Women/Wives

[JurisPrudens]

In my opinion, “submission of wives” means not the submission to the husband’s desires, but that the husband is the one to take the decisions for the good of the family. He is like a CEO of the family. If everything depends on the agreement of both husband and wife, decisions cannot be taken efficiently, the family getting into a deadlock. This is the natural structure of a human family.

At the same time, women are cunning, so they often can direct the husband to do their will. But the nominal decision is still with the man.

This is what people are taught in my country, and it is irrespective of St. Paul and religion in general.

 

[Lea101]

In my opinion, “submission of wives” means not the submission to the husband’s desires, but that the husband is the one to take the decisions for the good of the family. He is like a CEO of the family. If everything depends on the agreement of both husband and wife, decisions cannot be taken efficiently, the family getting into a deadlock. This is the natural structure of a human family.

At the same time, women are cunning, so they often can direct the husband to do their will. But the nominal decision is still with the man.

This is what people are taught in my country, and it is irrespective of St. Paul and religion in general.

But what is it about the woman that is incapable of making decisions for the family?

We know that submitting isn’t some sort of abusive/50 shades of grey kind of relationship, but it’s still submission.

I don’t know why I am so annoyed at this teaching. I didn’t ask to be a woman

 

[Xantippe]

In my opinion, “submission of wives” means not the submission to the husband’s desires, but that the husband is the one to take the decisions for the good of the family. He is like a CEO of the family. If everything depends on the agreement of both husband and wife, decisions cannot be taken efficiently, the family getting into a deadlock. This is the natural structure of a human family.

At the same time, women are cunning, so they often can direct the husband to do their will. But the nominal decision is still with the man.

This is what people are taught in my country, and it is irrespective of St. Paul and religion in general.

Oh, the good old “the man is the head of the family, but the woman can turn the head whichever way she wants.”

Here’s your My Big Fat Greek Wedding youtube clip:

youtube.com/watch?v=YIm1dYTv-mQ

I’ve noticed that in “traditional” families, it’s not uncommon for the wife to take great pains to make sure that her husband doesn’t know what’s going on, so he doesn’t even know there is a decision being made. A lot of traditional husbands are getting the mushroom treatment. Or wives go ahead and do whatever and then let him figure it out later–as they say, it’s easier to seek forgiveness than to get permission.

So, there are ways in which a husband with a more collaborative style can wind up knowing more about his family than a husband with a more authoritarian style. People are afraid to tell dictators stuff, so they wind up not knowing a lot. (And that’s also true of parents and children, of course–less authoritarian parents will tend to have a better flow of information about their kids.)

With regard to deadlock, it is possible to just flip a coin. It’s not that hard. Or go talk to a wise third party and see what they advise and go with that. For a major, life-changing decision, that’s totally worth the trouble.

However, I would argue (from personal experience and observation) that deadlock is often a sign that one member of the couple is about to do something stupid. Deadlock can often be GOOD, as it puts the brakes on stupid. When your spouse says “Please don’t do XYZ!” there’s a 50-90% chance that XYZ is something stupid.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Oh, the good old “the man is the head of the family, but the woman can turn the head whichever way she wants.”

Here’s your My Big Fat Greek Wedding youtube clip:

youtube.com/watch?v=YIm1dYTv-mQ

I’ve noticed that in “traditional” families, it’s not uncommon for the wife to take great pains to make sure that her husband doesn’t know what’s going on, so he doesn’t even know there is a decision being made. A lot of traditional husbands are getting the mushroom treatment. Or wives go ahead and do whatever and then let him figure it out later–as they say, it’s easier to seek forgiveness than to get permission.

So, there are ways in which a husband with a more collaborative style can wind up knowing more about his family than a husband with a more authoritarian style. People are afraid to tell dictators stuff, so they wind up not knowing a lot. (And that’s also true of parents and children, of course–less authoritarian parents will tend to have a better flow of information about their kids.)

