What are the perks of submission?

[Full enough quiver]

I dont mean to offend anyone, I have nothing but respect for the women (and men) who read here. I'm feeling a little attacked here, so I'm going to really try to take some of what was said and assume that it is well intentioned, and said out of concern for my girls. You've definitely given me some food for thought. Maybe my older girl could use some modeling of independent womanhood that she doesn't get from me. (I do my best, but its hard to model something you aren't, and a way of life that is different from the way you were raised)Perhaps I will arrange for her to shadow a friend at her job while she's on spring break, and work a bit more with her on setting goals for the future. (she's only 14, it's not like there isn't time. Lots of people don't know what they want at 14) What I want for them is to feel that they have choices, so they definitely need to see more than one perspective. (and yes, if they were boys, I'd feel the same way)

[formergothardite]

So, the moment a man submits to his wife, he loses his place as head of household? Does it happen if he submits just one time? Or is three enough? Does four do it? One of the definitions of submission is compliant. So, the moment a husband agrees with his wife, he has lost his place?

Well what do you mean by head of the house? Like leading? Final decision maker? If he is allowing the wife to make the final decisions and lead, then no he is no longer the head of the house. If he is submitting to her and saying that her opinion is just as valid as his and so he cannot trump her, then no that isn't a relationship where the husband is being the head of the home and the wife is submitting to her husband.

Of course the whole idea that the wife needs a head is just stupid and shows that women are not as equal to men in the Bible. And then there is the very glaring fact that the Bible goes out of it's way to say wives should submit to their husbands but NEVER says that husbands should submit to their wives. IMO, due to the fact that these writings were written at a time where society was extremely male centered and women were not viewed as equal to men, the whole Christians submit to one another actually means Christian men. Later on in these verses slaves are told to submit to their masters and children to their parents. None of those verses would have been necessary if that first verse actually meant that all Christians are equal and should submit to each other.

[yewchapel]

I agree that it is a movement of hatred and I am the very farthest thing from a fundie. And I was not looking for hugs and snugs, merely intelligent conversation. Having done some (not extensive by any means) work with women escaping some similar situations, I was curious how the spiritual aspect would be considered here, and the role it does play in Christian spirituality, since it is a key issue for women is these types of situations. And simply telling them its bullshit does not help them.

But there is a reason I mainly lurk and have low post count, I just forgot it in this moment. I forget I haven't time or patience to deal with the vomiting smiling crowd. I shall go back to being horrified by naked roast sitter.

There are many Christians on these boards, but probably most of us do not believe in wives submitting to husbands. I don't.

[debrand]

So what would you do with an easy going son who is a follower and doesn't want to work when he has kids? Would you make it clear to your son that he might be miserable as a career man and it is perfectly legitimate for him to have being a SAHD as his life plan? Do you actually use the term career man? Or is it just women?

I stayed home for many years and am starting my second semester at college. Not all people who have careers are 'go getters'. There are many people who are perfectly happy in nine to five jobs who aren't really trying to climb the corporate ladder. I'm very introverted myself and chose accounting because I am methodical, like numbers and don't really want to interact with too many people at once. Both your daughters can find work that fits their personalities.

One reason that I don't encourage my daughters to be SAHM is because it leaves the woman vulnerable to abuse, abandonment or the death of her husband. It is more difficult to leave a bad relationship if you don't have the skills to support yourself.

[burntnorton]

Full enough - I don't think you intended to be insulting. Like i said, I hesitated to reply because I knew I would sound harsh. I've jyst known women like your eldest an I've seen it go spectacularly wrong. I would just urge you to help your daughter build her confidence and mature into a happy, self supporting adult. Encourage her to pursue her interests, whether they be academic, career, or recreational. What she does is much less important than developping her character and defining herself based on more than one or two parts of herself.

[kpmom]

Full enough quiver, the main things that concerned me about your post were these;

You said you were 3 years into your relationship before you realized you could disagree with him. What if he hadn't allowed you to disagree? Would you have accepted that and stuck around?

I'm assuming you are in your early to mid 30's? You will probably never be Miss Outgoing, but you might be surprised how much confidence you gain in the next 10-15 years. A perk of getting older (there's gotta be some, right?) is how comfortable you get in your own skin. Will your husband accept a wife who might not need or want so much protecting in the future? He's helping you speak up and gain confidence now, but what if you no longer need him as a teacher? How will he react? The whole dynamic of your relationship will change.

