-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
What is the difference between head of house and controlling?
- Thread starter OhMyStars
- Start date
There really isn't a specific definition of this.
What some people call being the head, others would call controlling.
I can give you examples from my life, being with a controlling and abusive ex, and then being with my hubby now who is the head, but those examples are specific to me and the people involved. You can't take those examples and apply them to others and then say that behaviour is fine, or that is controlling or whatever.
You also may find yourself that what you would call controlling or completely fine depends on if it's going your way or how you're feeling that day. It's up to hubby to be consistent no matter what.
What some people call being the head, others would call controlling.
I can give you examples from my life, being with a controlling and abusive ex, and then being with my hubby now who is the head, but those examples are specific to me and the people involved. You can't take those examples and apply them to others and then say that behaviour is fine, or that is controlling or whatever.
You also may find yourself that what you would call controlling or completely fine depends on if it's going your way or how you're feeling that day. It's up to hubby to be consistent no matter what.
Everything....I was raised in a home where the father and mother made decisions together, but if mom needed to she would make executive decisions without him, and from my point of view he let her without argument...but I feel like this is different....like completely opposite.
The question cannot be answered, because they are unable to be compared. "Head of house" is a person. "Controlling" is a behaviour. It's like asking "What is the difference between 'sheep' and 'running'?". Sheep run sometimes and sometimes don't, while some things run that are not sheep. Your question as stated makes no sense.
But I think what is in your mind is a different question. Something like "is this specific behaviour acceptable for a husband". Please ask your actual question.
But I think what is in your mind is a different question. Something like "is this specific behaviour acceptable for a husband". Please ask your actual question.
And it all sounds like something to discuss with your husband. I'm also hearing a complaint about your husband, and neither he nor your sister wife are in this discussion to defend themselves or offer further insights.
Not everyone agrees with patriarchy, and not all marriages are based on a patriarchal foundation. I've been married four times and have been involved in numerous configurations. I also have a brother who discusses everything with his wife before they come to a mutual decision about it -- and I mean everything. They also split all chores right down the middle. They take turns cooking supper, and the other one washes the dishes afterward.
I can't stand being around them watching this, because so many other productive or even just downright fun things could be occurring with the time and energy they seriously waste having a discussion over even the least little thing.
And I don't think it's coincidental that he's been living in Antarctica for almost a year as a result of one of their extended discussions, while she stays in Virginia. I wanted to pull my own teeth out just reading one of his lengthy emails describing the weeks-long discussion they had when he wanted to re-up for another year down at the South Pole (or near it, I guess, to be technical). Ultimately, 'they' decided that he could only stay for an additional 6 months, because his wife convinced him he should be there in February for their oldest son's wedding.
All of that is incomprehensible to me, and to the extent that it resembles the way I formerly did things with a couple of my wives, I thank God daily that there was actually a cure for the particular insanity I was formerly afflicted by.
If, @OhMyStars, you didn't want your husband to 'control' you, why did you marry him? There are surely lots of partnery guys floating around out there!
As time has progressed in my life, I have gravitated more and more toward simply doing what works rather than what I believe might be the most enlightened way of doing things. In the Beginning, Adam (the Human Being) was one-flesh within hirself. Then God separated Adam into male and female, but there is a natural law about those two halves that includes generally making the male half more fit for leadership. Sometimes I think of it this way: both arms and legs are extremely valuable members of an individuals body, but, as anyone who is an upper-body-functional paraplegic can tell you, the world isn't well-suited for those without functioning legs. When one who has all one's limbs wants to go somewhere, the legs lead the way. That doesn't mean that the arms are somehow being controlled or oppressed or condescended to. It's just that, even though there are some rare circumstances when dragging oneself by one's hands might make sense, in general it just works a lot better to ambulate with one's legs rather than trying to walk with one's arms.
Not everyone agrees with patriarchy, and not all marriages are based on a patriarchal foundation. I've been married four times and have been involved in numerous configurations. I also have a brother who discusses everything with his wife before they come to a mutual decision about it -- and I mean everything. They also split all chores right down the middle. They take turns cooking supper, and the other one washes the dishes afterward.
I can't stand being around them watching this, because so many other productive or even just downright fun things could be occurring with the time and energy they seriously waste having a discussion over even the least little thing.
And I don't think it's coincidental that he's been living in Antarctica for almost a year as a result of one of their extended discussions, while she stays in Virginia. I wanted to pull my own teeth out just reading one of his lengthy emails describing the weeks-long discussion they had when he wanted to re-up for another year down at the South Pole (or near it, I guess, to be technical). Ultimately, 'they' decided that he could only stay for an additional 6 months, because his wife convinced him he should be there in February for their oldest son's wedding.
All of that is incomprehensible to me, and to the extent that it resembles the way I formerly did things with a couple of my wives, I thank God daily that there was actually a cure for the particular insanity I was formerly afflicted by.
If, @OhMyStars, you didn't want your husband to 'control' you, why did you marry him? There are surely lots of partnery guys floating around out there!
As time has progressed in my life, I have gravitated more and more toward simply doing what works rather than what I believe might be the most enlightened way of doing things. In the Beginning, Adam (the Human Being) was one-flesh within hirself. Then God separated Adam into male and female, but there is a natural law about those two halves that includes generally making the male half more fit for leadership. Sometimes I think of it this way: both arms and legs are extremely valuable members of an individuals body, but, as anyone who is an upper-body-functional paraplegic can tell you, the world isn't well-suited for those without functioning legs. When one who has all one's limbs wants to go somewhere, the legs lead the way. That doesn't mean that the arms are somehow being controlled or oppressed or condescended to. It's just that, even though there are some rare circumstances when dragging oneself by one's hands might make sense, in general it just works a lot better to ambulate with one's legs rather than trying to walk with one's arms.
