19th Century Marriage Manuals: Advice for Young Husbands
mimimatthews.com
mimimatthews.com
I bet you don't get this bit in return.
I think it has something to do with women's superior empathetic qualities. It seems to me like (often, in my own relationships) a woman wants to be inspired by/confident in my aspirations and judgement.
Obviously this doesn't encompass all relationships or people and I probably tend to attract women who reinforce my own qualities, so YMMV, but it's interesting to think about.
Anyway, grand op is claiming prestige signaling isn't going to provide results (which is incredibly unlikely in a human pack; maybe a wolf pack, sure, or if the human participants are doin it wrong or are crazy, sure) and you're claiming prestige signalling usually leads to prestige results, so op is wrong and you're right but it doesn't matter because you're talking past each other on separate topics. Ironically it doesn't matter because as you correctly point out, dominance and prestige results are more or less the same most of the time.
The hundred year old manual is talking something totally different from both of you, that there's a moral or ethical need for both results to be exactly identical or else things are going to get unpleasant because prestige means are generally way more pleasant than dominance means. She can either play along with her side of the prestige strategy or unfortunately the dominance strategy will inevitably end up getting played and that's no fun.
Assuming its your responsibility to water the horses, you properly lead a horse to water and it refuses to drink, that's just not going to be fun for anyone involved, it really is the horses job or duty to drink after its been properly led. Note its not just leadership, its leadership with the positive adjectives applied; no fair weaseling out on the obedience obligation due to poor leadership excuses if by the very definition of the claim it only follows from good leadership.
Good luck defining good leadership.
There's also some civilization wide social contract philosophy about good leadership inherently being owed obedience by the nature of the leadership being good, and no other justification is necessary assuming the leadership is good, blah blah blah, all kind of in opposition to the concept of the divine right of kings and hereditary monarchy. To some extent this is the moral justification of democracy, you have to obey the good leader you selected, assuming its not all a sham like modern elections, etc. And this is just applying that large scale societal stuff to a tiny family, for better or worse. This makes it a scaling problem and HN loves scaling problems.
but fucking lol:
> This makes it a scaling problem and HN loves scaling problems.
Yep.
But, more seriously, as a counter, I've spent most of my adult life trying to be less 'manly' and more male (xy-chromosomer ). The western traditions of what it means to be 'a man' have not made my life better. Instead, they've given me anxiety, panic attacks, and caused a lot of feigned aggression, defensiveness, self medication, and regret.
I'm not against tradition, and I have a lot of respect for people who try to keep traditions alive. This one's just not for me.
Isn't this the case in most societies? My sense from history is that is only acceptable for men to cry at extreme events -- such as death of a wife/child/brother, or the loss of a kingdom. The other common trope for crying is if a peasant or low-level official is begging the forgiveness from a king who is about to terminate him. But in the modern society such tragedies happen less often. I cannot think of a time in my own adult life when crying would have been justified.
It's still a common occurrence in Korea as well, so it isn't just the middle-east.
One thing I've realised over the past few years (I'm 22) is the importance of feeling masculine. Not in the generic socially prescribed sense necessarily, but in my own way, that took a lot of contemplation about "what makes me feel masculine?" and obviously the specifics will be different for every man (and I equally think it's important for women to feel feminine in a way which empowers them), but it has made me feel so much more confident and empowered as a human being to be more in touch with my roots so to speak.
Out of curiosity, what does that mean? Were you getting in bar fights or what?
I've spent time trying to become more manly in some ways. I started lifting weights, speaking with my deeper vocal cords rather than head voice, having a bit more of a sense of command, learning how to dish it back or take it in stride if someone gives me some jocular ribbing (rather than getting defensive or avoiding that person), not being whiny under any circumstances, etc. I think that modern western culture overly feminizes men, and it has been a good experience for myself to try to be more masculine.
I turned 40 this year, so it could be an age thing. When I was 20, I probably seemed more similar to you. At least, I was certainly motivated by similar things. I lifted a lot of weights (when I maxed out I weighed around 230 lb), etc. and really identified with masculinity and various male roles.
