Why are women willingly submissive to authorities, but not to their husbands?

Understanding the motivation of non-submission.

Readership: All
Theme: Feminine Submission
Author’s Note: This post expands my comments under a previous post.  Links to the original comments are given in the initial words.  Coauthored with Jack.
Length: 1,100 words
Reading Time: 6 minutes


In The parallels of temptation with sex and marriage (2022-2-8), Deep Strength wrote,

“Women have no trouble submitting to their boss at work or their teacher in school or other human authorities because it is normal.  But God forbid they submit to the husband to whom they committed their life to, who loves them the most, and the one they vowed to be with before God.”

I too have noticed this behavior with everlasting chagrin.

Bardelys the Magnificent made an attempt to break this down.

“I think “normal” is an incorrect diagnosis. It’s because work and school are spaces that do not belong to her, and naturally she has no right of input. Home, at best belongs to both of you, and at worst belongs to her, so she will feel the need to control, or at least put her two cents in as forcefully as she can get away with. She will not see the house as her husband’s domain, where she is allowed to live as long as she tends to her duties. Hence, no respect for headship. Perhaps this is why women were not allowed to own property: she can’t control it if she doesn’t have a claim on it.”

I would not say “normal” is incorrect, but there IS much more to it.  So here I’ll attempt to complete the diagnosis.

Submission to Secular Authorities

At least part of women’s desire to control her husband vs. her ready submission at the office has to do with accepting defined hierarchy roles.  Places like work and school are social settings that have a clearly laid out structure of authority.  There is no question of who is in charge at the office, or in a classroom.  There is no dispute because she and everyone else knows that it is the boss’ / teacher’s right to make decisions for the workplace or classroom respectively.

Second, although a woman can be an integral part of this structure of authority, she is not in a position to make executive decisions.  If there is contentiousness over this point, she’ll immediately be taken to task, put in her place, and maybe even sent to the carpet.  If she tries to assume executive power without being duly delegated to do so, then this action has a decent probably that it will be reported to a much higher authority and may end in termination.

Thirdly, although she may have a domain of responsibility and influence, the workplace itself does not belong to her, and so naturally she has no right of input about how work and social intercourse is to be done.  I suppose there are some rare cases in which the woman is a CEO or business owner, but that is far from the norm.

Confusion about Authority in the Home

Traditionally, the home has always been the wife’s domain, and this is not an unbiblical set up.  (See Titus 2:3-5.)  Women will always expect to retain vestiges of Traditionalism in those specific ways that suit their interests.

Home, at best belongs to both the man and the woman as a couple joined in matrimony, each having their respective spheres of interests and responsibilities.  But the problem erupts when the wife does not recognize the husband’s authority as clearly ordained by God, and so she gets the notion that the home belongs only to her, with the man being expected to perform certain responsibilities, or the man’s input being ignored entirely.  Whenever there is a question of authority or responsibility, then she thinks it is her place to resolve the question. Whenever there is a problem, then she thinks it is because her husband failed to do things exactly as she wanted. These false assumptions make it more difficult for a wife to understand that the home is her husband’s domain first and foremost.  A husband who does not unequivocally set that he is the authority, that it is his family and that she is one who God gave him to be his suitable help, allows his wife to continue on under these false impressions.

All this confusion results in a struggle for control that will continue until the wife can recognize that (1) she’s claiming authority that isn’t hers, (2) she’s undermining her husband’s authority, and (3) she ruins the home in doing so.  Meanwhile, the husband and family are in for a world of trouble.

Here’s a question to consider. When a woman nests, and they all do, is she nesting to make the home a place of rest for him, or is she doing what she wants for her own purposes?  The answer to that question of motivation will tell you what she thinks about her role in the household. The end result may be the same, but the heart condition matters and will play out in other areas of the marriage.

Resisting Submission to Husband

In addition to this confusion about her authority and responsibility in the home, women are strongly averse and resistant to being submissive to husbands.  Here are a few factors that contribute to this malady.