What will be his attitude about your daughters post- high school choices? Is he on board with college or a vocational school?

And, finally, painful as it is to think about, with the large age difference you could find yourself alone at young age (I hope not, but better to be practical). What steps have you taken if he is no longer around? Could your pt job become full time job if need be? Do you understand all of your finances? Could you pay the mortgage if you had to?

On another post you had mentioned you felt sorry for the fundies we talk about here and I asked why you felt your situation was so different. I didn't mean it in an attacking way, but honestly, I just don't see much of a difference

[MamaJunebug]

Bullshit.

Let's look at the whole passage about wives:

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Nothing in this passage about men and women being equal and both being the head of the house. Nope. Not there. Husbands are the head of the wife and wives submit. If it meant what you claim it means it would say that both men and women are the head of the house just as Christ is the head of the church so just as the church submits to Christ, husbands and wives should submit to each other.

What's missing here are the following verses in Eph. 5, which all too often even thinking Christian pastors omit:

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

Jesus of Nazareth permitted himself to be beaten, debased and killed in one of the most sadistic, paintful ways devised by man. A husband's love and sacrifice for his wife is to approximate this (it can never equal it, since Jesus was completely undeserving of His torture & death.

26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

It's never been explained to me (that I recall) but here I see the idea that a husband should be so conscious of his wife's needs that she's never left to become angry, bitter or spiteful. That isn't necessarily labelled "submission" but it sounds like the same thing to me: husband submitting to his wife's needs.

28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body.

To me, this is so plainly & clearly an admonition to husbands to be good to their wives, and unselfish, .... it baffles me that it isn't quoted more often! :shifty:

31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.â€[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband

The bolded is talking about more than making the beast with two backs, though that's how it was initially explained to me.

Taken with the bolding before it, the writer who quotes the words in v.31 is saying that just as Christ left His Father to give Himself to people over all time, the husband departs whatever life he had before, and gives hiimself to his wife; the final reminder (IMHO) that "the wife must respect her husband" reads to me as common sense for any committed couple:

If someone is going to do all this for you, you respect them for it. And part of respect will be giving back that same level of care and commitment.

In summary, the problem with submission begins with emphasis traditionally on the passages to the wife and neglect of the passages to the husband.

All that said, this discussion has gotten intriguingly interesting! And distressing, since it reflects the misapplication and uneven emphases that have been employed for way too long.

[MamaJunebug]

To quote my late mother, who stopped working outside the home to be a SAHM when I was born, "Everybody wants to give a man a medal if he washes a dish or changes a diaper, but, when wives get jobs to help support their families, it's all, 'She's doing it for 'personal fulfillment."' I think, nowadays, these guys oughta kneel down and kiss you girls' asses." I had the great satisfaction of repeating this quotation at her eulogy (and it was made all the sweeter because the service was crashed by the uninvited Ex-Mr.-Hane-#2, who had to sit there and listen to it).

By the time I started working fulltime in 1980 (office job at the phone company), women's jobs were morphing from "a few extra bucks to save for the kids' college" to "absolutely essential for the operation of the household.' Lots of the gals were married to self-employed guys who depended on us to supply medical benefits.

God rest your mother's great soul!!

I started working full time out of school in 1979 and didn't stop for a quarter-century. When I was pregnant with the first Junior JB, I knew I wanted to raise my kids until kindergarten age - and my TSU melted down at the suggestion. Buoyed by my sensible folks and the knowledge that all but 2 of my aunts worked OHM as mothers of young children - one was a widow, the rest had husbands whose income wasn't steady - I survived the almost constant drone of pastors and sermons and articles that accused me of wanting self-fulfillment or some other, even darker goal.

Nah - I wanted to be home with my littles, but that not being the case, I worked my tail off, saved like crazy and ... became much less a "good" Lutheran than the unwitting bigmouths would have ever imagined. It's why I'm pretty much a UU who doesn't want to quit the good things I still find in my little Lutheran congregation.

But I"m threadjacking and I don't mean to. Just wanted to raise a glass to Hane and her momma!!! :clap:

[formergothardite]

Loving your wife is not the same as submission. And there is still the glaring point that husbands are made the head of the wife. Not both husband and wife are equals and are both heads of the house, no men are put in the position to be over the wife. Sure is he supposed to love her, treat her with respect, and basically not be a jerk, but that isn't the same as submission. Even submitting to her needs isn't the same as the wife submitting to the husband because he is her head. A man being willing to die and be tortured for his wife still isn't the same as viewing her as his equal and not something that he is the "head" of.

