Why is it funny that a husband wanted to make life easier for his loved ones? I don't get why you think this story is funny at all. You don't know the full situation of the family; could it possibly be that the husband and wife shared household duties and the husband wanted to make hers (no matter what they were) as easy as possible on her?
Sometimes your people literally make me sick to my stomach.
That might bother me, except that I can't say for sure whether you or your stomach exist.
Why is it funny that a husband wanted to make life easier for his loved ones? I don't get why you think this story is funny at all. You don't know the full situation of the family; could it possibly be that the husband and wife shared household duties and the husband wanted to make hers (no matter what they were) as easy as possible on her?
Sometimes your people literally make me sick to my stomach.
Simon, is it possible that the story is an example of Dunnism?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
Which talk is about the non-temple marriage being like a bargain basement or sales rack marriage?
That one was atrocious.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
Kevin Graham wrote:Wasn't there one a few years ago where an Apostle asked during Priesthood session, "do you want your wife being more educated than you?"
Why is it funny that a husband wanted to make life easier for his loved ones? I don't get why you think this story is funny at all. You don't know the full situation of the family; could it possibly be that the husband and wife shared household duties and the husband wanted to make hers (no matter what they were) as easy as possible on her?
Sometimes your people literally make me sick to my stomach.
He described his wife having so much trouble ironing that she had to cry until the pain stopped. His solution was not to, I don't know, iron the shirts himself and let her do less painful work. It wasn't to have some of those 5 boys do it. It wasn't even to go without ironed clothes. It was to give her a year of excruciating pain while he saved up to buy a machine that would make her job less painful. And to cap it off, it is used as a lesson for what a "real man" does. Even if the wife was stubborn and insisted on doing the work, that would've been nice to put in the anecdote to make it come off less like some comically sexist throwback to a 1950's sitcom.
Simon Belmont wrote:You don't know the full situation of the family; could it possibly be that the husband and wife shared household duties and the husband wanted to make hers (no matter what they were) as easy as possible on her?
I notice this recurring theme of not taking what General Authorities say at face value, but instead adding any number of contrived, self-serving assumptions and arguments from ignorance to make the plain meaning of their words more palatable.
For example, in this case we are invited to infer that we don't know the full situation of the family. Because, you know, it's not like the speaker is responsible for what he chooses to say and what details he decides are pertinent.
EAllusion wrote: described his wife having so much trouble ironing that she had to cry until the pain stopped. His solution was not to, I don't know, iron the shirts himself and let her do less painful work. It wasn't to have some of those 5 boys do it. It wasn't even to go without ironed clothes. It was to give her a year of excruciating pain while he saved up to buy a machine that would make her job less painful. And to cap it off, it is used as a lesson for what a "real man" does. Even if the wife was stubborn and insisted on doing the work, that would've been nice to put in the anecdote to make it come off less like some comically sexist throwback to a 1950's sitcom.
Man man man. Manly man mawn. Moyen man maaaawwwn.
Was it decided in this particular family that the husband was going to focus on his career, that the wife was going to, or that they both were going to? If it was the husband, then is it possible that the wife wanted to have the household responsibilities while the husband was gone for the day? Likewise, if the family roles were reversed in this situation, I would be saying the same thing about the wife working all day -- the husband, no doubt, would want to iron the clothes to contribute to the family responsibilities. Perhaps in your family responsibilities are not shared and you just make your wife go to work all day everyday and iron the clothes and cook and clean. I have news for you, husbands and wives are equal partners!
Darth J wrote: I notice this recurring theme of not taking what General Authorities say at face value, but instead adding any number of contrived, self-serving assumptions and arguments from ignorance to make the plain meaning of their words more palatable.
It's really too bad that words are only about 30% of communication, or you might, for once, have a valid point.
Kevin Graham wrote:Wasn't there one a few years ago where an Apostle asked during Priesthood session, "do you want your wife being more educated than you?"
I think President Hinckley made that in passing, or maybe it was Monson. But it was one of them.