary for the privilege of being part of your household.

You must have gotten to the more heavily saturated portion of the blotter paper.

 

[Keith Martin]

You must have gotten to the more heavily saturated portion of the blotter paper.

Not today; I'm only micro-microdosing as part of a project to correct the last vestiges of the hearing damage I received in November 2019!

Besides, the beauty of blotter has always been that the saturation is very uniform if the original solution has sufficiently liquified.

 

[paterfamilias]

Keep in mind that I'm (a) primarily talking about the monogamy-only market, and (b) asserting what should already be the case but hasn't yet come to fruition. In my opinion, @paterfamilias, there should be women out there who would be willing to plant down a sum equal to a year's salary for the privilege of being part of your household.

Where are all the rich women? I have a proposal to put before you

 

[Hisdaughter]

Very crudely, a shekel is about half an ounce, or 10 Roman denarii (pennies). A denarius was a days wage for a labourer. So 50 shekels would be 500 days wages for a minimum wage employee.

On the other hand, as silver is much cheaper today than ever before in history, 50 shekels or 25 oz of silver is only a few hundred dollars. That is misleading. But if you follow the letter and pay in silver it's currently a low price.

Shouldn't we add in inflation?

 

[LDremoved]

I'm sort of confused, as usual. Is it really ownership if you chose who owns you and you do so willingly?

Maybe it's just the liberal in me but personally I don't even feel the need for words like "submission" or "ownership" in a marriage. Who are we proving it to? Each other? If so then what's the need.

 

[steve]

I'm sort of confused, as usual. Is it really ownership if you chose who owns you and you do so willingly?

Maybe it's just the liberal in me but personally I don't even feel the need for words like "submission" or "ownership" in a marriage. Who are we proving it to? Each other? If so then what's the need.

Submission doesn’t seem like it necessary when there are only two people in the relationship, a loose partnership works ok if there isn’t any selfishness.
But in a family with more than one wife, things can go downhill badly. There has to be an authority structure, and submission to the authority.
It’s just like any job, somebody has to be the boss. Nobody wants a boss, but things don’t work without one.

 

[steve]

Ownership is simply who one belongs to.
Choose your leader/owner wisely, hopefully with Yah’s help.

 

[Keith Martin]

Maybe it's just the liberal in me

Maybe?

Given how being liberal nearly entirely dominated my life from age 18 to 39, and had continued profound influence until age 66, I can hear the countless echoes of having started off a great many sentences myself with that phrase . . .

I'm sort of confused, as usual. Is it really ownership if you chose who owns you and you do so willingly?

. . . At this point, though, I've come to see that it's important to make a number of crucial distinctions in these discussions about patriarchy; one such distinction is around who actually is doing the choosing, and this distinction is validated both by both (a) such progressive notions as "the right of a woman to choose" to end the life of her children between conception and birth, and (b) traditional conservative notions like it being normative and proper for a man to do the proposing.

Both in the past and in the present, women have had the freedom to choose who they have sex with. Even back when daddy owned her and ownership hadn't yet been transferred to her husband, there was nothing a father could do to absolutely prevent his daughters from giving it up to targeted males, and our current jurisprudence, despite Dobbs, still predominantly aligns with females controlling the act of sexual intercourse, ramifications thereof, and illegality of any attempt to take the choice of when she copulates away from her.

But it's not really accurate to assert that in most cases women choose their husbands. Men choose when relationships begin. The girl chooses when sex begins, but the man chooses if and when marriage takes place. It may seem like splitting hairs, but the woman is simply in a position of waiting for a proposal and then either accepting the offer of marriage or declining it. Just as men have no legitimate power to force sex on women, women have no legitimate power to force marriage on men -- and, like the baby and the bathwater, any technical protections associated with unapproved-by-father intercourse have disappeared right along with modern women's freedom to pretend they don't actually need to be covered by men.

