July 23, 2019 / Nancy Diraison

Bringing order back to the traditional family
PART 1 of 3

In recent decades we have witnessed radical changes in the way the roles of men and women are viewed. Those roles, and their purposes, may be one of humanity’s greatest enigmas. They were once understood and embraced for their inherent benefits, but today confusion reigns. 

In this short series we will examine the foundational pillars of family, marriage, why things got twisted and, given the breadth of the subject, limit ourselves to identifying what basic steps can be taken to restore what was first intended.

Men and women were intended to be complementary — perfect partners for special purposes, not opponents. 

Given human beings are not perfect, imperfection always results, and marriages have been no exception; they do take work in order to make them work. The challenges can be the spice of life, or its undoing. The ideal family is something worth aspiring to, as it fulfills the most important purposes for life itself, leads to better health, longer life and many enjoyments.

Nothing in this series is meant to exonerate or grant license to excesses of behavior on either side. Power, gentleness, kindness and authority can reside in one man. Women can be strong, talented, yet feminine and gracious. Both should respect each other, be each other’s cheerleaders, and work in harmony, if they choose to.

There will be a lot in this series about choices.

This is not intended as a religious article, though references are inevitable. We must launch from basic understandings found in the account of the Garden of Eden. It is there only that the how and where of the foundations for traditional marriage and family were first established, and it is the only way to also reach the right conclusions.

As an aside, there is no “apple” identified in the Eden account! No one knows what that fruit was. It does not matter what it was. It symbolized a very important CHOICE, one of the first made by the first couple. In fact there were two choices involved in the account of the “fall”. The woman made one, then the man, and that is where our story begins. The continuation of the same pattern of choices accounts for much of the chaos we witness today. 

Knowing the cause of a problem is the first clue to reversing it.

Analogy of the Two-Headed Snake

Before we proceed, it is interesting, pertinent and humorous to bring up two-headed snakes. For those who’ve never heard of those, yes, they do exist. I saw one at the San Diego Zoo a long time ago, bearing a simple sign explaining they are rare and usually do not survive long! In the wild they are rapidly doomed. They can never agree which way to go, when or what to eat, and sometimes attempt to consume each other. Sometimes each head has its own brain, and sometimes they share one. Either way, it’s not a good combination for survival, but it is a formula for constant strife and stress!

“Divide and conquer” is a formula for failure. Without clear leadership all the wrong things happen! [Eastern Kingsnake. See National Geographic footnote for more details.]

There’s a specific reason that man was created first, and then his very, very valuable mate, the woman. A surprising insight into the woman’s role as “helper” will be covered in Part II of this series. 

Man was instructed early to separate from his parents so as to set up his own household. (Gen. 2:24) This would not have pertained to the first man, Adam, for obvious reasons. In order to ensure the man would fully develop as a leader/caretaker, he was to carry that responsibility on his own without leaning on his parents. No such instruction is given to the woman. Women usually want their own domains to manage, and they have their husbands for support. The major part of leadership training is to have someone to lead. There is no point in erecting pillars without a purpose, and a bridge will not exist without its supports.

The woman was created second as the man’s helper. She was not created to be inferior, not to be his supervisor, not to be in conflict. She was to be his closest friend and companion, to become as “one flesh”, a relationship like no other. There was an order being established for the benefit of all. Equal in many ways but different in others, the interdependency was designed to refine the best qualities of both men and women and to provide the highest level of care for future children. It’s a priceless exercise in partnership and teamwork, and the ultimate in character-refining. Not a bad thing. 

The man was told it would not be good for him to be alone; he was incomplete. The woman by herself would also be incomplete, as we shall see. Their purposes are masterfully intertwined. The union is a formula for personal growth like no other.

Children were not created first and then parents to take care of them, just as eggs were not created and then chickens to hatch them. This is an important point for establishing priorities. [This site’s article, “The Four Seasons of Parenting” examines that closely.] The relationship of the man and the woman, husband and wife, must solidly come first. 

