What do you think of men who want a submissive wife?

[ToeInTheWater]

I essentially agree with everything you said, but at the same time I feel the need to add a couple of caveats.

First of all marriage is precisely about no party running roughshod over the other. Neither the man nor the woman is free to run roughshod over the other spouse.

Neither party is free to do what he or she wants without caring about the other party’s thoughts or feelings. The man loses that right, but so does the woman.

Personally, I’m not looking for a submissive woman, but at the same time I wouldn’t like to run into one with a contrarian attitude or one preoccupied with having her thing done etc.

I agree with your caveats. Essentially, my problem is not as much with a man who wants a submissive wife, but one who wants to be domineering husband. Some seems to even have this idea that marriage is not a partnership, but is a master-servant relationship where one party has to dominate and one party has to submit. They see the only alternative to the husband dominating the wife, is the wife dominating the husband. Then they pull out the Scipture verses to prove this isn’t the way God wanted it.

I’ve even seen traditionalists essentially state that “mutual submission” is an oxymoron, apparently ignoring the actual Bible verses about believers submitting to each other. And yes I know Catholics aren’t Sola Scriptura but it seems many who believe in “traditional” gender roles love to hang everything on Ephesians 5:22-33.

 

[Walking_Home]

But what if you married Miss right?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AXUYbD1V6v8/TCEwE5mOY8I/AAAAAAAAA44/3Oug9IwkSGY/s320/Miss+right.jpg

No problem

Remember the old WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) slogan? As trite as I often find such sayings, in this case it’s a valid question. You are called to love your wife as Christ loves the church. He is your role model for leadership. So here are a few things about how Jesus approaches us as his bride that you should wrap your mind around before you and your bride engage in a discussion about submission:

• Jesus never demands our submission. He invites it with loving-kindness.
• Jesus laid down his life for his bride, the very model of sacrificial love.
• Jesus’ only motivation was to do the will of the Father (it was his very food)
• Jesus did what he did for the sake of the Kingdom (represented by your marriage)

Keeping these things in mind, explain to your wife that your desire is to have a biblical marriage. Tell her that your understanding of this includes a God-given level of authority for husbands. Emphasize that this is not about who is better or worse, smarter of dumber, who is more or less capable, but that it is simply a scriptural mandate. Share with her what you have learned about the bridal paradigm and how it has impacted your thinking. Don’t pretend to have all the answers about what all it means – none of us does – but ask her to help you figure out what it means. Your desire is to take this journey of discovery together.

---

As Catholics – we follow Magisterial authority. The Church is the one entrusted to interpret scripture – giving us Church teachings. Church teachings is the mutual submission of husband and wife ---- Not a one sided submission only to the husband.

 

[Walking_Home]

What a premise to begin a marriage on.
Marriage is 100/100.
Not 50/50, not 90/10.
I’d question the leadership ability of anyone who didn’t consider the opinions, abilities, and perspective of their constituents. The ideally married couple has so much love, respect, and concern for the other, they put the other first when possible, and they decide TOGETHER major issues.
People love to cherry pick Scripture passages because it feeds their sense of control.
Christ was God, but He allowed His persecution and death to happen because He loved His spouse, the Church which He built, and the people of God. He was not weak in leadership. He was strong, Willing to suffer even unto death.

Submission in our world today is a word that elicits anger. It’s not a word of communion or togetherness. If a married couple agrees that one or the other (for example) has the final word on finances, based on that person’s expertise, that’s not being submissive in the strictest sense. That’s making decisions together, in the most prudent way.

Men who dominate, and DESIRE to dominate have self esteem issues. A real man, loves his wife, guides when guidance is needed, and defers when deferment is needed.

Likewise for women. but you seldom see women who say they want a submissive husband. Because they don’t see it as a godly thing. They see is as a way to exert control and lessen their partner. Men who say they want or must have a submissive wife in these times, will end up disappointed, (because they’ll find a hard time finding such) or disappointed (because such women, if they exist will anger them no end with their neediness), Either way, it’s a mistake.