I'm definitely not going to split hairs about "ownership;" in the end, it doesn't matter what one calls it, because even in monogamy-only monogamous marriages, the story lines that assert that the man and woman are "mutually submitting," "equal partners," "loving in spiritual balance" or "balanced besties" are pure fairy tale. Of course you don't feel the need for words that accurately nail down the true nature of a type of relationship that stood the test of time until those words were permitted to become fuzzy to the point of near meaninglessness. One can recoil at the concept of being owned, but what that points to is making an individual demand that one truly be self-owned, but self-ownership, to have any tangible meaning, would have to entail being able to take full responsibility for providing everything needed for the upkeep, organization, maintenance, repair and protection of one's entire self. I look around and can find no woman or group solely composed of women who can accomplish that. We've erected governmental structures that provide all those things in such an indirect manner that it makes it easy for recipients to be in denial of where everything actually comes from, but it's undeniably from men. When Moses wrote down Torah, a not insignificant portion of it was intended to put structures in place to protect women. Our postmodern society has almost entirely rejected those structures, but, conveniently, women continue to demand what the structures provided while refusing to participate in their end of the bargain as far as the fulfilling-structures are concerned.

Some would assert that those who accept the largesse of the providers are equally as dependent on those providers as they were back when the providers owned them (ever heard the phrase, "they've just put me back on the government plantation?"), so it ends up becoming a distinction without a difference -- other than that the recipients are free to pretend they have nothing to be grateful for, which, in itself, is a perverse form of self-enslavement.

what's the need

The need for words is fundamentally a reflection of the need for clarity in contracts.

Submission doesn’t seem like it necessary when there are only two people in the relationship, a loose partnership works ok if there isn’t any selfishness.

I laughed when I read that sentence, Steve -- not that your sentiment was inaccurate but at wondering how old I'll have to be when I meet the next "loose partnership" in which "there isn't any selfishness."

Even the relationships that approach such an unreal potential are more Tinder than tender, and I certainly wouldn't label them TTWCM, much less biblical ones.

 

[LDremoved]

Maybe?

Given how being liberal nearly entirely dominated my life from age 18 to 39, and had continued profound influence until age 66, I can hear the countless echoes of having started off a great many sentences myself with that phrase . . .


. . . At this point, though, I've come to see that it's important to make a number of crucial distinctions in these discussions about patriarchy; one such distinction is around who actually is doing the choosing, and this distinction is validated both by both (a) such progressive notions as "the right of a woman to choose" to end the life of her children between conception and birth, and (b) traditional conservative notions like it being normative and proper for a man to do the proposing.

Both in the past and in the present, women have had the freedom to choose who they have sex with. Even back when daddy owned her and ownership hadn't yet been transferred to her husband, there was nothing a father could do to absolutely prevent his daughters from giving it up to targeted males, and our current jurisprudence, despite Dobbs, still predominantly aligns with females controlling the act of sexual intercourse, ramifications thereof, and illegality of any attempt to take the choice of when she copulates away from her.

But it's not really accurate to assert that in most cases women choose their husbands. Men choose when relationships begin. The girl chooses when sex begins, but the man chooses if and when marriage takes place. It may seem like splitting hairs, but the woman is simply in a position of waiting for a proposal and then either accepting the offer of marriage or declining it. Just as men have no legitimate power to force sex on women, women have no legitimate power to force marriage on men -- and, like the baby and the bathwater, any technical protections associated with unapproved-by-father intercourse have disappeared right along with modern women's freedom to pretend they don't actually need to be covered by men.

I'm definitely not going to split hairs about "ownership;" in the end, it doesn't matter what one calls it, because even in monogamy-only monogamous marriages, the story lines that assert that the man and woman are "mutually submitting," "equal partners," "loving in spiritual balance" or "balanced besties" are pure fairy tale. Of course you don't feel the need for words that accurately nail down the true nature of a type of relationship that stood the test of time until those words were permitted to become fuzzy to the point of near meaninglessness. One can recoil at the concept of being owned, but what that points to is making an individual demand that one truly be self-owned, but self-ownership, to have any tangible meaning, would have to entail being able to take full responsibility for providing everything needed for the upkeep, organization, maintenance, repair and protection of one's entire self. I look around and can find no woman or group solely composed of women who can accomplish that. We've erected governmental structures that provide all those things in such an indirect manner that it makes it easy for recipients to be in denial of where everything actually comes from, but it's undeniably from men. When Moses wrote down Torah, a not insignificant portion of it was intended to put structures in place to protect women. Our postmodern society has almost entirely rejected those structures, but, conveniently, women continue to demand what the structures provided while refusing to participate in their end of the bargain as far as the fulfilling-structures are concerned.

