Submissive?
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Submissive?
What is *your* definition to being submissive to your husband? I'll let you know mine later. I'm just curious.
What a can of worms you have opened up!!!!
For me personally it means allowing my dh to have final answer and to follow his lead as life's challenges present themselves. Sometimes I may not agree but I will allow his decision to stand. At a later time when we can discuss it, I have talked him into changing his decision. Then he resends whatever he's done.
It does NOT mean a woman has to be a doormat or put up with abuse.
What are you looking for and why do you ask?
Dictionary: Submissive - "unresistingly or humbly obedient"
Submit - "give over or yield to the power or authority of another"
What do I think - I think the King James translation leaves a lot to be desired. I think any adult human being who "submits" or is "submissive" in what I believe should be an equal relationship of partners is an adult who does not think of him/herself as being the equal of the other, who thinks of her/himself as inferior to the other person. And I think in a marriage it is destructive of the well-being and mental and emotional health of the person who submits or is expected to submit.
I also believe that any wife who is submissive to her husband will not have any authority over her male children past the age of 8 or 9 without calling on their father's authority, and I believe this is NOT a good thing.
Letting him call the shots, letting him make decisions about your family and about himself or you, doing what he asks all the time, letting him control your life (and that can take on a lot of disguises...what job you have, your educational level, what you do with the kids...) etc.
Ditto Ginny also. We have a VERY equal relationship and we made a promise long before we got married that we wouldn't tell each other what to do and we would make decisions that were not only best for our families but best for ourselves as individuals (careers, locations, etc.) Many people can't believe how equal we are, but I think many women are not empowered enough to realize they ARE equal, and many men are too insecure to NOT run their wives lives.
Well biblically women are commanded to be submissive BUT men are commanded to love their wives! So, if the man truly loves his wife he will want what is best for her, SO, any decisions he makes should be in her best interest, SO, if the woman submits to him she should be in good hands. Got that? LOL!
If done right it doesn't mean they don't discuss things beforehand and it doesn't mean the woman's feelings aren't taken into consideration. It means the man does discuss it with his wife and weigh all the different options and opinions and then makes a final decision which should be in the whole family's best interest. Sometimes that WILL be against the woman's wishes, but it is supposed to be done following much mutual discussion and prayer so you just have to trust it.
Now, if this isn't how it all comes about, it's a disaster and a dictatorship. It only really works in solid Christian marriages, IMO. God wants what's best for us, so if we follow His command, He will bless us. You just have to trust that and trust that he put the man in 'charge' for good reasons AND you need to remember that God is looking out for the women by commanding that the man love his wife so that his decisions will be in her best interest. 
Ephesians 5:21-33
21Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing� her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church�30for we are members of his body. 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. 32This is a profound mystery�but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Here is the most blatant scripture on the subject that is most often quoted (and misinterpreted and taken out of context). First of all, most theologians do NOT hold the King James Version in high regard as a terribly accurate translation. New Revised Standard and New American Standard are considered the *most* accurate for biblical study. (The above is quoted from the New International Version, which is my personal preference for readability).
Secondly, most fundamentalists will quote ONLY vv.22-24 which does seems to portray the wife as a doormat, not entitled to any opinion or authority in the marriage. However, if you look at the first verse it points out the concept of MUTUAL submission where both partners submit to each other. There are other passages talking about the wife's body belonging to the husband AND the husband's body belonging to the wife---point being that sex can't/shouldn't be a bargaining tool.
If you really look at and study this passage of scripture (and in particular the whole context of the book of Ephesians and all of the Pauline epistles), you would come to understand that Paul had a very high regard for women. According to Eph. 5 men actually have the more difficult responsibility in the relationship...to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Christ sacrificed His very life for the church, so husbands are to live every moment putting their wives well-being and interests above their own in pure love. That's a pretty tall order. It is pretty darn easy to submit (i.e., rest in the leadership) of a husband who lives a life of love and devotion towards his wife to the point of being willing to sacrifice his life for her. It all boils down to what we've discussed on here a million times before---the husband wants respect and admiration (to feel strong, like a provider) and the wife wants love and romance (to feel cherished and valued). It's all a part of a perfect plan.
That said, women do have a voice in their marriage, should NEVER tolerate abuse of any kind, and should not be controlled by their husbands. That is not part of God's plan. A woman can only "submit" when her husband is loving her purely, not manipulating, belittling, or controlling her.
Most of you who have been here for some time know that I am very outspoken, independent, and opinionated . However, in the biblical design I can submit to my husband because I know that I know he loves me so unconditionally and always has my best interests at heart. Whenever we have big decisions to make we both lay out our thoughts, pros/cons, and opinions. 95% of the time we are in agreement about what should be done, how money should be spent, etc. However, when we are not in agreement then I do step back and let him make the final decision. This goes against my independent streak, but we would never get anywhere if we are both trying to win the debate, plus the responsibility for making the best, wisest decision is on him and not me. Yippee! My DH does not make all of the decisions about our family, jobs, etc. They are very much mutual decisions, but we have agreed to move with his job since he is the breadwinner and we like it that way. He has been my biggest cheerleader in my going back to school to get my Ph.D and has sacrificed a lot of time and money to help me reach my dream. When I complete my degree I will be more educated (as far as degrees go) than he is and he is perfectly fine with that.
I could go on and on, but I just want to add that the biblical concept of submission works ONLY if both parties are willing to each give 100% to the marriage and consistently put the other first. It is a MUTUAL submission.
Yeah...what Kate said and much more succinctly. We were typing at the same time.
Also I remember learning that you can talk and argue all you want but the final decision would be the husband for the good of the family.
I am afraid I am about as submissive as a tiger. Though I should have listened to him when we bought this old house which is too much for us, though the neighborhood is amazing.
Overall it means to me, he gets finaly say after listening to everything I have to say and telling me his side too. But I also believe if he isn't being submissive to Christ that he is not in a position for me to be submissive to him. So as long as we are headed the same way, worshiping together, any decision he makes that aren't my first choice I know are made in accordance to God and it is okay with me.
