"Submit"

 This is a post taken from Liberated Woman's Facebook page-

The Context of Submission

It’s easy to pull “wives submit” out of context and read it as a universal ideal. But in the Greco-Roman world, women were already living under systems that assumed male authority and made independence risky.

Aristotle wrote plainly that “the male is by nature superior, the female inferior; the one rules, the other is ruled” (Politics 1.1254b). This wasn’t about one household. It was presented as the natural order of society.

Xenophon describes marrying a girl “not yet fifteen,” raised to “see as little, hear as little, and ask as little as possible,” and then explains how he trained her (Oeconomicus 7). The expectation was not mutual growth, but formation into obedience.

Demosthenes states the structure without hesitation: “we have courtesans for pleasure… concubines for daily use… and wives to bear legitimate children and guard the household” (Against Neaera 59.122). Wives were defined by function, not partnership.

Gaius confirms the legal reality that adult women were placed under guardianship “on account of their levity of mind” (Institutes 1.144–145). Even in adulthood, women were not considered fully independent legal actors.

Thucydides records the cultural ideal: “the greatest glory of a woman is to be least talked about” (History 2.45). Silence and invisibility were treated as virtue.

Under Augustus, law reinforced male control over the household and placed women’s lives firmly under that structure (Lex Julia, 18 BC). The system did not just assume authority, it gave it legal force in which husbands could order the death of their wives and fathers could order the deaths of their daughters!

P.Oxy. 744 Hilarion to Alis, c. 1 BC, Oxyrhynchus Papyri depicts a father ordering the death of his child if his wife gives birth to a daughter and not a son!

This is the world of Ephesus and Corinth when Paul the Apostle was writing. Women did not have equal legal standing, did not have independent protection, and did not have social freedom to openly resist authority without consequence.

And into that world, the instructions are not one-sided. Wives are told how to navigate a system that already held power over them (Ephesians 5:22–24; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1–6).

But husbands are told something far more disruptive to that system.

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

“Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself” (Ephesians 5:28).

“Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them” (Colossians 3:19).

“Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with honor…” (1 Peter 3:7).

“The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband… the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does” (First Epistle to the Corinthians 7:3–4).

In 1 Peter 3, when Peter refers to the wife as the “weaker vessel,” the Greek phrase is asthenesterō skeuei (ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει). Asthenesterō is a comparative form of asthenēs, meaning vulnerable, often used in contexts of social disadvantage rather than inherent inferiority. Skeuos means vessel, an instrument or container, a common metaphor for a person. In a world where women were legally, socially, and physically more vulnerable, the phrase points to her exposed position within that system, not a declaration of lesser worth. Peter immediately pairs it with “show them honor as co-heirs of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7), directly countering any idea of inferiority.

Those commands for husbands cut directly against the norms described by Aristotle, Demosthenes, and Roman law itself. In a world where men were assumed to rule, entitled to control, and rarely held accountable for how they treated their wives, they are instead commanded to love, to give themselves up, to restrain themselves (not be harsh), to honor, and to treat their wives as their own bodies. That is not a reinforcement of the system, it is a confrontation of it at its core.

“Submit” was spoken into a reality where defiance was not theoretical, it could cost a woman her security, her protection, her social standing, and in some cases her very life. It acknowledges the structure that already existed around her.

But “love, honor, and self-sacrifice” was spoken into a reality where men were not expected to limit their authority, not expected to share power, and certainly not expected to lay themselves down for the good of their wives.

One side speaks to survival of women within that system.

The other demands transformation of it.

Another good resource on the subject-

The Book of Eden: Book 1

Beyond Eden: Book 2

Back to Eden: Book 3

Because of Eden: Book 4

Logical Fallacies in Complementarianism

The Architecture of Inequality: Deconstructing the Logical Fallacies of Complementarianism

To engage in a rigorous defense of egalitarianism, one must move beyond merely trading Bible verses and instead examine the rhetorical architecture used to sustain gender-based hierarchy. Complementarianism—the doctrine that men and women are equal in "worth" but assigned different "roles" that grant men unilateral authority in the home and church—frequently relies on a predictable set of logical fallacies. These fallacies are not merely errors in judgment; they often serve as defensive mechanisms designed to shield the doctrine from the modern requirements of logic, justice, and empirical evidence.