Some would assert that those who accept the largesse of the providers are equally as dependent on those providers as they were back when the providers owned them (ever heard the phrase, "they've just put me back on the government plantation?"), so it ends up becoming a distinction without a difference -- other than that the recipients are free to pretend they have nothing to be grateful for, which, in itself, is a perverse form of self-enslavement.

The need for words is fundamentally a reflection of the need for clarity in contracts.


I laughed when I read that sentence, Steve -- not that your sentiment was inaccurate but at wondering how old I'll have to be when I meet the next "loose partnership" in which "there isn't any selfishness."

Even the relationships that approach such an unreal potential are more Tinder than tender, and I certainly wouldn't label them TTWCM, much less biblical ones.

Maybe?

Given how being liberal nearly entirely dominated my life from age 18 to 39, and had continued profound influence until age 66, I can hear the countless echoes of having started off a great many sentences myself with that phrase . . .


. . . At this point, though, I've come to see that it's important to make a number of crucial distinctions in these discussions about patriarchy; one such distinction is around who actually is doing the choosing, and this distinction is validated both by both (a) such progressive notions as "the right of a woman to choose" to end the life of her children between conception and birth, and (b) traditional conservative notions like it being normative and proper for a man to do the proposing.

Both in the past and in the present, women have had the freedom to choose who they have sex with. Even back when daddy owned her and ownership hadn't yet been transferred to her husband, there was nothing a father could do to absolutely prevent his daughters from giving it up to targeted males, and our current jurisprudence, despite Dobbs, still predominantly aligns with females controlling the act of sexual intercourse, ramifications thereof, and illegality of any attempt to take the choice of when she copulates away from her.

But it's not really accurate to assert that in most cases women choose their husbands. Men choose when relationships begin. The girl chooses when sex begins, but the man chooses if and when marriage takes place. It may seem like splitting hairs, but the woman is simply in a position of waiting for a proposal and then either accepting the offer of marriage or declining it. Just as men have no legitimate power to force sex on women, women have no legitimate power to force marriage on men -- and, like the baby and the bathwater, any technical protections associated with unapproved-by-father intercourse have disappeared right along with modern women's freedom to pretend they don't actually need to be covered by men.

I'm definitely not going to split hairs about "ownership;" in the end, it doesn't matter what one calls it, because even in monogamy-only monogamous marriages, the story lines that assert that the man and woman are "mutually submitting," "equal partners," "loving in spiritual balance" or "balanced besties" are pure fairy tale. Of course you don't feel the need for words that accurately nail down the true nature of a type of relationship that stood the test of time until those words were permitted to become fuzzy to the point of near meaninglessness. One can recoil at the concept of being owned, but what that points to is making an individual demand that one truly be self-owned, but self-ownership, to have any tangible meaning, would have to entail being able to take full responsibility for providing everything needed for the upkeep, organization, maintenance, repair and protection of one's entire self. I look around and can find no woman or group solely composed of women who can accomplish that. We've erected governmental structures that provide all those things in such an indirect manner that it makes it easy for recipients to be in denial of where everything actually comes from, but it's undeniably from men. When Moses wrote down Torah, a not insignificant portion of it was intended to put structures in place to protect women. Our postmodern society has almost entirely rejected those structures, but, conveniently, women continue to demand what the structures provided while refusing to participate in their end of the bargain as far as the fulfilling-structures are concerned.

