Schieffelin:
Is this where I’m supposed to submit as his wife?
Sounds like that would apply perfectly here, so yes.
SaintNobody:
I would like to also bring up the point (and I’m donning my flamesuit now) that the husband is the head of the household. It doesn’t give him the right to be a jerk or a tyrant, but he is in charge.
When a man understands what it means to be the head of the household, and he tries to understand what this entails, he doesn’t want to be a tyrant. He doesn’t want to oppress his wife. He only wants to make decisions that are good for the whole family according to the circumstances.
If you want your husband to fulfill the role of head of the family, then you have to let him be the head of the family. You have to go with what he says, even if you bite your tongue and think “oh my goodness this is so going to hurt!”
Deferring to one’s husband is not easy, but I think any half-decent man will appreciate his wife having his way even though they know that’s not what they wanted. He will be more likely to defer to his wife if his wife defers to him.
Good post. Definitely should not have taken until the third page for this side to be advocated; and there ought to be no need for that “flamesuit”. You’re in good company, too. According to C.S. Lewis in
Mere Christianity:
*In Christian marriage the man is said to be the ‘head’. Two questions obviously arise here. (1) Why should there be a head at all — why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man?
(1) The need for some head follows from the idea that marriage is permanent. Of course, as long as the husband and wife are agreed, no question of a head need arise; and we may hope that this will be the normal state of affairs in a Christian marriage. But when there is a real disagreement, what is to happen? Talk it over, of course; but I am assuming they have done that and still failed to reach agreement. What do they do next? They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of two there can be no majority. Surely, only one or other of two things can happen: either they must separate and go their own ways or else one or other of them must have a casting vote. If marriage is permanent, one or other party must, in the last resort, have the power of deciding the family policy. You cannot have a permanent association without a constitution.
(2) If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say ‘Poor Mr X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.’ I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own ‘headship’. There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule. But there is also another reason; and here I speak quite frankly as a bachelor, because it is a reason you can see from outside even better than from inside. The relations of the family to the outer world — what might be called its foreign policy — must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?*
haha
He’s from Peru–that’s partly why it’s so important to him. We went to visit his family in Peru last year but we didn’t get to go to Machu Picchu, and he’s never been.
