There's lots of material out there for understanding frame from a man's perspective. But I have seen scant little on how women reciprocate the frame game. In fact, even in places like /r/RedPillWomen, they're given incredibly anti-red-pill, anti-biblical advice ... and r/RPCWomen is still relatively new. So, let's explore. Here are my founding axioms:

  • ONE: Submission and frame are not the same.

  • TWO: Women have their own frame no matter what.

  • THREE: Married women should live inside their husband's frame.

  • FOUR: All women should, subject to nuance, submit to (rather than live within the frame of) male Church leadership

  • FIVE: Women are not subject to submit or live within the frame of men in other contexts.


ONE: Submission and frame are not the same.

Lots of women are fine with both of these concepts in theory, but because they assume they're the same they miss the broader implications of frame. Some simplified definitions:

  • Submission is a combination of the attitudes and behaviors expressed by a woman in graceful response to someone's exercise of authority.

  • Frame is your "internal point of origin" or worldview that you project to the world around you.

1 Peter 3 is a great example of submissiveness. The compliance aspect is made clear by the fact that "submit yourselves to your own husband" is sandwiched between slaves submitting to their masters and Christ submitting to the authorities that crucified him. The attitude is more directly stated in the immediate context. The call to submission is followed by "when they see your respectful and pure conduct" and that a woman's beauty should be "of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious." These are how you respond to God-given authority.

Frame comes in all shapes and sizes. A woman can be non-submissive and yet have a strong, bold frame. 2 Samuel 6's story of David and Michal shows a clear example of this. David had his own worldview that God was to be glorified above all - and he expressed this through dancing in his underwear. Michal was embarrassed with the world view that her husband's dignity as king was more important than worshiping God. Here, her frame is evident in her rebuke of him, expressing the gap between David's frame and her own. This is why we can't confuse the two. Submissiveness is one aspect of a healthy frame for a woman. But a woman cannot claim to have a godly frame merely because she is submissive, or otherwise say that she is submissive merely because she lives in her husband's frame. Indeed, even people who share a common worldview can have a dysfunctional authority relationship.


TWO: Women have their own frame no matter what.

It's a common misconception in some conversations on the manosphere to assume that a woman must set aside her frame to cede to her husband's. That the perfect woman doesn't have a frame of her own. This simply isn't true - or even possible. Eve's conduct in the garden shows that even before the fall, women had the capacity for thought independent of her husband's leadership. Yes, that thought led to the first sin, but still predated that sin itself. When married, women do not abandon their worldview or point of origin. They are meant to adapt it. This is why many in the manosphere suggest that women are designed like clay, which adjusts to the mold it is placed in. The mold is a shape. But the clay, once placed inside, also has an external shape of its own that is maintained even when it is removed from the mold afterward, if it has set.

This is important for men to realize because it helps them overcome the anger-stage and realize that even if women are malleable to a strong leader, they are still independent, functional people with thoughts, feelings, and opinions that produce fruitful discussion and perspectives toward running the ship of which she is first officer. It is also important for women to recognize this - not to embolden them toward independence, but to have the self-confidence to function autonomously without the micro-management of a husband, and to know that women have great value to contribute to the relationship/marriage, even if it may not always be the exact kind of value she wants to contribute.


THREE: Married women should live inside their husband's frame.

Rather than proving the statement, I'll assume it's a given and instead discuss what this means in three significant contexts.

How can I live in my husband's frame and have my own frame at the same time?

The wife's frame is circumscribed within her husband's frame. Consider the fact that we have "freedom in Christ." Within God's framework for his missional, obedient, godly, and even hypothetically perfect followers there is room for doctors, plumbers, and financial advisors. There's room for introverts and extroverts. Animal-lovers and animal-eaters. Each different type of person has their own framework for understanding the world and operating within it - and each also, despite having disparate frames, also has the capacity to co-exist within God's framework for his followers. Each individual's frame is circumscribed by God's because it's big enough to encompass different attributes. Yet at the same time, if the person who is an introverted, animal-eating doctor decides that disciple-making isn't for him, he has suddenly left God's frame by resisting the adaptation of God's primary imperative for this earth into his own worldview.