Some would assert that those who accept the largesse of the providers are equally as dependent on those providers as they were back when the providers owned them (ever heard the phrase, "they've just put me back on the government plantation?"), so it ends up becoming a distinction without a difference -- other than that the recipients are free to pretend they have nothing to be grateful for, which, in itself, is a perverse form of self-enslavement.

The need for words is fundamentally a reflection of the need for clarity in contracts.


I laughed when I read that sentence, Steve -- not that your sentiment was inaccurate but at wondering how old I'll have to be when I meet the next "loose partnership" in which "there isn't any selfishness."

Even the relationships that approach such an unreal potential are more Tinder than tender, and I certainly wouldn't label them TTWCM, much less biblical ones.

I was merely giving my personal relationship preferences. For me- actions speak louder than words, in all relationships. For instance i'm submissive and respectful to my parents and older family members yet we don't have to speak about it. There is really no need, the actions are there. The times I see the terms "ownership" and "submission" being used most often are when they're being used to explain the relationship from the outside looking in.

 

[steve]

I laughed when I read that sentence, Steve -- not that your sentiment was inaccurate but at wondering how old I'll have to be when I meet the next "loose partnership" in which "there isn't any selfishness."

Yeah that was me pretending to be reasonable, while providing a clause that is virtually insurmountable.
But the detractors are always pointing out that if people were perfect, there isn’t any need for _______, fill in the blank. But they can never provide those perfect people.

 

[Keith Martin]

I was merely giving my personal relationship preferences. For me- actions speak louder than words, in all relationships. For instance i'm submissive and respectful to my parents and older family members yet we don't have to speak about it. There is really no need, the actions are there. The times I see the terms "ownership" and "submission" being used most often are when they're being used to explain the relationship from the outside looking in.

@LovesDogs, you and I probably have many similar preferences in regard to personal relationships; for example, the term 'ownership' itself doesn't completely resonate with me and my desires. However, I'm confused about what your point is when you point out that certain terms are used to explain a relationship from the outside looking in. The alternative, based on the example you provided about submission toward your parents and other older family members, would be explaining a relationship from the inside looking within, correct? I believe I get what you mean about the lack of need for internal definition, but that begs two questions:

1. You're questioning the use of the term 'submission' from the outside looking in, and I suppose we could consider personal testimonials to be examples of going from the inside looking out, but aren't intra-familial communications outside the purview of the bounds of forum discussions on a website like this? I mean, we don't have videocams set up in everyone's households for the purpose of observinig exactly what goes on within everyone's relationships, right? Isn't it the natural state of affairs for those of us meeting online to discuss the implementation and/or the efficacy of terms such as 'submission' from the outside looking in?
2. When you assert that you don't have to speak about submission re: your postures toward your senior family members, isn't it likely that this is primarily the case because it's a non-issue, given that you're already being submissive? Isn't it quite possible that, if you were cantankerous and/or rebellious and/or contrary with your parents or your aunties that the term 'submission' and its lack thereof could conceivably come up in your internal conversations with them? Or are you asserting that everyone would either use different terms or entirely skirt around calling a spade a spade?

I have to thank you for your many questions. You inspire me to think things through, and I appreciate the degree to which it helps me learn more about where I want to point the helm in my own journey.

 

[LDremoved]

@LovesDogs, you and I probably have many similar preferences in regard to personal relationships; for example, the term 'ownership' itself doesn't completely resonate with me and my desires. However, I'm confused about what your point is when you point out that certain terms are used to explain a relationship from the outside looking in. The alternative, based on the example you provided about submission toward your parents and other older family members, would be explaining a relationship from the inside looking within, correct? I believe I get what you mean about the lack of need for internal definition, but that begs two questions:

1. You're questioning the use of the term 'submission' from the outside looking in, and I suppose we could consider personal testimonials to be examples of going from the inside looking out, but aren't intra-familial communications outside the purview of the bounds of forum discussions on a website like this? I mean, we don't have videocams set up in everyone's households for the purpose of observinig exactly what goes on within everyone's relationships, right? Isn't it the natural state of affairs for those of us meeting online to discuss the implementation and/or the efficacy of terms such as 'submission' from the outside looking in?
2. When you assert that you don't have to speak about submission re: your postures toward your senior family members, isn't it likely that this is primarily the case because it's a non-issue, given that you're already being submissive? Isn't it quite possible that, if you were cantankerous and/or rebellious and/or contrary with your parents or your aunties that the term 'submission' and its lack thereof could conceivably come up in your internal conversations with them? Or are you asserting that everyone would either use different terms or entirely skirt around calling a spade a spade?

