No, ladies, NEVER SUBMIT.

Lately women around the web have inspired a wave of pearl clutching by urging their fellow wives to submit to their husbands. Thanks Michelle Bachman! How novel. How downright quaint. Everything that is old is new again and what won't we do for attention, right? Well guess what. Women submitting to a man, especially out of religious obligation, is not only counter-productive for human rights, it's not even natural.

Me, I believe people are just animals who can talk, so let's look at our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, the apes. They live in tribes that look like this: One "king" ape surrounded by a harem of female apes and babies. For years (male, of course) anthropologists assumed the king of the tribe was worshiped and doted upon by his lady wives. Every time a new male tries to swoop in, the females are the ones chasing him off, presumably out of loyalty to the big daddy. Aw, patriarchy. WRONG.

A female anthropologist named Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (not a typo!) wrote a book in 1999 called Mother Nature that changed the face of my brain. I drooled over every page of it in college and emerged a firm believer in the natural matriarchy. Women rule the world. We don't overcome our disadvantaged gender to reach equality. We are the natural rulers who gracefully allow the men of our species the illusion of control for the benefit of all.

The female apes don't give a boo about the "king" ape. They chase off intruding males because all they need is one male ape. Two are trouble. A new male ape is a risk to their established offspring, a source of violence against themselves and their sisters, a nuisance to peace and a bearer of new germs. Seriously, who wants to clean up after two guys or listen to them argue? Good thing modern homes have man caves.

And so they chase him off. Female ape loyalty is to their offspring, not the man in their life.

Life out of the jungle is more complicated. Religion, a form of social control, mandated that women submit to their husbands for centuries. Due to the gleeful work of feminists in the past 50 years, these religious woman-down rules are a faded memory. You may choose to follow the old doctrines, interpret them how you see fit, or chuck them altogether. Choices are awesome! But that leaves us confused. Centuries of a powerful religion telling women we are the second gender is no easy thing to shake in just two generations.

But think about it. If the natural way for a home to be set up is with the man as head of household, would there really be a need to create religious rules to establish that? Would the Bible really need to tell women to submit to their husbands? I mean, if the man being in charge of the house was as natural as people trying to kill each other or covet each other's wives, the bible would say "thou shalt not kill, covet or argue when daddy says no running in the house".

In my home, I run this. Yes, I'm a stay-at-home mother and I love my big, foxy husband to death, but this is mom's house. Mine. We take off our shoes, we eat the dinner I cook and never for one second do I feel under submission. Well. There might be those 20 minutes a day when the lights go out. WINK. So dirty. But seriously, submitting to a man is just ridiculous.

And don't even tell me submit and respect are the same thing. Just say respect in the first place and I'll high five it.


"Like" this post and read more mildly amusing stuff on my Facebook page!

Type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.



Leave a comment
  • It's still a great deal for big daddy ape, though.

  • In reply to gwill:

    Everybody sing!

  • I think she means this:

  • In reply to gpldan:

    I read that too, but she's not married. I actually had this in mind:

  • Why did Being Catholic close the comments? I can't even read them? Must have been some throw-down.

  • In reply to christinewhitley:

    That's too bad. I didn't see a throw-down if there was one.

  • Yeah well I had this in mind:

  • Submission, not over here. I don't even think my husband would know how to pay the power bill let alone run this joint. Forget that.

  • *sigh* after having such a respectful conversation about this exact thing through another forum, I'm really disappointed to read this. I feel slapped in the face and like you weren't listening to what some of us were saying at all... just interpreting things the way YOU wanted to. :(

  • In reply to AbbysMom813:

    Go back to watching your Real Housewives, and you'll probably feel better.

  • This has nothing to do with you. The chicago now community has had a rash of submission posts, so I'm responding.

    Just because we talked about this on the board doesn't mean I shouldjust accept your view and never speak of it again. If it works for you, great. You didn't cross my mind when I published this.

  • Also, this is my blog. I can say whatever I want, which includes the declaration I don't share the Christian viewpoint. If that makes me unpopular, I'll take my lumps.