Well said Kaye and Pam! It's a two sided coin, not just one sided.
Debbie, I wasn't really *looking* for anything. I just didn't realize until a little while ago that most women took to word submissive almost as a derogitory term to themselves. It surprised me but upon finding out what exactly they thought they were suppose to be as a submissive wife, I understood them a bit more. I thought i'd ask here to see if it were just the people I talked to who are also women who thrive on their independent personalities or it was the same here as well with women who I think have pretty good hearts.
Now for me, I like to think i'm a submissive wife to some extent. I understand that my husband is the breadwinner in the household, therefore has a bit more say in where some of our finances could go (for instance, what he thinks we can afford in buying a house. Not just what house I want because it's "perfect"). I think it's a good portion of my responsibility to keep the house clean and make dinner, take care of DD and basically keep the house in order. Of course, he helps but I think to think of it as primarily my work. Other see this as a form of slavery of some sort. Every decision we make in this household is made together. There are decisions where he ultimately has the last say and i'm fine with that as long as he knows how I feel about it. And now for the good old sex talk. I've recently learned to be submissive in that area and have only seen good results. Those are just a few examples, i'll quit now so I don't bore you to death.
But, on another side I don't let my husband beat me and verbally abuse me. He doesn't disrespect me. I think a wife can only be submissive when she is in a healthy relationship with someone who she can trust her life with. I agree with Pam in the fact that it really is a mutual submission. I don't see being submissive as a bad thing. I think it's helped our relatioship. I'm a very independent person too. I used to never let anyone tell me what to do or make any of *my* (LOL) life decisions. But now, my life is not mine. It is shared with my husband and daughter.
One more thing, I don't believe in Mothers being submissive to their male offspring. I believe a woman should only be submissive to her husband.
Wow, this has surprised me. I guess as a non-Christian I have a hard time swallowing the word "submissive" To me it means that, just by virtue of the fact that my husband has a penis, I should hand over ultimate control. No thanks. Yes, my husband makes more money than me, I work less to take care of our dd (and believe me, it took a lot of soul-searching to feel ok taking the "typical" female role). That does not give him control of our finances, we are partners and have equal but different roles. We communicate out of mutual respect and we compromise for one another, we reach consensus with one another, but at no time would I expect him to submit to me and I will not submit to him (trust me, he really wouldn't want me to).
Interesting having a non Christian viewpoint.
So when you don't agree who makes the final choice?
Anytime we have an issue, we discuss it, we 99% of the time come to the same decision, but on occasion we don't, that is when he gets final say. It isn't an over powering because I say so, just usually alright then, lets wait on this. My feel is someone has to be the leader, we are a team, but each team has a captain.
Ditto Karen. Dh and I rarely don't agree, but if we don't we work out a compromise that is good for both of us. I can't imagine it any other way.
Frasersmama - DITTO DITTO! You said my thoughts exactly. When we disagree and can't make a decision together...it just depends. Dh bought a $2500 tv a few years ago. I thought it was ridiculous and said so. It was an argument. Did we have the $? Yes. Did I still think it was ridiculous? Yes. Since we had the money and it was coming out of his share, he got the tv. I still disagree, but it's his deal not mine.
Most everything we agree on really, or if we don't it's so minor that it doesn't matter. We always take the other person's thoughts/opinions into serious consideration...we seek each other out and really respect that. I know wholeheartedly that he completely respects and admires me, as I do him, and I know that neither of us would EVER do anything that would jeopardize the best interst of our family, so there's a whole lot of trust there. I could never let him make the final decision on something unless I just didn't care about that particular decision. I couldn't do it. Letting the husband make the final say is not in my genetics (LOL), and I think if you're coming at this from a religious point of view your opinion will be totally different (as I see above).
My personal older friends (no offense) can't imagine making a decision on their own or against dh's wishes. They also can't imagine not having the laundry and dishes done or having dh DO those things. They live in a completely different world than I do, and as long as they like it, go for it. Not in my blood.
After re-reading Boxzgrl's last post, I most definitely find the word 'submissive' to be a derrogatory term. JMO.
I have never thought of submissive being a derogatory term because when I heard my first sermon on it (I was Baptist..lol), it was presented about our duties to God and our husbands and their duties and one of the quotes was "in a perfect marriage the goal should be who can be the most submissive" I always took that word to mean, who can be the nicests, who can be the most thoughtful, who can be the most considerate, etc.
Reds, can you explain?
Do you mean explain why I think it's derogatory? If so, I mean that I think submissive means not being independent and it means letting someone else make decisions that affect you. I don't agree with that and I think it's a huge hit for the women's movement. (Which you can tell I'm so into) My first post in this thread states in general what I think being submissive is, and all of those things are negative IMO, so therefore it's a derogatory term to me.
Submissiveness at the most comes between parent and children, because they need constant care and parents can no longer just live life any way they wish. However, between husband and wife (or significant other or whatever) I don't see where it does any good for either one, whether the male is submissive or the female. To me, when you are submissive you lose yourself to what someone else wants or thinks is best. Does that answer you Boxzgrl?
A lot of this debate is a question of semantics. Reds, you see submission as being deragotory and I certainly see why. The idea we generally have of submission is that someone is forced to give in to someone's elses control and desires against his/her will (i.e., submitting to authority). Biblical submission is NOT that at all--it is not about one person forcing the other to do something they don't want to do nor is it about one partner totally giving up independence or the ability to make decisions. It is as Kaye said about trying to out-love and out-care for each other. Comparing your idea of submission as I understand it to the concept of biblical submission is like comparing apples and oranges.
Also, speaking of semantics...I find the term "religious" derogatory. To me the word religion means that someone blindly follows a list of rules out of a sense of guilt, duty, or obligation. Christianity is not about religion or religious practices, it is about a relationship---a personal relationship between God and man (as in mankind) that should naturally overflow into human relationships.
