I think it depends on the situation. Things like what school to send your kids to - I think is a decision you make together. Things like wearing socks, I would say if the husband says he wants you to - then you do.
My husband is the head of house - which means that if I don't know what to do - I ask him and what ever he says I do. for ex. I'm not sure when I want my girls to stop wearing short sleeves or I wasnt sure when to put them in skirts. so I ask my dh (happens to be - he didnt know either - so he asked our rav) but assuming he decided that at 4 they have to wear skirts, I would've switched them even if I thought at 3 or at 5... It also means that he can say in this house we are going to do x and we will all listen.
I think as a mother, we make all the small decisions by ourself. and im happy to give over the tough decisions to my husband as head of the household.
That's because sof kol sof, ruchniyus is the man's domain, the domestic/gashmiyus decisions are the wives'. So inyanei chinuch/nanhagos are ultimately decided upon by the husband...
(This was a whole 'nother thread I participated in in the past; no need to rehash it unless we have run out of fuel here.)
Who says this and why did I never learn such a thing? Really. The first time I ever heard that was on this site.
You participated in that thread too
It is based on a gemara that says a man should bend down to his wife. It is interpreted to mean that the upper things (ruchniyus) is his domain, he should bow down to the lower realm (gashmiyus/domestic) things to his wife and listen to her on that.
Let me tell you if women would just marry kollel wives it would solve many of our problems.
1) no more BC
2) two multitaskers
3) kollels would finally put in women's bathrooms
4) could use one big bed all the time
5) both partners would know how to sort laundry well
6) could have matching sheitls for both members of the couple!
Shabbat, why do you think that the fact that a man is the head of the family means that he makes decisions on his own without consulting his wife and taking her feelings very much into consideration? No one ever said that, just the opposite. Over and over. You just seem to be missing that...too much packing and too hot, huh?
Seriously, I truly believe that if you don't have a clear "head of the family" there is a problem with derekh eretz. Because you can't have two tops or two heads. It just doesn't work. That's a commune and we all know what happened to that system...because there has to be a sense of responsibility that goes along with it.
We have friends where she worked at many jobs for a long time, much more than I ever did, and her husband never kept a job and she really had to take over a lot of the parnosseh until after many years he got on his feet. It really destroyed her, she had no life for years. We once came home from them and I said to my dh that with all my koyach and organization, I don't know how I would have been able to survive the kind of life that she had to lead. And his comment was simple. That had it been him (the husband), he would have taken a job sweeping offices all night long in addition to his day job so that his wife would not have to work as she did for pennies just to keep them afloat. As he said, "that's the husband's responsibility". That's what the head of the family does because as much as the woman does so much domestic and so much family and so much other stuff...the bottom line of "responsibility for the family" is that of the "head of the family" meaning the father. If someone is going to have to "kill himself" to keep them solvent, the father should at least feel that it is his responsibilty first and foremost and not that of his wife.
Barbara there are issues that there is no "compromise " possible for. There is "giving in" but that's not compromise. So the question is, who gives in? And what if there is no question of "convincing"? The moving maybe is a bad example because it's possible to say "you move to lithuania and it will take me a year to wind up my practice but I will do it" and not move immediately. I'm trying to think of an example where there is no room for compromise. Here's one. Your husband's shita is that only a sheitl can be a kissui rosh (like lubavitch) while your shita is like Rav Ovadia, that a sheitl is forbidden as a kissui rosh.
So. What do you do? You can say that halochically a woman is required in such things to go by her husband's minhogim unless they decide as a couple that..."they will decide each case as a couple". But if they don't? Then she is required to wear a sheitl. Even Rav Ovadia will say that, albeit with some kind of sidecrack about ashkenazim, as is his way...a biting sense of humor he has in spades even at 90, Boruch Hashem.
And so...what does one do then according to you? And if the man is adamant and won't give in, because here there is no "compromise", only giving in...
Ruchel the whole idea of a woman being mufkad (in charge of) BC according to this shita is that she DOES hide it. Hide what she uses and when she uses it. Because the minute she doesn't she opens a pandora's box halochically. That's the issue.
As for the wall, no one said anything was set in stone, that was some posters incorrect "take" on a statement that the husband is the head of the household. The "head" can also defer to his wife, he can consult with her and a mensch will ALWAYS consult with his wife. If he isn't a mensch...don't marry him. Some men you can see that they are menschen in 20 seconds. My dh is like that. He said three sentences to me in a corridor when my co worker introduced us...and I knew that he was 1) cute 2) funny 3) smart 4) witty 5) deep 6) knowledgeable 7) good mannered 8) menschlich 9) my future husband!