  • Lack of Trust
  • Lack of Respect
  • Lack of Attraction
  • Women’s natural propensity to desire power and usurp authority from men, AKA “The Curse of Eve”.

All this makes it more difficult for wives to wake up.

Titus 2:3-5 instructs that older wives should admonish younger wives to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

Women are quick to pick out the dominating aspects of being a homemaker, but because of all the things mentioned above, they are slow to adhere to the other habits in Titus 2:3-5, especially being obedient to their own husbands.

Again, the ‘why’ matters when it comes to what a woman does in the home.


How much work it takes for the husband to make his wife understand God’s order for the family is dependent on his constitution as a man and her belief in God and the truth of His word.  Having fellowship with like-minded Christian couples of good repute and having wise older women following Titus 2:3-5 can help immensely.

Choose your woman carefully and vet like crazy for all characteristics you’ll need in a wife to build your life and family.


This entry was posted in Agency, Collective Strength, Courtship and Marriage, Discerning Lies and Deception, Female Power, Fundamental Frame, Headship and Patriarchy, Holding Frame, Identity, Intersexual Dynamics, Introspection, Leadership, Models of Failure, Power, Psychology, Relationships, Self-Concept, Society, Solipsism, Sphere of Influence, Trust, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Why are women willingly submissive to authorities, but not to their husbands?

  1. AngloSaxon says:

    “Women have no trouble submitting to their boss at work or their teacher in school or other human authorities because it is normal. But God forbid they submit to the husband to whom they committed their life to, who loves them the most, and the one they vowed to be with before God.”

    Two reasons
    A) authority of the husband and father has been relentlessly attacked by everyone for the past century at least. Husband doesn’t usually do anything if his evil wife rebels against him.
    B) Boss and teacher can actually hurt you if you disobey them. Even teachers who have lost corporal punishment can see to it your grades suffer.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:


      I will not argue that your reason A is not a factor that compounds the issue of rebellion against husbands. Taking a look at history, from Proverbs 14 and the verses about contentious wives to John Adams writing to Abigail and coining “despotism of the petticoat” in reference to how even in colonial times women still sought to run the show, we have a pattern of behavior that can not be solely attributed to modern norms.

      What I believe is happening is that in the curse of Eve we see a heart issue causing rebellion against God. Husbands, as God’s authority in the family, happen to be the proxy for the rebellion. Eve rebelled against God by seeking to be equal with him in eating the fruit. Wives rebel against God by thinking they are of equal authority with their husbands and work to invert the authority order in their marriages.

      The example of women submitting to workplace authority is important because it shows that women do understand authority structures and are able to submit within structure. At least this is true with authority structures they accept as valid.

      Liked by 4 people

      • feeriker says:

        I’m waiting to hear of a lone, brave pastor who does a whole series of sermons on the Curse of Eve and the rebellion of women against God, sermons actually focusing on the true causes as cited in Scripture (which would preclude any blaming/shaming of men).

        I think there is a greater probability that the Ark of the Covenant will suddenly appear in Jerusalem than that this will ever happen.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:


        Even the pastors that I have heard address the subject pull their punches by trying to cushion the blow. Usually, it’s something like, “But just wait until we get to what God tells men” or something similar. I have not heard a pastor tell men, “We’ll get to women’s responsibilities, weaknesses and failures so don’t feel like it’s just on you.”

        Liked by 4 people

      • AngloSaxon says:

        Men rebelling against George III and Charles I weakened and undermined authority. If men can rise up against their masters for weak reasons then women can do the same. If we don’t give them ‘rights’ then we are tyrants and therefore baddies. If we crush their rebellion we are tyrants and therefore baddies. Also Jefferson putting all men are created equal in the declaration was a disaster. All women needed to do was point out women are included in mankind and POOF women are equal to men, men have no authority over women. Also the assertion that authority requires the consent of the governed means that your wife has to consent to your rule. LOLZ good luck getting a rebellious woman to consent to your rule… have fun buddy.

        I know American men don’t want to hear that but there it is.


