Limits of "Headship"

[whatevergirl]

*Chris, you were seeking some examples earlier …I’m not sure if this might help or not, but here’s a personal situation where my husband’s ‘‘headship’’ was enacted last night in our home. I have gotten better with regards to getting my kids to do their chores, but they don’t always do them when I ask. My husband has no problem getting them to get them done. That said, I was cleaning yesterday, my husband called from work and asked ‘‘are the kids helping you?’’ I said…with a sigh…’‘no.’’ He said…’‘Please get them to help you…and tell them that if they don’t…they will be doing whatever you didn’t get to, when I get home from work.’’ I used to not relay his messages… But, since really immersing myself into this Scripture passage, I don’t want to debate him when it comes to the children, anymore. He is clearly right…they need to be helping! So…I relayed the message to them…and they cleaned. No questions asked. They even said they were sorry for not doing it when I asked. :ehh: So, there is a scenario (at least in my home) where I ‘‘defer’’ to my husband. This isn’t on all things, but when it comes to the kids, he has the final say…and they now know this. I am a softie, and it hasn’t always been a good thing for the kids…

In your case, I think if your wife is staying at home, like I said above…why not defer to your wishes, even just for a short time? Her compromise could be ‘‘honey, I’ll do this for one year, and if it’s not working…then, we’ll have to talk about other options.’’ I think that makes sense, in my eyes. You’re not being dominating in this case…and you both reach a compromise that works. I think that if you are able to homeschool–why not give it a try?

Good luck with this situation. *

 

[dominicandinah]

dominicandinah

Your opinions I seek and welcome. It is your unfounded and uncharitable assumptions of ill will on my part that I am happy to do without!

Then perhaps making your question clear and your responses less vague and more detailed would clear up an assumptions made by myself and others that have already posted their confusion…

Is it just too much to ask for you to simply post what the actual concern was in the first place? That would have made this much easier for all who are reading and responding.

 

[Just_Lurking]

But is it so out of line for a husband to want he and his wife to discuss an issue with their pastor?

“Wanting” is not out of line. “Demanding as the wife’s lord and master” is quite out of line.

 

[Em_in_FL]

“Mutual submission” as we often hear it described today is a fairly new concept. All writings of Popes prior to JPII were pretty strongly angled toward a husband’s leadership and wife’s obligation to follow. Casti Connubbi for example, refers to a wife owing her husband “humble and trusting obedience”… a far cry from the “mutual submission” concept meaning there is no real authority in the home. A husband submits to his wife by sacrificial leadership, she submits by following. It is not the same type of submission. Doesn’t Ephesians 5 say that wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord? Obviously the Lord doesn’t dominate his people in a negative way or “throw his weight around”, and neither should a husband. ** But is it so out of line for a husband to want he and his wife to discuss an issue with their pastor?**

Maybe not… but there were other elements of this story that the OP has hinted at…

1. They HAVE sought counseling on this issue… to no avail.
2. The pastor would only be sharing his “opinion” (since it’s not a “moral absolute”) on a subject (parenting issue) that he is not an expert in.

At this point… considering the above points… I believe a third opinion does begin to suggest the essence of “throwing his weight around”. If the OP *really *believed that his wife’s opinion was going to be validated by the priest then he probably wouldn’t suggest discussing it with him. If he were REALLY open to discussion then counseling should have made some breakthroughs.

At this point, I think The Marriage Ref may be the only practical advice. (kidding, kidding… haven’t even seen it yet… )

 

[aspirant]

Headship, in any other context does not imply a sinful desire to dominate.

It certainly did among the pagans, while among Christians it should not. Among the pagans it meant the right to insist on one’s own way, even to the point of harming and killing others. Among Christians it has a contrary meaning: it is rightly understood to mean the responsibility to serve, and even to give one’s very life, for the sake of others.

Please do not assume the worst of someone asking the question.

I don’t assume anything about you except that you came here to ask a question, and I tried my best to provide the resources that answer your question as well as ones that address other ideas on the thread.

If you want a simpler answer, I can do that. You asked, “Would it be a proper exercise of the authority of a father as the ‘head of the family’ to insist that a wife approach, with him, their mutually respected pastor…?” The simple answer is “No.” A husband may try to persuade his wife, as she may try to persuade him, but he cannot substitute his own will for hers (as the now-Venerable Bishop Wojtyla put it in Love & Responsibility). St. Paul clearly says both “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” and “Love… does not insist on its own way.”