In this, we can see that living within someone's frame isn't about adapting every single aspect of your personality and character to a rigid set of expectations. Rather, it is an adoption of the frame-holder's point of origin as one's own, and allowing your individual and unique attributes to be expressed in a manner consistent with that worldview. In this way, a man whose frame involves starting a charitable organization can be well-supported by an extroverted wife who interacts in the community to raise support for his cause, or by an introverted wife who helps manage his books, or other behind-the-scenes methods of assisting his mission. Yet a wife who says, "I don't care about your charitable purpose, so I'll just take care of the home," may be submissive without being in his frame at all.

What if my husband's frame sucks?

I've heard this question a number of times. The answer rests on why I distinguished between submissiveness and frame in the first place. A wife has a biblical obligation to submit to her husband, but not to live in his frame. Suppose Paul had a wife while he was killing Christians and she was saved before him. Should she have adopted his worldview that Christians are evil threats to the Jewish religion? Of course not. Should she have submitted to his leadership over her home? Yes - that he may be won over, as 1 Peter 3 says, by her submissiveness, purity, respect, gentleness, and quiet spirit.

But let me emphasize one thing: This will not produce a healthy interpersonal dynamic within the marriage; but some things are more important than having a healthy interpersonal dynamic. If a wife lives outside of her husband's frame, the relationship will suffer. But the point of marriage, as I've often said, is not to be happy or interact well with the other person - it's (per Malachi 2:15) to produce godly offspring. That is: make disciples. In this, a woman can be tactful in balancing between submission to her husband and living within Christ's frame if her husband's frame is not within Christ's frame.

What if "submitting to my husband" involves him asking me to sin?

Let's jump to extremes to illustrate a point. Husband asks wife to murder someone. Should she do it? No. The same Paul who wrote Ephesians 5 ("Wives submit to your husbands") also wrote Romans 13 ("submit to your governing authorities"). Does that mean he obeyed every rule, command, law, edict, etc. of Nero Caesar who was ordering Christians to be murdered when Paul wrote this? Obviously not! He wasn't telling all Christians to obey the command to put each other to death. Rather, when Paul was caught (Acts 16, for example), his response was not to escape and defy the judgment of his human authorities over him; it was to accept the legal consequences of his actions.

In the same way, if a husband asks a wife to sin, while she may have some argument to obey him (especially if it is a disputable issue, at which point she may - and perhaps should - defer to his leadership), if obedience would be clearly sinful, her act of submission is not in obedience to the order, but in accepting the consequences he lays out for her defiance - and embracing this with the same submission Christ gave to those who crucified him, or the same purity, reverence, gentleness, and quiet spirit that Peter references in 1 Peter 3.

If it helps, in my attorney-mind, think of it like parking illegally. The government doesn't say, "Thou shalt not park illegally." It says, "If you park illegally, you get a ticket." So, you can submit to your authority by not parking illegally and avoiding the ticket - or also by parking illegally and agreeing to pay the ticket. Extend that concept to submission within marriage and maybe it'll all make more sense.

What does it practically look like to live in my husband's frame?

On a behavioral level, it means adopting his worldview and supporting his purposes in all you do. If he's for the death penalty and you're against it, submission says you vote consistently with his expectations of you, but living within his frame means (on a behavioral level) trying to understand why he's for the death penalty, and giving him all benefit of the doubt in attempting to embrace his way of thinking.

But it runs deeper than behavior. Christ transforms his bride, purifying her and making him more like to himself. Consider the parallel with another concept I often teach:

  • True Christians do not live by God's expectations of them. They are transformed by God so that their own internal desires are naturally God's desires flowing out of them.

  • A true godly wife does not live by her husband's external expectations of her. She is transformed by her love, trust, and respect for his leadership so that her own internal desires are naturally identical to his desires flowing out of her.