Before proceeding, let’s go back to the original account and pierce through the fog.

It Was Never About the Apple, only the LABEL — and its Price Tag!

We are told a test was set up. This was after an unstated length of time following much instruction.

The test was set up in the form of food. That seems to be one of the hardest things for people to resist, maybe because it seems benign and the need for it so easy to justify. It is also tempting to bypass warnings and not read “the label”! But this was more than food; it involved a life or death decision. This decision had a very high price tag attached to it. 

We know the woman was lured into eating a fruit, the only one labeled “off limits” out of hundreds or thousands of other choices available. The tempter completely twisted the “label”, lying about the consequences of consuming it. The Creator had warned that eating it would lead to the death cycle entering Creation (Gen. 2:17), and the tempter completely undid that by saying: “You will NOT surely die.” (Genesis 3:4). 

Now Eve had a choice, and she made a decision to believe the lie, perhaps the first one she’d ever heard.

Eve’s first choice, if she even wavered, could have been to use her power of free will to follow the Divine instructions she’d received. That would have stopped the problem right there. With any doubt she might have consulted with her husband about what to do. He was expected to be more resistant to persuasion than his wife. In haste perhaps, not wanting to appear indecisive, Eve made her own decision, and she made the wrong one.

In the New Testament we are told Eve was “deceived” (I Timothy 2:14), but her husband was not, so Adam’s decision was a conscious one.

Something differed in the way both of them could be influenced. 

Some decisions are made for instant gratification and others based on weighing long-range consequences. Immediate desire, needs and emotions, fuel the first type. They are typical of the manifold decisions women must make day by day and often minute by minute in fulfilling their typically multi-tasked jobs — all the details they are well gifted at managing. The second types of decisions require more restraint, careful thought, patience, self-discipline and a tough focus. They cannot be swayed by emotions or the appeal of the senses. We see these processes being tested in the first couple.

Do we have a single-headed unit or a two-headed snake? Who is going to make the key decision here?

The Beginnings of Conflict

Eve failed first. Whatever she had been told and taught was quickly superceded by the smooth talk of the deceiver and the visual appeal of the fruit. Appearances had an impact on her. So did auditory influences. (Gen. 3:4-6) These are strong qualities she possessed to be the wonderful woman she was created to be, loving, caring and responsive. She and her husband could in fact reach balanced viewpoints by counseling each other. Both had been warned that this particular wrong choice would alter the course of human existence. Now her eyes and ears cancelled out the warnings. She is also lured with the promise that somehow consuming that fruit would make her “wise”. Whatever that meant to her at the time, it was an appeal to power. 

It’s interesting that an appeal to power would be an enticement, because the power Eve already possessed, that to control herself and humanity’s destiny, was stronger than any she was being offered. 

When Eve offers the same fruit to her husband, he fails, too. Why?

Why did Adam abdicate his leadership? He was the one better endowed with the ability to resist temptation, to take the long-range view and to overrule the bad advice. He was well instructed about his role as leader in the relationship. Adam is not as easily lured; his brain is wired to better resist. He can set aside what he sees and hears. But he has a weakness.

The strongest conjecture, a logical one, is that given the warnings received, and with Eve the only woman created at the time, Adam may have feared losing her, or looking weak to her. Would she follow his lead? Or not? What would be the consequences? Perhaps he was overcome by his own feelings for Eve, or not wanting to conflict with her. His mind may have whirred for a moment with conjectures.

Adam made the decision to subjugate his higher instructions to something more subtle, but to him it was not the “sight of the eyes” or the smooth talk of the tempter. It is a persistent foible of men, affecting even many of the greatest spiritual leaders of the Bible, including Abraham, to listen to their wives at the wrong time. There has to be a reason the tempter approached the woman first and not the man, where he would likely have been soundly rebuked! Adam certainly was not created weak or unintelligent, or with a poor memory. But what he feared overcame him. He was afraid of something...