The Bible does not make the wife equal to the husband and never tells the husband to submit to his wife or to even treat her as his equal in all ways. It just isn't there. Wives(and husbands) don't need a "head", they need a equal partner, something the Bible doesn't suggest.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Well what do you mean by head of the house? Like leading? Final decision maker? If he is allowing the wife to make the final decisions and lead, then no he is no longer the head of the house. If he is submitting to her and saying that her opinion is just as valid as his and so he cannot trump her, then no that isn't a relationship where the husband is being the head of the home and the wife is submitting to her husband.

Of course the whole idea that the wife needs a head is just stupid and shows that women are not as equal to men in the Bible. And then there is the very glaring fact that the Bible goes out of it's way to say wives should submit to their husbands but NEVER says that husbands should submit to their wives. IMO, due to the fact that these writings were written at a time where society was extremely male centered and women were not viewed as equal to men, the whole Christians submit to one another actually means Christian men. Later on in these verses slaves are told to submit to their masters and children to their parents. None of those verses would have been necessary if that first verse actually meant that all Christians are equal and should submit to each other.

To what extent did these instructions relate to the societal norms of the Roman Empire?

In other words, was the intent for early Christians to be saying to the authorities, "don't worry about us, we aren't trying to cause a revolution and won't completely upset the existing social order"? Keep in mind that Rome had violently suppressed unrest in Judea, and that the Christians ultimately got Constantine to convert.

[turquoise]

Submission is not the same as following traditional gender roles for work and childcare. I was a SAHM for several years while my children were little, but that was a joint decision my husband and I both made. We did it because it made the most sense for our family at that time, not because he was in charge.

Submission means that one adult is in charge, and everyone else, including other adults in the family, must defer to them. I believe that is very unhealthy, if not dangerous. An adult who agrees to submit to another adult is giving up their own power and putting themselves at another person's mercy. It may work out okay if the person in charge is a decent person, but we've all seen the horror stories that result when that is not the case.

[valsa]

Loving your wife is not the same as submission. And there is still the glaring point that husbands are made the head of the wife. Not both husband and wife are equals and are both heads of the house, no men are put in the position to be over the wife. Sure is he supposed to love her, treat her with respect, and basically not be a jerk, but that isn't the same as submission. Even submitting to her needs isn't the same as the wife submitting to the husband because he is her head. A man being willing to die and be tortured for his wife still isn't the same as viewing her as his equal and not something that he is the "head" of.

The Bible does not make the wife equal to the husband and never tells the husband to submit to his wife or to even treat her as his equal in all ways. It just isn't there. Wives(and husbands) don't need a "head", they need a equal partner, something the Bible doesn't suggest.

While all of your post is true, I especially agree with the bolded. Not only is being willing to die for your wife not equal to submitting to her or even respecting her, it's also pathetically unlikely to happen. I like how people try to argue that women and men are equal according to the Bible because the women submits to the man and the man will die for the wife, but ignore the fact that there's virtually no chance that a man will ever have to die for his wife while submission to a husband is something the woman is likely going to have to do nearly every day of her life.

Also, just as an FYI, most parents I know would be willing to die for their children. Yet I've never seen anyone say that being willing to do that makes adults and children equal, or that it implies submission of the parents to the child.

[MamaJunebug]

Or as an old friend (a guy) snarked about human nature in the male: "A guy says, 'I love you! I'd swim the deepest ocean! I'd climb the highest mountain! I'd die for you!' His wife says, 'That's so sweet. Throw the clothes in the dryer, would you?' He snaps, 'Why? Is your arm broken?'"

[debrand]

Or as an old friend (a guy) snarked about human nature in the male: "A guy says, 'I love you! I'd swim the deepest ocean! I'd climb the highest mountain! I'd die for you!' His wife says, 'That's so sweet. Throw the clothes in the dryer, would you?' He snaps, 'Why? Is your arm broken?'"

This parody of the Bruno Mars song, Grenade sums up that attitude perfectly

We just met, but I know you're my soul mate

I've got your name tattooed on my chest, neck, and face

Lets get hitched right away or at least pick a date

I've got next week open. When do you have open?

