I think since she'd spent her first 17 years obeying Pa, Ma and, to some extent, Mary, Laura was fed up with having to obey anyone and she wanted to be an equal with her husband in her adult household and she wasn't someone who ever backed down! That's not to say that there wouldn't be times in their 64-year union that she wouldn't compromise but she knew she was through constantly obeying any other person!
Those lines capture something very special about their relationship and understanding of each other. They both wanted a partnership and he never wish her to be forced to choose being breaking her vows and going against her own judgment. And I imagine that Laura would fret that there would be times were she would mess up and not agree with her husband, even if he was right. As such she probably didn’t want to promise her obedience disingenuously. It’s all very sweet
In her books, Laura made very clear as to why she would not vow to obey her husband. She could not promise to obey if her husband's request went against her better judgement and morals. I had the same promise struck from my wedding vows. I'm a marriage you are equal partners. Thus if you see your partner headed into trouble, you can't just along with it. You save both of you if you pull the other back and show them where it's headed. They had a happy marriage for several decades. Laura was very supportive if her husband and worked shoulder to shoulder with him. When he was too sick to work, Laura carried the financial burden by working as a seamstress. Whatever life handed to then, they shared together. People took their vows seriously back then.
What married women ever obeyed her husbands wishes without creating an argument and causing aggravation.. and in the end she still gets her way... those words were based on a time when women were not educated and just housekeepers ..... those days vanished long ago... no man with any sense knows that it will never happen. All marriages are really economic partnerships where there are debates and arguments and both sides have give in on some things to the other side. Games played in the bedroom do not carry over to everyday life.
She was an early feminist, whether she used that monicker or not. That is why she was pushed so hard. Great writer, interesting life, and it’s great that she captured this period in such an accessible way. Men lead in every healthy culture, and their wives obey them in all but sin. We can fight this but it’s true. That is why feminist wives usually find a dominant lover at work, often a boss. Our social engineers prefer women in charge because they can be more easily controlled by propaganda from media, celebrities, etc. Our culture has robbed men of their rightful place and Wilder was used to this end, though her books had tremendous merit otherwise.
Yea, they didn't understand St Paul. The original understanding is they submit to each. You are never required to obey the other if sin or occasion of sin is involved...Laura did have a grasp on that. But not full understanding.
What a sad misunderstanding they had of the Spiritual context for what it means for a woman to "submit". A woman was designed to submit to the order God designed. It is NOT about "obedience" in the sense that people perceive. Clearly, Wilder was a false Christian- lovely as she may have been.
what you’re not considering is how men perceived the word “obey” in the wedding vows. They used that to abuse and manipulate women in marriages. Also, I think God himself has bigger issues to take up with than how someone says their wedding vows.
She was an arrogant critter. To say that she would not pledge to obey means she could not accept employment. And if she was in the military, they would break her of that.
You are seriously upset that a woman who is dead a 100 years did not swear to 'obey' her husband? Not her employer, the army, whatever you choose to invent. Imagine being this fragile.
@@intrepidtomato Show me in my OP where I said I was upset. I laugh at folks who can't argue facts, and decide to slander people that they disagree with. My comment is meant to point out that we have to obey all sorts of people in our lives and that's just the way it is. In that, I mean that men, and women, both, have people in their lives who they agree to obey. If they change their mind, their are significant consequences. Many women have a problem promising that they will obey their husband, but in their worries they put the cart before the horse. It's about first picking a man who is honorable, then obeying him will be easy. Virtually every married guy I've ever known talked to his wife about decisions that are significant in any way. Ingalls actually had an honorable man and she still balked at the idea.
@@intrepidtomato Goodbye? I'm pretty sure that you will reply. The number two doesn't allow for a vote that will produce a majority in a vote. When there is a decision to be made, and two people don't agree, you either toss a coin, or give one of them the final say. I have the final say in my marriage, and I frequently delegate it to my wife. I rarely insist on taking a course that my wife is adamantly against. I trust her judgement too much to dismiss her opinion out of hand. However, there are times when I know more about something than she does, and I tell her we're going to do it the way I think is best. Humans are fallible, and sometimes I make a mistake. But my wife is also fallible, so if we did what she wanted all the time, we'd still make mistakes. And even when we both agree, we manage to mess up at times. Most decisions are minor, and my wife is more than qualified to handle them. But the larger ones need a confab, and I'm the one who decides how the decision will go. Most of the time, I tell her that I'd prefer one way, but her way usually makes sense too, and in those cases I usually leave it to her. But there are occasions when I am just a dictator. You are focusing on the woman's vows too much, and ignoring the man's. He has to promise to "love, honor, and cherish." Your paranoia keeps you from trusting that he will keep his oath. Some people are better off being single because they have trust problems. The sad thing is, you can't live without trusting some people. It's a shame that so many people refuse to trust the person they say they love.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I think since she'd spent her first 17 years obeying Pa, Ma and, to some extent, Mary, Laura was fed up with having to obey anyone and she wanted to be an equal with her husband in her adult household and she wasn't someone who ever backed down! That's not to say that there wouldn't be times in their 64-year union that she wouldn't compromise but she knew she was through constantly obeying any other person!
This is a beautiful documentary.