When I say being more male, I'm not talking about being more 'feminine' (which would just be the opposite), just more Human. For instance, in the past, I would (subconsciously) say to myself, 'what is the right thing to do as a brother, father, son, husband, man?'. Now, I say, 'what actions should I take so that I enjoy my life, the people I care about, the ideas I believe in, etc.?'
As time went by, laws and traditions have changed as they always do -- slowly but surely -- and sexism (as well as racism) has become less overt and clear, but much of the essence -- less power for women -- sadly remains to this day (and this, too, will change, slowly but surely).
Note/nuance: I'm just stating the contribution of women here, because I've never thought about it this way. Males contribute to modern sexism as well in obvious ways (to me).
Edit: could down votes be explained? A down vote is not enough feedback for me to adapt my posting behaviour.
So it is indeed hard to separate cause and effect, I'm wondering if we need to, since cause and effect might go both ways here in a feedback loop. I'm very inclined to believe this myself (one of my implicit assumptions, perhaps even a bias). Cultural notions reinforces what people want, which reinforce the culture. So allowing to reframe yourself to want something different is definitely a course of action that one could take. As is changing other people their behavior (although it has some really difficult challenges IMO, it's easier to change yourself in my experience).
'feminism is not concerned with who "contributes" what to sexism' <-- do you mean all forms of feminism? Or just the 3rd wave? I have the feeling that there are forms of feminism that do look at this, since various feminist views can also disagree with each other (2nd wave vs 3rd wave for example). I wouldn't know which forms of feminism do look at this though, it's more of a heuristic: since there are so many forms of feminism there must be a few of them doing this.
"can they later be said to be contributing to their own subjugation?" <-- Perhaps I have a different idea of what "contribution" means. Even if someone would be brainwashed and completely programmed to destroy the world, then IMO that person would still contribute to destroying the world if acted towards that goal. I do acknowledge that the initial intent was never there and this person was completely reprogrammed (assume a The Matrix scenario, where someone is plugged in and reprogrammed). Nevertheless, a non-intentional behaviour is still a contribution. Even zombies contribute to cultural notions of society (if they'd exist). So I don't think it's the person's fault for being this way, it's the fault of the programmer. But if the person (now destroyer of the world) would realize this and try to stop it, that would be great.
A pragmatic form of feminism that I have experienced myself is that feminists need to take care of their own personal development. This also means that people who are aware of sexist actions and view the need to change it, need to change themselves if they have habits conforming to old views. In that sense, feminism is concerned with who contributes (behaviorally) to sexism, because it gives a lense to look within oneself to change behaviour contributing to sexism. Knowing your gender role and in which way you conform to it is a handy tool to have in general for self-reflection.
"and when we say that some action is sexist we mean that it contributes to sexism; the action itself can be completely free of any ill intent." <-- Thanks for the clarification. I do admit that my understanding of sexism is not as laser focused as I'd like it to be.
Different forms of feminism differ in their views on specific issues, not on the basic idea that women are allotted less power in society. Differences stem from various sources. One is historical or circumstantial: when women were overtly discriminated against by the law, targets and priorities were clearer. Another is awareness: leaders of movements for change always tend to be among those who are relatively most powerful in their group. They can therefore be blind to the plight of those who are qualitatively less powerful than them. Yet another is that inherent difficulty in interpreting wishes in a society which shapes them. I'll just note that some anti-feminist views that try to simplify things, say stuff like, why not just assume that everyone has free will and everyone's choices are equally free? The answer to that is that research has clearly shown this is not the case.
> Even if someone would be brainwashed and completely programmed to destroy the world, then IMO that person would still contribute to destroying the world if acted towards that goal.
Absolutely, but there is no clear programmer and programmed. We are all equally programmers and programs, and equally “emotionally” innocent of the situation. Everyone, of course, is responsible for their own actions, but they’re actions at once are shaped by others’ and shape others’. The only relevant distinction is that some have power and some don’t, and as change is better carried out by those with power, they carry most of the responsibility. OTOH, those with power, of course, are less interested in changing the situation. Not just because they don’t want to yield power, but also because they don’t see the problem.
> A pragmatic form of feminism that I have experienced myself is that feminists need to take care of their own personal development.
Of course, and this, BTW, is something that often gets them a lot of scorn. But it is important to realize that change is only accomplished when those who work for it attain enough power. That power could be in numbers or in changing the mind of the powerful.