With regard to deadlock, it is possible to just flip a coin. It’s not that hard. Or go talk to a wise third party and see what they advise and go with that. For a major, life-changing decision, that’s totally worth the trouble.

However, I would argue (from personal experience and observation) that deadlock is often a sign that one member of the couple is about to do something stupid. Deadlock can often be GOOD, as it puts the brakes on stupid. When your spouse says “Please don’t do XYZ!” there’s a 50-90% chance that XYZ is something stupid.

I’ve seen that in one of the “he man woman haters sites”, about something very trivial like a personal grooming decision. The wife mad a decision about her personal appearance, and then asked forgiveness of the husband.

It might be that this fellow doesn’t really have a wife, and made it up.

I often wonder what the ratio is of teenage boys is on those sites.

 

[Xantippe]

I’ve seen that in one of the “he man woman haters sites”, about something very trivial like a personal grooming decision. The wife mad a decision about her personal appearance, and then asked forgiveness of the husband.

It might be that this fellow doesn’t really have a wife, and made it up.

I often wonder what the ratio is of teenage boys is on those sites.

I imagine easily 50%, but going ahead and getting a haircut or other temporary grooming decision is very believable as something one of those guys would go into a snit over–they’re really weird about hair. It grows back, people. (A permanent change would be more worthy of spousal (name removed by moderator)ut.)

When my husband and I were recalibrating our relationship a couple years back, one of the straws that broke the camel’s back was my husband regularly giving me flak over whether or not I really needed to go get a haircut. (You know, the $10-$12 kind.) I had about an inch of hair in my eyes…That was one of the things that made me realize that my husband had (without realizing it) gotten into the habit of micromanaging my most minor decisions, and that it was destroying my self-confidence. If I’m not smart enough to know if it’s time for me to get a haircut, what am I smart enough to do?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I imagine easily 50%, but going ahead and getting a haircut or other temporary grooming decision is very believable as something one of those guys would go into a snit over–they’re really weird about hair. It grows back, people. (A permanent change would be more worthy of spousal (name removed by moderator)ut.)

When my husband and I were recalibrating our relationship a couple years back, one of the straws that broke the camel’s back was my husband regularly giving me flak over whether or not I really needed to go get a haircut. (You know, the $10-$12 kind.) I had about an inch of hair in my eyes…That was one of the things that made me realize that my husband had (without realizing it) gotten into the habit of micromanaging my most minor decisions, and that it was destroying my self-confidence. If I’m not smart enough to know if it’s time for me to get a haircut, what am I smart enough to do?

Was it because of a particular like for long hair, or more like it was too extravagant to get a haircut?

I had a boyfriend in my early 20’s that had a list of things I couldn’t wear. Sleeveless tops being one, shorter skirts another. Another list of places I couldn’t go. I could not go to happy hour after work with friends, because “nice girls don’t go to bars”. Was always concerned about my weight (I was about 115 back then) Basically very controlling.

My husband can nit-pick, but that’s just the way he is. It’s not a control thing.

 

[Xantippe]

Was it because of a particular like for long hair, or more like it was too extravagant to get a haircut?

I had a boyfriend in my early 20’s that had a list of things I couldn’t wear. Sleeveless tops being one, shorter skirts another. Another list of places I couldn’t go. I could not go to happy hour after work with friends, because “nice girls don’t go to bars”. Was always concerned about my weight (I was about 115 back then) Basically very controlling.

My husband can nit-pick, but that’s just the way he is. It’s not a control thing.

At the time, I thought he was thinking I was spending too much (!) on my hair and was really offended, but it turned out that 1) he objected to the time spent going and getting it (sometimes while he watched the baby) and 2) he is an optimizer, so he likes to figure out EXACTLY the best way to do anything and 3) because he has a high receding hairline himself, he didn’t realize that my vision was being obscured by my overgrown bangs.

One of the things that came out of that was me telling him that I do not wish to be optimized and I value my autonomy (and doing things maybe 90-95%) over doing things exactly right or figuring out exactly the best way to do things.

