Are they manly or p****-whipped?

Are they manly or p****-whipped?

more details necessary

more details necessary

At my chapel here, I see many sheepish husbands doing everything they can to placate their wives and children. Is this good or bad?
1 Cor. 7:33 simply states a fact: "he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife", but St. Paul doesn't say husbands shouldn't please their wives.
Col. 3:19 seems to imply husbands should placate their wives: "Husbands, love your wives and be not bitter towards them."

Should a husband obey/compromise with the wife in everything but sin?

This is vile and impure language, which does not belong on a Catholic forum.  

I totally agree. The whole thread is stupid and no one would ever miss a thing if it were deleted.

more details necessary

Yep, a million more details needed.  Is he always conceding even when it seems not to be for the good of the family?  Is he letting her overrule all his decisions?   For things indifferent to the welfare of souls in the family, "yes, dear" is a virtue, and giving up your own desires for hers is a virtue.  But if he ends up caving simply to avoid the inevitable fight, that could be weakness or, as I've seen it in some cases, resignation.  That phrase when uttered regularly can have the sense of:  "whatever you want, because you don't care what I think anyway."  Prudential considerations dictate whether he should be more forceful or not, especially the receptivity by the subject.  There are many women, the more you try to impose something on them, the more rebellious they become.

I've noticed this in life.  Men who are willing to obey are much more common than women.  Men make good soldiers and officers and leaders, because they're willing to operate in a hierarchical structure and don't take it personally.  Women, however, have a strong tendency to rebel.  Now, it has bee less so to some extent in earlier times in human history, but I believe only marginally.  You see Traditional Catholics who, while paying lip service to their role of subjection in marriage, don't really believe it and hardly ever act like that's the case.  I think the societies that are able to teach virtues to women are the ones where there's a strong female culture and education, where women desire not to be shunned by other women, and that's the only thing that works to keep them on the straight and narrow from feminism.

It certainly can be a problem. I knew a guy (not Catholic, no kids) who really wanted to be self-employed. His wife insisted that he stay working at a mine (good pay/benefits), so he did. He was quite unhappy and miserable to be around. The day after the mortgage was paid (house was in wife's name) he came home to find his clothes and a copy of the divorce papers on the front porch. By not having any spine, even though it did not involve sin, he made both of them miserable.

Well, there's a case where I could see a decision going either way.  What if his self-employed venture had failed and then the family really struggled?  Women have a stake in the stability of their husband's work.  I know one guy, a Motu Catholic, who quit one job after another, went on unemployment while he worked get-rich-quick schemes (which all failed).  He couldn't stand the thought of sucking it up and working a normal job.  Finally his wife couldn't take it anymore and divorced him.  They were constantly going on food stamps and unemployment and barely scɾαριɳg by.  That guy was grossly negligent in providing for his family.  Now, does his negligence justify divorce?  No, of course not ... as you are bound for richer or for poorer.

Well, there's a case where I could see a decision going either way.  What if his self-employed venture had failed and then the family really struggled?  Women have a stake in the stability of their husband's work.  I know one guy, a Motu Catholic, who quit one job after another, went on unemployment while he worked get-rich-quick schemes (which all failed).  He couldn't stand the thought of sucking it up and working a normal job.  Finally his wife couldn't take it anymore and divorced him.  They were constantly going on food stamps and unemployment and barely scɾαριɳg by.  That guy was grossly negligent in providing for his family.  Now, does his negligence justify divorce?  No, of course not ... as you are bound for richer or for poorer.

also his problem is that he was a prideful ass thinking he can suddenly get rich
look at anyone who is actually rich -- it takes them years of sacrifice and actual hard work, not "ooh shiny the stock market, i hope apple's doing well"
"there's a sucker born every minute" -p.t. barnum

This is vile and impure language, which does not belong on a Catholic forum.

It's descriptive, like the word "sodomite". It means an effeminate husband whose wife plays on his weakness to carnal desires in order to control/manipulate him.