A Husband’s Right to Punish his Wife

How do I view my right to authority as a man? As a man I am meant to create order, to provide rules, to impose obedience upon others to the rules that I set. Men collectively impose rules upon the society overall; men collectively setting the rules of government or the practices and teachings of church institutions while I as an individual man impose rules personally upon my immediate sphere of influence such as my wife and children and other roles I may play in life such as being a supervisor at work.

How do I as a man “impose obedience” upon those under my authority? Through punishment, of course. I want it to be unwise or not worth the effort and not self-serving for those under my authority to disobey me. I want to be obeyed for a reason; I want my authority as a man to be respected for a reason. My authority serves a purpose, it provides a benefit, it exists and is a “real thing” that I have the right to uphold and protect. When someone that I have a legitimate claim of authority over violates my authority or seeks to undermine my authority they are doing a real harm against me and against those I am trying to serve; a harm that justifies punishment against the harm, against the disobedience that is causing the harm.

Does a teacher have the right to punish an unruly student? Does a supervisor have the right to punish an uncooperative employee? Does the court system have the right to punish someone who has broken the law? Yes. The reason for the right of the person in authority in these different situations to punish those under their authority who violate their rules is rather obvious. The teacher that cannot punish their students for misbehavior will soon have a wild out-of-control classroom. The supervisor that cannot punish or fire their employees will have an unproductive work environment leading the business to soon fail. The court system not being able to enact criminal punishments against lawbreakers will lead to a breakdown of law and order. The legitimate authority of the teacher over their students is a real thing; it is an authority that exists for a reason. Same for the authority of the supervisor over their employees, same for the authority of the law over the citizen. All of these different authorities are real and exist for a reason and are enforced through punishment.

So, does a husband have legitimate authority over his wife, authority that the husband is entitled to uphold and enforce through punishment? To this question I would say yes, yes in general terms under ordinary circumstances. First off why does a husband in general have legitimate authority over his wife in the first place, why aren’t husband and wife equals or peers like the feminists and egalitarians like to claim? The most fundamental reason why the husband has legitimate authority over the wife is because the husband financially supports the wife and not the other way around; in other words the husband invests in and gives to and supports the wife while the wife receives the husband’s support and investment. The husband gives and the wife receives in the marital relationship between husband and wife. This means the husband is highly vulnerable to exploitation and being “taken advantage of” if he is not in control of his marital relationship. There are other reasons besides this why it is better for the man to be in control such as a man’s higher skill levels in setting forth and enforcing rules fairly and consistently that take everybody’s needs and the overall purpose of the marital relationship into account but the primary most important reason why the husband needs to be in control is so that the man can guard his interests while fulfilling his marital obligation of fully financially providing for his wife.

What are the consequences of attacking and undermining male authority in the context of romantic relationships and marriage? The consequence is unstable and insecure relationships between men and women, this shown by the higher divorce rate. The consequence is a radical reduction of men’s investment in and support of women, this shown by the huge increase in married women working and putting children into daycare rather than the children being directly cared for by their own parents within their home. The harms of the attack against male authority in the family are very very real and very very manifest. Definitely the avoidance of these harms to family life that result from male authority being undermined and attacked by the feminists and egalitarians justifies punishment against women who defy the rightful and legitimate authority that their male romantic partners and husbands seek to claim over them. Men have the right to claim and enforce order within the family just like the teacher has the right to impose order on their students, just like the employer has the right to impose order on the work environment, just like the law has the right to impose order on society overall.

There seems to be a common teaching in Christian Complementarianism that says that yes wives should submit to their husbands but that no a husband does not have a “right” to the wife’s submission and that it is wrong for a husband to punish or coerce his wife to submit to him. This position or viewpoint is difficult for me to understand. If it is wrong for a wife to disobey her husband then doesn’t that mean the wife is doing something bad in disobeying her husband and therefore deserves a reprimand of some sort for her bad act, it being a general principle that bad acts should be punished to avoid future bad acts? The idea being promoted by certain Christian Complementarians seems to be that it is sinful for a wife to be rebellious against her husband but that it is also sinful for a husband to seek to gain control over his wife through coercive means, that the disobedient wife is aggressing against her husband and that the punishing husband is aggressing against his wife with his punishment, that wifely disobedience is bad but that husbands punishing the wife for disobedience is also bad.

