Women/Wives

[Xantippe]

Even if a man or woman for that matter is strong and all that, we must remember that there is such a thing as aging where one’s physical and mental prowess will decline. This is enough to keep one humble especially when one notices that they are not getting any younger. Christians of both sexes will do well to remember that we are all called to be humble.

As for doing everything, the somewhat toxic atmosphere of the blogosphere has Christian women in particular thinking that not only must all women have a lot of kids but they must also homeschool, whip up delicious and nutritious meals on mere pennies, manage to look beautiful for their husbands. If they fail, they cannot be real Christian women. This is particularly pervasive in the Quiverfull world.

And the interesting thing is, you can look high and low for nearly all of those expectations in the actual Bible and not find them. (Women wouldn’t have been expected to provide their sons with a complete religious education in OT times because they themselves simply didn’t have the education necessary to do so. And, in general, it’s a historical novelty for mothers to be the primary educators of older boys–people in the past would have thought that ludicrous.)

Here’s an “encouraging” to-do list from one such Protestant writer.

aboverubies.org/index.php/blog/womens-daily-encouragement/entry/how-can-i-love-my-husband

Almost nothing there is terrible individually, but the accumulation of minor tasks that the husband can presumably do just as well for himself is really burdensome, especially considering that the wife is not just a mistress or a geisha living the life of Jeanie in I Dream of Genie lolling around in a lamp until her master calls her, but has a bunch of small children at home and has a pretty full plate just with kid and basic home responsibilities.

 

[LethalMouse]

The main issue is modern thinking and fear of the imperfect. You(subjective not personal “you”) don’t want to listen to your husband because you fear he will mistreat you. Your husband fears treating you like you are him because he fears you will not listen to him.

I was in a “perfect” relationship temporarily (she was actually using/cheating me lol) but what I knew for a time was like a bible perfect relationship. She would essentially do whatever I wanted (I never wanted anything that would harm of degrade her so…) and I could never deny her a request. Texhnically these are the same things but using different words for the biblical context and proper man/woman situation. I can tell you despite the fact that her end was an act, I discovered that it is probably the most wonderful thing.

First psychology wise even some of the most staunch feminists like “a man to take charge” if only within their odd view of such. If a man doesnt she will leave him for an actual man.

Men crave to protect and feel needed and “help” and to lead. God is a smart dude and set us up to fit together like perfect puzzle pieces both physically, spiritually, and mentally. The biggest theme in our religion is to do what is right despite the other… with I think a few small limits.

So part of this is in a relationship when you “disobey” your husband he will as a human be afraid you will subject him to a one way relationship so he will stop treating you like you are literally him.

By the same token if in a moment he acts even slightly “wrong” you will have the same fear and stop “obeying” him. This will in both instances create the never ending cycle of tit for tat and lead to the divorce rate we have today.

In God’s infinite wisdom he says to do the opposite and continue to do your part because in most cases you will win by killing your spouse with kindness (theoretically they kinda like you since you got married and stuff).

As a note from my mentioned relationship, it was a more wonderful feeling to have a woman I couldn’t deny more than it was nice that she let me lead… but the letting me lead was a human factor on why I could not say no to her.

As one female theologian said to an atheist who said all women should not be christians due to needing to obey their men:

“The bible says for women to obey their husbands and husbands to be like Christ. One of the last things Christ did was wash feet, so when you wash my feet I will listen to you.”

And most notably there is mention of women obeying husbands but not random guys on the street, non of this makes women 2nd class citizens, it sets up an in home family dynamic. And no organization ever succeeds without some kind of figurehead.

The not denying sex thing… ugh lol it is funnny our society has made it seem as if women are all nuns and men are pressuring them all the time. If you deny him, he might deny you. I have never met a woman who didnt at some point want sex when I didn’t. For Catholics who are not married and don’t suck at being Catholic, you might not realize this but wome are pretty horny creatures, you need to decide when you tell your husband “no” if you are willing to start down the road of being told “no” because lets be honest most “for no good reason” NO’s are a human powerplay control issue. If you say no his *** better listen, but you should enjoy his no’s in return if he succumbs to his humanity as you have.

 

[Lea101]

Hey–you’re having PMS! That’s female fragility for you.