By categorizing these fallacies, we can see how the complementarian position maintains its influence through shifting definitions, emotional appeals, and a carefully managed diversion of focus.

I. Structural and Definitional Fallacies: Protecting the Doctrine

The most sophisticated fallacies used by complementarians are those that manipulate the very definitions of the words being debated. These structural fallacies make it difficult for an egalitarian to pin down a stable argument to critique.

The Motte-and-Bailey Tactic

Perhaps the most pervasive rhetorical maneuver in this debate is the Motte-and-Bailey. In medieval terms, a "motte" was a small, easily defensible stone fort, while the "bailey" was a large, fertile, but hard-to-defend field surrounding it. In modern logic, this translates to alternating between a controversial claim (the Bailey) and a common-sense claim (the Motte).

     The Bailey:*The assertion that men have a divinely ordained right to lead and that women are restricted from exercising authority over men. This is the "high-stakes" claim that critics find discriminatory.

     The Motte: When the Bailey is attacked, the speaker retreats to the Motte: "We just believe men and women have equal dignity and different, beautiful roles."

Because no one (in a modern context) wants to argue against "equal dignity," the critic is neutralized. However, as soon as the critic leaves the room, the complementarian returns to the Bailey to enforce restrictive policies on leadership and domestic submission. The fallacy lies in pretending the Motte and the Bailey are the same thing.

The "No True Scotsman" Defense

When egalitarian critics point to the staggering rates of domestic abuse or spiritual manipulation within hierarchical systems, complementarians often respond with the No True Scotsman fallacy. They claim that "those men aren't *true* biblical complementarians; they are abusers." While it is true that many complementarian leaders condemn abuse, this fallacy allows the doctrine itself to evade accountability. By redefining the position after the fact to exclude any negative outcomes, they ensure the system is never scrutinized for how its power imbalance might actually *incentivize* or *facilitate* such abuse.

Begging the Question (The "Biblical" Modifier)

A common circular argument occurs when complementarians attach the word "biblical" to their specific cultural interpretations. Terms like "Biblical Manhood" or "Biblical Womanhood" are used to automatically claim divine authority. This is a form of Begging the Question, where the conclusion (that their view is the only one the Bible allows) is baked into the very name of the position. It renders the claim unverified and circular: "Our view is true because it is biblical, and it is biblical because it is our view."

Moving the Goalposts

When egalitarians provide scholarly evidence—such as proof that women served as apostles (Junia), deacons (Phoebe), and leaders in the early church—the complementarian response often involves Moving the Goalposts. If the linguistic argument for equality is won, the criteria for "truth" suddenly shifts. They may abandon the historical or Greek debate and insist the hierarchy is a "divine mystery," a matter of "common sense," or an "issue of the heart." By shifting the requirements for proof into an unverifiable realm, they ensure that no amount of evidence can ever "win" the argument.

II. Diversionary and Social Fallacies: Shifting the Focus

These fallacies attempt to discredit the egalitarian position not by addressing its arguments, but by attacking its proponents or shifting the conversation toward unrelated social anxieties.

The Strawman Argument

Rather than engaging with the actual egalitarian argument—which is that authority should be based on spiritual gifting and character rather than biological sex—critics often construct a Strawman. They frame egalitarianism as a "rebellion against God's design" or a desire for "unisex sameness." By pretending egalitarians want to erase all biological or personal distinctions between men and women, they attack a caricature that is much easier to defeat than the actual argument for shared agency and mutual submission.

Ad Hominem (The Tribal Attack)

This shifts the focus from the text to the person’s character or "liberal" leanings. Proponents of equality are often labeled "feminists" (used as a pejorative), "cultural accommodators," or "progressives." This Ad Hominem approach seeks to discredit the argument by attacking the proponent’s perceived tribal loyalty. The implication is that if you believe in equality, you have clearly "surrendered to the culture," which allows the complementarian to ignore the actual biblical or philosophical merits of your claim.