Right away, in abdicating, the first man failed to hold to his God-given focus. If it had entered his mind that the all-powerful God who created all things, including the first woman, could certainly create another, we again would have had a different outcome.

Thousands of years later Abraham, the “Father of the Faithful”, was tested on giving up his promised son Isaac. What precisely helped him hold strong was believing God could resurrect the young man. (Hebrews 11:17-19) That was faith superceding his paternal feelings. Perhaps Abraham remembered the reason for Adam’s failure. Very likely he had learned his own lesson years earlier when he caved to the very bad idea from his wife Sarah to procreate with her maid Hagar. Sarah ran out of patience waiting when God’s promised son for them was delayed. Abraham’s  mistake led to a lot of grief. 

Choices and Consequences, from Bliss to Strife

Marriage was created to be a wonderful gift. It required the right balance of relationship between husband and wife, leadership and compliance, cooperation with wisdom.​​

The Creator of all, after fully laying out and instructing about choices and consequences, left those choices and consequences up to the first man and woman. Self-governance is the only kind of governance that really lasts, and sometimes it only matures through making mistakes. Dictatorship is not the goal. Peace is the goal.

With Eden lost, the first couple had a problem, one that could not be undone. So the story begins. The two-headed snake has now appeared in the family. The order is upset. The earth under the dominion of fallen man is also affected. 

Life is going to be difficult.

Wrong choices often have unintended and far-reaching consequences. There is no way the first couple had not been warned, but as all parents know, the learning method of “hard knocks” seems to appeal to most human beings. Therefore we cannot blame Adam and Eve because everyone since has continued repeating the mistakes.

When confronted with their error, the two adults now act like children and pretend not to know what happened. They aren’t fooling anyone. When asked about what they had done, and why they were hiding, Eve blames the tempter, and Adam blames her. This is off to a bad start. Neither takes the blame to themselves. There is no record of apologies, only defensiveness. Attitudes take the place of innocence.

When additional consequences are explained, one specific phrase in the text only comes clear from the original Hebrew. That is at Genesis 3:15 where Eve is told, “Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.”  (Emphasis added).

This does not mean she is going to adore her husband and he is going to beat her down! 

The word “desire” in that passage is the same word used at Genesis 4:7, when words are spoken to Cain before he killed his brother Able: “…sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.” (Italicized emphasis added).

The translation is confusing to the casual reader. Sin obviously did not “desire” Cain, but to overtake him. If he did not quell his anger and envy, he was going to move on to violence, precisely as happened. In other words, sin to Eve would be her desire to rule over her husband, even to exploit him, and if she did not resist, her husband would now have to rule over her not in peace but in conflict! This is a formula engendered by Eve’s first error, and Adam’s bad decision.

Before and after.

From that time forward life now will depend on harsh conditions. Outside of the pristine garden, the man must work “by the sweat of his brow” to provide for his family. Conditions have changed. Deplorably. It is beyond the scope of this article to explain the long-range purposes for these consequences, but they are solid ones.

We can imagine Eve no longer trusting Adam’s leadership, grumbling at the hardships, even though the pressure he had caved to came from her! Instead of blaming the tempter she would end up blaming him! Suffering along with the bad consequences, she might well become contentious on other decisions, plus question and challenge excessively. Meanwhile Adam would be increasingly frustrated, doubtless feeling diminished and defeated by his failure, as a man would be, knowing what his fault was, but forced to endure consequences with the same wife who never stops reminding him!

Sound familiar?

Can the couple ever have peace?

The answer is yes, but now it will take work.

“What if” Eve had used her intelligence to stop the tempter instead of letting herself be misled? 

“What if” Adam had stood his ground and refused to follow his wife’s error? 

 “What if” we started doing things differently now?

In Part 2 we will look at the consequences of the upset order.