      • Elspeth says:

        @ Anglo-Saxon:

        Time has told the tale that given enough time and opportunity, tyranny is always waiting for its chance to strike. We’re certainly no better off than the formerly English colonists were when they rebelled and birthed the new nation.

        More than that, I recognize that there are many schools of thoughts among American traditionalists, and there are those who feel that the American revolution was un-Biblical and unjustified.

        However, it is often lost on those of you who take that stance, that the crown had agreed that the American subjects were supposed to enjoy all of the rights and privileges afforded them under English common law to the same degree as they would enjoy if they lived on the soil of their mother country. The king’s violation of this agreement, and the English constitution, were the basis for the revolt.

        Now, if you are arguing that there is no right to revolt against a ruler who breaks the very laws he vows to uphold, then okay. It’s not a strange or novel argument. Our entire American system is presently being held together on the premise that those in power can do whatever they like to those whom they rule. So long as the powers that be are on the left.

        Lastly, and most importantly, this is a discussion centered primarily around a people whose primary citizenship is Heavenly, not earthly. Whose “constitution” is God’s holy word.

        So the idea that Christian men (American or other wise) should have no expectation of a wife who isn’t rebellious simply because the circumstances surrounding our nation’s founding is suspect doesn’t really hold much water.

        Do I think you’re right that rebellion lives in the very American soil on which we walk and the air that we breathe? Actually, I do. I just don’t think your argument is a valid one.

        It’s not like women in other parts of the world are any more submissive, LOL.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        To the notion that American women (as opposed to Australian, British, and other Western women in what Cill at SS calls “bitchdom”) are uniquely unable to be submissive wives, I offer this funny retort:

        Liked by 6 people

      • Jack says:

        Re: Elspeth’s meme.

        “God promised men that good and obedient wives would be found in all corners of the world…”

        I know memes are not intended to be taken seriously, but seriously, where in the Bible does it say that?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        I think anyone reading here not only knows that Bible doesn’t say that, but that it’s ridiculous on its face. It’s a meme.

        I only posted it here in response to Anglo-Saxon implication that women of other nations, not being naturally rebellious like us American women, are far more likely to be submissive.



      • Jack says:

        “I think anyone reading here not only knows that Bible doesn’t say that, but that it’s ridiculous on its face. It’s a meme.”

        I know. But false statements like this one tend to spread false ideas about God. The fact that it’s funny makes it more memorable. That’s all.

        Liked by 1 person

      • AngloSaxon says:

        What are you talking about? I never said US women are the worst just because of the magic dirt of the US. My point was that the US was founded in rebellion against authority and that mindset has infected all Americans – including American women.

        European women are also terrible.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:


        People take the wrong lesson from the American Revolution as just a repudiation of all Monarchy as tyranny.

        I do understand in that way the rebellion is legitimate. But to then to make out all Monarchy as tyranny is evil.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:


        For the record, I do not believe, nor meant to convey, the idea that all monarchy is tyranny.

        That’s an absurd position that historically ignorant people parrot.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        What is interesting is that the founders gave us a system of federal headship, just like Christ and church and husband and wife. In our case all men are subject to the application of the law (laughable in current reality, but no more laughable than the abuses of imperfect men running a monarchy) and we have the ability to choose which people our our representation at the decision making table of government. Once our elections are done, we’re bound by whatever our elected officials decide short of them being outside the law we all submit to.

        This is not too far from what we experience with the federal headship of Christ. He submitted himself to the law of the father, completing it perfectly and is now our perfect representation in God’s government so to speak.

        The founders did not think all men were equal in the sense that AngloSaxon is implying. This is why women did not get a vote originally, we have a system of federal headship and the electoral college exists. Technically and elector can vote for whichever presidential candidate they want regardless of the vote, serving as a last stopgap against a poor decision by all of us supposedly “created equal” voters. The equality they spoke of was more along the lines of being free to choose whatever path a man could carve out for himself without restriction based on class. In no way did they trust the common man to govern, which is why there were so many safety measures built into the workings. Unfortunately, we’ve undone a few of them by amendment and are reaping the consequences of those.


