Headship and submission, also known as gender role, is one the bones of contention in Domestic Violence. It is a tussle between husband and wife, who should be the head and who should submit. Feminism, which actually spearheaded the campaign against domestic violence, blamed patriarchy of being the main culprit in flaring up the flame of domestic violence. Few biblical passages such as Ephesians 5:22-24 and 1 Peter 3:1, mentioning the wives to submit to their husbands have become proof texts of abuse excuses for many men abusers. These Scripture texts are also used by many church leaders including pastors, counsellors, and the community as the biblical basis requiring the women victims to persevere with humility the abuses of their husbands. Understanding the phenomena of gender relationship between husband and wife in a real-life scenario may provide clearer insights to these conflicting biblical interpretations. This in turn would provide substantial basis in addressing the issue of domestic violence.
A Random Sampling Survey was conducted recently in the month of September 2015 with 102 married women in Kohima town, to scientifically observe the gender role of women in relation to men from a marriage context. The survey may serve as a window to understand the gender role with clearer perspective. The results are as follows:
- I get psychological and emotional comfort when my husband is actively involved in the domestic affairs :
- I do my job better when my husband supports me from behind:
- I look up at my husband as the protector of the family:
- The role of the man is to provide and lead:
- The reversal of gender role between husband and wife is the main reason for dysfunctional family:
Those who gave negative response in particular to Question 1, were mostly women whose husbands have died and are thus devoid of their men’s support. To the same Question, the remaining respondents out of those 17 percent women who ticked the negative remark gave the impression that they are not receiving sufficient psychological and emotional support because either their husbands are inactive or totally absent from domestic responsibilities.
This finding shows that women perform better when they are allowed to play within the arena of men’s protective ring and yet fully given the freedom to explore the world. It is in such an environment, women receive maximum psychological and emotional security from their men. Psychological and emotional security serves as a lubricant to women for healthy growth. This means there is increase of love on the part of women and the voluntary willingness to follow their husbands, without coercion on the part of men. Men’s protection cannot mean domination or manipulation. In reversed situation where the participation of men is absent, the higher level of mental endurance in women as compared to men, may allow the women to progress without the psychological and emotional support from their men. However, under such circumstances life can be stressful. The survey has also revealed that when women go through such stressful situation due to the non participation of their husbands, they may look for alternative measures to compensate their psychological and emotional bankruptcy. One common alternative that is observed in the current survey includes excessive engagement in religious activities. This also raises a hypothesis that, women’s compulsive behaviour of engaging in activities such as gardening, gambling, and substance abuse or others may be an indication of emotional and psychological deficiency due to inactive participation of men in their wives’ life. This compulsive behaviour of women can in turn become a tool of psychological and emotional abuse on their husbands. Therefore, in most cases, abuse gives birth to abuse and the cycle continues.
On the other hand, research has also shown that men by nature are built with stronger physical reflexes. Thus, men in general are task oriented and risk takers. This natural instinct enables the men to perform better in life when there are competitions and risk taking. Over-all, men are physically more aggressive as compared to women. This instinctive feature of domination is a priced-possession for men
and disrupting this personality would alarm the switch of threat. It is therefore concluded that men generally perform better when they are given the role of a protector and provider.
The tension of headship and submission between husband and wife arises when there is failure to creatively blend between these inborn natures. Protection with freedom is different from protection with restriction. And it is the latter which creates tension in the relationship, and ultimately to domestic abuse and violence. Healthy protection and giving from men is a psychological boost and emotional comfort for the women to soar higher where sky is only the limit. Similarly, a little bit of healthy pampering to men’s wild-west side is a psychological and emotional pill for healthy growth. In contrast, the same women in the current survey who favoured the male protection over them have expressed the need to fight for women empowerment. The following is the result:
The above data reveals that failure on the part of many men to protect and help the vulnerable women, but rather restricting them through forceful manipulation have compelled the women to fight for their self-identity and rights. In most cases of domestic violence, dysfunctional role leads to domination on the part of men because of the inner conflicting desire to re-establish the inborn nature to protect. In such situation, aggression is used as defence mechanism by abusive men to hide their insecurity. On the contrary, to empower women is the primary task of men. Ephesians 5:26 & 27 emphasises on the responsibility of men to equip and nurture their women, and “to present her to himself as a radiant church.”
The theology of women empowerment must be understood from reverse, and it is a challenge to the Bible-followers. Steven Tracy asserted, “Churches must begin to aggressively confront abusers, pursue all means possible to protect vulnerable women, and teach that male headship means protection, not domination” (
). He further commented, “While feminists are correct to highlight the widespread abuses of male power, many of us believe the best solution is not to reject male headship but to clarify it.” Paul, the prominent biblical figure, receives strong criticism from the hardcore feminists when it comes to the issue of headship and submission. But Paul’s theology on gender and gender role is never one-sided submission. Neither was he in favour of male chauvinistic culture. Nevertheless, it must be understood that Paul had in mind the Greco-Roman patriarchal culture when he wrote his epistles to the Ephesians. It was in a historical-cultural context where the fanaticism of patriarchy was very strong to the extent that men, as head of the family dominates everything, and the wives and children were considered nothing more valuable than household objects. Sometimes women were treated with lesser value than the domestic cattle the men possessed as his priced assets. In such a context, the message of women empowerment and men submission would be hostile to the Gospel of Salvation Paul ultimately wanted to convey. At that point of time, women submission was the language the men would accept without any hesitation as mentioned in Ephesians 5:22-24. Nonetheless, Paul subtly tried to convey the message of men’s sacrificial giving; rather mutual submission to each other beginning from Ephesians 5:25 and the following verses. The texts on “Wives, submit to your husbands” in verse 22 and “Husbands, love your wives” in verse 25 of Ephesians chapter 5, though comes in different forms connotes the same meaning. Paul’s hymnology on Love in 1 Corinthians 13 validates this. It sings the melodies of self-denial and self-giving. Both submission and radical love take place only when there is self-giving for the sake of the other person. Therefore, gender equality between husband and wife must be worked out from the reverse, namely mutual submission, and not as popularly advocated through power struggle.
The issue of who should lead and who should submit does not arise when there is mutual giving and receiving between the husband and wife. It is a win-win situation. The husband protects his woman but fully allows the wife to explore her freedom, and the wife explores the limit of the deepest sky and yet operates within the protective layer of her man. The strength of women yields maximum benefit when it is used within the strength of men, and vice versa. Charles Lindholm, studying the inferior status of women in the Middle Eastern society concluded, “Women in the Middle East are denigrated and held in contempt not because they are so weak, but because they are so strong” (
). The Middle Eastern Culture, which had also impacted the culture of the biblical patriarchs, saw the strength of women as threat to male chauvinism. In reality, for a strong man who is secured of his inner self, the strength of a woman is never an intimidation. It is a complimentary and complementary gift.