More seriously, when I was a young woman, I also would have found the idea of female weakness offensive, as I was a sturdy little farm girl. However, now that I’m older, married, and have three kids (two of which are getting quite big), I now think that the idea of being a “strong woman” is a sucker’s game.

I’m not Wonder Woman or whichever is the latest trendy female super hero. I’m not “strong”. I can’t do everything by myself. I can do some things (and there are some things that I’m rather good at!) but I can’t do All The Things. I need help. I’m not going to get shamed or guilted into the idea that I am supposed to do everything by myself, because that’s not actually Church teaching–it’s not in the Bible, and it’s definitely not in the Catechism. And yet it’s an idea that surfaces again and again.

I’ll add that for you personally, it’s quite OK to believe that you can do All The Things, because you more or less can at your stage in life.

I don’t want people to expect me to take care of everything, but I also don’t want to be told that “men will/must take care of it”. I grew up seeing my dad “lead” things and my mother only having some control over certain stuff, like cleanliness or when we misbehave. She could have just been keeping quiet in front of us and then having a say behind closed doors, but from my POV, it makes my mother seem less important, even though I know the whole “catholics believe we are all equal”, I just never really seen anyone who genuinely believes it and practises it. Well, besides secular feminists (males included) , and you know, I’m not really into secular feminism.

 

[Xantippe]

I don’t want people to expect me to take care of everything, but I also don’t want to be told that “men will/must take care of it”. I grew up seeing my dad “lead” things and my mother only having some control over certain stuff, like cleanliness or when we misbehave. She could have just been keeping quiet in front of us and then having a say behind closed doors, but from my POV, it makes my mother seem less important, even though I know the whole “catholics believe we are all equal”, I just never really seen anyone who genuinely believes it and practises it. Well, besides secular feminists (males included) , and you know, I’m not really into secular feminism.

Keep your eyes open and keep thinking and your opinion of your family-of-origin dynamic will probably change.

Mine has been changing a lot over the last few years. I used to be very daddy-centric and believed that my father could do no wrong (I was brought up to think that way), but now that I’m older and have more experience, I question a lot of the decisions that my father made when I was growing up.

There’s also the issue that people’s theories and practice with regard to marriage don’t always line up (and that’s not always in a bad way). A lot of times, you can’t really tell what is the theory behind another couple’s marriage, because when a marriage is working, nobody is obviously bossing the other around.

Also, local culture makes a big difference.

I forget if I gave these links earlier in this thread, but here are some things for you to have a look at by a Protestant writer:

iprefercaptain.com/2014/07/15/

And here’s another by another female Protestant writer (skip down to the section that says “A few more thoughts about submission”:

tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2015/05/on-submission-wedding-showers-and-choosing-a-mate/

I really like Sheila Wray Gregoire’s approach, because it deals very neatly with “hard cases”.

I’d also note that there are a lot of verses in the Bible urging submission to secular authority–and yet we know for a fact that the early Christians were continually in trouble with the authorities. Which kind of suggests that submission doesn’t actually mean total obedience…

 

[Sarcelle]

Keep your eyes open and keep thinking and your opinion of your family-of-origin dynamic will probably change.

Mine has been changing a lot over the last few years. I used to be very daddy-centric and believed that my father could do no wrong (I was brought up to think that way), but now that I’m older and have more experience, I question a lot of the decisions that my father made when I was growing up.

There’s also the issue that people’s theories and practice with regard to marriage don’t always line up (and that’s not always in a bad way). A lot of times, you can’t really tell what is the theory behind another couple’s marriage, because when a marriage is working, nobody is obviously bossing the other around.

Also, local culture makes a big difference.

I forget if I gave these links earlier in this thread, but here are some things for you to have a look at by a Protestant writer:

iprefercaptain.com/2014/07/15/

And here’s another by another female Protestant writer (skip down to the section that says “A few more thoughts about submission”:

tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2015/05/on-submission-wedding-showers-and-choosing-a-mate/

I really like Sheila Wray Gregoire’s approach, because it deals very neatly with “hard cases”.

I’d also note that there are a lot of verses in the Bible urging submission to secular authority–and yet we know for a fact that the early Christians were continually in trouble with the authorities. Which kind of suggests that submission doesn’t actually mean total obedience…

Exactly.