      • Oscar says:

        This argument reminds of a British guy back at Dalrock’s who bragged that the UK is still a “theocracy” (his wording, not mine) with the Queen (now King) as the head of the church. My question was, what good has that done, considering that churches in the UK are empty, mosques in the UK are literally overflowing?

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        People have no reason to fear a ceremonial head of state. A royal with real power are more apt to be killed along with their families like what happened to the Romanovs.

        Or in the Old Testament every single male descendant. Some Theocracy the UK is.


      • cameron232 says:

        Real world example of what Anglo Saxon said. My wife flat out says that she identifies with our colonial ancestors and their rebellion against the British – and this is part of her identity – not liking to be told what to do.

        Of course, Americanism has been exported to much of the world.


      • Red Pill Apostle says:


        “Real world example of what Anglo Saxon said. My wife flat out says that she identifies with our colonial ancestors and their rebellion against the British – and this is part of her identity – not liking to be told what to do.”

        Does her hamster have a Minute Man costume it wears when she tells you this silliness?


      • Scott says:

        RPA basically has this right as I understand it.

        The original republic was essentially an Oligarchy (rule by the elite, men).

        They attempted to institutionalize this in certain ways that have been later torn town, with predictable results. Even today, the term “oligarchy” is a bad word.

        But the idea of having those with stake in the game, intelligence, competence and a certain nobles oblige actually running things is how we got started.

        I could totally survive in a country like that. Because I.

        Have stake in the game (served in the military and deployed)
        Pay more in taxes than I take out
        Have owned property
        Have made a payroll and sacrificed my own income to do it

        …and so on.

        I didn’t just turn 18 and become magically able to participate.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Essentially what is meant by “equal” therefore means “everyone has the right to be free and control as much of their own destiny as possible.”

        It doesn’t mean they have the right to be in power. That’s for the grown ups.


      • AngloSaxon says:

        Thats all very nice but it hasn’t worked has it. From 1776 to women getting the vote you have about 1.5 centuries. We can sit here and say how smart the founders are until the end of time, but the system they set up hasn’t worked in practice.


      • Scott says:

        I think one problem is NrX thought suffers from the mirror image of what far-left/woke/progressivism does.

        When you ask someone on the hard left if they can describe or articulate what their desired end-state looks like, and how to get there without massive coercion, confiscation, relocation, reeducation and even violence/death they can’t. Because it is not possible at this point. War is coming.

        Likewise, those of us with more “conservative” mindsets, to include neoreactionary/authoritatian tendencies, would not be able to that either, to be honest. It amounts to putting the toothpaste back in the tube, and there are little bits of the toothpaste that some of us don’t want back in there.

        Creating a nation-state that looks like we want, has secure borders, functions in the way we envision will only happen after a collapse of the current order. And even then, huge disagreement will probably stop it before it ever gets off the ground.


  2. The title is a perfect question to ask all feminists. They have no coherent answer.

    Similarly, why is it great for women to teach pagan ideals to public schoolchildren but oppressive to homeschool their own children with the truth? Is teaching bad or not?

    Liked by 4 people

  3. redpillboomer says:

    “Choose your woman carefully and vet like crazy for all characteristics you’ll need in a wife to build your life and family.”

    This is a good subject to delve into for the marriage minded man, the “characteristics you’ll need in a wife to build your life and family.” I sure the subject has been covered before, and I know we talk about this a lot on here in passing, but is there a “checklist” for a possible wife? Say hypothetically, these ten things (with Scriptural references), the first five being non-negotiables, deal breakers if present; the second five things should be present, or at least have a good chance of being developed over time.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. lastholdout says:

    To answer the OP’s original question, the difference is accountability. In this country, there are no social, legal, political, or churchian mechanisms to hold a woman accountable to her husband . He is on his own to make her accountable.

