I pulled my numbers from this link, but I’m certainly no expert. One other factor is that smaller communities have higher rates than larger communities (which makes sense).
In the “traditional” setup, most of what the man provides is monetary. And it’s relatively simple (not necessarily easy, but simple) to plan around that: A good life insurance policy, for instance. But what the wife provides is more difficult to make contingency plans for.
Of course, the causation might go the other way: Maybe the ones that leave, it’s because they’re the ones who are able to adjust to the outside world.
I am also skeptical that the “submissive woman” of the thought experiment was ever a very common model in real world terms. Even in extremely observant religiously “conservative” and insular populations my limited exposure is that the “submissive woman” was often a force once the doors were closed. Obviously not always. And again limited exposure.
Is this essentially supposed to be like the bit about the Ameglian Major Cow in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe?
It depends on their levels of skill. A man who doesn’t know how to cook still has restaurants. But a woman who doesn’t know how to handle money can get in big trouble.
Case in point, my grandmother. She was a trad wife, I suppose, not so odd in 1930. My grandfather died young. He had money, but she quickly lost it having no resources, and my dad went from well off kid to very poor kid.
Case in point two. I was stuck doing United Way in the early '80s, and a guy on the committee objected to some proposal on acknowledging donations, since he for damn sure didn’t want his wife to know how much he made.
I usually see this question in the form of “Is it OK to own slaves if they are genetically engineered to be happy being a slave?”
So I try not to fight hypotheticals by arguing with the premises, but sometimes I think it’s required because the premises are a category error or incoherent.
“Brainwashed or coerced” is setting a high bar of deliberate action that misses the most likely route of influence. None of us exist in any meaningful way outside of the developmental and social context in which we were raised. I think people like to think that we aren’t a result of our circumstances, but how could that possibly be true?
Social influences almost certainly had a dominant effect on creating this woman that wants to subsume herself into her husband. No one is free from those sorts of influences. Many oppressed people actively aid in their own oppression because their cultural values tell them they should be oppressed and it’s right and proper and those values get fully internalized. A person who gives up their autonomy entirely to another person is almost certainly disproportionately influenced by a social developmental environment that strongly influenced that. So “assume there’s no coercion” is not something I think is possible to do, it’s sort of incoherent except for the most superficial reading, which is something like “someone has threatened to kill this woman if she doesn’t act this way”
That said – this hypothetical person exists now, and it appears to be genuinely what they want. So what intervention are we proposing? Are we going to say “no, this is what you should want” and try to force our influence on them? If they’re not being abused and they’re truly happy and finding meaning in their subservient existence, who are we to stop them? Whatever we do besides genuine wellness checks and verification that this is voluntary is paternalistic and condescending and a violation of their choices.
Speaking of which, I’m at least a little uncomfortable with the idea that it’s justified with a sufficiently high status partner – like we have the standing to tell someone who they’re allowed to decide to dedicate their lives to, and we’re implicitly telling them they’re wrong if they pick someone without sufficiently high status to dedicate themselves to in this way. Oh, sorry, this person that you genuinely love and want to dedicate your life to for your own reasons doesn’t pass muster. Maybe if his salary was double. I’m afraid it’s wrong for you to dedicate your life to him in this way. We can re-evaluate if he gets a promotion.
So, a quick hypothetical: If there were a parent that was as dedicated to their kids interests rather than a spouse’s in this way – where they completely dedicated their life to their kids, would that ping the same wrongness meter as the OP’s hypothetical?
Or the Shmoos from Li’l Abner.
I think of it more like how I’d talk to a friend.
If a friend told me, “I’ve got this new boyfriend, and he’s really awesome, we’re taking ballroom dance lessons together, and I’m teaching him how to bake, and we’re going to visit his family in Italy next month!” I’d be super happy for her.
If a friend told me, “I’ve got this new boyfriend, and he’s super awesome, and I’m submitting to him as the rightful authority, and all I want is to make him happy, and I’m dropping all my other interests and activities!” alarm bells would be going off. I would absolutely do my best to make sure she was okay, and I’d probably say something to her about how if she ever needed help or support I’d be there. It’d be critical to make sure she had an exit strategy or at least opportunity, in a way it wouldn’t be so critical for the first friend. (The first friend of course needs to be able to exit that relationship, too–everyone should be able to exit their relationships–but I wouldn’t be as alarmed and as interested in verifying that she had an exit opportunity).
That’s very well said. But …
If a typical 2026 USA independent-minded educated employed woman was giving that second speech, yeah all sorts of alarm bells. She’s almost certainly signing up for an abusive relationship that will end violently for her.
But, ref @SenorBeef just above, imagine this is instead somebody you’ve known for years as a dedicated follower, perhaps from a religious sect where women are officially second class citizens, etc. Maybe Quiverful? Anyhow, now she’s met The One, or thinks she has. So she’s going to do the things for him she’s been culturally conditioned to do, but with the knob up at eleven, because that’s what she thinks is the best life for her (and for him) as the Perfect Couple. Now what?
Watch as she traps herself in an abusive relationship. She’s been carefully indoctrinated to destroy her life, and there’s nothing we can legally do but play spectator.
I don’t think the hypothetical is supposing that there was a sudden change of attitude or that this choice of hers is incongruent with the rest of her personality, because that becomes a very different question - like, is she being coerced, is she being abused and gaslighted, is she under threat, did she have some sort of brain injury – and I think that’s a distraction from what the hypothetical is meant to propose and it specifically tries to disclaim it by saying it’s a free and genuine choice on her part.