---

Agree.

 

[Loly_Maria]

I find that people who focus on ‘submission’ tend to be very insecure.

 

[chevalier]

I agree with your caveats. Essentially, my problem is not as much with a man who wants a submissive wife, but one who wants to be domineering husband.

Yes, I’ve realized that. I’m just wary whenever the subject pops up, but your apprehensions are essentially identical to my own.

Then they pull out the Scipture verses to prove this isn’t the way God wanted it.

Mark 10:42-45:

‘You know that among the gentiles those they call their rulers lord it over them, and their great men make their authority felt. Among you this is not to happen. No; anyone who wants to become great among you must be your servant, and anyone who wants to be first among you must be slave to all. For the Son of man himself came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’

(Incidentally, someone trying to wrest some authority from someone else just to then make it felt is doing the same thing.)

I’ve even seen traditionalists essentially state that “mutual submission” is an oxymoron, apparently ignoring the actual Bible verses about believers submitting to each other. And yes I know Catholics aren’t Sola Scriptura but it seems many who believe in “traditional” gender roles love to hang everything on Ephesians 5:22-33.

For both parties it’s easy to ignore that authority isn’t about having one’s own way. Those who have it forget the goal of it is not to please them. On the other hand, those who don’t have it can forget that (i) not all authority is misused to just please the wielder, and that (ii) it’s not okay to try and grab the authority — or put pressure its wielder — to just get to call the shots for a while or have one’s own wishes fulfilled*.

• By this I’m not referring to actually getting what one wanted, but instead to that specific feeling of having one’s will done, seeing or even having others conform to it etc. Which is a very saddening thing to find in a prospective wife, especially from the perspective of a man who is taught that power is to be used in a more sacrificial way and not for one’s own enjoyment.

(Having authority in a matter actually prevents you from advancing your own interests in it. When you are given authority, you actually suddenly find yourself being even more unable to get your way than you were before. Because when you don’t have authority, you have some freedom to pester the person who does with your wishes. But if it’s you who have the authority, then you just can’t grant your own whims to yourself like that. Hence, you actually end up doing what other people want. The paradox of authority. The kings of old had the least freedom of all people. This probably made them somewhat weary of courtiers who tried to seize some power just to see their particular factions’ demands put in fruition.)

 

[hesso12]

The “one another” in verse 21 does not necessarily imply that submission is reciprocal. The word translated “one another” is the Greek term allÄ“lois, and its use in the New Testament often has nothing to do with reciprocal action. Here are some examples:

• 1 Corinthians 7:5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
• 1 Corinthians 11:33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
• Matthew 24:10 And at that time many will fall away and will deliver up one another and hate one another.
• **Luke 12:1 **Under these circumstances, after so many thousands of the multitude had gathered together that they were stepping on one another,
• **Acts 19:38 **The courts are in session . . . let them bring charges against one another.

 

[hesso12]

In each one of these texts, the term “one another” is used, and it is clear that reciprocal action is not in view. One party is performing some action and another party is receiving the action. The “one anothers” in these texts would make no sense at all as reciprocal actions. I think “one another” is used in the non-reciprocal sense Ephesians 5:21 as well.

(2) The command to submit is not directed to the husbands. In the Greek text, the verb for submit appears in verse 21 but not in verse 22. Verse 22 specifies what this submission is supposed to look like: “Wives to your own husbands.” When Paul begins instructing the husbands in verse 25, he moves to a totally different verb—love. There is no specific command to the husbands to submit. Only the wives receive such instruction.

So what is the text teaching? It teaches that husbands are to love their wives self-sacrificially and that wives are to follow the leadership of their husbands. Paul says this relationship is patterned after Christ’s relationship to His church.

“The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, . . . as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:23-25).

There is no reciprocal submission between Christ and his bride; neither is there to be such between husbands and their wives. Are there mutual obligations for husbands and wives? Yes. Is there mutual submission in the reciprocal sense? No.