    Liked by 7 people

    • lastholdout says:

      . . . and as we well know, the social, legal, political, and churchian mechanisms actually encourage her rebellion and work directly against her husband.

      Liked by 5 people

  5. Oscar says:

    From a real conversation at a Bible study.

    Me: The average Christian woman has no problem submitting to a boss at work, a professor at school, a police officer, or a politician, all of whom are probably male, but thinks submitting to her husband is a form of oppression. So, the average Christian woman will submit to any man, as long as that man is not her husband.

    “Christian” feminist: Well, yeah but she’s not stuck with any of those other men for life.

    Me: So, you’re telling me that a man’s reward for being a faithful husband who’d never leave his wife is to be stuck with a rebellious, contentious, miserable woman for life?

    “Christian” feminist:

    Liked by 5 people

  6. locustsplease says:

    This has been my main conundrum. In day to day life women are really easy to deal with and on the eyes. They will b servers in a restaurant work hard – fast all night and call you sir for $100 but serve your husband a few minutes not a chance. A $1 bill got me more affection at a strip club than I got on my wedding night. Women aren’t having explosive psychotic episodes at work they have them with their boyfriends. The only thing I could come up with was intent.

    It’s their deliberate plan. My wife planned cutting me off from sex when she started dating me. They aren’t being this abusive to anybody but their significant others. They drive the speed limit, register vehicles, pay taxes. Do complicated tasks at fortune 500 jobs. Then mystically forget men need to b satisfied.

    It explains the mgtow backlash. Why would they care. They are not dying to make them some home made food. It’s in the way of their deliberate plans. Most planned on never loving their husband’s.

    Liked by 3 people

    • caterpillar345 says:

      Man, this is grim but it strikes me as realistic.


      • locustsplease says:

        It’s the truth they had it all worked out exactly how many years they were gonna ride the carousel before they suckered someone. It’s not a sudden change of heart it’s showing what they wanted to do the whole time. Same with abortion it’s not some back up plan it’s plan #1 they do it just to say they were tough enough to join the sisterhood.

        You need to make 6 figures to catch her but she was riding guys all thru highschool and college who never had a full time job! They never let hypocrisy like that slide. They see it.

        They aren’t dumb. They always knew police were on their side, baking pies isn’t slavery and they have Duluth down perfect. They knew court systems were biased towards them. Scratching the itch of scamming someone with your sexuality is what mgtow denies them. I’ve dated 4 girls and they all had the end of our relationship planned way in advance, like when it started. That’s why I started pumping and dumping them in my 20s out of necessity. Grab the bait and shake the hook.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      I think part of it is motivation. Women have to do things, work, perform, be polite, etc. to fit in to those other social settings. The waitress does it because she knows that is what will keep her job and earn larger tips. The stripper does it for the money and because she loves to be idolized as a sex symbol. The female motorist knows she has to follow the law or else she’ll get a fine ticket. But what do wives need to do to fit in at home? What motivation do they have to be submissive, content, hubby loving sex bunnies? Without any motivation, she’ll let her worst spill out. And that’s exactly what we see happening.


    • info says:

      Roosh wrote a good article on this:

      Frankly a lot of women need to be cut loose permanently. They are gone. Better luck next surviving generation.


    • Sharkly says:

      “Most planned on never loving their husbands.”

      Even if they had planned on “loving”, they don’t even know what “love” truly is, and the sacrificial love of God is certainly not in them. Their version of “love” is performing the enticing yet transactional craft of a whore, to get the most they can from men.

      Sadly, I would often ask my wife to pretend she didn’t know me, so I could at least get treated with the same respect she showed to strangers.

      Sometimes her mask would slip, and I could see that the whole relationship had been a complete ruse. But love hopes all things.

      She never ever had any real desire to do the things she had said and vowed she would do. That was the professional assessment of a pastor who counseled us early in our marriage and of a social worker who interviewed us both after she filed for divorce.