Well, I think that moving is a perfect example. Because if your husband is the head of your household, you would say, yes dear, I'm packing now. Not wind up your practice (which is meaningless in light of your husband's command).
There is almost always a compromise position. Wear a sheitl when with the husband or his family, and a hat when at work or with friends. Send to school X, but place restrictions on certain things that make it more similar to school Y. I hate dark gray cars; he hates white; we buy silver, which isn't the favorite of either one of us, but we can both live with. But where there is no way to compromise, that's where respect for one another comes in. Its where sometimes I say that while I would prefer Thing 1, the opposite is much more meaningful and important to my husband, so I'll agree. And when Thing 2 is more important to me, he'll say OK even if he'd prefer something else. Neither of us always wins, no matter what the category. By the same token, neither of us always loses.
I'm not criticizing. If giving in to your husband, and being, for lack of a better word, subservient to his wishes, is what makes you happy, enjoy. There's even a bestseller about it. But that's not the kind of relationship I would ever want, or ever be happy with, and I would never have married any man who wanted that.
Shabbat, why do you think that the fact that a man is the head of the family means that he makes decisions on his own without consulting his wife and taking her feelings very much into consideration? No one ever said that, just the opposite. Over and over. You just seem to be missing that...too much packing and too hot, huh?
Seriously, I truly believe that if you don't have a clear "head of the family" there is a problem with derekh eretz. Because you can't have two tops or two heads. It just doesn't work. That's a commune and we all know what happened to that system...because there has to be a sense of responsibility that goes along with it.
Problem with derech eretz? Please explain, I dont understand what you re saying.
And yes, you can have two tops. It does work, very nicely in fact. Why is that a commune?
(boy am I going to miss this thread. we are moving in two days and the internet is being shut off tomorrow and we wont be getting new internet in our new place until monday )
Shabbat, why do you think that the fact that a man is the head of the family means that he makes decisions on his own without consulting his wife and taking her feelings very much into consideration? No one ever said that, just the opposite. Over and over. You just seem to be missing that...too much packing and too hot, huh?
Seriously, I truly believe that if you don't have a clear "head of the family" there is a problem with derekh eretz. Because you can't have two tops or two heads. It just doesn't work. That's a commune and we all know what happened to that system...because there has to be a sense of responsibility that goes along with it.
We have friends where she worked at many jobs for a long time, much more than I ever did, and her husband never kept a job and she really had to take over a lot of the parnosseh until after many years he got on his feet. It really destroyed her, she had no life for years. We once came home from them and I said to my dh that with all my koyach and organization, I don't know how I would have been able to survive the kind of life that she had to lead. And his comment was simple. That had it been him (the husband), he would have taken a job sweeping offices all night long in addition to his day job so that his wife would not have to work as she did for pennies just to keep them afloat. As he said, "that's the husband's responsibility". That's what the head of the family does because as much as the woman does so much domestic and so much family and so much other stuff...the bottom line of "responsibility for the family" is that of the "head of the family" meaning the father. If someone is going to have to "kill himself" to keep them solvent, the father should at least feel that it is his responsibilty first and foremost and not that of his wife.
that's all part of being the head of the family.
First, how much the husband takes his wife's opinions into account is a subjective matter. Bottom line, you are saying, is the husband makes the decision. And yes, there are many times in married life where it seems like there is no middle ground, and spouses struggle to somehow come to terms with a decision. Sometimes one person 'wins', sometimes the other, in situations where there really is no compromise. And somehow I find it hard to believe that many wives out there would ultimately defer to their husbands if they suddenly insisted it's time to run away from the rat race and live in Costa Rica. Insisted for months and years.....how many women would pack everything up and go because he must know better?
I don't live like that. In fact, I would rather divorce than live like that. If I wanted a father figure I would have remained at home.
As for your second point above.....that's all very manly, but honestly in today's world both men and women often work their backs off to keep their families afloat. I rarely see women languishing about while their husbands take on three jobs. Women too work very, very hard, whether in the home or out. In fact, many women work just as hard outside of the home as their dhs, and in such cases, I think it's crucial the dh helps out at home (to return to an earlier discussion on this thread). That doesn't mean he can't learn in the evenings, but it does mean that to be a mensch and prevent his wife from becoming the shmatta you mention above, he needs to put major effort and time in helping out with supper and cleaning and baths (again, if both spouses work f/t).