  • I didn't think that it did have anything to do with me or that you were thinking of me when you wrote it... but I would have hoped that after having a lengthy discussion on the topic with people with opposing viewpoints you would have at least taken them into consideration when writing about the same situation elsewhere. I'm not saying that women should submit to their husbands in the way that you're saying (I've explained that dominance is not how it works)... I'm just saying that you don't understand what it means, according to the bible, and to rant against something that you don't understand bothers me. You're right though... it's your blog, you have every right to rant against whatever you want, but it's ruffled my feathers and I also have the right to respond to your publicly posted thoughts.

  • In reply to AbbysMom813:

    You have explained your viewpoint, but I'm not changing mine. To me, the Christian viewpoint is like the Republican viewpoint and Communisim - points of view I can certainly understand, but with which I do not agree.

    I don't understand why you are personally offended I am not changing my mind after your explanation. Should I take offense that you have not changed YOUR mind after I explained MYself? Certainly not. You are entitled to your belief!

    If what I'm saying bothers you, you are very welcome to not read. There are plenty of Christian blogs out there. I actually grew up in the church and earned a minor in Philosophy at a Methodist university, so while I might not be a biblical scholar, I certainly have more understanding than perhaps I have been willing to argue with you before.

    I'm not the "church" to his "Christ". I just can't get behind that. As I said before, I do my submitting on my own terms, not 3rd party mandates.

  • I personally think that in a relationship one person is always more dominant than the other. No one lives in a perfect 50/50 marriage. Thankfully we live in a world where the dominant personality, and not necessarily gender, can rule the roost. I asked my husband yesterday if he thought our marriage was equal and he said 'kind of, but you usually get your way;-) Basically I take care of the shit I'm good at, he takes care of the shit he's good at and we divide (avoid) the stuff we hate.

    I can't speak much to the religious aspect of it. I was raised half-assed catholic and today religion basically plays zero role in our lives (I'm a spiritual atheist and he worships his xbox). I was raised by strong women. There were several absentee dads in my family (my father among them) so the women folk always called shots. And I want to emphasize that they did so not because of some feminist soapbox stance but because they had to.

    I generally don't even 'hear' women when they talk about submitting to their husband. I think there is a 'real housewife' who talks about something like that (her husband is her god and whatnot). Honestly to each is own, but I can't even wrap my brain around that and I know my baby girl is gonna have her momma's spunk - so I'm not even worried.

  • I absolutely agree with you. Nuff said.

  • Finally, an intelligent woman who has something sensible to say about this subject.

    I'm so tired of bimbo bloggers referencing everything from Catholicism to Kim Kardashian's latest whimsy, arguing that women should shut off their brains and become stepford wives. These opinons usually come from people who spend too much time watching TV and spending their lives being parasocial instead of experiencing life and relationships themselves.

    Thanks, Jenna.

    You and Nicole Knepper keep the meaningful conversations going on ChicagoNow and add some balance to the usual mindless crap in the blogosphere.

  • In reply to Andy Frye:

    You compare me to MWDAS?! Kiss kiss!

  • In reply to Andy Frye:

    To all the women, especially attractive ones, who become giddy at the thought of doting over their husband or boyfriend, don't mind Andy ^^^ too much.

    Most men are more open-minded. Most men are not prejudiced or intolerant against subservient hot coeds who appreciate handing over the remote to their boyfriends when requested. We are not all ungodly fanatics.

  • In reply to gwill:

    I like hot coeds. I just like militant, brainy ones.

  • Submission schumbission. Two spouses working together as a team of equals can accomplish so much and be so doggone happy.

    I can't count the number of times that my wife of eleven years has kept me from killing myself in spectacular fashion or embarrassing myself in front of lots of people.

    Come to think of it, she's usually right. Always right. Every time. Crap - does that make me the submissive one? If so, I can deal with that - it's better than the alternative of reaping what I sow.

  • fb_avatar

    This worthless cunt could use a few backhands.

Leave a comment