Leadership does not also mean micromanagement.

 

[Lea101]

Nobody seems to be answering a crucial question I have: what makes a man capable enough to be the “head”? And if a woman have the qualities and her husband doesn’t, does that mean she could be the head?

I know a couple-wife works in the navy and the husband works from home to take care of the kids. They don’t fit the gender stereotypes. The man is very nurturing towards the children, cooks for the family, is very gentle. The woman is the head to sum up. She is the one with the higher pay, she is noooo where near submissive, she is not one of those wives that lives in long skirts, she has short hair and is (I wouldn’t say rough, she is not violent, but the way she acts is a typical "tomboy). Their marriage worked out beautifully, the kids are normal. That’s not wrong is it? In fact, I see them as a perfect match. They fit together so perfectly! But then I see some Christians (usually protestants or traditional catholics) acting like that’s wrong, and I get so confused.

 

[LethalMouse]

Nobody seems to be answering a crucial question I have: what makes a man capable enough to be the “head”? And if a woman have the qualities and her husband doesn’t, does that mean she could be the head?

I know a couple-wife works in the navy and the husband works from home to take care of the kids. They don’t fit the gender stereotypes. The man is very nurturing towards the children, cooks for the family, is very gentle. The woman is the head to sum up. She is the one with the higher pay, she is noooo where near submissive, she is not one of those wives that lives in long skirts, she has short hair and is (I wouldn’t say rough, she is not violent, but the way she acts is a typical "tomboy). Their marriage worked out beautifully, the kids are normal. That’s not wrong is it? In fact, I see them as a perfect match. They fit together so perfectly! But then I see some Christians (usually protestants or traditional catholics) acting like that’s wrong, and I get so confused.

The absolute number one quality of a leader is knowing when and how to follow. In the military there are times when the guy with the most rank follows, doesn’t change his respect as “head” persay, it actually enhances it. With modern thought you pressume this leads to the usurping of “authority” in a marriage, but if done correctly it actually does not.

On the imperfect side, when someone in the military shows up with more rank and tries to “take over” an already good operation because of their ego… everything falls apart, his men lose respect and (as I have done to such people) his men go to the next higher up and usurp him.

I leave you with this: Jesus is the head of the church he was the leader of his disciples, yet he came to serve. Ego is what makes people debate who should lead, because they want to lead like Ceasar and not Jesus.

 

[on_the_hill]

“women is the weaker sex, hence we must treat them like they are fragile/etc” way of thinking in religion as well as society.

IIRC, a prominent Catholic theologian/leader once said that the Church values women to such a great degree that we protect them from the burdens of leadership. This is just my memory, and I might have misinterpreted, but that’s what I recall, and it didn’t sit right with me.

 

[Vico]

Ok first of all, please do not derail this thread and start arguing. I know this is a sensitive topic.

A friend of mine, who is rather anti-religion, brought up the whole famous “submit to your husband” and other verses from the bible that seems very misogynistic. And then she asked me to explain. I tried my best but then I started doubting myself.

I tried saying that women are equal but different. She asked me how are they different besides looks and qualities that seems to be enforced on us as children (for example, the whole “math geniuses in the past are usually men” thing is invalid because women in the past were not encouraged to go to school, etc.

I could not think of anything.

Then she asked about the whole “submission” thing, like why women are the ones to submit. I couldn’t give a proper answer besides “because of Adam and Eve”.

I tried explaining that women are not to “obey” their husband and husbands should love their wives etc etc. But then she asked more practical, modern day examples of a wife submitting to her husband. I couldn’t think of one

Then she asked me about the whole “It is wrong to deny sex to your spouse without a valid reason”. My gosh, I could not answer. I always felt like if for example, the wife simply isn’t in the mood, the husband should not pressure her. And if she gives into the pressure and just “lies there”, I mean…a lot of people would consider that rape! And I am not sure if Catholics agree with this or not. If they do, then what’s with the whole “marital debt”?! I’m sure we want our spouses to be willing, not because they feel like they are sinning if they said no?

Then she asked about modesty. About how it’s only emphasized on women. Now I could kind of explain it well-that women are sexualized and our bodies are seen as objects and she roughly got it. Although she brought up about how modesty could be used to oppress, but I told her it’s more of the people’s fault, not the Church.