 

[Walking_Home]

In each one of these texts, the term “one another” is used, and it is clear that reciprocal action is not in view. One party is performing some action and another party is receiving the action. The “one anothers” in these texts would make no sense at all as reciprocal actions. I think “one another” is used in the non-reciprocal sense Ephesians 5:21 as well.

(2) The command to submit is not directed to the husbands. In the Greek text, the verb for submit appears in verse 21 but not in verse 22. Verse 22 specifies what this submission is supposed to look like: “Wives to your own husbands.” When Paul begins instructing the husbands in verse 25, he moves to a totally different verb—love. There is no specific command to the husbands to submit. Only the wives receive such instruction.

So what is the text teaching? It teaches that husbands are to love their wives self-sacrificially and that wives are to follow the leadership of their husbands. Paul says this relationship is patterned after Christ’s relationship to His church.

“The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, . . . as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:23-25).

There is no reciprocal submission between Christ and his bride; neither is there to be such between husbands and their wives. Are there mutual obligations for husbands and wives? Yes. Is there mutual submission in the reciprocal sense? No.

---

Again – interpretation of scripture and how scripture is applied — falls to the Church Magisterium. The Church has stated how submission in marriage is to be understood.

 

[SWolf]

In each one of these texts, the term “one another” is used, and it is clear that reciprocal action is not in view. One party is performing some action and another party is receiving the action. The “one anothers” in these texts would make no sense at all as reciprocal actions. I think “one another” is used in the non-reciprocal sense Ephesians 5:21 as well.

(2) The command to submit is not directed to the husbands. In the Greek text, the verb for submit appears in verse 21 but not in verse 22. Verse 22 specifies what this submission is supposed to look like: “Wives to your own husbands.” When Paul begins instructing the husbands in verse 25, he moves to a totally different verb—love. There is no specific command to the husbands to submit. Only the wives receive such instruction.

So what is the text teaching? It teaches that husbands are to love their wives self-sacrificially and that wives are to follow the leadership of their husbands. Paul says this relationship is patterned after Christ’s relationship to His church.

“The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, . . . as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:23-25).

There is no reciprocal submission between Christ and his bride; neither is there to be such between husbands and their wives. Are there mutual obligations for husbands and wives? Yes. Is there mutual submission in the reciprocal sense? No.

Very well put.

Also note that this doesn’t mean both aren’t putting in 100%.

 

[Walking_Home]

Very well put.

Also note that this doesn’t mean both aren’t putting in 100%.

---

A foot into the fundamentalist protestant error of interpreting scripture.

 

[alphawoman]

In response to the OP: outside the context of being mutually subject to one another in totality, they are unprepared to be married until they develop a better understanding of Church teaching.

There will always be factions in the Church that attempt to reinterpret passages out of context to suit their own selfish interests. We should not mistake the notion of a dominant/submissive marital relationship as being the model ordained by God and supported by the Church.

 

[Havard]

I try to stand up for what I believe in, but also to be a peacemaker. That’s what I would have wanted in a wife as well. Plus, I just like a little cheekiness/brassiness. IMO, it’s a very appealing quality in a woman.

 

[EasterJoy]

I find that people who focus on ‘submission’ tend to be very insecure.

Why? If you only mean “tend to,” well, I can see it. Still, that is hardly the whole story.

We live in a society in which both the overly individualistic and the control freaks make an unnecessary trial of marriage, not to mention just about every other relationship they are in. Throw one of each into the same marriage, though, and it gets ugly very quickly, with both believing himself or herself to be on the “high road.”

If only those who focus on “submission” were only insecure! I can’t say that this is true. The truth is that they are sometimes just plain bossy. They want what they want, and they think anyone else in their right mind ought to want the same thing. That is one form of self-worship that gets in the way of a Christian marriage. As for those who claim they only submit to God alone, the truth is that they submit to pretty much nobody. For some strange reason, even God only tells them what they want to hear. The only way to get along with them is to appease them, because they will not bend their self-will out of obedience alone. No, they require to be brought along, to be convinced, to be won over. Their only claim to fame is that they at least give the same room to others a good deal of the time. Not always, not as often as they believe, but a good deal of the time.