Strangely this kind of double think doesn’t seem to be advocated for in any other kind of authority relationship setting; nobody says the student in class being unruly is sinning but that it is also wrong for the teacher to punish the student for being unruly, nobody says it is wrong for the worker to defy his supervisor but that it is also wrong for the supervisor to take action against the worker for his defiance, nobody says it is wrong to break the law but that it is also wrong to punish the lawbreaker for breaking the law. Only in the marital relationship context is it claimed that it is wrong for the wife to rebel against her husband but that it is also wrong for the husband to seek to control his wife through coercive means.

Mary Kassian with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood put up a post on November 15, 2011 titled “7 Misconceptions About Submission”; focusing on her misconceptions number 4 and 5 she said:

“MISCONCEPTION #4: SUBMISSION IS A RIGHT—A HUSBAND HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND HIS WIFE’S SUBMISSION.

A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife. Submission is HER choice—her responsibility… it is NOT his right!! Not ever. She is to “submit herself”— deciding when and how to submit is her call. In a Christian marriage, the focus is never on rights, but on personal responsibility. It’s his responsibility to be affectionate. It’s her responsibility to be agreeable. The husband’s responsibility is to sacrificially love as Christ loved the Church—not to make his wife submit.

MISCONCEPTION #5: SUBMISSION IS INDISCRIMINATE—IT MEANS MINDLESS ACQUIESCENCE.

A Christian’s first responsibility is to submit to the Lord and His standard of righteousness. A wife is not called to submit to sin, mistreatment, or abuse. The Lord does not want “weak-willed” women—women who lack the discernment and strength to respond to the right things and in the right way. Godly women do not submit to sin. They carefully and intentionally weigh and discern how to submit to sinful human authority in light of their primary responsibility to submit to the ways of the Lord. No brain-dead doormats or spineless bowls of Jello here! Submission is neither mindless nor formulaic nor simplistic. Submitting to the Lord sometimes involves drawing clear boundaries and enacting consequences when a husband sins. Submission is an attitude of the heart. A woman can have a submissive spirit even when saying “no” and refusing to go along with sin.”

Does a husband have a “right” to his wife’s submission? Yes if he is a competent ordinary not clearly wrong husband. If he is average following the rules of what he owes to his wife as a husband then he has a right to his wife’s submission, a right he is entitled to enforce through coercive means or punishment if necessary. He has the right to protect his relationship against his wife’s bad behavior against him. A husband cannot claim legitimate authority if he is violating his duties on behalf of his wife but if he is fulfilling the ordinary expectations of what he as a man owes to his wife then under those ordinary usual routine circumstances he does indeed have legitimate authority over his wife and he furthermore has the right to protect his marital relationship with his wife against his wife’s potential transgressions against him by means of punishment strategies if necessary.

It is a general principle that the husband’s authority claims must be directed towards his wife’s benefit or to the benefit of the family or relationship overall rather than a husband being selfishly oriented in his authority demands. Also it is a general principle that a husband is to financially support his wife 100%.

Most importantly the wife’s decision whether to submit or not should be based on objective standards and objective criteria, not just based on her own wishes or judgments regarding things. The wife should be obeying an authority above her husband to justify her disobedience against her husband; disobedience should not be something that the wife decides on simply based on her own judgment of things. In particular I object to Kassian saying “deciding when and how to submit is her call.” Submission is an actual duty a wife owes to her husband that is defined and directed by the husband himself necessarily; that being the whole point of what submission is. Kassian further says “The husband’s responsibility is to sacrificially love as Christ loved the Church—not to make his wife submit.” To this I would say that a husband has the responsibility to sacrificially love as Christ loved the Church AND has a responsibility to make his wife submit to him; making the wife submit being a part of the overall mission to sacrificially love your wife as Christ loved the church.

Kassian made the interesting statement that “Submitting to the Lord sometimes involves drawing clear boundaries and enacting consequences when a husband sins.” Kassian also however said “A husband does not have the right to demand or extract submission from his wife.” So it is OK for a wife to punish her husband or “enact consequences” when the husband sins but it is not OK for the husband to punish or “demand or extract submission from his wife” to correct the wife’s sinful behavior? I wonder what Kassian’s logic is here. Is she just blatantly pandering to feminist sensibilities cheerleading wives punishing their husbands while also condemning husbands ever punishing their wives or is the distinction in Kassian’s mind that a wife not submitting to her husband is not in and of itself sinful and therefore is not something deserving of punishment while a husband engaging in a recognized sin is more serious and more clearly wrong and therefore is deserving of punishment?

Later on in Kassian’s post regarding her own marriage Kassian said:

“My husband takes his responsibility to love me as Christ loves the Church seriously. I take my responsibility to submit to him seriously. That means that I am cherished and have a voice. That means that he is respected and supported. I work with him, and pull in the same direction.”

This all sounds well and good. Kassian said “I take my responsibility to submit to him seriously.” So Kassian admits she has a “responsibility” to submit to her husband. Does this mean she has a duty or an obligation to submit to her husband? Does this mean she is committing a sin if she chooses instead to defy her husband? If it is a sin to defy her husband does that mean maybe just maybe she should be punished for such a sin or transgression against her husband? If not why not?

Kassian further said in regards to her own marriage:

“So “what it looks like” on an on-going basis, is that I am soft, receptive, and agreeable toward my husband. I love responding to his lead. I respect who God created him to be as a man—and support his efforts to provide godly oversight for our family. I respect the position of responsibility that goes along with being a husband and father. “Respect” is probably the best word to describe what submission looks like in my marriage.

For me, submission is one of those things that is far more easily identified by its absence rather than its presence. I know that I am struggling with it when I am critical, impatient, defiant, and “snarky” toward my husband—when I refuse to cooperate and am unresponsive to input, when I rush in and take control, when I fail to “provide space” to allow my husband the opportunity to be a man and provide godly oversight for our family. In other words, it’s not readily apparent to me when I’m submitting, but it’s painfully obvious to me when I am not. I sense that I am disrespecting/ disregarding my husband, taking control, and pulling against him rather than for and with him.”

What strikes me about these paragraphs is that Kassian is taking on a lot of self-discipline to try to make herself an agreeable easy to get along with generally obedient and not confrontational wife. Also my impression is that her husband is generally silent on the issue when Kassian is not being her “best self” and that Kassian herself is the one who has to “sense” when she is not respecting her husband as she should, that her husband doesn’t directly confront her or tell her when he thinks she is behaving poorly as a wife; that she has to figure that out for herself. Furthermore Kassian presents her own sometimes disobedience as her being in a “bad mood” or something; not really sin on her part but simply her not living up to her own expectations of who she should ideally be as a wife.

I think what Mary Kassian is teaching is a middle ground between feminism and patriarchy; there is a feeling that men leading and taking on responsibility is good but that men “imposing their will” upon women is bad, that male authority is good on the conditionality that the woman in question approve of or “accept” the male authority. Feminism claims that male authority is by definition bad; patriarchy claims that male authority is objectively good or intrinsically good on the assumption that the man in question is submitting himself to God. Mary Kassian is claiming that male authority is good on the conditionality that she as a woman approves of it or is comfortable with it.

The legitimacy of male authority comes from God based on the man obeying God; the legitimate authority of the man being derivative of the man’s obedience to God. The thing is that the man’s legitimate authority is an objective truth; it is not dependent upon the woman’s approval or acceptance of such authority. Because of this the woman has a duty to obey the man whether she likes it or not and the man has the right to punish the woman for her disobedience again whether the woman likes it or not. The man has the right to defend and assert the objective reality of his legitimate authority over the woman by means of a punishment strategy because the woman’s disobedience causes real harm that the man is duty bound to prevent and minimize in whatever way he can including potentially by resorting to punishment.

 
Related article: The Rules of Gender Hierarchy; When and Why Women should Obey Men

Advertisements

About Jesse Powell TFA

Anti-Feminist, MRA, Pro-Traditional Women's Rights Traditional Family Activist (TFA)
This entry was posted in Patriarchy and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to A Husband’s Right to Punish his Wife

  1. Crystal says:

    Gosh, Jesse, sounds like you really need to read this book:

    Worshipping Your Wife: Six Steps for Turning Marriage Back Into Passionate Courtship by Mark Remond (this book is GOOD)

    Also reading at his blog might give you some interesting insights:

    worshippingyourwife.blogspot.com

  2. FamilyFirst says:

    Disturbing how we have an article about punishing wives and then a reference to a book about worshipping wives. What about husbands and wives respecting, appreciating and sacrificing for each other and taking responsibility for themselves? Why do we use words such as punishing and worshipping? Are those the only alternatives? Certainly not.

    No wonder there is a high divorce rate and a low marriage rate nowadays. No one knows how to maintain a loving, caring marriage. Marriage is not a competition or a struggle among 2 people. It is a loving bond among two equals who have so much to give to each other.

    • Crystal says:

      You’re right.

      I put up the Worshiping Wives book because I agree with only *some* of its teachings (as regarding bringing romance back into your marriage), not all. In short, I wanted Jesse to start seriously thinking through his comments and to read the book so he could get a different perspective. If he wants to talk about women being punished by their husbands, fine. But he must expect that women will want to punish him for disobedience as well because we really are talking about humayn nature here more than anything else.

      I would like to make it clear that I don’t agree with either matriarchy or patriarchy – only equality so I really appreciate your comment but just wanted to explain why I did it. There are good points in the Worshiping Wife book (it is meant to be a symbolic representation of a man adoring his wife from his heart more than a literal worshiping of his wife) and bad points (while I appreciate his book some of the other books similar to it out and out promote matriarchy and men having a lower status within the home than women, which I do not agree with). I hope I’ve made myself clear here and if I haven’t please let me know.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        You have made yourself clear and I appreciate your sentiment. It’s nice to know there are still those who believe in honor, love, respect and appreciation in committed relationships. But the way things are going, I wonder how we’ll be a generation or two from now.

      • Crystal says:

        @FamilyFirst,

        I’m glad we found something we can agree on at last.

        I am a millennial, myself, so I am curious as to why you would ask how we would be in a generation or two from now. I totally believe in believe in honor, love, respect and appreciation in committed relationships. I’m curious to know what you think of Jesse’s post on a man punishing his wife, and why?

        Some of the things I liked about the Worshiping Your Wife book were that the man writing it recommends that husbands try to take on household chores, give up pornography and private self-pleasuring voluntarily so that they could focus sexually and emotionally on their wives, *listen* to their wives, treat their wives’ bodies with reverence, respect their opinions, *cheerfully* go shopping with them, realise that they were serving specially “divine” beings, rub and kiss their feet, and pamper them. He also insisted that men should still protect their wives and see them as their queens. One main point where Mark Remond and I diverge is that I disagree that a man *should* come under a woman’s authority to attain these results. Other books that took his ideas a step further proposed that the woman take complete control of the man’s life to the point where he has to place his bank account under her control, do *all* of the household chores, and obey her orders *completely* to the point where he *never* questions her opinions! I think we need a balance here, don’t you? Frankly I was disturbed when I read that, because a woman ruling a man’s life to this extent is no different from what our blog host is proposing. In one of these Female Led Relationships, the guy said that if he went against his wife’s decision on anything she had set her mind on, she would deny him intimacy for six months. Oh, and one of these matriarchal-minded women went so far as to call her menfolk “property”, saying she would not treat them badly because she wouldn’t get the best results out of them if she did. This stuff I disagree with is so incredibly manipulative it’s freaky and weird. I’m all for having romance in my future relationship with my future hubby but I want him to feel he is equal with me, not under me.

  3. FamilyFirst says:

    Fewer people are marrying than ever before and fewer people are staying in long-term committed relationships. I think this trend will continue for the next generation or two. I am wondering what effect this will have on society.