Could you guys help me? I told her I would get back to her. Give me your answers for each of the points she brought up (I may try to refute you, but that’s because I want you to explain fully so I won’t be caught in the headlights if she says the same thing as me to you)

Some resources:

Equality

Catechism of the Catholic Church

• III. “MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM”

Equality and difference willed by God

369 Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or “being woman” is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity “in the image of God”. In their “being-man” and “being-woman”, they reflect the Creator’s wisdom and goodness.

370 In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective “perfections” of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.241

Justified Abstinence

Abstinence can lead to a weakening of affection or a risk of impurity, yet here are some situations where refusal (abstinance) is ordered, even if not mutually agreed upon:

1. if the spouse has been unfaithful to the extent of adultery (until forgiveness of the injured party).
2. if there is a danger of the infection of disease.
3. if the request is unreasonable.
4. if it be under conditions that are genuinely harmful and distressing.
5. if it is going to be abused by the sin of onanism.
6. if a pregnancy would be fatal or highly dangerous.
7. medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications, may exempt from the positive debt (of fecundity) for the entire period of marital life, however natural sterile periods may be utilized.
8. not allowing the proper amount of time or privacy.

T.G. Wayne states:

“There is no obligation of asking for the due except when harm would be done by abstinence, a weakening of love, a risk of impurity. In this connection, husband and wife will learn to interpret and anticipate the wishes of each other.

By mutual consent married couples may abstain from intercourse either for a time or forever, not as evading the obligations of their state, but as an offering and sacrifice to God. They must not deny the existence of the right, but may forgo the exercise of it.”

Re: Section V. Obligation, in T.G. Wayne - Morals and Marriage, published in 1936, EWTN has the document in their library:
ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MORMAR.txt

Modesty, including Temperance

Modesty has to do with both custom and taking excessive pleasure in something, arising from inordinate attachment. That attachment is threefold countered by three virtues: humility, the habit of avoiding excessive expenditure and parade, 2) contentment, excluding seeking of sensuous pleasure, and 3) simplicity, which excludes excessive concern or anxiety about such things.

 

[Xantippe]

IIRC, a prominent Catholic theologian/leader once said that the Church values women to such a great degree that we protect them from the burdens of leadership. This is just my memory, and I might have misinterpreted, but that’s what I recall, and it didn’t sit right with me.

Whoa–I guess I need somebody else to watch all my kids for me. No more leadership for me! Woohoo! If anybody needs me, I’m going to be in the tub having a bubblebath.

(I think anybody who says that doesn’t understand what mothers DO.)

 

[pensmama87]

IIRC, a prominent Catholic theologian/leader once said that the Church values women to such a great degree that we protect them from the burdens of leadership. This is just my memory, and I might have misinterpreted, but that’s what I recall, and it didn’t sit right with me.

So I’m actually *supposed *to sit around eating bon bons all day?

 

[LethalMouse]

So I’m actually *supposed *to sit around eating bon bons all day?

I think this woman puts it well

jenniferfulwiler.com/2009/08/why-it-makes-sense-to-me-to-be-obedient-to-my-husband/

So no on the bon bons.

 

[Xantippe]

So I’m actually *supposed *to sit around eating bon bons all day?

Yeah.

You’re a frugal sort–see if you can get a bulk order and fill a chest freezer with bon bons.

 

[Xantippe]

I think this woman puts it well

jenniferfulwiler.com/2009/08/why-it-makes-sense-to-me-to-be-obedient-to-my-husband/

So no on the bon bons.

There’s a good bit there about the limits of legitimate authority.

However, I think that the bit about women’s unavailability actually cuts in the other direction. In a SAHM household, mom is the one who is most available for household decision-making and will, in actual fact, make most decisions regarding the household (even on a very minor level, a single grocery shopping visit will involve literally dozens of decisions). Likewise, there’s the question–what about families where the husband works long hours, often travels for business, is perhaps even deployed for a year overseas? In that case, the argument of women’s unavailability doesn’t hold much, if any water.

Also, this was not very well-thought-out:

“When tough decisions have to be made, I don’t envy my husband for being in the position of having to face the consequences of his decisions if things don’t work out.”