To the poster who claimed that loving as Christ loved IS a reachable goal. Get real! That is almost blasphemous!

Loving as Christ loves is a divine commandment which every Christian has a responsibility to keep: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another… This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.” If this is “blasphemous,” it’s God himself who’s “blaspheming.” Loving as Christ loves is the target. Sin is missing this mark in one way or another.

Christ’s headship involved more than giving his life on the cross. His headship, (whether anyone chose to accept and follow it is another question) also had real authority.

Pope John Paul II: “However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the ‘subjection’ is not one-sided but mutual.” And this is exactly what St. Paul says in Ephesians 5.

Is there anything left of the term “head of family” that resembles the use of the term in any other context?

Pope John Paul II’s understanding of the term is based entirely on what the inspired scripture itself says. So yes, Pope John Paul II’s understanding of the term resembles the original use.

Personally, I am glad that we don’t speak about “lord and master” any more and I have no desire to be someone’s boss (as much as I am willing to be a leader always when chosen to be it), and the kind of relationship I dream of is where decisions are mutual and the brainstorm is natural with both parties heading for common good, not for singular affirmation, because both parties are simply dedicated to common good and the good of each other…

Amen.

when I read some of the posts in discussions similar to this one, I really get the impression that in some opinions, the man’s duty is to affirm and validate his wife’s unilateral decisions, shut up and obey and worship at the feet of her freedom

Definitely not, don’t worry. The submission of Christian spouses is supposed to be freely chosen and mutual.

The goals of husband and wife are mutual salvation, good of the offspring, mutual good…

Agreed.

I don’t see that the husband has the right to unilaterally impose his will upon the wife any more than the wife has the right to unilaterally impose her will upon the husband. Imposing one’s will is not any part of what headship in the family is truly about.

Agreed. “Love… does not insist on its own way.” Love does not substitute its own will for the will of the other.

“Mutual submission” as we often hear it described today is a fairly new concept.

New in St. Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians, if one considers that recent.

Doesn’t Ephesians 5 say that wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord?

What it actually says is “Submit yourselves to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, to your husbands, as to the Lord… Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…” There is no verb in 5:22. The verb is borrowed from 5:21, which instructs all Christians to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Obviously the Lord doesn’t dominate his people in a negative way or “throw his weight around”, and neither should a husband.

Christ does not even “throw his weight around” in a relationship where he is owed unilateral subjection. Wives, meanwhile, do not even owe their husbands unilateral submission: “whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the ‘subjection’ is not one-sided but mutual.” How much less, then, should human husbands “throw their weight around”!

But is it so out of line for a husband to want he and his wife to discuss an issue with their pastor?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting it. There is nothing wrong with the husband trying to persuade his wife, nor anything wrong with her trying to persuade him. The OP asked whether a husband could insist upon his own will. The answer to the latter is a clear “no.”

 

[Chris33]

Aspirant.

THANK YOU! You put a lot into your response without the accusatorial tone that many of the other posters here have in their responses. I will want to give it some thought, as I do see some areas that are problematic. But really, you put time and thought into it, gave a very direct answer where one was asked for and that is much appreciated.

One question for anyone else out there, as much of the current theology on all of this is JP2 that does seem to have a very significant difference in tone than previoue popes on the matter, does anyone know if any of these teachings are De Fide? I mean, if so, there is not much more reason to discuss these matters! Mine or yours would be of no value if in conflict with a formal teaching from the Chair of Peter.

 

[crazzeto]

The issue of “insisting” that a wife follows her husbands lead to resolving issues isn’t what I want to talk about first…

I’m wondering… while your pastor may be a wonderful and educated and loving *spiritual *guide and advisor for your family…
But why on Earth would you ask a Priest about his opinions on child rearing?.. Maybe if it was clearly a matter of morality within the teachings of the faith, but still, having a “mutually respected pastor” sort of implies that you mutually respect the faith… sort of negating any serious “matters of morality” that may creep into parenting issues. Most parenting issues are matters of opinion… so I’m just not understanding why you’d go to your priest with that kind of question?

If you need marriage counseling on how to have effective and productive conversations, then seek a marriage counselor.

I’m frequently amazed, how often people think a priest has no conceptual idea what it means to to guide and even raise childeren. It’s not like they’re born on another planet, and beleive it or not they frequently do work with Childeren.

