This again touches on how women have to do something before a man can lead. In this case she has to give up the reins or get out of the driver seat before he can lead. Truth is if he is a leader, has that strong commanding presence, all it will take is one look from him and he can essentially push her out of that seat. A captain does not wait for his first officer to get out of his seat.
However, some men for years of their marriage will just pace back and forth waiting for her to get out of that seat so he can sit down. If a man does that, wait that long to claim his position, he is passive–not assertive, not a leader.
“Of course, controlling women will tell you that they must be controlling for anything to get done because their husbands are so passive. But it’s worth asking ourselves, “Am I controlling because he’s so passive, or is he passive because I’m so controlling?”
Both of these questions assume one constant — a passive man. The question and frustration is about why is he passive? The traditional answer is because the woman must be doing something wrong–like controlling or manipulating. Its never considered that maybe the man is just passive. Period. Maybe he doesn’t like or want to lead, maybe he wants to be the submissive one. Maybe he likes his wife taking charge. Maybe being raised in a feminist culture, he never knew any other way and its comfortable to have a more feminized approach with women.
It probably isn’t what women want to hear–that their man is a natural submissive or passive person and does not have the inclination to lead. That is the root problem that needs to be determined by asking him how does he really feel about being a leader. Of course though–really–if you have to ask you already know the answer. Some men might say they want to lead, but not really because he knows if he admits to not wanting to lead that it is seen as not masculine and weak (just as its hard for women to admit they don’t really want to be career women). So to get around this they might say “dear, I want to lead, but you keep taking control from me”. This deflects his lack or fear of leadership back onto her. “If only you would______, then I would ______”.
“Therefore, when women ask, “How do I get my husband to take the wheel and be the leader?” I tell them, “By getting out of the driver’s seat!” In most cases, as long as a wife is trying to manipulate and control, her husband will usually ride along in the backseat for the sake of unity, and in an effort to keep her happy. But if a wife will trust her husband and follow him, even when she doesn’t necessarily agree with how he’s driving or where he’s taking her, he might just develop the courage or the desire to become the leader that she wants him to be.”
So, if he is just riding along, in fear of making her unhappy, then he is passive. He is not a leader. BUT WAIT this can all be fixed! If a wife willingly gives up her seat he all of a sudden might just develop the courage to be a driver. Keyword here is “might”. So, what if her relinquishing control does not make him into the leader of her dreams? What if he is simply passive by nature and has no desire to change? Well, what is this truly about — loving and supporting your man “as is” or being what “she wants him to be”? If its the former, then more needs to be said about how women can support and love a passive man, when he acutally asks her to make the decisions. It may repulse her at her core to have to be the leader, but its a nasty reality that traditionalists don’t often address. Submission might actualy mean being the leader, if that is what the husband desires. Submission is not changing him to what “she wants him to be”.
Trouble comes when women marry men thinking they will be leaders by virtue of having a penis and then are shocked later at his passivity. Desperate for an answer they turn to godly blogs that convince her she is always the one doing something wrong, that the man can’t simply have a passive nature and there is nothing wrong with this except someone has to lead. So, yes sometimes women really are that controlling or leading because he is passive.
In the end, if traditionalists had more flexibility in their sex roles then maybe honest conversations could happen. For example, if women will ask and men will be forthright before marriage that they don’t want to have the leading role, that they like her making all or most of the decisions, then fine–she can determine if that is something she can live with. In theory that seems reasonable, but in reality people do unreasonable things, they don’t have these discussions and if the man is passive he will even shy away from talking about it. Women will then go into a marriage with a strong sense that he isn’t a leader, but thinks it will be OK cause her charms will change him. Likewise, men go into marriage thinking she truly likes being a leader, “its nice to have someone like mom to make decisions for me”, but then are confused as hell when his wife gets bitchy and irritable over always having to take charge. But hey, if they could admit that for the sake of marital harmony sometimes it works out best if the woman is the leader, then that is OK. What is better a strong, happy relationship with traditionally reversed roles? Or a tense filled, possibly falling apart, marriage because we all aren’t fitting in our neatly defined boxes.
Long story short (need to clean this post up later) is that if indeed a man has a passive nature then that needs to be accepted rather than changed. I think sometimes Christians see passive, non-leading me as if they are gay men and need to be changed. God didn’t design you this way! In itself passive men are not a problem, the problem comes in how women view them and accept them. This doesn’t mean women should be forced to find passive men attractive, but rather have an understanding that passive/submissive men do exist and if that is not attractive to her she shouldn’t expect that her charms will change him into the leader SHE wants him to be.