1. Much of what is being described as traditional marriage practice isn't actually traditional; the article notes that what a modern person might consider Victorian marital values often weren't.
2. Much of what remains (as being actually traditional) is better off being destroyed.
Hell, the NATO bombings in Serbia happened just 15 years ago. That was pretty damn close to home for some of us. I have many friends who remember the bombings.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
And 20 years ago NATO bombed a different part of Yugoslavia that was even closer to where I grew up.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deliberate_Force
I am really happy that Slovenia was able to secede from Yugoslavia without NATO bombings. Although I do remember hiding in the cellar one night when the sirens went off. Luckily no actual air raid occured.
The Victorians can hardly be singled out for conquering and enslavement, given that was pretty much the norm for human history to that point. Victorians are saints compared to roman times, and the Romans themselves were honourable compared to what went before.
"Moral" is perhaps not quite the most apt word.
>I'm glad we're finally living in an era that has gotten past that.
We haven't. The product has become American Neoliberal Capitalism instead of British Imperial Capitalism, but it's now sold on the Internet and through Hollywood and the media just as aggressively as the Victorians promoted their idea of culture to the world.
Calling the ruling class of the British Empire a despotic aristocracy is a very big stretch, or better a contradiction. Despotic regimes have non-existent or vestigial aristocracies, e.g. the Ottoman Empire or most Chinese dynasties. The Russian Empire had an aristocracy had what looked kind of like a Western European aristocracy but a service nobility functions very differently from one where the nobility have independent power bases. For much more on this Francis Fukuyuma's "The Origins of Political Order" is excellent. In brief there are three political classes in pre-modern societies, the monarch, the high nobility and the gentry/bourgeoisie. The peasantry are irrelevant because they can't coordinate so their numbers are moot. A strong civil society with rule of law that binds the king/state as well as other actors emerged only in Western Europe. If the law binds the king he's no despot, and it did. In Britain, Scandinavia and the Netherlands the king allied with the gentry, in France and Iberia, with the nobility but their power was constrained.
Imperialism did contribute to the power of these states, more to the noble class than the country as a whole but it was not where that power ultimately came from. It came from growth in economic productivity and the organisational capability it made possible. The British Empire was not planned, it was the product of absurdly huge differences in capability. It was acquired over centuries by men on the spot chasing personal glory and advancement.
This is not to deny the slavery, drug running and land and resource grabs but they are frankly secondary. The Royal Navy was the force behind the destruction of the slave trade. The British parliament abolished slavery within the British Empire over the protests of some very rich and well connected domestic interests. The opium trade and the immiseration of India were enormous crimes but the capability preceded the crimes and was only possible because of it. Britain's wealth was not built on the Empire, it was built on trade, commerce and industry.
Anyway, that was completely off topic. I agree that the British Empire, while most certainly not the most moral or fair, cannot be characterized as despotic.
[1]: Perhaps I hear more about it because I currently live in the US. Not sure about how popular that part of history is in the rest of the world.
Are you sure? I would have expected them to take the opposite view of "savages", namely the Hobbesian view that their lives were "nasty, brutish and short".
If that's what qualifies as society's "moral backbone" then I am extremely grateful to have destroyed it.
^1 "..I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down." (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
^2 "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
Someone must keep the living space clean, someone must obtain food, etc. If there are children, someone must care for them.
Because of this, when marriage is freely chosen, it typically starts out as equal. Both participants have roughly equal costs and benefits, and are both happy with the exchange of value.
But time changes things. Wages often increase, looks often decline, personalities evolve. Profound setbacks occur as loved ones get sick or die, careers suffer failures and successes, etc.
Most people are morally average, of average attractiveness and average intellect. Most have an average work ethic, average level of discipline, and average level of fortitude.
Life stretches most people beyond their endowment in many areas. We lie or deceive, we get lazy, we get complacent, we give up, we cheat, we fail to observe data without significant and harmful bias, we let life happen, our faces take on a habitual grimace that becomes permanent as our skin's elasticity diminishes.
For a marriage to work long term it must be resilient to this abundant averageness and the inevitable decay that occurs over time... when the weak or neglected parts of the mechanism start to falter.