He was also doing the same thing with me and grocery shopping. Whenever I was heading out, he’d ask me, “Do you NEED to go grocery shopping?” In his view, I should be able to do all of our grocery shopping in a single trip once a week–that would be the optimal way to do it. That also was destroying my self-confidence. Again, if I can’t figure out how often to go to the grocery store, what am I good for?

There were a couple of other things like that that came up fairly regularly that eventually I realized were forming a pattern. I realized that I need to feel respected and trusted and to have autonomy on my own little turf.

 

[Xantippe]

I’ve told this story on CAF before, but I eventually realized that my husband and I had diametrically opposed views on wifely submission while theoretically both believing in it.

Apologies for length!

The problem was that my husband and I had gone from the let-me-do-things-your-way-no!-let me-do-things-your-way period of early romance to busy young parenthood without really working out any sort of coherent theory together or thinking about how the styles we’d learned in our families of origin meshed.

I had grown up in a “traditional” WASP Protestant home where my dad was put on a pedestal for being the breadwinner. Although my mom was occasionally sneaky about purchases or telling my dad stuff that she knew would make him get mad, I never saw her not do something that my dad asked her to do on the spot or disagree openly with him on a matter of policy. (They did have huge fights, but mostly with regard to my dad discovering a subterfuge or criticizing her housekeeping or spending.) On the other hand, my dad did not spend that much time on my mom’s turf telling her in detail what to do. My parents believed in corporal punishment, delivered by a variety of implements. As a tween and early teen I got hit plenty and hard (my mom used to literally break wooden spoons and spatulas on us big kids). Even when I was a young adult (and for years afterward) I had the naive view of my parents’ relationship that what was wrong with their marriage was that my mom didn’t do what my dad told her to do.

My husband, on the other hand, grew up in an ethnic Catholic home with much less of a sense of space than my parents’ home. Being around his parents is like being blasted by a virtual firehose of helpful advice, which drives me nuts. However, at the same time, because they had lived under communism, and were philosophically opposed to because-I-say-so, a big part of their parenting philosophy was not simply instant obedience, but explaining stuff and convincing people. I believe my husband also had a lot more freedom in not doing stuff that he was asked to do than I did as a child… While traditional, his parents had a much more talk-y, much less hit-ty style than my parents.

So, as it turned out, when my husband often asked me to do minor stuff that he could do just as well for himself, he was not expecting 100% instant compliance. In fact, he thought that just as with two friends, I could tell him no if it wasn’t convenient to me. Meanwhile, I felt like there was an expectation of 100% instant compliance, and I seethed with resentment that my husband was asking me to do stuff for him that he could do as well or better. But my husband had no idea…Meanwhile, I less frequently asked my husband for help, but only when it was really important to me and something I could not easily do for myself. But my husband felt free to say no (because, hey, a friend would be free to say no), which made me feel very resentful. So, I thought of doing all those minor things my husband asked for as being submissive, and felt like I was being unsubmissive when I said no.

Meanwhile, what I didn’t realize was that my husband’s model of wifely submission was pretty much laissez faire on little stuff (the opposite of my belief), but he expected me to submit to him on big stuff. He was saddened in the belief that I never submitted to him. Because a) he didn’t notice when I did on big stuff b) he didn’t notice when I did little stuff and c) on big stuff, my average was pretty low because it was big, important, stuff where I believed that our family’s welfare was on the line. I was not going to submit if I believed that it was going to hurt our family. But to my husband, it only counted as submission if it was something I really, really, really was violently opposed to doing and he was aware of that.

So, a huge culture clash and misunderstanding all around and it took me years and years to understand what I just wrote.

tldr: I feel like “submission” is potentially a relationship minefield. Don’t try this at home, kids!

 

[Sarcelle]

I imagine easily 50%, but going ahead and getting a haircut or other temporary grooming decision is very believable as something one of those guys would go into a snit over–they’re really weird about hair. It grows back, people. (A permanent change would be more worthy of spousal (name removed by moderator)ut.)