    Many men do take on household chores. Remember, men are more likely to work longer hours outside of the home. Society is still not in favor of stay-at-home dads although it may be changing. Then again, society expects both men and women to work outside the home, which is a problem when it comes to kids. Do you know that in places such as New York and other large cities, it is common to have nannies handing off kids to other nannies? Many children don’t grow up witnessing the loving bond between parents because they grow up in child care centers and/or with nannies – assuming the parents are still together in the first place.

    Private self-pleasuring and pornography for both men and women can enhance the sexuality of the marriage. Sex in a marriage should not just be about a frustrated man getting lucky with his wife. Both husband and wife should be open to experimentation.

    I agree with you – marriage isn’t about one spouse ordering and limiting the other spouse or about spouses ordering and limiting each other. It should be a mutual, flexible agreement where both spouses are enriched, not diminished.

    • Navene says:

      You don’t think men are more natural-born leaders than women? I tend to think that men, being more logically-oriented thinkers and more prone to calculated risk-taking, are, in general, better leaders. I haven’t seen a decent argument as to why that shouldn’t extend to the household. Especially since women are so adept, again in general, at supporting roles. The bigger problem I see in our society at-large is that people think being a leader is more respectable than being a supporter. It’s not. And people tend to mislabel supporters as followers which is sad. Followers are essentially mindless while supporters provide emotional energy/support to their leaders and are 100% essential to any community/group/society/team/etc. On to the punishment topic…
      Leaders definitely should have the right to punish their supporters, but supporters should also have the right to find a new leader if the leader abuses his/her powers. I get that this may seem like it would only make the divorce rate in this country worse, but responsible adults who are supporters in the relationship should be able to figure out what kind of leader they can support by the time they choose to marry one. Same with leaders being able to find a supporter who buys into their leadership philosophies and will actually support them. Support is not interchangeable with obedience, by the way, which makes punishment more of an indirect power of the leader. Punishment is the result of a leader making a decision that they believe is best for the household, but not necessarily one that the household will enjoy doing. Sometimes you have to move to a city that you don’t want to live in to advance the leader’s career because sometimes that is the best choice for the whole household. Sometimes the leader needs to deliberately spend less time around their supporter because the supporter is rebelling and needs to sort through why they’re rebelling. The leader, in this case, would also need to think about it, and then they can discuss it together. No one wants to do that kind of thing. It’s not fun, but it’s necessary and is, in an indirect way, a punishment (in some cases for both parties, in others it might just be for one, including possibly the leader him/herself). I think one of the most foolish mistakes leaders make is doling out punishment for the wrong reasons (normally for the sake of punishment itself which is just insanity, really).

  4. FamilyFirst says:

    I agree that some people are better equipped to be leaders while others are better equipped to be supporters. There are those who can do both. Of course, it doesn’t mean that men must always be the leaders and women must always be the supporters.

    In any event, both leaders and supporters are equal. Everyone can’t be a leader and everyone can’t be a supporter. The world cannot exist with just leaders or just supporters. Both contribute to and are needed by society.

  5. Josie says:

    I just found this blog and am enjoying what I’m reading so far. Thank you.

  6. Crystal says:

    Quite frankly, this blog post is in error. I find it deeply disturbing that a man would write an article about how to impose male headship and punish his wife, and I would feel exactly the same way if a woman wrote an article about how to impose female headship and punish her husband. The “punishments” should be relegated to the BDSM and egalitarian domestic discipline realms where both parties mutually agree to penalties for bad behaviour as competent, mature adults (knowing they are taking a great emotional risk of trust with their partners) and left there.

    • FamilyFirst says:

      I agree. Marriage shouldn’t be about punishment. Punishing someone means you have authority over them and marriage isn’t about authority. Marriage is about love, respect, loyalty, devotion, negotiation and sacrifice. If a person is the type of person who needs to have authority over someone in a personal relationship, then that person shouldn’t get married.

  7. sylviekell says:

    I know I am late commenting on this article, but I am wondering what kind of punishment Jesse is talking about here? Does he mean physical punishment (which in all 50 states is illegal), or simply scolding his wife? I am also curious as to how he came to believe that it is OK for a husband to punish his wife?

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s