I am quite a women's right advocate too. I believe that women can do anything and should exercise their natural gifts and abilities to their fullest potential. Many of my personal heroes are people like Elizabeth Blackwell, Amelia Earhart, Susan B. Anthony, Marie Curie, etc. and I grew up reading their autobiographies. I think if I had lived in the right time and place that I would have been a suffragette. Submission does not mean that you can't be an independent free-thinking, world-changing, dynamic woman. It means that you and your husband are a team, hopefully in agreement 95+% of the time. However, when you disagree about something then out of love and respect that your husband will make the right decision, you let him, BECAUSE YOU CHOOSE TO, have the final say-so. It isn't because he demands it, but because you trust him enough and you know he loves you and has your's and the family's best interest at heart. I can think of maybe 2 times in our 14 years and 10.5 months of marriage that I have consciously said, "Okay, you decide" because we agree so much and are so compatible. Instead of it being a "huge hit for the women's movement" it is a boon for me because I had my husband's complete support and encouragement when I started my own private practice. When I doubted myself he was the one encouraging me. Same thing for my current doctoral work. When I freak out about how much it will cost me to attend school this upcoming year, he is cheering me on and reminding me how much it is worth. It was MY decision to go back to school, but he is so supporive and has even taken on extra work around the house (i.e., totally taking over the laundry this past semester) so that I could focus my energy on schoolwork instead of housework.
Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 puts it this way:
9Two are better than one,
because they have a good return for their work:
10 If one falls down,
his friend can help him up.
But pity the man who falls
and has no one to help him up!
11 Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm.
But how can one keep warm alone?
12 Though one may be overpowered,
two can defend themselves.
A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.
I also think that lost in this discussion has been mutual submission versus roles in marriage. It is not about "woman's work" (i.e., staying home with the kids, cleaning house). That has nothing to do with submission actually. For 7 months after our first DS was born my DH was a SAHD. That didn't make him more submissive to me for that period of time, just like the fact that he is the breadwinner now makes me more submissive to him. He was a SAHD because he was finishing seminary and had an easy courseload, I was the breadwinner putting him through school, I had more earning potential at that time, and I carried the health insurance. As a matter of fact, our first 2 vehicles were both in my name because he was in school and I was making the bulk of our income. It's so NOT about who is playing what part in the household. Also, conversely to what I think I understood from Melissa's post (feel free to correct me if I misinterpreted Melissa ), just because my DH brings in more money does not mean he gets to have afree hand in how it is spent. We discuss every purchase over $50-75 together and come to an agreement. We don't have separate accounts, his money/my money, nor do I have an allowance. All of OUR money goes into OUR account and WE decide how it is spent. We have both of our names on the house, car, credit cards, etc. so we both have established good credit.
Oh well, I could go on and on, but either it makes a little more sense now or it just simply won't.
Now, that my computer froze halfway through typing (Grrr.....  ) i'll make this shorter.
Reds, now I understand. I just needed clarification. For me, I see both sides of the story. I think there are a lot of factors in determining submissiveness in a relationship, religeon probably being close to the top.
I think Pam and I think see the same on this subject. For me, it probably has to do with my religeous upbringing as well as my mother who was an awesome wife and mother but was also submissive. Not that I saw it then, but I sure do now. The reason I brought up the cleaning and taking care of kids was not because I think it has anything to do with being submissive but most others do. Most people picture the woman on the Lifetime movie who stayed home and cooked and clean and if there were anything as little as a speck of dirt when their husbands got home, they'd be beat. They never made financial decisions and it was no business where their husband was spending their money. Thats just not true about what I believe to be the real meaning of submissiveness. Reading Pams posts basically is exactly how I feel so I wont repeat it.
On the other website I frequent, there were 3 girls who were "put to the test" so to speak. They were big time feminist and couldn't stand the word submissive. Another girl challenged them to read the book called "The Submissive Wife" (Or so I think it was called that). They honestly came back with a new meaning about this very subject. Not that they were totally for it but it really cleared up what some of their views were about submission. If anyone knows which book that is, please post a link because i'm interested in buying it as well, just to read.
I just don't see how wanting to make someone else happy, listening to them, anticipating their needs makes you a doormat. You do it all the time with your children, why is the person you have said you want to spend the rest of your life with any less deserving? Do you honestly think with your kids 'well, they haven't done such and such for me, so I won't do such and such for them? No...
Being submissive, imho, doesn't make you a doormat. It doesn't mean that you are teaching your sons to value you less. It doesn't mean that you are raising a generation of daughters to be doormats. It also doesn't mean that you lose your brain cells. You are mirroring kindess towards others, treating people with respect...that's bad?
To me, it's about putting someone else's needs above my own....just like I do with my kids.
And, when the equation is done correctly (and as God intended it), the husband wants to do everything to make me happy, to fullfill my needs/wants and desires. It isn't a one sided coin. When it is, that's when problems occur.
I remember a friend of mine calling and telling me she was getting a divorce. I was so sad for her. When asked what happened, she said 'well, we had a 50/50 marriage'. I was surprised, always thought, 'gee marriage should be 50/50, equal partners, both working together' so I asked her what she meant. She said, 'we were both so worried about being equal that we forgot to really nurture one another. We were keeping score on who did what, who did the most that we forgot that marriage really isn't 50/50 but should be 100/100 all the time...each giving all of themselves to make the other happy.'
I never forgot that.
We just finished up a bible study on the book called "The Excellent Wife, A Biblical Perspective" by Martha Peace. It answered alot of my questions about being submissive and what it meant exactly. I think its a great read if anyone wants to read it. You can email me and I will be glad to mail it to you. And maybe we can pass it around and come back in a few months to see how people feel then. Just a thought
Making someone happy, listening to them, being a best friend, supportive, loving, devoted, faithful....those don't make you a doormat at all. That's what marriage is. All of those things in no way equate with 'submissive' to me.