The head of a house is the one who is in control. How that works depends on the skills and personality of the head and of those under him or her and their needs.
Controlling is the negative emotion laden complaint of those not in control because they think they themselves should be in control instead (esp. in the case of whatever recent decision they disagree with).
In other words, it's negative rhetoric used to denigrate proper male leadership and provide space for wives to flip God's hierarchy on it's head and rule over their husbands.
You mention "executive decisions". This is business language. The executive is the one who makes decisions for a business and issues orders to those under him or her. The executive is 'head' of the company (or business unit) and 'in control'. An executive can, and often does, consult his underlings about his decisions but he has the executive power, meaning he can make decision and orders without their consultation or against their wishes. Hence 'executive decision'. The executive is the business equivalent of a husband in a Godly marriage; both are hierarchical orders.
Controlling is the negative emotion laden complaint of those not in control because they think they themselves should be in control instead (esp. in the case of whatever recent decision they disagree with).
In other words, it's negative rhetoric used to denigrate proper male leadership and provide space for wives to flip God's hierarchy on it's head and rule over their husbands.
You mention "executive decisions". This is business language. The executive is the one who makes decisions for a business and issues orders to those under him or her. The executive is 'head' of the company (or business unit) and 'in control'. An executive can, and often does, consult his underlings about his decisions but he has the executive power, meaning he can make decision and orders without their consultation or against their wishes. Hence 'executive decision'. The executive is the business equivalent of a husband in a Godly marriage; both are hierarchical orders.
Not all the time. Some men are controlling, abusive assholes. I'm not saying that this is the case for the OP, but it is for many women.
Meaning what?
Meaning that when some women use that term, they're correct. They're not just saying it because they didn't get their way and want to be in charge.
To clarify, @rockfox and @FollowingHim2 are talking slightly at cross purposes because of attaching differing emotions to the word "controlling".
@rockfox is correct that "controlling" just means "being in control", which is the correct role of a husband.
However, it is common English usage (especially by women) to use "controlling" in a more narrow, negative sense, to mean "overbearing" or "oppressive" (or as "negative rhetoric" as @rockfox describes it). @FollowingHim2 (and presumably @OhMyStars) are using the word in this negative sense.
And @FollowingHim2 is correct that some men truly are overbearing and oppressive (negative sense of "controlling").
It is important for us to discern between the situations where a woman is rebelling against the righteous authority of her husband by labelling it as "controlling", and the situations where a woman truly is dealing with very negative behaviour that she also describes as "controlling". Both situations do exist. The fact that both can be described with the same word leaves the potential for a lot of misunderstandings.
@rockfox is correct that "controlling" just means "being in control", which is the correct role of a husband.
However, it is common English usage (especially by women) to use "controlling" in a more narrow, negative sense, to mean "overbearing" or "oppressive" (or as "negative rhetoric" as @rockfox describes it). @FollowingHim2 (and presumably @OhMyStars) are using the word in this negative sense.
And @FollowingHim2 is correct that some men truly are overbearing and oppressive (negative sense of "controlling").
It is important for us to discern between the situations where a woman is rebelling against the righteous authority of her husband by labelling it as "controlling", and the situations where a woman truly is dealing with very negative behaviour that she also describes as "controlling". Both situations do exist. The fact that both can be described with the same word leaves the potential for a lot of misunderstandings.
The husband is head of state of his household, with reserve power. He makes emergency rulings, and enforces them, through corporal punishment of his wife and children. He goes to work, and brings home all of his money to his wife.
The wife is head of government, exercising authority in her husband's name. She handles the 3 Ks (children, kitchen, church), and is bound by the Cult of Domesticity. She controls finances, by being put in charge of her husband's checks and debit cards. She also does all the shopping.
The wife is head of government, exercising authority in her husband's name. She handles the 3 Ks (children, kitchen, church), and is bound by the Cult of Domesticity. She controls finances, by being put in charge of her husband's checks and debit cards. She also does all the shopping.
Wow
You really have it regulated.
I don’t find it necessary to operate in that manner.
I base my ideas on the Holy Bible (73 books), and the Government of the United Kingdom. The Government of the United Kingdom is important since it is Israel, and it's people, Israelites. Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, is a direct descendant of King David from the Holy Bible.
I also base my ideas on television shows from the 50s and 60s, especially I Love Lucy, Father Knows Best, the Andy Griffith Show, the Dick Van Duke Show, and etc.
The discussion always seems to precipitate down to control.
I prefer to focus on the concept of responsibility. When all is said and done, who takes responsibility for the problems that arise?
And who stands before Yah in the final reckoning for that family?
I prefer to focus on the concept of responsibility. When all is said and done, who takes responsibility for the problems that arise?
And who stands before Yah in the final reckoning for that family?
You are welcome to your ideas.
Please don’t try to represent them as the epitome of Yah’s plan for everyone else’s lives.
Let me know how that works out for you, that right there is a knee-slapper.
Never did. Households r free to be governed however they like. I'm just stating my personal opinion, based on everything that I've read and watched. There is not one single way for everyone. That is how I choose to preside over my household.
I do give all my money to my mother, and when my fiancee gets back to the States, to my wife. Before I spend my money, I ask my mother for permission. I work over eight hours a day, and give all my money to my mother. After this Covid-19 stuff is over, I'm going back to work offshore.
Last edited: