How To Live A Simple Life

[infowarrior1]

And a man makes it easy and natural for his woman to follow his lead when he's a good, wise, strong leader. It's a RELIEF when you can trust a man's good leadership and finally relax. The problem is this is so rare. The only time my mom asserts her own leadership is when my dad's leadership is totally misguided. With power comes responsibility, and a whole lot of men these days just aren't willing to step up to that.

A wise wife is well and good. And she should give advice to ensure good decision making.

But does the Husband still have the final say in those times? If not then he truly isn't the Head of his Wife. But the Wife is the real Head of the family.

That is where I think it goes wrong if that is the case.

Otherwise I don't see no problem with that.

Given that there isn't any conditions where such a thing doesn't apply in a marriage. Just as Jesus Christ doesn't stop being the Head of the Church at any time.

I watched a TV show based mostly on real history called: "Three Kingdoms" set in China after the Han Dynasty fell and I would see scenes where a King would consult his ministers. His ministers would urge him one way or another. They will even beg with tears and bow themselves before him. But at the end he makes that final decision and they assent.

And when things go wrong they come up with advice for the new situation that arises.

 

[infowarrior1]

I agree with you that a lot of men these days are too subservient to women and that's the wrong approach, probably because they've been taught how to interact with women by single/divorced or disgruntled mothers. And why is that? Because so many fathers failed to be involved and teach their sons well as they should - ultimately, a failure of weak male leadership.

There is also the family court system kicking Fathers from homes and forcing them to be separate from their children as Dalrock has amply documented.

If you haven't heard of him. I will link you.

 

[Aboulia]

Show me in scripture where it's the duty of the wife to "identify blind spots" in her husband. That is feminist crap, trying to be a husband's personal Holy Spirit. This leads to nagging and resentment. It does not work. It is not a wife's job to convict her husband, that is God's job. Her job is to submit, run the household, and pray for her husband.

Proverbs 9:8, but given the modern culture and the aforementioned liberal background I understand where you're coming from. The Church Fathers are not to be approached the same way scripture is approached in Protestantism. The whole person with all his writings have to be taken together. St John says in a homily (sermon):

Neither let a wife say to her husband, Unmanly coward that you are, full of sluggishness and dullness, and fast asleep! Here is such a one, a low man, and of low parentage, who runs his risks, and makes his voyages, and has made a good fortune; and his wife wears her jewels, and goes out with her pair of milk-white mules; she rides about everywhere, she has troops of slaves, and a swarm of eunuchs, but you have cowered down and livest to no purpose. Let not a wife say these things, nor anything like them. For she is the body, not to dictate to the head, but to submit herself and obey. But how, some one will say, is she to endure poverty? Where is she to look for consolation? Let her select and put beside her those who are poorer still. Let her again consider how many noble and high-born maidens have not only received nothing of their husbands, but have even given dowries to them, and have spent their all upon them. Let her reflect on the perils which arise from such riches, and she will cling to this quiet life. In short, if she is affectionately disposed towards her husband, she will utter nothing of the sort. No, she will rather choose to have him near her, though gaining nothing, than gaining ten thousand talents of gold, accompanied with that care and anxiety which always arise to wives from those distant voyages.

Homily 20 on Ephesians

There is nothing wrong with what you said initially, provided your vision is perfect, and you're not missing anything, nor is @TexasJenn wrong when she says

helps her husband identify his own blind spots - not out of an egoic desire to be right, but with a focus on keeping the marriage and family on the right path.

If (St) Theodora did exactly what you prescribe and not point out blind spots, then (St) Justinian would have been ousted. A well-ordered man properly understands who he is, he understands his weak and strong points, but if a husband is not aware of one of his weaknesses, who better than his wife to shine light on it (in private of course)

The husband, being the masculine figure in marriage, is to be in the overt leadership role, he's the one overtly making the decisions, and being the border guard of the family to fight off subversive elements that try to destroy it, whether that's by working to provide, or to set the bounds of what is/is not permissible in the household.

The wife, as the feminine figure, gives of herself to bring forth children, which she cares for and nurtures, is subtle in her ways, overtness is not a feminine quality (It's also why yoga pants are gross). This article "Sacred Space, Sacred Art and the Power of Women" describes aspects of the feminine far better than I ever could. I think this feminine element is something that Protestants miss, since the sole emphasis is on Christ.

Was it Sarah’s choice to not trust God’s plan; and to have Haggar conceive a child with her husband, Abraham?

Sarah herself bade the patriarch take Hagar. She herself directed it, no one compelled her, nor did the husband attempt it; no, although he had dragged on so long a period childless, yet he chose never to become a father, rather than to grieve his wife. And yet even after all this, what said Sarah? The Lord judge between me and you. Now, I say, had he been any one else would he not have been moved to anger? Would he not also have stretched forth his hand, saying as it were, What do you mean? I had no desire to have anything to do with the woman; it was all your own doing; and do you turn again and accuse me?— But no, he says nothing of the sort — but what? Behold, your maid is in your hand; do to her that which is good in your eyes. He delivered up the partner of his bed, that he might not grieve Sarah. And yet surely is there nothing greater than this for producing affection. (St John Chrysostom, Homily 20 on Ephesians)

 

[SeekingTruth]

If I can make it to 42 years of age without a wife, perhaps God has ordained celibacy for me. I wait to discover if that is the case.

Don’t totally give up on this! We are around the same age, and I was just married this summer. My wife is also of an age to still have a very large family, she’s a woman of faith, and from a small town...hint hint.

 

[Cartographer]

And a man makes it easy and natural for his woman to follow his lead when he's a good, wise, strong leader. It's a RELIEF when you can trust a man's good leadership and finally relax. The problem is this is so rare. The only time my mom asserts her own leadership is when my dad's leadership is totally misguided. With power comes responsibility, and a whole lot of men these days just aren't willing to step up to that.

If a woman only follows a man when she feels like it, it completely negates his role as a leader. Women aren't exempt from stepping up to their role as a follower either, which is just as hard. Two wrongs don't make a right and this kind of "I can't follow my husband because he has a speck in his eye" attitude is the log in a woman's own eye. I'm not saying a man can't be rebuked by his wife either but it seems like women these days are too eager to do this...although maybe that's always been the case, due to original sin.

As a man, I think it's incumbent on men to be strict and careful with themselves if they want God to trust them with a wife. The thing is, it's unseemly for a woman to be saying this to men and often just accomplishes the opposite result. Although I do think having women on the forum is a good way for us to discuss these things in a respectful context.

 

[SamCru]

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. - Ephesians 5:22-33

Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered. - 1 Peter 3:1-7

It's very clear that wives must submit to their husbands. This husbands must obey wives stuff is absolute nonsense. If a man does this, his household will be destroyed. I submitted to my wife on some important matters in the past, and it ended badly. She took no responsibility and blamed it all on me. Needless to say, I don't do that anymore. It's sad that Roosh has given up all of his red-pill wisdom concerning women because he feels guilty about his fornication. I am married and can tell you that your red-pill stuff is correct, and this blue-pill false Christianity which isn't even in the Bible is wrong. Get married or stop writing about marriage, Roosh.

 

[NotaBene]

With power comes responsibility, and a whole lot of men these days just aren't willing to step up to that.

I actually agree. These are multi-generational problems for both men and women. Bad men --> Raise horrible women --> Crappy single mothers ---> Raise bad men.

I spent most of my life so far very blue-pilled, and only in the last couple years realized that women have any real problems or tendencies to sin at all. So I tend to over-emphasize because I believe our culture (and even churches) tend to downplay the part of women in these cycles.

These all can and should be her duties first of course.

This is wise. Keep in mind that the burdens wives often feel to keep their houses immaculate often come from *other women*, perceived expectations, and petty comparison rather than actual need or a husband's demands.

I wish wives would just ask their husbands: "What do I need to get done today?" I guarantee you that his answer will be a really short list. Everything else is optional! That doesn't mean be a lazy wife, it just means get rid of the resentment that comes from perceived expectations where none actually exist.

Get married or stop writing about marriage, Roosh.

I really don't mind, it raises some interesting discussions, and that's what we're here for. But yeah, be careful you don't fall of the horse on the other side. Don't become a white knight in your penance

 

[christie2]

(........) rather than actual need or a husband's demands.

I wish wives would just ask their husbands: "What do I need to get done today?"

This is reasonable advice, I think you're right.
My husband becomes my manager who can guide me in daily tasks if I only ask.


The last couple of days I've been thinking of hours of work and when I quit when I get married, would my husband*my new employer* have me working more or less hours per week than when I was single and working for strangers 40 hours a week like I do now?

My thought is that because the type of work for a husband and marital home is entirely different and pleasing and healthful for us both, I'm predicting time won't be kept track of.
A different paradigm to live in that is challenging for me to imagine, as I haven't experienced it yet.

I'll remember this question NotaBene, thanks

 

[Viktor Zeegelaar]

As an evil world, especially in the Western hemisphere as we see the absence of God we see the absence of simplicity. I was talking to friends about this recently, about how many choices one has to make every day. Get a bottle of milk, 20 choices. Get peanut butter, 20 choices. Having to get something done, 5 forms at the municipality, 4 people you have to call. There's so many choices in daily life, what choices did one have to make 100 years ago and all time before that? What you were going to do was decided by your family lineage, especially by what your father did, or as woman you were to be a mother and good wife for your family. There were vastly limited goods, everything was local, you didn't knew anything outside your region, probably not much outside of your own village or city. Communities were tight, you never moved to another place. You never moved to another job. It was just as it was. The peace, structure and tranquility going along with that order has obviously been removed on purpose for the chaotic, all opportunities available, gotta make the most of it, gotta develop myself the most attitude of destructive society.

 

[Laus Deo]

As an evil world, especially in the Western hemisphere as we see the absence of God we see the absence of simplicity. I was talking to friends about this recently, about how many choices one has to make every day. Get a bottle of milk, 20 choices. Get peanut butter, 20 choices. Having to get something done, 5 forms at the municipality, 4 people you have to call. There's so many choices in daily life, what choices did one have to make 100 years ago and all time before that? What you were going to do was decided by your family lineage, especially by what your father did, or as woman you were to be a mother and good wife for your family. There were vastly limited goods, everything was local, you didn't knew anything outside your region, probably not much outside of your own village or city. Communities were tight, you never moved to another place. You never moved to another job. It was just as it was. The peace, structure and tranquility going along with that order has obviously been removed on purpose for the chaotic, all opportunities available, gotta make the most of it, gotta develop myself the most attitude of destructive society.

In its past PUA life, this forum would’ve encountered the maxim “options = instability”, which as you’ve well stated could equally be applied to all aspects of modern life. There is absolutely no doubt the system is currently geared to make as many people as unstable as possible.

Striving for a simple God-filled life ensures stability in all areas.

 

[VelvetAnt]

(Had to make a new account, lost the login info for my old one, I have been following Roosh for a long time.)

I hate to say it, but this book isn't a legitimate source. I've seen this come up before from another member of my parish, particularly this quote:

The obedient wife does not wait for orders. Rather, she tries to discern her husband’s needs and feelings, and responds in love. When she sees her husband is weary, she encourages him to rest; when she sees him agitated, she soothes him; when he is ill, she nurses and comforts him; when he is happy and elated, she shares his joy. Yet such obedience should not be confined to the wife; the husband should be obedient in the same way. When she is weary, he should relieve her of her work; when she is sad, he should cherish her, holding her gently in his arms; when she is filled with good cheer, he should also share her good cheer. Thus a good marriage is not a matter of one partner obeying the other, but of both partners obeying each other.

As others in the thread have pointed out, this quote is in direct contradiction with St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. It seems strange that St. John Chrysostom would say such a thing, but the reality is that he most likely didn't. The book is an unsourced collection of quotes by Robert Van de Weyer, an Anglican priest, not the direct writings of St. John Chrysostom. While that alone doesn't prove that Chrysostom didn't actually say these things, I challenge you to find another source that contains the above quote -- keep in mind that Chrysostom's homilies are widely documented and published.

In fact, St. John Chrysostom's Homily 20 on Ephesians is specifically about marriage: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230120.htm , and it doesn't contain this quote. It's a long read, and I highly recommend it for any married Christian. However, just with a skim, it's easy to see that the quote given in Robert Van de Weyer's book is in direct contradiction with St. John Chrysostom's documented and sourced views:

However not for the husband's sake alone it is thus said, but for the wife's sake also, that "he cherish her as his own flesh, as Christ also the Church," and, "that the wife fear her husband." He is no longer setting down the duties of love only, but what? "That she fear her husband." The wife is a second authority; let not her then demand equality, for she is under the head; nor let him despise her as being in subjection, for she is the body; and if the head despise the body, it will itself also perish. But let him bring in love on his part as a counterpoise to obedience on her part. For example, let the hands and the feet, and all the rest of the members be given up for service to the head, but let the head provide for the body, seeing it contains every sense in itself. Nothing can be better than this union.

And yet how can there ever be love, one may say, where there is fear? It will exist there, I say, preëminently. For she that fears and reverences, loves also; and she that loves, fears and reverences him as being the head, and loves him as being a member, since the head itself is a member of the body at large. Hence he places the one in subjection, and the other in authority, that there may be peace; for where there is equal authority there can never be peace; neither where a house is a democracy, nor where all are rulers; but the ruling power must of necessity be one. And this is universally the case with matters referring to the body, inasmuch as when men are spiritual, there will be peace.

St. John Chrysostom's homilies are some of my absolute favorites and I have relied heavily on them for guiding my life, and my journey into Orthodoxy, so it was disappointing to see this badly sourced and possibly fraudulent book come up here. I highly recommend that everyone reads what Chrysostom had to say, so I hope that this didn't discourage others from being interested in him. Please be very careful with sources, it really saddens me to see a great Doctor of the Church falsely used to push views that are in contradiction with the Church and with Biblical teaching.

 

[Edek]

In fact, St. John Chrysostom's Homily 20 on Ephesians is specifically about marriage: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230120.htm , and it doesn't contain this quote. It's a long read, and I highly recommend it for any married Christian. However, just with a skim, it's easy to see that the quote given in Robert Van de Weyer's book is in direct contradiction with St. John Chrysostom's documented and sourced views:

Good catch. That was a subtle one.

 

[Knight.of.Logos]

When I don't use the internet for a while, I find my stream of consciousness is much less chaotic, manic, and unnecessarily complicated. For me, it's a tough addiction to break because I have to use it for work, and I use it for things outside of work and it can be so easy to end up online for 4-5 hours even though I only planned on going on for an hour or so. On days where I am out in nature for all of the day, or am home but reading good books, my consciousness has a different flavor -- more simple, more humble, more focused.

I have heard that internet use activates similar areas of the brain and neurochemicals as does cocaine. This is surely an exaggeration but does indicate that the internet can have a very negative effect on somebody and turn them into a dopamine junkie like any other addiction.

I'd like to set up a more regimented, strict practice. I think this will do wonders in moving me towards living a more simple life. Has anybody else done this or attempted this with the internet?

 

[andy dufresne]

When I don't use the internet for a while, I find my stream of consciousness is much less chaotic, manic, and unnecessarily complicated. For me, it's a tough addiction to break because I have to use it for work, and I use it for things outside of work and it can be so easy to end up online for 4-5 hours even though I only planned on going on for an hour or so. On days where I am out in nature for all of the day, or am home but reading good books, my consciousness has a different flavor -- more simple, more humble, more focused.

I have heard that internet use activates similar areas of the brain and neurochemicals as does cocaine. This is surely an exaggeration but does indicate that the internet can have a very negative effect on somebody and turn them into a dopamine junkie like any other addiction.

I'd like to set up a more regimented, strict practice. I think this will do wonders in moving me towards living a more simple life. Has anybody else done this or attempted this with the internet?

This begs the question: Is the Internet itself just a massive psyop?

These days I've found that going on the Net causes me massive anxiety and moderate depression. As someone who is in one of the first rounds of 'Get the Jab or Lose your Job', I've been going through major/minor panic attacks and reading articles about the jab online doesn't help.

This covid psyop is pure evil on all levels. It operates on every level of fear for everyone. Fear of disease, fear of injections, fear of losing ones ability to feed their family and participate in society. Having the internet on hand just gives one the ability to amplify these fears in a solitary setting.

I'm definitely going to be cutting the Internet slowly out of my life. It's a shallow substitute for human contact.

 

[SeaEagle]

@Edek , @andy dufresne

I feel the same way. The first thing I often do after I awake is check crypto and RVF. I should pray and stretch instead, but I guess part of my brain is concerned I'll be blindsided with some kind of underground happening.

In a way I'm not much different than my parents who blast the news from morning till night, only my sources are better.

I do feel it impacting my work and I'm using it to fill a void. It's time I regimented my leisure time anyways, as much as I dislike order.

 

[Edek]

I'm definitely going to be cutting the Internet slowly out of my life. It's a shallow substitute for human contact.

As one of the oldest millennials (nearly 40), I am so ancient that when I was a teenager, writing letters/postcards to friends, family and girls was the norm. I didn't have a smartphone until I was 35, and didn't have a computer capable of using the internet until I was 25. I can say without reservation that all the internet & phone stuff has been ruinous to my concentration and happiness. Never mind being a horrible substitute for human contact: it destroys silence, and all manner of reflection and introspection. I used to wake up at dawn and go outside to see what the bugs were up to. Now I check my work email and have to stop myself thinking about killing time on youtube, or killing my soul on websites where the women are even more exposed.

 

[andy dufresne]

As one of the oldest millennials (nearly 40), I am so ancient that when I was a teenager, writing letters/postcards to friends, family and girls was the norm. I didn't have a smartphone until I was 35, and didn't have a computer capable of using the internet until I was 25. I can say without reservation that all the internet & phone stuff has been ruinous to my concentration and happiness. Never mind being a horrible substitute for human contact: it destroys silence, and all manner of reflection and introspection. I used to wake up at dawn and go outside to see what the bugs were up to. Now I check my work email and have to stop myself thinking about killing time on youtube, or killing my soul on websites where the women are even more exposed.

Well said. I'm reaching the point where I believe all technology is simply the work of 'Ole Scratch. It makes us lazy and takes us away from our true selves.

 

[Suburban Yahoo]

The dead internet theory:



The Internet has been optimized into a lobotomized state

 

[Edek]

The dead internet theory:

I imagine the underworld as being stuck in front of a grey screen where all the text is drivel, all the other users on the social sites are wailing ghouls, and I sent messages to God that he sees but doesn't reply to, while I hit refresh for eternity

 

[Knight.of.Logos]

This begs the question: Is the Internet itself just a massive psyop?

These days I've found that going on the Net causes me massive anxiety and moderate depression. As someone who is in one of the first rounds of 'Get the Jab or Lose your Job', I've been going through major/minor panic attacks and reading articles about the jab online doesn't help.

This covid psyop is pure evil on all levels. It operates on every level of fear for everyone. Fear of disease, fear of injections, fear of losing ones ability to feed their family and participate in society. Having the internet on hand just gives one the ability to amplify these fears in a solitary setting.

I'm definitely going to be cutting the Internet slowly out of my life. It's a shallow substitute for human contact.

It is clear that globohomo likes the internet because they can extract data from us and use it for their evil ends. That being said, there are some legitimate functions of the internet. It can be a good learning tool, a good way to meet people, a way to find new music, a tool for people with businesses to expand their audience, etc. However, it also can be a tool for creating divide, to pushing degeneracy, towards making people dumb and lazy.

Even when somebody uses the internet only for positive and legitimate reasons, it should still be limited. These is only limited time to pray, earn our revenue, read good books, exercise, be out in nature, socialize, go to church, etc. At some point, being online will take away from these other things.

I hope everything works out with your job! These are definitely unsettling and messed up times, but I am hoping at some point the backlash will be too strong for them to keep pushing. Stay strong.