Dh and I do not keep score. We give 100% of ourselves to our relationship and to our child. Giving of yourself is not submitting in the sense that you let the man make final decisions IMO. I can't think of one time where I've stepped back and said to dh, "Ok, we disagree on this completely, it's a significant issue for our family, but it's your call." I just can't see that happening. We have always, always come to some kind of compromise where we both get what we want. It would never just be up to him and he would never let that happen either. If I said to him, "It's your call" he'd say 'Wait a minute, backup, nope, let's start at the beginning again.' And if it's something meaningless, who cares anyway?
My point is, there aren't books for men about being submissive to their wives or how to 'understand better what submissive means', you know? It's all about the woman and that's such a joke to me!
I also think Ginny's definition from the dictionary says it all in a nutshell. Obedience, yielding, giving up of power.
Sorry, just trying to be helpful.
Sorry about what Jtsmom? I wasn't directing that at you at all! It was mentioned earlier also about a book on this topic and I was just making the general point that men don't have books liek this for them because it's not their job to 'submit'.
I wasn't saying anything against your post Sorry if it sounded that way.
I think that those who say that when the relationship works properly, the husband does his very best to keep his wife happy, they discuss and reach agreement on almost all matters, and, as the women above describe, when they can't agree, the wife agrees to defer to the husband for reasons that they have worked out between them - golly, that's a long and convoluted sentence or partial sentence. Anyhow, when the relationship works like that, it is almost certainly a good relationship.
Certainly when I was married and my then husband decided to take a job in Philadelphia, almost half the country away from where we lived and grew up (Chicago), I went along with that decision. He was the income earner, I had no way of judging whether it was a good decision or not, and he did have the experience and knowledge to make that judgment. And I'm not sorry we moved.
I submit (other meaning), however, that, unhappily, most who preach submissiveness for wives don't envision such an equal or almost equal relationship - they envision submission without the reciprocal care the husband is supposed to have for his wife's happiness.
I think when it works as Pam describes (and as it should work), it works very well. I wish that more marriages where the wife is expected to "submit" (and marriages where the wife is not expected to submit) did work that way, and I congratulate Pam and her husband on the ways in which they make it work.
Yes, there is a certain amount of semantics in this discussion. "Submit" means pretty much the same thing as "surrender" or "obey without question" to most of us - not attitudes to which many of us would subscribe. And we, today, didn't create the semantics - the people who wrote the scriptures and did the translations did create them.
While I recognize that many people believe that every word of Scripture came directly from or was inspired by God, my personal belief is that much of what was written about behavioral matters rather than faith matters was shaped and colored by the political and social climates of the times in which they were written. I suspect that there may have been situations where some "uppity women" were taking advantage of being freed from the rigidity of Judaism or the legal structure of Roman paganism (where the husband/father literally owned his wife and owned his children - no matter how old they were - until he freed them from being owned by him) and acting in ways that made the men of the new and growing churches uncomfortable, and these uncomfortable men complained to Paul and others. It was, I suggest, important for the apostles to set up clear guidelines for how marriages would work within this new religion, and to set up guidelines that, while they recognized some changes in the roles of men and women, husbands and wives, did not differ to greatly from what was taking place in and acceptable to the social structure around them. And remember, Paul, in particular, was one who thought of marriage as second best - only for those who did not have the moral strength or faith to abstain from marriage - hence, it is better to marry than to burn (whatever that means - I'm not going to look it up at this hour).
Finally, I am not going to judge anyone else's marriage - how it should work or by what standards - unless one of the people in the marriage asks for advice or help. And even then, I generally try to give advice that is aimed at helping that person find out for themselves what they think is wrong and how they want to change it, not to get them to mold their marriage to what I think it should be. The marriage relationship is between two people - if I'm not one of the people I don't have any say in how it should work until and unless it is clear that the relationship is doing measurable harm to the helpless (the children) - and only then.
It has been interesting and enlightening to see the different points of view. I'm glad you started this, Melissa. (And it is interesting and enlightening to me, personally, to see the ways in which Pam and I agree, and disagree.)
This will likely be my final post on the subject. Not because I'm mad (I love a good debate and sharing differences of opinions), but because I doubt I'll have anything left to say on the subject.
Reds, you are still stuck with a narrow definition of submission and it will always seem a deratory concept to you unless your definition changes. I think if you saw it lived out in person that you might perceive it differently, but then again, maybe not. It's not like the Cleavers nor like a neandethal dragging his wife by the hair, which I am afraid if your connotation.
I did want to use one of your vignettes as as example though....
When we disagree and can't make a decision together...it just depends. Dh bought a $2500 tv a few years ago. I thought it was ridiculous and said so. It was an argument. Did we have the $? Yes. Did I still think it was ridiculous? Yes. Since we had the money and it was coming out of his share, he got the tv. I still disagree, but it's his deal not mine.
Here's how the same scenario would have happened in my house:
If DH wanted a $2500 TV we would discuss it since we always discuss major purchases. I would have been appalled because we don't need a huge expensive TV and would have expressed my opinion. We would have together decided to sleep on it for a few days as we also do with major purchases so that it is not an impulse buy. Then we would have talked it over again. I would have continued to expressed my opinion that it was a poor use of our money, but I would have told my husband that if he felt he absolutely needed the TV or should have it for some reason then it was his decision. Here's the difference....He wouldn't have bought it out of respect for my feelings and because he knew it would ultimately cause conflict. That's mutual submission---I gave him authority to make the final decision and because he loves me and respects my opinion he would decide not to do it. As far as the "his money" thing, I don't really understand that part since we don't have separate accounts and we share all finances as I mentioned above. No argument, no TV, mutual respect, happy ending. Really, in a weird sort of you you were submissive to your DH by giving him authority to make the decision, although it wasn't a mutual agreement and it was with "his" money. End result...an argument and a dissatisfied wife (at least temporarily).
Ginny, we were posting at the same time. I am always amazed when we find those tiny little pieces of issues to agree upon too. Of course, we never totally see eye-to-eye, but we can find truth in each other's viewpoints. That's why I love debate. I would really love to "do lunch" with you sometime. My DH is going to be in Philly for a week in October--maybe he can meet you for me in abstentia . And I do wholeheartedly agree that many times, in fact, if not most of the time, that submission is often preached by men who do expect their wives to play a subservient role. I just wanted to point out that that is not the true biblical intention as I understand it, nor how I would practice it.