When my husband and I were recalibrating our relationship a couple years back, one of the straws that broke the camel’s back was my husband regularly giving me flak over whether or not I really needed to go get a haircut. (You know, the $10-$12 kind.) I had about an inch of hair in my eyes…That was one of the things that made me realize that my husband had (without realizing it) gotten into the habit of micromanaging my most minor decisions, and that it was destroying my self-confidence. If I’m not smart enough to know if it’s time for me to get a haircut, what am I smart enough to do?

I am beginning to get the notion that true leaders are rare.

What we get most are micromanagers, both at work and at home.

 

[Xantippe]

I am beginning to get the notion that true leaders are rare.

What we get most are micromanagers, both at work and at home.

Yep.

 

[jmjZelie]

I am beginning to get the notion that true leaders are rare.

What we get most are micromanagers, both at work and at home.

A good leader is made, not born.

No one becomes a good leader without first making some mistakes and having to scramble to make up for them. Good leaders are those that become more concerned with the welfare of those under their leadership, and his faithfulness to them, than his success at his initial vision of how things should go. That means building solid relationships. That means proactively seeking resources and courses on leadership. That means growing in humility.

Those that presume to be the most qualified to lead from the outset are likely not. Those that undertake the responsibility placed before them with caution and concern likely are better qualified. Yet those who fall into the former group can and often do mature into the second group.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I am beginning to get the notion that true leaders are rare.

What we get most are micromanagers, both at work and at home.

True leaders are quite frequently strong in two aspects of leadership which Jesus demonstrated: servant leadership and delegation. (I’m sure Jesus and successful leaders have other qualities that make them successful leaders, but these come to my mind as I read this thread.)

Jesus lead through setting an example of service. He showed us how He wanted leaders to act. He flipped around the traditional notions of “King” and “Leader” as He taught that the greater serves the lesser. (Families often naturally demonstrate this principle, as parents give babies a great deal of care, and as the child grows the parents provide less and less care, until one day many years later, the child becomes an adult who may find himself/herself caring for elderly parents.)

And delegation: Jesus told His disciples to, “Go make disciples!” He gave left some specific instructions but for the most part, He delegates. (edit to add) We have a great deal of freedom in deciding how we’ll follow and serve His greater mission.*

In human society, if a leader had to do *all the work *and make all the decisions, very little would actually get done! Delegation needs to happen at some level. My husband is an amazing delegator! It’s rather comical at times as I’ve heard him say he’ll take care of something–and then he immediately turns to tell one of our children to do it. If a husband or father delegates some of the jobs traditionally associated with men, that doesn’t make him less of a leader. Delegation may just be how he chose to lead–and good leaders must learn to delegate.

---

edit to add: submit literally means “under the mission:” from Latin sub=under, mit=mission.)

 

[JurisPrudens]

Oh, the good old “the man is the head of the family, but the woman can turn the head whichever way she wants.”

Here’s your My Big Fat Greek Wedding youtube clip:

youtube.com/watch?v=YIm1dYTv-mQ

I’ve noticed that in “traditional” families, it’s not uncommon for the wife to take great pains to make sure that her husband doesn’t know what’s going on, so he doesn’t even know there is a decision being made. A lot of traditional husbands are getting the mushroom treatment. Or wives go ahead and do whatever and then let him figure it out later–as they say, it’s easier to seek forgiveness than to get permission.

So, there are ways in which a husband with a more collaborative style can wind up knowing more about his family than a husband with a more authoritarian style. People are afraid to tell dictators stuff, so they wind up not knowing a lot. (And that’s also true of parents and children, of course–less authoritarian parents will tend to have a better flow of information about their kids.)

With regard to deadlock, it is possible to just flip a coin. It’s not that hard. Or go talk to a wise third party and see what they advise and go with that. For a major, life-changing decision, that’s totally worth the trouble.