      I was stuck trying to make marriage work with a fool who was intentionally tearing her own house down, with her own hands. (Proverbs 14:1)

      Liked by 2 people

  7. feeriker says:

    “This argument reminds of a British guy back at Dalrock’s who bragged that the UK is still a “theocracy” (his wording, not mine) with the Queen (now King) as the head of the church. My question was, what good has that done, considering that churches in the UK are empty, mosques in the UK are literally overflowing?”

    I think you’re referring to Opus.

    He might be right; the UK might very well be a “theocracy,” just not a Christian theocracy. The “church” that the monarch is head of is the Anglican “church,” which is about as far removed from Christianity as any organization can get. The whole history of its founding was political (Hank 8 wanted to kick his first wife to the curb, but the Catholic Church forbade it, so he created a new “church” that made him, and by extension England, its center. Thus Hank 8 made England, not Jesus Christ, the object of his new “church’s” worship), so there’s no reason to assume that Christianity or Christ was ever the center of it. That pretty much explains the state of the country today. In other words, Britain is a “theocracy” in which the god at the center of the religion is the country itself. Kinda like the religion that replaced Christianity in France after the Revolution and the downfall of the Bourbon Monarchy. We all know how well THAT turned out.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      You’re right, it was Opus. Thank you. I couldn’t remember the name. He never did explain what the decline of the Church of England and the rise of Islam say about his vaunted theocracy.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. feeriker says:

    I remember saying to him in jest, “The Anglican Church’s theology all boils down to the following statement: ‘God is an Englishman.'” He agreed that this was indeed the case. He might have meant it in jest, but I doubt it. That statement has pretty much been the sentiment of every Englishman I’ve ever met and known, to the extent that they consider God at all.


    • feeriker says:

      To be fair, American evangelicals pretty much believe that God and His Son are red-blooded Americans, which in no small measure explains the deplorable state of those “churches.”

      Liked by 3 people

      • Lastmod says:

        Exactly. Must be a good provider. Must marry a virgin between 18-22. Jesus would have loved “football” Jesus was a guys guy. Jesus would have driven a truck. jesus would have a cell phone. Jesus would believe the right to bear arms. Jesus hung out with guys who liked fish, so he would have no problem with me fishing most of the time…..and the clincher…..

        so many think the founding fathers were devout christians, when many were “deists” or polite agnostics. And notta one of them said the words “our lord and savior Jesus Christ” in their writings about government, structure of said government or “rights of man”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “so many think the founding fathers were devout christians”

        Yesterday I informed my boys that Hancock and Adams were tea smugglers who instigated the Boston Tea Party not because they loved freedom, but because they had lost their ability to make money smuggling tea after the crown enacted a favorable tax policy to the East India Trading Company.


  9. Lastmod says:

    In todays world…..and for quite awhile, going back til probably the mid 1970’s………

    Women “submitting” to the boss is pretty simple. Submit or get fired…lose income, household goes into foreclosure or bankruptcy. That goes for men too. Boss pulls the chain. You bark.

    So many households, and I am speaking of married ones; both pretty much have to work today to get ahead.

    Now, most of you will say:

    *Hubby should have got a job in STEM, became a lawyer or doctor or went into the trades, and had his “mission” in life figured out by age 12 before he even ever considered dating. Most men do not make “good” or “better” money today until their thirties.

    *It depends on location. couple in the rural wilds of northern New York State marry. Hubby is a carpenter with the local Union. They still cannot afford a starter newer home without additional income. Wife has to go to work, at least part time. Most of you will say, well…..he has to uproot the wife and move to a place where the housing costs are much cheaper (and wages will be lower too for the most part) and make do. When I moved to Fresno, no one…NO ONE would hire me or even interview me because I was from the San Francisco Bay Area. I had to get my drivers license CHANGED to Fresno. I had to get a local number (the nickel, nickel, nine area code) and I STARTED to get interviews after I had lived there for about a year.

    There are signs in Texas right now on homes for sale with a Slash through California, New York, Virginia, Washington meaning….you from these states???? We’re not renting, or going to sell to you.