The question is, should a marriage work long term? Is it a failure when it does not? What if it lasts 10 years, or 20, or even 5? Should it not have occurred?
We marry because we are the primates with dogged optimism about pair bonds. We seek another who will provide us with the validation or the comfort that we seek, and who will dull the harshness of the world in some specific way that we consider most wanting and most sacred.
Even the gay marriage debate, for all the focus on equality, is fundamentally about the symbolism of the pair bond and its primacy in our primate society. We are herd animals, and the minimum viable herd size is two.
> Indeed, in many conservative religious denominations,
> the same tenets are echoed today.
However, one thing I'd like to explicitly disclaim is the notion that there is any prescriptive support in the Bible for the victorian-era idea that wives should be Doormat Debbies, as alluded to throughout this article.
The most often-cited passage in this regard is Ephesians 5:22-24...
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do
to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife
as Christ is the head of the church, his body,
of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits
to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands
in everything.
> Bully and browbeaten seems to be a common complaint in modern Biblical families
Are you saying we should judge all philosophies by their abuse? We should ignore climate scientists because of ClimateGate? We should outlaw religions because there are crazy people in the world who claim to be killing in the name of some of them?
One can make many cases for models of Biblical marriage (David, a "man after God's own heart" was polygamous. This is not spoken against in the Bible, but his adultery with another man's wife was condemned. To me, this is implicit support.)
One can also talk about whether Jesus himself would have supported Paul's interpretation and writings about marriage. I tend to find their respective teachings disharmonious.
Paul very much believed in the order of things, and in authority. And in this case (as in the case of master/slave relationships!), the man has authority. Both masters and husbands have obligations to use their authority kindly, but Paul did not decry the authority of one individual over another.
So yes, in the most common interpretation of evangelical Pauline Christianity (i.e. that practiced in Heartland America), the men are not bullies, but they do possess power and authority over women, and I think this power is the thing liberals and humanists take issue with.
Ashkenazi Jews(descendant of those living in Germany around 900 or so AD many of whom later move east to Poland, Ukraine, and Russia) banned polygamy around ~1000 AD.
I think it mostly died down in Sephardic and Yemeni after most of them moved to the Israel but I'm not sure if it was that common before that time.
For one thing only the very wealthy could afford it - each wife was required to have her own house (separate rooms in one house was not enough).
For the most part it was practiced mainly by traveling businessmen/salesmen who would have a wife in each city where they worked. (Don't forget how slow and long travel used to be.)
The main reason for permitting it is that historically males died more often than females, so there is a small surplus of females, and permitting a small amount of polygamy helps with that.
It's no longer relevant these days.
It may have been a practical necessity after husbands died or were killed. No welfare or social security survivor benefits or similar programs existed.
But IMO it's something that only single men would truly find appealing. Married men quickly realize that additional wives and accompanying additional children are the last thing they want or need. :)
Deuteronomy 17:17 begs to differ: "And he [the king] shall not take many wives for himself"
Secondly, you're using an argument from silence based on one particular passage to misrepresent the Bible's view of polygamy. The Bible only has one perspicuous model of marriage.
Thirdly, you can't really slip a piece of paper between Paul (or Peter or James or John or any other apostle for that matter) and Jesus. They either stand or fall together. You can't pick or choose.
Actually, the more I study the various Epistles and Jesus' teaching, the more encouraged I am to see how remarkably harmonious it is. Not that this should surprise anyone, Jesus himself said of Paul: "This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel." (Acts 9:15).
You can't have the Father but reject his Son. You can't have the Son but reject his servants.
Let's take gay people as an example. Moses said no, Jesus said it's all about love, and Paul said no to gay people. So even though Jesus is always right, in practice he was usually pretty vague, so Paul ends up with the overrule.
*Side note: some people believe that Paul and/or Moses were only referring to gay people in the context of pagan ritual sex, and that Jesus's "love" should take priority. I'd believe Moses was about pagan sex and Paul is non-canon if I were still Christian. This shows that there's plenty of room for interpretation. The previous paragraphs are simply the evangelical mainstream interpretation.
Edit: A cynical me would also say that interpretation depends on agenda.
For Protestants, Luther came along and more or less said "make up your own mind", so everybody can make their own interpretation.
So, yes interpretation at the very least depends on where one wants to put the accents.