OK ladies, our 122 pages made enough of a commotion that it hit the president's office! The Obama administration has a fringe group that monitors the web to see what's on the mind of the American people. Being alarmed by a specific thread on a message board for Jewish women that was getting non-stop hits, they checked it out. They read through all the pages and had a meeting to analyze the issue and see how they can be of assistance. Funding camp was immediately ruled out, since it runs into church-state separation. So they came up with offering free birth control!!!!
As of January 2013, insurance companies must now pay fully for any choice of BC!!!!!
Heard about that Kitov, didn't know we had so much impact.
We aren't talking about a husband saying out of the blue "we are moving to Costa Rica". That is rare. But someone has to make the final decision and the question is whether the wife agrees or files for divorce or separation. That, too, happens.
There is no "compromise" in certain things. Like what, We will keep kosher at home and treif outside? And if you don't want to eat treif then don't eat but watch me eat treif? How many men will be willing to have their kids raised like that?
Most things if spouses have checked things out before marriage and haven't changed their shitos, are known in advance. If someone changes, as Ruchel said, that's a very different story and can be a deal breaker in a marriage. But I don't see all the problems and I don't see it as "deferring" but rather as derekh eretz. Isn't the man supposed to be the head of the family traditionally, halochically, and in all Jewish senses? Isn't that the way it has always been since time immemorial? It's only feminism which has changed that declaratively. So what many of you are saying is that you are feminists and you put that above judaism, am I understanding you correctly? Because in Yiddishkeit there is NO compromise in terms of things like sheitl, if the shita is that ONLY a sheilt is acceptable no man in that shita will accept a wife who will wear a sheitl when she is with him but allow her to wear a hat and not a sheitl otherwise. Or vice versa in the case of a shita which keeps that sheitls are totally ossur for any and every reason.
Heard about that Kitov, didn't know we had so much impact.
We aren't talking about a husband saying out of the blue "we are moving to Costa Rica". That is rare. But someone has to make the final decision and the question is whether the wife agrees or files for divorce or separation. That, too, happens.
There is no "compromise" in certain things. Like what, We will keep kosher at home and treif outside? And if you don't want to eat treif then don't eat but watch me eat treif? How many men will be willing to have their kids raised like that?
Most things if spouses have checked things out before marriage and haven't changed their shitos, are known in advance. If someone changes, as Ruchel said, that's a very different story and can be a deal breaker in a marriage. But I don't see all the problems and I don't see it as "deferring" but rather as derekh eretz. Isn't the man supposed to be the head of the family traditionally, halochically, and in all Jewish senses? Isn't that the way it has always been since time immemorial? It's only feminism which has changed that declaratively. So what many of you are saying is that you are feminists and you put that above judaism, am I understanding you correctly? Because in Yiddishkeit there is NO compromise in terms of things like sheitl, if the shita is that ONLY a sheilt is acceptable no man in that shita will accept a wife who will wear a sheitl when she is with him but allow her to wear a hat and not a sheitl otherwise. Or vice versa in the case of a shita which keeps that sheitls are totally ossur for any and every reason.
FS, you are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you. Its that simple. We each feel very strongly about our view on this.
Yes, someone has to make a final decision and it has to be both spouses together.
And as I said before, no, not in all frum households are the husband the head of the households. I really do not think that there is any "supposed to" in who should be the head of the household.
I dont think that this has anything to do with feminism at all. its common sense to me, really. But as I said, we are not going to agree, so thats life.
Heard about that Kitov, didn't know we had so much impact.
We aren't talking about a husband saying out of the blue "we are moving to Costa Rica". That is rare. But someone has to make the final decision and the question is whether the wife agrees or files for divorce or separation. That, too, happens.
There is no "compromise" in certain things. Like what, We will keep kosher at home and treif outside? And if you don't want to eat treif then don't eat but watch me eat treif? How many men will be willing to have their kids raised like that?
