Agreed^^^:)
Probably not. But then, I wouldn’t agree with his assumptions in the first place, so I certainly wouldn’t agree with his recommendations.
But that’s the assumption people are arguing about–the assumption that the root cause of cheating is a inadequate wife, and that if the wife raises the bar on her own performance, she will be able to counteract this “natural tendency”. Since she didn’t in this case, her performance must have been poor. How is that not blaming her?
He says stuff that isn’t true all the time. It’s kinda his job.
How is a wife being blamed if he says the husband has a natural tendency towards cheating? It’s just a stupid statement from a stupid man, stop reading so much into it.
She’s being blamed for failing to counteract that natural tendency.
I don’t really care what Pat Robertson said. My disagreement is with John Mace’s statement that he didn’t see any blame being placed on the wife. I argue that the statement “[w]hat you want to do is make a home so wonderful that he doesn’t want to wander” suggests that while men may have this natural tendency, women have it in their power to overcome it by being better wives, and that when men give in to this natural tendency, it suggests that a woman did not create a wonderful enough home.
No. He clearly says the root cause is men’s natural horndogness. He’s telling women to quit focusing on the natural horndogness and make him not WANT to cheat.
It’s a bit of subtle, but not much. It’s the difference between saying:
*No wonder he cheated-- you made life at hmoe miserable.
*
-and-
Give him a reason to ignore his inner horndog by making life at home simply marvelous.
We’re not reading into it. We’re just reading what he said.
“What you want to do is make a home so wonderful that he doesn’t want to wander”
Robertson is clearly saying that the wife can do something to stop her husband from cheating. He makes no suggestion that the husband can do anything to stop himself. Not even pray, which you figure would be his default suggestion. So clearly the fault lies with the wife for letting this happen.
He doesn’t suggest what the husband can do because he isn’t addressing the husband; he’s addressing the wife. Is it “blaming the victim” if you fail to tell the victim what the perpetrator should have done differently?
You’ve almost—almost—got me curious enough to go digging through the Pat Robertson archives to see if I can find out what he does say to husbands who have cheated, are cheating, or may cheat on their wives.
He has said similar things before. Too lazy to google shit on him, but it’s out there.
Again, the lady’s question isn’t “How do I stop my man from cheating on me yet again?” She was asking him for advice on how to forgive him. Pat could have said plenty of other things that would have been better than what he said.
For all any of us know, the woman has made it her life’s mission to create a home wonderful enough for her husband. Shit, for all we know, she’s the main breadwinner too. And maybe her husband cheated on her with an underaged babysitter or something ridiculous like that. Given the limited amount of information he has to work with, a preacher shouldn’t be advising anything other than “pray and seek God’s wisdom”.
Robertson is clearly saying “I’m a crazy old man, and I’ve been so busy using religion to make money and criticize people I don’t like that I don’t know what the fuck I’m tallking about anymore, if I ever did in the first place.”
I disagree. I even providing an example (the Chris Rock quote) of how somebody could have said essentially the same thing about the husband without placing any blame on the wife.
And yet, people still ask him for marital advice.
Asking a televangelist for marital advice is like… (surely we can come up with a good simile here?!)
So if he’s a klepto, wifey should do all the shopping. If he’s a pyro, wifey needs to keep him away from combustibles and flammables. If he’s a gambler, it’s her job to ensure he has no money or possessions to lay on the line. If he’s a glutton, she must keep food out of the house. It’s just so much work keeping men in line, out of jail, and out of Hell what with all their impulses, tendency to sin and total lack of personal accountability. Sure am grateful that Pat’s around to remind us women that men are amoral, unaccountable, and lacking in character.
If that is true then how can we trust what he says? R. Pat is a man, and therefore inherently untrustworthy according to himself.
His wife is a freak in the bed. That’s what’s keeping him honest and in line.
“What you want to do is be intelligent enough that you don’t want to ask somebody like me for advice.”
Doesn’t that eliminate most of his audience? Lack of self awareness and intelligence among his fan base is what keeps him in business.
You’d have to ask PR about that, but it’s unclear that he thinks men, as opposed to women, are more naturally prone to those activities in the way he thinks that men, as opposed to women, are more naturally prone to cheat.
I don’t give a flying fuck what he thinks, it’s not a wife’s duty to ensure that her husband exercises the same self control he expects of her.