Personally I don’t see why you wouldn’t ask a priest for advice, it’s rather natural from where I sit as they are our spiritual fathers. Now insisting is another matter, there comes a time when being bone headed does more harm than good.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I’m frequently amazed, how often people think a priest has no conceptual idea what it means to to guide and even raise childeren. It’s not like they’re born on another planet, and beleive it or not they frequently do work with Childeren.

Personally I don’t see why you wouldn’t ask a priest for advice, it’s rather natural from where I sit as they are our spiritual fathers. Now insisting is another matter, there comes a time when being bone headed does more harm than good.

You didn’t understand the point of my post.
My point was… that most parenting issues are a matter of opinion… and just as the OP mentioned… it’s not a “moral absolute” issue.
Parenting issues should, first and foremost, be decided by both parents. If there is a disagreement then the issue needs to be resolved between the parents. Having an “outside opinion” will only serve to drive a wedge between the spouses unless it’s a mutually agreed upon decision.
And furthermore… if that opinion is coming from a priest (which is fine - he may have a very valid point with great child-rearing insight!), it may serve to push one of the spouses away from the faith because of his position as pastor.

The last thing you want is someone who is a “figurehead of the faith” driving a wedge in someone’s marriage.
Counseling is the best way for the couple to work out issues between themselves.
If the priest is trained in marriage counseling then that’s an option, though…

 

[Pug]

I think we could all benefit if the issue was discussed in a way that does not assume ill intent on the part of husbands.

I did not assume ill intent. I asked for clarification to understand. Since you chose the word “insist”, I asked what you meant. In my life, “insist” is used after the person has already refused. That’s why I had trouble making sense of your use of the word. What do you mean by “insist”? How do you envision “insisting” will change the situation?

Most instances of headship that I can think of take place before the refusal stage. If a new job opportunity comes up for the man, the couple could discuss how this will affect school, housing, etc. Then, if they are undecided, the man could make the call. Or, he could tell her to make the call, especially if he feels her life will be more impacted by a move.

If she refuses after that, then he must deal with that. How he chooses to deal with that will depend heavily on the specifics of the case.

For a true example, we attend the parish that my husband chose. We do not attend our geographical parish. I comply. I could refuse, of course. Then he would have to deal with that. Probably it would result in him going wherever I went. But, I do not refuse. I view me refusing as completely unhelpful. His headship was exercised years ago on this issue. We discussed it, it was clear he wished it, so that is how it was carried out.

But really, I think headship does apply after a refusal. Just not in the same way. He will need to assess what is going on and see if he should try and change his behavior or request certain changes, whatever. Maybe it could be something like taking the family to a series of Lenten lectures at the parish. This would be a response on his part from him worrying about the spiritual well-being of the family. I would not tell the wife that the lectures have anything to do with anything. I’d just suggest we all go.

 

[Em_in_FL]

But really, I think headship does apply after a refusal. Just not in the same way. He will need to assess what is going on and see if he should try and change his behavior or request certain changes, whatever. Maybe it could be something like taking the family to a series of Lenten lectures at the parish. This would be a response on his part from him worrying about the spiritual well-being of the family. I would not tell the wife that the lectures have anything to do with anything. I’d just suggest we all go.

I think a lot of this issue relies on loving compromise. I simply don’t believe there are only 2 answers to a problem (HIS way or HER way)… there’s ALWAYS a compromise.

Using the *example *of the OP’s comment here:

Well this is getting pretty far from the specific question. But, and I do not want to get into particulars, lets say as an example that husband feels very strongly that the child should be homeschooled for fear of the social environment and the wife feels strongly that the child should go to public school thinking the child will hold up just fine to the social pressures. Neither is a moral absolute. Both feel very strongly and wife feels strong enough that she will act with or without husbands approval.

Let us also assume that counseling efforts have been tried and for years, and not helped.

I am not even asking if the husband has authority to make the final decision (which is a valid question in itself, but not being asked here), just asking if it is proper, for the sake of the welfare of the children, to insist that the wife at least hear what the pastor would have to say about the matter.

Assuming this is an example… here are some possible talking points and compromises…
If the husband were to insist on homeschooling, the burden of the work would be on his wife (correct? Unless dad stays at home?) What if the wife isn’t comfortable teaching her children? Or feels like too much pressure is being put on her and expectations are too high? These are all legitimate concerns. A loving husband would allow for those fears and talk her through those fears. A loving wife would be open to discussing options.
And then what about other schooling options with better social environments? A loving husband would be open to discussing other options in that regard too…

All marriages require some level of compromise… lovingly being open to the opinion of the one you decided to dedicate your life to.
This whole concept of “HIS WAY or HER WAY or NO WAY” is frankly just… unloving.