I have to thank you for your many questions. You inspire me to think things through, and I appreciate the degree to which it helps me learn more about where I want to point the helm in my own journey.

When I say "outside looking in" i'm referring to people within the marriage explaining the context of their marriage to others. I just thought it sort of silly for a husband and a wife/wives to sit around discussing ownership and submission in a marriage that they're already in themselves. Unless some sort of issue arises that needs to be discussed.

I don't mind if that's what others do but for myself- it's not the fear of calling a spade a spade, it's just about actions that already exist within the marriage.

Ownership is simply who one belongs to.
Choose your leader/owner wisely, hopefully with Yah’s help.

Definitely, but what caused my confusion is that our father's no longer make the choice for us. Combined with the fact that women also have the ability to leave the marriage and provide for themselves afterwards. It just seems like the word "ownership" doesn't hold as much weight presently. I understand that the leadership/owner roles within the marriage are still the same but I can't pretend that they're being used under similar circumstances.

 

[frederick]

I can't pretend that they're being used under similar circumstances.

Yes, that is much of the difficulty we face. People don't do marriage how God says marriage is to work/function. Men don't (want to) lead, women don't (want to) submit, people want to divorce, so ownership means nothing. The word "marriage" means something completely different in contemporary Western culture to what it meant as the Bible was being written (and how those who lived at that time practiced marriage).

God made man and woman and He defines the terms of their relationship. People need to get with His plan and program rather than trying to change it, but just because they don't doesn't mean He will or has changed.

 

[Joleneakamama]

I don't mind if that's what others do but for myself- it's not the fear of calling a spade a spade, it's just about actions that already exist within the marriage.

You tend to figure out what works and what doesn't, if you live with someone long enough, but even with the best of intentions and a desire to have a biblically modeled marriage I/we still had things to work through....and I still learned (and am learning) some things the hard way.
Bringing every thought captive is sometimes a challenge, and some thoughts can really grow some obstacles in your mind!

God made man and woman and He defines the terms of their relationship. People need to get with His plan and program rather than trying to change it, but just because they don't doesn't mean He will or has changed.

It is incredible how pervasive television programing can be. The holy grove (hollywood) where they worship sin (movies that glorify theft, adultery, homosexuality, feminism, etc.) is sadly where many get their views about life and marriage from. This coupled with spending most of their time with peers who are as young and dumb as they are leads to many not having a clue how to do what we call marriage. So many broken homes and broken hearts.....and sending the next generation to school means the disfunction gets perpetuated.

You can no way teach your children the way that YHWH instructs you too if you send them to school.

The most important thing you can teach them is that YHWH lives and His laws are really what governs His world.

Showing evidence that we believe involves so much more then going to a church (we don't).
The real worship happens in our day to day lives. It is how we conduct business, how we treat our neighbors, and of course how we treat those closest to us.

 

[steve]

When I say "outside looking in" i'm referring to people within the marriage explaining the context of their marriage to others. I just thought it sort of silly for a husband and a wife/wives to sit around discussing ownership and submission in a marriage that they're already in themselves. Unless some sort of issue arises that needs to be discussed.

I don't mind if that's what others do but for myself- it's not the fear of calling a spade a spade, it's just about actions that already exist within the marriage.



Definitely, but what caused my confusion is that our father's no longer make the choice for us. Combined with the fact that women also have the ability to leave the marriage and provide for themselves afterwards. It just seems like the word "ownership" doesn't hold as much weight presently. I understand that the leadership/owner roles within the marriage are still the same but I can't pretend that they're being used under similar circumstances.