Those lines capture something very special about their relationship and understanding of each other. They both wanted a partnership and he never wish her to be forced to choose being breaking her vows and going against her own judgment. And I imagine that Laura would fret that there would be times were she would mess up and not agree with her husband, even if he was right. As such she probably didn’t want to promise her obedience disingenuously. It’s all very sweet
In her books, Laura made very clear as to why she would not vow to obey her husband. She could not promise to obey if her husband's request went against her better judgement and morals.
I had the same promise struck from my wedding vows.
I'm a marriage you are equal partners. Thus if you see your partner headed into trouble, you can't just along with it. You save both of you if you pull the other back and show them where it's headed.
They had a happy marriage for several decades. Laura was very supportive if her husband and worked shoulder to shoulder with him. When he was too sick to work, Laura carried the financial burden by working as a seamstress. Whatever life handed to then, they shared together. People took their vows seriously back then.
Because of Laura standing up and removing Obey from her vowels, I did that same thing in mine. I wanted a partner and a friend. Not an over Lord.❤
Don't you just love her even more for being so strong and independent in THOSE times?
She a right nobody should be expected to obey without question particularly if you intend to be married for all of you life
The real Laura looks more like the character who played Mary on the show, Melissa Sue Anderson
What married women ever obeyed her husbands wishes without creating an argument and causing aggravation.. and in the end she still gets her way... those words were based on a time when women were not educated and just housekeepers ..... those days vanished long ago... no man with any sense knows that it will never happen. All marriages are really economic partnerships where there are debates and arguments and both sides have give in on some things to the other side. Games played in the bedroom do not carry over to everyday life.
People need to read the book.
Obey was and still is taking out of context but I see that the woman shouldn't be the only one to say it.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
She was an early feminist, whether she used that monicker or not. That is why she was pushed so hard. Great writer, interesting life, and it’s great that she captured this period in such an accessible way.
Men lead in every healthy culture, and their wives obey them in all but sin. We can fight this but it’s true. That is why feminist wives usually find a dominant lover at work, often a boss. Our social engineers prefer women in charge because they can be more easily controlled by propaganda from media, celebrities, etc. Our culture has robbed men of their rightful place and Wilder was used to this end, though her books had tremendous merit otherwise.
Yea, they didn't understand St Paul.
The original understanding is they submit to each. You are never required to obey the other if sin or occasion of sin is involved...Laura did have a grasp on that. But not full understanding.
What a sad misunderstanding they had of the Spiritual context for what it means for a woman to "submit". A woman was designed to submit to the order God designed. It is NOT about "obedience" in the sense that people perceive. Clearly, Wilder was a false Christian- lovely as she may have been.
What the hell are you talking about, you nutcase?
Wow, people must cross the street when they see you coming. Boooo take your gloom and ridiculousness else.
God’s order was invented by male humans. There was a time before patriarchy when women obeyed no one. See Celtic queens!
Read the book!
what you’re not considering is how men perceived the word “obey” in the wedding vows. They used that to abuse and manipulate women in marriages. Also, I think God himself has bigger issues to take up with than how someone says their wedding vows.
She was an arrogant critter. To say that she would not pledge to obey means she could not accept employment. And if she was in the military, they would break her of that.
Good thing she didn't join the Army then.
You are seriously upset that a woman who is dead a 100 years did not swear to 'obey' her husband? Not her employer, the army, whatever you choose to invent. Imagine being this fragile.
@@intrepidtomato Show me in my OP where I said I was upset. I laugh at folks who can't argue facts, and decide to slander people that they disagree with. My comment is meant to point out that we have to obey all sorts of people in our lives and that's just the way it is. In that, I mean that men, and women, both, have people in their lives who they agree to obey. If they change their mind, their are significant consequences. Many women have a problem promising that they will obey their husband, but in their worries they put the cart before the horse. It's about first picking a man who is honorable, then obeying him will be easy. Virtually every married guy I've ever known talked to his wife about decisions that are significant in any way. Ingalls actually had an honorable man and she still balked at the idea.
@@deezynar Yeah, goodbye. I am happily married, but if you really need a woman to promise to obey, that's a personality disorder.
@@intrepidtomato
Goodbye? I'm pretty sure that you will reply.
The number two doesn't allow for a vote that will produce a majority in a vote. When there is a decision to be made, and two people don't agree, you either toss a coin, or give one of them the final say. I have the final say in my marriage, and I frequently delegate it to my wife. I rarely insist on taking a course that my wife is adamantly against. I trust her judgement too much to dismiss her opinion out of hand. However, there are times when I know more about something than she does, and I tell her we're going to do it the way I think is best. Humans are fallible, and sometimes I make a mistake. But my wife is also fallible, so if we did what she wanted all the time, we'd still make mistakes. And even when we both agree, we manage to mess up at times. Most decisions are minor, and my wife is more than qualified to handle them. But the larger ones need a confab, and I'm the one who decides how the decision will go. Most of the time, I tell her that I'd prefer one way, but her way usually makes sense too, and in those cases I usually leave it to her. But there are occasions when I am just a dictator.
You are focusing on the woman's vows too much, and ignoring the man's. He has to promise to "love, honor, and cherish." Your paranoia keeps you from trusting that he will keep his oath. Some people are better off being single because they have trust problems. The sad thing is, you can't live without trusting some people. It's a shame that so many people refuse to trust the person they say they love.