However, I would argue (from personal experience and observation) that deadlock is often a sign that one member of the couple is about to do something stupid. Deadlock can often be GOOD, as it puts the brakes on stupid. When your spouse says “Please don’t do XYZ!” there’s a 50-90% chance that XYZ is something stupid.

A particular structure of the family is up to the couple. It is individual. However, it is obviously unnatural when the wife tries to establish “equality for the sake of equality” in the family. It is also unnatural when the husband says somth like: “Obey me, St. Paul commanded so!”

It seems to me, you pay too much attention to “which family is best” question. Whereas, it is supposed to work naturally - thence St. Paul’s teaching.

 

[JurisPrudens]

I’ve told this story on CAF before, but I eventually realized that my husband and I had diametrically opposed views on wifely submission while theoretically both believing in it.

Apologies for length!

The problem was that my husband and I had gone from the let-me-do-things-your-way-no!-let me-do-things-your-way period of early romance to busy young parenthood without really working out any sort of coherent theory together or thinking about how the styles we’d learned in our families of origin meshed.

I had grown up in a “traditional” WASP Protestant home where my dad was put on a pedestal for being the breadwinner. Although my mom was occasionally sneaky about purchases or telling my dad stuff that she knew would make him get mad, I never saw her not do something that my dad asked her to do on the spot or disagree openly with him on a matter of policy. (They did have huge fights, but mostly with regard to my dad discovering a subterfuge or criticizing her housekeeping or spending.) On the other hand, my dad did not spend that much time on my mom’s turf telling her in detail what to do. My parents believed in corporal punishment, delivered by a variety of implements. As a tween and early teen I got hit plenty and hard (my mom used to literally break wooden spoons and spatulas on us big kids). Even when I was a young adult (and for years afterward) I had the naive view of my parents’ relationship that what was wrong with their marriage was that my mom didn’t do what my dad told her to do.

My husband, on the other hand, grew up in an ethnic Catholic home with much less of a sense of space than my parents’ home. Being around his parents is like being blasted by a virtual firehose of helpful advice, which drives me nuts. However, at the same time, because they had lived under communism, and were philosophically opposed to because-I-say-so, a big part of their parenting philosophy was not simply instant obedience, but explaining stuff and convincing people. I believe my husband also had a lot more freedom in not doing stuff that he was asked to do than I did as a child… While traditional, his parents had a much more talk-y, much less hit-ty style than my parents.

So, as it turned out, when my husband often asked me to do minor stuff that he could do just as well for himself, he was not expecting 100% instant compliance. In fact, he thought that just as with two friends, I could tell him no if it wasn’t convenient to me. Meanwhile, I felt like there was an expectation of 100% instant compliance, and I seethed with resentment that my husband was asking me to do stuff for him that he could do as well or better. But my husband had no idea…Meanwhile, I less frequently asked my husband for help, but only when it was really important to me and something I could not easily do for myself. But my husband felt free to say no (because, hey, a friend would be free to say no), which made me feel very resentful. So, I thought of doing all those minor things my husband asked for as being submissive, and felt like I was being unsubmissive when I said no.

Meanwhile, what I didn’t realize was that my husband’s model of wifely submission was pretty much laissez faire on little stuff (the opposite of my belief), but he expected me to submit to him on big stuff. He was saddened in the belief that I never submitted to him. Because a) he didn’t notice when I did on big stuff b) he didn’t notice when I did little stuff and c) on big stuff, my average was pretty low because it was big, important, stuff where I believed that our family’s welfare was on the line. I was not going to submit if I believed that it was going to hurt our family. But to my husband, it only counted as submission if it was something I really, really, really was violently opposed to doing and he was aware of that.

So, a huge culture clash and misunderstanding all around and it took me years and years to understand what I just wrote.

tldr: I feel like “submission” is potentially a relationship minefield. Don’t try this at home, kids!

A man (and even an animal male) is supposed, at least, to **believe ** that he is in charge and his wife follows him (let’s forget the word “submission”, it is misleading). Otherwise, he feels less of a man. This is nature.