    *We live in a world where its pretty much work or starve. Sure, you could argue “it has always been this way” and I would generally agree. People will submit to the boss….especially if they are married, and even if its a “bad” and “mean” boss for the fact that “starting over” or jeopardizing the fragile household income could be a disaster. To the home life and married life.

    Now, none of you know this or live it. But a good men people DO live it, and they are not all married to harpies and raging feminists.

    On the one hand “men and women should marry young!” and on the other hand “You cant get married until the man has an excellent job with growth, money saved, the woman he is dating by the third date has to know if she will live by whatever he makes, no questions or he’s leaving attitude or marry and make do….and sometimes that is indeed your wife working.

    Again, I might as well be speaking Welsh here to you, because you live in world where money isn’t an issue. You all just got “really good careers” and all men should just quit coal mining or working and just start a business or get a STEM degree.

    So for submitting to the “boss” we ALL do that, and it might not be the best example to use in this situation

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lastmod says:

      None of you men would let your (cough) virginal daughter at 19 marry an average looking guy who is halfway through community college studying an okay trade (HVAC), or is taking night classes at the local university while working 7-11 a few days a week. He is a few years older (23-25) and just finished a stint in the USAF and is looking for a job. No way would you permit a marriage.

      You and your wives would expect a “complete” package ready. Provider. Really super devout Christian….but you would still be way, way, way smarter than him in those matters……of course, well above average in looks, and going into a field that will make MONEY.

      Even Unions lay off carpenters and electricians at times. I grew up with that first hand.

      A perfect package will be demanded and expected for your princess…but other men, yes….other men should encourage their daughters to marry at 19…..not yours of course…other men 😉


      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “finished a stint in the USAF”

        One one hand, as an Anabaptist, military or other government service is a disqualification.

        “studying an okay trade (HVAC), or is taking night classes at the local university while working 7-11 a few days a week.”

        On the other hand, marriage to a man in one of the trades—like an electrician—would be an excellent choice.

        The ideal age gap between a man and a woman is around 3-5 years. Such a gap has remained pretty constant throughout the centuries.


      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:



      • Oscar says:

        “On the other hand, marriage to a man in one of the trades — like an electrician — would be an excellent choice.”

        Agreed. That demonstrates good judgement.



      • info says:

        Marry young. But an age gap between and older Husband and a younger wife is acceptable. Preferably 5 year age gap or larger in more exceptional cases given the nature of human population distribution.


  10. jorgen says:

    That he submitted to a wedding ceremony that is inverted made him lose frame and be emasculated and she will never respect him again. Jesus had the groom as the one everyone was waiting for; gyno-clown world has the bride as the one everyone is waiting for. That her husband submitted to that was the end of respect for him.


  11. Random A says:


    Check out this early post from Dalrock. Over 12 years old and it has aged quite well.

    In which he wrote:

    “The law and social convention won’t hold her to keep the vow she takes in front of God, your families, and everyone you both care about; the moral force to keep her side of the promise needs to come from within herself. Many women today lack this internal compass, but many others still have it.”

    More at the link. Jack might want to reread this too.


  12. locustsplease says:

    I know a few attorneys at my church. One of them told me in 20years he never saw 1 woman who didn’t want the divorce. He said about 3/4 of the men were sad and wanted to work things out. He never saw 1 woman who was like oh my gosh I’m gonna miss him. In 20 years.

    They just got straight to business. Even when they don’t divorce rape a guy it’s only so they can get on the carousel quicker with more options they don’t care about the victim. They just think a clean quick break will b an easy sell to the next guy. Women past second wall 50s 60s this doesn’t happen and they get every dollar there’s nothing to talk about no one wants them.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Rock Kitaro says:

    “Choose your woman carefully and vet like crazy for all characteristics you’ll need in a wife to build your life and family.”

    This is why I take it as a compliment when ladies call me “judgmental”.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Pingback: A Debate About “Judging Others” and Resisting the World  | Stage In The Sky

  15. Pingback: What we’ve learned about Feminine Submission | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s