I will never forget when we had one couple over for pizza and videos when DH was in seminary. We were sitting down to eat pizza and we opened the box and all got a slice. The male of the other couple just sat back and we asked if he was going to get some. Then we looked as he waited for his wife to serve him. My DH and I kicked each other under the table with mouths hanging open. That is NOT two-way submission! Needless to say, we didn't have much in common with this couple and didn't do very much together after that.
I think the problem is the word "submissive" If we replace the word submit with the word respect then we have a clearer message.
I love my husband and will defer to him most of the time, because I feel he is just wiser than I am. In other matters, he will defer to me because he feels I have a better handle on the situation.
I would be curious to know what the literal translation of the passage is.
Ame
Pamt- I think you're right that my view on this isn't going to change, and if you want to consider it narrow, that's your opinion. With regard to the TV issue, maybe I shouldn't have used it because $ is a little different in my view. We spend individually based on what we make, we split (until I became a sahm last month) all of our bills, expenses, etc. It was personally the most difficult decision for me to stay home because now my dh is responsible for my half of everything and I really don't jive with that, but it is what is best for our dd so I'm more than willing. Not to say it doesn't bother me, but I feel it's best for her. Anyway, $ seems separate to me in our marriage, so it's apparently different in yours. I agree with Ginny that I'm not going to judge anyone's marriage, but it sounds like yours is working wonderfully for you and that's great. Mine is working wonderfully for me, too.
I think if we replace 'submissive' with 'respect', then we're comparing apples and oranges. I just don't think they can be equated at all, like I stated before.
I probably won't post anymore on this either To each his own...we love how our relationship is established and I'm glad you all do, too!!!
Thank You everyone for sharing your views! I have found this to be very interesting. I think I grew up in a bubble because I never knew being submissive to your husband was a good debate discussion until about 3 months ago, lol!
Pam T wrote "Instead of it being a "huge hit for the women's movement" it is a boon for me because I had my husband's complete support and encouragement when I started my own private practice. When I doubted myself he was the one encouraging me. Same thing for my current doctoral work. When I freak out about how much it will cost me to attend school this upcoming year, he is cheering me on and reminding me how much it is worth. It was MY decision to go back to school, but he is so supporive and has even taken on extra work around the house (i.e., totally taking over the laundry this past semester) so that I could focus my energy on schoolwork instead of housework."
That sounds great, but what does it have to do with being submissive? I have to say that my DH does the same for me.
And Kaye asked when we don't agree, who makes the final choice? Well, I would have to say that there is very little of great importance that we don't agree on, my dh and I have very similar prinicples and values. If we disagree on something, we discuss it and we reach a mutual consensus that everyone can live with.
I also found it interesting about the example of the TV. I wonder in Pam T's example how it would have gone if it had been something she really wanted and her dh disagreed?
Ok, so we can agree to disagree on this one. I don't think that disagreeing makes one person's view more narrow than another's, just different. That is what makes this such an interesting life.
Good point frasersmama.
I have a friend who is very submissive to her dh...the whole meals served, don't say anything he wouldn't like, stay home with your kids, don't make too much money because you get too much power, etc. He only allowed her to work once the kids were nearly graduated and then it was so they could afford to put their kids through college. He was supportive of her going back to school and getting a job THEN, but prior to that he wasn't, so what does that mean, you know? It was beneficial to him, so it was okay, but before that it wasn't. That doesn't make him a good dh IMO. I'm not sure what that story means to all of this, I just thought of it and maybe it applies here.
Sorry...I said I wasn't going to post anymore on this and couldn't help it!!!
I "serve" meals to my DH and was a SAHM for a bit. DH supported my schooling and my going back to work to have "me" time, not for extra money. Sure it's beneficial to my DH but I think it hardly makes him bad. Maybe your friend wanted to be a SAHM and cook meals for the family. Maybe she was happy that he supported her need to learn and paid for her schooling. I don't see that story as bad. I see it as a compromise. A "bad" DH would lock his wife in the house and never let her attend schoolong for fear that she may be smarter than him. But he didn't. I think what they are doing is good.
I would say that in the end probably my dh has the final say but... it matters in regards to what. He seriously wanted a pool table of all things, wanted to plop the $%^#^** thing right in the middle of our family room. It was only $35, I kid you not. I said no, he said he would put it in the garage, I said no, he said why not, told him because I know that it would end up in my family room and I didnt want an ugly eyesore of a huge &*(%^)^ pool table sitting where I had to deal with it, vacuum around it, stare at it, and watch it be a 1000 lb paper weight when everyone got tired of it after about a week. I won, no pool table. Does it still come up, yep, do I say I am sorry about the absence of a pool table in our home? NOPE. So he submits to my will about matters of the house, he works, he is master there, I work at home as a sahm, I am the master here. In regards to money, he brings home the money, as my job I make sure that he has a home to come to, that he doesnt have to worry about the light bill being paid and that there is money left over to play with. He wins regarding decisions regarding his job, where we live, what he drives, mostly anything that links to his livelyhood.
Reds, I don't think that guy you described is even thinking of the bible, sounds like he is just an A$$! LOL
I think those that would use that passage to manipulate their spouse are going to do it regardless. I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone who had no tendancies towards domination and manipulation would find that verse and think "wow, I have to make sure my wife really does exactly what I want!"
I completely 100% believe, and have been taught, that the word 'respect' is a wonderful and accurate substitute.
Jann, he is an A$$!! LOL Boxzgrl, I know him and he really is. He even says he got married so he'd have a full time dishwasher!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also Boxz, I don't think anything like that about your dh...it sounds like he is very supportive. I was just using one particular example of a family that I know personally. I didn't mean to say that a supportive dh has his own interests in mind only, just this one in particular did. Sorry if that came across the wrong way.