Most things if spouses have checked things out before marriage and haven't changed their shitos, are known in advance. If someone changes, as Ruchel said, that's a very different story and can be a deal breaker in a marriage. But I don't see all the problems and I don't see it as "deferring" but rather as derekh eretz. Isn't the man supposed to be the head of the family traditionally, halochically, and in all Jewish senses? Isn't that the way it has always been since time immemorial? It's only feminism which has changed that declaratively. So what many of you are saying is that you are feminists and you put that above judaism, am I understanding you correctly? Because in Yiddishkeit there is NO compromise in terms of things like sheitl, if the shita is that ONLY a sheilt is acceptable no man in that shita will accept a wife who will wear a sheitl when she is with him but allow her to wear a hat and not a sheitl otherwise. Or vice versa in the case of a shita which keeps that sheitls are totally ossur for any and every reason.
I am, of course, a proud feminist.
But even if I were not, I do not see how or where Judaism requires that the husband make all the decisions, and that the wife has to go along with him, no matter what.
You want your husband telling you when its time to move, whether you're allowed to wear the blue dress to lunch, what colors to paint your walls, what school your children should attend, how to style your hair, and what color to paint your nails, knock yourself out. I don't call that marriage, I call it servitude. But don't tell me that because my husband considers my opinions, the same way that I consider his, and that we make our decisions together, that I'm any less a Jew than you are.
Heard about that Kitov, didn't know we had so much impact.
We aren't talking about a husband saying out of the blue "we are moving to Costa Rica". That is rare. But someone has to make the final decision and the question is whether the wife agrees or files for divorce or separation. That, too, happens.
There is no "compromise" in certain things. Like what, We will keep kosher at home and treif outside? And if you don't want to eat treif then don't eat but watch me eat treif? How many men will be willing to have their kids raised like that?
Most things if spouses have checked things out before marriage and haven't changed their shitos, are known in advance. If someone changes, as Ruchel said, that's a very different story and can be a deal breaker in a marriage. But I don't see all the problems and I don't see it as "deferring" but rather as derekh eretz. Isn't the man supposed to be the head of the family traditionally, halochically, and in all Jewish senses? Isn't that the way it has always been since time immemorial? It's only feminism which has changed that declaratively. So what many of you are saying is that you are feminists and you put that above judaism, am I understanding you correctly? Because in Yiddishkeit there is NO compromise in terms of things like sheitl, if the shita is that ONLY a sheilt is acceptable no man in that shita will accept a wife who will wear a sheitl when she is with him but allow her to wear a hat and not a sheitl otherwise. Or vice versa in the case of a shita which keeps that sheitls are totally ossur for any and every reason.
I am, of course, a proud feminist.
But even if I were not, I do not see how or where Judaism requires that the husband make all the decisions, and that the wife has to go along with him, no matter what.
You want your husband telling you when its time to move, whether you're allowed to wear the blue dress to lunch, what colors to paint your walls, what school your children should attend, how to style your hair, and what color to paint your nails, knock yourself out. I don't call that marriage, I call it servitude. But don't tell me that because my husband considers my opinions, the same way that I consider his, and that we make our decisions together, that I'm any less a Jew than you are.
I am not a feminist in the secular sense. I am an "equal but different" and a "apart from mitsvos that are only male/female I dont care for separating spheres, do what you do best".
I can't imagine being trapped in a marriage where my husband had "final say" nor would I want to have final say over him.
Its not always about a compromise. Sometimes a spouse needs to put aside their needs/wants/beliefs for the other one. But not because one is the "head" - its more based on the needs of the individual and family.
I have to take back my words cuz my dh really always says it's up to you.. (I hate that answer) so I guess it's just in my head that he has the final word.
OK ladies, our 122 pages made enough of a commotion that it hit the president's office! The Obama administration has a fringe group that monitors the web to see what's on the mind of the American people. Being alarmed by a specific thread on a message board for Jewish women that was getting non-stop hits, they checked it out. They read through all the pages and had a meeting to analyze the issue and see how they can be of assistance. Funding camp was immediately ruled out, since it runs into church-state separation. So they came up with offering free birth control!!!!
As of January 2013, insurance companies must now pay fully for any choice of BC!!!!!
I can see how that will help the debt crisis...less people who need to get on welfare/medicaid/foodstamps, etc.
Smart decision to get rid of the nation's debt
I took them to a tax appeal hearing in our County Municipal building. I left in plenty of time, GPS led me to the wrong place and then I got lost walking to the building (got bad directions from 3 different people!). 45 minutes later, with 1 kid in a carrier and two in a double stroller I made it (15 minutes late). Then I had to keep them occupied/fed/happy until my hearing (which went terrible, but that's a different story for a different day).
)
