Should wives obey their husbands?

If the Father can lead his children in the right way that takes obedience, it is the same way to the wife in which you may or won't understand because you don't support that, believe in that, so called know that.

Also nobody knows everything so at some point room is opened up for beliefs.

Yes i am a rebel. 

Makes sense.

No, the wife is the husband’s partner and there is more discussion that takes place. The father respects the wife’s voice more than the children’s. You know how parents talk about things right? 

 Only if they think he is correct.

No. If that is the case, children are partners. The respect for children are not to be diminished.

What I'm saying it's the same level because guiding and leading are exactly that. A husband leads his wife and they lead their offspring.

"Only if they think he is correct."

Why do you think there is so much resistance for others to say what you just said here?

So you would not support women that obey their incorrect husbands.

Do you think women would already know their husbands are correct or do they not know any better, hence why they look to them to make the decisions?

The children’s opinions are not respected as much as the wife’s. 

I disagree that children are partners. That’s not the family dynamic.

I don’t think it’s disrespectful or demeaning to a child to say he or she is not an authority figure in the family or at least not as authoritative as the wife and father 

Correct, I would not support women that obey their incorrect husbands.

For sure, "if" is the operative word.

Though in my opinion, mutually respectful relationships are far better than dominant/submissive relationships.

And if we substitute ignorance with belief, we end up with factional societies based upon fantasy ideology, and look at all the problems that causes.

The man can respect the woman's opinion as much as anybody else, her voice as much as anybody else and still be the head of her.

Being the head doesn't mean you don't hear what others got to say or tell them to shut up or over talk them or even yell commands.

The man respects the woman's input so he hears, discusses it. She respects him by naturally following his lead as likewise with the children.

She follows his lead. Now understandably so many people have issues with that with the feminist movement and all.

But say you're all about just the female representation and so called equality right, are you going to also represent and support the rights of females that decide to follow their husbands too?

This is what I ask y'all. Will you support that and people act slow like they do know what support means knowing they support a lot of things they gravitate towards. Will you support that or only support women that believe they can be equal to men like in partnerships and just be their own individuals?

This is another thing. Many of you talk about partnerships, but why do women take on the man's last name only?

Is she not representing him?

Is she not beholden to him, answer to him, belongs to him?

There's questioning that if you claim to be equal and partnering but only one name changes. 

So if a husband is able to protect his wife, will he not have to have a dominant force to lead her out of danger?

Will she not have to submit unto his direction for instance he says "step forward as you give me your hand as I pull you up off the ledge that is a second away from collapsing under her feet"?

Being mutual and trying to make it equal with a weaker vessel or lesser force trying to lead herself out the situations is not going to make them better at all .

This thing about dominance and submission and authority and obedience and leadership and subordination has to have the negative scope taken off of it .

This is in multiple areas of life from job situations, to medical situations, emergency situations, financial situations and back to family situations.

There's always natural leadership and following.

just no

An argumentative woman doesn't stay married long, just sayin.

On the one hand you basically refer to a mutually beneficial relationship. 

And then you wander off into some fantasy Bollywood scenario where the pathetic woman is rescued by the dashing prince, and submits herself to him for evermore.

Content in the knowledge that she will never have to make a decision for her self, ever again...And I don't doubt that there women who are still conditioned to think that way....So best of luck to them.

But times are a changing Mall, and that is now not the norm in progressive Western societies, and social media is slowly spreading the message worldwide.

And contrary to your old fashioned beliefs, there are a whole lot of inadequate men out there, and a whole lot of clever women who ain't going to be bossed about by an intellectually subordinate man.

So a question Mall.

Your wife says that she is going out for the evening with her friends, and that you must stop at home and care for the children... Would you "support" her decision?

It feels like everybody is dancing around the topic and Mall asking UmbrellaCorp if he supports anything and getting the reply of maybe maybe not. 

Modern society shaped women way differently than it had been before. 

Some started making strong remarks about men, and their leadership, so they probably lesbian or smth. 

Others continued to obey their husband, but with a little bit of uncertainty. 

So yes, I agree to obey the husband. 

However, unlike the older ages, where wives were led to harm, or even death because of their obeyence to husbands,

In a society like ours, I believe that some things a husband should consider carefully whether to let the wife folllow him. 

LOOOLLLLL

I just heard some guys on this forum make strong remarks about women so they might be gay or something like that.

Maybe, maybe not, is the correct answer to a question that has variable implications and no definitive exemplar.

And you’re one of them ngl

Never said it was bad?

Alrighty now, take it easy you!

Is that really a question?

This is a question that comes up a lot, and I think it’s important to look closely at what Scripture actually says — not just the parts we’ve heard quoted most often. The verse people usually point to is:

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

But just one verse earlier, it says:

“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5:21)

That sets the tone for the whole passage: mutual respect and submission — not one-sided obedience.

And then the command to husbands is just as strong, if not more so:

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” (Ephesians 5:25)

That’s not about power — it’s about sacrifice. Christ didn’t dominate the church; he served it, even to the point of laying down his life. That kind of love doesn’t demand obedience — it invites trust and mutual care.

So if we’re following this model seriously, it’s not about one person ruling the other. It’s about two people submitting to each other in love, humility, and selflessness.

Patriarchic structure is the reason for wife taking husband’s name. Man and woman are partners in marriage which is its own concept from family, and in marriage not only is the wife the husband’s but also the husband is the wife‘s and they belong to no one else. 

There is a tethering of the man to the woman, not just woman to man. They both have standards to honor for each other’s sake 

Mall asking me to support anything sounds like he’s trying to convert me to Mallism

If she is the head of me, I would have to obey her .

But you thinking that women are completely equal to men is error. No wonder.

So does a woman taking on the man's name means they're partners and neither is head of the other?

Why are even men believing the lie that they're are completely and totally equal to women?

Marriage means they’re partners. 

I think you’re pretending to misunderstand things now