Reds, I didn't think you were saying anything bad about my DH. Now that you clarified the situation a bit more I understand. It's sad how one bad apple ruins it for the whole bunch (as in, your friends DH).
I think an important distinction needs to be made here. GOD has commanded women to be submissive, NOT men. All Christian women who are submissive are answering to GOD, not their husbands! And Christian husbands are the head of the household per GOD'S command, NOT their own inflated or selfish ego. Any scenario that doesn't fit into the above distinction, is not biblical submission, it's something else entirely.
I more or less stayed away from this thread because I don't consider myself submissive, per the definitions given above, and I can't help but find it derogatory,too, since I can't help think that the one being submissive is also being dominated and I don't feel that has any place in a relationship. (That is just my initial feeling and opinion - I don't believe that any of you feel domintated based on what you've posted.)
I prefer using the term 'defer'. I defer to my husband on decisions where I feel he has more experience and knowledge and he defers to me in those instances where I am more knowledgeable. Those occasions when we disagree? We spend time talking it out, fighting it out sometimes and reach a decision we both can live with. That way, if it is the wrong decision, we have each other to blame. 
I would point out that not all women - and not all Christian women - believe it is God's commandment that women are to submit to their husbands. I do not believe that such women (and I include myself) have inflated or selfish egos. This is the debate board, but even on the debate board the rules of courtesy apply, and I am offended by that description.
Ginny, I think Kate was saying teh MEN weren't head of the household because they themselves were inflated or selfish, but rather because God commands it.
That said, I had been reading this, and much like Sunny stayed away because I'm not submissive. If anything, DH will submit to me in matters of $$ or childrearing, because although he makes the money, I am the one who pays the bills, writes the budget, etc and I'm the one who spends most of my time disciplining the kids. We make major decisions together, but if we cannot come to an agreement he'll often defer to me. For example, a dog. We gave our dog to another family, because he was entirely too much for me to handle along with the kids and everything else, and DH was working, therefore I was the primary caregiver. We couldn't provide for the dog how he deserved as far as time and attention. 6 months later, DH wants another dog, a smaller one this time, and it was becoming a major battle. However, I am the one who would have to care for the dog most of the time, and I would have to care for it completely while he's away/deployed. We didn't get one.
Of course, there are plenty of times I have said "I don't know, and it's your decision." There are plenty of times I haven't agreed with a choice, but decided to defer to him since he was more knowledgable. Neither of us "submits", but I do run the household (I'm simply better at it), which he will tell you.
Oh, and on the flip side of that, I do usually serve his food, although he was raised to allow a woman to serve herself first. If I cook dinner, I serve everyone else first. If We go out, or have something "buffet" style, he allows me to go first.
Crystal is correct in my point. Ginny, you misunderstood. I was pointing out that from a Christian standpoint, GOD made man the head of the household and God commanded that women be submissive. I was saying that it wasn't because MAN was selfish or had an inflated ego that he demanded submission from his wife, but rather that GOD came up with the whole idea. My point was simply that the whole thing was God's idea, not man's, nor woman's.
Now, Christian women not believing it is God's commandment is a different matter and isn't one I was commenting on.
You're right, Crystal and Kate, and I apologize.
No problem, just glad it was cleared up!
Holy Cow! My husband serves me on a Buffet line or at home! I also serve him. He'll even cut up my food for me if I'm feeding Helen.
Do you think all this submissive stuff came about becasue traditionally women ere not educated and therefor not as capable of making informend decisions as men? Of course that's no longer the case.
Ame
I agree a lot with that Ame. My dh is the same...we pretty much serve each other on any given day and I can't imagine it being one-sided either way. I think your point illustrates that women submit to their husbands because(in earlier times, as you said traditionally)they were so oppressed they didn't know any better. They weren't educated, did not have rights, and even once they got some rights it still wasn't the same. Goodness knows that even now we are not living in an equal world. That's one very important reason in my mind that this whole 'women being submissive' idea is not even relevant in this day and age. From a biblical standpoint, if that's what you live your life by, then definitely. There are MANY interpretations of those passages as well, and we all take what we want from them. But if your not going biblically with this, none of that really applies here IMO.
I still go back to the point that men don't have to read books on how to be submissive to their wives because it's not what they are 'supposed' to focus on. That fact alone speaks volumes IMO regarding equality.. I'm just all for equal, equal, equal.
I can't get out of this debate I keep telling myself I'll stay out but I just can't!
As far as books go, yes there are books for men. But as we are called to submit to our husbnads, they are called to submit to God. There are books after books about being a Godly husband, being a praying husband, being the Husband God intended, etc.
I am not for equality. I look at my children and treat each one of them differently. In my opinion we are God's children and he parents us as he sees fit.
I can think of alot of books where the man is told to listen to his wife's needs, take care of her, cherish her...sounds just dreadful! ;)
My husband and I both have read His Needs/Her Needs and Men are From Mars, Women from Venus.
Did a quick google for marriage books for men and got this link......http://www.eldrbarry.net/marriage/marrbks.htm
doesn't look all that one sided to me.
But, I think the key issue more than anything else is as long as the word submit is considered the same as subserviant, we will keep going round and round on this!
Jann - I agree on your last statement
I guess as far as the books go, okay you all know of some. But are MEN really on some debating board discussing how submissive they are? I don't think so. I'll leave that alone now!
I'll just agree to disagree with you Kaye regarding equality.
LOL Reds. Men don't debate about circumcision, breastfeeding, or SAHM vs. WOHM. Come to think about it, they don't debate about much when it's outside of politics. ;)
I honestly don't know what men discuss on a men message board, don't read those! LOL But to assume that they don't isn't really fair to the men, is it? There must be some discussion going on somewhere cause those books I mentioned have sold quite a few copies (and I don't think it was all wives buying them for their husbands! LOL)
Hubby belongs to a message board for passat tdi owners. They just discuss cars. On his Leica mailing list, the topics often go to beer and cigars! LOL!
I just asked him and they also discuss politics, both anti-Bush and anti-democrat.