If I had to make a prediction, I’d say that two people who are too individualistic have a better chance at lasting in marriage than two control freaks. The control freaks have to be on the same page all the time, and the individualists just have to agree that each gets his or her own crayons and his or her own book. Still, neither works very well and neither is according to the Christian mindset.

 

[chevalier]

I try to stand up for what I believe in, but also to be a peacemaker. That’s what I would have wanted in a wife as well. Plus, I just like a little cheekiness/brassiness. IMO, it’s a very appealing quality in a woman.

Havard. Will you be my wingman?

 

[bmaj]

If a man wants a submissive wife…and if a wife wants a submissive husband…I’d say they both have control issues.

When a person specifically looks for a partner who will be submissive, IMO it means they only want things their way and want someone who will agree to that always. It means the person in charge is inflexible and arrogant. Or a baby.

If they happen to find a partner who wants to always be told what to do and who wants someone else to always make all the decisions in the family, it may seem like a good pairing of opposites on the surface, but…
…overall, it doesn’t seem to be a healthy relationship to me.
I think the submissive person is not in touch with their needs and if they are, does not know how to express what they want or cannot. And sooner or later, this will cause big problems–either emotional, physical, mental…or in the marriage.

I think the submissive person needs to find their voice to be a healthier, more well-rounded person…and the controller needs to find flexibility and humility, for the same reason.

There’s my two bits on that.

.

Excellent points, DaddyGirl. I would be EXTREMELY wary of a man who wants a submissive wife…and I’ve seen it up front and personal. Not fun, especially when the wife realizes that she wasn’t born to be a slave and actually has her own, very important opinions that DO matter. When those opinions and feelings end up differing with the husband’s, it can definitely pose major problems. I’ve see that many times men who want submissive wives can be unyielding or open to ANYONE else’s opinions, not just their wife’s.

 

[EasterJoy]

…I’ve see that many times men who want submissive wives can be unyielding or open to ANYONE else’s opinions, not just their wife’s.

Bing-bing-bing!

I think too few people notice how their prospective spouses treat the people they are not trying to impress. How do they treat people waiting on them in restaurants? How do they treat their superiors and how do they talk about them? How about their co-workers and their underlings? How do they treat people who need patience? How do they treat people who will never be able to “do anything” for them? How do they talk about each of their parents? Their friends? Do your friends like them? Your family? Or do the people who love you seem reserved around this guy and maybe a bit wary of him? Do they ask you questions about him that seem more protective of you than with others you have dated? Does this man and your father seem to get on like a father and a son, or do they seem territorial around each other? Et cetera…

If your dad makes every other guy he knows seem territorial, well…take that for what it is worth, then! If your dad did not treat your mother very well, ask yourself why you like guys who “remind you of your father.” It may only be because he seems familiar, somehow, but not (if you think about it) in what is ultimately a good way.

 

[SWolf]

---

A foot into the fundamentalist protestant error of interpreting scripture.

Some other fundamentalists…

Pope Leo XIII
11. Secondly, the mutual duties of husband and wife have been defined, and their several rights accurately established. They are bound, namely, to have such feelings for one another as to cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one another an unfailing and unselfish help. The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and in her who obeys, a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties. For “the husband is the head of the wife; as Christ is the head of the Church. . . Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things.”(18)

Homily 20 on Ephesians - Saint John Chrysostom
Then after saying, The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is of the Church, he further adds, and He is the Saviour of the body. For indeed the head is the saving health of the body. He had already laid down beforehand for man and wife, the ground and provision of their love, assigning to each their proper place, to the one that of authority and forethought, to the other that of submission. As then the Church, that is, both husbands and wives, is subject unto Christ, so also ye wives submit yourselves to your husbands, as unto God.

Pius XI - CASTI CONNUBII
27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.