Solid counseling would open up *OTHER *solutions to the problem.

 

[former_Catholic]

There is nearly 200o years of tradition putting a more hierarchical understanding on the term “headship”. If JP2 has brought us to a new understanding, well, that’s fine, can’t exactly dismiss him can we? To have questions about it all does not make one a wife hater!

I raised the point that if the husband considers his wife to be *obligated to submit *to his sense of Christian *authority *over her, then he would clearly be *no less obligated to behave like Christ *(aka: like a Christian authority). This is not a matter of “wife hatred” but of the heavy responsibility that goes with any sort of authority and the vital importance of not having double standards.

When it comes to tradition, the wife in this case would appear to be far more in keeping with 2000 years of tradition than the husband. For the last 2000 years there has been a strict division of labor between men and women in the Church. Traditionally childbearing and childrearing were both under the strict authority of mothers and grandmothers until the child was “of age” (about 12) at which point a son would be turned over to the authority of his father (or more likely a more patient elder male relative) for his education in a trade, and a daughter would continue under the authority of the mother for her education in the management of the household.

Traditionally, unless the child were a son about age 12 (“of age”) the father’s place as any sort of authority figure at all on the subject of childrearing would be beneath that of his wife, her mother, and his mother (and the child’s great-grandmothers too, if living). Traditionally, if the husband had a complaint with the childrearing practices of the wife, the issue would have ended up under the authority of the child’s *grandmothers. *Issues on childrearing would never traditionally have been brought before a priest. Priests had no practical experience managing families and raising children.

“Headship of a family” is a construct from Roman Imperial Law that mandated all property be exclusively controlled by men, and that women and children were property of the man and could be sold into slavery as necessary to meet the man’s debts, or equally disposed of by his male relatives in the event of his death. “Headship of the family” fell from father to firstborn son upon death of the father, as the wife and daughters had no rights to own property.

As for the education of children, children have to learn how to deal in a safe, responsible, effective, ethical, and Christian manner with other children who come from other families, races, religions, ethnic backgrounds, languages, values, etc. It is much easier to learn this from a young age as a child dealing with other children year by year in school, than it is to end up as a teenager or adult (or a marriage partner !) sadly struggling to learn those lessons on sharing and mutuality and negotiation that everyone else learned in dealing with all those other kids in the kindergarten sandbox.

 

[Pug]

I think a lot of this issue relies on loving compromise. I simply don’t believe there are only 2 answers to a problem (HIS way or HER way)… there’s ALWAYS a compromise.

Using the *example *of the OP’s comment here:

Assuming this is an example… here are some possible talking points and compromises…
If the husband were to insist on homeschooling, the burden of the work would be on his wife (correct? Unless dad stays at home?) What if the wife isn’t comfortable teaching her children? Or feels like too much pressure is being put on her and expectations are too high? These are all legitimate concerns. A loving husband would allow for those fears and talk her through those fears. A loving wife would be open to discussing options.
And then what about other schooling options with better social environments? A loving husband would be open to discussing other options in that regard too…

All marriages require some level of compromise… lovingly being open to the opinion of the one you decided to dedicate your life to.
This whole concept of “HIS WAY or HER WAY or NO WAY” is frankly just… unloving.

Solid counseling would open up *OTHER *solutions to the problem.

I agree compromise is often a great way to go. I’m not sure it is always possible. Sometimes one person digs in and won’t budge. This is just a fact of people. They act this way at times. Talking with them about it might not help, even if you try it several times. After a string of fruitless talks, it seems best to me to stop the talks and try a different approach, perhaps just waiting.

I think I know what you mean, though. It is foreign to my thinking to say something must be my way. It seems wrong.

 

[former_Catholic]

I agree compromise is often a great way to go. I’m not sure it is always possible. Sometimes one person digs in and won’t budge. This is just a fact of people. They act this way at times. Talking with them about it might not help, even if you try it several times. After a string of fruitless talks, it seems best to me to stop the talks and try a different approach, perhaps just waiting.

I think I know what you mean, though. It is foreign to my thinking to say something must be my way. It seems wrong.