In Part 3 we analyze simple and specific steps that can be taken to reverse relationship damages. The two-headed snake must be eliminated.

We cannot restore the Garden of Eden. We can only change ourselves.

*****************************

Copyright 2019 Nancy Diraison/Diraison Publishing. All Rights Reserved. [Sharing is permitted only with full and appropriate credits included]. 

National Geographic link on two-headed snakes: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2002/03/news-two-headed-snakes-confusing/

Photo Credits all Dreamstime photos:

Adam and Eve (2 apples) 9722795 @ Pimrue

23771336 @ Iselee Eastern Kingsnake 

71699027 @ Nicholashan Wisteria garden

Rings on word marriage 44899095 @ Amarosy

139819033 @ Vitally Nazarenko (set table for 2)

109832271 @ Johnfriberg (untended garden table)

Apple/label photo ID 20015803 © Konstantin Kirillov | Dreamstime.com

Man/woman/fog ID 68312896 © Nemar74 | Dreamstime.com

August 6, 2019 / Nancy Diraison

Part 2 of 3 (Strongly urge reading this series in sequence!).

In Part One of this three-part series, we examined what went wrong with the first established relationship between men and women. The model was broken due to bad decisions on both sides. Neither wanted to take the blame but both shared the consequences.

The woman, once started down the wrong path, was inclined to want to rule over her husband. When innocence was destroyed, so was trust.

Men often become discouraged when the ones they need and want respect from the most tear them down. Feeling defeated they may withdraw. Or they may lash out in inappropriate behaviors. Either way if a man is under attack from the woman it makes it difficult, if not impossible, for him to retake his position as leader, especially if his attempts are criticized, resisted, and as these days, maligned as “toxic masculinity” and other such previously non-existent and demeaning labels.

What is the point of destroying men and boys? What consequences have been reaped as a result of sidelining the irreplaceable attributes of men in favor of what some called “equal rights for women”, when in fact what they meant was “unequal rights for men”? Did it in fact start with toxic feminism?  

The Great Deception​​

Initially the woman’s role was to be the man’s “helper”. This was a massively important job and the term deceitfully used to motivate women to believe their role was inferior. Some of the motivation came from the men themselves, no doubt, but what ensued only made things worse.

It is helpful to look at the original meaning of the word. 

In a right relationship, there should be no victims, and no oppressors!

Going back again to the language of the Old Testament, where the introduction of man and helper begin, we find a surprise.

Both the Old and New Testaments are very specific in which words are chosen for what purpose. Often one word in Hebrew or Greek has many detailed forms in the original language, but ends up translated as the only one available in English. Meanings are lost!  

The word “helper” in the ancient text is simple to look up. The word for “helper” used at Genesis 2:18 and 2:20 for the woman is also the same word used in Exodus 18:4 and Joshua 1:14  with some very powerful illustrations. In Exodus 18:4, “helper” is used to describe God himself as the helper of his people! And at Joshua 1:14 the same word is used to describe the task of Joshua’s “mighty men of valor” — the most powerful warriors in Israel! (Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. The word for “helper”, number #5828.)

The role of helper is that of one who surrounds, protects and aids. Not someone who cowers, is disrespected or abused. ​​

The woman in her supportive role is the perfect complement to her man. She is his safe harbor, his champion, his chief companion. She enhances his reputation. She helps him as he provides for and protects her. His children are safe with her. He has no need to worry she will damage him or do anything but good. That confidence fuels his enthusiasm for providing for and protecting his family. Without those motivations life is pretty flat.

Once feminists got their short-sighted ball rolling, making women feel inferior for being “helpers”, the true slavery began — that which led to the intractable need for two incomes where one used to suffice. ​​

There is nothing wrong with women wanting to expand and use their many talents and skills, but as matters escalated the family structure disintegrated, children suffered in many ways, and the entire economy is twisted as a result. Everything from the day care industry to “fast” and processed foods developed from the needs related to working mothers, who gradually gave up their own food preparation. Our nation’s health has greatly suffered as a result, and stress has increased for everyone.