On my hubby's boards they discus sports, they debate on which player shoudl have been taken, how the scores for fantasy football should be calculated....very different from here!
KAYE AND PAMT- I TOTALLY AGREE!
I would like to say, though, that submission is not an issue for me/us.
Scripture goes on to say, "Husbands, live with your wife in an understanding way..."
My husband does just that. Before ANY big decision or even for advice he always asks me what I think (as I do him). I tell him, we discuss it, and discuss it until we reach an agreement. Usually one of us is convinced either way and we are both happy.
I don't really feel like it has to come down to an issue of submission. A little talking and one person is likely to end up supporting the other.
Ginny, I disagree with what you said about the submissive wife not having authority over her male children. To me, that is the same thing as saying; if a husband serves his wife with sacrificial meekness (just as Christ did for the church-which is the model Christian men are to follow) that he will not have any authority over his female children. It is the mother's responsibility to develop her own authoritative relationship over her children outside of the authority the father exercises over them. If she does develop and maintain her authority over her male children and if, at the same time, they see the beauty of their father serving and laying his life down for their mom, I don't believe you can get a healthier more beautiful picture of the harmony of a husband/wife relationship To me, that is what family is all about.
ALSO- I think any (Christian) man that demands submission is probably in a bad frame of mind and any (Christian) woman whos husband feels he has to demand submission is probably not where she should be. It's a useless power struggle.
I know who I am and I don't feel the need or have the energy to fight/remind my husband of the respect he is suppose to show me!
Monica, I agree, in theory whether the wife is submissive should have nothing to do with how she interacts with her male children (or they with her). Unhappily, most relationships I have seen where the husband insists on being the "head of the house" are families where women - wife and daughters - are treated and viewed as second class citizens, with the males being the dominant and dominating family members.
I will say, though, that when the scriptural commandments for a marital/family relationship are viewed and followed in totality, as you and others have so eloquently quoted and described above, it would be ideal.
(I still have problems with the word "submit".)
Ginny, that has also been my experience with couples I know where the man is "head of the house". It's really unfortortunate for the children and the wife.
My husband is the head of our home, but he doesn't wear a sign on his forehead that says it! LOL!
A man who is leading the way he is suppose to will never have to lay out his job description to his family.
So, I guess it comes down to what "head of the house" means to different people.
To me, this whole thing still boils down to the fact that the man has more power than the woman. Yes, he may use it responsibly, but he still holds the power, which by definition, means the woman does not. I just can't get over the fact that a man should hold more power simply because he was born a man. It all seems so arbitrary.
Frasersmama - you say everything so well!!!!!
I don't see where it says anywhere that the man has more power than the woman. Each has roles and responsibilities, both equally as important and 'powerful' as the other.
We get the power of child bearing since we we're born women. ;) Part of life is having gender specific roles.
I'm also glad that my DH is head of the household. It's a heavy weight to carry and he does it so well. I sure wouldn't want that.
Oh Boxzgrl...I have to disagree! I hate the idea of having gender specific roles, and I don't think it has to be that way at all. Can you give examples of what you mean?
I guess I don't feel like our marriage has ever had gender specific roles. (Tell me if I'm way off base of what you were thinking.) We both cook, clean, take care of the house, mow, do trash, fix things, and work. We both share the duties of our dd. We share the management of our budget...I pay daily bills, etc., while he balances the checkbook each month and gets the overall view. One MAJOR reason I struggled with staying home with dd is the worry of gender-specific roles, but we've come to realize that I'm home instead of dh because he makes more money than I did. If it were reversed, believe me he would be here instead, because we don't have pre-conceived notions about what a "woman does" or what a "man does". (He's still constantly trying to come up with a way he can stay home and earn the same income!) I feel like our "weight" has always been equally carried, especially financially, and that's another reason I struggled with being SAHM.
Ditto, Deanna. I'll never forget how a female friend's jaw just dropped when after dinner, my husband began clearing the table.
Awestruck, she said that her husband would never do that on his own.
When my sister and bil came for a quick visit on their way to somewhere else, my husband ordered dinner, picked it up, set up and cleaned upso that I could spend more time with my sis.
It's funny, this debate reminds me of something my mother told me once. In the most serious way she told me never to marry an Italian. He would expect to be waited on and would never let me have my own opinion or make my own decsions. Not a biblical thing, but a cultural, macho thing. How similar it sounds to submission!
Well, my mom was certainly guilty of cultural stereotyping. My husband is Italian, and if I tried to submit to him, he'd probabably take me to the doctor to find out what was wrong .
Ame
For all of you that are having a hard time with the word "submission", in a sentence or two sentence, I would like to know what *your* definition of submission is. OR- give a "picture" of what submission looks like to you.
(That should help me understand why this issue keeps going back to who does what around the house.) -Not to mention, it makes for good conversation!
I ask this, because IMO submission has as absolutely nothing to do with who does the dishes, who pays the bills, or who births babies!
Reds, we have gender specific roles and we also share roles. I don't do house repairs, mow the lawn, do oil changes on the vehicle. I don't move the big furniture when we move (refrigerators and stuff). My DH doesn't automatically come home and think "What should I make for dinner?" "Does DD's diaper need a changing?" "When was the last time the bed sheets were washed?" That kinda stuff. If I work late he'll cook. A few nights a week he'll bbq meat for me so all I have to do is side dishes. He'll do dishes half the time if i'm too tired to do them. About once every month or two, i'll come home to an incredibly spotless house from the ceilings to the kitchen floors. I don't think these things have to do with submission, but more of gender specific roles which really have nothing to do with submission. There really is no denying that there are indeed gender specific roles on Earth.
I agree that submission doesn't HAVE to be associated with gender specific roles, but it definitely CAN be. I totally disagree with your last statement. There are only gender specific roles (other than who has the sperm and who carries the baby) when we want there to be or choose it that way.
