How Practical is it for Women to be Submissive to Their Husbands in Modern Society

  • Thread starter Thread starter MargaretofCortona
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In my experience the man is the head of the family. His opinion and his wife’s opinion doesn’t change that. If he doesn’t step up to that role, no one can replace him and the whole family suffers.

I think we do a disservice to everyone by ignoring that.
 
If a man wants a traditional relationship, he will need to be upfront about it as soon as he starts dating/courting with a woman. From some of the blogs out there (and that have been linked on the old CAF), there are quite a bit of Traditionalist Catholic young women who are seeking a devout Catholic man for marriage. I would bet this includes him being the “head” of the family. These young ladies that frequent that blog and respond positively about it on social media sites are the type of women one should be meeting and then dating if one is wanting a submissive wife.
The problem is that she may not at all realize what she is signing up for by saying she wants to be a submissive wife, and it may not even be possible for her to live out wifely submission to her husband’s satisfaction–it is not unheard of for traditional-minded husbands to expect things of their wives that are physically and logically impossible. For example, a traditional husband might expect a large family, homeschooling, a spotless home, a homecooked dinner every night, and a sweet, slender, sexually voracious wife–without realizing that that’s not a description of reality. Just about nobody can check all of those boxes–at least not without a lot of outside help.

Hard core wifely submission can sound romantic to the young, inexperienced and very much in love, but living it out can be rather different than the advertisement.
 
What I’m wondering is how you still have not been able to explain how Ephesians 5, and all the exhortations from Casti Connubii and Arcanum Divinae, et al apply to you and your marriage.
Believe it or not, I’m really nice to my husband.

I suspect that at least 85% of what St. Paul wants from wives is covered by just being nice.
 
40.png
Vonsalza:
Would it be fair to say then that the chief argument in the equality-in-leadership camp is one from supposed absence?
It’s not just “supposed” absence in the vows. It’s not there.

If it’s not in the text of the vows, that’s not what we’re vowing.
I’m afraid you misunderstood, or you likely wouldn’t have doubled-down here as you did.

I added “supposed” into the term “Argument from Absence”, in order to accommodate the errant notion that the Church has been silent on the issue.

Arguments from absence are junk rhetoric, since “from absence” virtually any text can be used to argue virtually any one thing. Again, this is because the topics that any given text or line doesn’t cover is nigh limitless. Ergo these kinds of arguments are useless.

At any rate, this link from this site pretty firmly ends any notion that the Church has been silent on the issue.


Demurral beyond this is just a case of the proverbial horse refusing to drink the water it’s been led to.
 
Last edited:
Just to toss in a monkey wrench…modern women are generally educated and often decide who to marry, even over objections from family so wouldn’t it follow we have more duty to obey than the wives of yesteryear rather than less?
I think there’s a strange and profound truth in this.

It reminds me of a saying I’ve heard about marriage:

A woman marries a man expecting him to change, and he doesn’t.
A man marries a woman expecting her to not change, and she does.


Throughout this thread we have discussed Catholic marriages where both parties were well aware of “traditional” roles, including paternal headship, before marriage, and agreed on them. This is complex enough, without getting into the countless other possibilities.

As several posters have emphasised, there is an inarguable foundation for this in scripture and Church teaching. Whatever the exceptions, this foundation is more than a theological argument the husband can use, they are a command to the husband, the wife, the whole family, from God.

Does she still expect him to provide for them? Is he still doing so? In 99.9% of cases this will be happening. During courtship she will have paid close attention to his earning capacity, and will expect him to use it for the family (and for her). She won’t have given the option of changing to a lower pay job, or none at all, on his own whim.

When life get’s tough, and things don’t turn out as you expect (as is inevitable), it behooves the wife to recall that she chose this man, and the headship which they accepted. If it’s not turning out well for her, then the future is in God’s hand, not hers.

That’s my take on @KathleenT’s few words. Obviously, they are my thoughts, not necessarily hers.
 
Last edited:
The husband does have final say…until his wife talks him out of it. 🙂
The husband does care about his wife, and wants to please her. She can talk him out of bad decisions, and she can use her various wiles to get good things out of him. 😀
 
Last edited:
The only “authority” a husband can exercise is that which his wife consciously gives him. Society’s depiction of the man ruling over the home with a fist is an utter fiction (and a vile lie, from the feminists).

In practice, she holds all the “power” in the home.

She can resist any decision simply by talking, crying, fulminating, and talking, and talking…, until he gives in.

I point to my case, where my wife knew well that my number one goal in life was the religious formation of our children, and which she couldn’t care less about. Thus she could get away with anything by parceling out my involvement with the kids.
 
Last edited:
Just saw this.

The doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t established until the Council of Nicaea.

No charge.
The doctrine of many subjects wasn’t covered until Nicea. That doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t talk about them. There wouldn’t be a doctrine of the Trinity is Jesus hadn’t brought it up first.
 
Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It’s God’s teaching.
Paul also said that escaped slaves should return to their their masters and obey them. If you were abducted and sold into slavery, would you follow that prescription?
 