This is what it means for a wife to live in her husband's frame.

FOR EMPHASIS:

Of course, as above, if a husband's frame sucks it's not practically going to happen. A woman's ability to live in her husband's frame is directly correlated to her attraction toward him. Like the mold and the clay, what happens if they're both magnetic and the clay is repelled by the mold instead of being drawn to it? You can try to force it in, but it will fall right back out long before it actually sets. You can't negotiate attraction. A man must take responsibility for being someone whose frame is strong and desirable enough to be a force of attraction rather than repulsion. Be attractive, don't be unattractive. Both matter (and yes, it's possible to be attractive and unattractive in varying ways simultaneously).

Equally significant: even though the man has the burden of developing attractive-leadership to draw his wife into his frame, this does not excuse her imperative to seek to live within his frame. Yes, it may be difficult. But this is also why I distinguish between "on a behavioral level" and when "it runs deeper."


FOUR: All women should, subject to nuance, submit to (rather than live within the frame of) male Church leadership

I'm not going to re-hash the passages on women trying to take roles of headship within the Church. I do what to emphasize a couple nuances in my wording here.

First, I reference "submission" here and not frame. Why? Because Acts 17 encourages us to challenge what is taught even from reliable sources. We are not meant to blindly follow those who preach just because they say so. In the end, if we find we agree, we adopt their frame through Scripture rather than through titular authority - and this produces an even better result. Yet submission to an authority within their own house is still a default, even if we maintain our own frame. Law 38 of the 48 Laws of Power is relevant here: "Think as you like but behave like others."

Of course, in the above I'm implying reference to involvement in a lower-case "church." Yet my original statement referenced Church with the capital C. When addressing submission to Church leadership, this is more absolute than the hollow, self-declared authority of so-called "pastors" who call their bodes local "churches." This is significant because some congregations demand submission on absurd things. In this, your "submission" to the local congregation in which you participate is a courtesy to the fact that you are a guest in their house and if you find value in participating in their house (as you should), you should play by their rules. It is virtually always possible to play by their rules and simultaneously pursue the purposes God gave The Church within their body.

From there, the question may be asked: "What does it mean to submit to The Church, proper, if not a local human authority?" The Church is the aggregate Kingdom of God as it exists on earth. There is no singular leader but Christ, who communicates his leadership to the Church through the Spirit, which is most prominently known through the canon of Scripture. So, that's where it starts. Submission to Scripture is primary, as Christ is the logos/Word of God made flesh and embodied through our living and active Scriptures, breathed by God, called the "sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God." But if we really want to get technical, your local Church (as opposed to local church) is those who God has placed in your life who you know to be trustworthy and reliable as members and leaders within God's Kingdom. That may be someone from your congregation - but it MAY also be your best friend or trusted advisor or co-worker, etc. who don't attend the same congregation as you. But this topic is too big to address here, so I'll leave it at that.


FIVE: Women are not subject to submit or live within the frame of men in other contexts.

My son used to hold the mistaken view: "Men are leaders and women are followers. So, my sisters have to do what I say." Not so, boy. This attitude is taken by many men in TRP, and is something I've even seen among some women - that men, generally, are the head of women, therefore women must submit to men on a societal level the same way as to a husband. This is, in my view, over-reaching.

Let me emphasize this: If you are an unmarried woman in a relationship, you do not owe a duty to submit to your boyfriend. For relational health, it may be wise to spend some time living within his frame in order to understand whether that's a healthy long-term residence for you. But be cautious against rote submission - especially if there is some form of pressure toward sinful conduct, such as premarital sex. Even if it is not sinful, if it crosses one of your boundaries, contemplate the pros and cons earnestly before resigning yourself to "he wanted me to, and I want to be submissive [in a wrong context], therefore I did it."

That said, even though you are not obligated to this, it doesn't mean it's a bad idea. It just means you exercise wisdom and discretion.