 

[Xantippe]

A particular structure of the family is up to the couple. It is individual. However, it is obviously unnatural when the wife tries to establish “equality for the sake of equality” in the family. It is also unnatural when the husband says somth like: “Obey me, St. Paul commanded so!”

It seems to me, you pay too much attention to “which family is best” question. Whereas, it is supposed to work naturally - thence St. Paul’s teaching.

Eh, if it were supposed to “work naturally” it wouldn’t be necessary for women to spend so much time and energy explicitly working on being submissive and fretting about whether they were being submissive enough. See, for example the blogger at iprefercaptain that I have quoted upthread who didn’t buy red delicious apples that she loved because her husband told her not to…As she points out, it is a real question, how do you know you’ve gone far enough with submission? How do you know when you’ve reached your stop and it’s time to get off the bus?

Our goal should be family welfare above all. Again, I agree with the Sheila Wray Gregoire’s stuff on submission that I quoted upthread.

I have so much distaste for the traditional “cunning” wife/nominally in charge husband model that you seem to like. I find it very disrespectful to the husband. And, truth be told, many women don’t have the wherewithal to pull it off.

 

[Xantippe]

A man (and even an animal male) is supposed, at least, to **believe ** that he is in charge and his wife follows him (let’s forget the word “submission”, it is misleading). Otherwise, he feels less of a man. This is nature.

So, what is the wife supposed to do if:

–he is a pedophile
–he wants her to sign fraudulent tax documents
–he has had a series of failed businesses and is about to start a new one with the last of her retirement savings
–he wants to drink and drive
–he wants to have sex with her when the doctor has told her not to
–he has had a brain injury
–he has mental illness
–he is senile and wants to wander around outside in the snow barefoot in his pajamas
–he is senile and has been writing large checks to scammers
–etc.

We have actual Church documents, and they don’t say what you are saying about marriage. See Casti Connubii (1930):

"Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that “order of love,” as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”

"**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.

**Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. **But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact."

Edited to add: I would really have benefited from seeing this passage from Casti Connubi as a new bride, but it’s all water under the bridge.

 

[His_helpmeet]

Maybe I can explain a few things here. At least, I’ll try.

God made woman for man. St. Paul tells us that the head of the woman is the man, and the head of the man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God. A woman submitting to her husband does NOT mean she’s supposed to be a doormat and the husband gets to do whatever he wants. In fact, the husband has MORE to lose than the wife, because he is tasked with ensuring the well-being of his family. He is the spiritual priest of the family. If he screws up, he has to answer to HIS Boss - Christ. It’s a poor husband who would not heed his wife’s council. Recently, my stepdaughter was confirmed and the parish gave her a CD on Confirmation. The priest giving the talk spoke about how in Confirmation you come under the mission of Christ, and likened it to how in marriage you come under the mission of the other person. St. Paul says that a man who sins against his wife sins against his own flesh.

Men and women were created to be different as a sign of the oneness and the manyness of the nature of God. I would remind your friend that no two people are exactly alike. They were created to have different gifts. I suggest going back to St. Paul’s description of the members of the body and how they are given different gifts. The fundamental nature of men and women is to be different. Therefore, they are called to different things in life. This is not to say that women can’t be breadwinners for their families and that men can’t stay at home with the children. Rather, it is a recognition that the primary role of the husband is to be the protector and provider, and the primary role of the wife is to be the nurturer. I once read a book called “Wild At Heart”. It’s about the nature of men. The author said that men always want three things: a battle to fight, a damsel to rescue, and an adventure to live. He said that women also want three things: someone to fight for them, a beauty to unveil, and an adventure to share. (He and his wife also wrote a book about the nature of women, called “Captivating”.) These things are meant to complement each other.