In the mid-1980’s it was estimated the value of all the  jobs a woman performed in the average home would have cost $50,000 per year through outside sources (at 1985 costs). That was the value of her presence, an earnings equivalent that no family could afford to pay! Given her massive contribution, the family could function on her husband’s income. And the women had all the scheduling flexibility so many now crave and wish they could reclaim even while working outside jobs. Instead of being the free employers of their own time, they press for employers to make up for the problems through benefits that should never be the employer’s domain. When benefits are mandated, other payroll allocations are suppressed. There is nothing “free”.

Many men today could adequately cover their home expenses if the outsourcing costs were stopped. ​​

Birth control of course did not always work, was easily ignored, tampered with or even sabotaged. And as financial benefits became available to unwed mothers, more chose to lean on those rather than marry. Financial independence appealed more than family and marriage. What seemed like a good and noble idea was injecting more damage into the equation. Impediments like the marriage tax penalties did not help.​​

Eventually, part of the misguided effort to erase the separate roles of men and women was to “equalize” the playing field in child-rearing. Absurd concepts were put forth that both parents are equally responsible for all functions of child care and other household tasks, as if each was not limited by their own 24 hour days, and as if the jobs that men do are not usually more taxing than the ones performed by the women. Not too many women enjoy laying asphalt or hanging from skyscrapers, and not too many are on the firefighting crew that shows up when the house is on fire.

Division of labor is well known in employment. One never sends two people to do the job of one. It’s inefficient. In the single-income household, the pattern allowed for maximization of time and energies for both spouses. Assuming neither was lazy and both doing their jobs, a hard day’s work meshed with a well-run household and led to valuable family time and enjoyable evenings. Not so any more…

A Hard Look at the Statistics of Failure

The subject of family break-down is so large that we can only scratch the surface. 

The single most damaging effect of feminism, besides the crushing devaluation of the roles and strengths of men, and the demoralizing of boys along the way, has been the tearing down of moral restraints and the huge escalation of fatherless families. 

If the two-income stranglehold is a trap, the single parent arrangement is even worse.

Over 25 million children today, in the United States, are being raised with no father in the home. 40 to 50% of children are in a single-parent household or will be at some point, usually with the mothers. Multiple millions of others have already reached adulthood without the experience of a father in their background, or the wrong idea about fathers due to negative experiences. Boys cannot be expected to understand a father’s role if they never knew one.

The worst afflicted are the African-American households. In1965, the Moynihan report stated that 25% of African-American households were led by a single parent (usually the mother); today that figure is an astronomical 66%. The 25% figure (24% to be exact) now applies to white, non-Hispanic families, and the numbers keep growing. 

Children without fathers in the home are almost twice as likely to be hyperactive as kids in homes with two parents. 63% of youth suicides are kids who grew up with no father in the house. 90% of all the runaways and homeless kids out there grew up in fatherless homes. 85% of the children with behavior disorders, 71% of high-school dropouts, 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions, and 85% of youths in prison grew up in homes without a father.

Why the hyperactivity? 

In the mid to late 1990’s, famous broadcaster Paul Harvey cited a serious study about what had recently been labeled as “ADD”. The study concluded that “ADD” should rather be spelled “DAD”. The profound studies signaled unequivocally that the restlessness of children was due primarily to emotional insecurities, stemming from absent fathers. The report was quickly buried. 

​​It does not help that healthy physical activities, the kind needed for boys to vent their energies and build their self-confidence, barely exist today. Texting and playing video games do not count. 

A study by criminologists Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi found “the absence of fathers” to be “the most powerful predictors of crimes” among males. 75% of school shooters are documented as coming from fatherless homes.