I have heard this argument more than once, and it’s very, very bad–in the case of major bad decisions, everybody in the household is going to suffer the consequences, perhaps for a very long time.

“I used to think that having both spouses as equal partners would be a great system because everyone would get what they want. What I’ve seen from human history and life experience, however, is that leaderless systems just mean that nobody gets what he wants.”

How about turn-taking?

It’s not that hard.

Interestingly, my entry-point for an explicitly collaborative system of family decision-making came from being a Dave Ramsey fan and following his family budget model where husband and wife come to the table every month and work on a budget until they have an agreement. It’s actually not very conflictual once you get into the rhythm. You just work until you have a budget with no surplus and no deficit. And although the budget is “just about money” that process covers a lot of family decision-making.

 

[pensmama87]

I think this woman puts it well

jenniferfulwiler.com/2009/08/why-it-makes-sense-to-me-to-be-obedient-to-my-husband/

So no on the bon bons.

It was meant facetiously.

I normally like Jennifer Fulwiler, but I disagree with some of what she says here (and actually suspect that if she wrote a similar post today, seven years later, she would take a more nuanced approach.)

Converts, especially from the secular anything-goes world, can tend to be overzealous in the opposite direction for the first few years. It’s not so much, “What is the most Christian thing to do?” but “What is the most opposite of how I used to live?” Ask me how I know.

Yeah.

You’re a frugal sort–see if you can get a bulk order and fill a chest freezer with bon bons.

I think I’m already set…Aldi had a fantastic sale on Easter candy and I think we’re well stocked now for at least a year…

 

[LethalMouse]

There’s a good bit there about the limits of legitimate authority.

However, I think that the bit about women’s unavailability actually cuts in the other direction. In a SAHM household, mom is the one who is most available for household decision-making and will, in actual fact, make most decisions regarding the household (even on a very minor level, a single grocery shopping visit will involve literally dozens of decisions). Likewise, there’s the question–what about families where the husband works long hours, often travels for business, is perhaps even deployed for a year overseas? In that case, the argument of women’s unavailability doesn’t hold much, if any water.

Also, this was not very well-thought-out:

“When tough decisions have to be made, I don’t envy my husband for being in the position of having to face the consequences of his decisions if things don’t work out.”

I have heard this argument more than once, and it’s very, very bad–in the case of major bad decisions, everybody in the household is going to suffer the consequences, perhaps for a very long time.

“I used to think that having both spouses as equal partners would be a great system because everyone would get what they want. What I’ve seen from human history and life experience, however, is that leaderless systems just mean that nobody gets what he wants.”

How about turn-taking?

It’s not that hard.

Interestingly, my entry-point for an explicitly collaborative system of family decision-making came from being a Dave Ramsey fan and following his family budget model where husband and wife come to the table every month and work on a budget until they have an agreement. It’s actually not very conflictual once you get into the rhythm. You just work until you have a budget with no surplus and no deficit. And although the budget is “just about money” that process covers a lot of family decision-making.

Have you ever been part of a team or crew with a leader? Does the team or crew always follow as lemmings? Or do they have (name removed by moderator)ut?

Are said teams successful? I would wager the lemmings team would fail and the team that has (name removed by moderator)ut succeeds. I have a boss at work. I do my job making hundreds of decisions a day without his approval or involvment. I am still not the boss. My boss is bound by laws and union contract, he cannot tell me to do much that I dont already do.

A husband is less of a “boss” than my boss at work, he is more like the presiding leader of a round table of equals. He is bound by God, laws, hopefully a conscience on what he can be “in charge” of.

The best defense is a good offense. Women fear men will be a tyrant and as such become tyrants or demand the rights of a tyrant to protect themselves.
Men fear their women will demand to be a tyrant and as such attempt to be one to protect themselves. It is circular.

As I said in a previous post, stop thinking of leadership like Ceasar, and think of it like Jesus.