In the beginnings of the 95 Theses he actually puts a favorable light on the Pope, in my brief re-reading [1].
Luther's protestants still held to the catacism(sp?), sacraments, transmutation of the hosts, etc. As far as I've ever understood it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the...
And on the transubstantiation vs, dual-state can we call it, of the eucharist... my denomination considered it all symbolic, so I'd always really considered them the same thing (by which I mean, saying "it's just his body" vs "it's both his body and bread" were still "it's his body).
I'm not sure how foundational that distinction was when the schism occurred. Do you know by chance?
Is yours a Reformed church? The anti-institutional fervor of the later (post-Luther) Protestants led to many such purely mundane interpretations of the host, which Luther vigorously denied [0].
> I'm not sure how foundational that distinction was when > the schism occurred. Do you know by chance?
Though I do not know the relative impetus imparted to the Reformation by differences in belief about the nature of the hosts in the eucharist, it seems to have been a deeper divide within Protestantism than between P and the RC [1]. Charitably, Luther accorded the question of the metaphysical connection between bread and wine, body and blood as axiomatically resolved by accepting the Word of their identical existence as a matter of belief, independent of argumentative investigation (i.e., he "unasked" the question, or said "mu" [2]). Uncharitably, he dodged by declaring the answer uninteresting or irrelevant to Christian faith.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sacrament_of_the_Body_and_...
[1] http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/06/martin-luther-refutes...
Specifically: "Before I [Luther] would drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts, I would rather have pure blood with the Pope."
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29#.22Unasking....
Here's a quick list of passages dealing with sexual immorality:
http://www.openbible.info/topics/sexual_immorality
Notice the theme where the immoral person does not get to inherit the kingdom of God. That's a way-out-in-the-future concept, not any kind of concern for the physical body of the immoral person.
Which isn't to say there aren't practical benefits to Biblical sexuality. Certainly your chance of getting an STI is dramatically reduced (eliminated?) by remaining faithful to your spouse in marriage. Abstinence for the unmarried has the same obvious benefits. Heterosexuality is clearly the easiest way to procreate, and the inherent differences between men and women gives children a broader experience of physical, mental, emotional interaction with the world (seeing how mom and dad handle the same situation in gender-unique ways, for instance).
But again, all of that is the secondary concern. The primary concern of all sin is the immediate effect it has on the spiritual condition of a man. The preeminent theme throughout the Old Testament and New is that God is Holy. He takes his holiness seriously. Man has sinned. God judges all sins. There is one way back to God, and that's by taking advantage of the path He made back to Himself, via his son, Jesus.
> "the biblical command to suppress and channel sexuality"
> "sexual expression is necessary to be spiritually healthy"
If you didn't intend to make a claim about spiritual health, and instead mean the modern idea that "I should pursue whatever sexual impulses I have", then I would further argue that we haven't walked far enough along the arc of history to see the repercussions of that play out.
> do you still find the bible compelling?
> Let's take gay people as an example.
> Moses said no, Jesus said it's all about love,
> and Paul said no to gay people...
Here on the issue of homosexuality you believe Moses, Jesus and Paul say 3 different things. And yet Jesus clearly states that he didn't come to change the Mosaic law in any way!
https://www.bible.com/bible/59/mat.5:17-20
Martin Luther took that last verse to mean that Jesus is not merely giving a list of do's and don'ts, but rather setting an impossibly high standard for anyone but God to meet. Regardless, you have to either understand Jesus to mean that he's not contradicting Moses, or take Jesus to be a liar. There aren't many reasonable options in between.
> Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. (Deut 22:11, KJV)
Most Christians I've known believe that some combination of Matt 15:11 (Jesus) and Acts 10 (Paul) mean that while the morality expoused in the original Law is forever relevant, the practical concerns (what to eat, what clothing to wear, how to handle menstruation) and the ritual concerns (sacrifice, temple practices) are no longer relevant.
So Jesus takes morality to 11, but not the other things. And according to Jesus, morality == love.
All this to say: I'm pretty comfortable with my interpretation. I'm not ignorant of the spectrum of Christian doctrine, and I feel like I'm mostly doing it justice while keeping it simple.
Polyester? A sacrilege!