The most reliable predictor of crime is not poverty, it is not race, it is growing up without a dad! ​​

Scholar Brad Wilcox adds that fathers are the key role models for their sons when they maintain proper authority and discipline. Doing so helps boys develop self-control and empathy towards others, precisely the traits lacking in violent youth and not coincidentally, in men who go on to repeat not being kind to their families. The presence of mothers, however strong and well-principled, is not enough to offset the absence.

Bringing some findings up to date. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson did an excellent series in March-April, 2018, conducting in-depth interviews and presenting reports on the tragic decline of men in America. Parts of the interviews addressed such facts as women taking over mens’ jobs, outnumbering them in higher education, and now constituting a majority in managerial positions. 

Starting with the decline of male teachers at the lower educational grades, and the lack of inspiring fatherly influences in the homes, boys are depressed, and yes, many of them, instead of putting their energies to use, find themselves “diagnosed” with “DAD” (to use the right letters) and put on drugs to keep them down. How disabling.

The whole idea of “father” is wrought with cynicism to those who have never known the benefits of a good father’s leadership — the special warmth, strength and encouragement a father can provide. The missing experience is otherwise projected into disrespect of other authorities, a misunderstanding of authority in the workplace as well as in government and law enforcement. The trend is unmistakable, and so are its sources. Daughters suffer in their own way, negatively fashioning their expectations of males, and suffering great loss of self-esteem which they then seek to build from wrong sources.

Fathers who abandon their children and mothers who take their children away from their fathers have no idea of the price the kids are going to pay. If they know, they don’t care or choose to ignore the information and warnings. This is outside those cases due to abuse, of course, or other extreme conditions warranting separation. Most of the attention is paid to allegations of fathers abandoning children and not to the women who drive them away. We will not make that omission.

The bottom line is that the abdication of marriage as the secure place to bear children, for the good of all concerned, was a huge and predictable mistake.

While a full 92% of Americans still believe that our nation can only go forward if American families are made stronger, there is an avoidance of discussing what family model is the healthiest. Political correctness has vastly increased the price tag.

In the End, Breaking our Men Breaks Everyone

For as long as traditional family structure held as the norm, there was not as much negative to talk about as there is now. 

Expectations for marriage, futures, children, were not questioned, and most were satisfied with the formula. It was great for the children, granted women what today they admit craving the most — flexibility in the use of their time — and it allowed men to focus more single-mindedly on their work, careers and providing for their families. This is not to downplay the need women have to develop and utilize their talents. The right family balance should allow for that and depending on other factors, permit some employment outside the home, just not to the detriment of the family’s primary needs, and certainly not to its destruction! We’ll have some interesting observations on that in Part III.

In Part III we will ask where and why we have lost our hearts. 

Men and women have lost their hearts for each other, for their children, even for any children. 

These are times like no other. And repair must begin in the heart.

*************************

Copyright 2019 Nancy Diraison/Diraison Publishing. All Rights Reserved. [Sharing only permitted with full credit for authorship and sources.]

Dreamstime Photo Credits:

Family lesson together ID 121739970 © Chernetskaya | Dreamstime.com

Young Indian boy riding motorbike ID 108788332 © Rawpixelimages | Dreamstime.com

Soldier dad with son ID 5869631 © Sonya Etchison | Dreamstime.com

Black couple holding hands Photo 114552520 © Ivan Kokoulin – Dreamstime.com

Two-headed Eastern Kingsnake Photo 23771336 © Isselee – Dreamstime.com

Exhausted young father with baby. Photo 110487500 © Elnur – Dreamstime.com

Mother dressing baby girl Photo 123311535 © Vitalij Sova – Dreamstime.com

Adam and Eve ID 9722795 © Plmrue | Dreamstime.com

Mother reading book in evening Photo 68499893 © Evgenyatamanenko – Dreamstime.com

Young parents with newborn child Photo 91377881 © Inara Prusakova – Dreamstime.com

ID 67663059 © Katarzyna Bialasiewicz | Dreamstime.com [road workers]