I mow the grass and dh vacuums...and vice versa. There's NOTHING that he won't do or that I won't do (unless I'm physically unable, like loading the 50lb. water softener salt). Dh does come home and say "Is it time for a diaper change?" and I've only cleaned up after a meal when he's ill or not at home. I do most of the cooking but mostly because I LOVE to cook and it's one of my hobbies.
Ame- I know what you mean! I have multiple friends who can't imagine sitting and watching TV while their dh vacuums or dusts! We have a mental list of what needs to be done and then we make 'deals' to see whose going to do what. "If you do the bathrooms, I'll sweep and dust (I hate the bathrooms) or if he would rather mow than sweep the garage, so be it.
Okay, I made my point and I agree with Boxz and Monica that these roles AREN'T the definition of submissive IMO, but most definitely some couples see it that way. My friend's dh (the a$$ mentioned above) would NEVER "lower himself" to doing anything that might be considered a "woman's work", and she wouldn't think of NOT doing the traditional "woman's work" because he would come unglued. There IS some submission in that for example.
Well, i haven't read all the posts but i can say i kind of agree with the last 7 posts. In my house, we both make decisions equally and i feel totally respected in this relationship. However, there are gender specific roles in our house like washing clothes (for me) and building the shed for the garden (for dh) and to be honest i wouldn't have it any other way.
I will quote Ame here: "My husband is Italian, and if I tried to submit to him, he'd probabably take me to the doctor to find out what was wrong". In our house this is also the situation. I won't go into deepth with the definition of submission i just wanted to point out that some women do feel comfortable doing what is traditionally expected of them.
My dh is the main provider, i don't work outside the house so i feel is my duty to have his clothes washed and the fridge full. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't do it (but i really prefer if he doesn't because he manages to make more mess LOL but that is another story) on the contrary he is always willing to help me when i ask him, something that i seldom do because he works too much already.
This really doesn't bother me, the "who does what jobs around the house", what i think is wrong is when men don't do their bit for their children, and if they do is as if they are doing their wives a favour.
Probably went off topic now, it's a bit complicated for me... well the question was our definition of submission and i think in our family it would be that there equality and that there is respect, however as i am sometimes a bit old fashioned i would have to agree with Melissa when she wrote "I'm also glad that my DH is head of the household. It's a heavy weight to carry and he does it so well. I sure wouldn't want that" but not because i am submisive but because i believe he's got better judgement than me. That said he would never do anything without consulting me.
Sorry if this was too long, it's hard for me to explain what i want to say, and man! there is a lot to say in this subject!
I can say my definition of marriage does not have the word submission in it - by either party
To me, submission means to be subordinate to another, to blindly follow what that person decides, without regard to one's own better judgement. To believe that another is, by nature of being male, worthy of my submission.
Yes my husband has the paying job outside of the home. That does not make my work any less important, nor does that make me unworthy to make decisions.
If you think for one second that because he brings home the money, he's head of the household, you are wrong. There is no head in our household. We share responsibility both financial and domestic.
Ame
Ditto Ame. Definition and all!
ditto Ame - couldn't have said it better.
4 entries found for submission.
sub�mis�sion Audio pronunciation of "submission" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sb-mshn)
n.
1. The act of submitting to the power of another: �Oppression that cannot be overcome does not give rise to revolt but to submission� (Simone Weil).
2. The state of having submitted. See Synonyms at surrender.
2. The state of being submissive or compliant; meekness.
1. The act of submitting something for consideration.
2. Something so submitted: read three fiction manuscripts and other such submissio
Submissive..."Acting like it's really *his* idea so that he feels better"...Submissive...
LOL Heidi!!! Too funny!
Ha Ha Ha !! Love it, Heidi!
Ame
I think the reason this debate keeps getting tied into gender is because it was initially introduced as one. Read the first post - "What is *your* definition to being submissive to your husband?" - seems pretty gender specific to me. In terms of my definition of submissive, it is when one party allows another to make decisions that affect him or her. I don't think the definition itself is gender specific, but in the context this was posted, it certainly is.
PS Thanks Reds, we do tend to agree on these things. Maybe it is a Canadian thing. I think generally speaking (uh-oh, that's sure to get me in trouble) we are a little more liberal than our neighbours to the south.
Frasersmama-But I'm not Canadian!
Ooops, that's embarrassing. Why did I think you were? Hope you weren't offended by the "liberal" comment - tee hee.
Not offended at all!! I'm way more liberal than most people I know.
Not to beat a dead horse, but my minister at church sort of talked about this today. The main topic was really more about using outside sources as Christian references rather than what the bible says and not looking at scripture as a whole and just picking bits and pieces.
He told this funny story to illustrate this....
A husband had just finished reading the book "Man is Head of the House". He came to his wife and said Honey, God has destined me to be the Head of the House so this is what I what you to do. I want to be greated every day with my pipe and slippers. I want the children looking and behaving their best. I want you to be dressed nicely and with makeup on. I expect dinner to be of gourmet quality and ready upon my arrival. I also expect you to draw me a bath at bedtime and satisfy any of my other needs, because as you know God has made me the head of the household. I believe each of the children should have chores. Perhaps they should be the ones to lay out my clothes in the morning?
To which the wife replied, Perhaps the funeral director can do that for you instead. ;)
lol Jann!
AMEN
LOL!
The word submissive simply means to VOLUNTARILY place yourself under. That means that you both start out EQUAL.
"Start out equal"? Biblically speaking, you both start out equal and you remain equal.
Equal in gender, different in roles.
I would describe my husband as submissive. He is such a peacemaker that he usually just goes with whatever. Sometimes it really bothers me. I want the opportunity to be submissive sometimes. If I were to become submissive, who knows where we'd be. Due to my husbands personality, I've had to step up to the plate and make a lot of decisions. Not that he doesn't agree. But, if he didn't agree, I don't think he'd tell me anyway.
I'm a SAHM, and he works full time to support us. I make most of the decisions with him backing me 110%.
I don't want to come across as saying he is a weak man or anything. He is just very accomadating to others personalities. I'm sure he would step up if I was making a huge mistake somewhere along the lines.
|
Members