It’s not that out of character for a “tradwife” type belief system, just a more extreme version of it.
Talking to her, offering support, investigating whether she’s in trouble are absolutely valid responses, I’m just saying that I don’t think the hypothetical supposes this is kind of out of the blue.
I might not go quite this far:
Just as I posited two kinds of woman entering into this relationship, there are also two kinds of man.
Within the various religious or other “traditional” cultures there absolutely are men who take their leadership / stewardship role ref their tradwife seriously. He provides and protects, she nurtures and so it goes. You or I might find that per se abusive, but they both would not.
Of course there are far more men who aren’t that; they’re simply generic modern USA guys who might enjoy a well-behaved servant & sex toy. And who almost certainly will be happy to take Little Miss Tradwife up on her offer of subservience. Some of those men will be decent enough, albeit of a controlling personality, and other will be monsters.
My bottom line:
Your conclusion is the way to bet, but you won’t win every such bet you place. And especially not if she stays in her social milieu. E.g. LDS men marrying LDS women seems to work happily enough for most of them most of the time. Despite a dynamic you or I (or our sisters) would chafe at mightily.
Well, the OP asks how would I respond, not how should the deferential spouse respond. I think @RitterSport has the best answer to that question: “I’m not a philosopher, but it seems to me that the spouse has given up their agency, and agency is something that humans should have.”
As for the spouse in question, who am I to tell them what to do? Should they defer to me?
I can’t speak for others but I made the thread to see whether people approved, disapproved or thought there was anything wrong with a woman being that deferential to her husband. I wasn’t proposing anyone actually interfering in this hypothetical person’s life. I certainly wouldn’t for moral and practical reasons but I wouldn’t approve of a relationship like that.
Just to clarify, it wasn’t really the idea of status that prompted my own comment, but the idea that you believe your spouse is doing something great that they can only do if you make sacrifices for them. That “something great” may be as simple as supporting your family. The jobs I mentioned weren’t meant as high-status jobs but jobs that usually require some degree of sacrifice from the spouse. Jobs in which prolonged absence are not uncommon, or where you have to move around a lot, or it’s necessary for the other spouse to functionally live as a single parent, sometimes.
The example that springs to mind for some reason is the spouse of Joe Kenda, the Homicide Hunter. She had to accept that her partner was going to leave for an indefinite period of time at any moment without notice and while he was off solving murders she had to hold everything together herself. Then he would come home traumatized (in at least one case, covered in blood) and not be at liberty to talk about his job. So there’s an emotional sacrifice on top of that in which you don’t have full insight into your partner’s emotional life (one which I understand, because my husband can’t talk about his job, either. It takes a real toll on him that I cannot help him with.)
She’s an example of someone who I imagine had to sacrifice a great deal for her partner, but she believed the cause was worthy and I don’t have the impression she regretted it for a second. I think she did by necessity have her own social life and interests though, but as I mentioned upthread, I don’t think people in the hypothetical actually exist. The reality, even in more traditional households, is more messy.
You’re right. That’s a compelling argument. I was thinking of the real world examples where there was often a sort of scientific or engineering genius that dedicated themselves to one particular purpose and often they become great men in history but there’s almost always a wife in the background that took care of them and managed their lives and allowed them to completely focus on the object of their genius. Which makes her a sort of co-creator or at least a very necessary chief of staff depending on the relationship they had to the objects or idea of genius. And they never get the credit they deserve.
Of course it doesn’t have to be as grandiose as that. As you point out the key factor is that she has decided on her own that supporting her husband or her family with all of her energy is worth it for whatever reason. The high status part just makes it more understandable to the rest of us. It may not fully change the actual moral standing since she can decide her own reasoning or her own criteria.
I’m finding this thread timely because I’ve just started reading Middlemarch, one if the main protagonists of which is a young woman with a strong moral sense that her life should be lived in pursuit of some higher ideal for the betterment of humanity. She can find - she is permitted - no other outlet for this selfless ambition than to marry some man himself in pursuit if greatness and dedicate herself to being helpmeet and amanuensis.
Unfortunately, the man she chooses is a false idol, simply incapable of producing the great scholarly work he claims to be dedicated to. Her own dedication ( I am less than half way through, no spoilers please) seems destined to be wasted effort.
Interestingly, one of the key features of the early part of this plot is that the adults around her with influence can see this is a waste of her energy and idealism, but choose not to interfere. It feels like a pretty terrible error, condemning her to a life of frustration amd disappointment.
So I suppose one approach to the hypothetical deferential wife would be to challenge her assessment that her idol is worthy of her devotion, or that he will continue to be, and that there are no better outlets for her talents and hard work. Paint a picture of the risk she is taking with her one and only life on this Earth, amd suggest she puts some eggs into another basket.
Another thought: the world still has a decent number of women who have dedicated themselves to a life of service, self denial and obedience. We call them nuns. Does it seem more or less worthy of objection for women to choose a life of service to God, or to a husband?
While an atheist - because I am an atheist, I suppose - I think I could argue less convincingly against becoming a bride of Christ on the basis of deeply held faith in a higher power than I could in offering the same kind of subjugation to just some guy.
That sounds really interesting and I might have to give it a look. I recently read Howard’s End which deals with a young woman doing a different sort of calculus in service to creating a blended family. She’s arguably a feminist (for that time, 1910) but chooses to love a sexist hypocrite for the sake of her family. It’s interesting to note that ambitious, forceful women existed back then and had to manage a very different set of expectations in order to find fulfillment (or as close to fulfillment as possible.)