It is also extremely interesting that the op does not appear to have consulted the child on the matter nor evidence even *the least bit of concern that the child’s viewpoint is of significant importance such that the child should be consulted on this matter! *

This matter is apparently of such major significance to the child as to be comparable to where and if he/she *might be going to school or not! * The child is a huge part of the equation here and yet the expressed wishes and issues of the child do not seem to be of any major concern to the op whatsoever. The op isn’t on the floor with the child gently talking with the child and explaining things to the child and getting the child’s viewpoint on things here and carefully and attentively listening to the child. The op is on the internet preoccupied with a concept of headship and authority and whining that behaving like Christ is either an impossibility or “yes ma’am ism”.

I would say that wherever one is more concerned with headship and authority than one is interested in listening to one’s child’s needs, issues, interests, wishes, and feelings on an issue that directly involves the child, one is demonstrating one’s lack of competence as a parent.

 

[dominicandinah]

It is also extremely interesting that the op does not appear to have consulted the child on the matter nor evidence even *the least bit of concern that the child’s viewpoint is of significant importance such that the child should be consulted on this matter! *

This matter is apparently of such major significance to the child as to be comparable to where and if he/she *might be going to school or not! * The child is a huge part of the equation here and yet the expressed wishes and issues of the child do not seem to be of any major concern to the op whatsoever. The op isn’t on the floor with the child gently talking with the child and explaining things to the child and getting the child’s viewpoint on things here and carefully and attentively listening to the child. The op is on the internet preoccupied with a concept of headship and authority and whining that behaving like Christ is either an impossibility or “yes ma’am ism”.

I would say that wherever one is more concerned with headship and authority than one is interested in listening to one’s child’s needs, issues, interests, wishes, and feelings on an issue that directly involves the child, one is demonstrating one’s lack of competence as a parent.

Unfortunately, the OP will not disclose what the actual concern is and only used homeschooling as an analogy, thus confusing those that are trying to give helpful suggestions. Your answer is great, but it’s apparently the issue is not about homeschooling.

 

[mini_me640]

New in St. Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians, if one considers that recent.

I didn’t say that the concept of mutual submission is new, I said the way we use it and hear it discussed today is recent. Today it is discussed as a concept where the husband does not actually have any authority. That is not how it how it was understood by the Church for 1900+ years, and is not the type of mutual submission indicated from scripture.

Ephesians 5:24 As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.

Titus 2:3-5 Similarly, older women should be reverent in their behavior, not slanderers, not addicted to drink, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may train younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, chaste, good homemakers, under the control of their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.

Collossians 3:18 Wives, be subordinate to your husbands, as is proper in the Lord.
19 Husbands, love your wives, and avoid any bitterness toward them.

 

[former_Catholic]

Unfortunately, the OP will not disclose what the actual concern is and only used homeschooling as an analogy, thus confusing those that are trying to give helpful suggestions. Your answer is great, but it’s apparently the issue is not about homeschooling.

For the OP’s analogy to be to be an analogy at all, the childrearing issue is obviously an issue of great significance and importance to the child in addition to the parents.
The OP has shown ZERO interest and concern in consulting and listening to the child.
The OP has shown ZERO interest in opening the actual childrearing issue to any general discussion and debate.
The OP has shown ZERO interest in finding out and listening to what experienced parents and grandparents on this board might have to say about the actual childrearing issue.

Obviously the OP is extremely interested in controlling what is to be said about the actual childrearing issue. It is apparently important to the OP that the actual childrearing issue not be open for a general discussion among experienced parents and grandparents, particularly Catholic ones, who might possibly undermine the OP’s position on the matter.

The OP is oddly *only interested * in presenting to the spouse the expressed opinion of ONE man, (the pastor) whom the OP “respects and trusts” (because the OP knows him and knows what he will be inclined to say?)

The ONE man the OP is willing to consult on the childrearing matter is a priest with *zero practical experience maintaining a marriage and raising children. *
Raising children as a parent is by no means the equivalent of being a priest or a teacher or confessor or pastor or arbitrer of children’s squabbles at school who goes home at the end of the day. A priest is an *authority figure *who is qualified neither as a parent nor intimate companion in any way to a child. There are strict professional boundaries that are to be upheld. when it comes to Priests dealing with children!

So what does all of this say about the OP and the OP’s childrearing issue and the OP’s relationship with spouse and child and the OP’s issues with the OP’s sense of personal authority and CONTROL over others? The OP has shown far more of the OP that the OP would ever care to admit.