Paul also said that escaped slaves should return to their their masters and obey them. If you were abducted and sold into slavery, would you follow that prescription?
Yeah, if you were kidnapped and enslaved by ISIS or Boko Haram, would you feel honor bound to stick around if you had the opportunity to escape?
 
Last edited:
A woman marries a man expecting him to change, and he doesn’t.

A man marries a woman expecting her to not change, and she does.

Throughout this thread we have discussed Catholic marriages where both parties were well aware of “traditional” roles, including paternal headship, before marriage, and agreed on them. This is complex enough, without getting into the countless other possibilities.
Well, I think the saying is not exactly true. Men aren’t exactly the same in marriage as they are during courtship–it’s very likely that they during courtship they are especially eager to please, especially eager to resolve disagreements in their beloved’s favor, especially generous. Also, one typically has a lot more disposable income than when children come and a whole lot more free time. So courtship presents an unavoidably misleading picture of what married life with this person is going to be like. I know that my husband and I got much poorer from when we got married to when we had our first baby in terms of free time and disposable income.

When my husband and I were having our worst troubles when Baby Girl was a toddler, part of the problem was that instead of wanting to do nice things for me, almost any minor request required persuading him that the favor was necessary and demonstrating it in excruciating detail. This was not, needless to say, how the man I fell in love with treated me.

Courtship is very different than marriage. You typically have less disposable income, less free time, more home responsibilities, kids, more demanding jobs, etc., and it may take a while to gracefully adjust to those pressures.

I prefer the Russian saying that says, a husband is a person that used to bring you flowers, and now brings you vegetables.
 
Last edited:
The only “authority” a husband can exercise is that which his wife consciously gives him. Society’s depiction of the man ruling over the home with a fist is an utter fiction (and a vile lie, from the feminists).

In practice, she holds all the “power” in the home.

She can resist any decision simply by talking, crying, fulminating, and talking, and talking…, until he gives in.

I point to my case, where my wife knew well that my number one goal in life was the religious formation of our children, and which she couldn’t care less about. Thus she could get away with anything by parceling out my involvement with the kids.
YMMV, but SAHMs don’t have a lot of control over our lives. We have to accept whatever the terms of our husband’s employment is and work around it. If our husband gets a job two or three states away, we’re moving, and his job has take priority over everything else. If there’s not enough money, we have to make it work (if we’re doing our job, of course). If he says he’s busy working, then we don’t get help with the house or kids, even when we need it. If he’s bad with money, we can’t stop him.

When my husband and I were having a hard time, I literally could not leave the house by myself unless I got him to agree to take Baby Girl. It was like being in jail, but at the time, I wasn’t able to express to him how unfair it was that he could come and go at will like a free adult, but I was dependent on getting his permission to go anywhere by myself.

Also, my husband would grill me over tiny expenses, even though he makes a great income and I had been a very careful money manager. This all felt really degrading and humiliating. The stuff he did at the time (like quizzing me on whether I really needed to go to the grocery store even when I was taking Baby Girl–he thought I should only go once a week) really hurt my self-confidence at a time when I felt overwhelmed and lonely and was probably teetering on the edge of depression. If I’m not smart enough to decide when to go to the grocery store, what am I smart enough for?

Like it or not, this felt a lot like the “iron fist” that you think is mythological.

My husband has (thank goodness!) stopped doing this stuff when he realized how terrible it was, and the worst period was less than half a year, but it was that bad.

Lord knows what would have happened to my mental health, had I been a “submissive” wife in the sense that omgriley and Vonsalza use the word.

Edited to add: This low point was what caused me to start reexamining my old ideas about wifely submission and start thinking about whether those ideas actually made sense. I also realized that my bad ideas about wifely submission were part of what got me to that low point. You cannot imagine how surprised I was to find the quotes in Casti Connubii I’ve been talking about and realized that up until that point, I’d been carrying around essentially conservative Protestant notions of the wifely role. As a new convert, it never occurred to me that the Catholic theology might be rather different.
 
Last edited:
She can resist any decision simply by talking, crying, fulminating, and talking, and talking…, until he gives in
I have a friend who has been trying for a couple years to get out of homeschooling.

She’s probably done everything you mentioned, but her husband still won’t let her quit. Public school is eeeevil, and he refuses to pay for private school, so homeschooling it is.

Married women who work and who have small families have a lot more leverage at home, which goes a long way to explaining why there are so many working moms and small families.
 
Thanks @Xantippe for the several objections to my own posts. The different POV and extra information is much appreciated. Love the Russian husbands saying - I’ll keep that! 😂
 
Lord knows what would have happened to my mental health, had I been a “submissive” wife in the sense that omgriley and Vonsalza use the word.
I actually try very hard not to use that word as that’s not my challenge from God. Headship is.

And I know that babies are hard; especially when self-centered westerners like me have several of them. Close together! But your husband being less than helpful in the day to day baby-grind doesn’t justify your rejection of headship. I doubt you’ll find it in Casti Connubii, anyway. And you need to be careful that you don’t sow seeds of enmity that may one day bear some ugly fruit in your marriage.