I sent you my left ear

But you tossed it off the pier

Then said something I couldn't hear

What

Gave you all my string and my fingernail clippings

I hope I don't sound deranged, but I'd

Chop off my head for you

I just went off my meds for you

I'd drink a bottle of crazy glue

And lick a bathroom attendents shoe

Oh that's good shoe

I would peel you a million grapes

And make a portrait using audiotapes

Yes I'll protect you from robots

And futuristic apes

Oh Get your damn stinking paws off my girlfriend you dirty ape from the future

GIRL

Calm down you crazy clown what is wrong with you

Stop offering things that you'll never have to do

Just take your pills, pay your bills I don't want you dead Why

would I want a boyfriend who doesn't have a head?

BRUNO

I'd eat a pile of glass

Pull my heart out through my ass

GIRL

You know what you could do for me?

BRUNO

What baby

GIRL

The dishes and the trash

Lets take that Tango class

Then watch Lifetime TV

BRUNO

I'll shop at Target with you

Buy you tickets to Dave Matthews

I'd go to brunch with your book club friends

I'll tell you that you're not fat again

It nightmare ever ends

I would rather eat 50 grenades

Wear a speedo made of razor blades

Then have to deal with you baby

And your stupid mom

[fatcat]

I have been thinking about this quite a bit. I agree with a lot of what people say here as to why submission might be appealing. Another thing is, I think many of these women truly believe that they and other women are stupid, silly, overly emotional and will make the 'wrong' choices if given the chance. So I think there is a lot of self-hate involved, as well as hatred for other women. They really do feel 'safer' if men are in charge.

I had an e-mail exchange with a fundamentalist Christian who told me at one point that the way her mother was suffering in her marriage was her mother learning to become more like Jesus. She said such a transformation through suffering was necessary to be able to get into heaven. I guess the husbands are already enough like Jesus that they don't have to suffer in the same way. Convenient, that.

[Full enough quiver]

Full enough quiver, the main things that concerned me about your post were these;

You said you were 3 years into your relationship before you realized you could disagree with him. What if he hadn't allowed you to disagree? Would you have accepted that and stuck around?

I'm assuming you are in your early to mid 30's? You will probably never be Miss Outgoing, but you might be surprised how much confidence you gain in the next 10-15 years. A perk of getting older (there's gotta be some, right?) is how comfortable you get in your own skin. Will your husband accept a wife who might not need or want so much protecting in the future? He's helping you speak up and gain confidence now, but what if you no longer need him as a teacher? How will he react? The whole dynamic of your relationship will change.

What will be his attitude about your daughters post- high school choices? Is he on board with college or a vocational school?

And, finally, painful as it is to think about, with the large age difference you could find yourself alone at young age (I hope not, but better to be practical). What steps have you taken if he is no longer around? Could your pt job become full time job if need be? Do you understand all of your finances? Could you pay the mortgage if you had to?

On another post you had mentioned you felt sorry for the fundies we talk about here and I asked why you felt your situation was so different. I didn't mean it in an attacking way, but honestly, I just don't see much of a difference

You're right. I'm actually in my late 20's,and I don't know where we'll be in 10-15 years. I'll probably always be a gentle, subservient type, but I hope my husband will grow as a person along with me. If not, it won't be easy, but I can survive on my own. I've done it before, I can do it again. Fortunately, my husband encouraged me to get my vocational nursing license, and he is absolutely on board with the girls being educated. Both girls have college funds (or down payments on a house, should they go the trade school route) honestly, it's easy for me to say how great it is to be a submissive wife from an comfortable middle class perspective. I'm sure life would be a lot different if we had 10 kids, or my husband didn't have a good career. We are very privileged, and I'm not unaware of this. But I'm happy to report that older girl will be shadowing my cousin at her job as a hairstylist, as well as a family friend who is an interior designer. Hopefully she feels inspired!

[formergothardite]

I think if you try to change how you view "career women" it would go a long way in helping your daughters. If you wouldn't view a man as a "career man" or treat your son exactly how you are treating your daughter, then you aren't doing them or yourself any favors. Try to think about how you would react if you had a son who acted the same way as your daughter does. Would you just encourage him to shadow someone at their job for inspiration? Or would you expect him to do more because you expect that he will be the one supporting any future family?