Whataboutism

When confronted with the historical and systemic suppression of women’s voices, a common pivot is: "What about the crisis of masculinity? What about the high rates of male suicide?" This is Whataboutism. While the struggles of men are valid and serious social issues, using them to deflect from a specific discussion on gender inequality is a tactical maneuver to avoid addressing structural power imbalances. It suggests that one cannot care about women's equality without being indifferent to men's pain—a false and distracting premise.

Argumentum ad Populum (The Appeal to Tradition)

This fallacy claims that male leadership must be correct because "the church has practiced it for 2,000 years." This Appeal to Tradition assumes that because a view has been popular or long-standing, it must be true. This ignores the fact that the church has historically reached "consensus" on many things later recognized as errors, including the defense of slavery or the persecution of scientific pioneers. Historical longevity is not a measure of moral or theological correctness.

III. Logical and Emotional Distortions: Masking the Hierarchy

These fallacies rely on flawed analogies or heightened emotions to make the reality of a gendered hierarchy seem more palatable or "natural."

False Equivalence: The "Boss" Analogy

A favorite complementarian argument is: "How is a wife submitting to a husband any different from a woman working for a boss?" This is a massive False Equivalence and a False Analogy.

    The Reality: A workplace relationship is a limited, contractual, and voluntary agreement. It governs specific tasks during specific hours. A woman can fire her boss by quitting; a boss cannot dictate a woman's reproductive choices, her spiritual life, or her intimate boundaries.

     The Fallacy: Comparing a professional contract to a "one flesh" spiritual union ignores the totalizing scope of power in a hierarchical marriage. It also commits a Category Error, treating a covenantal relationship as an economic exchange of labor. If the husband's "role" is truly like a boss, the wife is a "hired hand," which utterly contradicts the claim that they are "equal in worth."

Equivocation on "Equality"

When complementarians claim that "a woman can speak in church, she just can't lead," they are Equivocating. They use the word "equality" to mean spiritual value in the eyes of God, while simultaneously denying women *functional agency* in the community.

     -In any other context, if a group is allowed to speak but legally barred from decision-making, we call that subordination. By using the word "equality" to describe a system of restricted rights, they strip the word of its meaning.

Special Pleading (The Church Exception)

This occurs when someone applies a certain set of criteria to the world but creates an "exception" for their own claim. Complementarians usually agree that women are competent to lead in medicine, law, and politics. However, they argue that the church is a "special" case where competence (the ability to teach or lead) has no bearing on authority. This Special Pleading offers no logical reason for the distinction other than the desire to maintain a specific tradition.

The False Dilemma and the Slippery Slope

The False Dilemma suggests there are only two paths: "strict male headship" or "total social chaos and the destruction of the family." This ignores the millions of successful, healthy marriages and churches that operate on mutual submission.

Closely tied to this is the Slippery Slope: "If we allow women to preach, we will eventually abandon the Bible entirely." This is a fear-based fallacy that assumes a causal link between gender equality and apostasy without ever proving that one leads to the other. It is a rhetorical device used to shut down debate through intimidation.

Argumentum ad Passiones (Appeal to Emotion)

Finally, many complementarian arguments bypass logic entirely by using sentimental, gender-coded language. They speak of "the beauty of a woman’s quiet spirit" or "the protective, provider heart of a man." By painting a nostalgic, emotional picture of the "traditional" home, they appeal to the listener's feelings of safety and identity. This **Appeal to Emotion** makes the power structure feel "beautiful" or "natural," which distracts from the core question: Is it just?

Why Scrutiny Matters

Recognizing these fallacies is not about winning an intellectual game; it is about ensuring that the theological frameworks we live by are built on truth rather than rhetorical sleight-of-hand. When we dismantle the False Equivalence of the "boss" analogy, or expose the Motte-and-Bailey behind "equal but different," we clear the way for a more honest conversation.

Egalitarianism does not ask for the erasure of gender, but for the erasure of arbitrary barriers that prevent half of the human race from exercising their God-given gifts. By identifying these fallacies, egalitarians can steer the conversation back to the central issues of justice, agency, and the radical, equalizing message of the Gospel.