The greatest lesson I have learned in relationships is to not protect myself. Even if it fails… it was still better than when I was protected. Truly even when I suspected my ex of being up to no good I treated her 99% without any protection for myself (I am human I am not perfect when scared). When the relationship failed it hurt my heart in one sense, but there was a freeing in having acted right for a change. There was an amazing ability to not hate her after and to actually pray she find happiness rather than be excessively bitter and angry. It is truly freeing to give yourself to someone with as few reservations as our imperfect nature allows. But I also find giving ourselves to one on a human level is not possible until you can give yourself to trusting God more than fear. It was only with her that I had seen to drop many of my guards and trust in doing things God’s way in life in general… my life keeps getting better in so many ways.

 

[Xantippe]

It was meant facetiously.

I normally like Jennifer Fulwiler, but I disagree with some of what she says here (and actually suspect that if she wrote a similar post today, seven years later, she would take a more nuanced approach.)

Converts, especially from the secular anything-goes world, can tend to be overzealous in the opposite direction for the first few years. It’s not so much, “What is the most Christian thing to do?” but “What is the most opposite of how I used to live?” Ask me how I know.

Those are interesting points. I have noticed that the most fervent female advocates of wifely submission tend to be some combination of 1) fairly new at it 2) have husbands that are gone a lot or 3) empty nester SAHWs 4) like to bully other women.

Time has demonstrated to me that both my husband and I can be very stupid and selfish. When I was a young bride and a convert from Evangelical Protestantism and very eager to be a submissive wife, it never occurred to me that that could be true. But, on the bright side, realizing that fact means that we do much less selfish and stupid stuff.

Now that I’ve been married quite a while (going on 18 years now), I feel like it’s much more important to avoid the stupid than to make the best possible decision, as when decisions are bad enough, you can wind up living with the consequences for the rest of your life. I have a hard time remembering the last time my husband and I jointly made a major bad decision, but it’s been a really long time–probably at least 9+ years at this point. That overlaps with how long we’ve been doing Dave Ramsey–it’s been very helpful both to our finances and to our marriage generally.

(For anybody unfamiliar with the system, DR teaches joint budgeting, with both spouses having an equal voice. His experience is that when the financially nerdy spouse tries to railroad the “free spirit” spouse, the free spirit tends to rebel. DR’s approach involves bringing the free spirit to the table and getting their buy-in by giving them an equal say in budgeting, but then putting their feet to the fire and having them stick to their agreement for the month.)

 

[LethalMouse]

It was meant facetiously.

I normally like Jennifer Fulwiler, but I disagree with some of what she says here (and actually suspect that if she wrote a similar post today, seven years later, she would take a more nuanced approach.)

Converts, especially from the secular anything-goes world, can tend to be overzealous in the opposite direction for the first few years. It’s not so much, “What is the most Christian thing to do?” but “What is the most opposite of how I used to live?” Ask me how I know.

I think I’m already set…Aldi had a fantastic sale on Easter candy and I think we’re well stocked now for at least a year…

My biggest problem with humans is the need to be nuanced. No matter what point a person makes nor its validity, if they use even one word that the other person dislikes a human will nullify the entire point.

In a convo with a muslim friend we were discussing the similarities/differences of our religions and branches thereof. He was more interested in seeing us as different.
He luterally came to the conclusion that since we often use the word “works” and islam uses the term “deeds” that we believed in doing vastly different things… with the human mind capable of that it is nearly impossible to make a point without being nullified.

 

[EasterJoy]

If a person does not see submission to God as a freedom, I do not see how you could explain any other kind of submission in a way that person would not find demeaning or unprofitable to the person freely submitting to another person. Certainly a person hearing an explanation of the Christian concept of submission without understanding the person of Jesus Christ is going to come away with a mistaken conception.

I’d start there, then: that is, by saying, "If you don’t understand the submission of the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, to the Father, then there is no way on earth you could possibly understand Christian submission in a way that is not a veiled excuse for unjust domination. Can’t be done.

 

[LethalMouse]

If a person does not see submission to God as a freedom, I do not see how you could explain any other kind of submission in a way that person would not find demeaning or unprofitable to the person freely submitting to another person. Certainly a person hearing an explanation of the Christian concept of submission without understanding the person of Jesus Christ is going to come away with a mistaken conception.

I’d start there, then: that is, by saying, "If you don’t understand the submission of the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, to the Father, then there is no way on earth you could possibly understand Christian submission in a way that is not a veiled excuse for unjust domination. Can’t be done.

Well put