No, I wear a California uniform. 100% cotton Aloha shirt, 100% cotton pants, long or short depending on the season. (Mostly short.) Birkenstock Arizonas (soft footbed only!), with or without socks.
Can't vouch for the underwear, though. I hope it's mostly cotton, but what are those stretchy bands made of?
That's an odd way to answer someone who's actually given you a thoughtful reply.
If one loves God and their neighbor, all the ethical law will be followed. One interesting loophole that Jesus removed was to love one another as He loved them (John 13:34) which is different than "Love your neighbor as yourself".
I would encourage you to read Jesus more closely, for example, the Sermon on the Mount:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5
If you are sincerely interested in understanding things like the ceremonial law, civil law, moral law, Old Covenant, New Covenant, then I can point you to some excellent study guides and sermons.
I'm just trying to hit the high points for a silly internet discussion.
> If you are sincerely interested in understanding things like the ceremonial law, civil law, moral law, Old Covenant, New Covenant, then I can point you to some excellent study guides and sermons.
Been there. I found the Skeptic's Annotated Bible was more convincing than, say, Grudem's Systematic Theology, or any of the other reading from seminary.
> Edit: A cynical me would also say that interpretation depends on agenda.
> Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these.
> Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.
> Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
I'll admit that passage is often what I think of when I think of Christian marriage philosophy from the Bible – and am willing to correct that notion. What, in your mind, should be the outcome of someone who claims to follow the Bible in their marriage w.r.t. this passage? Your hint didn't really lay out an answer; only a non-answer.
I interpret the church to mean members of Christianity. In that lens, it doesn't seem like the relationship between a woman submitting to her husband ought to be like how a Christian submits to Christ. Does it?
https://www.bible.com/bible/59/eph.5.esv
> What, in your mind, should be the outcome of someone who claims to follow the Bible in their marriage w.r.t. this passage?
In doing this, I think most people assume that Christians simply pretend they don't want what they really want, and pretend they do want what they really don't want. That's not it at all, and that's merely a recipe for a hollow, hypocritical relationship.
There are certainly differences amongst Christians, and I don't intend to paper over them. I'm just saying, if you have a Christian friend, ask them what these kinds of passages mean to them, rather than assume they are brow-beating their spouse based on two sentences taken out of the context of an entire letter Paul wrote.
I have two friends (who are married) who believe in
biblical standards of the husband being the head of
the household. HOWEVER. They are also outspoken
feminists (both of them), and their belief in marital
headship is based on their belief that a man’s job as
the head of household who has been gifted with an
outsize amount of cultural privilege is to actively
fight patriarchy and bolster his wife’s human dignity
in a culture attempting to diminish her personhood.
(Like, head of household is a metaphor for Jesus being
the head of the church, and Jesus died for the church,
so they believe the head of the household should be
constantly throwing himself on the sword of patriarchy
to elevate his wife to her rightful place of equality,
instead of expecting her to constantly be the person
dealing with toxic misogyny all by herself. So
headship in their marriage is not “I am in charge,
fetch me my slippers,” but “As the privileged partner,
I am charged with a special responsibility of helping
us realize equality within our marriage and our world”.)
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
If anything, the Bible has always been counter-cultural in promoting the equality of men and women, and the countless greetings and references to prominent women in the early church in the various letters reflects the critical contribution they made.
As for the claim that the Bible has "always been counter-cultural in promoting the equality of men and women", that is a very limited viewpoint on history; it has been used toward both oppressive and egalitarian ends since it was written. And if you mean that the early Christian writers like Paul were especially egalitarian for their time, this too is controversial at best in scholarly circles. The mere mention (even praise) of certain women does not demonstrate a culture of gender equality; Roman society at large is also known to have venerated certain female figures in the same way, so this was hardly a counter-cultural practice.
One time it was without commentary, and the whole ceremony came across poorly to me (he even solicited conversions to his church at the end, as if it were a public Sunday service).
The other was a younger guy who didn't say the whole thing and tried to explain it away the best he could as more or less being about "supporting each other". I liked that wedding a lot better in general, but I still think that's a terrible passage to recite during a wedding.
So if pastors think that is the most important bit to share when performing actual marriages in public, you shouldn't be surprised that this is what people are most familiar with.