Yes, that is much of the difficulty we face. People don't do marriage how God says marriage is to work/function. Men don't (want to) lead, women don't (want to) submit, people want to divorce, so ownership means nothing. The word "marriage" means something completely different in contemporary Western culture to what it meant as the Bible was being written (and how those who lived at that time practiced marriage).

God made man and woman and He defines the terms of their relationship. People need to get with His plan and program rather than trying to change it, but just because they don't doesn't mean He will or has changed.

LD, you seem to pretty much make up your own definitions for the words that we use.
Those definitions aren’t helpful for understanding what we are doing.

 

[Keith Martin]

When I say "outside looking in" i'm referring to people within the marriage explaining the context of their marriage to others. I just thought it sort of silly for a husband and a wife/wives to sit around discussing ownership and submission in a marriage that they're already in themselves. Unless some sort of issue arises that needs to be discussed.

OK, we were talking about two different things. By "outside looking in," I was assuming outsiders looking in and judging what is going on, in which case using terms that encapsulate what could otherwise require several paragraphs of description. I totally agree with you that this kind of encapsulating would generally be overly awkward (even more awkward than the semantics of this sentence) for a man and his woman as they discussed the nature of their relationship, most especially because the two would have likely addressed issues one at a time at the micro level. For example, a man would only need to even mention a term like 'submission' if his woman had, over a lengthy period of time, stubbornly resisted comprehending all of the subcomponents of what, taken together, demonstrated refusal to submit -- or if, as in my case, in addition to resistance to submit, the man has abdicated his leadership responsibilities so thoroughly for so long that both he and his woman need to start from a foundation of using such a complex term in order to begin the mutual learning process.

When only small things are out of whack, getting polysyllablic is counterproductive, but when so many small things have been permitted to get out of whack, often it's necessary to use a bigger hammer in order to escape getting caught up in playing whack-a-mole.

Yes, that is much of the difficulty we face. People don't do marriage how God says marriage is to work/function. Men don't (want to) lead, women don't (want to) submit, people want to divorce, so ownership means nothing. The word "marriage" means something completely different in contemporary Western culture to what it meant as the Bible was being written (and how those who lived at that time practiced marriage).

God made man and woman and He defines the terms of their relationship. People need to get with His plan and program rather than trying to change it, but just because they don't doesn't mean He will or has changed.

^^^ What he said ^^^

I understand that the leadership/owner roles within the marriage are still the same but I can't pretend that they're being used under similar circumstances.

No one is demanding that you pretend anything (in fact, the opposite is the case). We all recognize that the culture we swim in is very different from the cultures those who penned Scripture were swimming in, but what hasn't changed is the wisdom behind what's included therein. Even with ownership. Feminism does its best to point to the minority of features where they believe feminism presents a positive alternative to the passing of responsibility for females from father to husband, but, in the Big Picture, most of those arguments only function as purposeful distraction from the evidence that women left to their own devices are suffering far more profoundly than they did from the lack of total freedom they experienced in those 'ancient' times.

Don't pretend that things are the same, but, also, don't pretend that being unmoored from leadership and covering is a bed of roses.

Combined with the fact that women also have the ability to leave the marriage and provide for themselves afterwards.

Which is a canard. The truth of the matter is that we now live in a culture in which women have the freedom to leave the marriage but not necessarily the ability to do so, evidenced by the fact that only one in a million uncovered women truly provides for herself. Our culture just lets women live in delusion, under the illusion that they are "providing for themselves." Women who don't want to be under the leadership of any man don't even go to the trouble of forming a network among such women who provide everything for each other. If one had to bet one way or the other, the safe bet would be that women couldn't possibly provide for themselves, even collectively. Instead, women simply spread out their dependency among large contingencies of men in their life, more often than not extending that to the men-funded largesse of various government programs, depending full tilt on a swath of men for what they want to pretend they didn't need to depend on from their husbands.

And the point of engaging in this pure lunacy is to divorce oneself from the need for gratitude in order to escape being held accountable for the responsibilities of demonstrating that gratitude.