As far as modesty, it’s a mark of respect and honour. I love the Traditional Catholic explanation that we always veil those things we consider most sacred. God created woman to be the crown of all creation. This is why Eve was tempted first - the devil always seeks to destroy the greatest good. Keeping yourself covered demonstrates that you have respect for your body and for others. You’re avoiding bringing others to the near occasion of sin, and you’re saving your body for your husband - what a wonderful gift to give him! My husband was married before he married me. (He converted to Catholicism as an adult after his marriage; his ex later left him and the marriage was declared invalid.) He could hardly believe that God was good enough to give him a virgin bride for his true wife, and he considers it very special that he has been my only partner. If your friend says, “Well, what if it’s hot out?” you can point out that you don’t have to have all your skin showing to stay cool. I dress modestly by choice, but I also have to keep well-covered in the sun because I’m extremely fair and burn very easily. A long maxi skirt and a T-shirt keep me nice and cool. “Modest” doesn’t mean “Grandma dresses”. I only wear skirts and dresses (by choice) and I find that if you know where to look you can find a great selection - try looking during the summer or checking out a thrift shop. Sometimes I wear leggings underneath my skirt or dress for warmth and/or additional modesty.

 

[LethalMouse]

So, what is the wife supposed to do if:

–he is a pedophile
–he wants her to sign fraudulent tax documents
–he has had a series of failed businesses and is about to start a new one with the last of her retirement savings
–he wants to drink and drive
–he wants to have sex with her when the doctor has told her not to
–he has had a brain injury
–he has mental illness
–he is senile and wants to wander around outside in the snow barefoot in his pajamas
–he is senile and has been writing large checks to scammers
–etc.

We have actual Church documents, and they don’t say what you are saying about marriage. See Casti Connubii (1930):

"Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that “order of love,” as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”

"**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.

**Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. **But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact."

Edited to add: I would really have benefited from seeing this passage from Casti Connubi as a new bride, but it’s all water under the bridge.

You do realize that no matter how anyone words this even if basically a paraphrase from the very documebts you quote you then tell them that they are talking purely about absolute submission and the slave life in service to a pedophile, rapist, cruel husband who makes hitler look like a saint? Literally does not matter how close their wording is to the catechism or very docs you quote, you accuse them… I have once heard of a man called the accuser

 

[JurisPrudens]

Eh, if it were supposed to “work naturally” it wouldn’t be necessary for women to spend so much time and energy explicitly working on being submissive and fretting about whether they were being submissive enough. See, for example the blogger at iprefercaptain that I have quoted upthread who didn’t buy red delicious apples that she loved because her husband told her not to…As she points out, it is a real question, how do you know you’ve gone far enough with submission? How do you know when you’ve reached your stop and it’s time to get off the bus?

Our goal should be family welfare above all. Again, I agree with the Sheila Wray Gregoire’s stuff on submission that I quoted upthread.

I have so much distaste for the traditional “cunning” wife/nominally in charge husband model that you seem to like. I find it very disrespectful to the husband. And, truth be told, many women don’t have the wherewithal to pull it off.

Maybe, those who spend much time on trying to be “submissive” do not understand this word. It is a misleading word.

 

[gardenswithkids]

A man (and even an animal male) is supposed, at least, to **believe ** that he is in charge and his wife follows him (let’s forget the word “submission”, it is misleading). Otherwise, he feels less of a man. This is nature.

What’s misleading is our understanding of the word, “submission”. Words have meaning, and sometimes our understanding of a word’s meaning changes over time. So, I’ll repeat something I edited to add in a post above. The word “submit” means, “*under the mission.” The prefix sub comes from a Latin work meaning “under”, (like in “submarine” and “subway”.) The root “mit” means “to send” (like in “transmit”, and it relates to very Catholic words like “mission” and “Mass”. A wife works at the same “mission” as her husband does, working under him on that mission. What’s the mission we’re suppose to be working at together? It’s not the mission of the wife to be sure her husband’s feel like a man. It generally understood that a husband is *a man, so why he needs to be reminded that he’s a man is frankly beyond me. That’s not the point of our Christian mission. At the end of Mass, we are sent off on our “mission” with the words, "Go in peace to love and serve the Lord. It’s my understanding that our mission is to serve God by loving and serving each other. Isn’t that what we’re really called to do?