The Ideology of Wifely Submission: A Challenge for Feminism?

Conversely, our most personal desires may come from the internalization of societal norms, which are often rooted in structures of inequality. In a male-dominated society, the social construction of sexuality can lead to an eroticization of male dominance and female submission (Benjamin 1988; MacKinnon 1989). Women come to desire their own domination. Yet just because our desires are socially constructed does not mean that they can be changed easily or at will (Cornell 1995). As Lori Marso (2006) argues, even feminist women struggle with what she calls the “demands of femininity,” the cultural dynamics and internalized desires that keep women tied to a sex/gender system they seek to transform. For many women, sexual desire is central to how they understand themselves as sexed beings (Cornell 1995, 6); they feel their desires deeply and have no wish to change what gives them fulfillment and makes them who they are, even if their choices reinforce ideologies that support male dominance.

A vision of feminism that emphasizes the right to choose as its guiding principle makes it difficult to get at the problem of desire because the invocation of “rights” and “choices” often functions to shut down critical discourse that seeks to delve into the reasons why women make particular choices. In response to this problem, Linda Hirshman calls for feminism to return “to its early, judgmental roots” (2005, 4), and this is exactly what the women on the third-wave blog feministing.org did when they discovered Kelley’s Website. They reacted with judgmentalness and ridicule — calling CDD “sick,” “wacko,” “disgusting,” and “ridiculous,” among other things (Feministing.org 2007). That reaction is understandable. Because the discourse of wifely submission romanticizes patriarchy and stands diametrically opposed to the feminist goal of ending gender oppression, many feminists will no doubt find it patently offensive. Yet the reaction is also surprising, given that third-wave feminism in general defines itself as the heir of the nonjudgmental, prosex side of the sex wars (Snyder 2008).

Standing in judgment of other women’s choices, however, is not a productive approach, and it will most likely do more harm than good to feminism, playing into commonly accepted caricatures of the movement. Many submissive women already feel marginalized by what they perceive as hegemonic feminist norms — which is what all the marriage manuals are contesting. Judgmentalness does not make desire go away. In fact, a position of condemnation or ridicule will probably push submissive women toward the theological discourse that validates their desires — a discourse that potentially undergirds an antifeminist, Christian Right agenda. While many submissive women vehemently oppose feminism and embrace conservative politics, that is certainly not the case across the board, even among evangelicals (Gallagher 2003, 9). As Christel Manning (1999) found, conservative evangelical women often support gender equality in the workplace, relegating submission to the realms of home and church only, and they sometimes embrace the discourse of wifely submission while behaving in accordance with more egalitarian ideals. Most people are not ideologues, even if they find a particular ideology appealing. People can be swayed one way or another, depending on how the issues are framed.

No easy solution exists to the problem of patriarchal desire, and not all women support gender equality. Nevertheless, I would argue that feminists should respond to submissive women in a way that increases the possibility that they will move toward feminism, an approach that has three components. First, feminists should continue to engage in cultural production with the goal of expanding the possibilities of the imaginary domain — the psychic space in which people construct themselves as persons (Cornell 1995, 8). We need to expand the possibility for women to imagine themselves outside the box of male dominance and female submission by offering images of alternative relationships, genders, and sexualities. For me, the problem is not so much that this or that particular woman desires patriarchy but rather that at a certain point, an aggregation of individual choices could render male-dominated relationships hegemonic once again, possibly even with the support of the law, as in the nineteenth century. Encouraging a multiplicity of relationship types should help mitigate that danger.

When advocates of wifely submission tout the benefits of patriarchal marriage, feminists need to respond with a compelling alternative vision. For example, women concerned about their marriages need to know that a recent study reveals that men and women with feminist partners report having more stable and satisfying relationships and better sex lives (Rudman and Phelan 2007)

Second, feminists should seek to engage women in critical discussions about their choices, rather than simply accepting them as sacrosanct or condemning them as deluded.
[...]
As Marso (2006) argues, all women grapple with the “demands of femininity”; some do this by pushing the boundaries of societal norms. Others struggle to find a functional place of comfort within those norms. Whatever the case, however, only the woman herself “can come up with the answers” to vexing questions about desire; “nobody else can answer those questions” for her (Hirschmann 2003, 237). Walking the line of respectful engagement is difficult, but it is what feminism requires.

Finally, although legal solutions cannot solve the problem of women’s desire for male dominance, law and public policy do have a role to play. Despite the limitations of consent (MacKinnon 1989), the concept remains vitally important. We need to protect laws concerning domestic violence and marital rape from erosion by those who see them as a threat to the conservative family or to their personal practices. Though imperfect, domestic violence laws help protect women from abuse. The possibility of arrest should play a positive role in curbing the desires of those men who seek to impose CDD on unwilling wives — which some men on the Internet claim they do. Indeed, the commandment of submission has been used by evangelical men to justify abuse (Gallagher 2003, 165 –66). Spanking a woman against her will or insisting on sex when she is not ready currently does and should continue to constitute domestic violence and rape, respectively. Men who dominate women must be vigilant in making sure that their partners really do want to be dominated; women should be able to call the police for help if necessary.


Snyder-Hall, R. Claire. "The Ideology of Wifely Submission: A Challenge for Feminism?." Politics & Gender 4.4 (2008): 563-586.


[The above is from an extensive journal article that is certainly interesting to read, though undoubtedly frustrating because of its citation of dubious sources (e.g. Rudman, 2007) making dubious claims to support fundamental aspects of its argument]