St Thomas Aquinas - Commentary on Ephesians 5
From this he draws the conclusion he intended, saying Therefore, as the church is subject to Christ. As though he said: It is not proper for an organ to rebel against its head in any situation; but as Christ is head of the church in his own way, so a husband is the head of his wife; therefore the wife must be obedient to her husband as the church is subject to Christ. “Shall not my soul be subject to God?” (Ps. 61:2), so also let the wives be to their husbands. “And you shall be under your husband’s power” (Gen. 3:16), in all things which are not contrary to God, for Acts 5 (29) affirms: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

 

[Havard]

Havard. Will you be my wingman?

LOL, sure.

 

[Xantippe]

I agree with your caveats. Essentially, my problem is not as much with a man who wants a submissive wife, but one who wants to be domineering husband. Some seems to even have this idea that marriage is not a partnership, but is a master-servant relationship where one party has to dominate and one party has to submit. They see the only alternative to the husband dominating the wife, is the wife dominating the husband. Then they pull out the Scipture verses to prove this isn’t the way God wanted it.

I’ve even seen traditionalists essentially state that “mutual submission” is an oxymoron, apparently ignoring the actual Bible verses about believers submitting to each other. And yes I know Catholics aren’t Sola Scriptura but it seems many who believe in “traditional” gender roles love to hang everything on Ephesians 5:22-33.

Right.

I especially agree with seeing the only options as being 1) husband dominates or 2) wife dominates. There are other options that don’t involve either spouse continually lording it over the other.

I haven’t finished reading the thread, so apologies in advance for any repetition, but here are some more verses.

From Matthew 20: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

From Luke 6: “Do to others as you would have them do to you.”

 

[Xantippe]

I’ve spent the last year or so poking around the “Christian” manosphere and the wilder areas of internet Protestant fundamentalism, and I’ve run into some crazy stuff. Being a middle aged lady who has been around a lot of very normal American Evangelicals and Catholics over the years, I feel like I’ve been discovering species of American Christians that I had previously known nothing about. I’m more and more sure that being really keen on wifely submission is a very bad sign with regard to a man’s fitness for marriage and fatherhood. (If anybody disagrees with that, head over to Dalrock and read comment threads for 30 minutes and then come back and argue with me, if you have the heart.)

Speaking very pragmatically, I think that one of the gifts of marriage is to be able to bring both spouses’ talents and knowledge to bear on the problems that the family faces. In a submission-oriented family structure, the family plane is flying with only one wing. Again, pragmatically, I think there are enormous benefits to using a “two yes” system in family decision-making for non-emergency situations (and most decision-making is non-emergency). I’ve arrived at this belief from being a huge Dave Ramsey fan for the past 8-9 years and listening to a lot of calls that he takes from husbands and wives and couples, whether in financial crisis, or working together effectively and achieving seemingly impossible goals together. One-wing families just limp along at best (when they’re not crashing into a mountainside), but when couples are in agreement and working together, nothing can stop them. DR teaches a model of joint budget and financial planning that encourages both spouses to be fully functional and contributing adults, and it’s a very attractive and effective method as I know from having used it for nearly 8 years now. And DR is at the same time a very old school, traditional husband and dad–so it is possible to combine both an egalitarian model of decision-making with an old school, traditional ethos.

I’ve written a lot about marriage and the perils of submission on CAF over the past year or so. I don’t want to repeat myself too much, but here are two more thoughts.

1. When a husband says (as his clinching argument), “because I’m the man,” it does suggest that he doesn’t have a very good case for whatever it is he’s doing. In fact, it does suggest that whatever it is he wants to do is probably a bad idea. If it were a good idea, he’d have better arguments for it.
2. If you read sites like No Longer Quivering or Free Jinger, you often run into women that used to believe whole-heartedly in wifely submission, but then bailed on it. The fundamentalist model of wifely submission seems to produce a lot of brittle marriages that look good on the outside, right up until they blow up. So, just from self-interest, it’s a good idea to avoid that model–that system has no safety valve.