I think the fact you waited on your dh to see the light...LOL...just kidding...helped him become supportive. Maybe. I have see it where the husband does not consent and the resentment prevents him from being supportive.
Exactly Ava! Let me tell you, I am NOT a patient person, especially when I feel my child isn't getting the education she deserves. I'm pretty sure the school was glad to get rid of me I think after hearing from the teachers themselves that our DD sat at school and watched TV, because, "they didn't want to upset her".. he realized, it was not going to work out. And, yes, that took 3 years for the bulb to shine! LOL
I am still in shock my dh allowed me to homeschool to begin with. He didn't see it as a big deal since I was doing home daycare and we had another child at home. However, he never wanted to homeschool for so long. But the years have proved that homeschooling has it's pros that out weigh the cons. now, if only I could make money homeschooling, my husband would be 100% thrilled! LOL. Honestly, I think if my kids went to school, the school would request I homeschooled instead. I would just never let anything rest. lol.
:lol: I AM SO WITH YOU! Not a "Rester" here either. And, everything was such a big deal at the school. I couldn't ask a simple question about her progress without having to have a "GROUP Meeting" about it. I'm guessing so they could all be in on the same lies about how great DD was doing. UGH~ so glad that chapter's over!
We discussed it before we married. He was concerned that I wanted to homeschool his boys, too. No, I felt that they were going to have to accept my authority as "step-mom" without adding another dimension to it, too. And the fight from HIS family would have been impossible!!! They didn't comment too much when I did it with the younger three, but my mil had already learned that I wasn't the kind of dil that accepted everything she said at face value, and would blindy do her bidding. I was in my 30's when we married, and was pretty independent, lol! But looking back, we both feel I should have hs'ed the boys.
Ok, I'm not going to read all of these posts, but I'll drop my 2 cents into teh bucket. S for the man being the head of the household and all, We don't do it that way. We are both equal counter-parts in decision making, and problem solving. I would NEVER do anything major like that w/o my husband's permission. doing so could cause a major rift in our marriage, and could throw us apart depending on the issue. Think of where the trust would go. If you take your child out of school w/o his knowledge, he could begin to wonder what ELSE your doing w/o his knowledge and it could be a huge trust issue in your relationship.
Well very stated! While I do believe the husband is the head of the household. Keep in mind, Christians believe this for a variety of reasons...1)picture of the submission to Christ 2) the man will be judged also on his ability to run his house.. My dh prefers us to be equals. However, there are times I defer to him due to his position. yet, in my house my dh prefers for us to be on the same page on all major things. Also...for Christian or non-Christian marriages...the issue of trust is HUGE. Once you put a rift there or set the precedent that consensus is not needed for major decisions...both parties will begin to operate independent of each other. That will lead to disaster. Think of any partnership that exists...what happens if one partner makes the decision to approve a merger while the other does not..what if that partner goes ahead and approves it anyway? To the OP...be very careful when making this decision.
doing something without his knowledge, is different than doing something you just don't agree on. At least he does still know you are doing it, he just doesn't want you to. But sneaking around or doing something behind his back is bad news.
DH and I were discussing this thread tonight, and I had another analogy come to me regarding the man being the head of the household. God didn't set it up this way because women are inferior. (as a side note, He put a WHOLE LOT more demands on the man by telling him to love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her. Ouch. In light of the alternative, I'm glad all I have to do is submit!) He set it up that way because EVERY team, business, group, etc. needs a leader to function at optimal productivity. So God chose man. Does is have to do with the fall? Probably. Because, like it or not ladies, we were born to suffer for Eve's sin. So here's a thought: The captain of a football team is not necessarily a BETTER player than the rest of his teammates. That's not how he got to be captain. He's not the boss. He's not out there trying to get the team to make himself look good. No. At least not if he's a good captain. He's no better than the rest of the team, he just has more responsibilty. And he has the final say when compromise can't be reached. His entire job is to work his butt off to do what's best for the whole dang team! That's just like marraige. God didn't appoint man captain because man is better than women. But He DID appoint man captain. Which means that man has the unique position of having to be selfless at all times. His job is to work as hard as he can to do what's best for his family. And to have the final say when a compromise can't be reached.
Amie...that is very aptly put and I believe EXACTLY how it is supposed to be interpreted. In fact, that was what I was trying to express but failed to say it as well. Thank you for your explanation.
