Headship is routinely ignored.
Theme: The Integrity and Fidelity of Marriage
Length: 1,300 words
Reading Time: 4.5 minutes
Not long ago, Mrs. RPA and I had a discussion which turned into an argument. It ended with her accusing me of treating her like a child before she stormed out of the room and slammed the door on her way out.
Why? Well, I spent the week putting together a bible study on wifely behavior, roles, and authority in the family, before talking with her about the argument to set expectations moving forward. This endeavor took up a good bit of my time.
It seems like whenever you make a move in the right direction, you can expect to be met with resistance, and from those closest to you, no less. The irony is not lost on me either.
I’ve noticed that a lot of what Deti, Jack, and Scott have written about in the past has come out of their own experiences with marriage. I am getting to that point myself lately.
The Mental Load of a Sexless Marriage
One of the first sites I found on sexless marriage was Feminist Comrade Gregoire’s. Yeah her, so you never know how God is going to steer you through life, even using a woman who horribly twists scripture to fit cultural norms to guide others to a better understanding. Since then, I’ve made a habit of reading Comrade Gregoire’s manifestos at her site, To Love Honor and Vacuum, and the comments too. I use her rubber-band-aid theology as a training ground for detecting doctrinal sleight of hand and to ground myself further in scripture. One of her common topics she refers to is the “mental load” of being a wife and mother, which is usually followed by a list of how men can make their lives better by taking some of the burden off their wives and adulating them instead. What often follows in the comments is a man who dares to tell them, and I’ll paraphrase here, “Welcome to adulting!” (assuming she allows the comment) followed by more clucking than when a fox is in the henhouse.
That is when it hit me why Gregoire’s “mental load” argument is so ridiculous to me. The burden of headship in marriage is great. The responsibilities of it weigh on the heart, soul, and mind, even when the home is peaceful. When the home is not peaceful (often because of the wife’s antics), that burden is amplified 10-fold as you pull the weight of your own responsibility and also pull the weight of trying to enforce what is right.
And yet, many men think it is preferable to avoid this burden of Headship authority by passing these duties and responsibilities off to the wife and then taking the easier role of relieving her “mental burden”, as Gregoire teaches. So in the final analysis, men will still jump onto the feminist bandwagon as an assumed! When you consider how feminism and marriage are both such lousy bets for men these days, this makes me question the sanity of the average man!
We cannot neglect Headship!
It seems like too many readers missed the underlying point of Jack’s series on masculinity — that a sanctified marriage is one in which a husband should be able to completely trust his wife. Most readers either did not get this point, or could not accept this as being true. A lot of people went so far as to assume that he was saying that a man should trust his wife regardless of her trustworthiness, or that only weak men do this.
I see this difference in perspective as being responsible for one of the major schisms between readers in the Christian Manosphere. That is, some see the goal of attaining a sanctified marriage as hopeless (lastmod) or futile (Adam Piggott), while others are drawn to the feminist “sales pitch” of the “strong independent woman” as a submissive “helper”, or to put it more rudely, “a woman who will cook, clean, and F, and then go away”. From a more generous and spiritualized perspective, men are attracted to the inherent blessings of a sanctified marriage, but men do not seem to be aware that only Headship can produce this result, nor are they realistic about how to make that happen (aside from those few who have actually done it, by hook or by crook).
One of the reasons I enjoy reading Σ Frame is because it is one of the few Red Pill blogs that represents Biblical marriage as being important. It’s God’s design for us as people, the building block of the church, and when widely practiced a stable society is the result. I urge readers to go read Kirk Durston’s post about how sexual immorality destroys a culture within 3 generations. According to Unwin’s theory (described in Kirk’s post), we are 2 generations into the process.
The “good” information on marriage is essential. I was not taught any of this and you can see the effects of my ignorance play out in painful detail in my comments. While I have learned things from my wife, it is not the preferred method of acquiring knowledge. I am still figuring what works and what doesn’t with my wife, and there are times like I described in the introduction when I contemplate what life would be like if I had stayed single, but there is certainly knowledge that is post worthy, especially from the standpoint of learning from my mistakes.
I like to write posts, time permitting, because I have the feeling that the topic of Headship and Marriage from a Red Pill perspective could be a dissertation that could easily go 400+ pages. As tertiary education stands right now, no one would be allowed to write such a dissertation, and defending it may actually mean literally defending the dissertation with physical blows or weapons as the feminists come further unhinged. While I’m not interested in all that, this could yield months of posts.
Our Mission as Men
Many past RP authors have described intersexual dynamics through the lens of economic theory. At its lowest common denominator, this approach is the study of billions of individual choices made in sea of incentives, each of which could be experienced by the chooser in different ways. Due to the impossibility of analyzing each choice, economists look at the aggregate trends, which is what Dalrock tried to do and did better than anyone else to date. But then, because we are dealing with marriage, which is God’s foundational building block of society, the study will necessarily splinter into the additional fields of sociology, history, finance, psychology, marriage and family therapy, politics, medicine, law, theology … (you get the idea).
For the purpose of full disclosure, my views will come from a belief in God’s sovereignty, His control over and sustaining of creation, and that He has chosen who are His. These beliefs color my thinking in all areas of life. My arrival at this conclusion was after years of being a staunch supporter of the Armenian viewpoint. Accepting God’s sovereignty and then dealing with the difficult logic of human culpability for sin, given that sovereignty, follows scripture more closely than the logic needed to rationalize God’s sovereignty, along with his perfection and omniscience, and somehow allowing people to choose Him and as such be culpable for our sin. I know that is not the view of all who comment on Sigma Frame, and while my convictions run deep, it does not bother me all that much that others disagree on this point.
As a final word of encouragement, I think our writings are important because marriage as an institution has fallen apart, and there just isn’t any “good” information available out there. We need to share our testimonies to help others who have or who desire a Christian marriage characterized by Headship.