 

[Pug]

I would say that wherever one is more concerned with headship and authority than one is interested in listening to one’s child’s needs, issues, interests, wishes, and feelings on an issue that directly involves the child, one is demonstrating one’s lack of competence as a parent.

I had assumed that the OP was already well aware of the nature of the particular child, what he likes, is good at, his weaknesses, desires, emotional state, etc. It could indeed be problematic if a parent decided how to deal with a child without knowing anything about the child, or about any other players in the scenario.

 

[flyingfish]

I am honestly puzzled by the almost hostile assumption by respondents here that the very question of what in practical terms “headship” would look like implies a desire to mercilessly dominate one’s wife.

Only one respondent (flyingfish) gave some practical examples of headship in action:

“Leading the family in prayer, maybe choosing some religious books to read with the wife, insisting on going without to make life better for the kids and the wife.”

And who could argue with those things - BUT- how do they differ from the responsibilities of any other member of a family???

Headship, in any other context does not imply a sinful desire to dominate. The head of a company, should always be acting with the best interests of the company in mind. A good manager often puts in longer hours, then carries home the stress of his/her responsibilities. That that headship implies responsibilities that include decision making in no way should mean that those decisions are being made without a full understanding of the issues that are facing those on all levels of the company.

I think you’re approaching the issue from a wrong angle. Think back on your life, and the kind of people you’ve met in various situations whom you wanted to follow.

I am a pretty headstrong person and I’ve never been a follower, but I can tell you that some people that I’ve met in my life inspire so much confidence in their ability, their attitude, their vision, their intentions that I have gladly followed their lead.

I’m a liberal woman, and a feminist, but I prefer men who are natural leaders. I think it’s hot. I would prefer to be with such a man over a man who wanted to defer to me. That said, if you want your wife to follow your lead, be the kind of leader who inspires her to want to follow.

If your wife doesn’t want to homeschool, isn’t interested in homeschooling, doesn’t think that she’ll do a good job then you’re not going to get anywhere by trying to browbeat her into doing it. Think about it, if you really don’t think your’e suited for something, don’t want to do something, but some guy is insisting you should, are you going to follow him?

One view of leadership is a person put in authority and who enforces their authority by force. Maybe the military is like this, or an authoritarian government. But in normal situations, people want to follow people who show a great vision, who seem the most competent and capable of leading them to a better life. Once that’s gone, they stop following the leader.

You want your wife to follow you? Be that kind of a man. Stop trying to get her to do something that she thinks will decrease her quality of life, and start showing how you’ll lead the family to a future she wants. You’ll have much more success that way.

If you wanna view yourself as a manager, think of it as applying for a job. You want to be your wife’s manager, well show her a vision for a future she wants so she’ll want to hire you. If you try to lead the “company” in a direction it doesn’t want, you’ll lose your job.

 

[flyingfish]

Personally, I am glad that we don’t speak about “lord and master” any more and I have no desire to be someone’s boss (as much as I am willing to be a leader always when chosen to be it), and the kind of relationship I dream of is where decisions are mutual and the brainstorm is natural with both parties heading for common good, not for singular affirmation, because both parties are simply dedicated to common good and the good of each other… and I’d hate to be such a person that would make a wife afraid or unwilling to speak openly… Say, that’d be like cutting off your own hand (ironically, in the middle ages, when they had judicial duels, they would allow male vs female combat, they’d however strap a man’s one hand to his body and put him to the belt in the ground as in she was his half… I very much feel that way).

You know what I’m on the fence about, I’m not sure what men prefer. Do men like to be leaders, or are they more excited by assertive women? I get mixed messages from men and I don’t know what to be to make a relationship more exciting.

I don’t really care either way, but then the idea of leadership is only exciting as long as the man is essentially leading you to the kind of life you enjoy. I think it’s very attractive when a man has leader like qualities/is strong/a provider. I don’t know to what extent I should play that up, and whether a man is turned on by that or put off and prefers a more stronger-seeming female.

Or is it more that men want a woman who is strong and independent, but who will make it seem as though she values them as leaders/providers? Whereas a woman who actually needs the support/protection/leadership would seem less exciting/attractive and less of a conquest. Sigh. Grr.

 

[aspirant]

Ephesians 5:24 As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.

And, likewise, 5:21 & 25 say the same for husbands.