But either way, if you could leave me out of your cathartic and confirmation-seeking narrative that conflates Christian husbands fulfilling their God-given duty of leading their households with calloused wife-oppressors, I’d appreciate it.
You cannot imagine how surprised I was to find the quotes in Casti Connubii I’ve been talking about and realized that up until that point, I’d been carrying around essentially conservative Protestant notions of the wifely role. As a new convert, it never occurred to me that the Catholic theology might be rather different.
Its not “rather different”. You just super-want it to be. It may be more nuanced, but there are plenty of papal addresses, encyclicals and so on that affirm the reality the husbands have a leadership role over the entire house.

One of the supporting documents is Casti Connubii that you seem to have rather selectively studied. Feel free to try that link I’ve twice posted. The citation is in there.
 
The only “authority” a husband can exercise is that which his wife consciously gives him. Society’s depiction of the man ruling over the home with a fist is an utter fiction (and a vile lie, from the feminists).

These quotes are all from various “traditionalist” sites. So you were saying that "ruling with a fist’ is fiction and a vile lie from feminists.
Vetus Ordo:
…As far as I know, a husband slapping a disobedient wife, for instance, was never considered a sin or a social taboo in the history of the Church and Christian society.

Nowhere does St. John actually say that physical correction is sinful in itself, so you can’t say he disagrees with St. Thomas on this.
Graham:
More than just a case, and it’s simple in principle. A temporal authority must ultimately have recourse to physical punishment, else it isn’t really a temporal authority. If trads ‘put their money where their mouth is’ then it’s clear the husband has the right to strike his wife, again, assuming commensurability to the offence. It is revolutionary and anarchical to deny that he has this right and can exercise it in justice. One could go into a great deal more detail discussing the circumstances in which it would be called for and the proper limits on the husband’s rights in this respect (since we are not Roman pagans who believe in an unlimited patria potestas), but that’s unnecessary and diversionary at this time, when it is actually the principle that’s being rejected.
Jayne:
I do not object to the idea of enforcement of authority. I do not think enforcement is especially practical in a situation in which the enforcement would be illegal and likely to result in a restraining order and the man losing his property and his children.

Most of us live in a time and place in which men are prevented from enforcing their authority, so a husband can only exercise his authority with his wife’s cooperation.
Ladislaus:
Jaynek, you really need to stop egging on these sexually-insecure little men who feel the need to thump their chests. You are thereby doing a great disservice to Traditional Catholic women. Might as well start issuing a line of “Trad” wife-beater shirts. I’m sorry to say, but I am well acquainted with their type … know many personally, the Trad men who treat their wives like complete garbage under the pretext of wives having to obey their husbands. And it sickens me. These are nothing more than sexually-insecure pathetic excuses for men who act the part of tough guy only against the defenseless. They used it to “lord it over” their wives, inflate their own egos and sense of self-importance, and do not exercise loving authority over them … for the good of their souls.
 
What’s the saying? “The husband is the head, but the wife is the neck that turns the head.”
 
40.png
Edmundus1581:
The only “authority” a husband can exercise is that which his wife consciously gives him. Society’s depiction of the man ruling over the home with a fist is an utter fiction (and a vile lie, from the feminists).

These quotes are all from various “traditionalist” sites. So you were saying that "ruling with a fist’ is fiction and a vile lie from feminists.
Good information! I take your point that at different times and places physical coercion by the husband has been accepted, under a guise of traditional Christianity.

However, I’m referring to normal families (Christians and otherwise) in the west, in the current and recent past.

I don’t know about America, but in Australia we have a hugely successful “domestic violence industry” which depicts the violent, domineering husband as ubiquitious. They (the industry) do it for profit, and probably for fun also, and our gullible politicians, media and public go along with it. Women take advantage of it to depict any form of anger or coercion from their partner (married or de-facto) as “domestic violence”, and they take further advantage of it when they leave him, by immediately labelling him “an abuser” and leveraging this for advantage in custody and property settlements. This is the vile lie from the feminists I am referring to.

I am aware of several well written articles supporting my case, but my favourite authority is no academic, but a remarkable woman named Erin Pizzie. She founded the first shelter for battered wives in England in 1971 and learned a lot about domestic violence there. She herself was the victim of an abusive father and mother. She saw, first hand, how her shelter was taken over by feminists in the 1970s, and how the dv industry built a whole anti-male narrative and a billion dollar industry around fake domestic violence statistics.

Erin: Yeah. All across for 40 years, they have been doing educational packages which they then sell to, whether it’s to the police or social services, and the message is always there: it’s all men, it’s all men, it’s all men.

Dean: And it’s a lie, isn’t it?

Erin: It’s a massive lie. Yes. And it’s a very, very, very—a lie worth telling because you get billions out of this. This is more about money than it is about caring for anybody.
This is no academic issue. In Australia, at least, the lies are pervasive and infecting families and relationships.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top