[Full enough quiver]

I guess I never gave it much thought. I suppose I do just assume that men have careers. I guess that is pretty sexist of me, and I will try to be more aware of that attitude so I can work on it. I couldn't say how I'd treat my hypothetical son. I'd like to think I'd treat him the same as the girls. I think, at 14, shadowing someone at their job is a great way for a boy or girl to figure out what they might enjoy doing with their life. If I had a boy who was the submissive type, I think I would encourage him, like I do my girl, to be extremely careful in his choice of partner, and to have a way to self support in case marriage isn't in the cards, or doesn't work out. I think society in general is more accepting of men who stay home than it used to be, but the assumption is still there that men will be breadwinners, so it may be harder for a man to find a partner who is willing to have him stay at home. I'm sure there are women out there who are willing and able to be leaders in their homes, as well as primary breadwinners. I would like to think I wouldn't make a son feel like less of a man if his wife supported the family. I see nothing wrong with that arrangement, as long as both parties are ok with it. It's not for me, but that's ok. I try not to judge people (as long as they're not hurting anyone). I'd want a son, just like a daughter, to feel confident in his choices, whatever they may be.

[snackle]

I have some friends who I would call fundie lite. Bible literalists, but generally normal people. One friend was super smart, was a missionary, went to law school, now stays at home since she had a child.

The way she explained it is that there has to be a tie-breaker. No one can agree 100% of the time. So, although your goal is to always get to agreement, if you don't, the man has the final say. She considers herself submissive, is proud she wakes up at 6am to make him breakfast (regardless what infant non-sleep experience she had), but isn't a simpering Duggar.

Actually, I have a few submissive wife friends, and they all see it this way. It's not about just never speaking your mind. It's about speaking it, putting forth your argument, but trusting that the final decision, from the man, is the correct one. To them, the benefit is minimizing conflict.

[wild little fox]

I am agnostic, but I also was a Christian for 40+ years.

I just cannot see how a person can submit with out giving up their personal power. I cannot believe that a god who is love would want it that way. We see here every day the ramifications of people giving up their personal power in the name of submission if they be wife to husband, husband to wife (the Arnt's) and especially children to parent. My background is one of trying my very best to submit, trying to get that respect.

Just my two cents.

[pookel]

I realize this is kind of a weird first post, but I feel the need to bring this up: what about BDSM-style submission as opposed to Bible-mandated submission? I have met, over many years on various parenting boards, quite a few "submissive wives" who were both Christians and into the dom/sub dynamic. Some of them used the supposed biblical mandate as basically an excuse to live in the kind of relationship they enjoyed anyway.

I think this doesn't get talked about a lot because many of those women wouldn't want to admit that they're "submitting" for sexual fulfillment rather than to be good fundies, but it does happen. And then there are D/s relationships where no one maintains any pretense of fundamentalism or even Christianity, but they still follow the same patriarchal relationship structure. If you don't believe me, go to Fetlife and look up how popular the "1950s lifestyle" tag is (or was it "1950s housewife," I can't remember exactly).

Anyway, my point was supposed to be that some of these submissive Christian wives who rave about how awesome it is really ARE doing exactly what they want to be doing ... they're just not necessarily honest about why the relationship is working out so well for them. (I also question whether it's a healthy thing to model to your kids, whether you're doing it for religious reasons or just for fun.)

[yewchapel]

People can have a relationship where one person submits if they want to, it's people who say that everybody should live like that who are wrong.

[pookel]

People can have a relationship where one person submits if they want to, it's people who say that everybody should live like that who are wrong.

Well, yeah. But I think it's important to notice that some of the people touting the supposed benefits of biblical submission are actually just getting off on it.

[RosyDaisy]

There are no perks. Despite the game faces fundies put on, I honestly don't think any of them are very happy.

[jenny_islander]

As for that "head of the woman" part, it's been pointed out by people who can read the original text that Paul could have used any of several words to mean "head," but he used the one that also means "spring, headwater, source." Paul was writing to a church in Corinth, a Greek city, and good Greek wives stayed at home. So the men learned about Christianity first and went home and passed on what they had learned to their wives. The same letter refers to women being silent in church. The interpretation that reconciles this with "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, man nor woman" is that the men generally knew what was going on, but the women had questions. So Paul told them to save their questions for their husbands at home instead of derailing the church service.

Paul was a fallible human being, but IMO he wasn't a misogynist.